Daniel Lepage on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:25:42 -0600 (CST)

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

[s-d] Re: [s-b] Looptek (Win)

On Nov 11, 2004, at 12.35 PM, Dan Schmidt wrote:

Yes it's true; I have Yet Another Loophole.

Behold! Rule 216/1
To "propose a rule" is defined to mean making a
proposal which contains one Action, which is to create
a Rule.[snip]
Thus making a rule is an Action.

I do the aforemetioned Action. and make a rule with
the name Looptek
Rodney may, as a Game Action,Gain 1 point.
Rodney may also, as a Game Action, modify or delete a
I gain 1 point 1000 times.Please note that because of
rule 11/4, rule 27/7 is not deactivated.I then modify
rule 216/1 to say
To "propose a rule" is defined to mean making a
proposal that creates a Rule. The Proposal is given
the same title as the Rule. The Proposal and the Rule
need not be introduced separately.

When proposing multiple rules, it is only necessary
that the rules be clearly delimited. The Standard
Delimiters may serve this purpose.
I then delete Looptek

Roduni, Yendoru no Taikyoku Sho Jushi, Who notes that
11/4 says that rules may not be suppressed.

I think you're right about being able to modify rules, etc. I also think you meant r10/4, not 11/4 (11/4 defines rulebooks). However, r10/4 says that proposals and actions may not suppress rules; it says nothing about other rules. Indeed, to claim that r27 has effect despite being deactivated is to suppress rule 1085, which asserts that deactivated rules have no effect.

So unless somebody challenges your actions, I would say you now have 1000 points but cannot Win with them.

I'll put this in the 'pending events' queue and deal with it in a day or two if nobody challenges you.

Man, that queue keeps getting longer and longer...


Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.
      -Carlos A. Urbizo

spoon-discuss mailing list