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

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> 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?

Perhaps not... but doubtless uin would have noticed that his precious
proosal wasn't on the ballot, and informed the Admin of his error.  But in
theory, yes, you *could* vote on a proposal that wasn't on the ballot the
admin sent out, because by the rules it *has* to be on the ballot.

> 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.

But you *could* vote on the ballot if he didn't send it out 48 hours
before the end of the nweek, because by the rules he *has* to.

> 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 not a matter of whether we *would* have, it's a matter of whether we
*could* have.  We could have, if we wanted to, because by the rules it has
to be on the ballot.

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

Sure, and I'll vote :)

Bean