Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Emergency] PEPs

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Jamie Dallaire
> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I believe this to be correct, except that forfeiting has, I think, been
>> continuously allowed and non-broken since that Public Display was published.
>> Because they left the game at least once since then, Wooble, comex, Goethe
>> and Murphy are not PEPs either. A few of the other Players on that list have
>> left the game without returning.
>
> Rule 0 doesn't say that anyone's who's unambiguously a Player now is a
> PEP, it says that whoever was a Player before it became ambiguous is a
> PEP; my interpretation is that this includes people who are definitely
> not Players.

I agree with you on that point. If any ambiguity exists, then the PEPs
are the people who were players before it arose (whether they might
still be players now or not) and nobody else. Ergo, if there is really
any ambiguity then even if they may not be players the people BP lists
are PEPs. And if there is really any ambiguity than even if we're
choosing between scenarios wherein I am unambiguously a player, I am
not a PEP.

I don't actually believe there is ambiguity, however. I'll revise that
opinion (and thus agree that I am not a PEP) iff somebody can post a
scenario different from the one I'm currently asserting is clearly
correct that implies a different set of players than mine, with
reasoning for why their scenario is a possible one that isn't
contradicted by every sane interpretation of the rules. I'll probably
still believe in my scenario being the most likely correct choice, but
if the other one is viable then there will be ambiguity nonetheless. I
accept that there may exist such an ambiguity, in which case I will
hope for the PEPs to resolve the emergency in an effective manner, but
I won't agree that the ambiguity is real and I'm therefore not a PEP
until I see the alternative.

Note that I formerly believed in an ambiguous set of players, as
outlined in my four-scenarios post; I thought one of the possibilities
(2b, in which I am - or rather, my shadow is - clearly a player) was
almost certainly the correct one but that the other three were
sufficiently plausible to make there be enough ambiguity that I wasn't
a PEP. Ambiguity doesn't depend on all scenarios being equally viable,
just on them all being logical possibilities. But three of the four
scenarios (including the one I favored) are contradicted by the rules
stating quite clearly that human External Forces can become players,
while the rules don't actually say anywhere that External Forces can't
be game objects, can't be Outsiders, or can't be players. We had all
assumed the rules meant that External Forces couldn't be game objects
and that Outsiders are different entities from the External Forces
they represent, because that's clearly what they were intended to
mean, but they don't actually say it anywhere that I can find. (The
fact that fora are External Forces but are also now established by
Consultation precedent as being game objects is also relevant here.)

Now, if the rules *do* somewhere state outright that External Forces
can't be game objects and I'm missing it, then we have ambiguity in
how the game works. But as I look at that particular hypothetical,
it's not actually ambiguous between the scenarios I proposed before,
or between the interpretation I'm advancing now (which is trivially
falsified iff External Forces can't become game objects and stay that
way; my position would thus cease to be one of the options under
consideration in that case) and any other. Instead, if such a rule
exists that I'm not aware of then the interpretations I think would
then be valid, with an ambiguity in how the game works between them,
are the version where nobody could join and a version where any human
External Force can become a player but then that same instant ceases
to be one because External Forces can't be game objects and players
are game objects - that is, one which says that external forces can
become, but not continue to be, players. The current player list would
be the same in either of those cases, and would be the set of all
people who were playing before the rules ambiguity arose and had never
forfeited since, as nobody else could possibly have become a player
for more than an instant and none of those instants are ongoing. There
would have been instantaneous periods when there was an ambiguity in
the player list (every time somebody tried to join the game), but no
such ambiguity at present.

So that would be an ambiguity, but as it would have two
interpretations that produce the same set of players there would be no
ambiguity about who the players are. The clause about PEPs being
players from prior to the ambiguity doesn't care, since it only kicks
in if there's ambiguity about the current player list rather than
about what the player list has been in the past. Therefore, it's those
players who would be the PEPs; Wooble and I would both be left out as
the ambiguity clause would fail to grandfather in the people who have
since forfeited. So in that case Wooble, as a now-former player, is
not a PEP, and I'm not a current player either (I'm a former player
too - I played in the first era and *might* have been a player for an
instant, but am unambiguously not one anymore either way) and am thus
not a PEP.

Ergo, denying my PEPhood while accepting Wooble's would require
finding an ambiguity that I've overlooked that's more sophisticated
than that one, since it requires ambiguity about the player list
rather than just about the gamestate; it would most likely take the
form of an alternate reading of the rules I'm aware of that I haven't
considered (one that doesn't fall flat the way my earlier
ambiguity-causing one from the four scenarios post did, of course) and
that leaves a different player list than my scenario, creating
ambiguity between my interpretation and that one. Such an ambiguity in
player lists may very well exist, in which case I'm not a PEP, but I
haven't seen any reason to think so that doesn't fall apart on careful
consideration.

Wooble has asserted, multiple times, on IRC that a different
interpretation from mine exists validly and I am not a PEP. He has not
presented a full explanation of his reasoning, so I have no idea if it
is valid or not; until such a scenario is presented to us (and by us I
mean the people of B Nomic, probably via s-b or s-d, rather than just
him telling himself and mentioning his having done so to me via IRC) I
see no reason for anyone to believe without evidence that it is.
Wooble, if you'd like to give us the details, I'd love to hear it; I
will not believe your alternative unless it's incredibly compelling,
but even you don't have to actually believe it as long as it is
logically possible. Anyone else, if you have a different version,
speak up.

 - teucer
Who's pretty damn sure he's a PEP, but open to being proven wrong
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss