On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Enact a new power-3 Rule (Domains): >> A Domain is a class of concepts, game state, entities, and any >> other things. There is no restriction as to what can be in a >> Domain, and one thing can be in multiple Domains. Domains and >> their contents exist only as defined, possibly by necessary >> implication, by the rules. > > Does this mean a player can't be the "contents" of a domain? (as > players have separate existence?
Erm, no. The intent is that something can only be defined into a domain; it can't be moved there as a separate ephemeral state. >> Amend Rule 1688 (Power) to read: >> For each Domain defined by the rules, each entity has a Power in >> that Domain, which is a non-negative rational number. An >> Instrument in a Domain is an entity with positive Power in that >> Domain. > > Who tracks it? For Rules, is domain power an essential property with > the ruleset, or a side report? > > I personally pictured a reorg of the SLR where the rule categories become > domains, but that's not possible with the "everything can have a power in > every domain" model. This isn't bad, but takes more tracking so it > should be specified. The intended model here is that all rules exist only in the Realm, but, by being Instruments in other domains, may have power over other Domains. We would likely want to change various aspects of the rules, such as by saying that a rule can have power 0 in the Realm, and has no effect whatsoever on a Domain in which it has 0 power. Since the rules themselves are in the Realm, a Rule with Realm Power 0 would never be able to amend a rule, unless specifically permitted to do so by a Rule with Realm Power. The primary reason for multiple Domains being allowed is that we might have an action that seems to be equally a part of two Domains. For instance, if two assets exist in different Domains, then under which Domain does a swap of the two fall? By using This is an overly complicated system, probably, but it's >> A Rule that secures a change, action, or value (hereafter the >> securing Rule) to a Domain thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform >> that change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as >> allowed by an Instrument with Power in that Domain greater than or >> equal to the change's Power Threshold. > >> The first step to resolving the conflict is determine into which >> Domain or Domains the conflict falls (the contested Domains), by >> considering the concepts, game state, entities, and other things >> at the nexus of the conflict. > > When two rules can EACH claim to be part of two domains, figuring out > what domain a clause belongs to will be non-trivial. I really like > the concept of the "nexus of conflict", but this level of flexibility > worries me. That's why I worded it to apply to each conflict independently, rather than at a clause level. Going back to the previous example, a Rule which generally allows assets to be swapped does not exist in every domain but, rather, if it conflicts with another rule, that conflict is resolved within the Domains at issue, and the conflict between two Rules may be resolved different when it is applied to things in a different Domain. >> 4. A Rule takes precedence over a Rule enacted later. > This would make "enactment date" an important quality to put in the SLR, > not just hidden in the (created by) section in the FLR. And isn't it > duplicative with Rule ID? This is a holdover from the current version of the Rule. Its use appears to be to prevent someone from claiming a Paradox or the like after the Rule is enacted, but before it's assigned an ID number. > Further comment: Is it your intent that the current Power P of each rule > gets mapped to Realm of Agora-P power? Because I'd argue that this is > different enough from old power that you'd default all Rules to realm-0, > and then we're really in trouble. > For that matter, what happens halfway through this proposal when it > actually takes effect... does the proposal lose it's "old" power > ability to change stuff partway through? Careful of that! Good catches. Yes, this is the intent. I'll have to smith some good wording for that. -scshunt
