Subject: Re: [DocNomic] Proposal: Diseases and Cures Amendment

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:44:02 -0800

The more I think about it, the more I feel that diseases and cures
should remain part of the ruleset, and should not be a database. Being part
of the ruleset makes it much more flexible. Making it part of the database
removes all that flexibility. It also places power into the hands of the
Epidemiologist who maintains the database. If they insert a disease into
the database incorrectly, does it take effect that way? There would be no
rules to correct the disease definitions.

- - -
Jeffrey J. Weston
[email-masked]
PGP Public Key : http://www.sir-toby.com/pgp-key.asc
- - -

Ottis Airhart wrote:

I propose the following amendment to rule #10. Diseases:

Remove all listings of diseases and insert in their place the following
text:

All diseases and their cures are listed in one or more eGroups databases at
<http://www.egroups.com/database/DocNomic>.

==========

I propose the following amendment to rule #14. Cures:

Remove all listings of cures and insert in their place the following text:

All diseases and their cures are listed in one or more eGroups databases at
<http://www.egroups.com/database/DocNomic>.

---

From: Ottis Airhart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:27:17 -0600

Why not make the diseases and cures database "part of the ruleset" subject
to all priveleges (sp?), changes, and etc... therin.

At 10:44 AM 12/19/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>[email-masked]
>
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:13:28 -0000

> to all priveleges (sp?), changes, and etc... therin.

I'm afraid I just don't see any benefit from it, and plenty of rather 
hefty drawbacks - aside from it seeming awkward for Doc to have to 
wander off and update an eGroups database if a bunch of passed 
Proposals include a tweak to a Disease, splitting the Ruleset over 
two separate sites just seems to add an element of uncertainty and 
disarray.

I don't really want to have to browse to another site to read 
something that could *easily* go in the Ruleset, particularly if I'm 
on a slow connection. I don't want to have two windows open if I'm 
skimming through the Ruleset checking things. I'd prefer it if I 
could just text-search "purple pill" in one browser window, to find 
out about Purple Pills' influence on the game.

If Diseases somehow changed dynamically, it might make sense to have 
them stored somewhere where all of the relevant people could get at 
them, but since they're really no more than standard-issue Rule 
paragraphs, this seems rather pointless.

Kevan

--
http://uncertain.org/~kevan
"I'm just a nasty narrow-minded jade."

---

From: "Feyd " <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:24:15 -0000

--- In [email-masked], kevan@s... wrote:
> > > The more I think about it, the more I feel that diseases 
and 
> cures
> > >should remain part of the ruleset, and should not be a database. 

I don't have an opinion here. I will maintain the Database as 
an "unofficial" list -- for me it is much easier. However, I can see 
both pros and cons of making it officially part of the ruleset -- for 
one thing, only Doc should update the ruleset. 

Would it be better if we called it a "non-official mirror"? That way 
new diseases are added by amending rule 10, and I update my list(s). 
I need to put cures in there too -- or maybe make that a separate 
list.

Feyd