[Nomic02] a vague attempt at summarising
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:45:22 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> Ok, that's fine by me. Isn't "which may only be done by unanimous
> agreement" redundant, though?
Probably. But redundant is better than ambiguous.
> > Yup. I assume that "is removed" qualifies as "leaves", in the terms of the
> > above rule?
> I was intending it to. Does the wording need to be clearer?
Nah. Just so long as we all understand it that way.
> I was assuming that the 'default' for parts of the game state would be for
> them not to be associated with any player, which would seem to make more
> sense than for the map to be associated with all players.
That would be OK, too. Just so long as the definition of the map and its
locations clarify that the locations aren't "associated with" the players
in them in any form that'd make them get deleted. How about:
"The game contains a map, consisting of rooms, one of which is called "the
Lounge". All players have a location on the map which is initially the
Lounge. The map and any information about the location of anything on it
shall be considered part of the state of the game. The map and the
locations it comprises will be considered associated with the game itself,
as opposed to being associated with any individual player(s)."
_/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_
\<-= email@example.com =->/