spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: This one should work.

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/9/02 at 5:05 PM Tyler Crosby wrote:

>{{ __Immunity Idol, v2.5__
>
>Amend rule 293 by adding the following -0- delimited text following the
>list.
>
>-0-
>Any rule which specifies the existance of a Gremlin must also state how
>that
>Gremlin affects the player who holds the Immunity Idol.
>-0-
>
>
>-0- Thus Spake The Voice -0-

Perhaps what you're looking for is

"Any proposal or rule which creates or modifies a rule to specify the existence of a Gremlin, but fails to also create or modify a rule to specify how said Gremlin affects the Player who holds the Immunity Idol, shall have no effect."

Yes, this effectively grandfathers the existing disputed rules.  Bummer.  That means the existing disputed rules still exist, and their Gremlins still affect the holder of the Immunity Idol.  I suggest, then, that someone propose something so that they don't.

I also suggest we try to work on establishing criteria for how illegal events fail to happen rather than simply saying such-and-such game object "must" do something if it wants to exist.  Demanding a game object do something does not prevent non-compliant game objects from existing; you merely wind up with non-compliant game objects.  Claiming that non-compliance is equivalent to non-existence is getting back to the old argument that illegal acts don't occur, and that our temporary perception of an illegal act is simply a hallucination that has to be dispelled.

Besides, if we can't have rules in conflict, why do we have conflict resolution mechanisms?  What matters if a rule defers to a rule with a lower number or higher chutzpah?  The moment there's any clear indication of conflict, that rule can't exist, right?

I don't buy it.  In my opinion, part of the reason for having conflict resolution mechanisms is that, if there is a conflict between Rule A and Rule B, we can consciously decide which rule we'd rather have around, rather than automatically blowing one of them away.  Maybe the fact that Rule B is in defiance of Rule A indicates there's a problem with Rule A.  Note that that is exactly what we're noticing now: that there's a problem with the Immunity Idol rule that should be fixed.  If the rules that conflict with it are simply culled, the problem might not otherwise be addressed.

I still maintain that the existence or nonexistence of rules should be determined solely by the proposal mechanism, and that the conflict resolution mechanism is sufficient.

Which means y'all will probably laugh yourselves silly over my next proposal.

Bummer. :)

						Glotmorf