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

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Whoa, you're right! Except that I don't know that automatic approval could
be called a Player approving a PD.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The public display does control gamestate: "When a Player successfully
> Approves a Public Display, the Gamestate is changed to reflect what it
> would be if the Approved Public Display were accurate as of the time the
> Player attempted to Approve it."
>
> The automatic approval assumedly has the same effect. There is a rolling
> window seven days in the past where gamestate is continually changed to
> match unchallenged public displays.
>
>
>
> Tyler wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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