On 12 August 2011 16:08, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn > <jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Doesn't the ordinary-language definitions of "affairs of state (of >> Agora)" and "ambassador" mean anything? When a rule says that >> something completely undefined (Agora playing another nomic) is to >> happen, and introduces the notion of nomics being like states, then >> I'd say this is like saying a country doesn't have diplomatic >> relations to another when their ambassadors are clearly talking and >> making deals. > > Do you think the U.S. Ambassador to Canada can act on his own to cause > the U.S. to get Canadian citizenship? > Hmm, no. That's where it breaks down. I'm not saying this is going to salvage the argument, but the main difference: being a citizen of a country, and playing a nomic, are alike but not nearly the same thing. Especially when it comes to internet nomics in general, and Agora in particular. Playing simply means (not as defined by the rules, but in practice) taking the actions that are associated with playing the nomic. With the U.S. example, no-one could ever become a citizen on behalf of someone else, that's just odd, but playing a nomic on behalf of someone else is doable albeit a bit pointless.
Nah, I don't know where I'm getting with this. I definitely agree that the current rulesets of Agora and BlogNomic don't allow for Agora to play, while the ruleset of Agora requires me to cause Agora to play. Is there a rule about impossible obligations? /Tiger
