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