disambiguation wonky when referring to things understood

Hi (and sorry for not stopping by for so long). I’m goofing around with Threaded Conversation extension, and I have this annoying problem.


"Something Fishy With Disambiguation" by Peter Orme

Include Threaded Conversation by Chris Conley.

Gallery is a room. 

The fish is a subject. 

which artist is a questioning quip. It mentions the fish.

test me with "showme fish"

The problem is that that “showme fish” just keeps asking “Which do you mean, the fish or which artist?”.

I’ll do some digging on my own, but perhaps this is obvious to somebody else who sees this. it seems that it has to do with the fact that the subject is not there. It’s the same thing for a thing in another room, but if it “mentions” a thing in the same room (in scope, I guess) it works.

It’s not a huge issue, it’s just annoying not being able to use “showme” or “epistat” on the subjects.

Any ideas?

Here’s an example that does the same thing, but without any extensions.

"Something Fishy With Disambiguation (2)" by Peter Orme

A quip is a kind of thing. 

Mentioning relates various quips to various things. The verb to mention implies the mentioning relation. 

Understand "[something related by mentioning]" as a quip. 

Gallery is a room. 
The Park is a room. The fish is a thing in the Park.
the artist is a quip. It mentions the fish.

understand "pollock" as the fish.

test me with "showme pollock"

The “Understand “[something related by mentioning]” as a quip.” line seems to be relevant to this.

I mean, I get that this is the point, that you can refer to the quip (the artist) by talking about the thing it mentions (the fish). But is there a way to make it possible to refer directly the fish an sich - even if it is not there - and not some thing that is related to it?

Could you add “does the player mean” rules to indicate that quips are unlikely to be chosen?

That’s what I would do, yes.

Oh, I see. Nice, thanks!

I think just does the player mean doing something to a quip: it is unlikely is enough, I’m not yet sure whether it affects something else. In that case I guess more specific DTPM rules (“does the player mean requesting epistemic status of a quip: it is unlikely”) can still be used.

A followup: is it possible to do this for the showme command? What’s the action for it? Or do you need to do this?

does the player mean doing something to a quip when player's command includes "showme": it is unlikely.