Subject: Simplex: Putting down the rebellion.
From: Mueller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 21:11:31
I. As the description of Muscle Man Murphy notes:
"A thingie is anything that exists in Simplex (Citizens, Laws, law defined
anythings, and anything else that exists in the game).
A public action is any communication to all the citizens of Simplex which
can effect a thingie."
While anyone can declare anything they like about non-thingies,
declarations about thingies (which explicitly includes citizens) are public
actions and can be vetoed by MMM.
>I stress that this is not a public action, if public
>action were to be defined as "A public action is any
>communication to all the citizens of Simplex which can
>effect a thingie,"
therefore, the real life person Tyrrell McAllister either:
(1) Did not change any thingies like his citizen, or
(2) Did, and was inaccurate here.
If he did, then he modified the state of his citizen such that it would
vote however it wanted. In this case, Muscle Man Murphy vetos this.
If Tyrrell did not, then there is nothing here but a statement regarding
the Real Life people Tom and Tyrrell who (according to Tyrrell) are not
playing the same game because one refuses to listen to the other. More on
>This law allows me to declare any messages received,
>as well as further messages received from the simplex
>citizen called "Tom Muller" null and void, and due to
>the fact that there is no law forcing me to recognize
>either the existance of "Thingies" or "Muscle Man Murphy".
>115 states that anything not regulated by rules is
>permissable, so this is permissable.
This is an effect towards the thingie which is the Citizen known as Tom
Mueller. This is a public action. Muscle Man Murphy vetos this.
This might be considered a retroactive action because it works towards
things already recieved. If this is so Muscle Man Murphy vetos this twice
as much. :)
Then Julian said
>Furthermore, I announce my internion [sic] to vote "nay" on
>any propositions that I feel would place to [sic] much
>power in the hands of one person ar [sic] group of persons.
As a statement of personal opinions held by the Real Life person Julian,
this is not within my perview. If this implies or has the effect that
Julian (the citizen and thingie) will vote against Proposition 1002, then
Muscle Man Murphy vetos it.
>I, Jeffrey Reinecke, do not recognize any thingie that
>is not a proposition, or anything that is not otherwise
>stated under law.
If this is his personal statement then I regret that he refuses to
participate in the game. See Below.
If this is an effect on the citizen and thingie named Jeff, then it is a
public action which Muscle Man Murphy Vetos.
With the mechanical details out of the way, let me now be explicit in my
rebuttal of the philosophy underlying what I will now refer to as the Head
In The Sand Rebellion.
Beginning with Tyrrell, the idea was put forward that because the laws do
not require it, no person had to recognize any other person. This is of
course true. When I go to the party at Kailen's tonite, I can pretend that
I do not observe Tyrrell in return. While the possibility of refusing to
recognize other people who are playing Simplex does exist, this is not
something which can happen and have the game continue to be played. It is
implicit in the game that we listen to other people in a game of words. To
fail to do so, would mean that two non-connecting realities were attempting
to exist, each claiming power over the other. My conclusion: If you are
really playing Simplex, you must grant that things are going to happen in a
contiguous arena, and (applying rules and statements in the order that they
occur) find out what those are. Philosohpically then I conclude that if
the Head In The Sand Rebellion was successful, the game as it was is dead
because we now have at least three distinct realities: Mine, The one
excluding me which Julian and Tyrrel hold. And Jeff's which holds that
almost no thingies exist, including me, Tyrrell and MMM. In short, I find
that if we discontiue communication in a game of communication, the game is
That said, let me explain what I think the game state currently is from a
The Consititution was accepted on Thursday morning or thereabouts and
This set of laws permitted Tom to make The Mind of the People and MMM which
claimed (under authority of the law) certain effects.
Tyrrell, Jeff, and Julian undertook the Head In The Sand Rebellion using
authority derived from the Laws to ignore Tom and his effects.
Tom vetoed each of these actions by using effects generated earlier using
the law, ending the Head In The Sand Rebellion.
Imagine that I somehow (according to the Laws) passed a proposition which
said "Once this proposition passes, no proposition can contain the letter
'e'." Then someone tryies to pass a propositon that says "Propostions can
now have 'e' in them." The second prop would be prevented from occuring by
the first one which was already law.
Similarly, using the laws, I created another system which defined itself as
encompassing everything in the game (thingies). It was not Law, but it had
effects that the law permitted it ot have. I pointedly kept MMM from doing
anything against the laws because he couldn't. But he had the effect of
regulating the game where the laws were silent _UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THESE LAWS_. He is as strong as a law where they are silent. When the
Head In The Sand Rebellion cited 115 they did not mention the "addendum" to
it, which was all the things allowed to occur by this law such as MMM who
closed all these loopholes. The actions of the Head In The Sand Rebellion
were subsidiary to the actions of MMM by virtue of the fact that he was
there first, and gained authority first.
At this time, I'd like to remind you that actions with retroactive effects
are prohibited by MMM so the time precedence so solid.
I've already written up an RFJ if anyone wishes to contest this. Just say
so and I'll send it in - you don't have to do all that work.