Friday, December 16, 2005

Proposal: In My Hot Little Hands

Passed 16-1, reaches Quorum. Enacted by Angry Grasshopper. Since it is unspecified what if anything the Protagonists are carrying, I’ve not set the “Item Carried” field yet, though obviously the intention was “Nothing”.

Adminned at 16 Dec 2005 13:55:40 UTC

Add the following rule to the ruleset entitled “Items”

=== Items ===

Each subsection of this Rule defines a Item that may be carried by protagonists. Each Item has a Name and a Description value. A Protagonist may carry only one Item at a time. A GNDT field entitled “Item Held” stores the name of the Item currently carried by that protagonist. The “Item Held” field may only be changed as allowed by the Ruleset. Players who are not currently carrying an Item shall have their Item Held field set to “Nothing”.

=== Awesomest Cheese ===

Description: A handful of what is, undoubtedly, some of the finest and awesome cheese.

=== Tube of Krazy Glue ===

Desrciption: A small plastic tube, approximately 3 inches in length, marked with the words “Krazy Glue: Keep Away From Small Children” and filled with industrial-strength Krazy Glue.



12-16-2005 02:01:27 UTC


Angry Grasshopper:

12-16-2005 02:04:20 UTC

Only one item?

Angry Grasshopper:

12-16-2005 02:04:48 UTC

Oh, and for


12-16-2005 02:34:30 UTC

we can amend that you know, the one item,  for for now


12-16-2005 02:43:29 UTC



12-16-2005 03:05:52 UTC

for I kind of like the one item thing.


12-16-2005 03:16:30 UTC



12-16-2005 03:20:55 UTC

for I wish we could have three items, but that’s for another proposal.


12-16-2005 04:24:12 UTC

for Items, proposals, it’s like AG’s dynasty all over agian.


12-16-2005 04:48:21 UTC

I am strongly against this it requires the use of a GNDT field, and then mal-defines it. The Rule states that the GNDT field stores the Name of an Item that the Protagonist is holding. It then sets the field to “Nothing” if the player isn’t carrying anything. It doesn’t, however, define any special meaning for what “Nothing” means in that field. In essence, it makes a GNDT field normative (so that setting it changes the item the player is carrying), sets up a situation where noone is carrying anything, and then has a clause that, in that case, sets the underlying _field_ to “Nothing”. By setting the field, however, they are now carrying something. Specifically, they are carrying a single item called “Nothing”. If you are going to specify precise usage of a GNDT field in a Rule, actually be precise about it: add a statement “If the Item Held is set to ‘Nothing’, then the player is considered to not be carrying anything.”.

The Lone Amigo:

12-16-2005 05:00:25 UTC

If a word is not specifically defined, you use its standard English definition.


12-16-2005 05:28:02 UTC

The rule explicitly states not to use the English definition….

I still like it though !!! for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for  for


12-16-2005 11:00:15 UTC

for You don’t need to word rules like “may only be changed as allowed by the Ruleset.” as that is already stated in Law 1.1.


12-16-2005 11:01:43 UTC


Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

12-16-2005 12:26:35 UTC

“By setting the field… they are now carrying something.”

Nah.  The Rule defines a special case.

Carrying something?

Yes: Item Held = $name_of_item
No:  Item Held = “Nothing”

I see the distinction you’re making, I think.  You’re saying that the definition of “carrying something” is having a value in that field.  Whereas we’re treating the GNDT field as a reflection of some ethereal condition.  Or something.

But that’s not an area we often get into around here, because we tend to focus more on creating interesting mechanics than investigating deep Nomic philosophy.

And even then I’m not sure you’re quite right, because the Rule defines allowable conditions, then sets up a 1:1 correspondence between possible conditions and how they’re denoted.  I don’t know that it really matters how you do that.

for  for


12-16-2005 17:15:48 UTC



12-16-2005 20:43:54 UTC

I’ll vote for it now because “Fire in the Disco” is going to pass. The nothing thing could have been a problem, but I think the condition was set clearly enough that if a player is carrying a Nothing then the have no items.



12-16-2005 20:48:13 UTC



12-16-2005 21:55:38 UTC

75th: It’s two one way maps that aren’t surjections. It isn’t one-to-one. You have to look at it step-by-step. It explicitely defines the field to state what Item you are carrying, but it sets the field directly to Nothing without stating what Nothing means.

Let’s say that the Rule had said this:

Players who are not currently the Fire Marshal shall have their Item Held field set to “Fire Marshal Recruitment Flier”.

Would you then argue that the value “Field Marshal Recruitment Flier” _means_ they aren’t the Fire Marshal? It’s the _same_ form of the sentence as the one involving “Nothing”.