Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal: For consistancy

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Dan Waldron:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > > The following is a new proposal titled "This game is an agent"
> > > ______
> > > Enact a new rule titled "This game is an agent" with text as follows:
> > > 
> > > This game is an agent.
> > > ______
> > 
> > That could have interesting effects. Why do you want to do that then?
> 
> Because the rules say that an agent is an entity capable of action, and
> that the status of agents may be modified only as specified in the rules.
> I think it is better to do this than to have a fight about it later.
> 
> I have some other proposals coming up that might work better if there is
> no argument that the game is an agent.
> 
> Poulenc

Hmm. I'm not sure I like the idea of the game being an Agent, simply 
because it doesn't appear to be one by the current definition of Agent. I 
suppose if you want to redefine the set of things with Agency as the union 
of {whatever meets the current definition of Agent} and {the Game}. I won't 
vote for this without a little more explanation--how is it exactly that the 
Game can take independent action?

-- 
J.

--
Play Nomic!
http://www.nomic.net