Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Paper

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Jun 98 18:55:24 -0400

On Mon, Jun 8, 1998 12:01 PM, JT <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Create a new setion 0-0-0 titled Paradox Resolution with the following

I like this proposal, but I don't like the section being 0-0-0. This allows
section 0 and 0-0 to take precedence, and since those can be modified
without unanimous vote, it is a weakness. I think that we should do a
little renumbering or make section 0 as a whole unmodifiable except by
unanimous vote. Also, this is not clearly a descendant of 0-0. One reason
for my proposal being the way it was was to prevent the game from reaching
a point where nothing could happen, and also punish those who tried to do
so (as it is most definately not loyal to destroy the government.) I'm
still wondering which proprosal other people like better, as I'd like to
have a chance to retract my proposal if peple like his better.

--- Brian Campbell (AKA lambda)
Visit my webpage: http://world.std.com/~campbell/Brian/
Visit the Latin Club webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/

----------
Nihil sub sole novum.

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:49:42 -0700 (PDT)

>without unanimous vote, it is a weakness. I think that we should do a

I thought about that and about renumbering it, but section 0 claims primal
precedence for all rules within it, no problem, and this rule reclaims it
explicitly anyway.

Section 0-0 is the statement about what are the rules, and that all
players must follow the rules then in effect.

Subsectioning under this, which provides a way to absolve paradox from the
rules seemed the cleanest place to put it.

If other people feel that it really belongs elsewhere, I think it can be
easily moved.

>so (as it is most definately not loyal to destroy the government.) I'm

The problem is that I don't think it's possible to 'prevent' that state of
affairs.  Regardless of how careful the RP would be, someone would
eventually sneak through a paradox.  That *is* the paradox of
self-amendment.  By punishing it, you really do nothing to deter it.
My solution doesn't bother to try, and merely provides a hopefully
semi-solid foundation to resolve the inevitable.  I'm not trying to
prevent it, merely survive it :)

>have a chance to retract my proposal if peple like his better.

I believe that the two proposals can live together if they are both
accepted.  Yours would make it a crime to deliberately create a paradox,
mine would clean up the case where one happened inadvertantly.  They are
(to my mind) orthogonal concepts.  I still dislike yours, but that is
personal opinion and preference rather than anything else.

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]