Re: [s-d] Grand Chancellor?

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 12, 2007 11:31 AM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/12/07, William Berard <william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Yeah, but in which gamestate does the fact of declaring the action
> > invalid takes place? common sense might say that well,
> > retro-validating one's action by altering the rule itself like the
> > Chancellor did shoudl not be allowed, so that, so to speak, claiming
> > invalidity of an action is outside the realm of either gamestate, as
> > it should always be possible.
> >
> > But on the other hand, one oculd argue that the claim of invalidity is
> > only possible in the gamestate where the rule is valid, end then... we
> > have a chancellor.
> I guess the claim of invalidity would only work in the *invalid*
> q-gamestate, since in the valid one we're not allowed to claim it
> invalid.  Therefore, there are two distinct and equally valid
> gamestates that cannot be collapsed until the Chancellor collapses it
> himself.  Well, under *that* interpretation of the validity rule.

Well, we can just take Hose's lead and block anyone from the parallel
universe from editing the wiki, and then we can ignore their
pronouncements on the mailing list (well, any of us without good mail
filtering anyway).

The alternate universe version of B Nomic (which may or may not be
called "Monopoly" anyway) can get their own Public Displays and the
Great Schism of nweek 135 will be complete.

-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss