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

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ha! You're getting ahead of yourself. For one thing, it's the Ministry of
Questions that is the Oracle, not the MoL. And for another, I already took
(theoretically) all of the Ministries in C Nomic. And I'm certainly not
going to assign the Consultation to you!

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
>



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