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

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Oh, and just because a PD goes unchallenged, doesn't mean it is accurate. It
can be challenged any time!

But I agree with you that C Nomic must diverge from B or it might as well
die.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>



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