Re: [s-d] Proto: gnomish randomizers

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM,
C-walker<charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> teucer wrote:
>> Amend rule 117 (Gnomes) to read:
>
> In general, I like this proto, and would vote for it. Just a couple of
> comments though:
>
>> Each Gnome type has a nonnegative number that is its Chance.
>
> You probably want "integer" here.

Maybe. Although deciding you want to make (eg) Alien Gnomes less
common, but not as common as if they were National Gnomes might be an
argument for allowing them to get a 1.5 chance or something. Maybe we
should just make the starting points 10, 20, 30, 40 and require
integers, though, since having a chance of e (pi is overrated) doesn't
actually work with the dice server.

>> When a
>> random type of Gnome is chosen, each type MUST be selected with
>> probability proportional to its Chance, unless a rule specifies
>> otherwise.
>
> Suggest "the probability Chance/Total of all Chances" for
> clarification, if that is what you want it to be, although this
> doesn't have to be too strict if it's going to be done by an officer
> using dice@xxxxxxxxx etc.

That's probably the right way to phrase it, yeah. And that works
whether it's integer chances or not.

>> The Minister of the Garden, also called the Gardener, is an office,
>
> Nice bit of reBification there.
>
>> Once per week, a Gnome of a random type is created in the possession
>> of Suberby's Gnomic Auction House.
>
> I think you would need to specify who makes the random selection.

...yes, yes I would.

Half a draft ago this was explicitly the Gardener's job.

>> /* I *think* the
>> fact that Bids are Pledges is sufficient enforcement of the
>> requirement to pay up, but I'm not entirely certain. Also I want to
>> make sure the language of this proposal when it is in non-proto form
>> requires that the player *still* have the highest bid, which I'm not
>> sure the current phrasing does. Comments? */
>
> It is enforceable, but it would have to go through the equity courts
> every time someone broke the rule. I would just make it an N-Class
> Crime not to pay up, not sure what class though, or allow the Gardener
> to act on behalf of the player to make the transfer.

Any suggestions about how to word this to make it happen?

>> (Rn) A player CAN combine three Basic Gnomes to create a Gnome of a
>> random type in a specified player's possession. /* NB: I want to make
>> the person doing this have to pick the random type, rather than the
>> Gardener doing it, just because that could turn into a lot of
>> transactions for one person to randomize and get annoying. I think
>> this language does that, but I'm not certain. */
>
> I might be more annoying to have several messages from dice@xxxxxxxxx
> etc from each player each day than for the Gardener to have to work it
> all out once per day, although this would probably warrant a higher II
> for the office.

True. Proto: The Gardener does it in a timely fashion, and has eir II
raised to 5.

>> On an unrelated note, I have to confess I want to read the
>> abbreviations as though there exist Helium, Aluminum, and Beryllium
>> Gnomes.
>
> Proto: Sometime in the future we enact something along these lines:
>
> Particles are a class of fixed assets... blah blah blah...
>
> Each particle has exactly one type from the standard model... each
> type of quark/ lepton/ boson is a currency.
>
> Particles CAN be combined as allowed by the laws of physics, and the
> first player to make some uranium wins. (The officer looking after
> this would need an II of at least 8 by that point.)

Why eight?

Also, FOR, but only if you spell it out more clearly.

Also, can we get tachyons involved somehow? What power do instruments
need to make retroactive changes to the gamestate, anyway?

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