Jeremy Cook on Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:00:07 -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 Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:38:07AM -0800, Jake Eakle wrote:
> 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.

We are all members of such a bizarre cult: B Nomic. :P

The question for the appellate judges to decide is: Could Wonko
distinguish his actions from legal actions? In order for them to be
legal, he had to be unable to do this before applying r699. I am arguing
that he was perfectly able to; the judges will decide this how they
> 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. 

Well, to be consistent, I'd have to. Wonko is a Black Box. Maybe e's a
random text generator, or a giant squirrel, or something even cooler.
Based on eir responses to all our input, I would argue that whatever e
is, e can do exactly that.
> 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,
> Personman

This is part of the game.

spoon-discuss mailing list