spoon-business: Re: spoon-discuss: CFJ: The clock...

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

CFJ 219, assigned to Joerg.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> ANALYSIS:
> Due to an error in forethought on the part of the clock/watch proposal,
> the clock now (validly, wrt the proposal) reads nweek 3, even though
> this is supposed to be nweek 4.
>
> Note the following, from Proposal 158/1:
> "At the time that this amendment takes effect, the number of days on the
> Clock shall be set to 0, the number of nweeks shall be set to 3, and the
> word 'day' in all rules shall be changed to 'nday'. The last paragraph
> of this rule will then delete itself."
>
> Thus we find ourselves in nweek 3 again, because the amendment took
> effect (as all amendments must under current rules) AFTER the end of
> nweek 3, and therefore AFTER the point at which the clock would have
> incremented.  Even if it had taken effect before 00:00:00 UTC (which it
> could not, since voting was still open), it would have incremented to
> nweek 3, nday 1, NOT nweek 4, nday 0.
>
> Under Rule 17/0, which says "Events may occur only in the present, and
> may not alter the past." and  32/1, which notes that "Proposals may not
> take effect retroactively." this has the makings of a time paradox, and
> a violation of the rules.  Rule 204/0 may also apply, but as it has a
> higher rule number, rule 158 will take precedence over it.
>
> Still, I suggest that repeating nweek 3 would effectively result in
> events altering the past, and proposals taking effect retroactively, and
> call for judgement on the following statements.
>
> Since the game state is currently undefined in Rule 152, and further
> under the Permissibility of the Unprohibited, the Administrator should
> have power to act as prescribed in the first statement since the clock
> is not necessarily part of the game state.  The only alternative I see
> is to repeal Proposal 158/1 in its entirety, but perhaps the judge will
> get creative.
>
> I name the author of Proposal 158/1, Wonko, as defendant.
>
> STATEMENT 1:
> The clock should be updated by the Administrator to read the appropriate
> nweek and nday at time of judgement on this statement, as if the clock
> had read nweek 4, nday 0 at 00:00:00 UTC at the end of nweek 3.
>
> STATEMENT 2:
> If Statement 1 is ruled False or Undecided, then Proposal 158 should be
> repealed in toto.
>
> --Scoff!