On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> my gnarlierness depends on the interpretation of the rules (for >> instance, if there were a rule "Whenever an exiled entity is ever >> not a player, e is registered", it would cause the same sort of >> trigger loop as this one, and interpretation of those rules would >> determine whether the entity in question were a party. > > But there isn't such a rule, and the whole point of awarding wins by > paradox is (or should be, anyway) about paradoxes that are actually in > the rules. Your ability to create a paradoxical contract without the > support of a majority of players which makes information required to > judge a case logically impossible for the judge to ascertain isn't the > same as an ability to trick the other players into voting for a series > of rules changes that create a paradox.
Unfortunately, whether e *should* be able to do it has little bearing on whether e *can* do it. -root
