there is probably something i missed in the rules but i did not know a rule could become a golem
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]>wrote: > I cause Rule 2380 to cause Rule 2361 to become a Slave Golem. > > I CFJ { Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem. } > > If Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem, I cause Rule 2380 to transfer it from the > LFD to me. > > Arguments: > > The only reason I can think of that this would fail is if being a Golem or > not being a Golem is a substantive aspect of the Rule. I'm torn as to > whether or not this is the case. On the one hand, it does change the way > that the Rule would work, but on the other hand, it does not actually alter > the way that the Rule functions; it only alters the way that other Rules > apply to it---and certainly, affecting how rules interact is not a direct > aspect of power security, or else Agoran satisfaction would not work. > Therefore, I submit that since golem-ness is not, directly, a part of the > functioning of a Rule, it should not be considered a substantive aspect, > and Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem. > > I intend, with notice, to cause Rule 2380 to append to itself the text: "A > Rule CAN, by announcement, cause an arbitrary Rule Change." > > > I intend, with notice, to cause Rule 2380 to append to itself the text: > "Rule 2140 is an entity." > I intend, with notice, to cause Rule 2380 to remove from itself the text: > "Rule 2140 is an entity." > I intend, with notice, to cause Rule 2380 to enact a rule with power 3 and > text identical to the current text of Rule 2140. > > -scshunt >
