Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Speaking of mayhem...

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/30/03 at 10:40 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 10:20  PM, Baron von Skippy wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> -I'm not sure how I missed that one. On the other hand, it and Rule 26
>> have an interesting interaction.
>>
>> I make a CFI:
>> {{
>> Statement: It is not possible for new players to join B Nomic.
>> }}
>> <snip>
>> Note I didn't change my name, I joined /again/ 49 times. And all 50 of
>> me are using this account.
>
>I'd like to suggest an alternative interpretation, one which was, I
>believe, already discussed and accepted when WC pointed out that e was
>still a player. You, the human being, are an entity who consents to be
>governed by the rules, can pass a turing test, consents to be called a
>player, and has become a player as prescribed by the rules. You are,
>therefore, a player; following the process again won't change this,
>because there's still just one of you.
>
>I'd also think that an entity "otherwise qualified as a Player" is any
>entity that fits the qualifications, but is not a Player already, in
>which case you're not eligible.
>
>Finally, if you become a new player, *you* become a new player; i.e.,
>any old player that you might have been ceases to exist, because you're
>someone new now. So if you can indeed become a new player despite
>already being one, then you are now Vulcan, a newbie who joined this
>nweek; the Baron was before your time, having vanished mere instants
>before you joined. You have, in effect, usurped your past self like a
>butterfly takes over from a caterpillar. Although your past self was
>considerably better off, and had a lot more in the way of style,
>titles, respect, etc. So it's less like an ugly caterpillar becoming a
>beautiful butterfly, and more like an ugly caterpillar turning into a
>beautiful lump of damp formica. With no points.
>
>But I don't think you need to worry about booting yourself out, since I
>think the interpretation where you can't join if you're already playing
>is already established.

Dang it.  I only amended Athena's Society's charter to allow for garbage-collection, not forfeiture.  Otherwise I'd have half of the Baron's former points...

Actually, the key words are in r26: "may become a player".  To become something is to imply one formerly wasn't that thing.  Since the Baron was a player, e can't become one, since that isn't a change in state.  And I'm going to be kind and not suggest e forfeited emself automatically in order to achieve the state of formerly-not-a-player.

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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