Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Veni, Vidi, Vacancy

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

> From: Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 09:40  PM, Baron von Skippy wrote:
> > > >>Yes, I know, but note the phrase 'Unless otherwise prescribed by the
> > > >>rules'. Moving by Force is defined as 'moving' by the Force rule, and 
> > > is
> > > >>therefore an exception
> > > >>to this rule, as this rule defers to it.
> > > >
> > > >-I think this is a debateable point. No one said the target wants to 
> > > move,
> > > >just that the mover wants it to move. Extending that, if I move myself, 
> > > then
> > > >I want to move myself but I don't care if I am moved - which of those 
> > > takes
> > > >precedence? What if I don't want to move but have to out of necessity?-
> > >
> > > You state my point yourself here; 'No one said the target wants to move,
> > > just that the mover wants it to move.'
> > >
> > > You are the mover of yourself here; it is your free will which is a cause 
> > > of your movement. When
> > > you 'want it to move' you cause the activation of a force power which 
> > > then moves yourself, thus
> > > the subsidiary actions are dependent on your free will. Egro, you cannot 
> > > legally use the force
> > > power to make yourself move.
> >
> > -What I was actually trying to get at was that I stated both of our points 
> > in one situation and was asking whose side took precedence. If I move 
> > myself, I'm also the unwitting target of my own action, just like you 
> > would be if I moved you as a toad/penguin.-
> > > >>
> > > >> >Since that's the accepted definition of "movement on the Grid," and 
> > > since
> > > >> >I'm not doing that, what I'm saying is still legal.
> > > >>
> > > >>This is the base definition of movement on the grid, whose rules are
> > > >>superceded by rules to which
> > > >>it defers, which is, in effect, any rule which says otherwise.
> > > >
> > > >-No other rule says otherwise.-
> > >
> > > The rules on the force say otherwise, by using the word 'moved' to 
> > > categorise what happens to the
> > > target of the power in question. This rule therefore comes into conflict 
> > > with the movement
> > > section of r301, but r301 defers to it because r301 states that it defers 
> > > to any other rule that
> > > proscribes any form of player movement. As in this case the object is 
> > > you, and the rules state
> > > that you cannot move of your own free will, you cannot employ a force 
> > > power to move in this
> > > manner.
> >
> > -Rule 301 defers to any rule which specifically contradicts it. This opens 
> > a whole new nearly-impossible argument for us - does the Force rule 
> > specifically contradict 301, or are they just not quite in agreement?-
> > > Essentially, because it can be used upon a toad, the Force power rule is 
> > > a rule which proscribes
> > > player movement.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> >Also, using your logic, I could escape Wonko be announcing that I 
> > > want to
> > > >> >move wherever e does - any time e moves, clearly I am then moving of 
> > > my
> > > >>own
> > > >> >free will, and since I can't do that, I have to get left behind or
> > > >>perhaps
> > > >> >my position is undefined, since it's not clear what is contrary to 
> > > my
> > > >>free
> > > >> >will.-
> > > >>
> > > >>No, because your Free Will is not a cause of your movement.
> > > >
> > > >-In that case, I can float myself around because I'm not moving of my 
> > > own
> > > >free will, I'm moving with some help from the Force.-
> > >
> > > As you yourself stated above, you decide where the object of your force 
> > > power moves to. Therefore
> > > your arguement is inherently flawed. Your concept of what the force is 
> > > and how it does it has no
> > > bearing upon the game.
> > -Okay, time to open the dictionary...
> >
> > Main Entry: of
> > <snip>
> > 2 a -- used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation <a man of 
> > noble birth> b -- used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, 
> > or reason <died of flu> c : BY <plays of Shakespeare>
> > <snip>
> >
> > So, to move /of/ one's own free will would here indicate that you move 
> > with Free Will as the motive force. Given that there is no other such 
> > force when you're walking/ running/ flying on the Grid, this means we can 
> > still do those. On the other hand, utilizing the Force means that, under 
> > this definition, you are moving of The Force, not of Free Will. And, if 
> > you want to say that 301 defers to everything that says it's wrong, then 
> > this clearly means that 301 defers in this instance to the Force rule. 
> > Penguins can fly, after all. Crazy penguins...-
>
> Ah, but what you do not realize is that penguins are irrelevant to the 
> issue at hand. I submit to the players that the Baron is not, and has never 
> been, a penguin. E is, however, a Toad.
>
> I cite r1183: On any roll from 83 to 90, a random player becomes a Penguin, 
> the effects of which are identical to becoming a Toad.
>
> What are the effects of becoming a Toad? The object is now a Toad.
> What are the effects of becoming a Penguin? They're identical to the 
> effects of becoming a Toad; thus, an object that has become a Penguin is 
> now a Toad.
>
> Thus, when the Baron became a Penguin, e in fact ended up as a Toad; and as 
> nothing has change about said toadliness, e is still such now, Q.E.D.

And I submit that he is a Penguin, but may also be a Toad.  Eir Toadiness 
does not negate eir Penguinness, if e does actually become a Toad.  Which is 
debateable, but also irrelevant.  If the effects are the same, do we really 
care whether or not e's a Toad?

Eir Toadiness.  Sounds like a title.

Orc in a Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

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