[Spoon-business] CFIs

[Zarpint Jeremy Cook <mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx>]

I make the following CFI:
{{
Statement:

1. Actions take place upon reaching a Public Forum regardless of
recognition by the Administrator if the Clock is on.
2. The following actions take place upon reaching a Public Forum,
regardless of recognition by the Administrator, if the Clock is off:
Players joining
Players forfeiting

Argument:
First of all, r17: "Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora."

r3: "If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions taken by players are
implemented/recognized in the order in which they were recieved when the
Clock is turned On."

Now r14 takes precedence over r3, since it has higher Chutzpah.
r14: "No restrictions may be placed on when a player may forfeit; any player may forfeit the game at any time (regardless of the clock, the watch, etc.)"
and
"An External Force may become a Player by posting a message to a Public Forum containing a request to become a player and a uniquely identifying name that e wishes to be known by."

Thus, as soon as the Force posts, e has become a Player, since r17 specifies that actions occur
at time of posting.
}}

I make the following CFI:
{{
Statement:

Rule 10 has no effect on the game, other than adding an additional rule to break.


Argument:

Rule 10 is a Rule. Now suppose that:
1. A game entity does not abide by some of the Rules.
or
2. A Proposal or Game Action attempts to circumvent or repress the Rules.
[[I'm being repressed! Did you see him repressing me?]]

Any rule, by its nature, is illegal to break-that's what a Rule is.
Adding another Rule which states that does nothing.
In case 1, regardless of the existence of r10, the game entity is not abiding by
some rule. (What if "some rule" is rule 10? Note that it's impossible to break r10
unless one breaks other rules, with the exception of modifying it. So
first consider r10a, which is r10 without the last sentence.)
Thus with r10a, the only difference is that the game entity is breaking another rule.

Now, since I have shown r10a does nothing, adding the final sentence limits
modifying a rule that otherwise does nothing. But modifying a rule that does nothing
is the same as adding a new rule, so r10 has no effect on the game.

There's still the self-reference to deal with: Suppose you modify the last sentence
of r10 by a 2/3 vote. Does that do anything? Well, all that sentence does is specify
how to modify the rule, so not really.

Case 2 is similar: A Rule is already illegal to circumvent or repress.

Example: Suppose I have a proposal that breaks rule 666. Since I'm already breaking
the rules already, it's no trouble to break rule 10 as well.

}}



-- 
Zarpint            "All thy toiling only breeds new dreams, new dreams;
Jeremy Cook         there is no truth saving in thine own heart."
mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx       --W.B. Yeats, The Song of the Happy Shepherd
grep -r kibo /     "Movements are the problem, not the answer to problems."
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business