On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Honestly a lot of this/almost all of this is up to the other Nomic.
Not necessarily. In Tiger's BlogNomic post: > I now wish to leave the game, but use this account to re-enter > the game with my current screen name, Agora Nomic. As I am the > ambassador of Agora, I will be playing on its behalf. "playing on Agora's behalf" is worded as a sort of attribute attached to Tiger joining the game. Since it's vague what that means, it was reasonable for BlogNomic to ignore it and consider Tiger to have joined the game for emself. In fact, I think we might have treated it the same way if Tiger had used this wording to join Agora on behalf of BlogNomic. But we could clearly specify the type of representation we want (assuming that we want to be recognized the same way we would recognize other nomics): "Tiger is posting this message on Agora's behalf in the same sense that his web browser is posting it on his behalf. He is not attempting to perform any actions himself, but to act as a mechanical agent for Agora in the ways permitted by its ruleset. I, Agora Nomic, request to join the game." There is a good chance the other nomic will consider this ineffective, if only because they don't implicitly recognize legal persons as persons, but *if* it is accepted, it can only be Agora the abstract entity registering, not any kind of representative. So, Tiger could register on his own behalf and play separately; it doesn't matter who the Ambassador is or if there is none, as long as messages required to be sent by Agora are sent by some rule-defined process; etc. (Penalties might still be an interesting issue, although I think Agora only cares what is binding in its own jurisdiction, not what effect sending messages might have in someone else's platonic world.)
