Re: [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 5:04 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I submit the following consultation: Is the External Force formerly known as
>> ehird still a Player?
>
> I assign this, Consultation 9999+i, to teucer. I murphily Resign from
> the Ministry of Questions.

I answer Consultation 9999+i FALSE.

Arguments:
First, I cannot consistently answer it TRUE, as no Consultation with
that number can both exist and have that as the correct answer. But
this is largely irrelevant.
Second, ehird resigned. E claims this required calculation of
something ambiguous. Longstanding game custom is that this means that
what action is being taken must be unambiguous; actions whose details
require referencing results of the busy beaver function for which the
output is unknown, for example, are not valid. Forfeiture does not
require anyone to calculate anything to understand that it is, in
fact, forfeiture.
Third, if ehird's assertion that an action which requires others to
calculate something ambiguous to know its effects counts and is thus
afflicted by the aforementioned rule, it is still irrelevant. Figuring
out what the rules say is not the same as calculating a number, and
thus the fate of ehird's macks, while ambiguous, is not a calculation.
Fourth, rule 5e1 states that the only true name of this game is B
Nomic, which logically entails the assertion that this is a game.
Since "game" is nowhere defined in the ruleset, it has its most common
English meaning, which is an activity with rules which people engage
in for recreation. It is inherent in the nature of leisure activities,
including games, that they be voluntary, ergo, rule 5e1 allows players
to stop playing. (They can and generally should, however, specify the
results of such for those that are continuing to play.) Thus even if
rule 5e10 had attempted to stop ehird forfeiting, Rule 5e1 takes
precedence over it.

Citing arguments two through four above as reasons why it can't be
TRUE and the inverse of argument one to invalidate a FALSE judgment, I
answer Consultation 9999 PARADOX.

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