comex wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 5:57 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A more interesting case, which came up in my earlier era of playerhood
when we first considered recognising Canada as a nomic, is the
German constitution. It has rules providing for amendment to the
constitution, but an explicit prohibition on amending certain articles
of it. The question was raised of whether it was disqualified from
being a nomic by virtue of those protected articles being unamendable.
However, it emerged that the protecting clause did not prohibit amendment
of itself, so in the end the constitution on its face does not make any
clause entirely unamendable.
Nevertheless, a standard Nomic game that made one rule completely
unamendable still deserves to be called a nomic.
If it can circumvent the following set of separate steps:
1) Create a rule that re-defines "repeal" to mean something else
2) Create a rule that re-defines, say, "nkep" as a synonym of the
ordinary-language meaning of "repeal"
3) Nkep the unamendable rule (and the rules created above)
then I'll be impressed. (We came up with this as a hypothetical
method by which Rishonomic could have repealed a Governor-General
rule, had we saddled them with one.)
