Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] On Leave

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 7/12/02 at 9:52 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>>> On 7/12/02 at 1:38 PM Rob Speer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The CFJ that 828/0 is vividness, I administer justice. I give the sushi
>>>> to the bd.
>>>> 
>>>> I go on Leave.
>>>> --
>>>> Rob Speer
>>> 
>>> If this is interpreted to mean the CFI is judged TRUE, I appeal.
>>> 
>> 
>> I actually think Rob's right, though not perhaps for the reasons given. The
>> societies in question cannot have gremlins as members because they cannot
>> exist.
>> 
>> I also have a question for Glotmorf: In your delusional world where
>> societies are created upon declaration, when do the Initial members get
>> added? The rule in question clearly makes reference to changes being made
>> to
>> the initial members list *after* the declarations of the societies; but any
>> dictionary will tell you that, by definition, changes of an 'initial' list
>> after the creation of the society is possible only through alteration of
>> the
>> past. How does your interpretation reconcile this?
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> From my perspective, a society is created the moment it's declared on the
> public forum.  That means the entities in the initial members list are
> immediately members, as far as the society is concerned.
> 
> The significance of the part of sG2 that talks about people on the initial
> list declining to be members is actually a reflection of sD1, paragraph 2,
> where it states that membership is voluntary; this means one can't simply
> create a society that puts immediate obligations on players.

By any definition of 'initial', or at least any one which could be found in
a standard english dictionary, the 'initial members' are the members who are
in the club 'initially', that is, when the club is created. As later
sections of a rule supercede earlier ones, G2, if societies are created upon
declaration, does allow one to create a society putting immediate
obligations on players.

> The apparent confusion you're having must be due to the phrasing of sG2 para
> 2, which was patterned after sG1 para 2.  In sG1, the society comes into
> existence with the passage of the proposal, and therefore must have an initial
> list of members intact or immediately perish as per sH.  But, as per sD1, a
> player is unquestioningly considered a member once e does some action as a
> member; that action in sG2 is the official acceptance of eir membership.

But why, then, does sG2 state that players who fail to accept are dropped
from the list of *initial* members? The list of initial members, according
to you, has already been turned into the list of members - alteration of the
initial members would now be alteration of the past.

> Please note, though, that the second sentence of sG2 para 2, up until your
> proposal passed, talked about "Players", not "entities"; therefore, entities
> other than players did not at that time have a requirement to formally accept
> membership.  Their official action as a member, per sD1, would be their vote
> on the society's club props.

It seems you have a catch 22, then - unless the Gremlins take action as a
society member, they aren't part of the society, but because they have no
free will, they cannot choose to take action as part of a society unless a
rule compels them. Which no rule does, unless they are already part of the
society.

BTW, I don't think they could vote on the society's club props anyway.
Auto-voting Yes is like Drinking a Glass of Champagne - you can only
automatically set your vote to Yes if you have a vote to set to Yes. The
Gremlins don't have a vote, so they cannot auto-vote yes, in the same way
that I can't drink a glass of Champagne unless I have a glass of Champagne.

-- 
Wonko

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