I totally disagree. That would make a completely illogical IC event. Uru is based on logic and reality, and so this is not an acceptable solution.
It is acceptable to others or the idea would not have been presented. Try not to generalize on your own preferences. Then follow criticism with positive, supporting alternatives by answering the "why?" behind the claim. Why is it illogical? What in Uru is based on logic and reality? What isn't? Are there no reasonable exceptions?
I apologize, that was overly harsh, and I did not make a clear attempt to explain.
Let me try to break down this statement.
My two arguments here were
Illogicality (is that a word?): Since the books have to be replaced afterwards (as I assume would be the case, as the book was presumably "lost" when it fell and disappeared), and since the logical result of regular linking books being linked through in accordance to the D'ni process of linking is that the book falls down and stays there, there either should be a book on the ground - or there should be something that explains why there is not. There has to be some explanation.
Uru based on logic: Uru has tried to be based as strongly as possible on logic and an appearance of reality. There are no arbitrary "classes" or "leveling up", instead you are a real person - yourself - who is in a "real" place. The Uruverse is connected to the real-world universe (since there are humans, the surface, etc.) and so follows the laws of physics - with some additions. I think that all people will agree with me that the additions do not include the vaporization of books.
Since this is not a solution to a gameplay issue (such as how the closet works instead of just you pulling out clothes or something) or a tech issue (such as how linking books don't show people), but instead an IC logic issue (why in the world do DRC followers use Relto books?), then it should be forming an IC logical answer. In my opinion, a physics problem is more starkly illogical then a personality problem (especially where there are ways to resolve the personality problem that are simpler than adding new pieces to the laws of physics).
Does that make more sense?
Not on this forum. Cherry pick from good ideas to acknowledge strengths, reach compromise, and build better solutions, certainly - but tearing down is discouraged here. I was waiting to see what the response would be before commenting. I was hoping for a contrite recognition that constructive criticism and opinion are the correct way to present and discuss ideas. The notion of applying the trite analogy for the biological function of muscular exercise - tearing down to build up - to human discourse is a slippery slope which is not supported by the fundamental positive spirit of cooperation we seek here.
(That's a muscular excersize analogy?
) Again, I was too harsh. However, I think we are approaching this with differing views on "tearing down". I had not been thinking perhaps of the psychological harshness of my former post, and so was using the term "tearing down" for the same purpose that you use "constructive criticism and opinion" - the ordered "tearing down" of a house by construction workers seeking to build a better one, not the hateful "tearing down" of a building by angry protesters. I simply used the term "tearing down" because it was used in the quote I was replying to, when a more tactful and clearly unantagonistic phrasing would have been better.
So I am sorry, Marten and others. I did not intend my words to be taken in the manner that I am now shown was probably the case. If it helps, I'm often the harshest when I see something good in an idea. I'm a little hasty to get to the gold that I destroy everything else - (rhetorically) violently. Please ignore that, I genuinely am not trying to attack or hurt, I'm just careless.
Oh, another post came in.
2) used at panic areas. What are "panic areas"? these are areas with no nexus books near by- like the minkata desert, closed areas- like gahreesen prison, or puzzle areas- like the the kadish tolesa pillers room. In these areas, one can use his 'hood/nexus book. The book drops to the ground. So, where it goes, you ask? NOWHERE. It stays there, until I take it back. So how are we avoiding a sea of books all over the age? there will be a certain distance between where you can use the books. So one will have a good amount of nexus/hood books around, and if there isn't- he can use a book. So the books act like books would, while not stacking up.
May I ask why you need a 'hood book? Doesn't the Nexus have one for you? That would give you one less book to carry around.
And who collects the books? Can I collect another person's book (and so clear enough room for myself to link away)? And since everyone will leave behind a book when they link away from collecting a book, wouldn't that stack up?
I agree that Relto users shouldn't have the same access to hoods if that is how it is done. Maybe they can have a limited 'hood, without rooms or closets or all. Or regular bevin as you suggested.
One possibility would be to have a wardrobe in the Neighborhood. It could be integrated as one of the doors to the surrounding apartments. You open the door and step inside, close the door and vanish from the hood only to arrive in a "hood closet". Since you closed the door, other avvies which need to change can still use the closet (which could lead to some humorous moments with lots of avatars pouring out of the closet
)
.
)? Unlike Yeesha, the DRC is handing out these books solely to keep explorers safe - not to give them a home. Therefore, the DRC path can be different, and the panic-linking and personalized-home parts can be separate entities all together.