On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: > R2410 allows a party constitution to amend itself arbitrarily. The fact that > these amendments are mediated via R2410 and player announcement does not make > it not a Nomic.
The point is, the Party cannot *choose its own method of mediation*, while a nomic can. > Precedent: PerlNomic (and thanks to woggle for educating me about PerlNomic > while I was heckling Ambassador Abuse players on IRC). PerlNomic changes were > mediated by code. So by the above logic, since PerlNomic could not legislate > that its changes would not be mediated by code, it was not a Nomic. But it was > recognised as a Nomic. > > And when you think about it, no Nomic compels its own rule following. All > Nomics are implicitly mediated by something, and this is not subject to > amendment. Usually this is by its players directly, but there are other > possibilities. But they *are* subject to amendment in a true nomic. Sure, some of these things start out as a meta-agreement ("we're all playing in English, or Perl, or via email") but if a rule changes, any of these initial meta-agreements could be changed. In Agora (true nomic), we could change the way the mailing list works, or whether it's conducted over email at all. But for a party of Agora, as currently defined by Agora, an outside rules body (Agora) governs these things, they can't be set arbitrarily in the party constitution itself. Honestly, the Claustronomic case is worth a read, since it's an official set of Agoran precedents on the matter (let me know if the CFJs aren't clear, and I'll try to summarize - actually at the time I had an opinion similar to yours, but the CFJ didn't go my way). -G.