spoon-discuss: Storming the Bastille

[Dan <wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, Glotmorf, the very action you have taken is the action which
causes 129/2 to break.

It stops the adoption of 129/2 if we assume that 129/2 has already
been adopted.  But under 129/1 it is not a valid action, and there is no
way to prevent the adoption of 129/2.

This is a paradoxical condition that cannot be resolved under the rules.

We have 20 days from the adoption of rule 129/2 to get rid of it or we
will have to invoke the emergency procedures outlined in rule 0.  I'm not
sure that we have enough time.

My suggestion:  That we allow a game discontinuity and revert to 129/1.
This is exactly the sort of situation I was referring to earlier when I
wrote that in some situations we need to be able to chuck the rules out
the window and rewrite the game as something that is playable.

Vive la revolution!

Dan


> I'm not so sure about that.  After all, Uncle Psy's proposal is already dead.
> 
> See...when I posted that objection about its passage, I was following
> r129/2, in that I was objecting to Mr. A's statement that the proposal
> passed.  R129/2 doesn't say that said objection is an action, or even
> that it has to go to a public forum, but must be a message sent to all
> players; there's been enough activity on spoon-discuss that I'm fairly
> confident all players got my message.
> 
> And therefore, in about eighteen days, when the game state is adjusted
> to reflect statements made by Mr. A two days ago, said adjustment
> won't include the passage and implementation of Uncle Psy's proposal,
> because I objected to that part of the statement.
> 
> At which point, r129/2 will not have been implemented, r129/1 which
> was brought about by Wonko's passed proposal will be in place, and
> Uncle Psy will be short by as many points as Mr. A claimed e received.  
> All in accordance with r129/2.
> 
> Which will have bitten us in the butt within 20 days of its passage,
> as I said it would. :)
> 
> 						Glotmorf
> 
> 
>