| Doig, Gavin on 9 Jan 2002 16:47:51 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proosals |
> One wonders if we have anyone around here who is inclined to
> do things just to be difficult....hmmm.... ;-)
>
If you think that, you're missing the point.
> > 150 [[redundant, thanks to 152 (and I think anyway ;-))]]
>
> It wouldn't be redundant thanks to 152 if you things went your way and
> CFJs ceased to have the force of law.
>
Yes, it would. Because the term "game state" isn't defined by the rules, its meaning becomes a part of (what we don't yet explicitly call) game custom. I've seen your objections that this allows you to be a "rogue player", but they're unfounded. Consider that you could just as easily go rogue by insisting that the term "the rules" in fact applied to you (perhaps changing your name to enhance your claim), or even that the rules were not in fact written in english, but instead in a secret language which merely looks a lot like english, and that what they actually say is that we must worship you as a god.
The reason why neither of those things work is that we're *already* operating on a game-custom basis. There's nothing in the rules that says they're written in english; indeed, any such provision would be meaningless, as it would need to be assumed to be in english to have any effect. The reason that the rules work as being in english is because that's what we choose to interpret them as - to put it another way, because that's what game custom says.
Assuming standard english usage is generally fine, but there are times when the rules are unclear, or where they use new terms for which we don't yet have a customary interpretation. That's how a game custom-based CFJ system works; it explicitly establishes how we're going to interpret the rules (whether a player actions succeeded or not is a consequence of the rules), where they're unclear or in dispute.
> > 155 [[doesn't work]]
>
> Hmmm. I have seen the light. Let's take everything that doesn't work
> 100% perfectly out of the ruleset right now.
>
When I say it doesn't work, I don't mean that it fails to work perfectly, I mean that it completely fails to do anything (except require some extra wording to sidestep, which is hardly an improvement). In fact, there's no point in even trying to regulate proosal bribery - proosals can alter the rules, so they can simply alter the rules such that bribery is possible. The only way (well, it might be possible to create an unmodifiable rule, but that conjecture is unproven) to prevent proosals from bribing players is simply not to vote for them if they do. True, r155 isn't harmful, but it is redundant. And pointless. And it doesn't do anything. And I'm on a self-imposed and fairly pointless quest to eliminate all forms of redundancy, pointlessness, and redundancy, and not-doing-anything-ness. And neologisms, probably.
uin.
DISCLAIMER:
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended recipients(s)") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is privileged, proprietary and/or confidential within the meaning of applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender of this message as soon as possible.
The views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily be the views held by Azurgroup Limited