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

[Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> 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.
> 
 That's approximately the line or reasoning I went through yesterday
evening, yes. 
 
> But Garbage Collection just says 'ceases to be a player'. And is a 
> layer below the definition.
> 
 I'm currently interpreting my GCed state as meaning that I'd
implicitly stopped consenting to being designated a player, but the
fact that I consent to being designated a player doesn't have to be
announced anywhere (it just has to be true).

 But yes, it's all doooom...

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