On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy >> > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time. >> >> Just to make sure, I object. (We have several protections against >> actions that make the game nonexistent or unplayable, so it's likely >> that this couldn't succeed. It's possible, though, that destroying >> Agora has an effect that doesn't make the nomic we're playing >> unplayable. What does it mean to destroy a nomic anyway?) > > Well, by common definition, if a nomic by its own rules was "destroyed", > I'd say that instance of it would "cease to exist" and it would > basically say "this nomic has ended, game over."
Well, that depends on what "destroy" means. Destruction doesn't imply that something ceases to exist; it just implies that the object is no longer capable of serving its purpose as intended. You can destroy a car by crashing it at high speed, but the car still exists after you have done so. So I'd say that destroying Agora by announcement would be ineffective due to ambiguity, since it doesn't specify the nature of the damage done to Agora which renders it destroyed. --whatever my nickname is these days
