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 player". However, I don't think the definition is useful.
In that case R2174 should probably be amended as well. I like the notion; it provides an interesting paradigm for inter-nomic relations. It would make a worthy project, I think, to domin-- er, unify the nomic world under a single banner; and Agora is eminently the best choice to take up that throne. How better to fulfill our R2147-acknowledged responsibility to lead the nomic world? Besides, the two-way power relationship of a protectorate with a voice in its parent government is healthy and to be encouraged. One-way power of amendment strikes me as unNomiclike. > A nomic is an entity defined by a set of explicit rules that > provides means for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including > changes to those rules which govern rule changes. Then it's unclear whether it's the nomic or the ruleset that provides the means. How about: > A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means > for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes > to those rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be > possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of actions > (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be required, so > long as any rule change is theoretically achievable in finite time. > > A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a whole. > Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each nomic is > defined by exactly one nomic ruleset. (Disqualify, eg, Notes from being nomics.) Long, but I think more readable than my last attempt. Note that "rule change" is defined in R105.
