|Daniel Lepage on 15 Jul 2003 03:48:01 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [spoon-discuss] I note that...|
On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 08:36 PM, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
a) I am capable of passing a Turing Test b) I consent to the designation of being a player c) I have become a player in the manner described in the rules.(This happened within 10 minutes of "Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:28:00 +0000")d) I consent to be governed by the rules e) This is not a public forum f) Fact (e) doesn't matter, in this context. g) This means that the rules are broken, of course.
That's a curious way to look at it... by that logic, the entire forfeiture system is broken, because even after you 'cease to be a player', you still fulfill the definition of a player, and thus are one... as are all the others who left or got kicked out...
This could be Bad.I can see a case for forfeiture working; the act of forfeiting could be interpreted as a declaration of an unwillingness to abide by the rules. Plus the forfeit rule is a Layer above the definition of a Player.
But Garbage Collection just says 'ceases to be a player'. And is a layer below the definition.
Crap. -- Wonko _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss