Thursday, September 13, 2007

Proposal: Power:  I can’t resist.

Self-killed
Failed by Hix

Adminned at 14 Sep 2007 21:00:24 UTC

Power:  Give each Kaiju God 42 bananas.

Comments

Hix:

09-13-2007 21:23:07 UTC

This Proposal has served its intended purpose. against

Clucky:

09-13-2007 23:25:50 UTC

Very nice. Although, I must say, that rule is horrible written.

for

I want 42 bananas =)

Chivalrybean:

09-14-2007 00:58:45 UTC

haha! nice.  for  <—because I can.

Clucky:

09-14-2007 02:48:32 UTC

So is there a reason you actually haven’t declared victory yet? I mean, clearly if you didn’t want the dynasty to end you’d do something to plug the loophole. And right now the ruleset says you win…

Darknight:

09-14-2007 03:09:43 UTC

veto lol if this would get me in trouble then make it against  against  against  against lol

Chivalrybean:

09-14-2007 04:18:31 UTC

Oh, I see…

Chivalrybean:

09-14-2007 04:33:48 UTC

There’s no way to USE the power yet, though.

Clucky:

09-14-2007 04:44:25 UTC

You don’t need to use the power. The ruleset says “Hix has achieved victory”. If it said something like “If this power is used, hix achieves victory” then then the power would have to be used, but I think a case could be made for victory in its current state.

Bucky:

09-14-2007 05:46:36 UTC

I disagree.  In context, the text “Hix has achieved victory” is clearly inside a pre-defined structure (i.e. the definition of a power) and thus is merely a description of the power rather than general ruletext.

Hix:

09-14-2007 14:20:09 UTC

Well, I never intended to actually make a DoV based on this.  I didn’t really have enough time to fix the loophole, but neither did I want to point it out without being the first one to (ab)use it.

[Cl|B]ucky raise good points, but I have to agree that “Hix has achieved victory” is currently in effect (assuming its placement into the Ruleset was legal).  In the past, we have tended to include “when this power is used” or similar when writing descriptions of “powers”, since there usually is not a Rule that explicitly says that descriptions of powers in the Ruleset have no effect unless that power is being used.  And this allows us more flexibility:  if there was a power whose description said “Only an underwater Monster may have this power in its repertoire.  When this power is used, 5 random coastal villages are destroyed.”, I doubt anyone would think twice about the fact that “always active” effects are mixed with “power effects”.

What I’m most concerned with regarding the validity of this scam is whether I’ve actually gotten the all-important sentence into the Ruleset legally.  I think we probably all agree that the Attributes Rule (accidentally) doesn’t require that Powers be added by the effects of the Proposal that it mentions; in fact, it doesn’t even require the Proposal to be Enacted.  It simply allows the Proposal’s author to add a power.  I think that the most questionable step that I took during this scam was to allow myself to choose any text I wanted for the power I added.  Looking at context, certainly powers are not intended to simply be a list of words that name the powers—it is clearly intended that when the “Power:”-prefixed Proposal adds a Power to the Ruleset, it can say anything at all.  But, then again, in order to get this scam rolling in the first place, I already had to ignore quite a lot of other context, thus weakening my justification for adding arbitrary text to the Ruleset.

Josh:

09-14-2007 14:57:52 UTC

God, how did that happen?

I should be paying more attention :-/