Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 22:29 +0000, James Baxter wrote:
> > From: ais523@xxxxxxxxxx
> > To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:07:07 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203
> > 
> > On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:04 -0700, Tyler wrote:
> > > Oh, so you mean that Rule 57 allows Contracts to specify activites
> (which
> > > are necessary to amend the Contract), and thus makes those
> activities
> > > specified indirectly by the rules?
> > Yes. So rule 5e10 makes them possible as a game action.
>  
> That part of 5E10 only applies to the rules and does not give any game
> document the power to define rules, it merely adds a clarification to
> the document that are explicitly defined elsewhere as being able to
> change the rules.
Rule 5e57 was specifying the change; it's looking at the contract to see
what amendment methods it defines. Rule 5e10 doesn't give a game
document the power to define rules; it gives rules the power to define
game actions, merely by specifying them. I personally think rule 5e10 is
badly broken, and have been scamming it more or less constantly all era.
>  
> That means that since the contract was not capable of making rules, it
> couldn't define that ais523 was capable of changing the rules like
> that but if ais523 had used legitimate means to change the rules (like
> a Tweak), 5E10 would have made it possible as a game action.
It's the interaction between 5e10 and 5e57 that made the scam worked. It
needs both of them for the scam to work.
>  
> Besides, by voting inconsistent, are you saying that you WANT the
> ruleset vandalised?

Just because a scam's a scam doesn't mean it didn't work. I followed the
general metarules of scamming (close the loophole behind you, don't give
yourself too big a reward), and winning by scam is normally a legitimate
tactic.

Besides, judging that something didn't happen doesn't actually mean it
didn't happen. It's better for us to play in the gamestate that actually
exists, then to cause incorrect results due to playing in an incorrect
gamestate. Better still would be a proposal to make it come to the same
thing either way (say, a proposal that recreates 5e57 if it doesn't
exist and amends it if it does).
-- 
ais523

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