From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 11:12:04 PDT
Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes: > >>>>> > It grows increasingly clear that the FRC consists almost entirely of > extremely depraved individuals. They are only concerned with the > success of themselves and their own rules, and are perfectly caspable of > putting forward the most blatantly illogical and absurd arguments that > their own rules should be VALID with high style--but for other people's > rules, they do just the opposite. For the first 75 rounds since I > joined, I had high hopes that they would shape up, that they would be > able to rule themselves in a peaceful, democratic fashion. But now I > realize that human nature is completely corrupt, unable to provide > happiness for themselves or others. What? Do you think that these > bastions of wickedness are happy? Why then do they continue to fight > for honor in future rounds no matter how much they have recieved in > previous rounds? It is an inherantly futile effort. Everyone loses, > even the winners. If the masses are completely corrupt, only an > absolute ruling power can keep them in line. The Leviathan. The Judge. > > However, it has come to my attention that the Judge does not yet have > absolute power. While there is a limit to what one rule can do, there > is a drastic remedy that this rule shall take that will bring the Judge > much greater power. I feel confident that the Judge, in light of my > carefully reasoned treatise on human nature, will accept this increased > power. > > Future rules shall all be INVALID due to inconsistancy with this rule. > That is, they should all be declared INVALID the first time. The Judge > is perfectly able to make them VALID by a reruling, and presumably shall > for any rules that he likes. But no more of this nonsense about > consistency automatically earning a place among the ruleset. Forget > about consistancy. All that matters is whether the (nearly) > omnicompetent Judge does or does not like your rule. > >>>>>> JUDGEMENT: This rule asserts that all future rules will be inconsistent with this rule (herein referred to as the "inconsistency assertion"). Suppose rule 185:n is consistent with all *other* provisions of 185:5 (and all other rules and ROs). Then 185:n is VALID if it is consistent with the inconsistency assertion. But then according to the inconsistency assertion, 185:n is INVALID. On the other hand, 185:n is INVALID if it is inconsistent with the inconsistency assertion, i.e., if it is VALID. Hence this rule would require the Judge to find 185:n simultaneously VALID and INVALID, contrary to the ROs. Therefore 185:5 is INVALID. A second problem with this rule is its own self-inconsistency: It asserts that future rules must be declared INVALID due to inconsistency with 185:5, and then goes on to say consistency does not matter. STYLE: The rule starts well before bogging down in its own paradoxes. Then there's the matter of spelling. +1.4. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 18:12:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST