Re: spoon-discuss: Storming the Bastille

[Rob Speer <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:15:04AM -0500, Dan wrote:
> 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.

I've heard about AckaNomic. Game discontinuities aren't fun. (Half the
people decided to change the rules outside of the game; the other half
decided to keep playing by those rules. The game split down the middle.)

Is this a problem that a thread split won't solve? Granted, it will be
very ugly, as we will have to split once for each time that 129/2 has
any effect, but we just might make it through to the next nweek and pass
my proposal or one like it.

You know, if Uncle P had meant for 129/2 to have this effect, it would
be a brilliant way to win. Especially since he very charismatically
convinced five people to vote for it. (Yes, I should have objected to it
louder... but given UP's past failed proposals, I really doubted that
such a logic-defying proposal would ever pass.)

But if this really does cause an irreversible descent into paradox, then
it's Glotmorf who gets the win, because he took the pseudo-Action.
-- 
Rob Speer