Monday, December 05, 2005

Paradox

Heh, I just noticed a nifty little paradox we’ve had in the glossary for a while.

Italicized text is not considered part of the ruleset and may be used to clarify rules with examples, notes and flavor text.”

Comments

Cayvie: Idle

05-12-2005 18:11:23 UTC

It would be even awesomer if it said “Italicized text is not considered part of the ruleset and may be used to clarify rules with examples, notes and flavor text.”

Hix: Idle

05-12-2005 18:19:11 UTC

I think the italicized “Italicized text” may be another obvious typographical mistake that can be corrected by an Admin at any time.

Cayvie: Idle

05-12-2005 18:22:29 UTC

That’s a dangerous line of thinking

smith: Idle

05-12-2005 18:43:26 UTC

I think an overzealous admin caused that paradox to begin with. The original glossary change did not have the formatting.

Cayvie: Idle

05-12-2005 18:49:46 UTC

At least they didn’t make it say “Italicized text is not considered part of the ruleset and may be used to clarify rules with examples, notes and flavor text.”

because that would have destroyed the game.

Hix: Idle

05-12-2005 19:08:35 UTC

Hmmm….  I think law 10 prevents modification of spelling/typographical mistakes in the laws or glossary.  Is that right?  Usually, an “X is forbidden” instruction has priority over an instruction which allows X, because there is an implicit exception being made.

Also, I’ve been wondering: under the current rule system, if an inclination explicitly stated that it was an exception to a certain impulse (or instinct), what would happen?  Does that count as a conflict, thus implying that the impulse has priority?  Or does the exception make it so that there is no conflict, and the inclination will have its intended effect (including the exception)?

Moonwryn: Idle

05-12-2005 22:40:17 UTC

peter suber strikes again

Excalabur: Idle

05-12-2005 22:51:53 UTC

I forsee Calls for Judgment.