Re: [s-d] Re: Comments on this nweek's proposals

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 4, 2005, at 8.08 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:

> Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On May 3, 2005, at 11.36 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
> > > - The HowToRollDice document is not a game document. Anyone could 
> > > just
> > >   change it to be "Players roll dice by asking me, and I decide which
> > >   number I want them to get." You should probably make it a part of
> > >   the game somehow, and prevent arbitrary revisions.
> >
> > Damn, I was totally going to do that.
>
> Well, I was too. :)

Well, the key difference is that I can lock the page and you can't. :P

> > > p36 (Random Object names): Hmm... An interesting idea, but I'm not
> > > sure how well it'll work. As someone said, it's going to raise the
> > > barrier of entry for new players. And I don't know if I like the
> > > all-proposals-get-annulled if they all use the Gibberish word.
> >
> > I couldn't think of any better way to deal with multiple
> > definitions. Any ideas?
>
> Well, you can just give it to the first prop numerically or
> something. It just seems like if they both pass, then people want
> both, so they ought to occur.

But this way fits better with the tactical voting concept >:D

> > Also, I'd like a way to fix them. In the days of yore, I wouldn't have
> > made a big long posting telling Eugene what misspellings I'd like
> > fixed; I would have fixed them all and then made a much shorter
> > posting listing what I'd changed. The only thing wrong with the old
> > system was the potential for it to alter itself; if that were
> > forbidden it would work fine.
>
> Well, the Nomic self-modification problem arises. (In any Nomic where
> changing the rules is possible, you can't make any rule unchangeable.)
> Even if you restricted the old Executive Tidiness to not work on
> itself, you could use it on another rule, and that rule could amend
> the Executive Tidiness rule, and you have full control
> again. Basically, you need a way for players to object before the
> arbitrary change comes into effect, much like our current
> Tweaks...
>
> Maybe we could have a way for the Grammar Nazi to submit changes to
> props during the voting period, which like Tweaks don't work if anyone
> Objects? And then some minor penalty if your prop got changed?

Oh, that's a really good point. If e can *only* make changes to 
proposals, then there's no danger of takeover.

And giving em the ability to modify any proposal is fortunately within 
the scope of my generalized prop scripts :D

> > ... but not until I have time to rewrite the proposal-handling
> > scripts to deal with that sort of thing.
> >
> > Clearly I didn't generalize them enough in the beginning.
>
> Wonko's, it's Nomic. You couldn't *possibly* generalize any
> automation scripts enough :).

You should have seen my grid scripts. I never used them for anything, 
because the Grid folded before I could finish them, but boy were they 
general.

In fact, I think that's why I never finished them. I kept making things 
more and more general, until I basically abstracted back out to the 
programming language and was back where I'd started.

Oh, and "Wonko's" -> "Wonko" :P


"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
  -- Ford Prefect

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss