Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] CFI -- Wonko Can't Vote

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/1/02 at 5:40 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> Wonko was cursed by the Witch Gremlin.  Per Rule 256.B.2, this means
>Wonko
>> could not legally vote until the following nweek.  Wonko's claim that
>Rule 15,
>> which says, "Players may vote", takes precedence over Rule 256.B.2 is
>invalid,
>> since rules taking precedence over other rules only occurs if the rules
>> conflict, as per Rule 33.  Since Rule 10, which states, "All game
>entities and
>> the Administrator must abide by all the Rules in effect, in the form in
>which
>> they are in effect", indicates the intent is for the rules to work
>together
>> when possible, a specific-situation prohibition such as Rule 256.B.2
>does not
>> conflict with a general-case permission such as Rule 15; the
>> specific-situation prohibition merely serves to qualify the general-case
>> permission.  Players, after all, may still vote, as long as, among other
>> things, they're not cursed by the Witch Gremlin.
>
>I don't understand what's so hard about this. How can you claim that r15
>and
>r256.B.2 don't conflict with each other?
>
>One says I may vote. The other says I can't. How much more of a conflict do
>you want?
>
>Do the rules read differently than is reflected by the Website?
>
>Here's what I see on the Website, and the conclusions drawn from this:
>
>Rule 15:                               Rule 256.B.2:
>
>"Players may vote."                   "As long as a player is Cursed, e may
>      |                                not vote."
>      |                                     |
>      V                                     V
>I am a player.                         I am Cursed.
>      |                                     |
>      V                                     V
>Therefore, I may vote.                 Therefore, I may not vote.
>                    \                   /
>                     \_____       _____/
>                           \     /
>                            \   /
>                             \ /
>                              |
>                              V
>              Therefore, there is a conflict between
>              rules 15 and 256.B.2
>                              |
>                              |
>                              V
>              Rules 15 and 256 each have Chutzpah 1.
>                              |
>                              |
>                              V
>                        Rule 33:
>
>              If two or more rules have equal Chutzpah,
>              the rule with the lowest identification
>              number takes precedence.
>                              |
>                              |
>                              V
>             Therefore, Rule 15 takes precedence over
>             Rule 256.
>                              |
>                              |
>                 <????????????V????????????>
>                  |Therefore, I may vote. |
>                 <?????????????????????????>
>
>Is there something I'm missing here? Is there already a copy of Glormorf's
>proposal in effect?
>
>As far as I can tell, the answer to both of those is 'NO'.

The problem is that you're not seeing the rules as things that work together, things that create a whole.  You are (perhaps deliberately) seeing the rules as independent entities that compete with each other for control of a situation.

Rule 10 implies the rules have to be considered to work together when it says all players have to obey all rules.  It doesn't say players have to obey whatever rule wins after they all duke it out for supremacy.

I see the rules as a set of filters for behavior.  First you have a blanket rule that permits behavior; that's the original light source.  Then you have rules that say that that behavior isn't permitted under certain circumstances.  They filter out colors of the light, like green and blue.  I don't see that as a conflict; I see the rules functioning together as a system.  I would only see it as a conflict if you had so many filters in place no light got through at all.

One rule says players may foo bars.  Another rule says that players can't foo bars when the sun is grey.  The sum of these is that players may foo bars when the sun isn't grey.  This is not a conflict.  Players may still foo bars.  As long as the sun isn't grey.  A conflict would be if one rule said players may foo bars and another rule said players may not foo bars; that would be a direct conflict between two rules.  A less direct conflict would be if one rule said players may foo bars, a second rule said players may not foo bars if the sun is grey, and a third rule said players may not foo bars if the sun isn't grey; that would eliminate all possibility of fooing bars.  In that last case I'd say the third rule was in conflict because it served to completely negate the first rule.

What you're claiming is that if a rule said players may foo bars, it means unconditionally, without limitation, so that anything less than an absolute unfettered right to foo bars is a direct conflict with the rule.

I find this illogical and unrealistic.  In the case of voting, it's not even true.  That statement you tout of "players may vote" is not totally unconditional; there are various conditions within Rule 15 that limit it, which sets a precedent for limiting it outside the rule as well.

So your flowchart is misleading, and should be restructured:

Rule 15:			Rule 256.B.2:
Players may vote.		Players may vote if they are not cursed.
	|				|
Wonko is a player.		Wonko is cursed.
	\				/
	 Wonko is a cursed player.
		|
	Wonko may not vote.

And in my opinion it doesn't need my proposal to be in effect for this to be true.  The proposal is just to prevent these arguments.

						Glotmorf


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