Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > ugh. I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to > not post the argument and see wrong ones. Sorry if this spoils some > fun, here's the argument, any refutations? > > The section of the Holiday rule in question is only triggered if a > Rule "requires" something be done by a certain time limit. > > If a Rule says "you must do X before you CAN do Y", but you are not > actually required to do Y, then doing X is not a requirement at all, > even if the sequence is time-muddled. > > To see why, take the simple phrase "you must get a coin before you > can spend it." That doesn't mean getting a coin is a "requirement" > otherwise I could just spend 1,000,000 coins and claim "I have until > after the holiday to obtain them." Or take the following reducio-ad- > absurdum : > > "Before Goethe can win by Zotting, e is required to change the > Rules so that e can win by Zotting." This is trivially true, but > it doesn't mean I could legally win by zotting (and have the win > count) then later say, "oops, I broke a rule by not changing the > Rules so I could win by zotting, but I still won". > > All this (and the intent-dependent action sequence) is messing with > the order of "game physics", which is not what the Holiday rule speaks > of for "requires": "requires" should be restricted to dealing with > "SHALL before X" and not the time-reversal of "CAN after doing X." comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time; instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is much more CAN-friendly action. Incidentally, I think there is a scam on the paragraph you discussed above, but it isn't the one you tried. Happy guessing what it is, everyone, before the next Holiday! -- ais523
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on > the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any > language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time; > instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is > much more CAN-friendly action. Except that "between those" text is only functional for when the rules set a time limit for a FUTURE event. The rules set the time limit for dependent intent is a time limit for a PAST event, so that's covered at all there. -Goethe
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that > > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes > > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on > > the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any > > language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time; > > instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is > > much more CAN-friendly action. > > Except that "between those" text is only functional for when the rules > set a time limit for a FUTURE event. The rules set the time limit for > dependent intent is a time limit for a PAST event, so that's covered at > all there. > It also explicitly allows "the time limit to perform an action". I admit that that's the most tenuous part of the whole scam, though; arguably, the rule contradicts itself there, and the interpretation in which the scam doesn't work is the more plausible one. -- ais523
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that
>>> case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes
>>> "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on
>>> the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any
>>> language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time;
>>> instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is
>>> much more CAN-friendly action.
>>
>> Except that "between those" text is only functional for when the rules
>> set a time limit for a FUTURE event. The rules set the time limit for
>> dependent intent is a time limit for a PAST event, so that's covered at
>> all there.
>>
> It also explicitly allows "the time limit to perform an action". I admit
> that that's the most tenuous part of the whole scam, though; arguably,
> the rule contradicts itself there, and the interpretation in which the
> scam doesn't work is the more plausible one.
Yes, the issue is that the phrase ("including the time limit to perform
an action") is a parenthetical on "future event". Two reasonably
consistent ways to read this:
1. In the Rules (other than the holiday rule itself), a dependent
action is (is practice) in the future of the Intent. Therefore, even
though the Dependent Actions rules refer to the time limit of a past
event, the de-facto future action is the action itself, not the intent,
and something with a time limit 4-14 days *after* (in the future of) the
intent posting. The intent posting timing is not affected, but the
deadline for action performance is (Murphy's argument).
2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a
future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event, and
the dependent action rule makes a past event contingent on a future
event, dependent actions are not not affected at all by these clauses.
2a. (corollary). My previous arguments show that the "required" clauses
of the holiday rule also don't apply to dependent actions. So between
2 and 2a, dependent action timing is utterly unaffected by the holiday
rule (this nets to Wooble's original result).
-Goethe
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a > future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event This is the crux of the matter, I think. The question is about what happens if something is a time limit but not a future event. In other words, does "A (including B)" include something that's a B but not an A? To me, the problem is that the wording there implies that all time limits are future events, but that blatantly isn't true. I agree that an interpretation which leaves the rules consistent is probably better, though, so if 1's satisfactory it may be the correct one, but I'm not sure if it is. Also, "another event", not "a past event", but I think that's irrelevant here. -- ais523 [[Note, for some reason my email has suddenly stopped working; I'm sending this via a different, inferior, mailer, to see if it works from here.]]
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a > future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event This is the crux of the matter, I think. The question is about what happens if something is a time limit but not a future event. In other words, does "A (including B)" include something that's a B but not an A? To me, the problem is that the wording there implies that all time limits are future events, but that blatantly isn't true. I agree that an interpretation which leaves the rules consistent is probably better, though, so if 1's satisfactory it may be the correct one, but I'm not sure if it is. Also, "another event", not "a past event", but I think that's irrelevant here. -- ais523
