Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/4/02 at 1:30 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>Here is the flaw in your logic.  The administrator, except as explicitly
>outlined in the rules, does not in any way affect the game state.  So,
>notwithstanding your objection to him saying that proposal 377 was on the
>ballot, it still was, *according to the rules*, which are our only
>guidepost in how to play this game.
>
>In fact, if rule 129 didn't exist in the way it does now, and the Admin
>said the gamestate is blue... it wouldn't be, because the rules don't
>allow
>it (in fact, even with rule 129/2 it wouldn't be... until 20 days
>later).  The Admin doesn't affect gamestate, if fact, the roles are
>reversed:  Gamestate dictates what the Admin says (or at least that's how
>it should be).
>
>Bean

Uh-huh.  And are you saying that if the Administrator had not said that it was Nday 8 and time to vote, you'd've voted anyway?  And that if he hadn't put p377 into the email that listed the ballot, you'd nevertheless have cast a vote on it?  Mr. A almost didn't send out the ballot on Nday 8 for Nweek 8; I doubt I'd've sent him any votes until he'd sent me a ballot first.  And I'd bet a Pizza Hut Stuffed-Crust Supreme that if he hadn't put p377 into that ballot, no one would have voted on it.

I submit that we didn't vote on p377 because it was on the ballot; we voted on p377 because Mr. A *said* it was on the ballot.  Which means said statement affected the game state.

It's an awful temptation now to suggest to Mr. A that he conduct an experiment to that effect...

						Glotmorf