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

[Glotmorf <nomicmorf@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

Which came first, the chicken-scratch or the
concept-egg?  If we go by the idea that the gamestate
is a thing independent of any representation of it,
and that the gamestate includes the ruleset, then the
magnetic field states of the portions of oxidized
material in Dave's computer become representations of
the ruleset rather than the ruleset itself.  The
gamestate Is, Dave's copy of the ruleset Claims to Say
What Is, and our reading Dave's copy of the ruleset is
Our Perception of What Is.  Neither our perception nor
Dave's hard drive, from an absolute perspective, is
necessarily accurate.

But you knew that.

> 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.

I would like to take this moment to point out the
fundamental difference between uin's scam and CFI
1205: uin's scam was an attempt to change reality,
whereas CFI 1205 is (whatever people may think of its
judges) an interpretation of reality.  I honestly
believe my interpretation of the former Societies rule
is a valid interpretation.  I believe other people
honestly think that too.  My approach for
demonstrating said validity may have been what people
might call Machiavellian, but that doesn't discount
the validity.  Here, it seems, is where Wonko parts
from Mr. in a Spacesuit: Wonko doesn't disagree with
what I was saying quite as much as the baseball bat it
was written on.

> 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?

Layers.  The ruleset should, perhaps, have layers,
each layer containing one or more rules.  Lower layers
defer to higher layers, and rules in the same layer
duke it out with each other.

Chutzpah attempts to do this, but it's too easy to
just slap another zero onto the new rule's chutzpah
number.  Make it necessary that a new rule be placed
into a layer, even if a layer has to be created or
inserted for it, and attach a certain level of
difficulty to the creation of a new layer, or the
movement of a rule from one layer to another.

We can even, for the geometrically inclined, introduce
cells to layers, which can contain multiple rules that
relate to each other (to break up some of those
monsters), and which can even have layers of their
own.

Dan tried to do something like this, didn't he, with
three layers?  I say, why stop at three?  At the
moment, for all practical purposes, the ruleset
consists of a mess of layers, each containing one
rule.

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

Looks too much like a Pascal declaration.

> 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?

Encapsulation:
1. "for 4 nweeks" is an absolute, and further toadings
are irrelevant during it.

2. "for 4 nweeks" relates to the most recent toading,
if toadings are layered.

3. "for 4 nweeks" means four additional nweeks after
the current toading ends.

> 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).

I'd say #2 is the clear choice.  Someone gets toaded,
e stays that way for four nweeks; that e was toaded
before is irrelevant, so that e would have been
untoaded in two nweeks is too.  In that instance, I'd
say that since the rule doesn't say toading has a
cumulative effect, toading doesn't have a cumulative
effect; cumulativeness (?) would be an effect over and
above that stated in the rule.

> 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?

I'd still like to see a default provision for
dictionary use, but other than that it looks okay.

Would you define the Administrator in terms of eir
powers and responsibilities in the same rule or
another?

-- Glotmorf


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus ? Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss