[s-d] Re: [auto] BvS submits p117

[pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Cooper Jr.)]

"Daniel Peter Lepage" <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I said:
>> BvS's prop said:
>>> This proposal is Baron von Skippy.
>>
>> That's an interesting change to the state of the game. I don't think
>> it'll do much right now to have one game object be both a player and a
>> proposal. But it could be interesting.
>
> I'm not sure it would do anything as worded, since it's not really a
> gamestate change, and only the changes in a prop get implemented. This is
> more of a declaration. If it said "Make this proposal be Baron von
> Skippy", then it would have interesting effects.

Well, I could see the interpretation as being a declaration that is
now true, so that it would make the prop the same object as BvS. But I
definitely see your interpretation as well. It'd be funnier to make
BvS into a prop though, so I'd lean toward that.

> I don't think BvS would like the effects, though. There are a few
> possible interpretations that come to mind. First, it could supplant
> em, making em cease to be a player and be a proposal instead. More
> likely it will make BvS be simultaneously a prop and a player, but
> that would also have negative side effects, because BvS would
> immediately become a Historical Proposal, and "Historical Proposals
> are for all intents and purposes not part of the Gamestate; they are
> kept merely for reference."

Well, if my p116 passes, that sentence won't be in there anymore. For
whatever that's worth.

-- 
Peter C.
"Because IP only guarantees best effort delivery, loss of a carrier
can be tolerated."  -- RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP
                                  Datagrams on Avian Carriers"
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss