Gavin Doig on 12 Feb 2002 14:22:58 -0000

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

RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates

> But according to the precedence rule, later paragraphs only take precedence
> if they conflict with earlier ones. The statements,
> "Players submitting proposals in haiku form earn 10 extra points"
> and
> "A player who submits a proposal in haiku form earns 10 Score points if the
> proposal is adopted"
> do not conflict with each other, and so the submission of a haiku proposal
> is worth 10 points.

> OTOH, I'm not sure the term 'proosal' means anything. The rule which uses it
>states that 
> "For the purposes of the rules, and for all other purposes within the game,
> the term "proposal" shall be considered precisely equivalent to the far
> superior term "proosal". "
> This seems to be to be defining the term 'proposal' to mean 'proosal'. It
> does not specify a meaning for the term 'proosal'. So all that rule does is
> redefine proposal to mean nothing, which does nothing because a lower
> numbered rule defines what a proposal is and takes precedence.
> Thus, it appears that UP didn't get 10 points for submitting proosal 376
> because there is no proosal 376.
It's not redefining "proposal". It's saying that "proposal" and "proosal" are equivalent. Equivalence is commutative - a==b means exactly the same as b==a (those are the 3-barred equals sign thingies, not C-style comparisons, not that it matters). Since the 2 terms are equivalent for game purposes, effectively the game is blind as to which we're using - "proosal" and "proposal" are, in game terms, the same. In support of this interpretation, I offer the game custom that it's always worked so far - I haven't submitted a proposal since proosals came into existence, and I think Antonio also submitted a proosal. Admittedly, that doesn't mean we haven't been wrong, but it seems wrong (and may well cause some degree of administrative headaches as we realise the ballot isn't correct for this nweek) to deliberately choose the interpretation we haven't been using so far (and which in any case requires paraphrasing the rule, rather than just going with what it says), when both are val!
id, just to cause one "scam" that only happened by accident to fail.


Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at

Win a ski trip!