root wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (snip) >> >> 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.
I think there's another point at issue. It's entirely possible that the rules are only paradoxical when ruling on certain contrived situations; that's what I think has happened here (not exactly a paradox, but something else that fits the definition of UNDECIDABLE). There's a problem in the rules if there is anything that they can't determine with certainty, even something contrived; and if that contrived situation can be set up without the help of other players, so much the better. But the error in the rules that players may have been 'tricked into', or that may have come about by chance, that is being exploited, is not something that one person could do by emself. -- ais523
<<winmail.dat>>
