Re: [s-d] [s-b] C Nomic

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The public display does control gamestate: "When a Player successfully 
Approves a Public Display, the Gamestate is changed to reflect what it 
would be if the Approved Public Display were accurate as of the time the 
Player attempted to Approve it."

The automatic approval assumedly has the same effect. There is a rolling 
window seven days in the past where gamestate is continually changed to 
match unchallenged public displays.



Tyler wrote:
> Yes, that's true that the PD is approved. It's just that gamestate makes
> PD's, not the other way around. A PD being approved doesn't set the
> gamestate to what the PD says it is, but it may be a good indication that
> the players think they are equivalent. In this case, it has no relevance to
> what the players think the C Nomic gamestate is, because it's all up in the
> air, Consultation pending.
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
>> Transaction acknowledged as failed. I admittedly didn't pay attention to
>> the C Nomic chatter a couple weeks ago. Although, did you gain the
>> ordained property on C?
>>
>>  From your next mail:
>>
>>  > Oh, and just because a PD goes unchallenged, doesn't mean it is
>> accurate. It can be challenged any time!
>>
>> The rule says an unchallenged PD is automatically approved, so assuming
>> C has been using the same public displays, they're valid until someone
>> challenges an individual discrepancy. Anything on the wiki that hasn't
>> changed in the last seven days, or is the result of non-B-specific
>> transactions, is correct current gamestate for C Nomic.
>>
>> Do you still plan on letting me become a voting member of Black
>> corporation? Else I need to file a consultation around the semantics of
>> the word "member" before proposal voting ends. I wouldn't want to miss
>> out on my dividends again.
>>
>>
>> Tyler wrote:
>>  > Ha! You're getting ahead of yourself. For one thing, it's the Ministry
>> of
>>  > Questions that is the Oracle, not the MoL. And for another, I already
>> took
>>  > (theoretically) all of the Ministries in C Nomic. And I'm certainly not
>>  > going to assign the Consultation to you!
>>  >
>>  > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> I, C Nomic Player Wooble, submit the following:
>>  >>
>>  >> BEGIN TRANSACTION
>>  >>
>>  >> Assertion: The name of this game is C Nomic.
>>  >>
>>  >> I gain the Ordained property.
>>  >> I take the Ministry of Law.
>>  >> I assign Tyler's cross-nomic Consultation a number of 131 and a Priest
>>  >> of Wooble, the only Ordained player.
>>  >>
>>  >> I Anwer this Consultation as False. Proposal 485 said any *changes* the
>>  >> the gamestate would happen simultaneously, but C Nomic was not
>> initially
>>  >> populated with Game Objects except those created by the Rules (e.g.
>> Sock
>>  >> Corporations).
>>  >>
>>  >> END TRANSACTION
>>  >>
>>  >> Consultation 131 becomes Answered in C Nomic, and per rule 4E83, in B
>>  >> Nomic.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> Tyler wrote:
>>  >>> All right, that's the final straw.  In my capacity as Player of B
>> Nomic
>>  >> and
>>  >>> C Nomic, I'll submit the following Consultation to end all this
>>  >>> multi-nomic silliness:
>>  >>>
>>  >>> "Is it true that, since the time proposal 485 Passed, C Nomic has been
>>  >>> identical to B Nomic?"
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Reasoning:
>>  >>> "Proposal 485 created another nomic called C Nomic, as far anyone can
>>  >> tell.
>>  >>> When it did so, it specified that it was identical to B Nomic.
>> Therefore
>>  >> the
>>  >>> Game Objects of B Nomic must be Game Objects in C Nomic also. Rule 2
>>  >> could
>>  >>> not have stopped this from becoming true, because while there was
>> only B
>>  >>> Nomic, it only had control over what happened in B Nomic, and it
>> did not
>>  >>> govern C Nomic until after the moment of its creation.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Please could the Priest assigned this Consultation make an
>> Oracularity to
>>  >>> take care of actions, such as transactions, that are valid in only
>> one of
>>  >>> the two nomics, as all changes to one nomic are supposedly
>> happening also
>>  >> in
>>  >>> the other."
>>  >>>
>>  >>> I assign this Consultation (to?) the number 131 and the Priest Billy
>>  >>> Pilgrim. Good luck.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Further considerations:
>>  >>>
>>  >>> If the Consultation or assignment isn't valid in C Nomic because C
>> Nomic
>>  >> is
>>  >>> empty, that doesn't matter in terms of B Nomic, so I don't care.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> If the Consultation isn't valid because it refers to a different
>> nomic,
>>  >> an
>>  >>> External Force, well then, Rule 83 can't really change B Nomic to
>> reflect
>>  >>> changes to an External Force, now can it? So I don't care that way
>>  >> either.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>  >> wrote:
>>  >>>
>>  >>>> I request to become a C Nomic player using the unique name of Wooble.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> [ nifty, the public display says I have points ... ]
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> BEGIN TRANSACTION
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> Assertion: The name of this game is C Nomic.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> I create a contract named J's C Holding Company using the text from B
>>  >>>> Nomic's J's Holding Company.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> I, C Nomic Player Wooble (hi!) convert all my points to macks, and
>>  >>>> transfer all my macks and socks to J's Holding Company.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> END TRANSACTION
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> [ did somebody already do this? ]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spoon-discuss mailing list
>> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss