On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > Sure, a party can do this. And then splinter off and be a nomic. > > BUT IN DOING SO, IT IS NO LONGER THE PARTY that the officer > > Is tracking. > > fwiw, I agree that "splintering off" doesn't count, but I think that a > system of rules that exists in the context of a specific legal > framework can still "provide means for itself" through that framework. > Even if the only mechanism for amendment is an unalterable one > provided by that framework, the system of rules is providing a means > for itself to be amended by virtue of choosing to exist in a framework > that provides such a mechanism. Although it is traditional for nomics > to have rules that provide their own interpretation and be > self-sufficient, I don't think that Rule 2368's definition of nomic > requires them to do so.
Mainly, the sticking point is in the broadness of R2368's "arbitrary", coupled with the fact that the mechanism CAN be changed within Agora, but CAN'T be changed by the Party, so from the point of view of Agora, there is at least one thing thing that CAN be changed by Agora, but CANNOT be changed by the party, therefore it fails the arbitrary rules change test. (This is different than relying of the laws of physics, which are outside the bounds of any nomic).