On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > On 17 August 2011 21:06, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn > > <jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Ambassador generally CAN act on behalf of Agora to cause > >> it to register and take actions in foreign nomics. > > > > This is useless unless the other nomic recognizes the Agoran ruleset > > as a valid way to grant a person the ability to act on behalf of > > another entity, and additionally allows a nomic to register. > > > Well, I don't really see how anything in Agora's ruleset can do > anything about that problem, if we don't back away and start being > content with just having the Ambassador play other nomics just, I > don't know, representing Agora. What's a good term for not being > Agora, but being there because they can't? On their behalf springs to > mind, but it doesn't seem to work.
Being a person with the nickname 'Agora'? Honestly a lot of this/almost all of this is up to the other Nomic. Let's say you register over there. You claim to be playing "as Agora". They all say fine. Then you incur some debt/penalty over there and depart. The debt is noted on the "Tiger the Agoran Ambassador" record in their game. If later on, you re-register (this time "as yourself") and another of us registers as the "new ambassador", does the other nomic apply the lingering penalty to you, or the new Agora representative? It really wouldn't make any difference what rule we pass here, it would be all up to their ruleset/interpretations of their own records. If they later came over here and called a CFJ asking "Agora" to pay somehow, then it might be kicked back to us. Whether an Agoran CFJ would uphold that "Agora" owes anything would depend on the Agoran ruleset. Specifically, if we didn't pass a Agoran Rule binding us, any claims would be thrown out by R101, because Agora didn't "consent" to being a party to the other nomic agreement. I'm not meaning to discourage moving in some direction - this would make very interesting case law. -G.
