Wonko on 13 Aug 2002 00:18:09 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Still exploiting loopholes b4 my prop closes them all

Quoth Baron von Skippy,

>> I drink 1 glass of champagne
>> I drink 1 glass of champagne
>> I drink 1 glass of champagne
>> I drink 1 glass of champagne
>> I drink 1 glass of champagne
>> [[Note: the above is permissable as Rule 503 states that all that is
>> necessary to take the above actions is to state I do, and does not require
>> a target glass of champagne.  If someone wants to Call For Inquiry on this
>> (again =:D), go right ahead.  Also, if these actions do indeed succeed,
>> then I do not become Inebriated, and I do stagger around 5 times at the end
>> of the nweek, and I do gain 5d5 style points, as per rule 503.]]
>> Orc In A Spacesuit
>> Current Status: Doing his darndest to exploit all the loopholes he can
>> without breaking the game.
> -Eh... I don't care if you feel like getting smashed. uin did that a while
> back, and I suppose we forgot about the loophole...-

No, we CFI'd the problem away. The relavent CFI was CFJ 688. Although The
Baron ruled that uin's action was legal, it was appealed, and the Upper
House judgment, part of which was actually submitted by the Plaintiff
emself, :
Glotmorf: FALSE, analysis:

Glasses of champagne are described as units of alcoholic beverage. The class
of "alcoholic beverages" has been determined by example in various rules to
consist of possessable objects, since there are mechanisms for acquiring,
acting upon, and destroying them. This means the existence, or lack of
existence, of said objects is a part of the game state, and therefore
changes to the existence of said objects are changes to the game state,
which is managed by Rule 393.

Rule 503 defines an action that can be conducted upon a glass of champagne,
and also dictates a mechanism for changing its existence (destroying it).
There is no mechanism in that rule for causing a glass of champagne to
exist; however, Rule 502 provides a mechanism for the creation of generic
alcoholic beverage objects, so glasses of champagne inherit this mechanism.
Thus, the creation and destruction of "glass of champagne" objects is
regulated, which means it's covered by Rule 18.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that the number of glasses of champagne
Plaintiff claims to have drunk in eir action existed at the time of eir
action. Plaintiff has not proven, or even indicated, that e brought said
glasses of champagne into existence prior to eir claiming that e drank them.
Under Rules 18 and 393, eir drinking them does not cause or imply their
existence. Therefore, since drinking a glass of champagne is an action
performed on an existing object, and since the objects didn't exist,
Plaintiff did not in fact drink them.

Regarding the analysis Plaintiff provided with eir CFJ, I believe it is
flawed in that it didn't take into account the properties a glass of
champagne inherits from its parent alcoholic beverages class.
Regarding the analysis the original judge, Baron von Skippy, provided, I
believe it is flawed in that it assumed purchase was the only means of
causing something to exist.

The Reality Police: FALSE, analysis:

On the analysis of the original judge, I point out that the lack of a
defined price for something does not make it possible to buy that thing for

On the analysis of the original CFJ, the argument given was that the fact
that the rules permitted one to drink a glass of champagne, without
explicitly requiring that one have such a glass of champagne, allows one to
drink a glass of champagne without having one. Alternatively, this can be
viewed as a distinction between performing the action "drink" on "a glass of
champagne", and merely performing the action "drink a glass of champagne".
However, this is flawed, as the rules clearly define a glass of champagne as
an object, so the clearest interpretation is the "drink" "a glass of
champagne" one, which requires a glass to drink.

Congenital Optimist: (forfeit of game, no analysis will be forthcoming)"


spoon-discuss mailing list