Saturday, September 09, 2006

Proposal: A bit more of procedure

5-2. Timed out.—Chronos

Adminned at 11 Sep 2006 15:07:45 UTC

Add to Style, after the 2nd paragraph:

A Musician going idle, and therefore leaving the GNDT, is a manual change of Style.





09-10-2006 02:32:17 UTC



09-10-2006 08:17:46 UTC



09-10-2006 13:43:47 UTC



09-10-2006 15:03:21 UTC

for useful, but let’s be sure to remember that idling is NOT a change of Tempo, or a change of Dynamic.  (right?)


09-10-2006 19:42:00 UTC



09-11-2006 13:05:23 UTC

Hix, I gues you are wrong. Style is comprised of Harmony, Tempo and (soon) Dynamic.

Idling will be a manual change of all of them.


09-11-2006 13:54:35 UTC

against because this restricts when a musician may go idle.  (A musician may only update some style values “often”.  If going idle is a change of style then e won’t be able to idle for up to 24 hours after changing style.)


09-11-2006 15:16:58 UTC

Well, “Any Musician may often change eir Harmony” describes an ability which may be used with a certain frequency, but doesn’t mean that a Musician is forbidden from changing eir Harmony by other means.

You’re right, though that idling would be restricted if there were any rules like “No Musician may change eir Harmony more than often”.

against CoV.

Chronos, you are describing an implication in the wrong order.  Since Style is comprised of Harmony, Tempo, and Dynamic, we can conclude that a change of Tempo is a change of Style, but not the other way around.  A simple example provides a counter-example:  If I use my “often” change of Harmony, I have made a change of Style (since Harmony is a Style).  Should we now conclude that I have also made a change of Tempo, just because I have made a change of Style?

I thought this rule would simply cause the infinite loop clause to take effect when someone idled, not that the sequences of consecutive tempos or dynamics (for example) would trigger automatic changes.