Re: [s-d] Virtual particles

[bd <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:
 > bd <nomic@xxxxxxx> writes:
 >> It might be better to define 'taking' points as the creation of
 >> antipoints actually...
 >
 > That may be the better way to go. Actually, rather than defining
 > taking, just changing the "losing" part of scoring to be creating
 > antipoints, and then rather than some Idling definition you can use a
 > pretty standard trigger "Whenever a player has at least one Point and
 > at least one Antipoint, e loses one Point and one Antipoint."

The reason I don't want to do this is I want to allow things like:

< I have 35 points >
I Flux five point-antipoint pairs.
I buy a Thingy for 40 points.
I toss the Thingy at Wonko, gaining 50 points from the explosion.
< Now I have 45 points >

My goal is to allow essentially the unlimited creation of funds in a
transaction, as long as you pay them back.

 > Then you don't need to worry about accidental recursion in the
 > Annihilation rule, and if we want to create Buying things, it may be
 > easier to define taking of points in just taking points instead of
 > generating Antipoints.

I do agree that losing points is different from buying, and the former
is more easily defined by removing antipoints. However I'll wait to see
the ballot results before amending the proposal. This is mostly to get
the idea out there, so to speak.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss