Re: [spoon-discuss] I note that...

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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