Jamie Dallaire on Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:46:34 -0700 (MST)

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

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

On 2/5/08, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

You're right, there is no order.

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

No, I wasn't trying to break the game. I liked the old Rule 4E41 and its
quirkly nearly-untouchable-but-inconsequential status. Someone found a
workaround, a way that it could be eliminated, outside of the blanket rule
change proposal (just submit an entire ruleset minus that rule to ratify),
so I decided to see if I could use that to change up 4E41 in such a way as
to conserve its status as this little artifact that is there and persistent
yet entirely unimportant.

I see why you might see this as breaking the game (in that it would prevent
a message from refering to sections or hamper the rulekeeper's moves), but
it honestly wasn't meant to be something like that (and thankfully has
proven not to be). The goal of including the block of text bit (as a
comment, oops) was just to prevent people working around the restriction on
naming rule 4e41 by refering to its section.

spoon-discuss mailing list