Re: [s-d] proposal parser

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 23, 2007, at 10:58 AM, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> This happens because sender and title are NOT the only way to
>> identify a prop, because two props could have the same name or a
>> prop's name could change in a later revision. The ID number is the
>> only way to reliably identify a proposal, since there's no way to
>> change it.
>
> This would be the id number that doesn't exist until it's too late to
> amend the propsal, yes?

You're right that this isn't the best way to do this, but the rules  
still do it this way. We've generally been getting by not having  
props with the same titles, but as I pointed out in my earlier  
message, there are cases where title is not enough to uniquely  
identify a prop. In these cases we're forced to refer to them by  
their context, such as saying "the first proposal that I made in my  
previous post".

This is one of the things I liked about using web forms: there was a  
"create new proposal button" that allowed you to make new props, or  
you could select any existing prop that you had the power to edit and  
hit "revise prop" to change it. This made each proposal a separate  
logical entity that could always be identified even if every property  
of it, including its proposal ID, were to change. There was no  
ambiguity in referring to them at all.

Note that even with an email script the problem goes away somewhat,  
because the script can assign your ID number immediately instead of  
waiting for Peter.

 From a different message:

>> There's no need to draw "logical conclusions" from what is sent in,
>> because you have to specify whether you're submitting a new prop or
>> amending an old one (this is by r1-10: "To perform a Game Action, an
>> Outsider must post a message to a Public Forum specifying that e is
>> taking that action.").
>>
>
> Good point but see also rule 2-2: "Any player may submit a proposal at
> any time, or may revise a Pending proposal e owns by resubmitting it"
> - resubmitting the proposal means submitting it again, IOW making the
> same game action e made when he originally submitted it.    A minor
> conflict, I admit.  Normally it's clear by context, and that seems to
> be good enough for Peter, who actually has to *deal* with it...

 From r1-10 again, "Text to the effect that "any player may do X"  
should be interpreted to mean that X is a Game Action;".

So "Any player may revise a ... proposal ... by resubmitting it"  
means that you may take the game action "revise" and submit a new  
version of the proposal. The action that you're taking is still the  
act of revising a proposal, and so your message must specify that you  
are taking this action.

What if we were to formalize Game Actions? Instead of using "any  
player may do X", we'd say:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
-----+
|Action:  
Revise                                                              |
|User: Any  
Player                                                            |
|Targets: The ID number of a Pending Proposal owned by the  
User              |
|Requires: A Proposal  
Submission                                             |
|Effect: The targeted proposal changes to match the given Proposal  
Submission|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
-----+

It's not as smooth or intuitive as "any player may revise a Pending  
Proposal e owns by resubmitting it", but it leaves no room for  
ambiguity.

-- 
Wonko

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