Daniel Lepage on Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:24:49 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: [s-b] A Statement of the Gamestate

On Nov 1, 2004, at 2.21 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:57:28AM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:
Ok, in my capacity as Adept and therefore de facto minister of damn
near everything, I'm going to make a bunch of statements about the
state of the game, based on my interpretation of recent events. I'll
wait two ndays for anybody to object to any of this; after that, I'm
going through and making sure that all the public displays are updated
with THIS gamestate.

I object to two things:
The other attempted rule-changes were illegal: nobody seems to have
mistaken Personman's actions for legal actions, Rodney's 'KLC' attempt
was either an illegal attempt to create something or simply a false
statement about the gamestate, and Zarpint's Taxly Evasive Scam
overlooks the clause in the societies rule that says societies may only
take actions that the rules say they can.

I object.
Permissibility of the Unprohibited is one of the rules. "Societies
may only take actions that the rules say they can" is the same as
"societies may only take legal actions". It would be different if the
rule said "societies may only take actions the rules explicitly allow",
but it doesn't.

My interpretation is that since the rules mention which actions societies can take, the taking of actions by societies is thus regulated by the rules, and so Permissibility doesn't say anything about it.

Regardless, modifying the gamestate is regulated by the rules, so Permissibility doesn't do anything to allow gamestate changes.

And Tildex:
This is where it was at the beginning of the nweek, plus a few
watering/weeding changes and a judgment or two; no scams this nweek.
Note that Zarpint probably wants to take back about half eir Research
to avoid getting Taxed, and a bunch of people haven't paid
watering/weeding, for what it's worth (Here's to alliteration :) )

I object that Societies are now taxed. Earlier you were arguing that the
intent can't contravene the words of the rules, but the words of r1904
are so vague (what exactly is a "r578 thing" and how does a rule "look
at" one thing as if it were another?) that any specific interpretation
is just guesswork.

My argument earlier is that the intent can't contradict the text; however, if the text is ambiguous, the intent can be used to decide which of the outcomes suggested by the text is legitimate.

I see no ambiguity in the laying down of cards, and so the intent is irrelevant. I see ambiguity in r1904, but the phrasing of the proposal that created it seems to suggest which of the possible interpretations is most fitting.

But the ambiguity is so great that obviously there'd be no grounds for challenging the result of a CFI on it; in fact, I'll do it myself since I'm the one making a concrete claim about what it means.

It might be helpful if you withdrew a few RPs from your society, though, just so that it won't make a difference one way or another.

If anyone out there feels that I've overlooked something, done
something wrong, or interpreted something badly, you have two ndays to
either convince me of the error of my ways or CFI it; any later than
that and I may not be able to reprocess all actions again. And I'll be
really pissed off if I have to.

Well, SOL gives us 10, so it's not really fair to supersede that by
fiat. But I'll CFI those two tomorrow if necessary.

I'm not trying to supersede it, I'm just noting that if you wait any later I'll be really irritated. You can still do it, obviously, it'll just suck to be me.


"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

spoon-discuss mailing list