Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation on tweaks

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 17:41 +0000, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2008, at 16:40, Alex Smith wrote:
> 
> > Nothing in the rules says that you can do that. In pretty much all  
> > games
> > in existence, you can't just arbitrarily modify the gamestate. (For
> > instance, in Monopoly, you can't arbitrarily give yourself money just
> > because the game doesn't say you can't.) I see no reason why Nomic
> > should be different; games, generally, default to inability to  
> > alter the
> > gamestate without explicit permission, but ability to do anything
> > unrelated to the game.
> 
> Suber 101, all players must follow the rules.
> 
> Nothing is implicit. Read the game actions rule.
> 
> > Therefore, your action fails. (Incidentally, your "patch rule", if it
> > worked, is grammatically incorrect and that could lead to all sorts of
> > trouble with the typical ehird literal-interpretation view of things.
> > Also, you didn't define gamestate, so your dictatorship fails.)
> 
> RPs work on gamestate. So do proposals. Are you saying they don't
> work?
> 
> > Hmm... maybe real life follows the ehird interpretation of things  
> > too. I
> > modify ehird to prevent em falling into ISIDTID fallacies. (If you  
> > claim
> > this doesn't work, then why would ehird's gamestate modification  
> > work?)
> Because of my patch.

ehird's been trying to argue over IRC that changing the rules is a Game
Action because "A Game Action is defined as any activity specified by
the Rules that changes the state of the game.", and therefore e can take
it. In that case, I claim that "To perform a Game Action, an Outsider
must post a message to a Public Forum specifying that they are taking
that action." means that nothing other than a post by an Outsider
claiming that they can take that action can do anything that changes the
game; in other words, proposals fail as they aren't Outsiders and so
cannot change the gamestate, according to that rule. (Quite possibly,
Refresh Proposals also fail since the Fifth Era started, for the same
reason.)

I'm also a very strong arguer that ehird's "nothing is implicit" rule is
nowhere in the ruleset. ehird seems to think it's implicit, for some
reason. Yes, Suber's 101 makes the point; but that rule isn't in B.
Regardless of some supposes absence of implicitness, when the rules
aren't explicit /something/ has to be implied into them; otherwise
pretty much everything would be neither true nor false.

Finally, it's now clearly impossible for anyone to do anything, if
ehird's patch worked. Given that all of us Players are Game Objects,
it's impossible for any of us to be modified in any way, "unless as
explicitly required by the rules"; and clearly some modification of our
internal mental state is required for us to send messages (humans are
not completely static). Well done ehird, you just killed B. And all of
us. Well, not killed, just stuck in eternal perpetual limbo. (And since
Real Life obviously disagrees with B's legal fictions, our attempt to
"consent to be governed by the rules" clearly was ineffective, thus none
of us are in fact players. Incidentally, I see no way for people to
register at the moment; only Outsiders are capable of registering, and
there is no obvious way that somebody not a player of B could become a
Game Object in order to make himself an Outsider and thus capable of
registering. This is true all through the Fifth Era, even before my
Refresh Proposal.)
-- 
ais523

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