[Spoon-business] RE: RE: [spoon-discuss] "effects related to proposal failure"

["Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>By that logic, so is Wonko's win for having posted a sentence declaring
>>>>victory when a proposal fails.
>>
>>>I don't remember whether that scam was in an actual proposal.  If it was
>>part of a real proposal, then yes, it is legal.
>>
>>You don't get it. The clause activates when a proposal fails. Or passes.
It
>>doesn't matter whether it was in a failed proposal, as long as it is
>>activated by a failed proposal.
>>
>>>>Or my win for having a piece of paper on my
>>>>desk reading 'Whenever a proposal passes or fails, the rule "No Win For
>>You"
>>>>is deleted if it exists, and then I win.'
>>
>>>Nope.  That wasn't in a proposal.  It's only legal if it's a clause in a
>>proposal.  Writing it on your arm or on your desk is not a failure
>>>clause in a proposal.
>>
>>Because it was an effect specifically related to failure, it is exactly
the
>>same as any other such effect that isn't in the rules or anything with any
>>in-game force. Neither a failed proposal nor a random post nor a piece of
>>paper on my desk has any force within the game, so it doesn't matter where
>>it is written. It is both a) specifically related to proposal failure and
b)
>>completely without force.
>>
>>So far, Anything, You're the only person I've seen claiming that it
matters
>>that the clause is in a failed proposal. That's just the vehicle for the
>>failure clause, just as effective as the paper on my desk or Wonko's
>>message.

>No, its not, because the clause in a prop which reads '...if this proposal
fails then...' is an
>'...effect specifically related to proposal failure...' as mentioned in
r15.H

So is any effect of my piece of paper. It is specifically stated as an
effect of failure, since it activates when a proposal fails.

>Your piece of paper has no bearing on this, because there is no clause that
says your piece of
>paper has any effect. The failure clause has an effect because r15.H says
it does.

r15.H says nothing of the kind. It says that effects specifically related to
proposal failure occur. The effect of my piece of paper has no effect,
obviously, because nothing gives pieces of paper on my desk force. But
nothing gives failed proposals any force either.

>you are looking at the arguement from the wrong angle. you see this as
being an illegal action,
>when in fact it is a legal action based on an unorthodox interpretation of
the ruleset, not simply
>ignoring the rules, which is what your piece of paper does. You piece of
paper is invalid due to
>r10, where as the failure props are legal for exactly the same reason.

My piece of paper ignores the rules, yes, because no rule says pieces of
paper have any effect. But the proposal has no effect either, because no
rule gives any power at all to failed proposals. It only seems to have an
effect because there can be "effects specifically related to proposal
failure" - but they have to come from a source with some legitimate
authority. Proposals have such authority only after they pass. So if your
proposal passes, its failure clause is valid, but if it fails, your failure
clause has no effect.

>I expect to see a CFI from you tho

Fine. I name as defendant in this everyone who has submitted a proposal with
a failure clause. I do so all at once, so I only name a defendant one time
and thus I do not violate rule 126 by naming multiple defendants.

{{
A failure clause in a proposal and a piece of out-of-game paper with a
phrase on it about what happens when a proposal passes or fails either both
take effect or both do nothing.

Reasoning: There are two possibilities here.

The first is that an "effect specifically related to proposal failure" as
allowed in r15.H has to come from an instrument that actually has force in
the game. Such an instrument might be the ruleset [[Rules can say, for
instance, that when a proposal fails its owner loses points]] or a society
charter [[for instance, a society might say that if a member's proposal
fails, then e ceases to be a member]] or a proposal [[for instance, proposal
A can state that if proposal B fails, player C will win; then if proposal A
passes and proposal B then fails, player C wins]]. There are probably other
things it might be.

However, a failed proposal has no force under the rules. Therefore, a failed
proposal is not such an instrument. Neither is a piece of paper on my desk.
Thus, the failure scam doesn't work, and neither does my desk memo. I
believe this interpretation to be correct.

Another possibility, however, is that by being an "effect specifically
related to proposal failure", the proposal's failure clause skirts by the
Default Case and changes the gamestate. It simply doesn't matter that failed
proposals have no force, because the proposal has found a loophole that lets
it give itself the necessary force to do this anyway. Of course, by that
reasoning, the note on my desk - which exploits the same loophole - has
given itself force despite the fact that ordinarily a piece of paper in not
able to change the gamestate.

Either way, though, the CFJ is true. If either one takes effect, then so
does the other.
}}

Inspired by a comment above, I'm going to try to exploit the loophole (if
there is one, which I highly doubt) in yet another fashion.

I hereby create a society, called "The Winning Team", whose charter reads as
follows:

{{
Whenever a majority of members agree, the charter of The Winning Team may be
changed.

Whenever any proposal fails, every member of The Winning Team is awarded a
win, in the order in which they joined The Winning Team. After each member's
win, the rule "No Win For You" is repealed, if it exists. Immediately after
the last such win occurs, a rule is created whose title is a random string
of ten ASCII characters that do not occur in sequence in the ruleset or in
any proposal, with chutzpah 5, and the following text:

 {{
Players may not win. Whenever a Win would be awarded to a player, that
player instead gains ten Charm and the title "Nearly Victorious."

If this rule has been existence for more than an nweek, it is repealed.
 }}
}}

I hereby invite all players to join The Winning Team. I don't know if it
will work - I give it about a 10% chance, depending on who judges various
CFJ's - but anyone who wishes can join me in trying.

 -- Teucer

"Maybe there ought to be a motion on having immortality investigated for
Robin, so that he can serve as the secretary forever."
 -Jay Kominek

ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx
teucer@xxxxxxxxxx

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