Rule 10: (Had been Rule 9 but Banno beat me to the post) The author of this thread shall reveal the "curious implications" prior to any player stating any further rules. He shall also reveal all the consequences of any of the rules already established being broken. (If rules are broken along the way does this entail that the game first annihilates and then reincarnates itself over and over?)
Rule 9: The author of this thread shall reveal the "curious implications" prior to any player stating any further rules. He shall also reveal all the consequences of any of the rules already established being broken. (If rules are broken along the way does this entail that the game first annihilates and then reincarnates itself over and over?)
Banno got rule 9 in first. A previously unwritten and still unnumbered rule says that if you want to state any rule (other than this one: there can be only one unwritten, unnumbered rule...oh, wait, that's another one...damn!) and especially if you want to claim its status as a numbered rule, then you must state that it is so at the time of stating the rule itself.
No one can stop you, but if you do a rule will be broken which may lead to chaos... (perhaps the "curious implications" have already been implicitly revealed (is there such a thing as implicit revelation???)) >:)
Banno got rule 9 in first. A previously unwritten and still unnumbered rule says that if you want to state any rule (other than this one: there can be only one unwritten, unnumbered rule...oh, wait, that's another one...damn!) and especially if you want to claim its status as a numbered rule, then you must state that it is so at the time of stating the rule itself.
What you say is clearly not true, which is fine. It just goes to show that the first rules that get promulgated should be procedural rules. If people don't even try to follow the rules that came before, it's not a game at all. It could have been fun and interesting.
Do you mean it's not true that Banno got rule 9 in first?
Or do you mean that it's not true what I said about the unwritten rule that you must state that what you say is a rule and is rule number n in order for it to count as such?
Yeah, but he leads us only into the oblivion of bathroom or laundry politics, and does so without even knowing what they are or that he is doing it. Truly a case of the blind leading the blind.
Do you mean it's not true that Banno got rule 9 in first?
I think I see the issue. I submitted Rule 9 and included Banno's avatar in it. I was trying to follow my interpretation of Rule 2 - which, I think, says that rules should be expressed visually not in words. I asked if that was a correct interpretation, but no one responded.
Rule 9 says that Banno gets to decide any conflicts in the game.
I had such high hopes for Fred as Supreme Leader, but he just drank the toilet water and started chewing on the wall, so I'm not sure he's the intellectual I thought he was.
Rule 14: In any search for supreme leaders and/or philosopher kings strict criteria shall be employed in order to rule out unlikely cadidates from the get-go and minimize the risk of wasted time and futile emotional investment.
If the search goes on within the game then the criteria must also be within the game. Also, if it can be enunciated within the game, then it must be part of the game.
The criteria must be suited to purpose. In the case we have before us we don't need to think much; a simple rule such as 'Do not consider as a candidate for supreme leader anyone who is significantly covered in body hair'.
The first rule is that it's your turn to add a rule. Now, given Rule #11, it's clear that rule #1 is situational. But the sense is, that, if you're reading this, you are free to add a rule. This suggests that the game itself is built upon the pillars of free speech. Rule #2 is "Whereof one cannot speak, things must be shown". T. Clark felt he could not speak, and thence created rule #9, which was a perfect example of rule #2. So far, no one else has followed rule #2, except for Banno in rule #3. But because rule #11 allows for situational rules, it can be assumed that rule #2 only applies when only pictures will do.
Now, rule #3 is a complex and perplexing rule, not least of which because, like rule #9, it is presented in image form. The rule is quite literally a .png. This is in keeping with rule #2. But it's unclear what exactly rule #3 actually espouses. On the one hand, it's possible that rule #3 suggests that the social contract of engendering the game, of mere participation, is criteria enough to cement the participant within the confines of the rules of the game itself. But, on the other hand, if ones sides with Camus, the rules themselves are not only frivolous, but, patently absurd. So, rule #3 can be interpreted as both a qualification of, and a refutation of, rule #2. This ambiguity may cause future problems. Continue reading.
Rule #4. Anyone who uses or refers to rule #4 must start their post with, "Rule #4 is an excellent rule."
Now, rule #4 is an excellent rule; except it's actually not. We have a problem here. Rule #11 applies.
Rule #5 is "choose a side". This rule is rooted in deep traditions of wisdom; to choose a side is to demarcate; choosing a side means creating a definition; and what human action could be both more profound, and more freeing? Unfortunately, within the confines of the rules of the game so far, it's unclear what the sides actually are. So, with regards to rule #5, we need to reference rule #11, and acknowledge that choosing sides will in the future be both a wise and necessary goal, but, given the current set of rules, rule #5 is irrelevant. But thanks to rule #11, it still holds [future] water.
rule #6 is utterly irrelevant to all other rules, and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.
Rule #7 is also utterly irrelevant to all other rules (other than rule #8), and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.
Rule #8 is also utterly irrelevant to all other rules (other than rule #7), and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.
Rule #9 is very esoteric; it questions whether all rules should have been stated in picture form up until this point, even though they have, by and large, not been stated in picture form. In an almost Warholian motif, T. Clark dramatically asks us this question with his rule. But, sadly, rule #9 is a deep, existential question, rather than a rule, and so, once again, rule #11 applies here, rendering rule #9 meaningless.
In addition, rule #9 also specifically states, in picture form, that one Banno, presumably the author of the thread itself, gets to decide any conflicts within the game. This is an important aspect of rule #9 which I initially overlooked; but I've amended my summary to include it, thanks to one T. Clark.
This is rule #10 (a dandy of a rule if I ever saw one):
Rule 10: (Had been Rule 9 but Banno beat me to the post) The author of this thread shall reveal the "curious implications" prior to any player stating any further rules. He shall also reveal all the consequences of any of the rules already established being broken. (If rules are broken along the way does this entail that the game first annihilates and then reincarnates itself over and over?)
This rule is problematic because, rather than being a rule that applies specifically to the game, the author of this rule, one Janus, as such, is clearly just asking the author of said thread, one Banno, what the "curious implications" of the thread are. Now, this is clearly not a proper rule of the game. This is an attempt at an unessisary ultimatum of sorts. Janus is essentially inquiring about the nature of the game itself; if this were indeed a rule within the game, it would be difficult to properly enforce and police this rule. Rule #11 once again applies.
And now:
Rule #11: Not all rules apply at the same time.
This rule is self-explanatory, and informs all previous and future rules. This rule is the first proper rule. It serves as a kind of crux-point to all other rules; again, both past, and future. Rule #11 is infinite and eternal.
Rule #12 is meaningless.
Rule #13 was nowhere clearly stated, and yet members of the game seem to assume it exists. Until further proof is brought forth, it can only be assumed that rule #13 does not exist. This is troubling.
Rule 14: In any search for supreme leaders and/or philosopher kings strict criteria shall be employed in order to rule out unlikely cadidates from the get-go and minimize the risk of wasted time and futile emotional investment.
Suddenly, the search for a supreme leader has become the goal of the game, which is entirely egregious and erroneous. No where has this goal been stated, or even implied. This assumption about the need for a supreme leader, and the suggestion that the game is oriented towards the crowning of such a leader, is not only unprecedented, but simply, patently, false.
Rule #9 is very esoteric; it questions whether all rules should have been stated in picture form up until this point, even though they have, by and large, not been stated in picture form. In an almost Warholian motif, T. Clark dramatically asks us this question with his rule. But, sadly, rule #9 is a deep, existential question, rather than a rule, and so, once again, rule #11 applies here, rendering rule #9 meaningless.
This is a wonderful post. It [s]almost[/s] makes the for the rest of the bullshit in this discussion. A quibble - you have focused on the form of Rule 9 and not it's content. As I said in a previous post:
Rule 9 says that Banno gets to decide any conflicts in the game.
Except for the fact that I have lost interest in the game and I don't want to have to cut and paste a bunch of pictures together again, I would promulgate a rule giving that role to you.
Except for the fact that I have lost interest in the game and I don't want to have to cut and paste a bunch of pictures together again, I would promulgate a rule giving that role to you.
While I am grateful for your recommendation, and while I would fully accept your promulgation, I cannot, by nature of the game, officially accept your hypothetical rule, passing on to me the role you so generously have offered, without an actual rule being instigated, democratically, by someone within the thread.
Rule #17: The hierarchy that the rules follow start at rule 18, with the rule number as variable x and for every rule if |x-18|=-y then the instance where y=0 is the most important rule
Rule #18: The user MonfortS26 is the only user with the privilege of being exempt from all rules and his rules are accepted as law.
Reply to Noble Dust It doesn't matter when rule #11 does not apply when another rule states that it itself applies all of the time. Rule #11 doesn't state that no rule can apply at all times, it just states that not all rules apply at the same time. That statement suggests that some rules don't apply all of the time, not that all rules only apply sometimes.
Reply to Noble Dust I'm still having fun. I didn't take away anyone else's ability to make rules, I just took away other peoples ability to take away my ability to make rules. It is a game, isn't it?
I had such high hopes for Fred as Supreme Leader, but he just drank the toilet water and started chewing on the wall, so I'm not sure he's the intellectual I thought he was.
He sounds as though he is on the same level as some world leaders, don't give up on him yet.
No rule shall be considered valid until it has been published in a confirmation post by Lord of the Game, Sir Banno.
Any rule posted before aforementioned confirmation of previous post will be cancelled and considered null and void.
Rule two: Rules that are labeled with a hash (#) are hereby deemed not well-formed and hence need not be followed.
Clean deck; start again.
I point out that Rule 9 makes Banno the final arbiter of all issues and interpretations of what rules are acceptable, what they mean, and when they apply.
I've been thinking about this post some more. This is the most important thing I've learned from this discussion - the need for administration and enforcement. A bit of bureaucracy is needed. So, ND, you have become a proto-bureaucrat. As I said, I would make that role official if I could.
B, not all the rules that have been stated have hashtags. ND you included hashtags in front of the numbers of all the rules you critique, which means your critique is vacuous in relation to all the rules that did not have hashtags when they were stated.
New rule (forget the numbers, they don't matter, they are merely a convenience): no defunct critique shall be re-presented in 'corrected' form to apply where it previously did not.
Using something so inane as the use of a hashtag as grounds for nullifying a set of rules, or a commentary on a set of rules, is pointless, and contributes nothing to the game.
The nullification of rules that include hashtags comes from THE MAN, the Creator Himself, not from me, and not from a minor despot, so take it up with the creator. I was merely fleshing out the impliactions of the Law.
Using something so inane as the use of a hashtag as grounds for nullifying a set of rules, or a commentary on a set of rules, is pointless, and contributes nothing to the game.
To be successful, a game like this needs a good leader. Rule 9 offered the opportunity for us to have one, but Banno was unwilling to step up. That left the door open for someone with no commitment to following the rules or fairness to take charge.
That's a pretty good lesson - In an open situation, lack of scruples is an advantage. The only way to win is not to play.
Using something so inane as the use of a hashtag as grounds for nullifying a set of rules, or a commentary on a set of rules, is pointless, and contributes nothing to the game.
I used a hash (not a hashtag) in the first rule; my followers wrongly assumed that these were obligatory. I'm just pointing out that this was mere dogma.
The fact that you're willfully playing along with that inane and random rule about hashtags in order to further your own agenda in making certain rules reveals a lack of character within the context of the game. If the leadership, @Banno makes a dumb rule, the rule should be questioned.
The use of the hash seems to reveal a certain bureaucratic mentality that should be not be encouraged except when it is employed by the Supreme Bureaucrat. Also excessive concern about 'sucking the fun out of" or "lack of character within" or the psychological motives of other players should be considered as complaints which contain implicit appeals to some imagined authority-figure to make the game fair or in other words the way the complainant wants it to be, and are thus to be avoided in the interest of openness and creativity and the willingness to see how things turn out.
I was thinking more along the lines of deism than theism. I've probably interfered too much already.
That's fine and I can understand, being a very lazy person myself. My suggestion is that you use your power to make Noble Dust da Man. He will be conscientious and fair.
My complaints have only been towards rules that prevent other reasonable rules from being made; rules that are power grabs which prevent the game from being open and creative.
I was thinking more along the lines of deism than theism. I've probably interfered too much already. — Banno
That's fine and I can understand, being a very lazy person myself. My suggestion is that you use your power to make Noble Dust da Man. He will be conscientious and fair.
Think of yourself as the Wizard of Oz and ND as the Scarecrow. That makes Janus....some damn fucking Munchkin.
No, Janus was simply going along with your rule without questioning it, and using it as leverage for power; not a sign of the Overman. The Overman wouldn't care about your prior rules.
Ah, but as you should realize all rules may be broken which means that what might appear to be oppressive rules are really exhortations to the creativity of finding ways around them.
So within the game, then, you're willfully creating oppressive rules, with the intention that members of the game will creatively find ways around them?
Ah, but as you should realize all rules may be broken which means that what might appear to be oppressive rules are really exhortations to the creativity of finding ways around them.
It doesn't matter what you say, Noble Dust is now Da Man.
OK, I understand a distinction between 'both signals and causes', and '(either) signals or causes', and I can't make sense of 'both signals or causes'; but I protesteth not, since the Creator moves in mysterious ways.
OK, I understand a distinction between 'both signals and causes', and '(either) signals or causes', and I can't make sense of 'both signals or causes'; but I protesteth not, since the Creator moves in mysterious ways.
I never wanted this power, but here's where we stand:
@Posty McPostface Rule one states that "Rules cannot be imposed on other rules previously made from henceforth." Already, this is problematic, because of course the rules will need to interact with one another.
@Banno Rule two states " Rules that are labeled with a hash (#) are hereby deemed not well-formed and hence need not be followed." This rule is completely arbitrary and unessisary; however, since the game has began afresh, players simply need to follow rule two by not using a hash (#) when labeling their rules. This rule is needless micromanagement, but harmless.
@Sir2u Rule three states: No rule shall be considered valid until it has been published in a confirmation post by Lord of the Game, Sir Banno.
Any rule posted before aforementioned confirmation of previous post will be cancelled and considered null and void.
This rule is now void, because Banno is not Lord of the Game anymore. There's no indication of whether or not this rule is automatically passed down to the next Lord, so I don't accept this rule as applying to me.
So far, we're not off to a great start.
Edit: I've quoted the rule-makers of the game so far in this post, so that the state of the game can be discussed, and my commentary can be analyzed, if necessary.
So within the game, then, you're willfully creating oppressive rules, with the intention that members of the game will creatively find ways around them?
When I asked Banno to make you DM, I told him you would be conscientious and fair. It's time for you to follow up. Say something gracious and conciliatory.
It's untrue that oppression only occurs to those who would be oppressed. And indeed, oppression is often a position from which a difficult challenge becomes an opportunity. But this doesn't mean that oppression isn't occuring.
Of course I'm eternally indebted to you. But where have I shown signs of despotism? So far, I've provided a second commentary of round two of the game, and I continue to debate Janus. That's all I've done in office so far.
Of course I'm eternally indebted to you. But where have I shown signs of despotism? So far, I've provided a second commentary of round two of the game, and I continue to debate Janus. That's all I've done in office so far.
A general admonishment to the players, and to would be players: Please be thoughtful in contributing the next rule. The game can easily descend into incomprehensibility without rules that work well together.
Not at all; anyone, including yourself, can add a rule, and you've added several. That gives you power, and you can use that power in many ways, including oppression.
When I google 'crucification' I am redirected to 'crucifixion'. I did qualify "except by B fiat". I know what you meant when you used it, though; so it is serviceable.
Rule one states that "Rules cannot be imposed on other rules previously made from henceforth." Already, this is problematic, because of course the rules will need to interact with one another.
If the rules obey each other, then they are interacting.
Keeping in mind that you no longer have any authority and that @Noble Dust is Da Man, you certainly have the right to solicit or propose new rules. Again - ND will be the final arbiter of whether the new rules are acceptable and how they are to be interpreted. Perhaps it was a mistake for you to cede your authority to him.
I used the phrase "In whom I am well pleased". Not so pleased with Noble Dust at the moment.
Although I agree with you that @Noble Dust has not lived up to my expectations for his performance, I can only respond with a phrase we use here in the US - "tough toenails." I don't know if you use it in Australia. Your opinion counts for no more than mine or ProgramingGodJordan's at this point.
What do you expect me to do, descend to Earth in human form and dish out a bunch of rules that have nothing to do with each other, like we find here in the game?
What do you expect me to do, descend to Earth in human form and dish out a bunch of rules that have nothing to do with each other, like we find here in the game?
You're right. You are Da Man. It is unseemly for me to question your wisdom. Please forgive your worthless lickspittle.
Rule 4 - The game will be over when 50% of the posters who have proposed new rules within the past 24 hours proclaim that the game is over, whether or not those rules are accepted by Da Man.
I propose a new Rule 4 - If no one has proposed a new rule within 12 hours of the most recently accepted one, Da Man shall assign responsibility for proposing a new rule. If the person to whom the responsibility has been assigned does not respond within 12 hours, Da Man shall promulgate a new rule him/herself. If Da Man does not meet this requirement. The game is over.
You always knew I would never become a despot. You said I would be fair. And yet now you demand tyranny. You've "washed your hands" before, and yet you always come back, thirsting for rule after rule. If you could only see yourself for who you are, you would be freed from this need. I await the creation of rules like a baby awaiting an unknown future she could never conceive of; I wear rules on my person like Tom Bombadil wore The One Ring.
Anyways, I'm off to see the new Star Wars movie, wish me luck. Hope it doesn't suck.
Rule 4.1
He who talks a lot, has many posts without rules contained there in, has to post a rule for each of the posts that poster made that does not contain a rule.
Rule 4.2
The Lord of the Game has the power to authorize any further venality he see fit for those posters that talk too much as defined in Rule 4.1. Including himself.
Rule 4.1
He who talks a lot, has many posts without rules contained there in, has to post a rule for each of the posts that poster made that does not contain a rule.
Even though Da Man has not ruled on the acceptability of this rule, I will proceed to address it's requirements. I count 14 posts that I have made that do not propose rules. I will therefore propose 14 rules. I will designate them Rule 5-1 through 5-14 in order to make them easy to keep track of:
Rule 5-1: From now on, August 12 will be designated Jagged Edges Day. On that day, the wisdom of Charles Surber will be celebrated.
Rule 5-2: All rules established after Rule 5-14 shall be kind and reasonable.
Rule 5-3: For Rule 6 and all additional rules, on odd numbered days, only people with even numbered birthdays may propose rules.
Rule 5-4: For Rule 6 and all additional rules, on even numbered days, only people with odd numbered birthdays may propose rules.
Rule 5-5: The word "pontificate" may not be used in any rule.
Rule 5-6: Rule 6 must be expressed in no more than 5 words.
Rule 5-7: After Rule 6, all rules must be expressed in five words or more.
Rule 5-8: No rule may be promulgated to ridicule, exclude, or humiliate any participant in the game.
Rule 5-9: The purpose of the game will be to help people understand why people play games and the philosophical consequences of playing.
Rule 5-10: No one who doesn't want to play the game will be criticized. This includes people who have participated but choose no longer to.
Rule 5-11: If Da Man uses the phrase "ha ha," at any time in this discussion, all the rules designated Rule 5-1 through 5-14 shall no longer apply.
Rule 5-12: Rules proposed by Sir2U will no longer be considered legitmate.
Rule 5-13: God will not have his will made manifest by cowards.
Rule 5-14: No rule going forward shall require T Clark to propose additional rules, although he may if he chooses.
This is brilliant, I've spent the morning reading this instead of preparing for work, it's like a real life version of 'Lord of the Flies'.
Start an amusing game of lateral thinking and watch it descend into sectarianism and a desperate attempt to get other people to take responsibility for reigning-in oppression rather than escape from it ourselves.
This should definitely form part of some social psychology paper.
Comments (180)
Pictures, please.
Fuck you, and your childish, insidious games.
I overthrow the game, then I rule.
Rule 5, choose a side
Interpretation request - PMP - does this mean that we shouldn't be using words at all and that all rules should be expressed visually?
I got rule 9 in first. this is rule 10.
Banno got rule 9 in first. A previously unwritten and still unnumbered rule says that if you want to state any rule (other than this one: there can be only one unwritten, unnumbered rule...oh, wait, that's another one...damn!) and especially if you want to claim its status as a numbered rule, then you must state that it is so at the time of stating the rule itself.
Rule 1 and rule 10 are at odds; now I’m paralyzed by uncertainty. Do I post a rule or no?
No one can stop you, but if you do a rule will be broken which may lead to chaos... (perhaps the "curious implications" have already been implicitly revealed (is there such a thing as implicit revelation???)) >:)
Rule #11: Not all rules apply at the same time.
That's very liberating!
(Noble Dust was quick...)
And yet...Rule 12: this rule supersedes Rule 11 ( or is it Rule 13 supersedes Rule 12 :s )
That rule is meaningless.
What you say is clearly not true, which is fine. It just goes to show that the first rules that get promulgated should be procedural rules. If people don't even try to follow the rules that came before, it's not a game at all. It could have been fun and interesting.
Fred is the supreme leader.
Do you mean it's not true that Banno got rule 9 in first?
Or do you mean that it's not true what I said about the unwritten rule that you must state that what you say is a rule and is rule number n in order for it to count as such?
Yeah, but he leads us only into the oblivion of bathroom or laundry politics, and does so without even knowing what they are or that he is doing it. Truly a case of the blind leading the blind.
I think I see the issue. I submitted Rule 9 and included Banno's avatar in it. I was trying to follow my interpretation of Rule 2 - which, I think, says that rules should be expressed visually not in words. I asked if that was a correct interpretation, but no one responded.
Rule 9 says that Banno gets to decide any conflicts in the game.
Rule for Hanover. Wash Fred and get him a nice trim.
You noticed?
And not so meaningless that we got rule 13 from Janus.
...which is also meaningless.
But what wouldn't be meaningless yet true in this World.
Oh, dear poor attentiveness on my part...is there a rule against that?
What happens is a competition to have the most important rule.
I wonder how this would proceed if played only amongst women.
Eminently sensible...
Rule 14: In any search for supreme leaders and/or philosopher kings strict criteria shall be employed in order to rule out unlikely cadidates from the get-go and minimize the risk of wasted time and futile emotional investment.
And what is that criteria?
Could it be a power beyond the rules of the game, power that creates the context of the game, that allows the game.
If the search goes on within the game then the criteria must also be within the game. Also, if it can be enunciated within the game, then it must be part of the game.
The criteria must be suited to purpose. In the case we have before us we don't need to think much; a simple rule such as 'Do not consider as a candidate for supreme leader anyone who is significantly covered in body hair'.
Is the goal of the game to find a supreme leader?
Or bark. Or barks.
And as it says in Rule 9, Banno's word is law.
Ok, so, a summary.
The first rule is that it's your turn to add a rule. Now, given Rule #11, it's clear that rule #1 is situational. But the sense is, that, if you're reading this, you are free to add a rule. This suggests that the game itself is built upon the pillars of free speech. Rule #2 is "Whereof one cannot speak, things must be shown". T. Clark felt he could not speak, and thence created rule #9, which was a perfect example of rule #2. So far, no one else has followed rule #2, except for Banno in rule #3. But because rule #11 allows for situational rules, it can be assumed that rule #2 only applies when only pictures will do.
Now, rule #3 is a complex and perplexing rule, not least of which because, like rule #9, it is presented in image form. The rule is quite literally a .png. This is in keeping with rule #2. But it's unclear what exactly rule #3 actually espouses. On the one hand, it's possible that rule #3 suggests that the social contract of engendering the game, of mere participation, is criteria enough to cement the participant within the confines of the rules of the game itself. But, on the other hand, if ones sides with Camus, the rules themselves are not only frivolous, but, patently absurd. So, rule #3 can be interpreted as both a qualification of, and a refutation of, rule #2. This ambiguity may cause future problems. Continue reading.
Rule #4 is:
Quoting tim wood
Now, rule #4 is an excellent rule; except it's actually not. We have a problem here. Rule #11 applies.
Rule #5 is "choose a side". This rule is rooted in deep traditions of wisdom; to choose a side is to demarcate; choosing a side means creating a definition; and what human action could be both more profound, and more freeing? Unfortunately, within the confines of the rules of the game so far, it's unclear what the sides actually are. So, with regards to rule #5, we need to reference rule #11, and acknowledge that choosing sides will in the future be both a wise and necessary goal, but, given the current set of rules, rule #5 is irrelevant. But thanks to rule #11, it still holds [future] water.
rule #6 is utterly irrelevant to all other rules, and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.
Rule #7 is also utterly irrelevant to all other rules (other than rule #8), and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.
Rule #8 is also utterly irrelevant to all other rules (other than rule #7), and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.
Rule #9 is very esoteric; it questions whether all rules should have been stated in picture form up until this point, even though they have, by and large, not been stated in picture form. In an almost Warholian motif, T. Clark dramatically asks us this question with his rule. But, sadly, rule #9 is a deep, existential question, rather than a rule, and so, once again, rule #11 applies here, rendering rule #9 meaningless.
In addition, rule #9 also specifically states, in picture form, that one Banno, presumably the author of the thread itself, gets to decide any conflicts within the game. This is an important aspect of rule #9 which I initially overlooked; but I've amended my summary to include it, thanks to one T. Clark.
This is rule #10 (a dandy of a rule if I ever saw one):
Quoting Janus
This rule is problematic because, rather than being a rule that applies specifically to the game, the author of this rule, one Janus, as such, is clearly just asking the author of said thread, one Banno, what the "curious implications" of the thread are. Now, this is clearly not a proper rule of the game. This is an attempt at an unessisary ultimatum of sorts. Janus is essentially inquiring about the nature of the game itself; if this were indeed a rule within the game, it would be difficult to properly enforce and police this rule. Rule #11 once again applies.
And now:
Rule #11: Not all rules apply at the same time.
This rule is self-explanatory, and informs all previous and future rules. This rule is the first proper rule. It serves as a kind of crux-point to all other rules; again, both past, and future. Rule #11 is infinite and eternal.
Rule #12 is meaningless.
Rule #13 was nowhere clearly stated, and yet members of the game seem to assume it exists. Until further proof is brought forth, it can only be assumed that rule #13 does not exist. This is troubling.
Rule #14:
Quoting Janus
Suddenly, the search for a supreme leader has become the goal of the game, which is entirely egregious and erroneous. No where has this goal been stated, or even implied. This assumption about the need for a supreme leader, and the suggestion that the game is oriented towards the crowning of such a leader, is not only unprecedented, but simply, patently, false.
Rule #15:
Quoting MonfortS26
Another meaningless rule that is superseded by rule #11.
This is a wonderful post. It [s]almost[/s] makes the for the rest of the bullshit in this discussion. A quibble - you have focused on the form of Rule 9 and not it's content. As I said in a previous post:
Quoting T Clark
Except for the fact that I have lost interest in the game and I don't want to have to cut and paste a bunch of pictures together again, I would promulgate a rule giving that role to you.
Very true; I've amended my summary so as to include this important point.
Quoting T Clark
While I am grateful for your recommendation, and while I would fully accept your promulgation, I cannot, by nature of the game, officially accept your hypothetical rule, passing on to me the role you so generously have offered, without an actual rule being instigated, democratically, by someone within the thread.
Except that rule #11 also applies to rule #16.
Rule #17: The hierarchy that the rules follow start at rule 18, with the rule number as variable x and for every rule if |x-18|=-y then the instance where y=0 is the most important rule
Rule #18: The user MonfortS26 is the only user with the privilege of being exempt from all rules and his rules are accepted as law.
Rule #11 still applies. Nice.
Because rule #11 states that not all rules apply at the same time. That includes rule #17.
Right. So when does rule #11 not apply? How do you determine this? You determine it on the basis of rule #11 itself.
Still subject to rule #11, rendering both #17 and #19 meaningless.
Where is that a rule?
Answer the question "when does rule #11 not apply", and I'll answer your question.
Rule #20: Rules #17 and #19 never apply.
Rule #23: nothing MonfortS26 says in this thread applies.
Way to suck the fun out of this thread, broh! Nice!
I.E. you sucked the fun out of the thread, broh! Nice!
The consequences of sucking the fun out of the thread, broh! Nice!
The last rule will be "ignore all previous rules", so it'll work out in the end.
Clean deck; start again.
Rules cannot be imposed on other rules previously made from henceforth.
He sounds as though he is on the same level as some world leaders, don't give up on him yet.
No rule shall be considered valid until it has been published in a confirmation post by Lord of the Game, Sir Banno.
Any rule posted before aforementioned confirmation of previous post will be cancelled and considered null and void.
I point out that Rule 9 makes Banno the final arbiter of all issues and interpretations of what rules are acceptable, what they mean, and when they apply.
I've been thinking about this post some more. This is the most important thing I've learned from this discussion - the need for administration and enforcement. A bit of bureaucracy is needed. So, ND, you have become a proto-bureaucrat. As I said, I would make that role official if I could.
B, not all the rules that have been stated have hashtags. ND you included hashtags in front of the numbers of all the rules you critique, which means your critique is vacuous in relation to all the rules that did not have hashtags when they were stated.
New rule (forget the numbers, they don't matter, they are merely a convenience): no defunct critique shall be re-presented in 'corrected' form to apply where it previously did not.
Fair point. You still have to choose sides and I still get to decide who dies Pollice verso.
In this game, does the turned thumb signal the living or dying, or cause it? (The same question applies in the 'real' world).
Both signals and causes in both the game and the 'real' world, then?
In the real world someone may escape death even after the event of the downturned thumb signals their impending doom. Can it happen in this game?
These rules are pointless and contribute nothing to the game.
Unfortunately Janus is trying to ensure that that never happens.
To the contrary, they save the game from the fatal grip of bureaucracy, they preserve it from the depredations of would-be minor despots.
No; both signals or causes.
Quoting Janus
They clearly can't reach it on their own.
What’s the issue? Rule 9 says you da man. Make up your mind and tell us where it goes next.
Using something so inane as the use of a hashtag as grounds for nullifying a set of rules, or a commentary on a set of rules, is pointless, and contributes nothing to the game.
Said the would-be minor despot.
I was thinking more along the lines of deism than theism. I've probably interfered too much already.
The nullification of rules that include hashtags comes from THE MAN, the Creator Himself, not from me, and not from a minor despot, so take it up with the creator. I was merely fleshing out the impliactions of the Law.
To be successful, a game like this needs a good leader. Rule 9 offered the opportunity for us to have one, but Banno was unwilling to step up. That left the door open for someone with no commitment to following the rules or fairness to take charge.
That's a pretty good lesson - In an open situation, lack of scruples is an advantage. The only way to win is not to play.
I used a hash (not a hashtag) in the first rule; my followers wrongly assumed that these were obligatory. I'm just pointing out that this was mere dogma.
As I said to ND, I have merely been echoing the Creator; who you have also affirmed to be The Man. I have no aspiration to minor despotism.
The fact that you're willfully playing along with that inane and random rule about hashtags in order to further your own agenda in making certain rules reveals a lack of character within the context of the game. If the leadership, @Banno makes a dumb rule, the rule should be questioned.
But now Janus has manipulated that to create rules that prevent other posters from having certain power within the game.
I had puzzled at the quantity of directly religious moral threads on this forum. Is that a result of the change in clientele, or of changing times?
The use of the hash seems to reveal a certain bureaucratic mentality that should be not be encouraged except when it is employed by the Supreme Bureaucrat. Also excessive concern about 'sucking the fun out of" or "lack of character within" or the psychological motives of other players should be considered as complaints which contain implicit appeals to some imagined authority-figure to make the game fair or in other words the way the complainant wants it to be, and are thus to be avoided in the interest of openness and creativity and the willingness to see how things turn out.
But surely the Will to Power is the very mark of the Overman.
That's fine and I can understand, being a very lazy person myself. My suggestion is that you use your power to make Noble Dust da Man. He will be conscientious and fair.
My complaints have only been towards rules that prevent other reasonable rules from being made; rules that are power grabs which prevent the game from being open and creative.
OK.
"Behold, My Son, @Noble Dust; In Whom I am Well Pleased"
Now it's presumably up to you to crucify him.
Think of yourself as the Wizard of Oz and ND as the Scarecrow. That makes Janus....some damn fucking Munchkin.
No, Janus was simply going along with your rule without questioning it, and using it as leverage for power; not a sign of the Overman. The Overman wouldn't care about your prior rules.
Ah, but as you should realize all rules may be broken which means that what might appear to be oppressive rules are really exhortations to the creativity of finding ways around them.
Thank you oh Wise One.
There you go - Noble Dust is Da Man. Tell us where we go from here, oh exalted one.
So within the game, then, you're willfully creating oppressive rules, with the intention that members of the game will creatively find ways around them?
It doesn't matter what you say, Noble Dust is now Da Man.
OK, I understand a distinction between 'both signals and causes', and '(either) signals or causes', and I can't make sense of 'both signals or causes'; but I protesteth not, since the Creator moves in mysterious ways.
I prefer to think of them as challenging: they are oppressive only to those who would be oppressed.
Do you acknowledge that ND is now DM?
I never wanted this power, but here's where we stand:
@Posty McPostface Rule one states that "Rules cannot be imposed on other rules previously made from henceforth." Already, this is problematic, because of course the rules will need to interact with one another.
@Banno Rule two states " Rules that are labeled with a hash (#) are hereby deemed not well-formed and hence need not be followed." This rule is completely arbitrary and unessisary; however, since the game has began afresh, players simply need to follow rule two by not using a hash (#) when labeling their rules. This rule is needless micromanagement, but harmless.
@Sir2u Rule three states: No rule shall be considered valid until it has been published in a confirmation post by Lord of the Game, Sir Banno.
Any rule posted before aforementioned confirmation of previous post will be cancelled and considered null and void.
This rule is now void, because Banno is not Lord of the Game anymore. There's no indication of whether or not this rule is automatically passed down to the next Lord, so I don't accept this rule as applying to me.
So far, we're not off to a great start.
Edit: I've quoted the rule-makers of the game so far in this post, so that the state of the game can be discussed, and my commentary can be analyzed, if necessary.
Ah, but all rules may be broken; one ineliminable rule in any game is the ceaseless march of change.
When I asked Banno to make you DM, I told him you would be conscientious and fair. It's time for you to follow up. Say something gracious and conciliatory.
Bow down before Da Man!!!!
I both acknowledge and do not acknowledge, and neither acknowledge nor do not acknowledge.
I'm not in this position to pacify players, and plus, I know Janus can take it.
I made you what you are today. You owe it to me to live up to my declaration to Banno.
Geez, don't tell me you're going to be a petty despot too.
The need for guidance maybe, Inferiority complex, laziness. Who knows.
It's untrue that oppression only occurs to those who would be oppressed. And indeed, oppression is often a position from which a difficult challenge becomes an opportunity. But this doesn't mean that oppression isn't occuring.
Of course I'm eternally indebted to you. But where have I shown signs of despotism? So far, I've provided a second commentary of round two of the game, and I continue to debate Janus. That's all I've done in office so far.
But I am not in a position of power such as to be able to oppress. Liberation comes when it is realized that within this game there is no real power.
My work here is done.
works better as an informal privelege.
Said the guy who is not Da Man.
Apparently, my work here is dung. :’(
Not at all; anyone, including yourself, can add a rule, and you've added several. That gives you power, and you can use that power in many ways, including oppression.
At least his work there is not dung!
Yes, but it all relies on being listened to, since economics plays not part; and the listeners are fickle.
Your gracious humility is admirable.
Do you feel you haven't been listened to here?
Yet my dung is not.
I can both affirm and deny that, and neither affirm nor deny that.
I don't understand.
I think they are co-arisen.
To put it differently: I have both been listened to and not been listened to, and have neither been listened, nor not listened to.
That's not a word, except by B fiat. If we can make up rules, then I suppose we can also make up words?
Discussion at any time must fall into the "about the validity of a rule" category.
Rule number whatever + 1.
Discussion of all rules of a political nature are forbidden.
Don't be absurd; if "Crucification" is not a word, what is it?
When I google 'crucification' I am redirected to 'crucifixion'. I did qualify "except by B fiat". I know what you meant when you used it, though; so it is serviceable.
It is a group of letters that someone put together to provide a topic for discussion.
If the rules obey each other, then they are interacting.
I need a new messenger. Takers?
Keeping in mind that you no longer have any authority and that @Noble Dust is Da Man, you certainly have the right to solicit or propose new rules. Again - ND will be the final arbiter of whether the new rules are acceptable and how they are to be interpreted. Perhaps it was a mistake for you to cede your authority to him.
Hey, @Noble Dust, get off the dang roof.
I used the phrase "In whom I am well pleased". Not so pleased with @Noble Dust at the moment.
Although I agree with you that @Noble Dust has not lived up to my expectations for his performance, I can only respond with a phrase we use here in the US - "tough toenails." I don't know if you use it in Australia. Your opinion counts for no more than mine or ProgramingGodJordan's at this point.
I haven't dropped the ball; no one seems to want to add a new rule.
See, @Banno, ND is something of a deist also.
What do you expect me to do, descend to Earth in human form and dish out a bunch of rules that have nothing to do with each other, like we find here in the game?
You're right. You are Da Man. It is unseemly for me to question your wisdom. Please forgive your worthless lickspittle.
Provide us with rule #4 to redeem yourself.
Woah, you can do that?
Geez, ND, don't you get this? You get to decide whether the new rule is acceptable.
Two choices - pick a direction for the game, or let it die.
Remember @Noble Dust, with meaningless power comes meaningless responsibility.
I don't want to limit the game, so I reject rule #4.
True leaders
are hardly known to their followers.
When the work's done right,
with no fuss or boasting,
ordinary people say,
Oh, we did it.
-Tao Te Ching p. 24
I propose a new Rule 4 - If no one has proposed a new rule within 12 hours of the most recently accepted one, Da Man shall assign responsibility for proposing a new rule. If the person to whom the responsibility has been assigned does not respond within 12 hours, Da Man shall promulgate a new rule him/herself. If Da Man does not meet this requirement. The game is over.
I know Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu was a friend of mine. You're no Lao Tzu.
@Bitter Crank or @TimeLine - please explain this paraphrase to ND.
I like that rule.
But I don't consider it one of my duties to deny or accept every rule. I only did so this time because it was requested of me.
I await enlightenment, then.
Then chaos reigns and I wash my hands.
You always knew I would never become a despot. You said I would be fair. And yet now you demand tyranny. You've "washed your hands" before, and yet you always come back, thirsting for rule after rule. If you could only see yourself for who you are, you would be freed from this need. I await the creation of rules like a baby awaiting an unknown future she could never conceive of; I wear rules on my person like Tom Bombadil wore The One Ring.
Anyways, I'm off to see the new Star Wars movie, wish me luck. Hope it doesn't suck.
Let me rephrase that - Inertia reigns and I wash my hands.
He who talks a lot, has many posts without rules contained there in, has to post a rule for each of the posts that poster made that does not contain a rule.
Rule 4.2
The Lord of the Game has the power to authorize any further venality he see fit for those posters that talk too much as defined in Rule 4.1. Including himself.
How is that measured? And would quantity of rules automatically be a good thing?
Rule 4.2 seems meaningless.
Even though Da Man has not ruled on the acceptability of this rule, I will proceed to address it's requirements. I count 14 posts that I have made that do not propose rules. I will therefore propose 14 rules. I will designate them Rule 5-1 through 5-14 in order to make them easy to keep track of:
Rule 5-1: From now on, August 12 will be designated Jagged Edges Day. On that day, the wisdom of Charles Surber will be celebrated.
Rule 5-2: All rules established after Rule 5-14 shall be kind and reasonable.
Rule 5-3: For Rule 6 and all additional rules, on odd numbered days, only people with even numbered birthdays may propose rules.
Rule 5-4: For Rule 6 and all additional rules, on even numbered days, only people with odd numbered birthdays may propose rules.
Rule 5-5: The word "pontificate" may not be used in any rule.
Rule 5-6: Rule 6 must be expressed in no more than 5 words.
Rule 5-7: After Rule 6, all rules must be expressed in five words or more.
Rule 5-8: No rule may be promulgated to ridicule, exclude, or humiliate any participant in the game.
Rule 5-9: The purpose of the game will be to help people understand why people play games and the philosophical consequences of playing.
Rule 5-10: No one who doesn't want to play the game will be criticized. This includes people who have participated but choose no longer to.
Rule 5-11: If Da Man uses the phrase "ha ha," at any time in this discussion, all the rules designated Rule 5-1 through 5-14 shall no longer apply.
Rule 5-12: Rules proposed by Sir2U will no longer be considered legitmate.
Rule 5-13: God will not have his will made manifest by cowards.
Rule 5-14: No rule going forward shall require T Clark to propose additional rules, although he may if he chooses.
ha ha
Quoting T Clark
:-}
Damn, looks like those rules haven't been voided, then.
This is brilliant, I've spent the morning reading this instead of preparing for work, it's like a real life version of 'Lord of the Flies'.
Start an amusing game of lateral thinking and watch it descend into sectarianism and a desperate attempt to get other people to take responsibility for reigning-in oppression rather than escape from it ourselves.
This should definitely form part of some social psychology paper.
No, you’re thinking of Lord of the Dance.
Why?
Bollucks.
Sir2u's rules need no considering.
Explanation of 5 word rule.
My rules are so fantastic they are automatically implemented, thus no need to consider them at all.