On Dec 3, 2007 10:10 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> doing nkep itself is still an action which has no actual changes
> associated with it.
Nonsense. Fookiemyartug defines it as:
Whenever a nomic
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjks,
they are pledging their unquestioned loyalty to Fookiemyartug and by
doing so declaring Fookiemyartug and each of its partners to be the
winners of that nomic.
That clearly defines what nkepping is, not as a null action (which
makes no sense) with side effects.
> The Fookiemyartug contract simply causes something
> to happen when nkep occurs. I could make a contract that says:
> {
> When root supports my attempts to make Agora do silly things, I do a
> little dance
> }
If we use this interpretation, then in fact the Fookiemyartug contract
is harmless. The action is a null action; the additional effect you
describe may be recognized by Fookiemyartug, but it is not part of the
action, and so it is not recognized by Agora. An analogue would be if
B Nomic adopted a rule reading "Whenever Agora adopts a proposal, they
are also surrendering".
> Also note that nkep really has not been defined. It is still utterly
> nonsensical.
Then it's still not an action.
> The Fookiemyartug contract simply indicates an effect
> that occurs when a nomic commits that nonsensical act.
Then it is defined as an action. Make up your mind; it can't be both.
-root
