Jake Eakle on Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:38:21 -0600 (CST)

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

Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] CFI: All is Not Made Right.

On 11/4/04 4:28 AM, "Jeremy Cook" <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:17:07AM -0500, Daniel Lepage wrote:
>> You do realize that the result is almost guaranteed to be no different,
>> don't you? Nobody's been joining the Upper House, so the eligible
>> judges are Personman and TPR. TPR hasn't moved in a while and probably
>> won't, so basically, Personman gets to decide the issue again.
>> It's also worth noting that (a) I did use r699 in my original argument,
>> albeit in a different way, and (b) even if I had been using circular
>> reasoning, it STILL would have been legal because the only important
>> fact was that I believed it to be legal.
> I told you, the rule says nothing about belief. The question is whether
> you could have distinguished it from a legal action, not whether you
> believed it to be legal. Belief is totally irrelevant here.
> Zarpint

But being able to distinguish one thing from another is not something
regulated by the rules. You may have your freakish standards, which dicate
that everyone must follow the same, strict logic in everything they do, but
the rules don't care about that, just as they don't care about Loophole or
Wonko's napkin with his preferred gamestate on it. Wonko may be a member of
some bizarre cult of the intentionally confused, who, while perfectly
coherent, is capable of using advanced mind techniques to force himself to
truly be unable to distinguish apples from oranges, big from small, legal
from illegal. You have only your own assumptions to work with, as, I repeat,
the rules do not cover this.

Even if wonko is randomly generated text, e is still following the rules by
(randomly) posting comprehendable english content. The rules currently DO
NOT FORBID a random text-generator from being a player, as long as it
applies for membership correctly, etc. And I don't think you or anyone else
would argue that such a computer program can distinguish a legal rule from
an illegal one. 

I could go on and on, but i hope you get the point by now. The rule is
vague, wonko used a loophole (to, i might add, _fix stuff_), and it would be
really nice if we could just get on with the game now. Thank you,

spoon-discuss mailing list