Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Gutting the Carcass

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

19/07/2003 12:17:02, Mark Karasek <mkarasek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:25:43 +0100, SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>wrote:
>
>>>>> Besides which, the text of your proposal only matters if your prop 
>>>>> passes; so the failure bit is only a failure effect of your prop if 
>>>>> your prop passes.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily.  The point of the failure clause is essentially, "If 
>>>> you choose to pass this prop, then this will happen.  If you choose to 
>>>> fail it, this will happen instead."  The ruleset doesn't preclude the 
>>>> latter portion of that statement, but the ruleset does allow things 
>>>> that are not otherwise prohibited.  It is legal.  Whether it is ethical 
>>>> or proper is the question -- not that either quality is important in 
>>>> Nomic.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Rule 15 says that when a proposal passes "The effects specified 
>>> in the proposal occur in the order listed in the proposal.", while 
>>> making no such provision for failing proposals (obviously). Remember, 
>>> things listed in a proposal are not game actions--they are _proposed_ 
>>> game actions, and become game actions if and only if the proposal 
>>> passes. Otherwise, when a proposal that, for example, created a rule 
>>> failed, the rule would be created anyway because it wasn't specified 
>>> that it should only be greated if the proposal passes.
>>
>> What is different here is that these actions are specified ONLY to happen 
>> if and when the prop fails, and therefore fall under the clause;
>>
>> Other effects specifically related to proposal failure, such as Charm and 
>> Entropy adjustments, occur.
>>
>> from r15 section H
>>
>> In short, this section specifically says that there can exist actions 
>> that are performed when a prop fails, without limiting them to currently 
>> extant rules. So a prop with a fail clause technically works. It 
>> shouldn't, but it does. See the patch prop that I submitted for a fix.
>
>Without limiting them to currently extant rules? It doesn't need to; 
>anything which is not part of or provided for by the ruleset (e.g. game 
>actions, societies, etc.) has no effect on the game. The rules do not state 
>that the contents of failed proposals have any effect on the game, 
>therefore they do not. QED.
>

That is not explicitly stated, and the above clause does not limit it out. I agree it is an oversight, but there you go

SkArcher 


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