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

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.
>
"Not back on it, Joe; still on it." Just because you still don't agree doesn't mean you're not still wrong. ;-)

Regardless of which, you're trying to make a general argument about non-compliant objects, which may not apply in this specific case. Specifically, 

Rule 293[/1 to /3] said: "Any rule which creates a gremlin which directly affects players must also amend this rule to specify how that gremlin would affect the player with the Idol."
Rule 18 says: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of Rule Changes, which are permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits them. "
Now, r293/1 was *not* prohibiting rule-changes which create rules which create gremlins etc.. If it had been, then the rules in question would never have been created, as rule 32 (which, by r18, is what actually creates the rules a proosal creates) lacks the precedence to overrule it.
As it was, though, it was only regulating what those rules, once created, had to do. Since r293/1 had precedence, I would argue that the rules were created, but, as per that-CFJ-I-keep-referring-to-whose-number-I-think-is-254, the gremlins were not.

> 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.
>
I don't know who you are, or what you've done with Glotmorf, but - I agree with you. ;-)

(At least a little. I don't think the rules are there because "they were created by proposals that were voted in by the players" in some "inalienable right" sense - I think they're there because r293 wasn't worded correctly to stop the proosals that created them.)

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup