Re: [s-d] [s-b] ais523's Refresh Proposal

[Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Violation of the rules is the new crime system.

Codae




________________________________
From: Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>
To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 3:38:44 PM
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] ais523's Refresh Proposal

What do you mean by "anyone can just undo them implicitly"? When you say "my
wording" what wording are you referring to? I don't get your meaning, sorry.

Perhaps the source for confusion is that there are different concepts of The
Clock. There is the PD on the wiki that says if it is on or off, which by
custom has not been the actual clock. The real The Clock is what exists only
because the rules say it does and we follow the rules. So if someone turns
the clock on, that means they do what the rules say turns it on. Which is to
submit a public forum message. And if the message says they do something
that the rules say they can't, the attempt fails.

Suppose we changed the rules, as ais523 suggests, to say,


> "The Clock can be turned On or Off by any player as a game action; however,
> doing so is a violation of the rules unless the rules specifically state
> that it isn't."
>

Does that mean that any messages saying "I turn the Clock On," succeed? Or
does that mean they succeed if they rules allow that player to turn the
clock on at that time? If the latter is true, we don't need a rule to tell
us so. If the former, I'm still confused as to what it means to say "doing
so is a violation of the rules."

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Elliott Hird <
penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 6 Dec 2008, at 04:07, comex wrote:
>
> > I dunno, is that sufficiently clear?
>
> Welp.
>
> In Monopoly, if it turns out that someone got money ages
> ago that they didn't actually get according to the rules,
> and are now broke or something, (although this would be
> very rare...) I'd imagine it'd just be ignored.
>
> That is, rule violations succeed, but in most games anyone
> can just undo them implicitly. My wording explicitly handles
> such cases.
>  _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
-Tyler
_______________________________________________
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