On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1-16 (Transactions) is great. I don't see your objection: just three
days ago you posted a protoproposal ("Generalize Dependent Actions")
which explicitly puts all the rule changes into a single transaction.
1-16 just formalises that possibility. I really like B Nomic's formality
in defining the structure of the game.
I am well aware of how formal nomic play can be. I was a charter
member of both perlnomic (the first one) and schemenomic. They are
fun in their own way. But so is Agora. I would be up for a purely
formal subgame, though.
I don't understand your clause ``which explicitly puts all the rule
changes into a single transaction''. Are you talking about the text
Actions performed by sending a message are performed in the most
natural order compatible with the message. The first action is
performed at the time date-stamped on the message, and each
successive action is performed an Agoran standard infinitesimal
time unit after the action it succeeds. The actions may be
treated as though they occurred simultaneously for all purposes
except determining the results of performing the actions.
appearing in "Action by Message" in the proto ``Clarify actions''?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Here are links to everything I can find on the subject:
-- root, in agora-discussion
