Re: [s-d] RFC: Rule Tag

["Rainbow Wolfe" <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx>]

loitering still... I would join but I'm due to leave again in a month and
internet access is sparodic.

You could:
{{create an RFC section for each rule [[and possibly each section?!]],
add to this section [[whatever you define as]] key words that are defined /
referred to by this rule}}
{{create new_rule in RFC: if a word ceases to exist in a rule then the
corresponding word in the RFC defined section of the rule becomes an invalid
path and should be removed}}

note: 'should be removed' - invalid paths that aren't removed can then still
be used. Safely if no one notices (possible but unlikely), or have penalties
added if it noticed. Maybe penalties could be added to words and then
players can try to remove the word from that rule to take advantage of an
associated 'penalty'??

random suggestions...

- Rainbow Wolfe

On 29/11/06, all players <nomic@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> Actually, I don't think I like letting players move to null. If the
> >> rules change and you get trapped, then you'd better find a way to
> >> make a new rule for you to travel to before somebody repeals your
> >> prison.
> >
> > ::LOL:: And +I+ thought it was cruel enough to have them "fall off the
> > game" if someone repealled the rule they were standing on...!  I love
> > your idea, but they have to be able to get out of the game if it got
> > too weird for them, which is the other reason for a move to null.  And
> > from there they have to be able to start the game again... so I think
> > we're stuck with the "off the board and on again" thing if we're to
> > keep the ruleset simple.
>
> Who says there needs to be an escape route? :)
>
> Start everyone off on random rules, let there be no escape.
>
> >> I'm also a bit worried that we'll have ambiguity regarding which rule
> >> "defines" a word. What if the full definition of a term is spread
> >> across multiple rules? I can't think of an example offhand of how
> >> this would happen, but I'm not willing to accept it as impossible
> >> either.
> >
> > If more than one rule defines a word then all are fair game to move
> > to.  You were right in your original response; the trick will be to
> > make sure that there aren't too many dead ends, rather than trying to
> > make it maze-like enough.
>
> Rather than define, how about any rule which refers to a given entity?
> Some kind of 'bomb' attaching to game objects might be interesting, to
> prevent people from crossing very popular terms (eg, nweek, rule, etc) -
> that is, if Player X uses a bomb on 'rules', then any player using
> 'rule' to cross between rules will destroy the bomb and lose, say, 30
> pts to the bombing player.
>
> >> A subcommittee/minister to keep those up-to-date would be helpful.
> >
> > I would say vital.  I'm not proposing this until we've got one.  I'm
> > trying to draft something, but it's tricky for a newbie like me.
>
> Don't worry too much about writing it properly - if you're really
> concerned about making it sound 'right', just make it as stuffy-sounding
> as possible and post it to s-d for discussion.
>
> >> Heh... I can see all sorts of random rules being made just to make
> >> tag pathways.
> >
> > Yes!  My thoughts exactly!  "Is he proposing that change because he
> > thinks it's a bad rule?  Or is it a ploy?  ...Or is he trying to
> > maroon me?!"
> >
> >
> >> Also, a rule could influence the players on it:
> >> {{
> >> __Springboard__
> >> Any player who occupies this rule at the beginning of an nweek may
> >> make three moves instead of one this nweek.
> >>
> >> This rule mentions blue frogs.
> >> }}
> >
> > We'd need to define a ruletag-specific section at the end of every
> > rule that had no effect on the rule nor on ruletag navigation; then we
> > could do what we wanted.  I had vague notions of playing
> > capture-the-flag, actually.  ...but I think that we're getting ahead
> > of ourselves.
>
> Why have a separate section? It could be something like:
> {{
> __Springboard__
>
> Any player who occupies this rule at the beginning of an nweek may make
> three moves instead of one this nweek, gaining two blue frogs in the
> process.
> }}
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
Hobbes: Why are you digging a hole?

Calvin: I'm looking for buried treasure.

Hobbes: What have you found?

Calvin: A few dirty rocks, a weird root, and some disgusting grubs.

Hobbes: On your first try?

Calvin: There's treasure everywhere!
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss