Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Nweek 60 Ballot

[Zarpint <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Glotmorf wrote:

> On 28 Mar 2004 at 3:32, Zarpint wrote:
>
> > Since you've misread several of my props, I wanted to explain.
> >
> > 1825: An 'available public display' is exactly what those words mean
> > in English. It has to display the required information and be publicly
> > available to all of us. If that stripper could provide the appropriate
> > information, and she were publicly available to all of us, she would
> > work. It's no different that any other English term used in the rules.
>
> Except it's not defined, and therefore can be declared an
> eclair.  Nowhere is "reasonable" used in the rules, and
> therefore a poster of the roster theoretically doesn't have to
> be reasonable.  If I was responsible for the roster, I could
> theoretically post it on my blog.  Or, even better, my wiki.

Glotmorf, every English word used in the ruleset cannot be defined in terms
of other English words in the ruleset. We know what those words mean. If we
can all get to your blog, or your wiki, it would meet the criterion, and
that would be fine.

>
> This is why we require the explicit designation of fora, so
> that we have a, heh, reasonable chance of finding something
> publicly posted.
>
> Make it a forum.  It's not that hard.

Why do you not object to the following (r16.B)

"The Administrator may designate a Forum public if it is reasonably
accessible to all Players." Same thing - you're right, these words
aren't defined in the ruleset. They're normal English words. How
could a ruleset possibly be structured if a word has to be defined
in terms of other words before it is used?
>
>
> > 1826: Well this isn't mine. But what would stop you is:
> > 1. The rules do not provide for the declaring of tampons,
> > and 2. once you declare it, it's not undeclared. Right now tampons
> > don't exist, so they are neither declared objects nor undeclared
> > objects.
>
> In that case, this lacks the definition of an undeclared
> object.  Or a declared one, for that matter.  So far the only
> use of the words "declared" and "undeclared" in the rules have
> to do with gender.  Is the author of the proposal suggesting
> objects have declarable gender?  If not, there needs to be
> more detail.

You're right on this one. I don't know how to tell whether, say, the
Carnal Philosophy is "declared". The rules don't provide for the
declaring or undeclaring of most objects.

>
> > 1827: This isn't mine either. But we would not go back to nweek 0,
> > because it is clear from the rule that only rules created that were
> > changes to the rules made by prop 1812 would be repealed.
>
> I'm glad it's clear to you.  It's not explicitly said, though,
> and you didn't grow up with uin.  It's not that grievous a
> change to make.  Besides, I'd still like to know what rules
> the author thinks were modified by p1812.

We'd all like to know that. The text is "rules created are repealed."
It doesn't say "any rule ever created" any more than "any rule created
by p1812", so this is ambiguous, you're right.
>
> > 1828: Rule 24 certainly did something to me. By putting the entire
> > burden of updating the Roster on the Admin, it caused the Roster to be
> > out-of-date.
>
> Tch.  That statement effectively says Dave can't handle the
> job.  That's not entirely true, and I would never say that
> about him.  It's certainly true that the job is a lot of work,
> and that, since it's a manual task, it's subject to human
> error, and it would be nice if someone could help him with it,
> but that's not the same as saying he can't do the job.

"Tch" back. How can you claim to be defending Dave's honor while failing
to vote for a prop that would help him? It says Dave isn't handling
the job. He could of course do it, but he has other things to do than
being our scribe.
If he wanted to, Dave could update the game completely every hour,
but that would come at the cost of anything else he might want to do
in his life.

>
> > And I don't understand your objection here.
> > 1. If at any point there is no Roster Minister, an election is
> > immediately held. Kurt Godel will enforce this. 2. Since the Admin may
> > perform the duties of a Minister (625.A.2) we lose nothing by allowing
> > an additional person to help with this important job. If we have a
> > Roster Minister, and neither e nor Dave is updating the Roster, we are
> > still better off than if we don't have one, and Dave is not updating
> > the Roster.
>
> Besides, you miss my point.  I want it said explicitly in the
> rules that the roster must be maintained, independent of who
> does the maintaining.  That way, if absolutely necessary, an
> out-of-date roster can be used as grounds for disputing or
> refuting otherwise-undesirable events.

It doesn't say that now. It says, "The Administrator is responsible for
maintaining a publicly visible list of all players in the game; this list
is called the Roster." (r24)

It would be replaced with:
"The Roster Minister is responsible for keeping a publicly accessible page,
known as the Roster, containing an extremely current list of all players in
the game." It's the same as before.

>
> > 1829: You do not have this straight at all. A player recognizes a
> > Streamlined Emergency by making ___or endorsing___ a Quick Fix. The
> > idea is that in a Streamlined Emergency, there will only be one or two
> > of them - otherwise it isn't effective to use the Procedure, and the
> > regular one can be used.
>
> Okay, I missed the "or endorsing" part.  It still seems
> unnecessarily complex to be associated with the term "quick
> fix".  Besides, what if someone sees something that really,
> really needs a quick fix but can't think of exactly what that
> quick fix should be?  Since e can't provide a fix, and since
> at that point there's no fix to endorse, e can't officially
> say that such-and-such is something that needs fixing right
> away.
The reason it's quick is that once we have a majority of players, we don't
have a week long delay while we figure out the forum and such.

And why would we want an official statement like that anyway? The whole
point is we'd use the other procedure if we didn't have a quick fix.

>
> > Tampons and strippers...you really should change your philosophy to
> > Carnal.
>
> It's the scarf.  It...changes a man.
>
> 						Glotmorf
>
> -----
> The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
> http://www.nomic.net/~dwhytock/imt
>
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss