Re: [s-b] Various things

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 14, 2008 5:04 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> }

I'm not sure this can be answered with a clear NO.  I agree that an
Agreement is not inherently part of the state of the game simply by
being an Agreement, but on the other hand a Faction is an Agreement
that is clearly, by Rule 4E43, part of the game, so if a NO answer
means that all Agreements are not part of the state of the game then
it's my intuition that this Question can't really be answered
definitively.  Besides not being phrased as a Question, the wording
itself assumes that Agreements are either all Game Objects or all not
Game Objects.  You might as well ask if cars are red.

I claim this Answer is INCONSISTENT and suggest that if it's found to
be so that the Priest on Reassignment ask for a ZOTTING.

(In any event I don't believe that Answers to completely general
questions that don't address a specific matter of controversy and
which aren't accompanied by Oracularities have any effect on the game
at all.)

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