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

[Mark Karasek <mkarasek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed,  6 Aug 2003 21:00:18 -0500, Baron von Skippy <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> > > > Well, it looks like we just repealed the entire ruleset (see rules 1 
> > > > and 1637). Luckily, I was prepared for such an event. Since there's 
> > > > nothing preventing me from doing so, I define the following to be the 
> > > > new ruleset. (Rationale: since there are currently no rules, we can 
> > > > assume either that everything is legal or that nothing is legal. Since 
> > > > the latter would make the game rather pointless, I will assume the 
> > > > former is true.)
> > >
> > > Well, first of all, our rules or not laws, international treaties, or 
> > > government regulations. They're game rules, like Monopoly or Scrabble.
> > >
> > > And secondly, I really hope I'm right about what I just said, because 
> > > our rules aren't just part of the game, they *are* the game. If the 
> > > rules are gone, you can't create new ones, because you're not even a 
> > > player, because there's no such thing as a player, or even a game to be 
> > > played. If you're right, and r1637 did indeed destroy our ruleset, then 
> > > the game is Over. No question of 'is everything legal or illegal?', 
> > > because there's nothing under which to be 'legal or illegal'.
> >
> > B Nomic is (was?) a soverign nation. The laws of a nation are the rules 
> > created by that nation governing its citizens; in our case, the ruleset. 
> > As for your second point, I took a different view that would allow us to 
> > keep playing. Was I wrong? Maybe. If so, I guess it's time for C Nomic.
> -If I had 167 points for every time someone has suggested starting C 
> Nomic, I'd probably have won. Anyway, the rules are called rules, not 
> laws. I suppose that was an oversight on my part, not calling them "laws" 
> to reflect their change in status, but hey, aren't we glad I didn't?

I've responded to this arguement elsewhere.

> Something else occured to me. If the rules were repealed, why in the name 
> of my multiplicity did you send a new ruleset and a declaration of your 
> victory to spoon-business? There are no public forums any more. You can't 
> win your little game, because you didn't define them. And with me (and 
> everyone and their baby sister) disputing you, how can you resolve all 
> those disputes, again without a public forum? Cr-freaking-ikey.

Because that's the place where it made the most sense to send it. If that 
wasn't a valid way to change the gamestate then there's _no_ way to change 
the gamestate, and the game is over. If you agree that the game isn't over, 
then s-b is a public forum, according to Rule 3.

> And what do you mean, in your Rule 4, by "Any entity that is not a player 
> may not interact with the game?" Now, let's see, who isn't a player? 
> Well, Dave and Joel spring to mind... so if they can't interact, then 
> Dave can't recognize your new ruleset, and so we're trapped in a sort of 
> limbo.

Dave didn't need to recognize it, since there was no rule stating that e 
had to.

> I have an idea. Based on the fact that Wonko and Iain disproved you and 
> Rob (and I, just in case his failed) /fixed/ the problem, then we're back 
> to normal, right? Good, then.

I don't think anybody's proven anything yet.

> For Unbridled Hostility towards all other players in this game, I Kick 
> The Pusher Robot in the Ass.
>
> Rationale: Granting oneself god powers is so passe.-

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