Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:43:02 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

"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