Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposals

["Jonathan David Amery" <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Craig Daniel writes:
> I note three violations of time travel etiquette, but I don't think they
> make too much confusion for the admin to permit.

 It's not clear to me what constitutes a violation of time travel
 etiquette.  I believe my proposals are not in violation.

> First, what if five players vote FOR your ambiguously-colored proposal?

 This clearly isn't a time-travel violation :-).

 However it is a drafting error; another 'modulo 4' has been removed
during editing.  I will resubmit later.

> Second, your green proposal purports to destroy non-prime Everett branches.
> It in fact splits any universe in which it passed into two, one of which
> appears to be identical to B' for all useful purposes (but can be
> distinguished from it by phrases like "if the ineffectual Proposal 1-7
> passed").

 Yes, and in all branches in which it works it works.  The
*interpretation* of the rules is the same, even if the history is
different.

 I don't think it's actually possible to destroy Everett branches; at
least until/unless someone creates a mechanism for one branch to
interact with another.

> Thirdly, once passed, the first two of these proposals will go back in time
> by slightly more than an nweek in order to alter votes and text. (By the
> way, the text alteration is also underspecified; proposal 1-7 may already
> read "I have a suffusion of yellow reasons for disliking that mayonnaise",
> though it very probably doesn't.)

 The effect is slightly more than an nweek before the proposal taking
effect; but not from before its submission to the Public Forum.

 (The minimal specification is noted; and ignored).

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