Even if arbitrary rule changes were something a player could do by emself, they aren't binding agreements, usually; and even if they were, rule 2169/4 isn't powerful enough to make gamestate changes above power 1.7 (but /is/ powerful enough to create a contest, as the definition of a contest has a power of 1).
"The valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules." A contest is a possible agreement that the parties could make. A rule change is not. So luckily, this scam doesn't extend to arbitrary rules changes. (If it did, then no doubt someone, probably root, would have used it to win by now.) -- ais523 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 00:08 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523 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 But on the other hand, specifying "This is a contract such that Rule 2145 is repealed" doesn't make any sense.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
<<winmail.dat>>
