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

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> No no, the 'I' is not the important part, I'm just using it to prove 
>>> my
>>> point. The point is that you're still you, regardless of how many 
>>> times
>>> you've tried to become a player; you're already a player, so turning
>>> into one doesn't change anything about you. It's just like how if a
>>> Toad becomes a Toad, it's still a Toad, not two Toads.
>>
>> -We don't see the problem. The Rules say that players can (indeed, are 
>> the only people eligible to) join this game as players. They never say 
>> what happens after that. So, by our interpretation, we are now many. E 
>> unum pluribus, or something like that. We never took Latin.-
>
>The rules say that "Any entity otherwise qualified as a player may 
>become one by..." There are two important parts in just that opening 
>bit of the sentence:
>
>First, it says an entity *otherwise qualified* as a player may become a 
>player in the specified manner. 'Otherwise qualified' in this case 
>means, "fits all the qualifications for being a player, except that it 
>has never become a player in a manner prescribed by the rules." This 
>means that A) nonplayers may join, and B) players can't.

-That isn't "the rules," that's Rule 26, which doesn't say how you need to be qualified, unlike Rule 13, the (currently) only other rule which talks about players, and which says "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."

"Has become a player in the manner described in the rules" is the key phrase. The /only/ definition of the qulaifications to be a player is that you are a player, and Rule 26 says that you may become a player if you're otherwise qualified. I don't see the problem, besides what you interpret as having happened when I joined 49 times. We say that we get 50 votes. This isn't an on-off switch. Nowhere does anything say that it is. You can read any interpretation into the rules that you want, but what it comes down to is what they say, not what they suggest. And since it doesn't say that one person can be multiple players, this scam is valid under Rule 18. By the way, other Nomics /do/ have a "one player per person" clause, so it isn't a matter of game custom / this is how the game is played. This is twice I've found a hole like this in our rules - the last one was the Ballot Scam. This game seems to assume a number of really basic things without laying them out. Some day we'll go look for more, muahahaha.-

>
>Secondly, it says an *entity* may join. If you intend to join, you must 
>do it as a given entity; that entity becomes a player. You are a single 
>entity, which is already a player; you are not two entities, so you 
>must join as your single entity; but it is already a player, so 
>becoming a player doesn't change anything.

-Yes, an /entity/ did join. 49 times. What is your point? It joined, and it became 49 players. Shall we try again with the e-mail addresses? How long would it take you to notice? Could we gat past the Statute of Limitations? Have we already done so? Does this last bit give us 51 votes, instead of 50? Or, even scarier, am we for once playing with a full deck? Given sufficient time, it could be done. Easily. But we're nice, so we did it in the open. (Never mind that maintaining 50 e-mail addresses would be a bugger.)-
>
>This does, however, give me an idea...
>
-Just so long as it isn't "I know, I'll hit the Baron with something heavy and blunt!"-

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