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

[Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:03:52AM -0500, Glotmorf wrote:
> 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.

Hmm. Public forum posts are recognized in the game, though, so I could
say that Rob's List-O-Actions is the most recent text I posted to the
Forum that is enclosed in double brackets and double braces [[{{like
this}}]]. And previous machinations have shown that comments are parts
of the gamestate.

> 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.

Right.

As long as you don't seize control of the entire ruleset - or all usable
parts of it - there will be a rule which is changeable, and that can
change other rules.

> 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.

Okay, then I would create the rule first. Then the actions would be
after its adoption.

The point of the Undo rule is so that I can't change the List-O-Actions
to something evil at the last moment.

> 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.

Does that sentence mean anything? It's not circumventing the rules, it's
changing them and then changing them back. Last I checked, changing
rules is a quite reasonable thing for a proposal to do.

> 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.

That was the point of the Undo rule. Perhaps I would be evil enough to
get rid of Undo if I took power like that, but then my rule would be
illegitimate and subject to CFJ because the proposal that implemented it
would be self-contradictory. It promised that the actions taken in it
would either recreate Bob the Voting Fish or repeal Rule 1219. (I would
probably have to add "...and have no other effect in the end", or else I
could presumably create Bob, seize power, and say the proposal did its
job.)

But that's all hypothetical anyway, because I wouldn't want to do what
Glotmorf is doing.
-- 
Rob Speer

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