On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming >> into power like that are unbreakably strong. > > How strong? Presently there are two self-consistent interpretations > of the Nomic Wars contract-- the original Sections claim that mine has > no effect, but mine claims that they have no effect-- with no text in > the contract itself that would select either one over the other.
There are two self-consistent interpretations of Agora's ruleset: that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a player, and that she is not. After all, the rules never say whether she is or not, and Rule 217 doesn't offer much guidance. Therefore, to determine whether she is a player or not, we must look to see whether she ever *became* a player. She did not, so she is not a player. Likewise, as you point out, there are two self-consistent interpretations of the contract: that the original rules are in effect, and that the new rule is in effect. The contract offers no guidance as to which is the case. Therefore, to determine which rules are in effect, we must look to see whether the new rule ever took effect. It did not, so it is not in effect. If you want to, say "I can do anything by announcement; this sentence takes precedence over the laws of physics." and see what happens. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
