Mike McGann on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:00:40 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] New Contract

On Feb 11, 2008 5:23 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I also point out that y'all can answer that consultation as paradox if you
> want, and I won't mind at all:

I'm not a fan of this whole "have a question answered paradox and you
win" thing but I am a fan of using ambiguous and contradictory rules
to try to do silly stuff. To be honest, I don't even know what would
be considered a true paradox. Does a direct contradiction in the rules
qualify? What does "these two answers can be potentially be logically
correct" really mean? Pure logic like this isn't my thing. Isn't the
point of the justice system to fix these problems when they arise? Why
would a priest have any incentive to even answer with paradox? You
could simply say yes or no and submit an oracularity to coincide with
the answer.

Example: Let's say there is a rule that states "X can do Y" and
another rules states "X cannot do Y" and a consultation of "Can X do
Y?". You could answer Yes and submit the oracularity "Remove the text
'X cannot do Y'". You could answer No and submit the oracularity
"Remove the text 'X can do Y'". You could also answer Undecidable and
submit either of the two oracularities.

- Hose
spoon-discuss mailing list