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

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, that's true that the PD is approved. It's just that gamestate makes
PD's, not the other way around. A PD being approved doesn't set the
gamestate to what the PD says it is, but it may be a good indication that
the players think they are equivalent. In this case, it has no relevance to
what the players think the C Nomic gamestate is, because it's all up in the
air, Consultation pending.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Transaction acknowledged as failed. I admittedly didn't pay attention to
> the C Nomic chatter a couple weeks ago. Although, did you gain the
> ordained property on C?
>
>  From your next mail:
>
>  > Oh, and just because a PD goes unchallenged, doesn't mean it is
> accurate. It can be challenged any time!
>
> The rule says an unchallenged PD is automatically approved, so assuming
> C has been using the same public displays, they're valid until someone
> challenges an individual discrepancy. Anything on the wiki that hasn't
> changed in the last seven days, or is the result of non-B-specific
> transactions, is correct current gamestate for C Nomic.
>
> Do you still plan on letting me become a voting member of Black
> corporation? Else I need to file a consultation around the semantics of
> the word "member" before proposal voting ends. I wouldn't want to miss
> out on my dividends again.
>
>
> Tyler wrote:
>  > 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-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