Re: [spoon-discuss] "effects related to proposal failure"

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

20/07/2003 17:17:22, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 05:17  PM, SkArcher wrote:
>
>> 19/07/2003 21:50:03, "Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>It's not only an unorthodox interpretation, it's also a wrong one. Just 
>because something is part of the gamestate doesn't mean that it has the 
>force of rule, or the power to make any change to the gamestate. Simply 
>defining an 'effect of proposal failure' in a part of the gamestate is 
>not enough to make it count as one with respect to the rules, any more
>
>To put it more clearly:
>r15.H states that "When a proposal fails... other effects specifically 
>related to proposal failure, such as Charm and Entropy adjustments, 
>occur."
>Now, for such an effect to exist, it'd have to be defined by the rules.
>Except, hmmm, there's nothing in the rules defining the effects you're 
>mentioning in your proposal.
>Therefore, the effects your proposal describes do not exist.
>
>The text itself is part of the gamestate, because the proposal is; but 
>the objects described by the text, namely these 'effects', don't exist 
>in the gamestate unless the proposal passes.
>
>And, of course, said passage would negate the purpose of the failure 
>clause.
>
>>  You piece of paper is invalid due to r10, where as the failure props 
>> are legal for exactly the same reason.
>
>r10? What does that have to do with anything?
>
>> I expect to see a CFI from you tho
>
>Technically, since you seem to be in the minority here, *you* ought to 
>be the one CFIing, because if nobody CFIs, we'll assume it doesn't work.
>

Since when am I in the minority. The majority of the players seem to be in on the failure scam.

SkArcher 


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