[Nomic] Attempted scam...

[Adam Biltcliffe]

On Sep 28 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> I note that Rule Three fails to actually state that the list it
> requires is the List of Voters; indeed looking at the web page, since
> it contains a pseudonym it appears to be the List of Handles.

I don't think you can argue anything from the appearance of the web page, 
especially since the web page claims quite unambiguously (although possibly 
erroneously) that the list given is the List of Voters. Also, the rule 
describing the List of Handles clearly states that the first element in 
each pair is an entry in the List of Voters; therefore, if you assert that 
this list *is* the List of Handles, your argument that there is no List of 
Voters cannot possibly be true.

>  Hence, no thing currently exists called the List of Voters.

This is a plausible interpretation of the rules.

>  Also, Rule 1 fails to define what an entity is.

True. Since I believe the rest of the rules use 'entity' exclusively to 
refer to extranomic entities, I submit that the phrasing of Rule 1 should 
be changed.

>  Therefore I assert that a List of Voters is not an entity, so rule 1
> does not apply.

However, I believe that the phrase "and all entities existing within it" is 
actually just a clarification, and the effect of the rule would be 
unchanged if the rule said 'the game has a persistent state which can only 
change as described by the rules'. Either your declaration that you've 
created a new List of Voters doesn't intend to change the state of the game 
or it does; if it doesn't, fine, it doesn't do anything, and if it does, 
it's prohibited by Rule 1.

Therefore, Wild Card's attempted coup fails. However, he has raised the 
point that there is not currently a definition of what the List of Voters 
is. I see two possibilities:

1) We accept that the fact that Rule 3 is titled 'List of Voters' implies 
that the list described therein is the List of Voters, and carry on as 
normal.

2) We declare that there is no List of Voters. In this case, the rules 
provide no way for one to be created, and since any change to the game 
requires the existence of an entity on the List of Voters to make a 
proposal, the game is irreparably broken and must be abandoned.

I'm in favour of taking the first option and fixing the phrasing of Rules 1 
and 3 ASAP. Anyone with me?

adam