From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Jul 11 11:28:21 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19b2cu-0003Fr-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:28:13 -0700 Received: from craig [209.42.200.92] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A1A474A01AC; Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:27:48 -0400 From: "Craig" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: "Game", "Player" Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:28:06 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <20030711174509.77537.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.92] X-archive-position: 5859 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list >> e'a is an attitudinal. Any person can join; not every person does and I feel >> enabled. >{e'a} is not about feeling enabled, it is about granting permission. Enabling, sorry. >Here's an example from CLL: >3.8) .e'a do sazri le karce > [permission] You drive the car. > Sure, you can drive the car. >With {ka'e} you make a statement of fact, not a rule. A rule has to >allow or forbid something. Good point. e'a it is then. >> Your rules apply only to you. They are your rules, which pertain to you and >> nobody else. >I'm not very familiar with this game. Does this mean you can't make >a rule like "every player gains one point", but you can make one >that says "I gain one point"? How can rules of different players >ever agree if they can only pertain to their creators? My rule, which only I must follow, might say that all players gain a point. Now I recognize all players as having gained a point, but you don't have to unless a) you make the same rule or b) a majority of people make the same rule. >> >You mean {loi javni pe ro kelci}, I suppose. But is that the mass >> >of rules, each of which is associated with every player, or the mass >> >of rules, each of which is associated with at least one player? >> >> The latter, and I meant loi jvaste - it is about the rulesets of most >> players, not most rules of players. >I guess that's {lei jvaste pe su'o kelci} then. Yes, I suppose so. >> >And what does 'tugni' mean here? 'Explicitly coincide', or just >> >'not contradict'? Is it a majority of all rules, even rules that >> >have nothing to do with the fasnu in question? >> >> They have to explicitly agree that the fasnu occurs; otherwise everything >> would be happening unless it was stopped from doing so by a majority of >> players. >Perhaps you can say that a rule that appears in a majority of >the player's rule sets becomes a member of the ralju jvaste. Or >maybe I'm misunderstandig something, is a fasnu something different >than a rule? A fasnu can be anything. All players gaining one point, for instance. I might have a rule that "fau lenu da cusku zo fnord kei ro kelci bilga lenu citka reci solji plise". Then, if someone says fnord, I have to eat 23 golden apples. But if, perhaps for completely different reasons, the majority of rulesets make all players have to eat 23 golden apples, then they do whether their personal rules say so or not. -- mi'e kreig daniyl "Also, to deny god, you have to fill out a form 613-B/9 in triplicate" -clsn