Friday, January 01, 2010

This is a bit silly

Can we please cut it out with the “38th Parallel” and “Prime Meridian” crap? These are not locations in any useful sense of the word, let alone the sense mandated by the ruleset.



01-01-2010 00:21:35 UTC

Nothing forbids them. And I want out of Antarctica. (I’m not planning on staying on 0 long.)


01-01-2010 00:23:44 UTC

“Locations are limited to real-life (i.e., not fictional or mythical), existent (as of the Reference Time) locations on Earth that have their own article in the Reference Source, and have a size or area, as specified in the Reference Source, of no more than one thousand square miles.”

Please inform me as to the size or area of the Prime Meridian.


01-01-2010 00:33:17 UTC

Theoretically, zero.


01-01-2010 00:34:11 UTC

And no, it’s not ‘specified in the Reference Source’. But there are all sorts of valid Locations without a size or area specified in the Reference Source. Eiffel Tower? Challenger Deep?


01-01-2010 00:50:35 UTC

I don’t see any problem with these as locations.


01-01-2010 00:56:07 UTC

I’m not saying that the size or area needs to be specified in the reference source… that wasn’t my complaint. It’s that there IS no area or size definable at all for such constructs.

I think locations need to have non-zero area, and I don’t think that’s very controversial.

If you can’t see the problem with allowing (functionally) two-dimensional lines as “locations”, I’m not sure we have the same viewpoint on the purpose of locations and travel in this dynasty.

I mean, with your logic, I can get to anywhere in the world, from anywhere in the world in two moves.


01-01-2010 00:56:58 UTC

And, for the record, I have no problem with Challenger Deep or the Eiffel Tower, as they can clearly be considered to be “within” a 1,000 sq mi breadbox.


01-01-2010 01:03:54 UTC

Yes, it’s not controversial that locations, in the real world, need to have non-zero area. However, this isn’t the real world; it’s a more-or-less lifelike simulation of it, governed by the Ruleset. And since the Ruleset doesn’t actually forbid zero-area locations, the Prime Meridian is perfectly valid.

And yes, it allows easy world travel. Not in only two moves, because a diagonal line between two locations is unlikely to have its own Wikipedia article, but in relatively few. If you want, you can propose a fix. I, personally, like it as is.


01-01-2010 01:04:42 UTC

And, for the record, the Prime Meridian can be within a 1000-square-mile breadbox. You just have to make it the right shape.


01-01-2010 01:05:35 UTC

I don’t need to propose a fix. You need to show me where in the ruleset it overrides the common-sense definition of location as having a non-zero area.


01-01-2010 01:05:59 UTC

Also, the South Pole doesn’t have a definable area or size, but you don’t appear to have a problem with that.


01-01-2010 01:06:33 UTC

Fair point on the weirdly-shaped breadbox. :)


01-01-2010 01:07:06 UTC

Rule 3.1, Keywords: ‘A keyword defined by a rule supersedes the normal English usage of the word.’


01-01-2010 01:07:33 UTC

Hey, I didn’t put us here… also, although it may not have a definite size, “point” type locations are not problematic in the sense that “line” type ones are.


01-01-2010 01:08:02 UTC

Show me where the keyword “location” says that a zero-area “place” can be a location.


01-01-2010 01:09:32 UTC

FYI, the bit I quoted above doesn’t do that. It explicitly LIMITS locations, not expounds them. “Locations” in this game are FEWER in number than by the common-sense definition of “location”, not greater.


01-01-2010 01:11:08 UTC

From the rule: ‘Each Adventurer has a “Location”, which is tracked in the GNDT. Locations are limited to real-life (i.e., not fictional or mythical), existent (as of the Reference Time) locations on Earth that have their own article in the Reference Source, and have a size or area, as specified in the Reference Source, of no more than one thousand square miles.’

The only specifications of valid Locations are limits. Thus, it is implied that any Location that is not explicitly forbidden by the given limitations is valid. Is there anything there that says that the Location cannot have zero area?

Ienpw III:

01-01-2010 01:11:57 UTC

NOI: Just saying “points” also have an area of 0.


01-01-2010 01:19:20 UTC

Common-sense definitions can only be explicitly overruled, implications be damned. Yes, true points have zero area, I dealt with that above as being “technically” as much of an issue as lines, but not as game-breaking. For the record, according to the Reference Source, the South Pole does not appear to be a point…


01-01-2010 01:21:31 UTC

Also, since we’re talking zero area, you can make an argument that nothing WITH a definite location can be within X miles of something without a definite location… this would make it impossible to get onto or off of a line/point by normal travel. That would solve the game-breaking issues by making it a wishing only transit.


01-01-2010 01:41:33 UTC

To the first point: No. The use of the term ‘Location’ for the gamestate quantity that we call ‘Location’ does not imply that any properties of the common-usage term ‘location’ inhere in the gamestate quantity. Such an implication would have to be explicitly stated.

To the second point: Again, no. Saying that you can’t have a definite distance from the Prime Meridian is nonsense—what else is your longitude coordinate?


01-01-2010 02:15:23 UTC

I maintain that my first point is valid. I disagree with your interpretation. As for the second point, I agree it’s a long-shot.

Even if I grant you both, however, it’s still game-breaking.


01-01-2010 02:27:00 UTC

You’ve convinced me. Logic me damned, see my new Location.


01-01-2010 05:18:09 UTC

Theoretically, you could set your Location to ‘National borders’, meaning the set of lines that separate nations. They all (well, mostly) connect, at least on the same land mass, so you can go anywhere. It does have a Wikipedia article. (That’s more of a stretch than Prime Meridian, though.)