[Nomic] Attempted scam...

[Mike Cripps]

Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> 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.
> 
In favour of the second, and we restart with a slightly more 
far-reaching and better defined initial ruleset.

Mike