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

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> 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...

No, no, no, the argument was that part of the vote resolution process was
that the effects were implemented, unless the rule implementing them was
superseded. The whole problem here is that *lower-numbered* rule said it
couldn't happen, so that ought to supersede it. Except in this case, I don't
think there was actually a conflict (yes, I've changed my mind). Hold on a
sec whilst I gather my thoughts...

-- 
Wonko

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