Monday, October 03, 2011

Story Post: In my own defence

I believe I’ve found a scam in the Zeitgeist rule:

The Zeitgeist rule states:

The Zeitgeist is a list of Criteria that Artists can optionally meet in their posts to score Acclaim. It is tracked in the following Wiki page: “Zeitgeist”.

Since there is indeed such a page, and that page is a list of criteria, this implies that there can be no criteria. In my post here I have chosen to meet this list of criteria to score Acclaim.

Since there are no criteria the rest of the rule doesn’t apply, as individual elements of Criteria are not present.

To summarise:

1. There is a Zeitgeist page.
2. Therefore, (because of the page’s existence) there is a list of Criteria, which has no content.
3. In my post, I have chosen optionally to meet this list of Criteria.
4. I therefore score acclaim.

Note: This rule does not state how much acclaim I score, and since my acclaim of 10,000 is still a positive integer, I would argue that this is a fair score to give. Alternatively, I could simply meet this list of criteria infinitely, and incrementally gain this score in a similar way.

 

Comments

scshunt:

10-03-2011 12:51:24 UTC

The sentence you have mentioned seems descriptive. It doesn’t specify an amount of Acclaim you get if your post meets that list of criteria, and 2.2 suffers no similar ambiguity.

Josh:

10-03-2011 12:54:42 UTC

Also Criteria is established as a keyword, which means that the absence of the elements that make up a Criterion makes it not actually a list of Criteria at all.

I’m reverting your edit; as always, feel free to CfJ if you disagree.

bateleur:

10-03-2011 12:56:44 UTC

The phrase “a <whatever> is a list of things you can optionally <something>” seem to me to mean: For each item in this list, you may optionally <something> that item.

So if there are no items in the list, you have no such options.

bateleur:

10-03-2011 12:58:22 UTC

@Josh - I don’t agree with that either. An empty list of Criteria should contain no Criteria (because it’s empty), so this is indeed an empty list of Criteria. (It’s also an empty list of elephants and an empty list of famous Belgians.)

ais523:

10-03-2011 13:21:31 UTC

I disagree with Josh’s argument, but think that the scam in general doesn’t work, because there’s no mechanism by which to perform the action of increasing Acclaim to satisfy the empty list. The normal mechanism would be to edit the results of the action into the GNDT, but the rules don’t specify what the results are, thus there’s no way to calculate them, thus there’s no way to perform the action correctly.

ais523:

10-03-2011 13:38:15 UTC

Oh, and arrow for the beauty of the attempted scam.

Prince Anduril:

10-03-2011 17:26:18 UTC

coppro - Indeed it is descriptive, but the description has consequences. The other rule does not work as a precedent.

Josh - I don’t see that Criteria is a keyword - It isn’t specifically defined anywhere (not in the dynastic, core or keyword rules), just used. In any case, it makes no difference, as I’m reading the rule as referring to the list as a Single item, not as a group of items.

Bateleur - My argument is that the ‘List of Criteria’ is what is being referred to, not the ‘Criteria’ itself. It’s also not an empty list of elephants, but an empty list of criteria. I quote:

“A rule specifying “bananas are blue” cannot be overruled by posting a dictionary definition or a photo of a banana”

The rule states that it is a list of criteria, so that is what it is, whether there are any criteria within it, or not.

Ais - You’ve got the best argument, which is that I’m violating Rule 1.1:

“The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”

Here is where my counter-argument, as best as I can make it.

My action was to post my endless staircase image. I met the ‘list of criteria’ which was nothing, by doing nothing. The result of meeting this list is that I score Acclaim.

Under the current rules, Acclaim is spoken of as being ‘Gained, Reduced, Scored, Rewarded, Received and Lost’. Since there is no keyword apparent, I think it’s safe to say that “to score Acclaim” means that my number in the GNDT is increased - after all, what else could this mean?

I think I will raise a CfJ, as I don’t feel my actions have been sufficiently shown to be illegal.

scshunt:

10-03-2011 18:47:07 UTC

Prince Anduril: I don’t disagree with your interpretation that you have successfully satisfied the (empty) list of criteria, but more that it allows you to arbitrarily pick the amount of acclaim you score for it. Why that number? Why not 0? That’s a number. The rule doesn’t say.

Klisz:

10-04-2011 03:39:53 UTC

arrow