Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against this? Does it break something? Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not millions of non-game-related actions they perform on a daily basis.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
Wooble wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against this? Does it break something? Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not millions of non-game-related actions they perform on a daily basis. Those would fall under the rules do not have the power to prevent it in the new rule, the Soviet-style everything not explicitly allowed is prohibited approach is distasteful nonetheless. Upon reflection, I think it would also break contract-defined actions.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
2008/6/16 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 5547 D1 2ais523 none FOR 5548 D1 3Murphy Chronological order FOR 5549 D1 2Wooble Earning Interest FOR 5550 O1 1Ivan Hope Tongue-tied AGAINST * 3, FOR * 1 5551 O1 1BobTHJ Empower the Notary FOR * 4 5552 O1 1.7 Murphy Clerk disinterest FOR * 4 5553 D1 2Murphy Belle FOR 5554 D1 3Ivan Hope Isn't that just silly? AGAINST D2 3ais523 none FOR -Wooble I don't see much to DISCUSS, here... ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote: Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow than a list of what's regulated and what's not that uses ambiguous terms such as allowed and, I suppose, under certain conditions (though my initial interpretation of that phrase was unpopular). You'd have to have a good definition of gamestate.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote: Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow than a list of what's regulated and what's not that uses ambiguous terms such as allowed and, I suppose, under certain conditions (though my initial interpretation of that phrase was unpopular). You'd have to have a good definition of gamestate. If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it? We'll prohibit what we see as counter to our game, but if someone wants to do something as part of a contract or simply as a joke and this harms no one, why would we disallow it? avpx
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5547-5555
On Monday 16 June 2008 6:39:52 Nick Vanderweit wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You'd have to have a good definition of gamestate. If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it? We'll prohibit what we see as counter to our game, but if someone wants to do something as part of a contract or simply as a joke and this harms no one, why would we disallow it? Well, some players would like to think that making arbitrary changes to the ruleset isn't explicitly prohibited. Agora traditionally encourages scams; depending on good faith for the rules to work is a generally bad idea.
