[MUD-Dev] On socialization and convenience

[Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey A. MacDougall
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 11:25 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] On socialization and convenience

> From: Koster, Raph [mailto:rkoster at verant.com]
>> From: Freeman, Jeff
 
>>> Argh.  Resist the tempation.  It's not right!
 
>> Well, I haven't heard a good argument against it yet. :)
 
> Well, that sounds like a challenge if I've ever heard one... ;)
 
> How about the argument that since the law, in its proposed form,
> does not actually speak to the true issue, but simply a sub-set
> thereof, that the law's inclusion in the Laws would be
> detrimentally misleading, and therefore counter-productive to the
> mandate of the document as a whole?

[snip]

Pfft. Given that many of the Laws (most notably "hate is good") are
intentionally phrased in the most contentious way in order to spark
debate, and are followed by explanatory paragraphs, I autocratically
declare your argument specious. ;)

Seriously, though--even with the lengthy post I made originally,
enough people misconstrue what I am getting at that I suspect the
only way to explain it is to spend ten pages anyway. And there's
plenty of Laws that are like that. At the last GDC there was a good
half hour of discussion on the "hate is good" law--and both I and
Jonathan (whose Law it is) were in the room! Usually these are
concepts that take some thought about the implications anyway; the
fact that the three-word aphorism fails to elicit the entire meaning
doesn't bother me.

I don't mind replacing it with a different contentious pithy
statement if anyone's got one, though. :)

-Raph
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev