Re: [s-d] [s-b] oh come on

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Note that if a PoO were submitted that consisted of text that was not plain
or unobfuscated (as is part of the Rule 7 definition), THEN I believe a 7-0
conflict would emerge. 0 would win, making the PoO a game document. BUT I
don't see how that would invalidate the application of 7 to other potential
game documents, so I still don't think it would break anything. This would
be the same type of conflict as:

low numbered rule: Players are X.
higher numbered rule: The Beast is not X, but the Beast is a Player. This
takes precedence over Rule [low number].

The only difference would be that the 0-7 conflict would be resolved by
number precedence rather than by an explicit claim.

I've never seen anyone argue that any of the Player/Beast conflicts or
precedence issues made every other Player cease to be a Player...

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>
>>> 17:47 < _0x44> Points of Order are not Game Documents, they are game
>>> documents.
>>>
>>> Consultation: {game documents are distinct from Game Documents}
>>> Arguments: No, just no.
>>>
>> Argument: If post-Proposal 0585 Rule 0 game documents are Game Documents,
>> and Rule 0 explicitly claims precedence over all other Rules, Rule 5e7
>> cannot define Game Documents. So, either game documents are distinct from
>> Game Documents, or Proposal 0585 destroys all Rules.
>
>
> Unless I'm missing something, this line of reasoning is just plain silly.
> Let's evaluate 585 on its own (other merits).
>
> Post-585 Rule 0 would specify that PoOs are g(G)ame d(D)ocuments. This does
> not constitute an exclusive definition that would prevent the
> lower-precedence Rule 7 from defining Game Documents!
>
> "any number of Points of Order which are game documents detailing a single
> change to the Rules or Game State of B."
>
> If one Rule says that Socrates is a man, and another says that a man is
> defined as an adult male human (add any gender theory variation to this
> definition that you want...), this does not constitute a CONFLICT between
> these two rules. Therefore, there is no issue of precedence. Saying that
> Socrates is a man in no way excludes other entities from being men.
>
> So the big g little g issue is inconsequential except with regard to some
> characteristics of PoOs that might be regulated by Rule 7.
>
> Note that I think it would be a better idea to keep Rule 0 modular and
> independent of definitions in other Rules, i.e. not to call PoOs Game
> Documents (in the Rule 7 sense, which to me encompasses game documents
> (uncapitalized)). That would prevent a break in Rule 7 from ruining Rule 0.
> THAT might make me vote against 585, not a fear of Rule 0 ruining the
> others.
>
> BP
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss