Re: [s-d] [s-b] Back after a long absence...

["Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter writes:
> To: <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 11/26/06 9:18:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [s-b] Back after a long absence...
>
> "Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Most revered Administrator:
> > Be advised that I find this posting to not be in accordance with the
Rules.
> > I'll delete inapplicable matters.
> >> From: Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> That is, my name shall be: all players
> >>
> > As it turns out, this seems to me to not be a uniquely
> > identifying name IAW Rule 1-4/0.
> >
> > It appears that Proposals/0009 contains the phrase
> > {{
> > ... all players ...
> > }}
> > connoted there to mean every current Player.
> >
> > Since the Game Document Proposition 0009 existed
> > prior to the Request to Join by the Outsider once known
> > in a previous ERA as 'bd', the name {{all players}} does
> > not fulfill the requirements of 1-4/0: hence is invalid.
>
> I certainly see your point, and I looked through the rules before
> allowing it. But, "uniquely identifying" could be used to mean just
> unique amongst current players (or all players?). And it's certainly
> uniquely identifying amongst objects currently in the game. Proposals
> just talk about changes that could happen to the game, but the mention
> of a possible object in a proposal doesn't mean that it exists in the
> game yet. So, I would think that "uniquely identifying" would have to
> just refer to objects that currently exist, not objects that may exist
> in the future.

Here I must disagree. My Webster's defines unique as:
1a) being the only one : SOLE.
1b) producing only one result.
2a) being without like or equal.

As a noun phrase, 'all players' is plural when used as in proposal 09,
and represents only 'every current Player'.
As a Player Name. 'all players' is singular, and represents only the
former Player 'bd'.
By the definition of unique, both of these cannot be true at the same time.

A mere typo in the verb (i.e. addition or omission of an 's') following
'all players' drastically alters the scope of the sentence wherein it
appears.

The intent of Prop 09 is unmistakably interpreted. Is there a typo in it
that
causes it to apply only to a single Player? At present there is not, but by
my experience, postings have historically been rife with typos (my own
included).
The resulting redundancy will surely result in endless bickering and (a
perhaps)
undo workload for the entity responsible for edifying the Players.
>
> And, just having a phrase talking about all players doesn't
> necessarily mean that it refers to the player named "all players".
>
The distinction is arguable and subjective.
>
> > This could create a prceedent by which a proposition's
> > intent can be altered by a newcomer inadvertantly
> > (or vertantly, for that matter). 
>
> This could make for an interesting precedent, true. But if it starts
> being a problem, we can make a prop or rule differently on a CFJ or
> whatever. Changing things isn't a problem in this game. :)
>
> Thanks for your input, but I think I'll stick with allowing it for
> now.
> -- 
> Peter C.
>
Oh well, I tried. It's your baby, and I suspect will become your
can of worms, but so be it.

Triller



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