[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Just because I like the mayhem

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 12:59  AM, Baron von Skippy wrote:

> First off, I Kick Wonko in the Ass for unbridled hostility towards 
> myself, and again for unbridled hostility towards Glotmorf.
>
> Rationale: E kicked us for trying to win. Given the spirit of this 
> game, that's decidedly hostile.

Not for trying to win; for trying to win using someone else's idea. 
That's why we have the Circuit Breaker - to try to stop dozens of 
people from winning every time a bug is discovered, especially people 
who didn't actually discover the bug.

But as Anything McGee has admitted to having no legitimate claim to the 
scam, I drop the two kicks. I'll give back the points if Dave 
recognizes them (but hope e doesn't).

BTW, I still don't think the scam works. I hope nobody is interpreting 
my argument about this as an implicit admission of acceptance, because 
it's not supposed to be.

> And then, as a side note, I cause Wonko to forfeit.
>
> Rationale: Nothing says I can't - permissibility of the unprohibited. 
> And it isn't a gamestate change , since players aren't defined and 
> thus I'm not changing the gamestate by "removing" a "player" who 
> doesn't exist in the context of the game /anyway/ from the game.

Players are defined. From r13 (aptly named "Definitions"):
"A player is any entity who is capable of passing the Turing test, 
consents to said designation as a player, has become a player in the 
manner described in the rules, and who consents to be governed by the 
rules. "

Which, I think, is the thing bd was talking about that you fail to 
repeal in your new player definition prop.

--
Wonko

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