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

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

"Andy Jones" <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This is where I show I'm a Nomic newbie.

That's okay. None of us really understand the rules either. And don't
be afraid to keep on asking questions. We might be able to answer some
of them.

> If you have two rules that each say they supercede the other, doesn't
> that in itself break the game?

Maybe. Rather than contradicting outright, one rule might just remove
the text from another. Or redefine one of the words in it. Or maybe,
the game will, in fact, be completely broken.

In the past, we've tried to have some sort of "Emergency" clause in
the rules that lets us fix the game when everything is broken. It was
Tweaks in the Second Era, and Rule 0 in the First Era. (And these
Eras, by the way, are terms I just completely made up and decided to
define in my first prop.)

> So the first player that does something that is dependant on either
> wins?

The original Suberian ruleset has a clause mentioning something like
that. Our current ruleset doesn't. Feel free to propose something like
that if you think it's a good idea. You might want to add some justice
system that could make the determination while you're at it.

> Of course, if no-one can agree that the game has ended, it just
> continues, which seems a bit pointless...

Thus the Emergency Fixes rules that we've had in the past. Adding
something like that is probably a good idea for this nweek.

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