Re: [s-d] [s-b] C Nomic

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's your loophole, Tyler: none of the public displays have been 
challenged, so they are automatically considered approved. So all the 
players, socks, and other recorded objects exist in C.

We have to either fork the public displays to allow "this is C nomic" 
transaction assertions to create a divulging parallel universe, or 
neuter C nomic's influence to the point it might as well be culled.

j

Jay Campbell wrote:
> I, C Nomic Player Wooble, submit the following:
>
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
>
> Assertion: The name of this game is C Nomic.
>
> I gain the Ordained property.
> I take the Ministry of Law.
> I assign Tyler's cross-nomic Consultation a number of 131 and a Priest 
> of Wooble, the only Ordained player.
>
> I Anwer this Consultation as False. Proposal 485 said any *changes* the 
> the gamestate would happen simultaneously, but C Nomic was not initially 
> populated with Game Objects except those created by the Rules (e.g. Sock 
> Corporations).
>
> END TRANSACTION
>
> Consultation 131 becomes Answered in C Nomic, and per rule 4E83, in B Nomic.
>
>
>
> Tyler wrote:
>   
>> All right, that's the final straw.  In my capacity as Player of B Nomic and
>> C Nomic, I'll submit the following Consultation to end all this
>> multi-nomic silliness:
>>
>> "Is it true that, since the time proposal 485 Passed, C Nomic has been
>> identical to B Nomic?"
>>
>> Reasoning:
>> "Proposal 485 created another nomic called C Nomic, as far anyone can tell.
>> When it did so, it specified that it was identical to B Nomic. Therefore the
>> Game Objects of B Nomic must be Game Objects in C Nomic also. Rule 2 could
>> not have stopped this from becoming true, because while there was only B
>> Nomic, it only had control over what happened in B Nomic, and it did not
>> govern C Nomic until after the moment of its creation.
>>
>> Please could the Priest assigned this Consultation make an Oracularity to
>> take care of actions, such as transactions, that are valid in only one of
>> the two nomics, as all changes to one nomic are supposedly happening also in
>> the other."
>>
>> I assign this Consultation (to?) the number 131 and the Priest Billy
>> Pilgrim. Good luck.
>>
>> Further considerations:
>>
>> If the Consultation or assignment isn't valid in C Nomic because C Nomic is
>> empty, that doesn't matter in terms of B Nomic, so I don't care.
>>
>> If the Consultation isn't valid because it refers to a different nomic, an
>> External Force, well then, Rule 83 can't really change B Nomic to reflect
>> changes to an External Force, now can it? So I don't care that way either.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> I request to become a C Nomic player using the unique name of Wooble.
>>>
>>> [ nifty, the public display says I have points ... ]
>>>
>>> BEGIN TRANSACTION
>>>
>>> Assertion: The name of this game is C Nomic.
>>>
>>> I create a contract named J's C Holding Company using the text from B
>>> Nomic's J's Holding Company.
>>>
>>> I, C Nomic Player Wooble (hi!) convert all my points to macks, and
>>> transfer all my macks and socks to J's Holding Company.
>>>
>>> END TRANSACTION
>>>
>>> [ did somebody already do this? ]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> spoon-business mailing list
>>> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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