Mike McGann on Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:45:24 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization

On Feb 5, 2008 7:04 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> OK. I agree about the comment text. I should have thought of that before
> submitting the proposal. But (and this argument would only hold its own if
> it weren't comment text, anyway) I don't see how a section of the rules is
> not a block of text. The text of the various rules in a section is strung
> together end on end, like a block, and the rule describing sections even
> specifies that rules may be "contained in named Sections". Therefore the
> section is not merely an identifier, it is actually something that holds
> all
> these rules together. In a block.

A section of the rules is not a block of text because the rules don't say it
is a block of text. Rules are Game Documents. Rules may be contained in
Sections. Game Documents aren't even defined. The various rules in a section
cannot be strung together end on end because there is no ordering of these
Rules defined by the Rules. A materialized view of the Ruleset doesn't imply
there is an order or that the rules set is now one huge block of text.

I'm now confused as to the motive of the proposal that enacted this change.
Were you trying to intentionally break the game?

- Hose
spoon-discuss mailing list