Re: [Spoon-business] Re: [spoon-discuss] ooh, entropy!

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Baron von Skippy,

>>>>>>>> With the addition of three new players in this nweek, the Entropy
>>> page
>>>>>>>> deserves a look by, well, a few people.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Wonko and Glotmorf are into the 3-syllable limit. Baron von Skippy
>> is
>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>> into the 1-syllable range, but that was true before the most recent
>>>>>>>> additions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Is that effective immediately or next nweek?-
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -BvS-
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Never mind. Oh, and before anyone complains about my multisyllabic
>>> words
>>>>>> used in business messages after Dave said I was over the one-syllable
>>>>>> limit
>>>>>> (probably too late), I hadn't sen it yet. If this is still a problem,
>>>>> I'll
>>>>>> rerelease the messages, just make sure to leave the text of the
>>> erroneous
>>>>>> message in your complaint...-
>>>>> 
>>>>> What about your proposals this nweek?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Glotmorf
>>>>> 
>>>> -What about them? Dave didn't announce my high entropy until today. I
>>> wrote
>>>> 'em all before that. Unless you want me to rerelease all of my s-b
>>> messages
>>>> since I bought a lot of Gnomes, which ain't happening...-
>>> 
>>> Does high entropy matter? Yes, the entropy rule forbids you to post words
>>> of
>>> more than one syllable. On the other hand, you went ahead and did it
>>> anyway.
>>> Shows what the rules are good for.
>>> 
>>> It's another case of Nomic rules trying to regulate real life - the rules
>>> can accept input from the real world, but they cannot directly force
>> things
>>> to happen in the real world.
>>> 
>>> Don't worry about Entropy restrictions. They're not really there.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Wonko
>>> There is no Restriction.
>> 
>> But is there a spoon?  And is it a spoon-discuss or a spoon-business?
>> 
>> I thought the prevailing theory was that the gamestate consisted of the
>> accumulation of legal actions, and that if a message posted to the public
>> forum doesn't constitute a legal action it doesn't affect the gamestate,
>> and therefore the mere fact that it's on the public forum doesn't mean the
>> action is in fact performed...?  That what we perceive as the gamestate
>> from seeing all these messages isn't necessarily what the gamestate is?
>> 
>> Which is why we have this rule that says, if as part of our collective
>> hallucination we acted as if a given action posted to the public forum was
>> in fact legal, whether or not it was, the gamestate gets adjusted to what
>> it would be if that action was indeed legal.  Les'n someone objects.
>> 
>> So is someone gonna object?
>> 
>> Glotmorf
>> 
> -Hey, I have a thought. If it is true that the rules, as Wonk. says, have no
> real strength to stop things that are "forbidden" [[CFJ 615/1]]then it
> should be not "forbidden" [[CFJ 615/1]] to do things they say are
> "forbidden" [[CFJ 615/1]]. I would note too that "Rule 17" [[proposal 960]]
> says "Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora." It does not say
> that that "action" must be "legal" [[both from proposal 965]] to "occur."
> [[proposal 960 again]] Now, I am like to be wrong, but I will try this in
> any case. What the hell, eh?
> 
> I add "'declaring' [[Rule 14]] that my 'actions' [[Rule 17]] are 'illegal'
> [[Rule 698]]" to the LOGAS.
> 
> To be safe,
> 
> I add "'declaring' [[Rule 14]] my 'actions' [[Rule 17]] 'illegal' [[Rule
> 698]]" to the LOGAS.
> 
> It is a small difference [[proposal 140]], but one I wish to make.
> 
> I am not "breaking" [[Rule 900.A.3.2]] "rule" [[Rule 10]] 10, b/c it can not
> make me "abide by all the Rules in effect" [[Rule 10]]. It can only say I
> must. There is a difference [[proposal 140]].
> 
> Now, I am done. Wonk., Glot., find the holes.
>

Quite frankly, I think you've missed the point of what I was trying to say
entirely. What I meant was, the ruleset has no power to regulate anything it
does not control - if it were to ban you from ever painting your face blue,
you could go ahead and do it anyway. On the other hand, it can easily
regulate things pertaining to itself - your actions are illegal, therefore
it refuses to change itself to encompass your actions. The rules can forbid
us to do things which they can prevent us from doing. They cannot forbid us
to do things over which the ruleset has no power.

-- 
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss