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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

--
Wonko

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

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