Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #419
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, December 24 1996      Volume 01 : Number 419

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:45:00 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Super-User)
Subject: Acka: *ping* 

Today is Monday, the 23rd day of December, in the Year of Our Lord 1996,
and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.
Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 11 times.

Malenkai
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:17:39 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Clairence)

Clairence has found Phoebe's matchbox.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:20:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

snowgod has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 325
  Subject: Trinket Paradox
Initiator: Calvin N Hobbes
    Judge: snowgod (selected Dec 23, 1996, 12:24h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Trinket creation (R506/2) and donation to the treasury (R505/8 part VI)
causes a paradox since this creates Ackadollars when that number should be
constant (R505/8 Part III).

Calvin N Hobbes's Reasoning:

>From Rule 505/8 (Treasury and AckaDollars), part III, "Hard Currency", thefollowing two things to note. First that it is not allowed to create
Ackadollars and second that their total number is to be $75000. Therefore it
must be that there should be always A$75000 in Ackanomic.

I quote:

>III. Hard Currency:
>
>     AckaDollars may not be created nor destroyed. This Rule
>has precedence over any Rule that would create or destroy A$.
>  [...] The total number of A$ shall always be 75,000.

Let us consider also, from Rule 505/8, part VI, "Donation", the following:

>     VI. Donation:
>     A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift entity
>they own to the Treasury by publically announcing they are
>doing so. If the item is a Trinket, it is converted into its value in
>A$ upon transferrence to the Treasury.

The result of the action is that when a trinket is donated to the Treasury,
it is converted into its value in Ackadollars, as the rule says. In other
words, it is the value in Ackadollars that is donated to the Treasury, not
the Trinket itself.

In Rule 506/2, "Trinkets", second paragraph:

>     A player may create a Trinket by publically announcing its
>name, description, and value, and by paying its announced
>value to the Treasury.

As an example, let us presume that we create a trinket worth A$1, and that
this action is legal (it would require only that we have A$1 in our
account). Then, the treasury is given this A$1 from the account, as per
R506/2. Now if we donate this trinket to the treasury as per R505/8, its
value, A$1 is donated to the treasury. While our account has gone down by
A$1, the treasury now has A$2 more than before: one from our account, one
from the trinket donation -- A$1 has been created.

Since Ackadollars cannot be created, but we have just done so... Paradox,
and paradox win in accordance with R219 as defined in R219 if ruled TRUE.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:36:41 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod)

On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> snowgod has been chosen.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 325
> Subject: Trinket Paradox
> Initiator: Calvin N Hobbes
>   Judge: snowgod (selected Dec 23, 1996, 12:24h EST)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Trinket creation (R506/2) and donation to the treasury (R505/8 part VI)
> causes a paradox since this creates Ackadollars when that number should be
> constant (R505/8 Part III).
> 
My first instinct when I read this was to reply that it is obviously
false. But then I read it again, and read the relevant passages of the
rules again. And lo and behold, it appears that this is indeed true.

This needs fixing, before we engage on internomic economics.

Another point on intereconomic - long ago we have decided that the number
of A$ if Ackanomic must remain constant. If we start trading with other
nomic, where there are is no such provision, then in effect we are opening
the system once again to the same weaknesses it exhibited before (not that
it is a closed system now).
OTOH, one might argue that as long as the number of A$ constant, no matter
who happens to own them, there should be no problem.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:47:01 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 (snowgod) 

At 08:36 PM 23-12-96 +0200, Uri Bruck wrote:
>My first instinct when I read this was to reply that it is obviously
>false. But then I read it again, and read the relevant passages of the
>rules again. And lo and behold, it appears that this is indeed true.

I had been working on a proposal that would keep tab on Acka GNP and I had
come to the conclusion that there was a bug somewhere. As soon as that was
established, finding where it came from was simple enough. I could still be
wrong of course (and so not get the dreaded goose) but it seems solid enough.

Interestingly, Malenkai's recently proposed Internomic Trading system has a
similar flaw, although not as clearly dangerous. I'll deal with that in
another message.

>This needs fixing, before we engage on internomic economics.

Exactly. To fix it is simple enough. In R505/8 part IV:

>>     VI. Donation:
>>     A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift entity
>>they own to the Treasury by publically announcing they are
>>doing so. If the item is a Trinket, it is converted into its value in
>>A$ upon transferrence to the Treasury.

Should be changed to:

>>     VI. Donation:
>>     A player may donate any non-mimsy Tradeable or gift entity
>>they own to the Treasury by publically announcing they are
>>doing so. If the item is a Trinket, it is destroyed.

This would squash the bug permanently.

>Another point on intereconomic - long ago we have decided that the number
>of A$ if Ackanomic must remain constant. If we start trading with other
>nomic, where there are is no such provision, then in effect we are opening
>the system once again to the same weaknesses it exhibited before (not that
>it is a closed system now).

Excellently generalized. This is completely true and I will be writing about
this problem.

>OTOH, one might argue that as long as the number of A$ constant, no matter
>who happens to own them, there should be no problem.

More paradoxes could crop up, potentially freezing the markets. This may not
seem bad, but let's be aware that there could be/are connections between the
markets and other parts of Acka/Internomic which could have a kind of domino
effect.

Right now it's not such a great problem, but we should be aware of it.

CnH

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:25:52 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trading (was 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.
>
>This case has little value.

But it should be a default case. For example, if we import something into
Acka, the default importation effect should be the above: nothing. This
basically ensures we do not bring in Trojan Horses, as you talk of below. A
petition to some authority (such as the Customs Officer) to recognize the
powers of the object, in part or in whole should be drawn up.

>>         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.  

I agree. We don't want objects depending on things we have not defined
ourselves.

>> 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 do think we want to incorporate some risk *with* safeguards. Danger is
good in that it keeps us on our toes a little. We also have a strong body of
players to read everything carefully. And as malenkai wisely said... we may
want to use it.   :)

>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 do not believe most Nomic go into that kind of things. Ambassador, would
it be possible to get some other nomics to explain how they define objects?

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

Strong move.

>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.

Agreed. Seems like a lot of bureaucracy, but unavoidable imho.

>[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.

Problems. First, you talk of "$x" as being exactly "x/750%" of the resources
in Acka. This is wrong. Acka GNP (resources) is always fluctuating and
actually has a steady up trend (nicely so btw).

This is because the A$75000 in the treasury is only the max liquidity or
cash flow Ackanomic can have. This negates long term inflation and forces a
price ceiling on things. Indeed, in a long time from now, deflation could
occur (and that's not good). But that is another discussion.

The GNP of Acka is not only it's Ackadollars, but its lands, its trinkets,
entities, even players since each has an amount of PFBond created. And every
creation potentially increases GNP.

If we were to say that Acka resources equal A$75000 then it is possible to
forsee some players holding MORE than 100% of all Acka resources, making the
whole thing meaningless if not a paradox. Big problem.

>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.

But doesn't x change? If we start trading points, the system really has to
be solid.

Note that in my role as the Cassandra-Nostradamus (what did you think the n
in CnH stood for?) I should mention a coming debate on the role of points
and what they mean.

>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).

Not only that, but the President should be able to veto export/import. Also,
there should be a ceiling to how much of Acka can be exported. For example,
if we have point trading, and in another Nomic points are cheap, I could
imagine the whole of Acka being sold and traded, it's history plundered,
it's creations lost forever, just for a few short lived points.

I'd like to see the amount of Acka stuff outside Acka be always 8-12% max.
If it's less than 8%, export is easy, we don't care. As soon as it breaks
8%, we have to make sure it doesn't go below 12% and work to push it back
below 8%. Either by buying back stuff, or by creating new objects. Call for
papers!

>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.]

Good. It gives it a cooling off period. How about saying that any object in
the Customs House for import has no effect while still in the CH?

>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.

Sounds great.

>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.

Goody. We can always have a tiny clause at the bottom that says the
President has an executive restraining order that forces the object to stay
in the CH. This means that even if we lose a Hearing and something awful
would come into Acka, the prez can make it stay in stasis.

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

Or we could freeze it in the CH if we have already paid for it. Then we
could have the Inventor tinker with it under strict laws to make it more
suitable. I hate waste.   :)

>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.

I like the sound of that. Well, not too much, but it's interesting.

>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".

I support this thoroughly.

>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.

If Ackadollars leave Acka, are they still Ackadollars? We may have to keep
track of our assets as they circle around the globe. This could be very
difficult. And what if another nomic destroys our Ackadollars? Those crazy
heretics them.

>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.

This is very solid as a whole. I think patches need to be applied before
going ahead. I've tried suggesting some things. I'll try and give this
another look this afternoon, but I think more players need to put in
something. What have many different "styles" for making the system work, we
need to decide which to choose.

CnH
[phew!]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:52:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ghost

The following is the playing order for the game of Ghost.  It can
be started by Robert Sevin once the GamesMaster acks the start of the
game.  Currently there is no ghost word:

Robert Sevin
snowgod
Techno
Jammer
breadbox
Lestrade

- ------------------------------------------------
Also, the Fictionary brainiac needs to release the Fictionary definitions
at some point.

Also, also, the rules of Ghost need to be updated for the proposal
entitled "Boo!", which basically allows any word less than 3 characters,
even if it is in the official dictionary.

Malenkai
Referee

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #419
*******************************