Daniel Lepage on 30 Jul 2003 22:48:53 -0000

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

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

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.


spoon-discuss mailing list