Re: [s-b] Various things

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 10, 2008 3:51 PM, Justin Ahmann <quesmarktion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> {The text of an agreement is part of the state of the game.}
>
> This is Consultation 87.  I assign it to Priest Billy Pilgrim.


Reasoning:
{
According to Rule 4E3, External Forces are entities that exist independently
of the Game, in that they would continue to exist if the Game ceased to
exist, and they would exist even if the Game had never existed. In contrast,
a Game Object is anything that exists in the Game, as specified by Rule 4E2.
My interpretation of this Consultation, which asks if the text of an
agreement is part of the state of the game, is that it is equivalent to
asking if that entity is in the game ( i.e. if it is a Game Object).

Unfortunately, it is not immediately clear that any entity that is
independent of the Game cannot simultaneously be in the Game ( i.e. that it
is not possible for an External Force to also be a Game Object, or that it
is not possible for an entity both to exist independently of the game and to
be partially in the game). The precisions brought to the notion of
independence in Rule 4E3 and, indeed, most dictionary definitions of
"independent" ( i.e. *not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction;
autonomous* - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/independent) stress the
absence of control ( *e.g.* in politics) or causality (*e.g.* in mathematics
or science) of one entity over another's existence or operation, rather than
the complete absence of structural inclusion or positional overlap between
two entities. For example, many sub-state political entities are "in"
state-level entities, both geographically and legally, yet are independently
governed in certain domains.

The nature of the relation between Agreements and B Nomic must then
necessarily rely on a certain measure of interpretation on the part of the
Priest, for which I will draw inspiration from the Original Intent behind B
Nomic's current Rules.

Rule 4E42 only defines those Agreements that are recognized by B Nomic, yet
implicitly acknowledges the potential existence of non-recognized
Agreements. It is indisputable that the type of entity called "Agreement",
whether recognized by B Nomic or not, is a type of External Force, in that
Agreements would continue to exist if B Nomic ceased to exist. This is
implicitly allowed for in Rule 4E42, which specifies that Agreements need
not have been intended to comply with the Rules of B (in which case their
existence is likely independent) in order to be recognized. Agora, the
Government of Bhutan, and the Facebook group "PLEASE STOP SAYIN TUPAC IS
ALIVE!! TUPAC IS GONE YALL! GONE 2 THUG MANSION!" are only some examples,
recognized or not, of independent Agreements (the latter two, by any
reasonable definition of unrecognized Agreements).

Rule 4E2 states that Game Objects, which include anything that is in the
game, may only be created, modified, or destroyed in a manner explicitly
governed by the Rules. It goes without saying that the above Agreements (the
nomic, the state, and the Facebook group) retain their sovereignty in the
face of B Nomic's Rule 4E2. Proposal 213, which wrote the current Rule 4E3
defining Outsiders as a type of Game Object that is the projection of an
External Force into the Game, seems to have been written as a direct
response to a debate that included Consultation 55 (which asked whether
there existed a paradox concerning the status of Players as both Outsiders
and External Forces) and the following discussion post:
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/archives/spoon-discuss/spoon-discuss-200712/msg00014.html.
Proposal 213 passed, thus establishing a distinction between External Forces
and Outsiders, with the apparent intention of removing the possibility of
any entity simultaneously being an External Force and a Game Object. Since
this Proposal's passing, then, the restriction on modifying, creating, or
destroying Game Objects in any way not permitted by the Rules does not
interfere with the sovereignty of individuals to take decisions outside the
Game (such as brushing one's teeth, to use a well-worn image), or with the
sovereignty of Agreements to take decisions outside the Game.

In conclusion, though it is not fully clear that the Rules prohibit
Agreements from simultaneously being Game Objects, I submit that the only
reasonable interpretation of these Rules and of the intentions held by their
framers renders this impossible.

I therefore answer Consultation 87 NO. An Agreement, as well as its text, is
not part of the state of the Game. Only the Agreement's projection is part
of the state of the game, for any other situation would subject all manner
of external agreements to the will of B, which would clearly be ineffectual.

}

Priest Billy Pilgrim
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business