spoon-discuss: DimShip paradox

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See...there's a problem with the DimShip rule as it's being interpreted currently.  Wonko's claim is that if a Player has two DimShips, the first one uses the Player's real dimensions to produce eir virtual dimensions, and the second one uses the Player's virtual dimensions to produce eir new virtual dimensions.  But that means the DimShip rule can be applied to itself.

The problem is, that makes it impossible to determine one's virtual dimensions.  Not runaway acceleration...flat-out impossible.  The first time a buoyant or ballasted dimension is checked, the rule says to use the virtual dimension.  Okay, what's the virtual dimension?  It's the real dimension, plus the buoyancy, minus the ballast.  So what's the real dimension?  The rule says to use the virtual dimension...

This results in instant paradox, because it's impossible to determine precisely what the real dimension is.  Which means the first time anyone with a DimShip took some action or wound up in a situation that required eir dimension to be checked, the game would have become an emergency because the dimension couldn't be checked.  I don't remember if Rule 0 existed before or after DimShips, but some action would have to have been taken then.

I don't seem to recall that happening.

Okay, so if it's too late to go all the way back to when the first DimShip was launched, let's consider the farthest-back time a dimension was checked, and can still be CFI'd.  That'd probably be the first message in the nweek before last posted to spoon-business by someone with Entropy ballast, since its legality would have been dependent on eir Entropy.  That should have triggered an emergency, and I know Rule 0 was around then.

That didn't happen either.

Which forces me to invoke the concepts of "game custom" and "precedent".  Oddly, neither of those terms is defined in the rules, much like some other words that have come under scrutiny recently (we're not done with that argument, Dave :), but as I understand it they're both recognized, accepted and employed concepts in the average Nomic game.

Basically, we've been doing this all along, and treating the rule as if it had particular meaning, and the game didn't break.  Which either means the game should be broken now, or the very fact that it's not broken sets a precedent.

I don't see any halfway measures in this that allow Wonko the Win e'd claimed.  And if I had to decide (which I may well if a CFI happens), I'd decide the game wasn't broken, and therefore the rule is interpreted in the manner that doesn't break the game.

						Glotmorf