Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #424
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, December 25 1996     Volume 01 : Number 424

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:09:00 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Economics

> 
> Value and wealth are anchored by absolute (or relative ;) measures of
> ones standard of living.  People talk of gold and land and other stuff
> anchoring currency, but what if there was some diasaster.  I would
> rather have a bushel of apples (or the technology to grow them), than
> a cubic meter of gold.  I do not think these RL sorts of economic
> anchors can even enter the picture in Acka, except the standard of
> living metric.  (Niccolo and I have had debates over 'thinker of
> algorithms' increasing his standard of living in an absolute way, thus
> creating wealth.  I do believe that that applies to acka, but that is a
> different debate).

> Yes, but if you needed bushel baskets from me, and I wanted no part of your apples, how would you get what you need? Golds use as currency came about because it was nearly universally valued, and you didn't have to have exactly what the other person wanted in order to trade. 

> 
> Thus I have attemtped this with R 850, "Museum", created by P 1551.  An
> A$ is now worth 1/5000th of a win.  It is also worth some percentage of
> a bonus vote, but this is floating.  I do not know if it will *simulate*
> or *solve* an economic problem, but it is an attempt to make FUN the
> hard asset that backs our currency.  Always open to amendment.  I do
> not even claim that this will "work", because "to work" is undefined
> in my mind.
> 
> Malenkai

On a different subject. I voted against P1551 because of the bonus vote.
I am not opposed to what your aim for the rule is, but I think we should
be careful in how we give out bonus votes. To make them too common
undermines the spirit of the game. An award of a trinket would suffice
just as well in this case.

Lestrade

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:30:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic Trade (Liaison, please read)

Mr. Liaison:  there's a portion of this post I'd like you to forward to 
Internomic, if it's no trouble.  The excerpt starts a few pages below 
(text search for Liaison).  Thanks!  --Mohammed

I'm sorry this is so long....

> OK, I create a Gadget: Ultimate Rule Ripper.  When the red button is
> pushed, which occurs whenever the number of seconds since midnight is
> prime, every rule from 1 to 8675309 has all words except 'the' removed
> from them.  I hereby transfer said Gadget to Agora.  To me, transferring
> Gadegts in a public message seems overly simplistic.  It leaves open
> many questions.
	Supposing the Gadget is tradeable, and someone in Agora agrees to 
accept it, then when the Gadget goes off, Ackanomic's rule set gets 
mangled, because the Gadget is still an Ackanomian entity.  Think about 
it logically.  It's controlled by a Blueprint, and clearly our Blueprints 
only affect our rules!
	However, if the Agoran so chooses, he can try to get the Gadget 
imported into Agora.  If that succeeds, the situation is then handled as 
it would be in your setup.  The Gadget is no longer controlled by an 
Ackanomic blueprint... and as a result it can no longer rip our rules.
	I think my scheme is simple, secure, and insanely fast.  And it 
leaves nothing undefined.

> I have no problem merging systems, but I believe the following premises
> must be upheld:
> 
> 1) The description is translated into generic terms
	For Trinkets, this is unnecessary.  So why bother?

> 2) It is not possible for an entity in one nomic to affect an item in
> another nomic unless its description explicitly states this behaviour
> and how it is to be accomplished [...]
	This is already the case!  Entities defined by Ackanomic 
could conceivably be owned by other nomics, with very minor changes to 
the rule set.  But that obviously wouldn't give us the right to tinker 
with their nomic however we want.

> 3) Any item transferred from our nomic or from another nomic should be
> done in such a way that after the transfer, it is in no way governed
> by the rules of the nomic that exported it, it is only governed by
> its description and the rules of the importing nomic, including, but not
> limited to, those rules that give its description legal sway.
	I should be able to own an Agoran object without forcing our
officers to track it.  What's the use in having rules lawyers going around
Importing and Exporting every blasted Eggplant a diplomat decides to give
to his colleague in another nomic?

	As counterpoint, I am willing to accept any system that obeys the
following precepts: 

1)  Each object is tracked by just one nomic at a time.

2)  A Trinket can be transferred from snowgod to any member of 
Pumpkin Patch he chooses in effectively zero time, whether their rules 
are constructed to allow this or not.

3)  No nomic can be manipulated by a foreign object without express 
consent of their rule set.

4)  A Frobnotzer from Ackanomic could be used on Agora's rule set, assuming
Agora's players approve this.

My system will handle precepts 1 2 and 3; yours will handle 1 2 and 4.  I 
strongly believe that any system without all four is less than the best 
we can do.

> My system requires very little Internomic rules, its more for requirements
> of incoming things (reject any that don't meet our laws), and for outgoing
	[snip]
	My system doesn't really require *any* Internomic rules.  
However, something like the following would be kinda nice, to keep 
everyone on the same page.  (Actually something like this is a good 
foundation for either or both of our solutions...)

	Come to think of it, could our Liaison please post the following
"rule" to the Internomic forum, not as a proposal, but just for comments? 

Rule xxx
Objects, Homeworlds, and Ownership
- -----
An object, in the context of these rules, is anything recognized by the
rules of a member nomic to be an "Internomic object".

Each object has exactly one homeworld:  the nomic whose rule set
recognizes it as described above.  The homeworld is expected to keep track
of all information necessary to ensure that the object's behavior is
well-defined. 

Each object either has one owner, or it is unowned.  The owner of an
object is determined by the nomic that is its homeworld. 

Objects do not affect Internomic.  No object may affect any member nomic
except under the explicit authority of the rules of that nomic.  An object
may only be created, manipulated, or destroyed as described by the rules
of its homeworld. 
- -----

> with Agora.  The basis is that every nomic handles its *incoming* rules,
> and counts on every other to do the same.  Very RL :(
	Ay, there's the rub.
	My system will work fine for translating Trinkets from here to 
there.  It's when you want to transfer an object that has rules embedded 
in it that you get problems.  :o(
	My system refuses to transfer the rules along with the object.  
This is *great* for Trinkets, because of the great speed.
	But for Vending Machines this gives weird results.  The object
itself gets across just fine.  However, the rules stay right here in Acka. 
So Acka players can buy things out of the Vending Machine just as before. 
But, if the foreign player wants the VM to work in his own nomic, he has
to go to the added trouble of Importing it (i.e. getting his nomic's
approval to bring the rules over as well).
	Is that so confusing?

> >         Suppose it is then discovered that the original message announcing
> > the Customs Form wasn't public.  A CFJ is called, and the concensus that
> > the object cleared customs is reversed.
> >         Within our ruleset this is no problem, because the CFJ goes back
> > and changes all that happened since then.  We act as if the object never
> > cleared customs (it didn't; not legally anyway).  But our CFJ doesn't
> > scope to other nomics.
> 
> My proposal allowed export only after all CFJs were discharged.  It was
> implicit therein, but should have been explicit, that once the thing
> clears our customs, the statue of limitations kicks in, and a CFJ or
> hearing on the matter is invalid.
	Okay, I would say it's not at all implicit, because there's no 
such thing as "too late" for a CFJ in Acka.
	I would also say that disallowing CFJs on an old event is an
<em>**_Extraordinarily_**</em> bad idea and does *not* solve your problem
anyway.  Regardless of whether the CFJ comes beforehand or afterwards, an 
object that is illegally exported isn't really exported at all.  A CFJ only
helps matters, by providing a single concensus that the players agree to 
follow.
	Once before, the avenue of CFJ became inaccessible (it lost
credibility, actually):  when Robert Sevin won by points in the first
cycle.  The "debate" that time almost destroyed the game (no joke).  Let's
not go that route, okay?  It's a minor problem.  Let Internomic deal with
it (or not) in its own time. 

> You are assuming the acceptance and validity of my solution, and using
> that to argue against my solution, with this argument here ;)
	I am saying that if your solution is accepted, the result will be
long, unnecessary delays.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:39:23 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New Blueprint

I have created the following Blueprint.  Due to the Holiday, it will
have to exist forever before it can be used.

Malenkai
Wizard
- -------------------------------------------------------------------

Blueprint
Evil Ballot Stuffer

{{

When created, the Evil Ballot Stuffer is not broken.

Text in this Blueprint which is not enclosed in double curly braces
is only notes and comments, and does not describe the functioning of
the Evil Ballot Stuffer in any way.  This clause has precedence over any
such text in the Blueprint.

Upon an Evil Ballot Stuffer (EBS) becoming owned by a player, the EBS
shall perform the following actions in the order specified:

1) It shall amend Rule 1396, "Hearings", to replace the word "Players"
in the final paragraph of that rule with:
  
"Players, and other entities capable of voting in hearings,"

2) It shall remove all text in double curly braces, inclusive, from the
Blueprint for the Evil Ballot Stuffer.
}}

When created, the Evil Ballot Stuffer (EBS) is not broken.

The Evil Ballot Stuffer is green and has 2 levers, the large lever and
the small lever.  

The small lever is used to have the EBS cast an extra vote in Hearings
and Elections.  Whenever the possessor of an EBS casts a vote in a Hearing
or and Election, they may announce along with that vote that they are
flipping the small lever of the EBS, and it will cast another vote 
that is identical to the vote they made the announcement with.  Only
one such vote will be cast per Hearing or Election in this way per
EBS.

The large lever is used to create Bonus Votes.  The possessor of an
EBS may flip the large lever by publically announcing they are doing so.
Upon doing so, the EBS creates a Bonus Vote and transfers it to the
player who flipped the lever, assuming no instance limits on Bonus Votes
with respect to the game or that player would be exceeded.  Regardless
of whether the Bonus Vote was actually created in this case, the EBS
then starts to shake and shimmy uncontrollably.

Upon an EBS starting to shake and shimmy uncontrollably, one of 3 things
will occur, each with an equal probability of occurring as determined
as needed by the Officer in charge of Random Things.  An EBS may not
be used between the time it starts to shimmy and shake and the time
the this random determination is publically knowable:

1) The thing will sputter and die, and thus become broken.
2) The thing will explode in its operator's face, and thus be destroyed,
but not before bellowing a raft of annoying laughter ridiculing its
user throught the land of Acka.
3) The thing will teleport, and thus change possession to, another random
active player.

Neither lever may be used if the EBS is broken, and only the player who
possesses an EBS may use it, the previous provisions of this Blueprint
notwithstanding.  A broken EBS may only be fixed as described in the
rules or by another Gadget empowered to do so.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:02:50 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 - Getting it or missing it? 

>Forgetting the fact that the statement does not claim that the legality
>of an action that would change the game state cannot be determined 
>with finality (and thus would not qualify for an R 219 win anyway), it
>seems that the issue here is:  

R219 only requires me to state a claim of paradox by R219 in my reasoning,
but does not require me to state which kind of paradox claim I make. It says
"to that effect". I think that the contradiction I mention in the statement
is clear enough the effect I am claiming.

>Section III of R 505 claims there can be no more that 75,000 A$.  Section
>VI claims to transmute a Trinket into some quantity of A$, thus exceeding
>the 75K limit.  Its a simple precedence issue.  If section VI were in
>R 505.1, R 505 would win by precedence, thus keeping the 75K limit as
>intended.

Hum... Not quite so simple I'm afraid. Let see if I can present a case here.

>So, its an internal rule precedence problem ala CFJ 256 and CFJ 269.  At
>the time, they were both paradoxes, but the amendment to R 210 fixed these
>sort of internal rule precedence problems:

It is *not* internal. Nothing in R505 conflicts with each other as written,
or if you claim this, show me how. No bugs. None at all. So neither one part
takes precedence on the other. Part III and part VI do not contradict each
other but because of R506 (independently legal and non contradicting) the
effect is both legal (by part VI) and illegal (by part III).

The combination of *both* R505 and R506 creates a paradox, it is not the
case of a simple rule conflict between both of them or internally. R506 does
not conflict with R505, but the effect of R505 (not R506, that's the point)
together with R506 means there is a paradox, because no part of R505 can
claim precedence over the other as part of the "internal" clause of R219.

I don't think I'm doing a good job of making this clear. The way I
understood R210 is to mean that a rule containing the likes of:

1. A is true
2. A is false

means that A would be false. You look at the internal statements in the rule
to see if there is a conflict. Part III and VI of R505 have no such
conflict. They are both valid statement.

Yet they cannot be reconciled. Probably still not clear. Questions from the
floor?

>BTW, this paradox claim "is based on the same sort of Paradox" (qv R 211),
>of previous paradox CFJs.

Malenkai, the text of R211 is actually:

>Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged
>TRUE (hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ) whose statement is
>substantially similar, in the judgement of the judge, to the
>statement of a Paradox Win CFJ submitted by any player and
>not yet resolved, shall be judged Invalid.

"Same statement", not "same sort of". Sure, 235 is the roughly the "same
sort" of CFJ as the ones you mention: they are "all paradox CFJs". Does that
mean we should rule all the future paradox CFJs invalid because we had some
before? No, and the rules agree. What the rule say, imho, is that no two
people can claim paradox CFJs on the same paradox. But different paradoxes
are fine.

The CFJs are substantially different. Note:

CFJ 256: paradox on blue cross rules
CFJ 269: paradox on harfmeister
CFJ 325: claimed paradox R505-506 (neither about bc or hm)

CnH

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 02:01:14 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade (Liaison, please read)

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         Supposing the Gadget is tradeable, and someone in Agora agrees to
> accept it, then when the Gadget goes off, Ackanomic's rule set gets
> mangled, because the Gadget is still an Ackanomian entity.  Think about
> it logically.  It's controlled by a Blueprint, and clearly our Blueprints
> only affect our rules!

Your scheme seems to allow willy-nilly transfer of stuff to other nomics
without regard to import/export controls.  What if several players do
not want our nomic to give this stuff away.  Just because it is tradeable
within our nomic should not allow it to leave our nomic on whim.  Your
scheme seems geared towards easy transferrece of trinkets, but more
complex issues do not work well.  I claim trinkets are the trivial case,
and will work reasonably well in any scheme.  In any case, once the
thing leaves our nomic, it should *not* affect our rules in any way, only
the target.  That is the point of nomic-neutral descriptions.

>         However, if the Agoran so chooses, he can try to get the Gadget
> imported into Agora.  If that succeeds, the situation is then handled as
> it would be in your setup.  The Gadget is no longer controlled by an
> Ackanomic blueprint... and as a result it can no longer rip our rules.

OK, this is fine.

>         I should be able to own an Agoran object without forcing our
> officers to track it.  What's the use in having rules lawyers going around
> Importing and Exporting every blasted Eggplant a diplomat decides to give
> to his colleague in another nomic?

I disagree.  Officers of the nomic where the object resides should track
it.  If I export cheese to france, I do not track it, france does.  What
if the source nomic goes under.  It makes no sense to track things once
they leave our borders.  Once they leave, they do not exist as far as 
we are concerned, until they come back.

> 
>         As counterpoint, I am willing to accept any system that obeys the
> following precepts:
> 
> 1)  Each object is tracked by just one nomic at a time.

OK, by the nomic which "possesses" is.
 
> 2)  A Trinket can be transferred from snowgod to any member of
> Pumpkin Patch he chooses in effectively zero time, whether their rules
> are constructed to allow this or not.

NO.  What if their rules say:  "The Victorious Eggplant hereby destroys
all of our rules."  We do not know how they name things.  It is possible
that we could create a paradox or crash in their nomic if they are not
given the right of refusal.  I will agree to allow hassle-free export of
trinkets, subject to value limits, but we cannot force named objects
onto another nomic without their consent.
  
> 3)  No nomic can be manipulated by a foreign object without express
> consent of their rule set.

OK, but again, any nomic should be allowed to refuse import of any
named thing.

> 4)  A Frobnotzer from Ackanomic could be used on Agora's rule set, assuming
> Agora's players approve this.

Yes, but not by an Ackanomian, unless the Blueprint explicitly allowed
manipulation of extra-nomic rulesets.  If the PF is in Agora, they can
use it however their rules allow or not allow, by their consent.

> Rule xxx
> Objects, Homeworlds, and Ownership
> -----
> An object, in the context of these rules, is anything recognized by the
> rules of a member nomic to be an "Internomic object".
> 
> Each object has exactly one homeworld:  the nomic whose rule set
> recognizes it as described above.  The homeworld is expected to keep track
> of all information necessary to ensure that the object's behavior is
> well-defined.

No, I still feel very stongly that the "homeworld" should be the
nomic that owns it.  Unowned internomic objects should be tracked by
the source "homeworld" however.  I see only these objects coming about
because one nomic exported it, but the other did not ack it.  Perhaps
we need an Internomic garbage can :)

> > with Agora.  The basis is that every nomic handles its *incoming* rules,
> > and counts on every other to do the same.  Very RL :(
>         Ay, there's the rub.
>         My system will work fine for translating Trinkets from here to
> there.  It's when you want to transfer an object that has rules embedded
> in it that you get problems.  :o(

And thats where the nomic-neutral generic description thing comes in.

>         My system refuses to transfer the rules along with the object.
> This is *great* for Trinkets, because of the great speed.
>         But for Vending Machines this gives weird results.  The object
> itself gets across just fine.  However, the rules stay right here in Acka.
> So Acka players can buy things out of the Vending Machine just as before.
> But, if the foreign player wants the VM to work in his own nomic, he has
> to go to the added trouble of Importing it (i.e. getting his nomic's
> approval to bring the rules over as well).

You don't need the nomic's approval to bring in the rules, just write a
customs form.

>         Okay, I would say it's not at all implicit, because there's no
> such thing as "too late" for a CFJ in Acka.
>         I would also say that disallowing CFJs on an old event is an
> <em>**_Extraordinarily_**</em> bad idea and does *not* solve your problem
> anyway.  Regardless of whether the CFJ comes beforehand or afterwards, an
> object that is illegally exported isn't really exported at all.

I don't have a problem with statute of limitations.  Illegal things happen
all the time in our nomic.  Its unfortuante.  We can just call it
smuggling, like they do in the real world.  What if your Trinket is 
exported illegally.  This is not a problem with mine or your system, but
a problem with any system if a CFJ is allowed to affect the game state
an arbirtary time back in the past, especially if we are dealing with
extranomic situations.  What if, under your system, snowgod did not
legally own the eggplant because it was never given to him legally?  You
still have this problem, so its discussion should be moved out of the
context of this debate.

> > You are assuming the acceptance and validity of my solution, and using
> > that to argue against my solution, with this argument here ;)
>         I am saying that if your solution is accepted, the result will be
> long, unnecessary delays.

But you are arguing that the delays *are* necessary, and they will be
there because all of the nomics went with my solution.  There are minimal
delays if the other nomics do not use my solution.  You even said
they added value in certain ways.  Whats the rush, anyway?

Malenkai
its way too late to do this

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:20:17 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Economics 

>I am standing on Guy Fawkes's soapbox and throwing my 2 cents worth
>into the economic debate.  This seems to be one area that Ackanomicans
>have alot of fun talking about, so why not...

I like the soap box.    :)

>I look at standard of living relative to acka, what does that mean?
>As near as I can tell, that is measured in units of fun incurred by
>a player, and ties into what snowgod said in one of the many posts,
>that what people are willing to bid on an entity is basically its 'fun
>value'.  The Pryiac Frobnotzer received a higher bid than the Gravitational
>Monopole, presumably because it was more fun, or a tool to greater fun
>(inasmuch as it can be used to produce a win, change the rules to ones
>advantage, etc).

How can we measure "fun" exactly? And what of the different sort of fun?

>I believe any attempt to anchor currency, or anything else, to anything
>other than fun (standard of living) will not simulate any RL economic
>system, and really will not accomplish much.  The fun thing (and thus
>it becomes self-referential) in my mind, is to experiment or explore
>this idea of anchoring currency with fun, and see what that leads to,
>and look at what sort of economic system, if any (and I'm not convinced
>there will be any), will evolve.

What about Acka's only true value? Votes? Once upon a time, there was a way
to link votes to A$. Since votes are the only "entity" that is vital to
Acka, why not use it as reference? That would be directly and absolutely
quantifiable.

If there are 75 players, each of their vote is worth A$1000. Presumably it
implies votes can be bought... Hum... maybe not a great idea.

>What things have tangible fun value?  Thats a tough thing, I suppose.
>Votes seems to be pretty close, in that you have direct control of the
>core of the game with votes; deciding that proposals you consider will
>make the game more fun shall receive your vote.  Thus using votes as
>a value anchor seemed as good as anything else.

Right, sorry, I'm replying in "real-time".   :)

CnH

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 02:15:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 - Getting it or missing it?

T Joffrain wrote:

> R219 only requires me to state a claim of paradox by R219 in my reasoning,
> but does not require me to state which kind of paradox claim I make. It says
> "to that effect". I think that the contradiction I mention in the statement
> is clear enough the effect I am claiming.

I do not think your statement falls into any of the following 3 categories
from R 219, ie, it does not question the continued playability of the
game, the possibility of rule changes, or the legality of an action
by a player which would affect the game state.  That was not really the
point of my post, it was more to show how it was a precedence question
to resolve how may A$ exist on Trinket conversion.  If that is not your
question, it is not clear to me what your question is, and that being
so, I would judge the CFJ Invalid under the part of R 211 that allows
unclear statements to be judged Invalid.   But I am not the Judge. 

R 219:

> If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, rule
> changes are impossible, or a player action which would affect the
> game state appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may call
> for judgement on a statement to that effect. 

- ---

> It is *not* internal. Nothing in R505 conflicts with each other as written,
> or if you claim this, show me how.

Section VI claims to create A$, whilst section III claims to prevent
their creation; to keep their quantity constant.

> 1. A is true
> 2. A is false

This is not the only type of conflict possible.  Another type, which I 
have claimed is evidenced here, is a clause preventing A$ creation, and
another allowing it. 

> Malenkai, the text of R211 is actually:

The portion of R 211 I was referring to, actually, was the following,
not the passage you quoted:

> Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox, in
> the judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ ever judged TRUE,
> shall be judged Invalid. 

I am arguing that this is an internal precedence paradox claim, which is
the same sort of paradox judged true in 256 and 269.

> mean we should rule all the future paradox CFJs invalid because we had some
> before? No, and the rules agree. What the rule say, imho, is that no two
> people can claim paradox CFJs on the same paradox. But different paradoxes
> are fine.

That is why it says "in the judgement of the judge".

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:33:26 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 - Getting it or missing it? 

>> It is *not* internal. Nothing in R505 conflicts with each other as written,
>> or if you claim this, show me how.
>
>Section VI claims to create A$, whilst section III claims to prevent
>their creation; to keep their quantity constant.

Not quite! It says the worth of the trinket is put into the treasury. Says
"converted". It does not imply creation. For example, I could say in R506
that a trinket is actually another name for the amount you pay for it. That
is, the amount of A$ is in the trinket, so still in the game and not
destroyed, but under a different name, or format. Then Part VI would only
have the effect of deconverting this value and allowing the A$ to be
accessed as normal A$ format.

What I am claiming is that part III and VI are not in direct conflict and
thus you can't call R210 on them.

>> 1. A is true
>> 2. A is false
>
>This is not the only type of conflict possible.  Another type, which I 
>have claimed is evidenced here, is a clause preventing A$ creation, and
>another allowing it. 

Still boils down to the above:

1. can't create or destroy     (not A)
2. create    (A)

>I am arguing that this is an internal precedence paradox claim, which is
>the same sort of paradox judged true in 256 and 269.

I see. Well, I'd say not exactly since you've patched that up with R210.
However, R210 does allow for some different manouvers. As I claim above.

>> mean we should rule all the future paradox CFJs invalid because we had some
>> before? No, and the rules agree. What the rule say, imho, is that no two
>> people can claim paradox CFJs on the same paradox. But different paradoxes
>> are fine.
>
>That is why it says "in the judgement of the judge".

Interesting. Down with paradox CFJs right? R210 restricts almost all cases
and makes the paradox claims difficult at best.

CnH

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:55:56 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trading (was Victorious Eggplant) 

>	Under my scheme, an object won't automatically adjust to our 
>environment when it's brought across.  Most of what it tries to do won't 
>work.  (It will still be able to manipulate entities that are from the 
>same game it was from.)
>	In order actually to *use* an object, we have to turn to some 
>sort of Import/Export facility, like Malenkai's.  But rest assured, my 
>scheme doesn't to my knowledge open security holes, and it won't cause 
>anything to crash or any behavior to be undefined.

I see. Well, would you say the two systems complement each nicely? Restrict
I/E bureaucracy to those artifacts we actually want to have their powers
transfered?

>	The way Malenkai's proposal is just now, all exports have to be 
>approved (at least by acquiescence) by the public.  We really can't be 
>plundered.

That is true... but who knows. Yeah, I'll agree, once more confident Acka is
wise.

>> I'd like to see the amount of Acka stuff outside Acka be always 8-12% max.
>	Bah, humbug.  We don't need no stinkin' limits.  :o)

I read that no nation ever got poor from trade, supporting your argument.
However, I also note that if there was a limit, more trading encourages
people back home to create more stuff. A good thing I think.

>> 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?
>	He did....

Explicitly? Ooops. Sorry, he did. Dunno what I was harfing.

>	Hmm.  The only problem I have with I/E per se is that if a nomic
>wants to have an Electronic Potato, they can propose their own rule to
>create one in less than fourteen days.  :oP

Too true. We could cut bureaucracy by having the CO actually approve things
solo within 24-48 hours, active 24 hours after his ok. That leaves a big
enough window to have someone object to it if needed and then go through the
big voting thing.

>> 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.
>	Well, that's the problem.  Under the I/E scheme, either no one 
>else is allowed to hold AckaDollars except our Players, or there's a 
>waiting period on A$ transfer, and there's the possibility the A$ will be 
>lost or destroyed.
>	Under the hybrid scheme I endorse, any player in any nomic would
>be able to hold A$, but they are not Exported in the sense of leaving
>Ackanomic's realm of responsibility.  So they cannot be traded except
>through *our* list, and they cannot be destroyed by foreign rules.  Make 
>sense?  I think it does.

I see (again!). It does make sense.
I was going to say that the tracking of all our stuff would be difficult
(again), but it's not really. Can we restrict trading of our stuff with
Nomics who have trading agreements with us?

Let's see if I can give an example.

Say Ackadollars, favorite financial child of Acka.  :)
As I see it, we can trade with any Nomic. What if we trade with a Nomic that
has no respect for our laws, pass one on their own that destroys the poor
little A$? Sure, we wouldn't recognize it, but would that not create a
paradox at the world wide nomic level? (oh my head hurts)

Since this trading would be implemented as an internomic rule (yes?) does
that mean we could only trade with Internomic players who recognise these
rules? Or rather, should it?

But what if the nomic was trade with, say nomic N, has another different
trading protocol with another nomic M we don't recognise for trading? Then M
can destroy our A$ and violate our rules.

Should we then implement a "garbage collection" system? Where Acka entities
that are not owned by any Nomic are made property of Acka. All unlawful
destructions of Acka stuff would just allow us to reclaim them.

You have probably considered this already, and I'm just a step behind.
Forgive me for asking, but I do feel a need to get answers those questions.
Thanks.

CnH

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:01:42 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade (Liaison, please read)

On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> >         Supposing the Gadget is tradeable, and someone in Agora agrees to
> > accept it, then when the Gadget goes off, Ackanomic's rule set gets
> > mangled, because the Gadget is still an Ackanomian entity.  Think about
> > it logically.  It's controlled by a Blueprint, and clearly our Blueprints
> > only affect our rules!
> 
> Your scheme seems to allow willy-nilly transfer of stuff to other nomics
> without regard to import/export controls.  What if several players do
> not want our nomic to give this stuff away.  Just because it is tradeable
> within our nomic should not allow it to leave our nomic on whim.  Your

Seems you are arguing for state controlled ownership.
Whatever happened to capitalism?  :)

> > 2)  A Trinket can be transferred from snowgod to any member of
> > Pumpkin Patch he chooses in effectively zero time, whether their rules
> > are constructed to allow this or not.
> 
> NO.  What if their rules say:  "The Victorious Eggplant hereby destroys
> all of our rules."  We do not know how they name things.  It is possible
> that we could create a paradox or crash in their nomic if they are not
> given the rightof refusal.  I will agree to allow hassle-free export of
> trinkets, subject to value limits, but we cannot force named objects
> onto another nomic without their consent.

This can be resolved with name spaces.  As long a the Victorious
Eggplant resides within Ackanomic, it is simply reffered to as the
Victorios Egplant. Anywhere outside Ackanomic its name is actually
Ackanomic Vicotorious Eggplant. 
Pumpkin Patch may decide that Victorious Eggplant is a synonym for
Ackanomic Victorious Eggplant.
Such a decision is not necessarily the same thing as importing.

 > 
> > 3)  No nomic can be manipulated by a foreign object without express
> > consent of their rule set.
> 
> OK, but again, any nomic should be allowed to refuse import of any
> named thing.

Name Spaces can resolve that.
In fact, rules can cover entire namespaces.

> 
> > 4)  A Frobnotzer from Ackanomic could be used on Agora's rule set, assuming
> > Agora's players approve this.
> 
> Yes, but not by an Ackanomian, unless the Blueprint explicitly allowed
> manipulation of extra-nomic rulesets.  If the PF is in Agora, they can
> use it however their rules allow or not allow, by their consent.

> 
> 
> > Rule xxx
> > Objects, Homeworlds, and Ownership
> > -----
> > An object, in the context of these rules, is anything recognized by the
> > rules of a member nomic to be an "Internomic object".
> > 
> > Each object has exactly one homeworld:  the nomic whose rule set
> > recognizes it as described above.  The homeworld is expected tokeep track
> > of all information necessary to ensure that the object's behavior is
> > well-defined.
> 
> No, I still feel very stongly that the "homeworld" should be the
> nomic that owns it.  Unowned internomic objects should be tracked by
> the source "homeworld" however.  I see only these objects coming about
> because one nomic exported it, but the other did not ack it.  Perhaps
> we need an Internomic garbage can :)

Mentioning name spaces again. 
Whatever the homeworld with, the internomic name of any entity begins
witht he name of the nomic which originally created it. 
This can also be used for some soft of blanket protection against
imported entities.
Ownership is where something like Malenkai's scheme comes in.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 23:27:27 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade (Liaison, please read) 

>>Mr. Liaison:  there's a portion of this post I'd like you to forward to
>>Internomic, if it's no trouble.  The excerpt starts a few pages below
>>(text search for Liaison).  Thanks!  --Mohammed
>>
>>I'm sorry this is so long....

Consider it done.  I have been reading these posts (on all sides) with
fascination and am glad that the internomic ball has finally began to roll!
I am formulating some theories myself.  Look forward to a future post.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 23:40:26 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Blueprint 

>I have created the following Blueprint.  Due to the Holiday, it will
>have to exist forever before it can be used.
>
>Malenkai
>Wizard
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Blueprint
>Evil Ballot Stuffer

This could be fun, but could a player rent the Ballot Box Stuffer and then
pull the Large lever?  what happens if his pulling the large lever would
lead to it's destruction?

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:51:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka :Otzma Day

I have accepted Malenkai's reasoning that the Otzma Day was called by a
rule, specifically, the Otzma Card rule itself. An Otzma Day started when
it becasme publically knowable that P1553 was accepted. This Otzma Day
could last for a rather long time, due to the Holiday. I could always end
it sooner, but then we'd just be faced with a very long Auction.

The significant part here is the time the Otzma Day starts, since it could
efect the value of LSAP. (we had a streak recently didn't we, which would
make that value at least 10. Gonna look it up now)

Niccolo Flychuck
RuneMaker

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:18:32 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: SVH for mr cwm 

mr cwm's Silly Vacation Hat is a tall, pointy red stocking cap, trimmed
with the finest white fur.  The tip of the hat, which is complete with fur
dongly ball, bends down and hangs about even with his ear. Attached to the
hat is a marvelous fake white beard the melds itself to its wthe face of
it's wearer in a most convincing way.

When worn, the wearer will appear to be dessed all in fur, from his head to
his foot, his clothes looking all tarnished, with ashes, and soot, a bundle
of toys, flung over his back, he'll look just like a pedler just opening
his pack.  His eyes, how they'll twinkle, his dimples so merry.  His cheeks
'll be like roses, his nose, like a cherry!  His droll little mouth will be
drawn up like a bow, and his fake beard will be as white as the snow.  The
stump of a pipe, you'll see tween his teeth, and the smoke will encircle
his head like a wreath.  He'll have a broad face, and a little round belly,
and it'll shake, when he laughs, like a bowl full of jelly.

Indeed, the SVH, when worn will make mr cwm look a a right jolly old elf.
You'll laugh when you see him, in spite of yourself.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #424
*******************************