Donald Whytock on 14 Feb 2002 16:57:19 -0000

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

RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal

On 2/14/02 at 9:57 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> I'm not so sure about that.  After all, Uncle Psy's
>> proposal is already dead.
>Well... no. Your attempt fails on several levels:
>> 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.
>This statement contradicts itself. You said "I object to the passage of
>this proposal", not "I object to this statement". You were *not* objecting
>to his statement about the passage of the proosal, you were objecting to
>the passage of the proosal. Granted, that's easily fixed...
>> 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.
>...but this has some problems too. While it doesn't *say* that the
>objection is an action, nor do most of our other rules, and I think that
>game custom is that any action we take in the game is, in fact, an action.
>Which would mean that the clock being stopped, and Wonko's (rather broken)
>version of rule 17 both prevent your action from working (it's certainly a
>"game-related action", as per rule 3). And even if that were not the
>> 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.
>...while this would be fine (had you actually made the objection)...
>> 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.
> falls over again here. Rule 129/2 doesn't say that things don't
>happen unless it legalises them; it merely says when it does legalise
>them. Rule 17 already defines when things take place, so rule 129/2 was
>created at the end of the voting period, as per r32/8. To claim that
>things only happen when rule 129/2 legalises them is blatantly ridiculous,
>as it could never have come into existence were that the case. All your
>objection, had it occurred, would have done would have been to cause "the
>usual methods" to apply. Since, under those methods, r129/2 was created,
>objecting to something which is already legal has no effect.

Nice try, but you forget the last sentence of your 129/2: "This rule takes precedence over all other rules."  That means it takes precedence over r16, which says actions may only be taken in public fora.  It takes precedence over r17, which says actions have to be recognized by the administrator.  It takes precedence over r3, which says actions can't be taken when the clock is off.  It even takes precedence over r204, which says a rule can't affect events prior to its adoption.  And if "game custom" is considered an unwritten rule, r129/2 takes precedence over that too.

In addition, the phrasing of the rule suggests that it is the rule's intent to not follow game custom.  Most rules, after all, talk about actions taken, messages posted to the public forum, etc., while r129/2 specifically talks about messages sent to all players, as opposed to actions or forum postings.  R129/2 doesn't even say my objection has to be recognized under the existing system for rendering judgments, which would involve a forum posting; it merely requires that I object.

As for "the usual methods of determining the game state", there's no definition of exactly what those are.  My dictionary defines "usual" as meaning "commonly met with or observed in experience."  The methods we've most commonly met with or observed in experience are the administrator announcing that a proposal is recognized, the administrator announcing the vote tally, the administrator announcing the passage of a given proposal, and the administrator updating the website's rule list.  That's the usual method.  If I object to any of these statements by the administrator, the usual method becomes simultaneously illegal and required.

So let's just make it official, as per your r129/2:

I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 passed.
I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 received six affirmative votes.
What the hell...I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 was recognized and part of the ballot.

That'll pull the horizon a bit closer, since the proposal was recognized as on the ballot three days before it was implemented.