On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't see any need for that. To my eyes, the machine itself is the >> nomic. Whether it can become a protectorate in that state is largely >> irrelevant. And I disagree with Wooble; a completely pragmatic ruleset >> can still be a protectorate through a pragmatic mechanism that allows >> the protective decree to directly change the ruleset (e.g., a web >> form). > > Still, although Goethe's machine does not *presently* have any > mechanism by which protective decrees might be automatically enforced, > e might still convince Agora to provide em with IT services through > such an ethereal quasi-computer.
I think this highlights problems with the Protectorate rules. They depend on the Protectorate nomic having things like "fora" and a way to "proclaim" things to the nomic, which are properties defined by the other nomic. I could easily define "proclaim" and "fora" for my machine such that "A message is proclaimed to this nomic when it is is communicated to Goethe AND Goethe makes the necessary changes by hand." (This is no different than delegating message-sending privileges which is allowed here). It would be possible for any nomic to make it platonically possible for an Ambassador to "proclaim to a nomic's forum" and fit all criteria while making it practically infeasible. (In reality the only fix is what already exists, that the Consent process would keep ones like this out). -Goethe
