Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] CFI -- Dropping da Big One

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/5/02 at 12:15 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 10/4/02 at 6:52 PM Wonko wrote:
>>
>>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>>>
>>>> I make the following CFI:
>>>>
>>>> Statement:
>>>>
>>>> Points, shillings, units of raw material, big sticks, balls of wax,
>>> athames,
>>>> piles of kindling, towels, large and small lumps of scrap metal,
>pinball
>>> guns,
>>>> gnomes, beer cans, alcoholic beverages, shears, cotton sponges, bonus
>>> boxes,
>>>> shares of stock and airspeeders ceased to exist as of the beginning of
>>> nweek
>>>> 24.
>>>>
>>>> Analysis:
>>>>
>>>> The above objects, within their respective types, are indistinguishable
>>> from
>>>> one another.  They are all defined with rules whose Chutzpah is 1.
>>>>
>>>> Rule 2 states all game entities must have uniquely identifying names.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, the objects mentioned above did not exist as of the
>beginning
>>> of
>>>> nweek 24.
>>>
>>> Seems to me that a better interpretation might be that your proposal
>failed
>>> to create rule 6, on the grounds that 'Entity' was already defined in
>such
>>> a
>>> way that this wasn't an issue, and by altering r6, your proposal was
>>> violation r2 by making it so that there were entities without unique
>names.
>>>
>>> Side note: If Mr. Morf's interpretation stands, then we also don't have
>a
>>> Grid. Or more accurately, we have a Grid, but it has no Grid Squares or
>>> Surface Squares, 'cause they're all non-uniquely named. But that's okay,
>>> because the interpretation is bogus anyway.
>>
>> Of course grid squares are uniquely named.  Each is uniquely identified
>by its
>> (x,y) position.  That's why I didn't include service malls either,
>because
>> each is uniquely identified as the service mall at (x,y).  Same with Big
>> Rocks.  Sirens have names.  Gnome bags are one per player, therefore each
>> gnome bag is <Player X>'s gnome bag.  Lots of things are uniquely named.
> But
>> points aren't.
>
>I don't think I'd call a Grid Square's coordinates 'names'. For example,
>under the old Tower of Babel rule, multiple objects were considered to be
>Grid Squares, and they all had the same coordinates. Nothing says that each
>Grid Square must have unique coordinates. And even if something did, I'm
>still not sure that I'd call them names; they're more like attributes than
>names.
>
>As for the others, they're not uniquely identified like that. The fact that
>there is a Service Mall on each of those specific Grid squares doesn't mean
>that there can't be more than one; there just happens not to be at the
>moment. Same thing with Big Rocks, since although there are rules to try to
>discourage people from putting two Rocks on one square, there's no rule
>that
>actually *says* there can't be more than one. And again, even if there were
>such a rule, the position isn't a name, it's an attribute.
>
>Sirens I'll agree have unique names, simply because Dave is required to
>name
>them. But the others still don't look uniquely *named* to me.
>
>> Funny that you're saying my proposal would have failed to create rule 6.
>> According to your logic in other arguments, I can create proposals, and
>> proposals can change the ruleset any way they want.  Can't have it both
>ways,
>> dude.
>
>Hmmm... Perhaps I am waffling a bit here... I thought my argument was
>really
>that anything could be put into a proposal, and the changes could be
>implemented however we wanted provided it wasn't made illegal by a rule
>which superseded the one which implements proposals... Where did I say that
>any proposal could do anything?

You want me to look it up? :)  I can, but it'll take a while.  Basically, your argument was that part of the vote resolution process was that the effects of the proposal are implemented, period.  I seem to recall arguing with that interpretation...

						Glotmorf


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