spoon-discuss: Storming the Bastille and running into the walls

["Tyler Crosby" <nomicvoice0@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> You know, if Uncle P had meant for 129/2 to have this effect, it would
> be a brilliant way to win. Especially since he very charismatically
> convinced five people to vote for it. (Yes, I should have objected to it
> louder... but given UP's past failed proposals, I really doubted that
> such a logic-defying proposal would ever pass.)
>
> But if this really does cause an irreversible descent into paradox, then
> it's Glotmorf who gets the win, because he took the pseudo-Action.
> --
> Rob Speer
Actually, I don't think there's anything in the rules that says that if a 
paradoxical condition is caused by a player, that player is awarded a win.  
And, even if there did, rule 0 would take precedence over it, as the two 
would conflict.  The "paradox win" rule would say, "if an unresolveable 
paradoxical condition exists, (a) will happen," and rule zero says, "if an 
unresolveable paradoxical condition exits, (b) will happen."  Rule 0 will 
take precendence (since neither has chutzpah greater than one), and no win 
will be awarded, unless it is part of the refresh proposal which passes.  In 
Suber's original ruleset, there is a provision for a player winning if they 
are unable to complete a turn, but we have no such rule.  If r129/2 really 
is broken, then neither Glormorf nor Uncle Psy will win automatically from 
it.  It will have to get through the other players first.

Wow, that's too much thinking for 7:20 in the morning...

-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-
*Ignore this signature if :
1) it doesn't make sense to you
2) it seems outdated
3) you feel moved to make a sarcastic comment
4) you didn't read to the end of this list.
Thank you, and have a nice day.*


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.