Talk:Public Builder's Guide
From Tapestries MUCK
JadeWizard (Talk | contribs) m (clarification) |
(→Spelling mistake: new section) |
||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Suggestion:''' I think we should add a note here that the rules-lock property should include or incorporate the name of the establishment, or in some other way be made unique. At the time of writing, "Dragon's Hotspring Inn and Brothel" rules-lock property is close to "_RulesRead?:yes". I will not say what the property actually is, because one should technically be required to read the rules in order to learn it, but it is generic as I have shown here. If we do not make a rule that the property incorporates the name of the establishment (e.g. _BrothelRulesRead?:yes, or _DHIIRulesRead?:yes, or whatever) or is made in some other way unique, it could be that people setting rules-lock properties for one place will, by accident, receive a free pass to another place using the same property string. The chances of this may seem low right now but if we want to "guarantee" that the property reliably indicates an agreement to the rules, a unique rules-lock property is a good idea. [[User:JadeWizard|JadeWizard]] 18:49, 30 March 2007 (PDT) | '''Suggestion:''' I think we should add a note here that the rules-lock property should include or incorporate the name of the establishment, or in some other way be made unique. At the time of writing, "Dragon's Hotspring Inn and Brothel" rules-lock property is close to "_RulesRead?:yes". I will not say what the property actually is, because one should technically be required to read the rules in order to learn it, but it is generic as I have shown here. If we do not make a rule that the property incorporates the name of the establishment (e.g. _BrothelRulesRead?:yes, or _DHIIRulesRead?:yes, or whatever) or is made in some other way unique, it could be that people setting rules-lock properties for one place will, by accident, receive a free pass to another place using the same property string. The chances of this may seem low right now but if we want to "guarantee" that the property reliably indicates an agreement to the rules, a unique rules-lock property is a good idea. [[User:JadeWizard|JadeWizard]] 18:49, 30 March 2007 (PDT) | ||
| + | :Personally I think we need to come up with a better way to handle 'rules locks' in the first place. Right now they are cluttering up people's root property directory and this is not the only possible name-collision that I've seen. [[User:WhiteWizard|WhiteWizard]] 00:04, 31 March 2007 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Spelling mistake == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The third step in Application Steps, the line 'Does the area provide something unique and/or needed my the Muck?' should be 'Does the area provide something unique and/or needed '''by''' the Muck?' -- [[User:Sennera|Sennera]] 15:06, 1 May 2011 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:06, 1 May 2011
Suggestion: I think we should add a note here that the rules-lock property should include or incorporate the name of the establishment, or in some other way be made unique. At the time of writing, "Dragon's Hotspring Inn and Brothel" rules-lock property is close to "_RulesRead?:yes". I will not say what the property actually is, because one should technically be required to read the rules in order to learn it, but it is generic as I have shown here. If we do not make a rule that the property incorporates the name of the establishment (e.g. _BrothelRulesRead?:yes, or _DHIIRulesRead?:yes, or whatever) or is made in some other way unique, it could be that people setting rules-lock properties for one place will, by accident, receive a free pass to another place using the same property string. The chances of this may seem low right now but if we want to "guarantee" that the property reliably indicates an agreement to the rules, a unique rules-lock property is a good idea. JadeWizard 18:49, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
- Personally I think we need to come up with a better way to handle 'rules locks' in the first place. Right now they are cluttering up people's root property directory and this is not the only possible name-collision that I've seen. WhiteWizard 00:04, 31 March 2007 (PDT)
Spelling mistake
The third step in Application Steps, the line 'Does the area provide something unique and/or needed my the Muck?' should be 'Does the area provide something unique and/or needed by the Muck?' -- Sennera 15:06, 1 May 2011 (PDT)
