Re: [s-d] [s-b] black corp what?

["Phil Ulrich" <phil.ulrich@xxxxxxxxx>]

It can't be dead from the start unless B was too: any changes in B's
gamestate occur simultaneously in C's gamestate, and C when it was
created was identical to B. So it exists, but it's more like a
conjoined twin than a dead game.

That said, does it need an officially-declared set of fora? I think
so. Obviously fora exist (being as how they're anything that allows
members of a nomic to communicate), but the specific fora in use are
not covered by the rules. One could argue that the fora themselves are
part of the gamestate, and thus C acquired B's fora at the moment rule
4E83 came into existence to make it so, but I think it's best not to
rely on ambiguities and instead to apply certainty where possible.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not familiar with how nomics are started, but I think there is a major
> problem with this. C nomic already exists, theoretically, but it has nothing
> but the ruleset. No players, no public forums (although forums exist), no
> MoM, Chairman, etc. You can't submit proposals in a nomic you aren't
> represented in by a player, and you can't become a player without a public
> forum to do so in. And the proposal you've just submitted is only in B
> Nomic, (I'm not sure about this one) so it can't change the state of C
> Nomic. I'm thinking that C Nomic was dead from the start. Does any of
> that make sense?
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> And... I set the Color of this Proposal to Black.
>>
>> BP
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > hmmm, I was going to ask the question, but then I'd like to be the
>> Priest.
>> > So, instead, I'm going to use a Proposal. PS my line of reasoning would
>> be
>> > that C exists as a nomic but that the statement that the two nomics are
>> > identical is currently contradicted (and superceded because of rule
>> number)
>> > by the rule that disallows creation of Game Objects except as specified
>> by
>> > the rules. Also any claim that if C is empty of game objects and B is
>> > identical to it, then B must also be empty, is wrong because B's game
>> > objects were no more legally destroyed than C's were created. So:
>> >
>> > I submit the following Proposal, entitled "Give C Game Objects!":
>> > {
>> > Set the state of C Nomic to be exactly identical (save for the nomic's
>> > name) to that of B Nomic. If this includes the creation or modification
>> of
>> > Game Objects, these are to be created or modified accordingly.
>> > }
>> >
>> > Billy Pilgrim
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> spoon-business mailing list
>> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  -Tyler
> _______________________________________________
> 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