[Formendacil]

As the guest-mod of Milady Fea, I have been invited to present Michael d'Edmontonis's argument from his Summa Contra Lupa (The Summation Against the Wolves). The text is, as follows:

Objection I Pseudo-Underhill proves that men have a life beyond the Downs, and that the intrinsic Internet principles inhere in Men, not in the Internet.

Objection II The Administrator declares that any thread not locked can be posted on by a member not banned. But as Shasta is not banned, thus he could post, and so he is not dead.

On the contrary, Fea says that Shasta is an ordo. Ordos are wolf-meat. Therefore, having been eaten, Shasta is dead.

I answer that, To be dead, Shasta must needs be no more what he was as a living ordo. That is, he must be no more a free agent on the Internet, that acts according to the intrinsic principles of the Internet, and that these acts are the summation of his existence. Therefore, since Shasta no longer can act according to those intrinsic principles, e.g. post upon the thread, vote for candidates, or be voted for; it follows that Shasta is no longer any more within the thread, which is what we mean when we say "Shasta is dead."

Reply Obj. I. Not every principle is a first principle. Therefore, though it is the nature of an Internet action to be caused or moved by an exterior action, beyond the Internet, it is not intrinsic to the nature of the Internet action that it be a first principle.

Reply Obj. II. New actions in users are sustained by the continuing action of the Administrators. Thus, Shasta can only act insofar as his action is sustained by the approbation of the Administrators. Since the Game Moderator acts in persona Administratorum within the confines of the game, her actions are those of the Administrators, and no action by Shasta is possible since it would contravene her will and not be sustained in the record of the thread.