On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, that wasn't it. Of course there was a game to consider the best interest > of, prior to ending it. What remains to be shown is that it was in the best > interest of the game to continue it indefinitely. People win, games end; > this is not harmful. To assert that Agora isn't the sort of game that ends > is to beg the question!
Some ruleset refactoring doesn't make a game that makes a point of having been continuously running for over 20 years, has a long history of non-game-ending wins, and whose players did not intend it to end suddenly take a 180 in a particular interpretation. Removal of explicit wording can cause the prior tradition to lose weight, but it doesn't automatically drop it on the floor. > In the new ruleset there were no statements that winning the game does > not end, no statements about how Agora has functioned since the start. There are at least two statements in the ruleset that strongly imply that this is the case: (5) A pivot is either the instant at which Agora Nomic began (June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200) or an instant at which at least one person won the game. When used as a period of time, a "game" is the period of time between a pivot and the next pivot. and the bit about scores resetting to 0 - which, as I previously said, could be interpreted as platonically starting a new game with a continuation of the gamestate, to the extent that that outcome is actually discernible from continuing the current game, but not as leaving it to the players to decide how to continue, as you suggest.