| Glotmorf on 20 Sep 2002 01:57:04 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 22 VOTING RESULTS |
On 9/19/02 at 9:20 PM Wonko wrote: >Except it will fail. For the same reason Uin's old "I and the judge of this >proposal can change the gamestate at will" CFI failed. Regardless of how >it's judged. CFI's can't contradict something which is true. Theoretically, CFIs can *define* what's true. Let's try it a bit differently... I create the following CFI: Statement: Player stocks allegedly in existence prior to the creation of Rule 946/3 do not in fact exist. Analysis: Rule 946/3, subsection C.2, dictates the process whereby player stocks are created and destroyed. This effectively regulates the existence of what is currently known as player stocks. As this process was not followed to create any player stocks prior to the existence of Rule 946/3, no player stocks could be in existence as of the creation of Rule 946/3. Glotmorf _______________________________________________ spoon-business mailing list spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business