[Spoon-business] Re: [spoon-discuss] ooh, entropy!

["Baron von Skippy" <baronvonskippy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >>>>>> With the addition of three new players in this nweek, the Entropy
> >page
> >>>>>> deserves a look by, well, a few people.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Wonko and Glotmorf are into the 3-syllable limit. Baron von Skippy 
> is
> >>>> well
> >>>>>> into the 1-syllable range, but that was true before the most recent
> >>>>>> additions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> -Is that effective immediately or next nweek?-
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -BvS-
> >>>>>
> >>>> -Never mind. Oh, and before anyone complains about my multisyllabic
> >words
> >>>> used in business messages after Dave said I was over the one-syllable
> >>>> limit
> >>>> (probably too late), I hadn't sen it yet. If this is still a problem,
> >>> I'll
> >>>> rerelease the messages, just make sure to leave the text of the
> >erroneous
> >>>> message in your complaint...-
> >>>
> >>> What about your proposals this nweek?
> >>>
> >>> Glotmorf
> >>>
> >> -What about them? Dave didn't announce my high entropy until today. I
> >wrote
> >> 'em all before that. Unless you want me to rerelease all of my s-b
> >messages
> >> since I bought a lot of Gnomes, which ain't happening...-
> >
> >Does high entropy matter? Yes, the entropy rule forbids you to post words
> >of
> >more than one syllable. On the other hand, you went ahead and did it
> >anyway.
> >Shows what the rules are good for.
> >
> >It's another case of Nomic rules trying to regulate real life - the rules
> >can accept input from the real world, but they cannot directly force 
> things
> >to happen in the real world.
> >
> >Don't worry about Entropy restrictions. They're not really there.
> >
> >--
> >Wonko
> >There is no Restriction.
>
> But is there a spoon?  And is it a spoon-discuss or a spoon-business?
>
> I thought the prevailing theory was that the gamestate consisted of the 
> accumulation of legal actions, and that if a message posted to the public 
> forum doesn't constitute a legal action it doesn't affect the gamestate, 
> and therefore the mere fact that it's on the public forum doesn't mean the 
> action is in fact performed...?  That what we perceive as the gamestate 
> from seeing all these messages isn't necessarily what the gamestate is?
>
> Which is why we have this rule that says, if as part of our collective 
> hallucination we acted as if a given action posted to the public forum was 
> in fact legal, whether or not it was, the gamestate gets adjusted to what 
> it would be if that action was indeed legal.  Les'n someone objects.
>
> So is someone gonna object?
>
> 						Glotmorf
-Hey, I have a thought. If it is true that the rules, as Wonk. says, have no 
real strength to stop things that are "forbidden" [[CFJ 615/1]]then it 
should be not "forbidden" [[CFJ 615/1]] to do things they say are 
"forbidden" [[CFJ 615/1]]. I would note too that "Rule 17" [[proposal 960]] 
says "Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora." It does not say 
that that "action" must be "legal" [[both from proposal 965]] to "occur." 
[[proposal 960 again]] Now, I am like to be wrong, but I will try this in 
any case. What the hell, eh?

I add "'declaring' [[Rule 14]] that my 'actions' [[Rule 17]] are 'illegal' 
[[Rule 698]]" to the LOGAS.

To be safe,

I add "'declaring' [[Rule 14]] my 'actions' [[Rule 17]] 'illegal' [[Rule 
698]]" to the LOGAS.

It is a small difference [[proposal 140]], but one I wish to make.

I am not "breaking" [[Rule 900.A.3.2]] "rule" [[Rule 10]] 10, b/c it can not 
make me "abide by all the Rules in effect" [[Rule 10]]. It can only say I 
must. There is a difference [[proposal 140]].

Now, I am done. Wonk., Glot., find the holes.

                                                  -BvS-


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business