Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] r10

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 09:03  PM, Mark Karasek wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:49:35 -0400, Daniel Lepage 
> <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > > From the former Rule 15:
> > > > > "Proposals are processed in increasing integral order of serial 
> > > > > number with respect to each other, but are otherwise considered to 
> > > > > occur simultaneously, in the "instant" between the end of one 
> > > > > nweek and the beginning of the next nweek."
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, B Nomic became a nation at the same moment that the 
> > > > > laws of all nations were repealed. Even if this hadn't been true, 
> > > > > since p1596 created a rule rather than performing an action, I 
> > > > > took this to mean that it was a *continuous* action; otherwise, 
> > > > > why bother making it a rule?
> > > >
> > > > This has, I believe, been discussed before; the conclusion reached 
> > > > was that the effects of the proposals happen 'simultaneously in 
> > > > order' - i.e., the gamestate changes to what it would be if they 
> > > > were implemented in order (that's the "processed in increasing 
> > > > order" bit); but the change itself is a single change that happens 
> > > > all at once.
> > > >
> > > > Note that the rule says that they actually *are* processed in 
> > > > order, while they're just *considered* to have happened 
> > > > simultaneously. This was put in, I believe, to prevent things like 
> > > > Automation scripts from stepping in between proposals ("as soon as 
> > > > pX passes and defines something with a hole, but before pX+1 closes 
> > > > the hole, I do the following:").
> > >
> > > Now that I think about it, this discussion is irrelevant. In 
> > > addition to nations, the proposal also repealed laws of 
> > > international bodies; since B Nomic ha(s|d) players from multiple 
> > > countries, shouldn't it qualify? (hint: Yes)
> >
> > It's debateable whether they qualify as laws if we're a nation; they 
> > certainly aren't laws if we're not a nation. Gaming rules and laws 
> > are two very different things.
>
> (from dictionary.reference.com): Law - 1. A rule of conduct or 
> procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. Do our rules 
> not fit this description?

I wouldn't say so. They don't exactly cover 'conduct or procedure' in 
any real sense, as the entire game is fictitious.

It's like the rules to Monopoly - although they dictate how one behaves 
when one decides to play the game, they have no actual force of law.

A better way to put it would be to say that the rules do not in any 
sense regulate what we can do; they only regulate how an imaginary 
gamestate responds to what we do. I send some text through some scripts 
and over some cable/phone lines, and the "game" changes depending on 
what text I sent. But it doesn't govern our behavior.

--
Wonko

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