acka-research Digest Tuesday, November 24 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3774 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:21:13 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, John Bollinger wrote: > >actions: > >i) create a policy in its possession, provided it doesn't already own > >one. > >ii) destroy its policy. > >iii) reveal or hide any part of its policy. > > > >Only the revealed portion of a policy has effect within Ackanomic. > > I have never liked the bit about secret Church Policies which nevertheless > have game effects. I am a bit uncomfortable even with this implementation, > because it is open to abuse by unscrupulous players (not that we have any > such in Acka). I would prefer that policies be all public, all the time. > It is fine if an org wants to have private, internal rules, but these should > not be enforceable under the Acka rules. Notwithstanding ThinMan's arguments, secret policies may either be fun or trouble, but I see no reason to extend this other Organizations. It made sense to me in the context of a Church. Back when Odo existed, it had a nomic like Policy. The main question here, as ThinMan points out, is enforceability. I have trouble reconciling the two parts of ThinMan's last statement above wih each other. Or rather, I can' see to implement this. If the internal rules call for a member to perfom a specific action, and the rule isn't enforceable under Acka rules, then how is it enforceable. > > I much prefer the current state of affairs for Churches, which makes > performing an action in violation of Church policy impermissable for > Church members. This appears to have saved us a paradox win, and it > has the virtue of being simple. I think it is possible to implement > a penalty model within the permissability model anyway. ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #278 ***********************************