Monday, January 15, 2007

Proposal: Cleanup of Rule 2.6

Passed 6-1. Enacted by Clucky.

Adminned at 17 Jan 2007 12:36:29 UTC

The phrase “Any Olympian without a trainer has this trainer” (in the description of “normal trainer”) is self-contradictory.  The purpose of this proposal is to resolve any doubt as to whether it is really possible to have a “normal trainer”, and to grandfather in all prior TP increases in reliance on the “normal trainer”.
This proposal is as follows:
Part 1:
The following sentence in Rule 2.6

Any Olympian without a trainer has this trainer.

is amended to read:

Any Olympian without another kind of trainer has this trainer.

Part 2: If this proposal is adopted, then all TP increases by reason of reliance on a “normal trainer” that occurred prior to the adoption of this proposal are deemed valid if they would have been valid under Rule 2.6 as amended by this proposal.

posted by spikebrennan at 15 Jan 2007 19:37:00 UTC Comments (10)

Comments

Clucky: he/him

15-01-2007 23:27:49 UTC

against

The purpose of the rule is so that you cannot not have a trainer. Your fix is redudant, and does not make it clear that you cant have a trainer.

spikebrennan:

15-01-2007 23:35:56 UTC

“Your fix is redundant, and does not make it clear that you can’t have a trainer.”

I don’t follow you, Clucky.

Under the current wording of the rule, if I have a “normal” trainer, then it follows that I have a trainer.  So I am not an “Olympian without a trainer”.  So it’s not clear that I am eligible to have a “normal” trainer.  This seems to be a circular paradox to me.

My fix is not redundant; it makes it clear that it is not possible for an Olympian to have no trainer.

ChinDoGu:

16-01-2007 03:47:32 UTC

for

Doremi:

16-01-2007 04:05:50 UTC

for but just for the record, you guys are freaks

JoshuaGross:

16-01-2007 06:42:27 UTC

for

Bucky:

16-01-2007 06:45:19 UTC

imperial

spikebrennan:

16-01-2007 14:39:27 UTC

Doremi—we’re both playing a Nomic game over the internet, but I’m the freak.  Okay, then. ;)

Doremi:

16-01-2007 16:12:46 UTC

Haha, good point. I’m just discouraged by the extreme scrutinity people are putting on the wording of my proposals.

JoshuaGross:

16-01-2007 17:54:45 UTC

Interesting. Any English majors here?

Hix:

16-01-2007 21:40:53 UTC

The current “Any Olympian without a trainer has this trainer” also struck me as paradoxical, until I considered it as a directive to change the Gamestate (i.e. if an Olympian has no trainer, then e gains this trainer) rather than a statement of fact about the Gamestate.  Nonetheless, this is a helpful fix. for