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.

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.

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.

I'm not in this position to pacify players, and plus, I know Janus can take it.

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?

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.

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.

But now Janus has manipulated that to create rules that prevent other posters from having certain power within the game.

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.

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.

They clearly can't reach it on their own.

Unfortunately Janus is trying to ensure that that never happens.

These rules are pointless and contribute nothing to the game.

The consequences of sucking the fun out of the thread, broh! Nice!

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. — MonfortS26

I.E. you sucked the fun out of the thread, broh! Nice!

Way to suck the fun out of this thread, broh! Nice!

Rule #23: nothing MonfortS26 says in this thread applies.

Rule #20: Rules #17 and #19 never apply.

Answer the question "when does rule #11 not apply", and I'll answer your question.

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.

An apology is necessary when one has harmed or done wrong to someone else. The problem with your argument is that you're viewing the issue of forgiveness through the lens of your own perspective, as the perpetrator. You may not have intended harm, but that does not exculpate you from wrong-doing. If you caused harm to someone, intentionally or unintentionally, then you are in the wrong. And if you're in the wrong, then an apology is necessary. An apology is necessary because it creates an atmosphere in which you acknowledge your wrong-doing, and the victim acknowledges your acknowledgement. Communication leads to a better understanding of the situation.

Because rule #11 states that not all rules apply at the same time. That includes rule #17.

Rule #11 still applies. Nice.

A quibble - you have focused on the form of Rule 9 and not it's content. As I said in a previous post: — T Clark

Very true; I've amended my summary so as to include this important point.

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. — 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.

@Banno @T Clark @Janus

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:

Rule #4. Anyone who uses or refers to rule #4 must start their post with, "Rule #4 is an excellent rule." — 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):

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?) — 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:

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. — 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:

Rule 15: All white people with brown hair must exclaim "Glub Glub Walla Walla" every time they use the word philosophy. Glub Glub Walla Walla — MonfortS26

Another meaningless rule that is superseded by rule #11.

Is the goal of the game to find a supreme leader?

That rule is meaningless.

Rule #11: Not all rules apply at the same time.

Rule 1 and rule 10 are at odds; now I’m paralyzed by uncertainty. Do I post a rule or no?

Can evidence care? What?

I also do believe that, barring severe chemical imbalances (aka clinical depression or other real mental illnesses), everybody can benefit from these concepts just as I have. — JustSomeGuy

So where is the line drawn between "real" mental illness, and...?

What do you mean by framed?

What about music? This is, to me, one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've heard. The combination of logical progression of rhythmic structure plus the mysterious, emotional weight of the harmonies is..

I have.

Hey, you may have a protege, it looks like your style here :p. — schopenhauer1

Ok, no. Agustino has a lot to learn from me, not the other way around.

You are getting unpleasant and troll-like at this point. — schopenhauer1

Right, suggesting your motives aren't 100% pure for bringing up your 10+ years experience on the forums is certainly troll-like behavior.

Based on the consistency of your other threads, — schopenhauer1

Wait, you've read my threads, none of which I can remember you responding to, but you think I'm in agreement with your overall position? That's definitely not correct.

You want something from me, that I am not providing, I don't know.. so again, what is it you want from me? — schopenhauer1

What I want is a point-by-point defense of your nihilistic views.

Perhaps a misinterpretation?...

Nah.

Yeah, and you stop giving a damn, by stopping to give your attention to certain thoughts. — Agustino

Wow, your first thoughtful contribution to this thread. Well done.