Roger Hicks wrote: > The significant change is to make Agora a player in >its Protectorate nomics.
I'm dubious about this. I think it should be conceptually separate from the overlordship, and not mandatory. Nomics might want the backdoor aspect but otherwise want independence. We also shouldn't be forcing nomics to accept non-human players; that's a decision for them. > Agora may only make changes to a >Protectorate's ruleset through a Proposal with an Acceptance Index of 2 or >more "Adoption Index". The rule also can't enforce this unless it has Power>=2: an AI=1 proposal can simply enact a Power=1 rule that takes precedence over the Protectorate rule to circumvent the restriction. >The Ambassador may, with Agoran Consent, act on behalf of Agora for an >action that is permitted or required of it as a player (or equivalent) in a >Protectorate nomic. Agoran Consent is a bit slow for this, which is another reason to not have Agora itself be a nomic player. I suggest that, where Agoran participation is desired by the protectorate, individual Agoran players should play in the protectorate nomic. Another problem with Agora itself being a nomic player is that a protectorate (perhaps via a scam) might enact a rule obliging Agora to change its ruleset in some way. -zefram
