Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hmmm... another consultation

[0x4461736864617368 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Your silence is deafening. :)


Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2007 8:27 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> On Nov 21, 2007 8:31 AM, 0x4461736864617368 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>     
>>> {{
>>>     Question:
>>>        In B Nomic, does explicit consent to being governed by an
>>> Agreement have to take place within B Nomic?
>>>
>>>     Reasoning:
>>>        Giving explicit consent to being governed by an Agreement is a
>>> Game Action, per a straight forward reading of Rule 1-10. Game Actions
>>> must be posted to a Public Forum. B Nomic rules do not seem to recognize
>>> outside public fora.
>>> }}
>>>       
>> I answer Consultation 40 No.
>>
>> Rule 5-1 explicitly allows Agreements that are not intended to comply
>> with B's rules to be accepted as valid; it would be outside the spirit
>> of the rules to require such agreements to be joined by a Game Action.
>>
>> Indeed, 5-2's text definitely suggests that Agreements which are not
>> Factions are outside the game.  Both non-Faction Agreements and
>> Factions are bound solely by their own internal mechanisms for
>> deciding their membership and conducting any business that doesn't
>> directly involve game actions within B.
>>
>> --Priest Wooble
>> --
>> Geoffrey Spear
>> http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spoon-business mailing list
>> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> 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