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

[Glotmorf <nomicmorf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Not that I'm the judge or anything, but here are some
thoughts...

--- Zarpint Jeremy Cook <mcfoufou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I make the following CFI:
> {{
> Statement:
> 
> 1. Actions take place upon reaching a Public Forum
> regardless of
> recognition by the Administrator if the Clock is on.
> 2. The following actions take place upon reaching a
> Public Forum,
> regardless of recognition by the Administrator, if
> the Clock is off:
> Players joining
> Players forfeiting
> 
> Argument:
> First of all, r17: "Actions occur upon reaching the
> appropriate Fora."
> 
> r3: "If the Clock is Off, any game-related actions
> taken by players are
> implemented/recognized in the order in which they
> were recieved when the
> Clock is turned On."
> 
> Now r14 takes precedence over r3, since it has
> higher Chutzpah.
> r14: "No restrictions may be placed on when a player
> may forfeit; any player may forfeit the game at any
> time (regardless of the clock, the watch, etc.)"
> and
> "An External Force may become a Player by posting a
> message to a Public Forum containing a request to
> become a player and a uniquely identifying name that
> e wishes to be known by."
> 
> Thus, as soon as the Force posts, e has become a
> Player, since r17 specifies that actions occur
> at time of posting.
> }}

Rules 3 and 14 aren't really in conflict in this case.
 R14 says an entity becomes a player by posting to the
public forum; r3 says postings to the public forum
made when the clock is off are recognized in sequence
when the clock is on.  One isn't necessarily trying to
override the other.

It's perhaps worth noting that in r14 forfeitures
overriding the clock being off had to be mentioned
explicitly, and no such explicit mention has been made
for new players.

> I make the following CFI:
> {{
> Statement:
> 
> Rule 10 has no effect on the game, other than adding
> an additional rule to break.
> 
> 
> Argument:
> 
> Rule 10 is a Rule. Now suppose that:
> 1. A game entity does not abide by some of the
> Rules.
> or
> 2. A Proposal or Game Action attempts to circumvent
> or repress the Rules.
> [[I'm being repressed! Did you see him repressing
> me?]]
> 
> Any rule, by its nature, is illegal to break-that's
> what a Rule is.
> Adding another Rule which states that does nothing.
> In case 1, regardless of the existence of r10, the
> game entity is not abiding by
> some rule. (What if "some rule" is rule 10? Note
> that it's impossible to break r10
> unless one breaks other rules, with the exception of
> modifying it. So
> first consider r10a, which is r10 without the last
> sentence.)
> Thus with r10a, the only difference is that the game
> entity is breaking another rule.
> 
> Now, since I have shown r10a does nothing, adding
> the final sentence limits
> modifying a rule that otherwise does nothing. But
> modifying a rule that does nothing
> is the same as adding a new rule, so r10 has no
> effect on the game.
> 
> There's still the self-reference to deal with:
> Suppose you modify the last sentence
> of r10 by a 2/3 vote. Does that do anything? Well,
> all that sentence does is specify
> how to modify the rule, so not really.
> 
> Case 2 is similar: A Rule is already illegal to
> circumvent or repress.
> 
> Example: Suppose I have a proposal that breaks rule
> 666. Since I'm already breaking
> the rules already, it's no trouble to break rule 10
> as well.
> 
> }}

Interestingly, Wonko's argument about actions comes
into play here: r10 is the only thing that actually
defines rules as things that have to be abided by. 
Without r10, all the rules could be smeared and BvS
and bd would start another round of Calvinball.

-- Glotmorf


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss