Ben Caplan wrote:
>> Be careful about the word "registered". We've seen a recent case claiming
>> that it can only refer to playerhood.
>
>That was in fact what I meant.
In that case I suggest that you clarify by expressing it as "protectorate
that is also a player". However, I don't think the definition is useful.
>Does this definition require *each rule* to provide for self-amendment, or (as
>intended) only the set as a whole? And can it be rewritten to remove the
>ambiguity?
A nomic is an entity defined by a set of explicit rules that
provides means for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including
changes to those rules which govern rule changes.
-zefram
