Re: [Spoon-business] RE: RE: [spoon-discuss] "effects related to proposal failure"

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

19/07/2003 23:05:32, "Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>>>By that logic, so is Wonko's win for having posted a sentence declaring
>>>>>victory when a proposal fails.
>>>
>>>>I don't remember whether that scam was in an actual proposal.  If it was
>>>part of a real proposal, then yes, it is legal.
>>>
>>>You don't get it. The clause activates when a proposal fails. Or passes.
>It
>>>doesn't matter whether it was in a failed proposal, as long as it is
>>>activated by a failed proposal.
>>>
>>>>>Or my win for having a piece of paper on my
>>>>>desk reading 'Whenever a proposal passes or fails, the rule "No Win For
>>>You"
>>>>>is deleted if it exists, and then I win.'
>>>
>>>>Nope.  That wasn't in a proposal.  It's only legal if it's a clause in a
>>>proposal.  Writing it on your arm or on your desk is not a failure
>>>>clause in a proposal.
>>>
>>>Because it was an effect specifically related to failure, it is exactly
>the
>>>same as any other such effect that isn't in the rules or anything with any
>>>in-game force. Neither a failed proposal nor a random post nor a piece of
>>>paper on my desk has any force within the game, so it doesn't matter where
>>>it is written. It is both a) specifically related to proposal failure and
>b)
>>>completely without force.
>>>
>>>So far, Anything, You're the only person I've seen claiming that it
>matters
>>>that the clause is in a failed proposal. That's just the vehicle for the
>>>failure clause, just as effective as the paper on my desk or Wonko's
>>>message.
>
>>No, its not, because the clause in a prop which reads '...if this proposal
>fails then...' is an
>>'...effect specifically related to proposal failure...' as mentioned in
>r15.H
>
>So is any effect of my piece of paper. It is specifically stated as an
>effect of failure, since it activates when a proposal fails.
>
>>Your piece of paper has no bearing on this, because there is no clause that
>says your piece of
>>paper has any effect. The failure clause has an effect because r15.H says
>it does.
>
>r15.H says nothing of the kind. It says that effects specifically related to
>proposal failure occur. The effect of my piece of paper has no effect,
>obviously, because nothing gives pieces of paper on my desk force. But
>nothing gives failed proposals any force either.
>
>>you are looking at the arguement from the wrong angle. you see this as
>being an illegal action,
>>when in fact it is a legal action based on an unorthodox interpretation of
>the ruleset, not simply
>>ignoring the rules, which is what your piece of paper does. You piece of
>paper is invalid due to
>>r10, where as the failure props are legal for exactly the same reason.
>
>My piece of paper ignores the rules, yes, because no rule says pieces of
>paper have any effect. But the proposal has no effect either, because no
>rule gives any power at all to failed proposals. It only seems to have an
>effect because there can be "effects specifically related to proposal
>failure" - but they have to come from a source with some legitimate
>authority. Proposals have such authority only after they pass. So if your
>proposal passes, its failure clause is valid, but if it fails, your failure
>clause has no effect.

The difference is that a proposal, failed or not, i part of the gamestate, whereas your piece of paper is not

>
>>I expect to see a CFI from you tho
>
>Fine. I name as defendant in this everyone who has submitted a proposal with
>a failure clause. I do so all at once, so I only name a defendant one time
>and thus I do not violate rule 126 by naming multiple defendants.
>
>{{
>A failure clause in a proposal and a piece of out-of-game paper with a
>phrase on it about what happens when a proposal passes or fails either both
>take effect or both do nothing.

I dispute this, based upon the above rationale: That a failed prop is still part of the gamestate, which makes all the difference
>
>Reasoning: There are two possibilities here.
>
>The first is that an "effect specifically related to proposal failure" as
>allowed in r15.H has to come from an instrument that actually has force in
>the game.

It doesn't. It does have to come from within the gamestate however, ergo, a failed prop is fine.

 Such an instrument might be the ruleset [[Rules can say, for
>instance, that when a proposal fails its owner loses points]] or a society
>charter [[for instance, a society might say that if a member's proposal
>fails, then e ceases to be a member]] or a proposal [[for instance, proposal
>A can state that if proposal B fails, player C will win; then if proposal A
>passes and proposal B then fails, player C wins]]. There are probably other
>things it might be.
>
>However, a failed proposal has no force under the rules. Therefore, a failed
>proposal is not such an instrument. Neither is a piece of paper on my desk.
>Thus, the failure scam doesn't work, and neither does my desk memo. I
>believe this interpretation to be correct.

Nothing in the rules says that an effect predicated on failure is illegal in a prop. The rules do disallow effects from outside the gamestate, which is why 
your piece of paper won't work.

>
>Another possibility, however, is that by being an "effect specifically
>related to proposal failure", the proposal's failure clause skirts by the
>Default Case and changes the gamestate. It simply doesn't matter that failed
>proposals have no force, because the proposal has found a loophole that lets
>it give itself the necessary force to do this anyway. Of course, by that
>reasoning, the note on my desk - which exploits the same loophole - has
>given itself force despite the fact that ordinarily a piece of paper in not
>able to change the gamestate.

As noted, your note is not of the gamestate

>
>Either way, though, the CFJ is true. If either one takes effect, then so
>does the other.
>}}

This CFI should be judged false, for the reason given.

By the way; I am disappointed in you. I expected at least an attempt to place a failure clause in the CFI

>
>Inspired by a comment above, I'm going to try to exploit the loophole (if
>there is one, which I highly doubt) in yet another fashion.
>
>I hereby create a society, called "The Winning Team", whose charter reads as
>follows:
>
>{{
>Whenever a majority of members agree, the charter of The Winning Team may be
>changed.
>
>Whenever any proposal fails, every member of The Winning Team is awarded a
>win, in the order in which they joined The Winning Team. After each member's
>win, the rule "No Win For You" is repealed, if it exists. Immediately after
>the last such win occurs, a rule is created whose title is a random string
>of ten ASCII characters that do not occur in sequence in the ruleset or in
>any proposal, with chutzpah 5, and the following text:
>
> {{
>Players may not win. Whenever a Win would be awarded to a player, that
>player instead gains ten Charm and the title "Nearly Victorious."
>
>If this rule has been existence for more than an nweek, it is repealed.
> }}
>}}
>
>I hereby invite all players to join The Winning Team. I don't know if it
>will work - I give it about a 10% chance, depending on who judges various
>CFJ's - but anyone who wishes can join me in trying.

Well, regardless, nothing stops me from joining you in this exploit, so i hereby join The Winning Team.

>
> -- Teucer

SkArcher


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