Peter Cooper Jr. on Sun, 3 Dec 2006 19:21:38 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Some actions

Here's my opinion on this, and how I'm going to represent the state of
the game for now. If someone disagrees, they can certainly RFJ it, as
that's what it's there for. (Although I think " " here is trying to
expose a hole in our RFJ system, I think it's robust enough to handle
this for now.)

comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I Forfeit the game.

Sorry to see you go. :)

>  I request to join the game under the name 'the 
> Administrator'.

Well, if we're going to allow "all players", I guess we need to allow
"the Administrator". I don't like it though, and would make an
argument that it isn't "uniquely identifying", as currently the words
"the Administrator" uniquely identify me.

> [[My name being 'the Administrator' is not intended to affect the following 
> actions, but doing it later would, if this succeeds, cause me to forfeit my 
> Win.]]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to
say that this works even if your name isn't "the Administrator"?

> I create a RFJ.  The statement is, "The player named 'the Administrator' has 
> exactly one Win, and no other players have Wins."
> Now I select the player named 'all players' as its Judge.  This is a
> Game Action that the Administrator is permitted to do, and it is
> also one that the Administrator is required to do, at some point.
> But I'll do it first, because the rules don't say otherwise.

Only if you could get the phrase "the Administrator" in the rules to
refer to you could this work, and I think that we've come to consensus
that if something could refer to a player or to something else, it's
got to be clear that it's a player or it's understood to be the
something else.

And, players other than the Administrator can't perform the assigning
game action. The last sentence of r1-10 just applies to text saying
"any player can do X" meaning that X is a Game Action that any player
can do; it seems reasonable to derive that "the Administrator can do
X" means that X is a Game Action that the Administrator can do.

Also, there's no player named "all players" at the moment, since we
passed proposal 14 to change eir name to "bd".

> I also Accept it, and render Judgement that the statement is TRUE.

It's not yours.

> [[
> Of course, there are at least two ways in which this is ambiguous.  There's 
> the obvious one, which other people are using to Win, and there's the fine 
> point that the Rules state that the selected Judge shall as a Game Action 
> accept _eir_ assigned RFJ_ 
> However, perhaps the selection of a Judge *creates* this Game Action for 
> accepting it, which the Judge is required to do, and I am taking.  Again, 
> ambiguous. 

I'm afraid I'm really not following you here. The RFJ is assigned to a
judge. Submitting an RFJ doesn't make it yours in any sense.

> But, in case it is legal, I will continue.
> ]]
> I repeat the previous sequence of actions (starting with "I create a RFJ.") 
> once for each of the statements:
> "If Judgement is rendered more than once on an RFJ, only the first shall be 
> taken into account."
> "The second sentence of Rule 1-10 shall be interpreted as meaningless 
> regarding any Game Action occurring after the first time Judgement was 
> rendered on this RFJ." 

Well, it's legal to submit these, but not to assign them or render
judgment on them.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list