Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Orc In A Spacesuit,

>> 1226 is FALSE. I've wanted the rules to clarify that point for a LONG
>> time. I believe that's how it should work, but it's not.
> 
> It does.  I prove it.  It's how it should work, and it does.  I prove it and
> you rule FALSE.

No, it doesn't work that way. My new revision should fix it, but until then
it doesn't work that way. Or at least, it's ambiguous enough that the CFI
ruling is acceptable.

>> 1227 is FALSE. Game precedent. The ruling of a CFI is, and should be, a
>> statement of how things are supposed to happen. If CFIs have no authority,
>> what's the bloody point?
> 
> Game precedent: According to game precedent, Societies cannot change the
> rules or all the other nonsense.  By citing game precedent, you make it such
> that __Glotmorf Rules!__ never existed.
> 
> The bloody point:  What's the bloody point of anything, and what's that got
> to do with this?  That's what the rules say now.  We can fix this later, but
> right now CFI's do jack.

Game precedent, and also what's written in the rule, is that CFI's determine
the way the rules are to be interpreted. So, when an ambiguity exists and is
CFI'd upon, the ruling of the CFI determines which possible interpretation
will be followed.

To say, however, that game precedent also states that Societies cannot
change the rules is illogical - by that logic I could also say that game
precedent dictates that the Grid doesn't exist, because originally, it
didn't. Actually, according to game precedent, things work the way the rules
say they do, so if, because of an ambiguity and a subsequent CFI, it is
determined that societies can change the rules, then they can. However, if
the Society rule were to change afterwords, it would no longer neccessarily
be legal.

That, by the way, is what has happened.

>> 1228 is FALSE. See previous CFI. This is Nomic; common sense takes >leave
>> here.
> 
> The rules very clearly state that CFI's may not contravene any rule.  That
> has nothing to do with common sense; it is fact; it is in the rules.
> You say see previous CFI: This CFI that goes along with game precedent; see
> the takeover cfi of uin, #234.  And the bloody point is that CFI's don't
> allow judges to just rule as they please, and even fuck up the game, if they
> choose to do so.

But in this case, there was an ambiguity. The sentence, "Actions in this
rule are not the only actions societies may take" could be construed to
imply that any other action is permissible. Which would be sufficient to get
around all the rule-change restrictions. I don't like the precedent that the
CFI set, or the precedent set by the methods used to get it through, but it
wasn't illegal.

I actually don't believe it's even possible for a CFI to contravene a rule.
The ruleset, when you really look at it, is really nothing more than a
collection of words. Actually, it's worse then that - it's really just a
bunch of binary switches in interesting positions inside Dave's computer.
The interpretation of those rules is entirely up to the players - if we
developed our own method of interpreting the bits, the rules could look
entirely different while remaining exactly the same. Most of the game is
ruled by convention. But a corrolary to this is that whatever the game
dictates as a means of interpreting the gamestate is essentially
all-powerful, as it's the only official way we have of changing our
interpretation.

That, by the way, is why I was so irritated when Glotmorf and bd decided to
fix the results of a CFI. There is no way to stop CFI scams short of making
Dave responsible for all judgments (which, I suspect, is a prospect nobody,
least of all Dave, would enjoy). The only thing we can do, then, is hope
that nobody will exploit the CFI system, as exploiting it can cause
permanent damage to the game's interpretation.

*pauses*

Okay, that got long. Anyhoo, a summary of the gamestate as I understand it
now:

__Glotmorf Rules!__ exists. I cite CFI 1205 for this, as well as Dave's
general analysis.

Orc in a Spacesuit is still named Orc in a Spacesuit. I cite r2 for this,
which states that game entities must have uniquely identifying names, and
the rule entitled __The Administrator__, whose number I don't remember,
which states that the Administrator is David E. Smith. The mention of David
E. Smith is enough to make Dave's name part of the gamestate, and therefore
for any other object to acquire the name, "David E. Smith" is a violation of
rule 2. I would, however, advocate clarification of __The Administrator__ to
avoid future confusion.


**************************** A SEPARATOR LINE ****************************

Okay, enough of that. On to some other stuff:

First of all, I think we need a constitution. I'm looking around, and it
occurs to me that, for example, r0 is no longer as powerful as it once was,
as it now has the least Serial Chutzpah. That makes me nervous. Might it not
be a good idea to, say, turn all rules numbered less than 100 into some sort
of Constitution? Perhaps proposals that modify them would require a greater
majority to pass, and non-Const rules would always defer to them?

Maybe we could call them "const rules"...

Secondly, I have a question regarding the interpretation of the rules.
However, I don't believe a CFI is the best course of action, as there are
three possible ways the issue could go. The question is this (note that the
real issue is the time one; the amphibian sex is just an example): under the
current ruleset, I don't believe it is illegal for a Toad to Make Love to a
Siren.
*checks ruleset*
I'm right, it's legal. Now, here's the situation: A random player finds
emself trapped by a Siren. For purposes of having someone to refer to, I'll
call this hypothetical player Fred Foobar. Fred remains trapped by the siren
for two nweeks, and finally Makes Love to the Siren. Bad luck rears its
head; Fred becomes a toad, "For four nweeks", as per rule 301. But at least
the Siren's gone.
    Some other player, however, doesn't like Fred's sudden untrappèdness
(that's an accent on the e, for those of you whose emailers have funky
character sets). This other player drops a new Big Rock near Fred; and
another Siren appears to ensnare poor Mr. Foobar. Two nweeks later, the toad
Foobar is still in the Siren's range, so e Makes Whoopee again.
    A toadly 3 is rolled again.
    What happens?

I see three possibilities:
1) The 'becomes a toad for 4 nweeks' means that e gets the attribute the
first time, and loses it 4 nweeks later. Thus, Fred becomes Human (or
whatever) again 4 nweeks after the first Toading, two nweeks after the
second.

2) The 'becomes a toad for 4 nweeks' means that everytime e's toaded,
Foobar's Toad-O-Meter clicks itself back up to 4 nweeks, and goes down from
there. Thus, Fred becomes whatever again 4 nweeks after the last time e was
Toaded, for a total of 6 Toadly nweeks.

3) 'Becomes a toad for 4 nweeks' is cumulative - the Foobarian Toadometer
ups itself by 4 every Toading. So, as of the second Toading, Fred's got a
whopping 6 nweeks to go, for a grand total of 8 nweeks of Toady Goodness.

Anyone have any opinions? I can't figure out how to effectively CFI this
(that's one of the advantages of the Suberian system - the Judge just
'decides' on the issue, instead of having to judge TRUE or FALSE on a
statement).



Finally, something I suspect would be useful. How do people feel about these
definitions:
{{
A game object is any single thing, or type of thing, that exists within the
context of the game.

An Entity is a game object which is capable of taking actions.

An Outside Influence is anything that exists outside the context of the
game, but not inside it.

An Agent is an Entity which has free will.

A player is any Agent who is capable of passing the Turing test, consents to
said designation as a player, has become a player in the manner described by
the rules, and consents to be governed by the rules.
}}
The Admin should probably be in there somewhere... something like, 'an
Agent, who cannot be a player, and who has become an Administrator in a
manner prescribed by the rules, or who was Administrator when the game
began'. Any thoughts?


-- 
Wonko

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