[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] CFI responses

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 10/3/02 at 8:21 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> I submit some CFIs:
>> 
>> Statement: Wonko is the Boss of WBE.
>> 
>> Defendant: Glotmorf
>> 
>> Analysis:
>> Proposal 1001, as one of its actions, included 'Make Wonko the Boss of
>> WBE". Although Glotmorf attempted to create eir own society entitled WBE,
>> this was a violation of r2, as the names WBE, Wealthy Bastard Enterprises,
>> and the Wealthy Bastard were all already in use.
>> 
>> Therefore, Wonko is still the Bastard of WBE.
> 
> As defendent, I offer the following analysis:
> 
> The analysis above presupposes that Wonko became the Boss of WBE when eir
> proposal was implemented.  In fact, there was no WBE for Wonko to have been
> made the Boss of at the time that action was to have been performed.  The
> procedure Wonko followed to attempt to create a society was not a procedure
> that was permitted by the rules, as other procedures had been outlined and
> comprised the regulation for society creation.  The rule Wonko's proposal
> created was not sufficient to create a society, as a society is required to
> have a charter and the rule did not supply one.  Therefore, Wonko's proposal
> failed to create a WBE for em to then be made the Boss of.

And problem #1 rears its ugly head:  My action WAS permitted, even if there
wasn't a charter - nothing regulates the content of a proposal. Also, if my
proposal wasn't creating a society by the normal methods, then it couldn't
have conflicted with the society rule at all - it would then merely be
creating a rule, which in turn creates a society. Effects of rules created
by proposals, as I have said, and as has been supported by many CFIs, are
not effects of proposals.

You seem to be basing your argument on the idea that if r18 doesn't permit
something, then it must be impermissible. That's not true. Actions are also
permissible if OTHER rules say so, too. Or did you forget that? I'm allowed
to make proposals REGARDLESS of whether or not another rule mentions a
specific proposal style I can use.

Problem #2: My above argument actually isn't neccessary - the Charter was
declared, as a rule.

> Wonko has contended that the rule eir proposal created was in fact the charter
> for a WBE.  In fact, at no time, in either the proposal or the rule itself,
> was it stated that the rule or any portion of it was meant to be a society
> charter.  The proposal said it was creating a rule, and didn't mention a
> society or a charter.  The rule said a society existed, and that certain
> conditions applied to it, but at no time presented anything to serve as the
> society's charter.  Therefore, in no way did Wonko's proposal supply a charter
> for a WBE, and, since societies are required to have charters, thus was a
> society named WBE not created.

Right. So, for example, when you tried to create your own WBE, and you never
specifically said that you were declaring a charter, that also must not have
worked. Excellent interpretation, except that it's WRONG.

> With an absence of a WBE, I was entitled to create a society called WBE,
> following the procedure dictated in Rule 578.  As this was a WBE that was not
> in existence when Wonko's proposal attempted to make em the Boss of WBE, Wonko
> was not made the Boss of my society.  Therefore, Wonko is not the Boss of the
> currently-existing WBE.

Nice try, but no cigar. You're being absurd. I'd call it nitpicking, except
nitpicking is arguing about things in the rules that are tiny and
insignificant. You seem to be doing more of a 'notpicking' thing - arguing
on behalf of parts of the rules that AREN'T there at all.

>> Statement: A rule can also be a Society's Charter.
>> 
>> Defendant: Glotmorf
>> 
>> Analysis:
>> According to rule 578, __Societies__, a Societies Charter is a Game
>> Document that contains a Society's public rules. If these rules are
>> contained within an official Game Rule, then that Game Rule must be the
>> Society's Charter.
>> 
>> Also, as nothing forbids a document from doubling as a Rule and a Charter;
>> therefore it is permissible by rule 18, __Permissibility of the
>> Unprohibited__.
> 
> As defendent of this CFI, I offer the following analysis:
> 
> This statement depends entirely on how the proponent is defining the word
> "can".  If one is defining it to mean "the possibility exists, no matter how
> remote or how much work would be involved to bring it about", I would probably
> agree to the statement.
> 
> Recent history, however, has demonstrated that the proponent would define the
> word "can" to be a mandate, as in, "Players can vote" and "Players can make
> proposals".  It should be assumed, therefore, that the proponent's intent with
> the statement is to create a situation in which use of a rule as a society's
> charter may be imposed on the game, regardless of the nature of the rule or
> the situation in which it exists.  This I would strongly disagree with.

Well, apart from that fact that you're misquoting (it's, 'players *may*
vote', not 'players *can* vote'), you're also being very obfuscative. What I
am CFIing is that it is currently possible for a rule to also be a Societal
Charter. It's legal on the grounds that nothing says it can't be.
Permissiblity of the Unprohibited, remember? The one you used faultily a few
paragraphs up?

> Addressing the proponent's analysis, it appears to be eir contention that the
> public rules for a society are an entity in and of themselves, and may
> manifest themselves anywhere, even without being identified as such.  I do not
> argue against the possibility that a rule can specify that a society's charter
> consists of a particular block of text, but that is different from claiming
> the entire rule is in fact the society's charter.  I do not argue against the
> possibility that a rule can say its entire text comprises the charter for a
> society, but that is different from claiming that that can be assumed if the
> rule fails to say it is the case.

It seems to me that *you* are the one contending that the public rules are
an entity in and of themselves. I am contending that since a Charter is
defined to be the document containing the public rules, then whatever
document contains public rules for that society is that society's Charter.
YOU'RE the one who seems to think that Charters need to be seperate objects.

Nowhere does it say that we need flashing lights and signs pointing straight
at a Charter before it can be officially called a Charter. The Charter is
wherever we put the Public rules.

> I do argue that when it is never officially stated that a particular block of
> text comprises a society's charter, and that when a rule that someone claims
> is a society's charter is a mixture of regulations that apply to the society
> and regulations that extend beyond the scope of the society -- as, for
> example, in the case of Rule 1073 -- then it cannot be assumed that that rule
> is the society's charter, and in fact can be assumed that it is not.
> 
> Whether or not Rule 18 allows the possibility of a rule being a society's
> charter to exist, that cannot be assumed to be the case if it is not
> explicitly stated.

Why not? It fits the definition of a Societal Charter - a document which
contains the set of publicly visible rules which regulate a Society. The
rules say it counts as a Charter, so it is.




I do think, though, that somebody should revise the society rule - it's
pretty badly phrased, especially if Glotmorf's idea of Charters is what the
rule was supposed to say in the first place. 'Cause it certainly doesn't say
that right now.

-- 
Wonko

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