Re: [s-d] Proposal: It Could Work Anyway You Want.

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 10, 2015, at 1:10 AM, comex <comex.k@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 10:18 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If the proposals entitled "Let's Keep Score" and "It Could Work Anyway You
>> Want" both become Passed, the contents of the proposal entitled "Let's Keep
>> Score" is amended prior to that Proposal becoming Passed. The text between
>> its initial and its terminal character is replaced with the contents of
>> this proposal.
> 
> Hmm... at the time this takes effect, both proposals would have
> already become Passed, so this would either do nothing (depending on
> interpretation of "If..become") or be an attempt to change events
> retroactively.  In the latter case, I wonder whether or not it would
> work.

Time travel gets messy fast. About the only kind of time travel I could endorse is a “Statute of Limitations” kind of thing, where once a Public Display of the game state is declared to be up-to-date, if nobody objects that becomes the state as of the declaration. (Where time travel comes in is that you need to allow time for people to object, but it’s all a statement about the state as of the start of that time.)

This prop is rather weird. Assuming that it is effective and manages to change “Let’s Keep Score” before it takes effect, then the text within the new “Let’s Keep Score” tries to change itself before being Passed, ad infinitum.

I’m not sure yet what I’ll do if this passes, but I plan on voting against it in its current form. :)

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