On Wed, 13 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: > Enact a new power-3 Rule (Domains): > A Domain is a class of concepts, game state, entities, and any > other things. There is no restriction as to what can be in a > Domain, and one thing can be in multiple Domains. Domains and > their contents exist only as defined, possibly by necessary > implication, by the rules.
Does this mean a player can't be the "contents" of a domain? (as players have separate existence? > Amend Rule 1688 (Power) to read: > For each Domain defined by the rules, each entity has a Power in > that Domain, which is a non-negative rational number. An > Instrument in a Domain is an entity with positive Power in that > Domain. Who tracks it? For Rules, is domain power an essential property with the ruleset, or a side report? I personally pictured a reorg of the SLR where the rule categories become domains, but that's not possible with the "everything can have a power in every domain" model. This isn't bad, but takes more tracking so it should be specified. > A Rule that secures a change, action, or value (hereafter the > securing Rule) to a Domain thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform > that change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as > allowed by an Instrument with Power in that Domain greater than or > equal to the change's Power Threshold. > The first step to resolving the conflict is determine into which > Domain or Domains the conflict falls (the contested Domains), by > considering the concepts, game state, entities, and other things > at the nexus of the conflict. When two rules can EACH claim to be part of two domains, figuring out what domain a clause belongs to will be non-trivial. I really like the concept of the "nexus of conflict", but this level of flexibility worries me. > 4. A Rule takes precedence over a Rule enacted later. This would make "enactment date" an important quality to put in the SLR, not just hidden in the (created by) section in the FLR. And isn't it duplicative with Rule ID?
