Subject: Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #34
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Discussion Digest)
To: acka-discuss-digest

Ackanomic Discussion Digest  Wednesday, April 2 1997  Volume 02 : Number 034

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 01:33:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: SFG Internomic Edition

Dr. West apparently wrote via the SFG Internomic Edition.

> As for the question of potential disputes and judgments concerning
> transferred entities, this issue most definitely deserves attention. But I
> disagree that, in the absence of formally defined judgment procedures,
> nomics participating in the ETP will find themselves having to interpret
> the rules of other nomics.

Dr. West seems to have missed my point.  Since I was not party to the
transfer of my writing to Dr. West, I have no idea what he got, but 
my point was not about making judgements about other nomics in terms
of the Entity, but of the following part of proposal 1871:

> Nomics who have assigned to one of their players the duties and
> responsibilities similar to those assigned in Ackanomic to the Customs
> Officer and whose rulesets include a rule or rules substantially similar to
> Ackanomic's  Entity Transfer Protocol will be designated Trade Partners of
> Ackanomic (in the opinion of the Customs Officers involved).

This version may have been patched with the parenthetical clause, but
it still requires a player or players to make a judgement about another
nomic's ruleset, and consequently, if we are to make a judgement about
the conduct of the Customs Officer, we (those who would judge the
performance of the Customs Officer) must also be proficient enough with
that nomic's ruleset to do so.  Whether or not it will work in the
specific case of PPN, and I agree it probably will (athough I can not
verify that without learing PPN's rules for myself), it still strikes me
as bad law for expertese in all nomics' rulesets with which we want to
trade to be required. 

This is a different point than the one Dr. West seems to be responding
to.

> though it is considered bad form for the Customs Officer to use this
> power to attempt a scam.

This part seems like a very un-nomic like bandaid in response to my
previous comments, although there is a precedent for it (rule 1201).
Perhaps we should just add this sort of language to rule 101 ;-).

I still disagree with other of Dr. West's comments, but I wanted to
point this out as this seems a miscommunication difference as opposed
to a philosophical one.

Malenkai

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #34
*****************************************