[Nomic02] Connectivity approved

[Dylan O'Donnell]

Carl Muckenhoupt wrote:
> 
> I, too, am unhappy with this not being a rule, because that's where
> descriptions of game mechanics like this belong, in my opinion.  Like
> jw, I approved it at a moment when I forgot about the not-a-rule clause.
> 
> But I have to admit that we did approve it specifically as a non-rule, and
> I don't think there's anything technically illegitimate about it.  We
> passed a rule stating that we can change the map in any way we agree to,
> and so we can change the map by adding automatic behaviors to it.

I disagree with this. Rule 14 defines the map as consisting of "rooms";
while those rooms can have properties (for example, names and connections),
and those properties are details of the map, I don't see any scope as it
stands for "details of the map" to cover algorithms for determining
the properties of future rooms.

To rectify that, a proposal for a new rule:

Here be Dragons [Psmith]

  The map may have associated with it, in addition to the properties
  given it by Rule 14, conditions describing the mutual relations of any
  rooms it contains or may contain in the future. These conditions shall
  be considered details of the map and part of the state of the game.

> I will note that, since it isn't a rule, I don't feel obliged to put the
> exact phrasing of the proposal on my website.  Rules are specifically
> sequences of sentences; change the sentence and you cange the rule.  This
> is just a concept, which I can restate in my own words.

I'd say that would apply even under this proposed rule.

-- 
:  Dylan O'Donnell                     http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/  :
:            "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so           :
:             I must resort to wackiness."                                   :
:                      -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert"                  :