On 2/22/14, 1:44 , Fool wrote:
> It is correct that R1698 had a chance to act before the game ended. So Alex
> Smith's proposed amendment would have been effective in preventing the end of
> the game. But in absense of that amendment, it remains to be shown that ending
> Agora falls under "causing Agora to become ossified".
> Agora's not ossified, it's just done. Now, G. objects that it depends on what
> the meaning of the word "is" is... A finished game still "exists", and is
> therefore ossified, therefore ending is prevented by R1698. I don't see in
> what sense this could be true.

The R1698 definition of "Agora is ossified" does not become undefined if Agora
does not exist. [1] The definition only asks whether it would be possible to
pass proposals or make arbitrary gamestate changes. These questions have clear
answers if Agora were to "cease to exist".

[1] The definition would presumably cease to be effective, but, fortunately,
we're checking the definition at a time when it is clearly effective.

- woggle

Reply via email to