[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Peter submits p280

[Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Peter has submitted a new Motion, p280.

> === Abilities ===
>
> Each object has a set of abilities. There are three types of
> abilities, which are triggered, activated, and static.
>
> The use of the 2nd person (i.e., 'You', 'Yourself', 'Your', etc.) in
> an ability is assumed to refer to the entity which holds that object,
> except when describing activated effects, in which case it refers to
> the object which activated the effect.

Each object _may_ have a set of abilities.
Or is it mandatory ?
Like, what is the ability of GCs ? That they may be spent ?

> Change the text of rule 2-2 to be
> {{
> Should it happen that the text of one ability contradicts or otherwise
> invalidates the text of another, the two abilities are considered to
> be in conflict. If one of the abilities explicitly states that it
> takes precedence over or defers to the other, and the other does not
> make a contrary claim, these claims are used to determine which shall
> take precedence.
>
> If this is not the case, then:
>
>  * If both of the abilities are on the same object, then the one defined
>    by later text will take precedence over the earlier text.
>
>  * If one of the abilities is on a Rule, and the other is not, then
>    the one that is not on a Rule takes precedence.

eh ? additional explanation needed.

>  * If both of the abilities are on a Rule, and those Rules are held by
>    the same Section, then the Rule with the lower unique number within
>    that section takes precedence over the Rule with the higher number.
>
>  * If both of the abilities are on a Rule, and those Rules are held by
>    different Sections, then the Rule within the section with the lower
>    section number takes precedence over the other.
>
>  * If neither of the abilities is on a Rule, then the object created
>    later has precedence over the other.
>
> The abilities of this rule take precedence over all other abilities.
> }}

I would prefer something like "rules always have precedence", if two 
non-rule objects conflict, precedence is resolved as if the conflict 
were between the rules defining the objects.

this brings out another issue: once this motion passes, is it true that 
all objects that exist are defined by some rule ? I suggest making that 
mandatory. as in "all objects must be defined by a rule", something 
nicely tautological and solipistic :-)



--

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