I’m not finding the secret groups very compelling.

Continuing the truncated conversation in the other thread where Ienpw argued that “the gamestate is modified such that it modifies itself in the future”: gamestate is just “any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of”, and it can “only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset”. Gamestate doesn’t have any legal power to directly modify itself, the ruleset or other gamestate.

CoV because of this.

  Too long to read, but Kevan, isn’t the ruleset itself gamestate?

.  I do not want the High-Programmer to be authorized to modify PMs.

[Darth] Sure. But Ienpw seems to be arguing that a clause of “three weeks after this proposal enacts, change ‘Elephant’ to ‘Zebra’” would create a floating chunk of non-ruleset gamestate that had the power to modify the ruleset at a later date, even though the proposal that created it was no longer pending. I’m not sure the rules would support such a chunk.

(I’m not sure what the Agora comment is supposed to mean. BlogNomic has different rules to Agora.)

I think it’s a reference to the famous Walrus Scam. It got around a similar restriction to the treason one in Agora at the time by enacting a rule with a delayed effect (if I recall correctly, 1*10^-27 seconds after the rule was enacted, it did the effects). It was very controversial.

However, it did this by a rule, and not floating gamestate. Agoran convention does not accept floating gamestate in this form either, and it’s very close to a matter of law.

We briefly had a bit of floating gamestate back in Angry Grasshopper’s first dynasty. It lead to naught but sorrow.

Also, 

Coppro: Kevan’s point no longer applies to this proposal - I removed the future clause.

I don’t really know how to interpret this.

(oops, that was a RoV, missed my first vote)

CoV

only because Players who are still members should have an advantage.

per Bucky