Gavin Doig on 13 Feb 2002 13:20:44 -0000

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

RE: spoon-discuss: Proosals.

> [[ The Rule ]]
> 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 means that whenever you see the word 'proposal', it should be treated
> as if it were 'proosal'.
And vice versa.

> An analogy would be when, while doing algebra, you
> state that x is equivalent to 3. If x was already defined to be 5, then you
> haven't just defined 3 to be equivalent to 5. You've redefined the value of
> x. So by stating that 'proposal' is equivalent to 'proosal', that means that
> the value of 'proposal' is now 'proosal'. You have not, in any way, changed
> the definition of proosal, any more than you would have changed the
> definition of 3 in algebra.
That's a really, *really* bad analogy. A better one: you state that x and y are equivalent (which is *not* the same as "let x = y" in a(n imperative) programming language). If x was already defined to be 5, then now so is y. "Proposal" and "proosal" are both words, which in your analogy are variables. You're treating them as if "proposal" were a variable, and "proosal" a value. The values are the meanings of the words, as distinct from the words themselves (or the strings of characters that compose them, if you prefer). Now, you might run into problems if you try to set "proposal" and "CFJ" to be equivalent (since now either word would mean what both words mean) but since "proosal" has no meaning, there are no such problems here.

> Or, if the rule were interpreted to mean proposal==proosal, then the rule is
> a paradox, because it isn't true. The triple equal thingy is a comparison
> operator, not an assignment operator, to use programming terminology.
No. It's not saying "x==y". It's more like saying "let x==y"; changing things so that it is true, not asserting that it is.

> Anyhow, this isn't just an attempt to cause your 'scam' to fail ­ I agree
> with your 'scam', and if you fix the CFJ to use the right word, I'd judge it
> TRUE. Your 'scam' just drew attention to this problem, which has always been
> a problem.
It's not a scam, it's an accident. But if you're convinced that the rule is completely meaningless, then "proosal" would fall under the standard "unambiguous misspeeling" thing (which we don't have in the rules, but I'm pretty sure we do in game custom (as all my proosals have been accepted as proposals)) as an unambiguous misspeeling of "proposal".


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

Win a ski trip!