Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Proposal: Night Mayor

Passed 9-1.  Brendan

Adminned at 24 Oct 2007 16:23:29 UTC

In Rule 2.4 (Dead Men Tell No Tales), replace “A Dead Villager” with “Except for the Mayor, a Dead Villager”.

Comments

Chivalrybean:

23-10-2007 14:43:00 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

23-10-2007 14:45:04 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

23-10-2007 14:54:41 UTC

for

Shadowclaw:

23-10-2007 15:01:16 UTC

for

Hix:

23-10-2007 15:16:09 UTC

Assume that Kevan legally created this proposal.  If this is the case, then by “Dead Men Tell No Tales” I can infer that this post does not reveal any information that Kevan “learned, made up, or other wise acquired about another villager”.  However, this inference of mine is information about Kevan that was not revealed before he became dead, and I was only able to obtain this information because Kevan posted this Proposal.  Thus, this post is not legal under “Dead Men Tell No Tales”, contrary to our hypothetical assumption.

Since ((P -> ~P) -> ~P) is a tautology, and for P=“this proposal is legal”, we have shown (P -> ~P), we can conclude that this proposal is not legal.

for

Amnistar: he/him

23-10-2007 15:20:05 UTC

for

lol, interesting…

Brendan: he/him

23-10-2007 15:20:48 UTC

By your own logic, Kevan is only revealing information about Kevan.  I hardly think he counts himself as “another Villager.”

Hix:

23-10-2007 15:30:23 UTC

No, but it is “relevant information about himself that was not revealed before he became dead”.

Brendan: he/him

23-10-2007 15:32:44 UTC

In that case, your logic means that no Dead player can post, comment, admin, alter the GNDT, or otherwise participate in BlogNomic in any way. Yes?

Hix:

23-10-2007 15:42:30 UTC

Basically.  Which is why it’s a ridiculous rule to have around, especially considering that we’re probably only going to sometimes enforce it.  And there aren’t really any consequences listed for breaking the “Dead Men” rule.  It’s just illegal.  And around here, illegal “actions” don’t alter the Gamestate.

Brendan: he/him

23-10-2007 15:44:39 UTC

Why not propose an altered wording along the lines of “explicitly” or “directly” revealing, then?  I’d do it myself, but as you’ve pointed out…

aaronwinborn:

23-10-2007 17:30:40 UTC

for

Bucky:

23-10-2007 18:02:00 UTC

for

Bucky:

24-10-2007 16:58:23 UTC

COV against for the sole purpose of stalling the proposal queue.

Rodney:

24-10-2007 23:22:02 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

24-10-2007 23:23:00 UTC

Thank you!