Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] This should do it

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/4/02 at 9:43 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:08:13PM -0500, Wonko wrote:
>> As for the current struggle, there's no way Rob can win, because you've
>> always got the last move. Anything you do e can get around, and anything
>e
>> does you can get around; but once Voting starts, then it's just you
>> countering em; e can't fight back.
>
>That's a good point. That could be worked around with a bit more
>difficulty. But I'll take this onto discuss so that Dave doesn't have to
>recognize every step...
>
>My next step would be to make a proposal that does this:
>__Step The Hell Down Already__
>{{
>Perform the actions that were listed in an unregulated object called
>"Rob's List-O-Actions" after the last time they were modified by the
>player whose real name is Rob Speer. These actions are promised to have
>either the effect of repealing rule 1219, or of re-creating Bob the
>Voting Fish. [[In fact, they will almost certainly be the former, but I
>can't say that or else this proposal itself would contradict rule
>1219.]]
>
>To ensure this, after performing the actions, create this rule:
>
>__Undo__
>{{
>At the end of the nweek, players will have the option to vote YES or NO
>on whether the proposal entitled "Step The Hell Down Already" took
>appropriate actions. If the number of players who vote NO is at least as
>many as those who vote YES, the actions taken by this proposal shall be
>reversed.
>
>The player named Rob may not win or gain points as a result of
>implementing the proposal entitled "Step The Hell Down Already". Any
>points which would be given to him shall be redirected to the Gremlin
>Fund.
>}}
>}}
>
>And then I'd set Rob's List-O-Actions to be:
>{{
>1. If Rule 1219 makes reference to a Chutzpah value of 42, increment
>every occurrence of the number 42 in this list and start performing the
>actions over again.
>
>2. Add this paragraph to the rule entitled "Chutzpah": {{A rule with
>Chutzpah 42 takes precedence over any rule with any other Chutzpah
>value.}}
>
>3. Set the Chutzpah of Rule 10 to 42.
>
>4. Add this paragraph to Rule 10: {{Rule 1219 may be repealed by actions
>taken in a proposal entitled "Step The Hell Down Already".}}
>
>5. Repeal Rule 1219.
>
>6. Remove the last paragraph of Rule 10.
>
>7. Set the Chutzpah of Rule 10 to 8.
>
>8. Remove the last paragraph of the rule entitled "Chutzpah".
>}}
>
>}}
>
>Glotmorf could of course simply destroy this proposal, but if that's the
>only way he can defend his rule, it's hardly immutable.

Yeah, I've been trying to avoid executive fiat here.  Otherwise I'd'a done in Wonko's disrespect props, especially considering e voted against them...:)

Okay...now we have Speer's Uncertainty Principle...put my rule in a box with Rob's proposal and see if it's dead when we open it.

Problem with the whole "unregulated object" bit.  If it's not regulated, it theoretically doesn't exist in the context of the game.  So many rules say "there exists such-and-such a thing" that r18 could be invoked to say that existence is regulated, and therefore unregulated existence isn't permitted.  So Rob's proposal would be performing actions listed in a nonexistent object, which is meaningless.  Case in point: I once tried to get around the sushi by posting the text of my message on a website and referencing that in my forum post.  The Administrator refused to recognize it, because it didn't exist within the game.

Aside from that...I could try modifying the chutzpah rule to say it's only changeable by me as well, or extend the reach of r1219 to say the chutzpah rule is only changeable by me, so that the proposal is illegal when it hits implementation.  But that would simply be an amoeba effect, slowly absorbing the rest of the ruleset as a defense mechanism (interesting idea, that), as opposed to making the rule itself self-contained and inviolate.

The Undo rule amounts to a Judgment prop (told you they'd come in handy :), but it's got a fundamental flaw: r204 says, "A rule shall not change any actions which occured before its adoption or alter any game state at a time before its adoption."  That means it'd be illegal for the Undo rule to reverse the effects of the proposal, so the Undo rule doesn't add any additional uncertainty.

Should it be determined that the unregulated object existed, and that the proposal could reference it, we get a bit more metaphysical...If a proposal is a collection of actions to be performed, then at the time the proposal gets implemented it must contain the actions to be performed; therefore, the actions are no longer unknown and the nature of the proposal is known.  If that's the case, the fact that the proposal performs a change in order to permit a second change, then undoes the first change, makes the proposal in violation of r10, which says, "No Proposal may attempt to temporarily circumvent the Rules."  It doesn't break that down into each individual action the proposal takes; it cites the proposal in its entirety.

And finally, the playerbase would have to be total idiots (I won't go there :) to implement this, since, if the actions the proposal would take are in an unregulated object, there's nothing stopping Rob from, any time prior to votes actually being counted, changing the actions in said unregulated object to say "Replace the text 'Glotmorf' in Rule 1219 with the text 'Rob Speer'."  This wouldn't even be a Bush campaign promise: Rob has only said e doesn't want me in power; e has never said e doesn't want emself in power.

Your volley, Rob.

						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