On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> I had a look. The situation looks to me like this: the question was whether
> Agora would recognise it as a Contest, and when it broke a certain Agoran
> rule, it ceased to be a Contest. There wasn't a "divergent" version of
> Claustronomic that still existed in Agora, which is how your ruling sort of
> made it sound. The verdict was that Claustronomic ceased to exist (as a
> Contest, i.e., as far as Agora was concerned).

That's right.  I'm saying that there can't be a divergent version of a 
party, either.  So, what happens in the following case:
1.  Party X creates a constitution that says "all constitution changes take
     effect as soon as they are posted on f...@bar.org."
2.  Such a rule change from Y to Z is posted on f...@bar.org, but not posted
     on Agora PF.
3.  An Agoran CFJ is called on whether Rule Y or Z is the true Rule.
4.  Meanwhile, over on f...@bar.org, everyone plays as if Z, resulting in a
     divergence between possible states (this is the Claustronomic example
     exactly).

Well, an easy answer is IF YOU'RE JUDGING WITHIN AGORA, we say simply that Z 
failed, Y still exists.  This effectively means that the party cannot make
this sort of arbitrary rule change. Remember, all I have to show is a single 
type of rule change that could not be made under current Agoran rules (that's 
the test of an arbitrary rule change).

Now, there are sneaky ways of getting around this, e.g. appealing to a secret
outside agreement ("even though Agora thinks Y, we're really playing by Z").
But this, in itself, means that the constitution itself is not acting as a 
nomic.

> PerlNomic seems like a more pertinent precedent. Now, I don't know Perl. But
> presumably there's no way to say "interpret this in English" in Perl.
> PerlNomic could not become a regular nomic by the processes it defines.
> There's also a CFJ (2168) about whether stuff on some guy's hard drive was a
> Nomic, and it was judged true (thank you again woggle). Same idea.
> 
> Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to amendment
> by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora purport to
> be played by the NZ All Blacks?

This would paralyze the rule until we waited for a confirmed NZ person to post,
or would just create a legal fiction of role-playing.  It's not a problem.

> A less silly example is, that, even without my consent, you could legally
> repeal the rule saying I can stop playing. But it'd still be a "meta-rule",
> and I can still stop playing.

You could ignore the state of the game, and the game would continue to list
you as a player, and penalize you for not doing whatever.  No conflict has to 
arise.



Reply via email to