Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Here's how you create a society...

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> Heh.  I maintain that neither of your possibilities is the case.  The first
> certainly isn't, because a society charter and a rule are defined separately,
> and there's nothing that says something can be both; therefore, per the
> default case, it can't be both.

The default case has, get this, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
WHATSOEVER! Wow! What a surprise! Who would have thought that just because a
rule is totally irrelevant to the situation, it wouldn't matter to the
situation? Gee whiz!

Seriously, Glotmorf, this is ridiculous. The Default case stops me from
changing the gamestate without a rule's permission. But I'm not even the one
changing the gamestate - the ruleset is, by implementing my proposal. And,
since the ruleset is giving me permission (that's the part where it says
that the actions in the proposal take effect), then even if it WERE me who
was doing the changing, it would STILL be legal.

> That leaves the second.  The society rule relates to your society-declaring
> rule, because a society, as part of its definition in the society rule, has to
> have a charter; since the rule wasn't the charter, and since nothing else was
> the charter, the charter didn't exist, per the society rule, which takes
> precedence over your rule via rule number.  Therefore, at the time you were
> named to be the Boss of the society, the society didn't exist.

The rule WAS the charter. What's so hard to understand about that? So far,
every complaint you've made seems to hinge on the belief that WBE didn't
have a Charter, but you have yet to give any substantial, or, for that
matter, insubstantial evidence that this is the case. A rule can be a
charter, and there really isn't anything you can do about it.

-- 
Wonko

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