Saturday, June 23, 2007

Proposal: Ack!

Reached 48 hours and failed, 3-4.  Brendan

Adminned at 25 Jun 2007 13:08:44 UTC

Add this bullet point to the first section of the Glossary:

*If, in the Ruleset, a mathematical operation is carried out for any reason, the result is rounded to the nearest whole number. Provisions in the text of the Ruleset supersede this entry.

When the Government Advances Time, a square root is used. What if someone has two production points allocated to a certain thing? Though this seems self-evident, it should be spelled out unambiguously in the Glossary.

Comments

Brendan: he/him

23-06-2007 20:57:33 UTC

It is, in the second-to-last paragraph of “Production:”  “Any partial units produced are wasted.”

Chivalrybean:

23-06-2007 23:06:40 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

24-06-2007 00:08:10 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

24-06-2007 00:12:15 UTC

for

Yes, but this is a glossary. In general, it is a good idea. Just incase the ruleset does not say anything about it(like “units may be fractional”), then this is a good rule of thumbs to follow.

Chivalrybean:

24-06-2007 16:27:50 UTC

With ‘Provisions in the text of the Ruleset supersede this entry.’ I think it’s ok. I said no at first since I thought it would make my Daemon I was trying to manifest obsolete, but now that I have sent it back into the darker realms,  for

Kevan: he/him

24-06-2007 17:05:41 UTC

against This new wording seems slightly more dangerous, as a generic case; a casual future mechanic that allowed players to halve or quarter certain variables could allow unintended exploits - awkward fractions seem less exploitable than disappearing numbers.

alethiophile:

24-06-2007 20:17:23 UTC

My thoughts, when I proposed this, were:
There is a potential for abuse without this rule, for instance if amount of an attribute was not calculated by amount but by number of decimal places. We had better have a default that doesn’t allow for imaginary/irrational numbers. And it’s a good thing we can’t allocate negative amounts of production, because then we’d have to worry about i.

ChronosPhaenon:

25-06-2007 02:25:42 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

25-06-2007 09:56:01 UTC

It might be useful to define what happened if the ruleset tried to take a square root of minus one, or divide a number by zero (I’m not sure if it’s ever happened before, or what we did), but we’d need something more effective than just rounding to the nearest whole number.