Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Locations

I have some questions regarding a few of the locations:

There are not Wikipedia articles titled “Roswell, New Mexico, USA.”, “Roscoe, Illinois: USA” or “Challenger Deep, Pacific Ocean”; however, there are Wikipedia articles titled “Roswell, New Mexico”, “Roscoe, Illinois” and “Challenger Deep”. I don’t think these particular cases cause any ambiguity, but I feel that they should still be changed to the valid Wikipedia title. Additionally, “NYC”, “The North Pole”, “Al-Hillah” and “Pyongyang, North Korea” are all redirects to their obvious article. Technically, the redirect itself is a separate article containing only something like “#Redirect [[Al Hillah]]” so this could potentially cause issues. Does this really matter or am I just being too pedantic? Should we add a clarification regarding redirects?

Secondly, I’m not sure if the World Trade Center is “contemporary”. If you meant the site, then there is an article titled “World Trade Center site” that would work.

Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation is technically an organization, and not a location, although it does have a well defined location. I’m not really worried about this one, but just though I should mention it for completeness.

Anyway, I guess this is all up to the Djinn, as “If there is any dispute or controversy over whether a purported location is a legitimate Location, the determination of the Djinni shall be conclusive and binding.”, but I would still like to know what the others think about this.

I can’t believe I actually took the time to check this…

Comments

There:

12-22-2009 08:43:28 UTC

Also, “Bermuda Islands” redirects to “Bermuda”.

Darknight:

12-22-2009 08:57:51 UTC

Doesn’t bother me any what way

Darknight:

12-22-2009 08:59:28 UTC

Btw, and not to sound mean, but that seems abit in bad taste there digi, with your name and the location you picked. Just my thoughts.

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-22-2009 10:13:47 UTC

I just put the USA part for clarification. If it needs to be changed I will be more than willing.

Ornithopter:

12-22-2009 10:57:54 UTC

The rule doesn’t say locations have to be the title of a wikipedia page; it says they have to be places that have a wikipedia pages. Added specificity can’t hurt.

The WTC certainly wouldn’t seem to be a contemporary location, though.

There:

12-22-2009 11:11:39 UTC

@Ornithopter: Yeah, I actually don’t think it is that big of a deal, and I know the rule doesn’t actually say anything about it. I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on this.

@Darknight: That’s what I was thinking but I didn’t want to say anything.

I guess this is mostly something to keep in mind once we have more things to do with the “Universe.” For now, it really doesn’t seem to matter at all.

Klisz:

12-22-2009 17:15:28 UTC

I agree that Digibomber’s location is quite insensitive.

digibomber:

12-22-2009 17:58:13 UTC

Definition of contemporary per Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CONTEMPORARY

Main Entry: con·tem·po·rary
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtem-pə-ˌrer-ē, -ˌre-rē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: com- + Latin tempor-, tempus
Date: 1631

1 : happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time
2 a : simultaneous b : marked by characteristics of the present period : modern, current

Doesn’t say anything about has to exist at present time and per the rule this is a valid location.

SingularByte:

12-22-2009 20:05:11 UTC

Definition 2b of contemporary says it has to be current. The definition of current is

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/current
Main Entry: cur·rent
Pronunciation: \ˈkər-ənt, ˈkə-rənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English curraunt, from Anglo-French corant, present participle of cure, courre to run, from Latin currere — more at car
Date: 14th century

1 a archaic : running, flowing b (1) : presently elapsing <the current year> (2) : occurring in or existing at the present time <the current crisis> (3) : most recent <the magazine’s current issue>

Definition 1b(2) says it has to exist at the present time.

digibomber:

12-22-2009 20:30:40 UTC

@SingularByte all you are implying is that anything that is current is contemporary. This does not mean that anything that is contemporary has to be current.

Kevan:

12-22-2009 21:40:00 UTC

Note that the rule actually says “contemporary (as of the Reference Time)”, with the Reference Time being defined as “23:59:59 GMT on December 15, 2009”. The World Trade Center was in no way “marked by characteristics of” December the 15th 2009.

Time for a CfJ?

There:

12-22-2009 22:25:16 UTC

As I mentioned in the post, “If there is any dispute or controversy over whether a purported location is a legitimate Location, the determination of the Djinni shall be conclusive and binding.”, so I don’t think that a CfJ would be necessary. Of course, I haven’t played this game for that long so I might be missing something.

digibomber:

12-22-2009 22:45:15 UTC

The rule said “contemporary (as of the Reference Time)” and not “current (as of the Reference Time)”.

“contemporary” in usual parlance means modern (think contemporary music, contemporary architecture etc.) so something within the last decade or even century. So while the “Hanging gardens of Babylon” cannot be considered contemporary the “World trade center” should.

SanguineTeddy:

12-22-2009 23:42:47 UTC

Is the USS Cole then considered contemporary? After all, it’s within the last decade/century…

I just feel that the longer the time period becomes, the fuzzier the boundaries are. Who is to say that the USS Monitor (sorry for the naval examples) is not a legitimate example, if the HMS Dreadnought is?

I think that the rules were about as clear as possible on the issue - as of the Reference time, thereby clearing up any concerns as to whether contemporary referred to “modern” or a specific time period.

Kevan:

12-22-2009 23:50:17 UTC

Oh, didn’t notice we had a resolution mechanic built into the rule. No problem, then.

Darknight:

12-23-2009 01:44:26 UTC

Well, this is without a doubt a case of different ways to interp a rule huh?

Ienpw III:

12-23-2009 02:39:03 UTC

Another problem: are the pyramids contemporary architecture, for example?

SanguineTeddy:

12-23-2009 02:42:35 UTC

I think they’re certainly a contemporary PLACE (they exist in the present) but contemporary architecture is a bit tricky - they’re not exactly fashionable anymore. However, I would say they were contemporary now and then in the sense of existing…something the WTC can’t claim

90000:

12-23-2009 20:50:03 UTC

I put my ruleset-meaningless vote to say that anything goes as long as (a) it exists currently and (b) its location can be found easily using wikipedia, even if it’s not the title of an article there.

And I think wikimedia foundation is just fine, its location can be found.

Wakukee:

12-23-2009 21:34:33 UTC

digibomber: The intention is clear. Choose a location that currently exists, please.

Not to say that I don’t mind your trying; I am still going to try and set ais’s location to the 38th parrallel, as it does not have an area greater than 1000 square miles—It is a line.

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-23-2009 21:41:31 UTC

Why a line? Because the line never ends, he can have an infinite amount of locations.

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-23-2009 22:03:24 UTC

That’s like saying being located on the asteroid belt. It’s a line, but where?

There:

12-23-2009 22:18:14 UTC

If a line has an infinite number of points, then an area has an infinite number of points as well. Of course, some theories of quantum mechanics hypothesize that space is discreet, which would mean that both actually have a finite number of points. Either way, the area of a line is still less than 1000 square miles. (zero in the first case and approximately zero in the second case)

Darknight:

12-23-2009 23:31:54 UTC

On a side note about the GNDT, whats the movedaemon?

Wakukee:

12-24-2009 01:40:22 UTC

No clue. Ask Kevan—its his GNDT.

Dustin:

12-24-2009 02:36:40 UTC

By my interpretation of the rule, digi’s location would have been valid (though I think the rules regarding location are a little loose and vague); however the rule also concretely provides that if there’s a dispute the Djinn has the final nod, so it’s his call.

There:

12-24-2009 02:41:57 UTC

And Wakukee already blanked it with the comment “(Illegal value.)” so it seems decided already.

digibomber:

12-26-2009 07:26:32 UTC

Thus the Djinni has spoken. Now can I change my location to a valid value legally or should I wait for “A Long Way” to pass which allows me to do that?