On Thursday 10 January 2008 15:47:47 Zefram wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1860 > > ============================== CFJ 1860 ============================== > > Type: inquiry case > > Statement: It is a violation of rule 2159 to falsely claim that something > is a protective decree to Steve Wallace (the biological person, > not necessarily the player). > > Initiator: pikhq > > ======================================================================== > > Judge: BobTHJ > > Veracity: applicable, IRRELEVANT > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Initiated by pikhq: 08 Jan 2008 00:29:45 GMT > Judge BobTHJ assigned: 10 Jan 2008 11:17:43 GMT > Judged IRRELEVANT by BobTHJ: 10 Jan 2008 22:44:47 GMT > > ======================================================================== > > Judge BobTHJ's Arguments: > > The relevant portion of R2159 is as follows: > { > All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, > that a document is a protective decree. > } > > The answer to this consultation thus is based upon the possibility for > a person to be a nomic. Peter Suber's original definition of a Nomic > is: > { > Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect > it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic > is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing > them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot > be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of > course, can be changed. > } > > Since Mr. Suber's definition was written games under the name of > "Nomic" have taken on many forms. However, there is a common element > among Nomic-like games: Most (if not all) of the rules are subject to > change. This does not, however, mean that all games with changeable > rules are Nomic. > > A person's DNA, the blueprints or "rules" that govern that person, are > subject to change (random mutation). However, while mutation of a > cell's DNA might change that cell's mytosial (is that a word?) > offspring, it does not in change the DNA composition of any of the > other cells in the body. > A person's ethos is certainly subject to change. Experience over time > causes a change in beliefs. However, a person can not be simply > defined by DNA composition or ethos. These systems, while major > contributions to a being, do not constitute the whole of that being. > > Also, merely being subject to change is not equivalent to being a > nomic. The second law of thermodynamics would suggest that everything > is subject to change, yet it would be foolish to consider every tiny > pebble to be a nomic. > > In the end however, despite whatever reasoning there may be for or > against the nomichood of persons, Steve Wallace is not a protectorate. > Protectorate decrees by definition only apply to Protectorates of > Agora. Therefore I judge this CFJ to be IRRELEVANT. > > ========================================================================
I applaud this well-thought-out judgement.
