Fwd: [spoon-discuss] Return

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's what I sent out a while ago, explaining my reasons for thinking 
that all Charters were destroyed. To the best of my knowledge, no 
response was ever posted to it by any player. I don't know whether that 
indicates that nobody has any evidence against it, or simply that 
nobody read it; but it is my rationale for the judgment of TRUE on CFI 
1481, and my explanation of why 1480 and 1479 both should be TRUE as 
well.

If anyone has a counterargument, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003  5:06:15  PM US/Eastern
> To: Spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [spoon-discuss] Return
> Reply-To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> List-Id: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss.nomic.net>
>
> Well, I left town for two days, and much seems to have happened in my 
> abscence. I'll be stringing out a list of responses in a moment (there 
> are too many to put all in one message) but I'd like to start with a 
> brief note on the possibility that somebody won.
>
> It is my belief that Charters ceased to exist when their definition 
> was removed from the game. Certainly, we took it as a given that 
> objects such as the Cursed Sushi and DimShips winked out of existence 
> upon their undefinitions; that alone seems to suggest that Charters 
> did the same.
>
> Orc makes an analogy to a proposal simply stating, "create an object X 
> with the following properties". It is my belief that an object so 
> created would immediately be destroyed, unless there was some portion 
> of the ruleset which provided for its existence.
>
> My reason for believing this is that *everything* about the game, from 
> proposals to Gremlins to the Grid, exists solely because the rules say 
> it does. There is no actual object called Barney which the ruleset 
> merely records the behavior of; there is only a virtual object 
> referred to by the rules as 'Barney', and thus part of the rules. If 
> we were to repeal the definition of Barney, the 'Barney' that exists 
> as far as the game is concerned would cease to exist entirely.
>
> An object created directly by proposal is a bit of a sticky issue... I 
> could see the claim being made that the r15, which states that when a 
> proposal passes "The effects specified in the proposal occur in the 
> order listed in the proposal.", implicitly defines objects created by 
> said effects... But that's not the issue here, because Charters were 
> not defined by a proposal which said, "let there be charters that do 
> this:$BLAH"; they were defined by a rule which said, "There may be 
> charters; charters are this : $BLAH". When that rule, or at least the 
> portion of it that defined charters, ceased to exist, all Charters did 
> as well.
>
> The attempted wins other than mine all relied on preexisting charters; 
> so they all failed.
> The creation of new charters is, I admit, prohibited; so my win scam 
> failed.
>
> So nobody won. Let's just fix things and go on.
>
> --
> Wonko
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

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