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

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

It seems that way, doesn't it? I guess I didn't read ehird's new Ruleset
carefully enough. But wait, the Justice Rule, in the section The Answer,
says "If the Consultation's subject is on the matter of whether a Player has
broken the Rules, and the Answer is Yes, then the Priest may assign a
Punishment of either a Fine, specifying an amount of a Currency, or Jail,
specifying a duration of ntime." I submit that it is impossible to break the
Rules, since the Rules govern only things that they define. It seems that
there is an inconsistency between my perspective and those of ehird and
ais523. If we allow people to break the rules, (and we don't have to,
necessarily,) what is to stop people in Jail from voting anyway? You might
say, he wouldn't get away with it. But if he broke the rules before and we
know it, he didn't get away with that either, did he? So he didn't break the
rules after all. So he shouldn't be punished.

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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
>



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