Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 183

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It was #2 - The game action happened automatically, because Contracts are an extension of the Rules. Contracts can cause obligations (and their triggered automatic execution) and are able to consult the general world to see if a qualifying action has occurred - e.g. the transfer of macks, the joining of a Contract.
>
> No limitation was put in place stating only internal game state is accessible. Contracts should be able to watch all sorts of External Forces. I should be able to create a Contract that pays players based on S&P 500 movement. In comex's case, the contract tracked (or reliably assumed to track) player breathing.
>
> The only problem is that the Rule doesn't spell out "explicit consent".

Here's the thing.

Let's assume that Contracts can, indeed, track S&P 500 movement. For
the sake of simplicity, and since Contracts are inherently
rules-defined anyway, I'll be using an example where the Rules
themselves directly track the S&P 500. Same difference.

If a Rule exists that says that if the S&P 500 drops below 800, J
wins, then the S&P 500 dropping below 800 constitutes a Game Action.
This is because, while the S&P 500 might technically not be part of
the game (this is debatable, but for another day), a drop below 800
would have an effect on the state of the game. As such, it is a Game
Action.

Transfer that logic to the case of a Rule that says that, if J
breathes, he loses the game. Because breathing has an effect on the
state of the game (assuming losing is defined), it is also a Game
Action. But contrary to the S&P 500 dropping below 800, this is a Game
Action that can be taken by a Player (J).

What are the valid ways in which J can take a Game Action, thus
affecting the state of the game?

>> 1) Post, to a public forum, that you are performing a game actions that is
>> permitted by the rules.
>>
>> 2) automatically, according to a rule that causes the game action to occur.

We've already disqualified the first case, as it did not happen that
anyone breathed to the Public Forum.

The distinction between my reasoning and J's, I think, lies in the
fact that I see the second clause as a Doer rather than as a Tracker.

There is no Rule that causes anyone to breathe as a Game Action,
anymore than there is a rule that causes the S&P 500 to drop below
800. Therefore, the Game Action of breathing was not taken during
comex's scam.

Note that I think it would be absolutely ludicrous to argue that the
Game Action is not breathing per se, but rather joining comex's
contract, and that this Game Action occurred automatically for most
players because the Rules (via said contract) caused it to happen when
a Player breathed.

The reason I think that would be ridiculous is that you can't ignore
the fact that breathing has an effect of the state of the game, in
that I was never deregistered (while J was, in this interpretation)
because I didn't externally breathe at the time.

Finally, note that I am NOT arguing that the Rules could never have
the power to make me breathe (in their present incarnation, however,
they don't, so the below doesn't invalidate my argument against J's
logic). While it sounds completely implausible for the Rules to make
me breathe, from a biological or physical standpoint, I don't think it
is from a game-related standpoint.

"The Rules also have the power to cause an Outsider to take Game
Actions whether they
post or not."

To me, that sounds like: the Rules have the power to make me breathe,
if they say that I breathe. Whether this corresponds to my actual
physiological breathing might be irrelevant for the game, just like
the External Force Jamie Dallaire does not literally Stab the External
Force Geoffrey Spear when the Player Billy Pilgrim Stabs the Player
Wooble, despite players and external forces now being one and the same
entity. That only happened once, and I'm very very sorry. How many
times do I have to repeat it?

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