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

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> 
> 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.

I see the rules as independant entities because they ARE independant.

> 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.

It doesn't say players can ignore rules whenever any other rule contradicts
them. It just says we must obey all the rules. Which includes obeying r15,
and r33 (which declares that 15 supercedes 256)

> 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.

But the filters only block the light if they're strong enough. And,
according to r33, the Cursed filter is transparent.

> 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.

Well, yes, that's what 'may' means. If I may foo bars, then I may foo bars.
Not, "if I may foo bars, then I may foo bars provided nothing else stops
me". Just, I may foo bars. If you want the rule to work differently, it
would have to say, "players may vote unless some other rule prevents this."

> 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.

The exceptions in rule 15 supersede the earlier text. This sets a precedent
for limiting it outside the rule with other things that supersede the text
of the rule.

> 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.

I do agree that it's a good idea to propose to clear up these things. I
don't agree that the proposal won't do anything - it will change, for
example, the power of Curses.

-- 
Wonko

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