Re: [spoon-discuss] No actions?

[Zarpint Jeremy Cook <mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx>]

That's a really stupid thing to SoE over. We need faster SoEs if we're going
to do them over something like that...

How about you propose to remove only that line, we agree, we can still
eat Eclairs, and it will go through, since we recognize that not
every word can be defined in terms of previously defined words.

Zarpint



On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, SkArcher wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:30:47 -0500, Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > My proposal to repeal the rule governing Eclairs failed nearly
> > unanimously. I thought I should explain why I want it repealed, before
> > reproposing it, and I hope people will vote for it this time, since as
> > far as I can tell, the game is over right now, and the only thing
> > keeping us in action is the fact that nobody's objected in a public
> > forum to anything Dave's said (which is alright, because it's illegal to
> > anyway).
> >
> > It seems to me that nobody can take actions.
> >
> > By r1638, "If an action is referenced in the rules, but there is no
> > statement in the rules defining that action, that action cannot be
> > performed."
> > Every action defined in the rules is undefined, either directly or
> > indirectly. For example, nowhere is the manner in which a player may
> > Recognize a State of Emergency defined, therefore under r1638 it cannot
> > be done; The method by which a player may transfer points from emself to
> > another player is defined as "posting to the public forum"; however, the
> > act of posting to the public forum is also not defined, and therefore
> > cannot be legally performed.
> >
> > Basically, every action is either an english verb such as 'posting',
> > which is defined by the English language but not by the rules and
> > therefore is illegal under r1638, or an action defined in the rules in
> > terms of other actions that are illegal under r1638. Thus, all actions
> > are illegal.
> >
> >
> > My hope was to remove 1638, wait until ten days after Dave announced its
> > removal, and then to point this out, on the grounds that by then the
> > Statute would have lapsed and the game could keep going. Since this
> > failed, I suspect that the game may now be over.
> >
> > So, can anyone explain why it shouldn't be?
> >
>
> Hmmmmmm, nice arguement....
>
> However, you have missed something. As per rule 0, a State of Emergency
> happens when {{recognized by the majority of the most recently formally
> recognized body of outsiders in The Game}}
>
> note that there is no necessity for this recognition to be 'posted' or
> 'mailed' or anything else undefined by the rules. My posting the status of
> recognition of an SOE is merely a courtesy to the rest of the Outsiders in
> the game.
>
> would you like to recognise an SoE Wonko?
>
>
> SkArcher
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>

-- 
Zarpint            "All thy toiling only breeds new dreams, new dreams;
Jeremy Cook         there is no truth saving in thine own heart."
mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx       --W.B. Yeats, The Song of the Happy Shepherd
grep -r kibo /     "Movements are the problem, not the answer to problems."
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss