A crowded cubicle farm lit by harsh fluorescent lights. It seems to go on

forever. The office is quite noisy, with people talking, papers shuffling, and

phones ringing.


This office belongs to PAPER MACHINE, 25, who reclines in an ergonomic swivel

chair. Behind him a computer churns meaningfully. His desk, cheap office surplus, 

is partly covered with stacks of papers. We see him gesturing to THE OTHER, 38,

completely bald, peeking over the top of the next cubicle.


        Exactly center of problem. Even if possible to write as rule, "Obey rule

to spirit of rule," how could such rule be obeyed?


        Whoever the judge is, let them decide.


        Then at mercy of judge. Still thinking too much of rules as laws, but

okay. Remember judge from Georgia, story on NPR? One case, man about to be set

free after going through a drug program instead of jail. On last drug test,

tests positive for meth -- strange, he was caught and confessed to doing pot. He

asks for second test, it's negative. He asks for a third test, it's negative 



        A false positive.


        Yeah. But judge, hearing about all three tests, decides he's broken

rules, even though any rational person would disagree. See? You cannot simply

throw jurisdiction to a judge. They're just as much a player as anyone else.


        Okay, so maybe judges are imperfect. What about these rational people,

then? Surely they can tell if a rule is being obeyed correctly.


        No, still doesn't work. Rational people no better than the drug test.

Still vulnerable to false negative and positive.


        Then the whole problem seems unsolvable. If like you say, "The rules of

the game are written by others," and there's no way to ask these others whether

or not their rules are being followed correctly, then there's no way to know.


        No way to know for sure. But people all political, good at telling if

someone enforcing rule with intent to be douchebag.


        Ah, like when Julian Assange was extradited from England to Sweden, and

Interpol put out a Red Notice, when a stricter reading of Interpol policy only

merited a Blue Notice.

                           (non-commital, distracted by computer)

        I guess.

PAPER MACHINE turns away and starts typing on the computer. While he grunts in

agreement with THE OTHER at relevant times, it's obvious that something more 

important has come up. For all intents and purposes this interview is over.


        That explains your whole deal with every system being hackable, then.

Even if the rules are set, there's still always some loophole for people to

exploit. But just because rules can be hacked doesn't mean people won't notice.

So one has to be tricky....

THE OTHER awkwardly trails off, looking at PAPER for some confirmation, receives 

none. He hesitates for a bit, perhaps to continue on, but thinks better of it 

and retreats to his own cube.


Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.