Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #418
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Monday, December 23 1996       Volume 01 : Number 418

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

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:33:03 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: Victorious Eggplant

> 
> > I'm intrigued. For an Acka-entity to have powers beyond Acka,
> > wouldn't that nomic's ruleset have to recognise ours as having
> > jurisdiction within that nomic? In the minimalist trading setup I was
> > envisioning, I was thinking once transferred to another nomic, an
> > Acka-entity would lose any properties it had here, because of it not
> > being recognised in the other nomic's rules.
> 	*nod*  Yes.  However, I think it's possible to make a much more
> interesting framework than that.  An Agoran with a Pyraic Frobnotzer
> should be able to use it in just the same way an Ackanomian would:  by
> sending messages to Ackanomic's mailing list. 
> 
> > > 	I think it makes more sense for a thing to keep all its qualities,
> > > including tradeability, wherever it goes. 
> > 
> > Right. If I understand you correctly, Mohammed, I believe this would
> > require participating nomics to surrender some of their sovereignty
> > (what a *great* word that is) to the greater union. It would be less
> > of a United Nomics, more of a Nomic Economic Community. Would we be
> > prepared to accept alien nomic entities with those properties that
> > had been ascribed to them by that other nomic? Would they want ours? 
> 	Excellent thinking.  For convenience, I'll repeat the example here
> (paraphrased):  imagine a gift entity that, according to our rule set,
> destroys all entities owned by whoever owns it continuously for more than
> three days.  How would this work?
> 	One way of doing it is to say:  okay, it works as written while 
> it's in Ackanomic; when it gets traded outside Ack, someone else tracks 
> it and its power don't work.
> 	Another way is to say:  okay, every nomic has to have rules
> deferring authority of such matters to the rules of other nomics.  So the
> entity works no matter where it goes.
> 	In my mind, neither of these approaches is ideal-- the first 
> because it's too strict, the second because it's too permissive.  The 
> first framework will fail because it gives other nomics no reason ever to

> *want* to trade with Ack.  The second framework will fail because the 
> nomic that will want to take the risk is probably rather rare.
> 	Instead, Ackanomic should track its own entities, even across 
> Internomic borders.  And, while they should not be able to manipulate 
> entities that came from other nomics, they should be able to manipulate 
> Ackanomic entities wherever they find them.  So the above object would be

> "gift" wherever it goes, but its catastrophic effect would only have any 
> effect on entities that are from Ackanomic (including itself.)
> 	That's the main plan.  I'd like to add another layer of protocol 
> on top of it (Customs Officers) to make trade easier, but there's the 
> basic idea.
> 
Mohamed brings up some interesting points.  

However,I've got a few questions about his approach.

1)  Does that mean that that someone will have to track an item across
Nomics,  Follow anything that might effect the transfered item in the othe
nomics message stream, reflecter, Ftp, www site, etc, then announce
to the other Nomic what the resultof that activity  is.  It sounds like a
lot of
work and many . . . many . . . many messages cluttering up eis box.

1a) if this is so, what happens if if the effect is against he rules in the
other
nomic,  what if what it affects is nonexistant in another nomic.

1b)  Are functonal titles and names tranfered or is the exact wording of an
item's creation rule used.  Eg. the keeper of random things, or a
player(we'll
ignore whether the palyer is active or not or eis name
1d)  by what mechanism are these widgets transfered,  officially, Nomic to
Nomic
officially, through a common Market, privately, by having someone, the
inverntor?,
responsible for setting it up in the other nomic and monitoring it?

1d)  Do we get a vote if some other nomic changes something of ours,  If we
do, 
how is that vote limited?  If not, does Acka have the same resonsibilites
and 
potential liabilities as a regular player would in  the other nomics.  Is
Acka prepared
to deal with the same?

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

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:41:14 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: Victorious Eggplant

> 	One way of doing it is to say:  okay, it works as written while 
> it's in Ackanomic; when it gets traded outside Ack, someone else tracks 
> it and its power don't work.
> 	Another way is to say:  okay, every nomic has to have rules
> deferring authority of such matters to the rules of other nomics.  So the
> entity works no matter where it goes.
> 	In my mind, neither of these approaches is ideal-- the first 
> because it's too strict, the second because it's too permissive.  The 
> first framework will fail because it gives other nomics no reason ever to

> *want* to trade with Ack.  The second framework will fail because the 
> nomic that will want to take the risk is probably rather rare.

I like the second approach:

I posted this earlier as Acka:  Internomic items and Acka on the 20'th

This is just an idea I'm throwing up for you to shoot full of holes.

There a rules discribing how to create various types of items, why not use
them

Banging on thr Mighty Wulitzer (for Dramatic effect of course):

If an item is brought into Acka, from anther Nomic, the following procedure
shall be followed,

A)  The internomic Representive shall get a precise description of the item
in question.  getting everyhting needed  to convert it to Ackanomc.  If
an characteristic is not stateded in the original description, e is 
allowed to create the attribute as e desired.

The attribute may include but are not limited to Name, type, Size, Value

b)  the Representive shall introduce the item as a blueprint or Trinket and
go through all precudures outlined in the rules.  

b1) if the item is a trinket,  the treasury shall pay for it and the
Internomic representive shall have possession of it, unless it it owner 
or location are sprcified in its creation.

b2)  If the Itewm is a blueprintable item,  the blueprint shall be deemed 
created, and an auction will be held with the internomic representative 
recieving 25 pewrcnt of the winning bid and the treausry recieving the
balance.

b3)  This rule specifiaccaly allows the the Internomic reresenttive to 
make the blueprint and the item,

3c)  if the item is not allowed by the Ackanomic, the representitive shall 
suffer the normal penalies that accompany an unsuccessful bid to create an
item.

3d) an Acka item is sent out, and returned,it shall undergo the same
procedures.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:25:10 +0000
From: "Matt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Victorious Eggplant

Mohammed:

> An Agoran with a Pyraic Frobnotzer
> should be able to use it in just the same way an Ackanomian would:  by
> sending messages to Ackanomic's mailing list. 
> 
> > > 	I think it makes more sense for a thing to keep all its qualities,
> > > including tradeability, wherever it goes. 
>
> imagine a gift entity that, according to our rule set,
> destroys all entities owned by whoever owns it continuously for more than
> three days.  How would this work?
> 	One way of doing it is to say:  okay, it works as written while 
> it's in Ackanomic; when it gets traded outside Ack, someone else tracks 
> it and its power don't work.
> 	Another way is to say:  okay, every nomic has to have rules
> deferring authority of such matters to the rules of other nomics.  So the
> entity works no matter where it goes.
> 	In my mind, neither of these approaches is ideal-- the first 
> because it's too strict, the second because it's too permissive.  The 
> first framework will fail because it gives other nomics no reason ever to 
> *want* to trade with Ack.  The second framework will fail because the 
> nomic that will want to take the risk is probably rather rare.
> 	Instead, Ackanomic should track its own entities, even across 
> Internomic borders.  And, while they should not be able to manipulate 
> entities that came from other nomics, they should be able to manipulate 
> Ackanomic entities wherever they find them.  So the above object would be 
> "gift" wherever it goes, but its catastrophic effect would only have any 
> effect on entities that are from Ackanomic (including itself.)
> 	That's the main plan.  I'd like to add another layer of protocol 
> on top of it (Customs Officers) to make trade easier, but there's the 
> basic idea.
> 
> --Mohammed
> (hoping he's making sense)

Oh, it makes sense, I like it. I was thinking before that this would 
be a massive load of work semi-integrating 3 or 4 different rulesets. 
As I see it, the recipient of the gifts would be a sort of associate 
Ackazen, not a full player but able to interact with Acka to the 
extent that their gift will allow. As you say, our rules would be 
unable to affect alien entities in any way, and the reverse would be 
the case too; what would you think to allowing foreign rulesets 
limited power, for instance in issues of ownership? (A player might 
have their possessions confiscated, for instance; as it stands, alien 
entities would be unaffected.)

Bascule

 

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 00:10:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trading (was Victorious Eggplant)

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         *nod*  Yes.  However, I think it's possible to make a much more
> interesting framework than that.  An Agoran with a Pyraic Frobnotzer
> should be able to use it in just the same way an Ackanomian would:  by
> sending messages to Ackanomic's mailing list.

>         One way of doing it is to say:  okay, it works as written while
> it's in Ackanomic; when it gets traded outside Ack, someone else tracks
> it and its power don't work.

This case has little value.

>         Another way is to say:  okay, every nomic has to have rules
> deferring authority of such matters to the rules of other nomics.  So the
> entity works no matter where it goes.

>         Instead, Ackanomic should track its own entities, even across
> Internomic borders.  And, while they should not be able to manipulate
> entities that came from other nomics, they should be able to manipulate
> Ackanomic entities wherever they find them.

I disagree here.  Items should be described as generically as possible,
so that once they leave our space, they are not our problem, so that
if we change our rules or crash or whatever, the entity should not be
affected.  

> So the above object would be
> "gift" wherever it goes, but its catastrophic effect would only have any
> effect on entities that are from Ackanomic (including itself.)

Yes, the last sentence (or at least its ideal) is crucial, to prevent
"Trojan Horse" entities, (i.e., entities that seem impotent, but for
which we change the rules that define their behaviour once accepted
by the target nomic), unless of course, we want to *try* to do that
to another nomic ;)

I think what will be needed is a little borrowing from RL :(.  Each nomic
will be required to have support for a certain set of primitive
operations in its ruleset if it wishes to participate in Internomic
trading.  Entities are defined in terms of those primitives.  In our
RL, I find those primitives are gravity, E-M, mass, size, and a few
others, give or take.

I started coming up with a list of what these might be, and it seemed
tedious.  I came up with a rather simplistic approach to throw into
the pile:

Export
- ------

I.  Tradeable and gift entities may be exported to the Extra-Acka
realm.  Other entities may be exported only as permitted by the
rules.

II.  To export an entity, a Customs Form is filled out by either the
owner of the entity or the Customs Officer, as appropriate.  Such form
shall describe the functioning and properties of the entity in terms
of generic elements that any nomic can be reasonably expected to have
or easily develop, and absolute Acka-specific elements.  Such description
should be accurate such that if the description were the document that
governed its behaviour and attributes in Acka, it would be identical
to the behaviour and attributes of the entity normally.

[in some cases, A$ would have to be specified in terms of a % of the
Acka treasury, in an absolute sense, and in other cases, they would have
to be specified relative to a "generic" nomic.  Examples:

Electronic Potato:  Upon a proposal to change the rules authored by
the owner of the Potato being accepted by their nomic, 2/75000ths of
the nomic's resources are transferred to the player, provided said
quantity of resources exist unowned by any player.

Trinket worth A$750:  This thing is called 'this' and looks like 'this'.
It has no power to affect any entities in the nomic.  It is 1% of
the total resources of Ackanomic.

The first example is done relative to the nomic it exists in.  The second
one is done in absolute terms for what it represents in Acka.  That is
just the way they make sense.  In most cases, the description would be
relative to the nomic it exists in, and most of our entites can be
described this way.  I went through in my mind our gadgets, and things
such as the Machine that goes *ping*, Chartreuse Goose, and the Magic
Potato.  For things such as Vending Machines, rocks would also have to
be described, as would prosthetic foreheads.  Points could be described
as:  x% of a win where x = points/2.57.

If you would like me to describe any entity we have in this generic
scheme (which admittedly I am hoping you can get the gist without me
going into greater detail, I will give it a try, e-mail me.
]

III.  Once the customs form is filled out, the entity shall remain in
the customs house for 7 days, during which its export can be challenged
by Hearing (because we don't want to give away cool stuff), and by
CFJ (because the export may not be being done as described in the
rules).

IV.  Once it has existed in the Customs House for 7 days, and all
challenges have cleared, it is removed from our nomic, and in the
Extra-Acka realm. 

Import
- ------

I.  The process of importing an entity may only be initiated if
said entity was transferred to Acka as described, and in accordance to,
the rules of Internomic.  Said entity is placed in the Customs House
and may not affect the Acka game state except as described by this rule,
until it clears customs. [I made import comply to Internomic rules, to
prevent the customs officer from just creating stuff, but didn't do so
on the export, because once it clears customs on the way out, were saying
we don't really care where it goes.]

II.  Upon an entity being imported to the Customs House, the customs
officer shall author a blueprint that describes the behaviour and 
anddtibutes of the entity as closely as possible to any description
provided with the entity.  If such a blueprint is in conflict with the
rules, the entity will not clear customs.

III.  Once the blueprint has been posted, the entity shall sit in the
customs house for 7 days.  During this time, the import can be challenged
by Hearing (we don't want this in our nomic), or CFJ (the import process
has violated the rules).  If it passes these challenges, if any, it
clears customs, otherwise it does not.

IV.  Any entity which does not clear customs is sent back to the Extra-Acka
realm, and its blueprint, if any, is destroyed.

V.  If the blueprint of the entity specifies that it is gift or
tradeable, it is given to a player of the customs officer's choice
(typically this would be the player the thing was intended for), but
corruption and greed is possible.  Otherwise it is allocated as specified
in its blueprint.  If this is not specified, it is placed in the
Treasury.

Internomic Rules
- ----------------

The rules to be added to the Internomic ruleset to allow trading should
be rather straightforward.  A nomic announces its intent to transfer
an entity to another nomic, and such transfer occurs when the target
nomic acks the transfer.  Said entity must have a name and a description.
In the case of our exports, it will be the customs form.  In the case
of imports, either a blueprint can be written that describes how the
thing should work in our nomic as described by the source nomic (if they
are using the sort of scheme I have outlined for our exports), or it
is simply an impotent blueprint such as:  "The Great Widget of Agora is
green".

Treasury Rule Modification
- --------------------------

I have an amendment in my personal queue that needs to amend the
treasury rule to allow things to be unowned but not in the treasury
(like Treasures).  I have been waiting to see if "Museum" passed first,
though.  Such an amendment will cover the fact that A$ could leave
our nomic.  I was thinking of a location like "Extra-Acka", or making
it a Treasure with the impossible map as a hack.
- ---

Just adding some fuel to the discussion.  Perhaps we can come up with
something cool as a group.  I am willing to whip this into proposal
form if anyone feels there is value in that.

Malenkai
rules hacker

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #418
*******************************