comex on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:32:52 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-b] Extreme Pragmatism

I revise my Refresh Proposal to read:

Extreme Pragmatism

B becomes made up of quantum states: every action splits the game into
two gamestates, one in which it worked, one in which it didn't.  Only
one of those gamestates is consistent (follows the Rules): in most
cases it's obvious which one is consistent, but in some cases it's
not.  If two groups disagree on what gamestate is consistent, each can
keep on playing its own equally valid version of B; when they decide
to make up, they can pass a Proposal explicitly validating one
gamestate.  Except that by "gamestate" I mean "set of gamestates', as
the game splits in half every single time anything happens ;)

Amend Rule 4E45 (Ministries) to have the same text it did immediately
before Proposal 0515 was adopted.

For each ministry that had a holder immediately before Proposal 0515 was
adopted, re-install that holder into that ministry.
Amend Rule 4E34 (Mackerel) to have the same text that Rule 4E45
(Ministries) did immediately after Proposal 0515 was adopted.

Amend Rule 4E2 (Game Objects) to read:
A gamestate of B Nomic consists entirely of Game Objects, which may be
known simply as Objects. Anything that exists in the gamestate is an
Object, and anything that is not in the gamestate is not an Object.

Game Objects can only be created, destroyed, or modified if allowed by
the Rules, in a manner explicitly governed by the Rules.

Amend Rule 4E7 (Game Actions) by removing the paragraph starting with:
An Outsider may post a message to a Public Forum specifying that he
will perform a specified Game Action at a specified time in the future
and by appending:
If a Game Action would not take effect exactly as specified, it fails
and has no effect whatsoever on the gamestate.

Create a new Rule, titled "Gamestates", and set its Power to 1:
The game of B Nomic consists of multiple gamestates.  Whenever an
attempt is made to modify any Game Object or perform any Game Action,
this gamestate splits into two separate gamestates: one in which the
change or action succeeded (and took place exactly as specified), and
one in which it failed (and had no effect whatsoever), Rules to the
contary notwithstanding.  A consistent gamestate is a gamestate in
which all actions succeeded or failed as directed by the Rules of the

It is possible to unambiguously identify a set of gamestates by means
of set-building criteria if and only if the criteria consist of only:
* the success or failure of specific Game Actions or groups of actions, and/or
* criteria conerning attributes of Game Objects provided that these
attributes can be reconstructed from the success or failure of Game

In particular, the following are not valid set-building criteria:
* the 'correct' interpretation of any ambiguity or decision left
implicit by the Rules of a gamestate, and
* the consistency of a gamestate.

A Proposal or Refresh Proposal can generally validate an unambiguously
identified set of gamestates; if a nonempty set of gamestates not
containing this one is validated, this gamestate ceases to exist.
spoon-business mailing list