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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/13/02 at 11:49 PM Baron von Skippy wrote:

>> >>>>>> 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.

Piece o' cake.  It's only an action if it's defined in the rules, otherwise it's not an action.  If an action is declared by the rules to be illegal, that means it's not a valid action as defined by the rules.  Therefore, illegal actions are in fact not actions at all, and don't in fact occur.

Therefore you can't violate the rules.  Actions you make that attempt to do so don't actually happen.

						Glotmorf


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