Eric Gerlach on 14 Feb 2002 20:42:46 -0000


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

Re: spoon-discuss: Statute of Limitations, Uncle Psychosis, and much much more! 


On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 2/14/02 at 12:56 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
> 
> >Yoiks!
> >
> >Okay.  With all that's followed out of this I think I've been convinced
> >that Rule 129/2 is still broken.  However, UP already showed that 129/1
> >was equally if not moreso broken.  So let's not try to go around breaking
> >the game more, instead let's try to fix it.
> >
> >The facts as I see them:
> >- 129/2 is better than 129/1: 129/1 was seriously broken.  There was no
> >recourse to any action taken by a player as there was no mention of CFJs
> >in it.  If we go back to that, I'll just repeal all the rules after 100
> >and wait a week for it to happen.  Yes, I'll be that much of a jerk (all
> >this back-to-129/1 talk is starting to piss me off, and I've had a bad
> >morning).
> >
> >- 129/2 is flawed:  I think that the attempt to make it a paradox-solving
> >rule as well may have made it a little more powerful than it should be, as
> >people are currently pointing out.
> >
> >- Yoda: "There is another..." ... way of determining game state that is...
> >CFJs.  So Glotmorf, we have one more way outside of the Admin saying
> >stuff.  So we need to make sure that CFJs are "untouchable" by the
> >Statute.  Then we're safe.
> >
> >- We have a paradox recovery mechanism:  Therefore Rule 129 does not need
> >to try to serve that role anymore as well.
> >
> >- Impatience is a flaw:  People are really rushing on this one.  As broken
> >as it may be, we're making steps in the right direction. Right now, we've
> >got a week to sit back and think.  Nothing is happening for another few
> >days.  So lets all calm down and discuss this first, rather than getting
> >way ahead of things with statements like "Well, I propose this as soon as
> >I can".  I think Yoda said it best referring to Darth Vader: "Always
> >looked to the future, never is mind on *where* *he* *was*, what *he* was
> >*doing*."  So let's slow down in the here and now, there is no rush.
> >
> >So what we need to do now is sit back, think, then make a proposal that
> >*fixes* 129/2, *not* one that goes back to the *broken* 129/1.  Here's my
> >suggestion:
> >
> ><proposal_draft note="NOT A REAL PROPOSAL">
> ><title>Fixing the Statue... I mean Statute</title>
> ><body>
> >Revise Rule 129 in the following manner:
> >
> >- Replace "20 days" with "2 nweeks"
> >- Replace "in a message to all players" with "in a public forum"
> >- Replace "any player objects to the statement in a message to all
> >players, in which case the usual methods for determining the current rules
> >and game state shall apply" with "a CFJ is made naming the
> >Administrator as defendant which calls into question the statement, in
> >which case the rules governing CFJs shall apply"
> >- Remove "This rule takes precedence over all other rules"
> >- Give it a Chutzpah of 8
> ></body>
> ></proposal_draft>
> >
> >What do people think of that?  Let's negotiate, try to fix this problem,
> >and whatever comes of this proposal I'll submit it as soon as the Clock is
> >back On.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Bean
> 
> What I object to about 129/2...what I've always objected to...is the
> whole "look behind" concept.  The language of 129/2 clearly states
> that an active change is to come to the game retroactive to 20 days
> prior to the current moment.  It doesn't matter if it's 20 ndays, or
> two nweeks, or whatever -- except that making it ndays instead of days
> means an instance of wdays pushes the date farther back into the past;
> what matters is that it's saying the game state is "altered".  
> Therein is the problem: whatever the game state is today, the game
> state 20 days ago is subject to change, and a sneaky enough person can
> pry open a big enough crack to make that change be undesirable.

Possibly, unless it doesn't have that much power.  I'm going to trust that
the admin isn't going to be sneaky, and he's the only one who can make
altering statements like that.  Care to comment on that?

But you do have a point, the altering could possibly be a bit of a
problem... though I don't see it as severly as some of you seem to make it
out. Uncle Psychosis' intention was to have a rule that brings the "real"
gamestate into line with our "records" of the gamestate.  I think this
rule does this well, but I think it also does a good job of providing a
check in the form of "methods for determining gamestate".

> What is so terribly wrong with a passive statute of limitations that
> says that as of a certain point events and conditions in the past
> can't be objected to?  Nothing's being changed, nothing's being
> altered, you don't have to belly-crawl through a french horn to
> prevent someone doing something malicious.

But our records of the game may not be accurate... If you want to clarify
it by drafting a proposal which makes the Admin's records equivalent to
the gamestate, that'll be better, but as it stands, the Admin's records
may be in error compared to what has transpired *according to the rules*
(See recently reinstated Rule 10). And if that's the case, we either have
to bring the records into step with the gamestate (CFJ or consensus) or
bring the gamestate into line with the records (current incarnation of
rule 129).  Rule 129 covers both of these cases well.

> Fixing 129/2 but leaving it conceptually intact just isn't gonna cut
> it.  Replace objections with CFJs?  Fine.  I'll CFJ that every
> announcement made by the Administrator as of 20 days ago is a bunch of
> malarky.

And you'll be ruled FALSE on most, if not all of them.  We've just
determined gamestate in *exactly* the same way that rule 129/2 would have,
but you've just caused us a *lot* more pain in doing it.

>  It doesn't matter if that's true or false; the CFJ prevents
> the game state from being altered.

Yes it does.  See above.

>  Messages in a public forum?  
> Okay.  That'll probably be easier than my backup plan of gleaning all
> your email addresses out of my email archive and sending the objection
> outside the mailing list.  Take away its power?  Then what good is it?

By take away it's power, I meant over other rules... make it less
powerful, not non-powerful....

> Rather than have r129 in its present form, why not do away with it
> altogether and modify the CFJ rule instead, saying a CFJ can't be
> submitted for an action or event of more than x days ago?

Then we still get discrepancies.  The only way to solve that is to make a
rule which makes the gamestate equivalent to the Admin's records.  That
opens a whole new can of worms, IMHO.

Bean