Re: [Spoon-business] Re: [spoon-discuss] Ow.

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/29/03 at 3:53 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>On Saturday, June 28, 2003, at 11:44  PM, Glotmorf wrote:
>
>>>> And you call yourself a veteran.  Far as I know, a combination of the
>>>> Boilerplate and Standard Delimiter rules still serve to say that if
>>>> something is in curly brackets with nothing else saying what it is
>>>> it's a proposal, and if something is inside that proposal with curly
>>>> brackets with nothing else saying what it is it's a new rule to be
>>>> created.  That's how my old prose props used to work.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, that recent prop of yours that you amended to include
>>>> "Create
>>>> a rule:" would have been fine in the first version.
>>>
>>> And you call yourself a Patriarch. The rule you're trying to mention,
>>> r216, Elimination of Boilerplate, allows us to propose rules without
>>> declaring the 'create a rule' bit by simply making the prop the rule.
>>> If your proposal were entitled __The Shotgun Rule__, and had the text
>>> as its sole text, that would work. But the rule to be created must
>>> have
>>> the same name as the proposal to create it, so as it is, if you claim
>>> that you're proposing a rule, then it's a rule entitled "Lock and
>>> Load"
>>> which for some reason has a delimited block entitled "The Shotgun
>>> Rule"
>>> in it.
>>>
>>> The exact text of r216 is:
>>> {{
>>> To "propose a rule" is defined to mean making a proposal which
>>> contains
>>> one Action, which is to create a Rule. The Proposal is given the same
>>> title as the Rule. The Proposal and the Rule need not be introduced
>>> separately.
>>>
>>> When proposing multiple rules, it is only necessary that the rules be
>>> clearly delimited. The Standard Delimiters may serve this purpose.
>>> }}
>>>
>>> Also, I believe you need to declare that you're proposing a rule. As
>>> in,
>>>
>>> I propose a rule:
>>> {{
>>> <snip>
>>> }}
>>>
>>> Simply stating the prop does not technically even imply that you're
>>> issuing a proposal; only that you feel the need to speak some
>>> delimited
>>> text on a public forum.
>>>
>>> See r217 ( http://www.nomic.net/~g6//curver.php?rn=217 ) for more
>>> details on delimiters and their use :)
>>
>> And you call yourself an authority.  You cite the rule I said works in
>> combination with the Boilerplate rule, yet failed to use it in your
>> counterargument.
>>
>> The Standard Delimiters rule reads: "The character sequences '{{' and
>> '}}' (without the single quotes) may be used in the text of any
>> Action, Proposal, or Rule [[ yay recursion ]] to mark the beginning
>> and end, respectively, of text that should be set apart, such as the
>> text of a Proposal or Rule, or an amendment to either one. If it is
>> not explicitly specified that these character sequences mean something
>> else, they are considered to delimit text in that way."  The rule
>> explicitly references the text of a Proposal or Rule; granted "such
>> as" is more inclusive than exclusive, but for that I cite the Default
>> Case and say that since the rule doesn't state the validity of
>> delimited text other than proposals or rules it is only the creation
>> of proposals and rules via delimited text that is permitted.
>>
>> Since I no longer Rule, I can't create rules upon my sayso; therefore,
>> of the two explicitly mentioned possibilities, the only possibility
>> for delimited text in a standalone manner is a proposal.  Since there
>> is onle one action inside the proposal, and that delimited and given a
>> title (as per the third paragraph of the Standard Delimiters rule:
>> "The character sequence '__' (again without the single quotes)
>> delimits the title of a Rule or Proposal; the title begins after the
>> first '__' and ends before the second one. The title is applied to
>> whatever Rule or Proposal has most recently been introduced in the
>> text of the message."), it conforms to the Boilerplate rule as being a
>> proposal containing a single action being the creation of a rule.
>
>I disagree with two of your assumptions here.
>	First, you claim that the mention of Proposals and Rules in r217
>implies that *only* proposals and rules are legitimate uses of the
>delimiters. However, r217 explicitly states that delimiters may be used
>to mark the beginning and end of "text that should be set apart"; the
>mention of Rules and Proposals is simply for clarification, and does
>not in any way imply that rules and proposals are the only forms of
>"text that should be set apart".

The mention of Rules and Proposals may be "simply for clarification", but the presence of it in the rule text, as opposed to comment-delimited, means it has the force of rule.  While there may in fact be other instances of "text that should be set apart", the rule doesn't give a clear general case for them; therefore, the examples the rule provides are the only valid examples because there's insufficient criteria to identify another valid example.

>	Secondly, you assume that the existence of delimiters is enough to
>imply an intent to create something with the delimited text; r217 in no
>way says or implies this. It merely permits you to use the brackets to
>mark a block of text. You could be suggesting the text of a new rule
>you wish somebody else to propose; you could be quoting a rule from a
>different game; you could simply be stating some random text that you
>think should be set apart. Nothing in your message in any way implies
>that you intend to create anything.

Except that the things you provide as examples aren't recognizable actions on the public forum.  Assuming for a moment that the primary purpose of the public forum is to post recognizable actions (never mind a lot of the other damnfool stuff we use it for), the examining of a public forum message should involve looking for things that can be recognized as actions.  A proposal is recognizable.  A quote from another Nomic is not.  Therefore, if one were to put a quote from another Nomic on the public forum delimited by curly braces, it might well be parsable as a proposal, and should be.

>	Likewise, even if you had declared that you were making a proposal,
>the existence of delimiters within your proposal cannot be construed to
>indicate that you wish to create a rule. You have nowhere indicated
>that you wish to create anything; in fact, you never even specified
>that the text inside was an action. While we can perhaps assume that it
>is meant to be a change to the gamestate, as proposals are simply lists
>of such changes, you haven't indicated what the change should be. Is
>the delimited block intended to create a new rule? A new proposal? A
>new section of an existing rule? A new text to replace that of an old
>rule?

See above.  If a proposal is a collection of changes to the gamestate to be performed, the act of recognizing a proposal should consist of looking for recognizable gamestate changes within it.  Does the creation of a proposal change the gamestate?  Technically, posting to the public forum with a valid action changes the gamestate.  So if we make proposals that make proposals, should we also make proposals to make forum posts?

>	The fact that the act of "proposing a rule" is defined as making a
>proposal with a single action that creates a new rule in no way
>indicates that you did that, unless you state that that's the action
>you're doing. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe you've taken any
>action at all.

We could simplify this discussion by taking it in a different direction.  I have done this before.  It was recognized as a proposal that creates a rule.  This establishes a precedent that suggests the validity of subsequent similar action.

>Oh, and BTW, you can't claim that the definition of '__' helps you at
>all, because you didn't use the standard title delimiters; you used
>single underscores instead. They aren't defined to do anything.

Hm.  You might have me there.

>> Wasn't there an old CFI to this effect?
>
>Not that I can see.

I'll do some digging.  I know this argument has come up before.

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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