Mike McGann on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:47:47 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-d] [s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal |
On Nov 26, 2007 4:49 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Monopoly Mode did not permit us to: > * Use an Email client to send/receive messages > * Use our fingers to type messages > * Comment on game actions > * Use the english language > * etc. We've argued a lot on this, but now I finally understand your reasoning. Yes, that is a valid argument, but... > All of the above were common sense items that were not written into > the rules, and therefore prohibited by Monopoly Mode. Does common sense really apply in a nomic? If you start out the rules of a card game saying that it uses a 52 card deck, common sense tells you what the deck is composed of. In a nomic, if that is all you say, people will argue about what kind of deck it is, what is the actual composition of the cards, and then submit a Consultation that their Pokemon deck of 52 cards is valid. It seems to me that in a nomic, people love to do silly things like registering themselves as a player with the name of the "empty string". > I really suggest you bring up this topic on the Agoran forums, as the > legalists over there should be able to make quite the case for > "permissible unless regulated" (they seem to really enjoy debating > these horrendously abstract concepts on a regular basis). I'm sure > there has been a plethora of Agoran CFJs on the issue. I'm fairly > certain every Agoran player (with the exception of myself) has a PhD > in Logic, Computer Science, Mathematics, Law, and just about any other > topic you could think of. I'm not a first-class player so they probably wouldn't participate. > Now, your second point (that every disputed action creates two > possible quantum gamestates) is a very valid one, and one that must be > addressed to avoid future issues. Agora's solution (which I hate) is > to track every possible gamestate that could exist, and seems to lead > to massive revisions to the gamestate, or else a general consensus to > ignore the past. I have an idea of how to address this issue, and I > will add it to the revised version of my refresh proposal. And I'll review this tomorrow when I'm not tired. - Hose _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss