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

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 05:17  PM, SkArcher wrote:

> 19/07/2003 21:50:03, "Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

It's not only an unorthodox interpretation, it's also a wrong one. Just 
because something is part of the gamestate doesn't mean that it has the 
force of rule, or the power to make any change to the gamestate. Simply 
defining an 'effect of proposal failure' in a part of the gamestate is 
not enough to make it count as one with respect to the rules, any more

To put it more clearly:
r15.H states that "When a proposal fails... other effects specifically 
related to proposal failure, such as Charm and Entropy adjustments, 
occur."
Now, for such an effect to exist, it'd have to be defined by the rules.
Except, hmmm, there's nothing in the rules defining the effects you're 
mentioning in your proposal.
Therefore, the effects your proposal describes do not exist.

The text itself is part of the gamestate, because the proposal is; but 
the objects described by the text, namely these 'effects', don't exist 
in the gamestate unless the proposal passes.

And, of course, said passage would negate the purpose of the failure 
clause.

>  You piece of paper is invalid due to r10, where as the failure props 
> are legal for exactly the same reason.

r10? What does that have to do with anything?

> I expect to see a CFI from you tho

Technically, since you seem to be in the minority here, *you* ought to 
be the one CFIing, because if nobody CFIs, we'll assume it doesn't work.

--
Wonko

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