Re: [spoon-discuss] No actions?

["Glotmorf" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tsk.  Remember those times where I proposed we pick a dictionary and
link it into the ruleset, and people said, no, it's not necessary
because game precedent suggests we recognize standard English as the de
facto language?  I think there may even be a CFI to that effect,
somewhere in history.

I propose we do one or more of the following:

1. Ignore this.
2. Ignore this long enough to create a CFI that says we should ignore
it, and rule it true. 3. Dump a few buckets of herring on Wonko.

Since herring aren't defined in the ruleset, e can eat them or smear
them as e pleases.

 						Glotmorf


On 14 Jan 2004 at 11:30, Daniel Lepage 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 I thought I should explain why I want it repealed, before 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?
> 
> -- 
> Wonko
> Award Wonko a Win.
> -----[[BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK]}-----
> Version: 3.1
> GU/O d-(++)(?) s+:+ a--->+++ C++>++++>$ UB+>++++ P--@ L+>+++ E>++ 
> W++(+++) N+{((++]]}}) o?>++++ K? w------- O? M++ V- PS@ PE-@ Y-- PGP- 
> t+ 5 X R+ tv--@ b+++@ DI++++ D G++ e*>++++ !h r++ y?
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss


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