From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 22:50:39 PDT
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) writes:
>
> > Since previous Rules have clearly indicated that the United States
> > Army is in control of the FRC list server, they have power over my
> > judgment. Also, since I live in the United States, they certainly have
> > power over me. Of course, the Judge could also have his power cut by
> > the power company, or his server melted by the orbital mirror, or have
> > Verisign take control of his host (the Judge is a Verisign customer),
> > or be legislated out of existence. Rule is INVALID.
>
> The rule did not attempt to show that the Judge is a higher power than
> Verisign, merely that the Judge is a higher power than Congress and the
> US Army.
The Rule has to do a bit more than provide a higher power than Congress
and the US Army I'm afraid. But more on that in a bit... I had been
reading Rule 216:07 as requiring all subsequent Rules to provide a power
higher than Verisign. In retrospect, that may have been a rather broad
interpretation, so I will ignore my interpretation for the moment.
> None of the Rules so far in this round require transitivity. The mere
> fact that Congress indirectly is a higher power than the Judge does not
> prevent the Judge from directly being a higher power than Congress.
Your Rule specified transitivity in the following paragraph:
] The Judge will decide whether Congress or the US Army is the Higher
] Power... so the Judge is Higher yet. But the Judge can only make his
] Judgment if the list host administrator allows the judgment to go
] through (see 216:1). But the list host administrator can only (see
] 216:2), etc.
Your inclusion of transitivity here led me to consider that the Judge's
power is restricted based upon the transition of power started in 216:01,
and leading up to 216:10. This led to a circular power loop, which I broke
out of by noticing that the Judge's power can be directly circumvented by
some of the powers specified in other Rules. On further consideration of
the Regular Ordinances (ROs), this decision may have been a bit hasty.
> Please reconsider the judgment.
Okay... Let's start from the beginning.
Here are what the ROs say about the Judge:
6. Judge. The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances and
determining the validity of fantasy rules. If a fantasy rule is
inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or
the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid
or unsuccessful, otherwise e shall declare it valid.
I found 216:10 to inconsistent with itself here: "Congress has power over
the US Army. The US Army has power over Congress." If there was a third
entity involved, that would be workable power loop. With just two entities
in the power loop though, it looks highly inconsistent to me. Perhaps the
orbital mind control lasers have made me less lenient today, but let's
move on.
FNORD
There is the restriction from 216:01 you have to meet: "Any subsequent
valid rule must prove me wrong, by finding a Higher Power." The power is
of course Arnt's power of having the Root password of the FRC list host.
RO 10 allows the judge to specify the location and nature of the official
committee forum, so the Judge is a higher power than this.
There is a restriction from 216:03 you have to meet: "Any subsequent valid
rule must prove me wrong, by finding a Higher Power." The power is
Richard's physical control of the FRC list host. The Judge's control of
the official committee forum from RO 10 means that the Judge is a higher
power than this.
There is a restriction from 216:04 you have to meet: "Any subsequent rule
must prove me wrong, by finding a Higher Power." The power is Arnt's
control of the electricity powering the FRC list server. The Judge still
is a higher power, due to RO 10.
There is a restriction from 216:05 you have to meet: "All subsequent rules
must name a higher power than the one in the previous valid rule, and
furthermore, that entity must not be one that has been named before." The
power to beat this time is the United States Army. 216:10 claims that the
Judge is the higher power due to the power of determining whether or not
the US Congress of the US Army is the higher power. This doesn't seem to
contradict anything, so I can buy that. "The Judge" is also not an entity
that has been named before, so you are safe on that count as well.
There is a restriction from 216:06 that you have to meet: "Any subsequent
rule must prove me wrong, by finding a Higher Power." The power is
Nathan's orbital mirror. RO 10 still allows the Judge to be the higher
power, as I don't see anywhere that the official committee forum has to be
powered by a computer.
There is a restriction from 216:08 that you have to meet: "Subsequent
rules not only must prove me wrong by finding a higher power, they must
also show how it's neat." The power is the Constitution and Legislation of
the United States. 216:10 directly demonstrates that the Judge is the
higher power of both Congress and the US Army. There is a tricky point
that I believe I brought up earlier. Congress != the Constitution and
Legislation of the United States. However, 216:08 implies that Congress
controls the power of the Constitution and Legislation of the United
States, so being a higher power than Congress may qualify as being a
higher power than the Constitution and Legislation of the United States.
216:08 also requires that you show the power is neat. Does hoping for a
neatly elaborated decision from the Judge count as showing that the power
of the Judge is neat? That could be a stretch. Especially when you go on
to say how the Judge is likely to be corrupted. Can a corrupted Judge make
a neatly ellaborated decision? Hmm...
There is a restriction from 216:09 that you have to meet: "Subsequent
rules must prove me wrong by finding a higher power, showing how it's
neat, and showing how it corrupts." The power is the United States Army,
which you have already demonstrated that the Judge is a higher power of. I
feel you also demonstrated how the power of the Judge corrupts. Of course,
you have the "neat" clause yet again.
Every restriction seems to have been met except for the "neat" clause from
216:08 and 216:09. There is also the self-inconsistency in 216:10 that I
pointed out. I still feel that the Rule is INVALID based upon these two
problems. I welcome further commentary from the committee, but remember I
do have to get on with judging the rest of the Round. Please don't take it
personally or be discouraged. You of course still have ample opportunity
to post additional Rules, if you desire. If you feel I am totally out of
line, you can of course make a proposal to change my decision.
--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST