On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think accepting your logic would imply that an equation can make any > arbitrary change to the gamestate, since a parties to a contract could > agree to some arbitrary other contract and then incidentally go on to > take actions causing such changes, even if doing so would require > changing the rules and convincing other people to help them do so. > Even if no actual other player would consent to vote for the rule > changes they wanted, surely it's "possible" that under some > hypothetical scenario any arbitrary gamestate change could be made, > given enough persistence and ingenuity on the part of some party to a > contact somewhere.
I don't follow this. How are arbitrary gamestate changes made by establishing a contract? Contesthood is an attribute of a contract, and it's reasonable to define that attribute when specifying the contract. But on the other hand, specifying "This is a contract such that Rule 2145 is repealed" doesn't make any sense. -root
