Re: [spoon-discuss] p1234

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Orc In A Spacesuit,

> The way I see it, that proposal would reset the day to nweek 27, nday 3 or
> whatever.  And it would not do a rule change as specified as a "rule
> change"; it would make the rule cease to exist.  And I don't think that
> there are any props made after that point that don't deal with the takeover,
> at least that can't be reproposed.

I, uh, hope you realize that this proposal negates its own existance... If
we rewind to nday 3, then this proposal was never issued, and so we never
rewound, and so it's not nday 3, and so the proposal does exist, and so it
doesn't, and so on...

Also, if you set the game to what it was before BvS judged, then "before BvS
judged" is no longer any point in time, as it never would have happened.

I don't mean to sound apocalyptic, but that's pretty damn apocalyptic,
gamewise.

Besides which, the changes are really confusing - the first one's phrased as
a command or request, the second as an action, and the third as a statement
of the gamestate. If nothing else, the prop doesn't really make sense.

And then, even if this could be implemented without causing a paradox, do
you realize what this'll do to Dave? E's gonna have to rewrite large chunks
of the database, including some objects that will need to be outright
erased, and e'll have to somehow figure out what everyone's dimensions were
back then...

Oh, right, and it gets confusing with the Voting Rule, which states that all
proposals which were deemed to have passed take effect; so it should finish
processing things after your reset, resulting in rule-changes that depend on
things that never happened.

Glotmorf:
> It could be argued either way, using de facto
> recognition of the English language to say any thing
> is an object, or invoking r18 and saying that since
> some things are defined as objects things that aren't
> defined as objects are in fact not objects.
> 
> There was a reason for Rule 6.

Um... Rule 6 didn't say anything about 'objects'. It did define 'entities',
but it did it in a way that didn't fit with the way other rules used the
word...

-- 
Wonko

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