[Nomic] Threadsplit.

[Jonathan David Amery]

 I'm borrowing terminology from Acka here; since we haven't invented
any.

 I declare Threadsplit on the game state.

 The problem is the Rule of Assumed Consent.

 "...and they haven't explicitly expressed a lack of consent."

 On Sunday, in
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/pipermail/nomic-talc/2004-September/000247.html
MEWO said "I believe [The NoC for Lizardmen] is invalid, as I never
voted in favour of it."

 So, there are a number of different ways of interpreting the
gamestate; which I call 'threads'.

 Thread A: 
  Assertion: 
   MEWO is incorrect, and his prior vote for an earlier version of the
   proposal did count.
  Conclusions:
   Wild Card's original NoC was correct; his subsequent one was
   superfluous (noise); the rules should include the rule of
   Lizardmen as Rule 10.
 
 Thread B:
  Assertion:
   MEWO was correct.  However, his mail does not constitute explicitly
   expressing a lack of consent.
  Conclusions:
   Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was
   correct; the rules should include the rule of Lizardmen as Rule 12.

 Thread C:
  Assertion:
   MEWO was correct.  Also his mail constituted explicitly expressing
   a lack of consent, but did not constitute explicitly stating that
   he was opposed either.
  Conclusions:
   Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was
   also incorrect; the rules should not include the rule of 
   Lizardmen; should MEWO later consent then Wild Card could
   validly post an NoC for the Rule of Autoadoption.

 Thread D:
  Assertion:
   MEWO was correct.  Also his mail constituted explicitly expressing
   a lack of consent, in the process constituting opposition.
  Conclusions:
   Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was
   also incorrect; the rules should not include the rule of 
   Lizardmen; The Rule of Lizardmen can't be adopted in it's current
   form. 


 Unfortunately, we have no way of deciding between these threads...

 WC.