Daniel Lepage on 30 Jul 2003 22:44:31 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 46 BALLOT

On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 04:28  PM, Rob Speer wrote:

On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 12:23:20AM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
Proposal 1603/1: Political Go (Rob)

Shelve. As this subgame depends on the rules defining 'players' and
'checkpoints', it would not be 'the application of a single rule';
therefore, under r1592, it would have no effect.

I think that goes very much against the intent of r1592, unless r1592
was intended to make subgames impossible.

To make a subgame consistent with that interpretation of r1592, I'd have
to redefine Players, Public Fora, nweeks, and so on, independently of
all other rules. Dave would have to declare Writs of Delay independently
for B Nomic and for Political Go. The game wouldn't be able to award
Points at the end. In short, a Subgame would have to be completely
independent from the Nomic, so we might as well just be organizing
chess-by-email matches between players.

The interpretation I prefer is that, since all possible actions in
Political Go happen by applying one rule (which happens to _reference_
other rules), it is valid.

According to r1592, what 'the application of a single rule' means is that 'The circumstances prevailing in the state of the subgame can only be affected as described in the rule which defines that subgame. ' However, the circumstances prevailing in the state of the Go game can be affected by at least one other rule - Forfeiture. (or would you claim that the absence of one of the players doesn't change the state of the subgame?)

Anyway, the shelve vote stands regardless, because the prop doesn't actually address the issue of quitting players - what happens to their stones? Who owns them, who gets the points at the end of the game, who are they now allied to, etc.?


spoon-discuss mailing list