Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CFJ 3432

[Eritivus]

On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 14:43 +, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> I'm not sure the fact that the PoA is imaginary is all that relevant.
> If you add a rule to the PoA then the PoA can only specify imaginary
> events that occur regarding it, but it still clearly refers to the
> actual rule. The Dungeon Master is the one setting the property, and
> there is nothing that says the Dungeon Masters actions are imaginary
> or incapable of specifying aspects of "outside" entities.

I'm not sure either.

But it's imaginary _and self-contained_. I always wondered what
"self-contained" was supposed to mean here. New Oxford American says
"complete, or having all that is needed, in itself". How should we
interpret "self-contained" in this context? What restriction, if any,
did it put on the DM's abilities? Does it simply mean that entities
not added to the PoA aren't in the PoA?

I guess the answer is not too important to me, since no attempted
scams involved adding entities to the PoA, and the questionable text
has been removed.

DIS: Re: BUS: Just to be safe

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Sean Hunt 
wrote:

> I CFJ {Wooble is a player.}
>
> We haven't had one lately.
>
> -scshunt
>

[nitpick]
Haven't had one what -- one Wooble, or one player?
[/nitpick]

-- 
OscarMeyr

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CFJ 3432

[Nicholas Evans]

I'm not sure the fact that the PoA is imaginary is all that relevant. If you 
add a rule to the PoA then the PoA can only specify imaginary events that occur 
regarding it, but it still clearly refers to the actual rule. The Dungeon 
Master is the one setting the property, and there is nothing that says the 
Dungeon Masters actions are imaginary or incapable of specifying aspects of 
"outside" entities.

-Original Message-
From: "Eritivus" 
Sent: ‎11/‎12/‎2014 12:23 AM
To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment of CFJ 3432

In case it's been forgotten, here is a possibly relevant bit of
discussion from before adoption:

On Fri, 2014-09-12 at 18:57 +, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:51:54 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
> > This looks dangerous. What if the Dungeon Master said the following:
> > 
> > I cause the rule "The Dungeon Master" to add itself to the Province
> > of Agora. I cause the rule "The Dungeon Master" to set its own "text"
> > property to that property's current value, with the following
> > paragraph appended: "The Dungeon Master CAN by announcement cause
> > this rule to effect any effect which it CAN effect." I cause the rule
> > "The Dungeon Master" to deregister all players.
> >
> > Personally, I don't really see the benefit in adding the additional
> > wording.
> > 
>
> I don't think this could work. Rules are entities described by our
> ruleset, so, according to "The Province of Agora" ("The PoA is imaginary
> and self-contained; it CANNOT specify aspects of outside entities."),
> the PoA can't describe them. It's arguable what exactly would happen,
> but IMO either adding the Dungeon Master rule to the PoA would fail or
> the rule would cease its existence as a formal rule entity the moment
> it is added to the PoA.