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

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Antonio Dolcetta <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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 ?

Well, by default, the set would be empty. GCs don't need to have any
special abilities, it's just that other abilities refer to them. But
if we want to add that each GC is a kind of Carryable Household
Object, and that Carryable Household objects have "0: Put this in the
room that you are in", we can do that and everything just works.

>> 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.

Usually, non-Rules are special things like Talismans, that are trying
to break the rules for a specific purpose. So they should override the
rules.

>>  * 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.

Well, that's what we have now, and I don't think it's enough.

> 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 :-)

Well, how is that different from having an object defined by an object
that's defined by a rule?

I kind of want to have some chain or tree or something like like that
to determine precedence, with the root being the game, and the ruleset
in that, and sections in that, and so forth, and you resolve conflicts
by seeing who holds what with a lower number, with everything having a
number within its container. But then things could get messy as
players move and drop objects, so I don't think that it's the best
approach.

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