Geoffrey Spear on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:15:56 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] [s-d] Logical Hand Grenade: 5 Seconds Later

And, by the way, I claim my Answer is CONSISTENT, although only
because my reasoning doesn't create precedent.  If this were Agora,
I'd appeal and humbly request that the case be remanded to me.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Jamie Dallaire
> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  2) the future game actions provisions does not permit you to make a
>  >  game action at a time that is contingent on future events (such as on
>  >  an nday actually ending). then again no one has made this
>  >  interpretation yet and no one said anything about me throwing the hot
>  >  tomato at 0x44 in this manner. i don't know but there might be
>  >  something in the temporal prime directive that disallows this way of
>  >  doing things (?)...
>  My Answer totally missed the whole "not the end of nday 8" thing, but
>  yes, I do believe the Temporal Prime Directive prevents this from
>  being a paradox.  Whether or not the nday actually ends 3 minutes in
>  the future cannot have any effect on whether your action occurs or
>  not.  My Answer accidentally applies what I think is a common sense
>  approach, which is to liberally interpret "3 minutes before the end of
>  nday 8" to mean "at 23:57 UTC on nday 8, assuming the Clock is On at
>  that time" and have your action occur then.
>  A less liberal approach would just make specifications of ntime
>  relative to events that can be expected to happen in the future
>  completely meaningless and hold that your attempt to schedule a future
>  action failed from the outset.
spoon-business mailing list