On Feb 12, 2008 12:56 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 12:54 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Enact a new rule with power 1, entitled "Nomic Definitions", with text as
> > follows:
> > Zefram is the coauthor of this proposal.
>
> Check the placement of that
On Feb 12, 2008 12:54 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Enact a new rule with power 1, entitled "Nomic Definitions", with text as
> follows:
> Zefram is the coauthor of this proposal.
Check the placement of that line
I sense that it's probably close to done, so here's a clean draft.
I'm breaking province voting rights off into separate proposals according to
power.
What Are We? AI=1, II=2
{{
Enact a new rule with power 1, entitled "Nomic Definitions", with text as
follows:
Zefram is the coauthor of th
On Feb 11, 2008 9:12 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 09 February 2008 7:23 I wrote:
> > On Friday 08 February 2008 12:57 Zefram wrote:
> > > In that case I suggest that you clarify by expressing it as "protectorate
> > > that is also a player". However, I don't think the de
On 2/11/08, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> s[p|c]ammable
[pc]
On Saturday 09 February 2008 7:23 I wrote:
> On Friday 08 February 2008 12:57 Zefram wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I like the notion; it provides an interesting p
On Friday 08 February 2008 12:57 Zefram 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
On 2/8/08, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clunky and therefore prone to deliberate misinterpretation (hi comex).
/me mumbles something about delibrately ambiguous registration requests.
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 d
> > A province is a registered protectorate.
>
> 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. If a registered partnership's backing document
allows self-amendment, it qualifies as a nomic and
On Feb 7, 2008 8:38 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008 7:13 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A nomic is an entity defined by a set of explicit rules that
> > provide means for themselves to be altered arbitrarily, including
> > changes to those rule
On Feb 7, 2008 7:13 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A nomic is an entity defined by a set of explicit rules that
> provide means for themselves to be altered arbitrarily, including
> changes to those rules which govern rule changes.
I suggest a "generally" here.. Consi
Pavitra wrote:
"Embassy" is the wrong word here. What should it be called?
I would just let Rule 2185 cover the subject implicitly.
On Feb 7, 2008 7:13 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clearly, if I keep waiting for comex to cool down, I'm never going to
> be able to do anything.
If my scam was indeed successful, I'll need to proto and enact a fix
for the loophole before repealing Rule . I'm too tired to do tha
Ben Caplan wrote:
> A province is a registered protectorate.
Be careful about the word "registered". We've seen a recent case claiming
that it can only refer to playerhood.
-zefram
Clearly, if I keep waiting for comex to cool down, I'm never going to
be able to do anything.
"Embassy" is the wrong word here. What should it be called?
Proto: What Are We?
AI=1, II=2
{{
Enact a new rule at power 1, entitled "Foreign National Sovereignty", with the
following text:
A nomic
16 matches
Mail list logo
