Re: [s-d] Why no mutable/immutable?

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

Andy Jones wrote:
> Can I ask why the initial ruleset doesn't contain immutable rules?

You can ask. I'm not sure how great an answer you'll get will be, though. :)

> Was this something you just got fed up with?  Or something you'd
> rather see come out of the gameplay?  Or what?

I've only been involved with the game for almost a couple of years, so we
may need to wait for Wonko's opinion, as I think he's the one who's been
with the game the longest (or at least, been active in the game the most
since it started).

But generally, while I think that some rules have had clauses that made
them tougher to remove, they can pretty much always be worked around.
Anything that can make a rule can probably supercede anything in another
rule that stops a rule removal attempt. Basically, you can make a rule
that says something like "All rules can be repealed. This rule supercedes
our current precedence rule, and all other rules, even if they say this
one can't do that." Or maybe you'd need to go through the trouble to
creating an entire new ruleset, and then changing the game to follow that
ruleset instead of the old one. But adding rules to make changing some
rules harder just makes it harder to change them, not impossible.

And well, if it's an important rule to keep or not to change, then people
will just vote no on changing it.

With rule changes via loophole (instead of proposal), it's generally
polite to just use the loophole to fix the loophole, claim a Win, and let
gameplay continue. If you just irreparibly broke the game, we'd just need
to start a new game with the rules as they were just before you broke them
and then not let you join our new game and spoil our fun. But that'd just
be annoying.

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