Re: [Spoon-business] Wonko takes Action

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/23/02 at 5:34 PM Wonko wrote:

>Secondly, I rescind my appeal of 1098, if I can. If I cannot, I judge it to
>be REFUSED, on the grounds that the outcome is no longer relevant to the
>game.

Likewise, as Member of the Upper House, I judge 1098 to be REFUSED if it cannot be rescinded.  That makes a majority on the appeal.

>Finally, I do intend to continue with my CFI that I couldn't call myself
>'Yoda'. One of the factors involved in the WBE series of CFIs was the
>question of whether Glotmorf legally could create WBE, given that the rules
>were trying to use the name for another object. But the WBE series was
>saturated with other issues, such as whether a rule could be a charter, so
>the issue of naming was hard to pinpoint. So I tried to change my name in
>order to create an event that could be CFI'd based *solely* on the issue I
>wanted addressed, and wouldn't be influenced by any sort of judicial bias
>because it made no difference.

I fully agree that it would be illegal for you to change your name to Yoda.  But I don't think that was a real issue with WBE...

>Oh, right, one more thing... STOP ARGUING ABOUT *IT*! "It nullifies
>lawsuits" can't be a Specific Case, because it doesn't say It only
>nullifies
>some lawsuits. So even if you do interpret that sentence to mean that It
>prevent CFI's, which I don't, then it STILL doesn't do anything because a
>lower numbered rule contradicts it. (like, players can make CFI's, and
>CFI's
>may only be altered by their creators) It may very well dispense tea and
>coffee, but Dave's entirely correct that It charges for those drinks, as
>that's what the rules say those drinks cost. It can't be put on the Grid by
>any of us, because that's a gamestate change. It can't be destroyed by
>water, because A) 'dissolve' has no meaning for a non-physical object such
>as a Nomic Object unless the rules define it, and B) even if it were
>destroyed, it'd come right back because "There exists It."
>The whole thing is entirely stupid and irrelevant, and that proposal never
>should have passed.

Hm.  I'd hoped that It nullifying lawsuits would be interpreted as nullifying lawsuits directed at It.  If it has to be interpreted as trying to nullify all lawsuits, that brings it into direct conflict with r126.

I was really hoping to not see a zillion CFIs related to It, since It really isn't worth the attention.

Which reminds me...I create the following M-Tek club prop:

{{ _Enough of It Already!_

Repeal Rule 1148.

}}

>I remember now why I always hated contrary vote bonuses.

That was your cinquain prop, wasn't it? :)

						Glotmorf


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