Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!Dortmund.Germany.EU.net!main.Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!erkyrath
From: erkyrath@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin)
Subject: Re: Potential
Message-ID: <erkyrathE05wt7.28J@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <559fp6$bml@nr1.calgary.istar.net> <1431.6878T740T2009@easynet.co.uk> <erkyrathE05Gs4.LvD@netcom.com> <55b4po$ht2@news.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:51:05 GMT
Lines: 26
Sender: erkyrath@netcom.netcom.com

Jason B Dyer (jdyer@mustique.u.arizona.edu) wrote:
> Andrew Plotkin (erkyrath@netcom.com) wrote:
> : To be fair, a person who says this may not be unwilling to learn. I've 
> : certainly put restrictions in my games that were perceived as 
> : deficiencies, and I put them there by design, and I've refused to change 
> : them.
> : That doesn't mean I refused to learn from my experience; it means that 
> : that was part of the intent *for that game*, and I will not second-guess 
> : myself. When I start the *next* game my intent may be different, and I 
> : will certainly be mindful of all feedback I got.

> This reminds me of the guess-the-verb puzzle in Jigsaw that Graham
> Nelson called a "feature."

That's a good example, yes.

It may be a successful feature or an unsuccessful one, but it is not a 
bug, and he is not any kind of an idiot for having put it in (or for 
saying that he did it deliberately.)

--Z

-- 

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
