Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Who wins?

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> It seems we've crossed the line from mildly ludicrous to totally absurd. 
> Okay:
> On Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 05:22  PM, Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
>
> > There are three points of contention that will determine who grabs the win 
> > in the current nuttiness.
> >
> > First, is whether or not a player can modify a charter to a society, or 
> > set some object to be a society (As in Wonko making himself his new 
> > society's charter).
> > If that is possible, Wonko wins.
> > If that is not possible, then Wonko does not win.
> > I believe it is not possible, as "Players may not change the game state."
>
> You left out the important part "This rule defers to all other rules." R18 
> is part of "all other rules"; thus, it supersedes this.

Deference only comes into play if there's confliction.  There is not.  
"Players may not change the game state" is a prohibition; rule 18 says 
"whatever is not prohibited...is permitted".  Otherwise, players could 
change the game state all they wanted.  Sorry.

> > Finally, there is whether or a society, which is empowered to modify its 
> > charter by the rules, can modify its charter to be a rule.
> > If so, I win.
> > If not, I do not win.
> > I believe that they can.  Here's:
> >
> > First, you have to decide if modifying a charter to be a rule counts as 
> > Rule Change.  We have:
> > "A Rule Change consists of the creation (enactment), modification 
> > (amendment), or deletion (repeal) of a rule."
> >
> > I do not think that modifying a charter such that it becomes a rule counts 
> > as a Rule Change.  It is not a creation of the rule, as it already existed 
> > while not a rule.  It is not modification of a rule, as it is not a rule 
> > until the modification happens.  And nothing's being deleted.
>
> It is the creation of a rule: "Every modification to a revisable object 
> that does not eliminate it from play creates a new version of it."

But only rules, CFI's, and proposals are reviseable objects, according to 
the rules.  A charter is not.  After the modification, it is, but until 
then, it is not.  That is, if the actual /modification of a charter to be a 
rule/ does not count as a rule change.  If it does count as a rule change, 
then it already counts, so all this stuff saying that it counts again really 
is moot.

> Modifying the charter creates a new version of it; this new version would 
> be a rule; therefore, you'd be creating a rule.
>
> That's regulated. But even if somehow I'm wrong, this still doesn't work 
> because:
>
> > Now, I might be right, I might be wrong.
> > If I am right, I win just with what I've shown so far.
>
> Not so. The regulation is not on "Rule Changes", but on changing the rules. 
> "Rule Change" is specifically defined, but 'changing the rules' must be 
> interpreted according to its standard english meaning, that is, 'altering 
> the set of all rules'.

Must it?  Something that's up for contention.  I think that, since a Rule 
Change is defined in the rules, that anything synonymous, such as "changing 
the rules", has a similar meaning.  If I am right on this count, I win.  If 
not... well, I still have other ways.

> > If I am wrong, then there's still this:
> >
> > "Changing the Rules is permitted only as explicitly or implicitly 
> > described by a Rule other than this Rule or a set of Rules not including 
> > this Rule."
> >
> > Modifying a charter is described by the Societies rule.  Whether or not 
> > that charter is also a rule doesn't change the fact that the modification 
> > is described.
>
> But modification does not include transmutation as a possibility, i.e., 
> although you're allowed to modify a proposal, you can't modify it by 
> turning it into something other than a proposal.

Sez who?  Transmutation sure seems like a modification to me.  And 
proposals, which are a set of requested changes, are "revised", not 
"modified".  Revision is a change of text.  Modification is a change.  Any 
change.

> Otherwise, I could amend my prop __Don't try to do these things yourself__ 
> to be a rule in layer 5 with chutzpah 1200 that reads

If revision includes the ability to transmute; from what I can tell, it only 
means changes to text (or drawings or such, if you really want to be broad). 
 Such actually could be a possibility, though I doubt it would hold up in 
court unless you bribed the jury.

> > Now then, I suppose that it could possibly be ruled that none of this is 
> > legal.  In such a case, I need to summon up my backup plan.
> >
> > WARNING:  The following is confusing as heck, and I'm not going to do it 
> > anyway unless I haven't already gotten a win.  It's a backup.  If you are 
> > in the slightest confused about what's going on now, don't even bother 
> > with trying to read it.
> >
> > IF I have not already been Awarded a Win during Nweek 40:
> >
> > OEPEVA modifies its charter to also be a society, with itself as a member, 
> > and also modifies that charter/society to have the name "CharterExploits".
> > OEPEVA modifies it's charter, CharterExploits, to be its own charter.
> > OEPEVA modfires it's charter, CharterExploits, to have 100 Charm.
> > As CharterExploits has the same charter as OEPEVA, it also does what I say 
> > it does.
> > CharterExploits modifies it's charter to have the following sentence 
> > appended to it: "If this society has positive charm, it gives 1 charm to 
> > Orc in a Spacesuit."
> > That should get me a load of charm.  Now to take care of that entropy 
> > problem:
> > CharterExploits modifies its charter to be an Ancient Monolith, including 
> > all that entails, including being a grid object.
> > The charter/society/monolith wasn't created just now, only modified, so 
> > it's entropy absorption isn't set now.  Or maybe it might be, depending on 
> > your interpertaion.  In any case:
> > CharterExploits modifies its charter to to have the location (12,4), and 
> > an Entropy Capacity of 1000.
> > I kneel facing the Monolith and pray to the gods of planar geometry.  It 
> > absorbs 3d6 entropy.  That should put me down below the maximum.  I win.
> >
> > Congratulations, you're looking at the first society which is also its own 
> > charter, and is also the charter for another society, and is also a grid 
> > object.
>
> Actually, even if this were legal at first, it all breaks apart on the 
> first line. Societies are not bodies of text, so as soon as you make the 
> charter a society, you lose the text. After that, you have no control.

Societies are not bodies of text.  But a charter, which is already a body of 
text, also becomes a society, it simply gains the properties of a society; 
nothing makes it lose its previous properties.

> But regardless, you can't modify something into something else. The word 
> "Modification", as both my dictionary program's list of dictionaries (yes, 
> all of them) and game custom dictates, applies to minor changes of 
> structure; not to complete replacement by a different object. Melting down 
> a sword and making plowshares out of it is not a modification; it's a 
> destruction/reconstruction.

I am not "melting down a sword to make a plowshare"; the "sword" is still a 
sword, I'm just adding some attachements so it's also a "plowshare".  And 
minor truly is subjective; Something major would be be changing the charter 
into a Ford Pickup in my back yard.  Minor truly is in the eye of the 
beholder.

In any case, I thought of this wierd way of doing things first, but thought 
it a bit too wierd except to hold as a backup plan.  We can pick it apart 
now, but I think it'd be easier to wait until we see how all the other scams 
turn out.

Orc in a Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

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