Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: CFI

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/18/02 at 10:19 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>Alright, I'm in no condition to do counter-analysis right now, but I may
>as
>well.  Everyone else feel free to contribute.
>
>On with Glotmorf's Analysis:
>
>>At the time of the incident in question, the first
>>line of Rule 578, subsection C, read:
>>
>>"Actions in this rule are not the only actions that
>>societies may take."
>>
>>This statement mandates that societies can take
>>actions other than those listed in Rule 578, but does
>>not in any way regulate what those other actions can
>>be.  Therefore, by Rule 18, "whatever is not
>>prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted
>>and unregulated," so societies can take any action at
>>all.
>
>Hmm.
>"Actions in this rule are not the only actions that societies may take."
>This senctence regulates all actions societies can take, although it
>doesn't
>really do much in the regulation.  However, it does regulate, and
>therefore
>Rule 18 does not apply.

Consider mathematics...

What is the solution set for "the value of X is 1"?  Obviously, the answer is 1.

What is the solution set for "the value of X is not 1"?  Lacking further qualifiers, it would be all numbers not equal to 1.

What is the solution set for "the value of X is not limited to 1"?  Lacking further qualifiers, it would be all numbers, including 1.

So what is the solution set for "Actions are not limited to those in this list"?  The answer is, all actions are possible.

The sentence in r578.C does in fact regulate actions, yes.  It flat-out says the actions listed in the rule are not the only actions a society can take.  It does not say what further actions can be taken, where a list of said actions could be found, or what criteria might be used to determine what actions can be taken; it simply mandates that there be actions other than the ones in the rule that a society can take.

While regulating possible society actions inasmuch as requiring additional ones to be possible, the sentence fails to regulate exactly what those actions are; therefore, per r18, all actions are permissible.

>>The second line of Rule 18 reads:
>>
>>"Changing the Rules is permitted only as explicitly or
>>implicitly described by a Rule other than this Rule or
>>a set of Rules not including this Rule."
>>
>>Since the line from Rule 578, subsection C, says
>>societies can take any action, it implies societies
>>can change rules, thus satisfying the "or implicitly"
>>requirement of the line from Rule 18.  Therefore,
>>societies are permitted by Rule 578 to change rules.
>
>"only as explicitly or implicitly described by a Rule"
>
>It is not described in any rule that Societies can change rules.  Nor is
>there any hint of this description.  All the sentence does is talk about
>permission, in "may" take actions.  There is absolutly no description of
>rule changing.  Therefore Glotmorf's point is invalid.

It was stated that actions listed in the rule are not the only actions a society can take.  Changing rules is a possible action.  Therefore, the fact tha societies are not limited to the actions listed in the rule implies they can, among the large number of actions possible, change rules.

>>This, however, would be true even if Rule 18
>>conflicted with Rule 578, since both rules have the
>>same Chutzpah, and Rule 33 states,
>>
>>"If two or more rules have equal Chutzpah, the rule
>>with the highest identification number takes
>>precedence."
>>
>>Therefore, Rule 578 would take priority.
>
>If the first argument I stated (about regulation) is ruled true, then this
>is all moot.  However, if it's not, here is a counter for this:
>Rule 33 also states:
>"The unconditional permitting of an action is a Blanket Permission. The
>conditional prohibiting of an action is a Specific Restriction. A Specific
>Restriction for an action is not considered to be in conflict with a
>Blanket
>Permission for that action, unless the implementation of the Specific
>Restriction eliminates any possible circumstance in which the action can
>be
>performed."
>Therefore there are no conflicts; changing rules is nicely prohibited
>except
>as described in the rules.

That quote from r33 doesn't apply, since there is no blanket permission.  There is in fact a blanket prohibition that says rules can't be changed except as stated explicitly or implicitly, but blanket prohibitions aren't covered by r33.

>The rest of Glotmorf's chain of events is totally moot, as I'm pretty sure
>one, if not more, of my above arguments is true.

Sorry to disappoint.  Well, okay, I'm not.

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix1.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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