Re: [s-d] [s-b] Inflationary Language

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Strike this whole message. Looking back, we went through all this over 
the Switch itself, which is why in the end it specified changing "the 
third word of this document" rather than creating a (meta-)Object. You'd 
think I'd have learnt something.


Jay Campbell wrote:
>> just because a Corporation can create Game Documents, 
>> which are a type of Game Object, does not mean it can 
>> create other types of Game Objects willy nilly
>>     
>
>
> That was the problem with the Small Pointless Switch.
>
> "Anything that exists in the game is an Object," says the rules.
>
> The contract claimed a Switch existed, and its public display was unchallenged.
>
> If it existed, it was an Object.
>
> That said, I agree with your arguments against this whole line of reasoning, and it does eventually break down to the semantics of what "exists" means. Does the mere description of a thing cause it to "exist" in B's universe?
>
> If there were a specific hole to plug, it would be rephrasing 4E2 after the contract-scoped objects proposal passes.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>   

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