On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:14 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> My guess is that this has the effect of creating a contract which >>>> matches the current rules of B Nomic in text, but which is not B Nomic >>>> and lacks its current gamestate. >>> >>> With ehird's consent, I intend to modify our B Nomic contract so that >>> the rest of its gamestate matches B Nomic's. >> >> That's not a defined contract change. > > Though I suppose that "amending a contract" is a bit ambiguous in that > regard, so maybe it can work.
It should be possible to simulate with a series of changes to the text of the pseudo-B Nomic ruleset that end up with no net change to the ruleset of the contract, so I see no problem allowing it as amendments to the contract, which collectively could be a contract change. -woggle
