Re: [s-b] Consultation on my playerhood, take 4 or 5 or something

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

Is Wooble a Player?

After much deliberation, I have come to a conclusion concerning the above
Consultation (127):

Reasoning:
{
The present Consultation may only be Answered TRUE if, as argued by the
Supplicant, the Transaction containing eir attempt to forfeit Failed. For
this to be the case, at least one of the attempted Game Actions contained
therein must not have been "legal" (note the use of the term, directly
pulled from Rule 4E12) at the time the Transaction was submitted. For a
Transaction to Succeed, each of its constituent Game Actions must be
determined to be legal "with finality and certainty". Let us consider these
Actions in turn:

A) "I transfer everything I legally can to the Internomic Investment Bank."

Again, the Priest directs your attention to the word "legally". Regardless
of the definition of legality adopted, it is obvious that any Game Actions
attempted by the utterer of this sentence are legal and, as such, do not
cause the Transaction to Fail.

B) "I forfeit the game."

Rule 4E70 prevents Legal Entities from ceasing to be bound by a Contract
except in a manner specified by said Contract. The "Internomic Investment
Bank" Contract (IIB) includes no provision for cessation of adherence. Upon
forfeiting the game (Rule 4E4), Wooble ceased to be a Player and, by
extension, a Legal Entity (Rule 4E81). It would be tempting to argue that
Rule 4E70 invalidates Wooble's most recent attempt to forfeit, because
ceasing to be bound to the IIB by way of ceasing to be a Legal Entity is
not, according to the text of the IIB itself, a recognized way of
terminating one's adherence.

However, this line of reasoning is flawed for at least 2 reasons:

1) The above scenario's fruition clearly relies on a conflict between Rules
4E4 and 4E70 being resolved in 4E70's favour. In this situation, Rule 4E75
categorically grants precedence to Rule 4E4 (which allowed the Supplicant to
forfeit) because of its lower number.

2) It is not certain that ceasing to be a Legal Entity does indeed terminate
one's partyhood. Though the privilege of becoming bound to Contracts is only
extended to Legal Entities (Rule 4E70), no Rule strips an Outsider of its
bondage to any Contract when it ceases to be a Legal Entity. An Outsider may
be a Player (Rule 4E4), and Players are Legal Entities (Rule 4E81). In the
Priest's interpretation of the Rules of B Nomic, this implies that when a
Legal Entity becomes bound by a Contract, e also automatically does so in
eir capacity as a Player and as an Outsider. Contrast this to the
distinction between an Outsider and the External Force of which it is a
projection (Rule 4E3); the latter pair, but not the former trio, are
distinct entities. With this in mind, it becomes apparent that the notion of
a conflict between Rules 4E70 and 4E4 applying to the current Consultation
is incorrect. The Supplicant - who is no longer a Player but remains an
Outsider, else why am I answering this Consultation? - thus effectively
forfeited. Note that the Supplicant's continued bondage to the IIB does not
rescue this Contract and its associated Corporation from dissolution and is
thus very short-lived. Rule 4E70 defines a party as a Legal Entity, and not
a mere Outsider, who is bound by a Contract. The Supplicant, by forfeiting,
thus ceased to be a party to the IIB while remaining bound to it. Because
there were no remaining parties to the IIB (the Supplicant having failed to
resolve motions in other Corporations seeking to become parties to the IIB),
this Contract ceased to exist as per Rule 4E70.

Conclusion) It appears that all attempted Game Actions included in the
Supplicant's Transaction were legal, with finality and certainty, and the
Transaction should therefore Succeed. In that case, Wooble is not a Player.

One question remains, however: was there was ANYTHING that the Supplicant
could, at the time of the Transaction's submission, legally transfer to the
Internomic Investment Bank? In other words, does the sentence "I transfer
everything I legally can to the Internomic Investment Bank" constitute one
or more Game Actions, or none at all?

This is a relevant question because, if this sentence is not a Game Action,
then it is possible that it should be considered an Assertion. As per Rule
4E12, a Transaction consists of a list of Game Actions and Assertions, and
it is unclear whether any other types of text can possibly exist within the
confines of a Transaction. Clearly, if "I transfer everything I legally can
to the Internomic Investment Bank" is considered an Assertion in the same
sense that "I eat Corn Flakes in the morning" is an Assertion, it is an
untrue one and thus causes the Transaction to Fail (Rule 4E12). Interpreted
in this manner, the Assertion implies not that the Supplicant is currently
executing such a transfer, but rather that e regularly or habitually
transfers everything he legally can to the IIB, which a cursory examination
of the records shows is clearly not the case.

Further examination of the Rules reveals that there exist no legal transfers
from Wooble to the IIB within the framework of B Nomic. Any such transfers
occuring in Agora or in any other foreign nomic have no impact on the state
of the game, which is also the case for transfers occuring only within the
framework of the IIB without being defined by the Rules of B Nomic. Flainian
Pobble Beads, for example, may perhaps be "legally" (according to the IIB)
be transferred from Wooble to the IIB, but Flainian Pobble Beads are not
Game Objects within B. Rule 4E2 states that Game Objects may only be created
in a manner specified by the Rules, and no Rule has ever allowed, to the
Priest's knowledge, for the creation of Game Objects by virtue of their
being mentioned in a Contract. As per rule 4E2, everything that exists
within the game is a Game Object. This implies that Flainian Pobble Beads do
not exist within B Nomic [[only in Wooble's head]] and are thus of no
concern to the Priest.

Within B, there exist certain transfers that can legally be accomplished by
Wooble. These include transfers of mackerel and of Socks, both of which
Wooble possessed at the time the transaction was submitted. These can be
transferred, respectively, to Currency Owning Objects and to Potential
Sockholders (Rules 4E33 and 4E68).

Legal Entities are both Currency Owning Objects and Potential Sockholders
(Rule 4E81), and Corporations are Legal Entities (Rule 4E79). The IIB
fulfills all requirements, laid out in Rule 4E79, to define a Corporation
known as B Nomic Corporation.

That said, the IIB (a Contract) and B Nomic Corporation are, much like
Geoffrey Spear and the Outsider known to us as Wooble, distinct entities. In
this case, the IIB defines B Nomic Corporation. A transfer from Wooble to
the IIB, rather than to B Nomic Corporation, is therefore illegal (the
Priest is implying NOTHING about Flainian Pobble Beads). Thus, such a
transfer was not attempted by Wooble in the Transaction in question. In
fact, the Rules do not allow Contracts to own or possess anything.

The provision in Rule 4E7 allowing for the success of Game Actions with
unambiguous targets, regardless of exact wording, does not apply here.
Wooble's statement unambiguously refers to an invalid target, rather than
referring to a valid target using an inexact but recognizable name (e.g.
"Bnomic corp").

Considering that the first sentence in Wooble's transaction does not
constitute even a single Game Action, we are left with two possibilities:

1) Consider, as above, that the sentence is in fact an untrue Assertion.

2) Consider that the sentence is neither an Assertion nor a Game Action. In
this case, in the Priest's (disputable) opinion, the purported Transaction
is not a Transaction at all because Transactions are defined as lists of
Assertions and Game Actions (Rule 4E12). If such is the case, however, it is
unclear what becomes of Wooble's attempt to forfeit. Does it succeed
because, not being part of a Transaction, it is unhampered by the untruth of
other Assertions or failure of other Game Actions?

The Priest knows not how to answer this question, but feels that the former
interpretation - that the sentence constitutes an untrue Assertion, leading
to the Transaction's Failure - is more reasonable and more consistent with
the spirit of Rule 4E12, which governs Transactions. That is, if any part of
a Transaction is not a effective, the entire Transaction Fails.

I therefore Answer Consultation 127 TRUE. Wooble is a Player.
}

Oracularity:
{
Set the state of the game to what it would be if the most recent Transaction
submitted by Wooble and including a forfeit had Failed.

This implies that no transfers from Wooble to either the IIB or B Nomic
Corporation occured as a result of the Transaction's submission. This also
implies that Black Corporation compensated Wooble with m50 for Usurping the
Ministry of Ministry and took that Ministry. Black Corporation also failed
to assign itself the Ministry of Questions, as it was not Vacant.

In Rule 4E12, replace the following text:
{{

As a Game Action, an Outsider can submit a Transaction. A Transaction
consists of:

   - A clear statement marking the Start of the Transaction, such as "BEGIN
   TRANSACTION".
   - A list of Game Actions and assertions about the state of the game.
   - A clear statement marking the End of the Transaction, such as "END
   TRANSACTION".

}}
with:
{{

As a Game Action, an Outsider can submit a Transaction. A Transaction
consists of:

   - A clear statement marking the Start of the Transaction, such as "BEGIN
   TRANSACTION".
   - A body of text, which may or may not contain Game Actions and
   assertions about the state of the game.
   - A clear statement marking the End of the Transaction, such as "END
   TRANSACTION".

}}

In Rule 4E12, replace the text:
{{
If it would be legal for the Outsider to take each Game Action within the
Transaction exactly as specified, and each assertion would be true at the
time it occurs within the list if the Game Actions were so taken, then the
Transaction is said to Succeed.
}}
with:
{{
If every sentence between the start and end of the Transaction constitutes
either, a Game Action that would be legal for the Outsider to take exactly
as specified, or an assertion that would be true at the time it occurs
within the list if the Game Actions were so taken, then the Transaction is
said to Succeed.
}}
}

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