On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be
> > people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person.
>
> We've previously defined classes non-biological persons (contracts and
> such), and then
twg wrote:
Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not capable of
thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to be a person and COULD
NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as "deregistering",
because that is the act of
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:
Kinda dark, but interesting. And since Agora has been going on for so long
and doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon, even thought it would be
sad, it's not a complete impossibility.
Even darker, it may already have happened without us knowing.
Kinda dark, but interesting. And since Agora has been going on for so
long and doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon, even thought it
would be sad, it's not a complete impossibility.
On 10/29/2018 12:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
This randomly occurred to me recently.
Rule 869/44
See:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3412
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> This randomly occurred to me recently.
>
> Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not
>
This randomly occurred to me recently.
Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not
capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to
be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as
"deregistering",
6 matches
Mail list logo
