Re: [s-d] [s-b] Agoran Contract

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 7:32 AM, MCTMike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<MCTMike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> But that raises the deeper question - is the switch a Game Object because
> the Contract says it exists, or does the switch not exist because the
> Contract doesn't explicitly declare it as a Game Object?

Even if it declares it as a Game Object, it wouldn't be a Game Object.
There is no authority for Contracts to create arbitrary Game Objects.
"Exisiting" in this context is state recognizable by the game of B. Of
course, nothing prevents meta-objects and meta-state, but these
wouldn't be under the protection of the rules.

This is why I wanted the objection clause in for contracts. Yes, it
was against the spirit of contracts when used as actual contracts, but
to prevent these kind of contracts. Features to the game should be
added in by proposal and vote of the players, not by instant
introduction via contracts.

I do like this concept. How about refining it to allow external nomics
to set some value from some established range to show what they think
of us at the moment? Weird and strange work. How about adding some
others such as funny, silly, stupid, arrogant, pointless, CREAMPUFF,
etc. Make it more general for all other nomics and only changeable
once per nweek and I might vote for it. We probably also need a way to
recognize who are ambassadors authorized to do such things.

This kind of inter-nomic stuff I think would be neat. What I don't
like is inter-nomic stuff where an external nomic as an entity acts as
a full fledged player. If other players want to mess around with our
nomic, they can come and join as an actual player. An ambassador from
another nomic who gets to be a player on behalf of the external nomic
will probably mean that one player in this nomic has two votes.

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