Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #425
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, December 25 1996     Volume 01 : Number 425

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:00:04 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: Economics

: T Joffrain wrote on  Tuesday, December 24, 1996 11:20 PM
> 
> >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.
> 
Fun is related to rules??

For me the interest in the game is, how can I, working within a complex but
managable rule set, affect things.  As I continue in Acka, I  will start to
devlop
a deeper knowlege of the rules, and learn more about the subtle
interactions
of within the ruleset.

This interest, care and skill do not appear instantly, it develops over a
period
of time.  Trading items with rules attachments without fairly heavy
screening,
mean that we are allowing someone to monkey with the Acka rule set.  
Trinkets, by their nature, worry me alot less.

To use a biological analogy,  Acka is a body. the other nomic is a body.
taking an item from one to another is a transfusion.  Were it my body, I 
would appreciate at the very least a typing test, and would prefer a test 
or two, and wouldn't object to a thurogh blood check up.

End Rant
Jammer

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 10:01:51 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Blueprint

Phil Ackley wrote:

> 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?

Thats not my problem.  It seems its the problem for either the owner
or the renter. Does the Rental rule require that the thing be returned ?

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 08:23:02 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Happy  Holidays

Have a great time 

John-Martin Lotz

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:45:00 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Super-User)
Subject: Acka: *ping* 

Today is Wednesday, the 25th 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* 12 times.

Malenkai
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:03:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Acka: PROTO: I(i)nternomic Trade

To Agora: This is the first two segments of my internomic Trade PROTO
which discussion elsewhere has prompted me to get working on.  Please
peruse in some depth.

To Everyone else: I thought it would be interesting for those involved in the
trade debate to see how one nomic in particular might start dealing with the
idea of trade between nomics.  The Agoran attempt here (only in the first
few stages) is intended to be tackled more or less in isolation (ie. once the
system is in place it should handle trade with any other nomic regardless of
the internal structure.)

NOTE: The fundamental paradigm here is a philosophy where a large part of
the rules consider Importation and Creation equivelant, as with Export and
Destruction. This is not completely true, but the attitude is, anything leaving
Agora's domian ceases to be its problem. Also note, this is all preface, I
haven't yet drafted the next two parts, the Trade Registry, and Import/Export.

Swann
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Rules to deal with internomic (small I) trade
============================================================
PROTOS: (Small-I) internomic Trade

PROTO-Proposal Part I; Creation of Entity Domains

Preface: Trade between nomics is a complicated prospect, and this is the 
beginning of what I hope will be a system we can use with any other 
nomic that adopts some sort of system of import/export.  It requires a 
bit of infrastructure, the first of which is a laying out of the domains 
where entities (_all_ entities) exist.  These are stand-alone rules that 
may have some utility beyond trade (Quarantine may have multiple uses) 
but they are very fundamental (in that they have global effects on the 
creation and destruction of entities, if only an invisible one), so I'd 
like the rule mavens to pick at these two very closely for unintended 
consequences.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Let the following Rule be created with an MI=3;
(Title: The Domains of Entities)

     Every entity exists in one of the following three Domains. In each 
     case, "<name>" is acceptable shorthand for "The Domain of <name>."

     The Domain of Agora:  Agora encompasses all entities which the 
     Rules, or any body of law empowered by the Rules, has the power to 
     compel action from-- excepting those entities the Rules explicitly 
     exclude from Agora.

     The Domain of Quarantine: Quarantine encompasses all entities which 
     the Rules, or any body of law empowered by the Rules, has the power 
     to compel action from, and which have been excluded, by the Rules, 
     from Agora.  Entities within Quarantine have no power to affect any 
     other entities.

     The Domain of the AEther: The AEther encompasses all entities 
     outside any claim of jurisdiction by the Rules or by the bodies of 
     law empowered by the Rules.

{Comment: There are some subtleties here.  Note that the entities from
     the AEther aren't forbidden from affecting Agoran entities.  This 
     is because entities in the AEther include, people, most of 
     mathematics, and most of the English language.  Also, this 
     separation doesn't concede any sovereignty on Agora's part, since 
     the boundaries of the Domains are written in terms of what the 
     Rules claim jurisdiction over. Also note, the AEther includes all
     entities that have been destroyed, or do not yet exist.}

- ------------------------------------------------------------
Let the following Rule be created with an MI=3;
(Title: Moving Between Entity Domains)

     No entity is permitted to move directly from Agora to the AEther or
     move directly from the AEther to Agora. All such entities must pass
     through Quarantine. Entities can only move from Agora to Quarantine 
     or from Quarantine to Agora as specified by the Rules.  If the
     Rules create a new entity, or claims new jurisdiction over some 
     existing entity, it shall first appear in Quarantine, spending an 
     infinitesimal time there (longer if the Rules require it) before 
     entering Agora.  If the Rules destroy an entity, or cease to claim 
     jurisdiction over an existing entity, it shall be placed in 
     Quarantine, spending an infinitesimal time there (longer if the 
     Rules require it) before departing into the AEther.  The Rules can
     specify other modes of transit between Quarantine and other Domains
     for specific entities, or types of entities. The Rules cannot 
     specify any modes of transit between Agora and the AEther. This 
     Rule takes precedence over Rules that would permit any entity to 
     travel directly between Agora and the AEther.

     For the purpose of this Rule, Players are distinct entities from 
     the people who play them.

     All entities other than those created solely by the Rules which
     have moved from the AEther to Quarantine are Imported Entities
     until they again return to the AEther.

     All entities other than those destroyed by the Rules which have
     moved from Quarantine to the AEther are Exported Entities until
     they again return to Quarantine.

{Comment: The Import/Export lines telegraph what use this all is for
     trade.  But you can also see the fundamental nature of this Rule in 
     the first paragraph.  In the paradigm I'm adopting for trade, from 
     the Agora point of view the Import of an entity is equivalent to a 
     creation, since all entities exist in the AEther before they're 
     created.  This is also true of Export/Destruction.  Quarantine 
     exists to allow the swift importation of forigen entities while 
     permitting a deliberative process to integrate the entities' 
     properties safely into Agora.  With this we can import anything we 
     want, and anything truly dangerous would stay in Quarantine, not 
     affecting anything in Agora.}
============================================================
PROTO-Proposal Part II; Recognition and Refrence to other Nomics

Preface: This group of Rules is to handle the ability to recognize other 
nomics, and refer to them, their Rulesets, and their Players 
unambiguously.  Here I introduce the Customs Officer, who is something 
of an Ambassador with real duties.  It is the CO's job to find other 
nomics, recognize them, keep track of them, and keep track of who the 
contact persons for trade are.  The CO's discretion is left very broad 
(there's no set definition of nomic, for instance) because there's no 
way to codify what e's going to find out there in the real world.  

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

Create a Rule with the following text:
(Title: The Customs Officer)

      There shall exist the Office of Customs Officer (CO) who shall
      receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic Officer
      Salary.

     The CO has the following duties:

       i) E shall maintain a record of all Imported Entities and the 
          status of those Entities, including ownership where
          applicable.
      ii) E shall maintain a record of all Officially Recognized Nomics 
          and a record of all Trade Representatives and their e-mail
          addresses.
     iii) E shall be the maintainer and executor of the Agoran Trade 
          Registry.

{Comment: This should be self-explanatory.  iii) refers to the Trade 
     Registry, which is to be a SLC under the semi-absolute control of 
     the CO that describes the properties and characteristics of all 
     imported entities. (Which will enter Quarantine and only leave when 
     the Rules see fit to release them.) ii) is pretty much explained in
     the next Rule.}

- ------------------------------------------------------------
Create a Rule with the following text:
(Title: Officially Recognized Nomics and Refrences Thereof)

     Agora acknowledges the existence of other nomics.  The Customs 
     Officer (CO) has the duty of Officially Recognizing these other 
     nomics.  To do so, e must post to the Public Forum the identity of 
     an active nomic with which e has had contact, which must include a
     message from at least one participant within that nomic and a brief
     description of the nomic including how to contact its participants
     and its Agora name.

     The Agora name for an Officially Recognized Nomic (ORN) shall be
     "<name>" (where <name> is the ORN's own preferred name), or
     "<name> Nomic" if "<name>" alone duplicates the name of some Agora 
     entity.  If the Recognized nomic has no preferred name of its own, 
     it shall be given one by the CO for reference within Agora.  For 
     this Rule, <nomic> shall stand for the Agora name of an ORN.

     All legally binding text within an ORN shall be referred to as the 
     "<nomic> rules" or "The rules of <nomic>."

     All people whose actions are legally bound by some ORN are referred 
     to as "Nomic Participants," and those of a specific ORN are 
     "<nomic> Participants."

     All entities that have no discernible existence outside being 
     defined within the rules of an ORN (or set of ORNs), only
     existing by virtue of the rules of an ORN (or set of ORNs), is a
     "Nomic Entity."

     Agora is an Officially Recognized Nomic.

{Comment: In the first paragraph note that the CO's mandate is broad,
     eis job is as a filter between Agora and all the potential nomics 
     out there (worded slightly differently, the CO might have to seek 
     out the Canadian Parliament because of a directive a few years 
     back) and go through a procedure to get the Rules to acknowledge 
     them.  From this, we get an Agora name for the nomic, and 
     unambiguous terms for the "rules" (which could include SLCs, 
     Contests, Games and Blueprints) and "players" of that nomic.  It 
     also redefines the term "Nomic Entity" into a much broader class of 
     entities to permit 1586 to recognize entities crossing Domain 
     boundaries as the "same."  The last sentence if for completeness 
     sake.}
- ------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1586 is amended by removing the following text;

     "A "Nomic Entity" is any entity which has no discernible
      existence without the Rules, only existing by virtue of the
      Rules defining it to exist."

- ------------------------------------------------------------
Create a Rule with the following text:
(Title: Trade Representitives)

     The Customs Officer (CO) shall, for each Officially Recognized 
     Nomic (ORN), attempt to identify Trade Representatives for that ORN 
     (whose Agora name is hereafter represented by "<nomic>") and obtain 
     e-mail addresses where the Trade Representatives can be contacted.

     Such Trade Representatives are the person or persons to whom the 
     <nomic> rules grant the power and responsibility of handing the 
     export of that <nomic>'s entities to other nomics, and/or the 
     import of nomic entities into <nomic>.  The person or persons are 
     only Trade Representatives as long as the <nomic> rules give them 
     this responsibility. The CO need only identify Trade 
     Representatives for <nomic> if such are defined in the <nomic> 
     rules.

     The CO shall publish, once a week, the names and e-mail addresses 
     of all identified Trade Representatives for all Officially 
     Recognized Nomics.

     The Customs Officer is the Trade Representative for Agora.

{Comment: The CO has wide discretion in finding who's a Trade 
     Representative, in a much freer nomic (with a very liberal 
     interpretation of permissibility of the unprohibited) it might be 
     any of the players in that nomic.  In other cases it may be an 
     Officer, a Committee, an Imperial Emperor, or a Liaison. Again the 
     last sentence is for completeness.}
============================================================

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:05:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[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.
> 
> Blueprint
> Evil Ballot Stuffer
	[...]
	I don't know if this was your intent or not, but the Evil Ballot 
Stuffer's Blueprint does not specify that it is mechanical... so I don't 
think the Plunky Monkey Wrench will work on it.
	Or maybe I missed it... I'm too lazy to reread.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:10:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Blueprint

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         I don't know if this was your intent or not, but the Evil Ballot
> Stuffer's Blueprint does not specify that it is mechanical... so I don't
> think the Plunky Monkey Wrench will work on it.
>         Or maybe I missed it... I'm too lazy to reread.

I did not know a Plunky Monkey wrench existed; I do not even know what 
it is :)  My intent was that the EBS could be fixed by Otzma Fix My Gadget
and any gadget that claimed to fix broken gadgets.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:23:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 - Getting it or missing it?

From Rule 219 ("Winning by Paradox"):
     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.
     
     Such a call for judgement must contain in its reasoning a statement
     to the effect that the initiator is claiming a win in accordance
     with R 219, on a verdict of True. Such a CFJ is called a "Paradox
     Win CFJ".

I interpret this to mean that a Paradox Win CFJ must meet two 
qualifications:  the statement itself must fit the qualification provided 
in the first paragraph; and the reasoning must contain a win claim as 
described in the second paragraph.  CFJ 325 clearly fits the second 
paragraph, but not really the first.  (But my interpretation of Rule 219
isn't the only possible one.)

re:  whether the internal precedence rule solves this conflict
> It is *not* internal. Nothing in R505 conflicts with each other as written,
> or if you claim this, show me how.
	Interesting.  Section III says A$ can be neither created nor
destroyed, and section VI says that a Trinket can be converted to its
worth in A$.  As CNH says, this isn't *necessarily* a conflict.  The two
statements can be resolved (in the absence of all other rules on the
matter) if all Trinkets have zero value.  So does the rule, then, by
implication, demand that all Trinkets have zero value?  If so, then all
Trinkets are indeed worthless, since R505 claims precedence over R506!

	(I don't know if this is what CnH was going after....)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:22:35 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1560 Passes

Phil Ackley wrote:

> Note that any newspaper that does not publish before January 1, Ackanomic
> time, and has not already published this month, will go Belly-up, holiday
> not withstanding.

I'm not sure this is true, for I am not sure that P 1560 contained a
valid rule change.  The question is, is the rule change described
below "ambiguous", and thus voided by R 103, paragraph 3?  I would judge
that it is, but if you want I can call a CFJ (which of course is a 
redundant expression, how about I could CFJ :o).

If this is true, this would be a Null proposal :(

Malenkai
- --------------------------
> >Text of Passed Proposal:
> >-----------------------
> >
> >     This is a modest proposal.
> >
> >     Amend R891 By adding the following paragraph between the first and
> >     the third:

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 17:42:59 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1560 Passes 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 17:45:20 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1560 Passes 

>Phil Ackley wrote:
>
>> Note that any newspaper that does not publish before January 1, Ackanomic
>> time, and has not already published this month, will go Belly-up, holiday
>> not withstanding.
>
>I'm not sure this is true, for I am not sure that P 1560 contained a
>valid rule change.  The question is, is the rule change described
>below "ambiguous", and thus voided by R 103, paragraph 3?  I would judge
>that it is, but if you want I can call a CFJ (which of course is a
>redundant expression, how about I could CFJ :o).
>
>If this is true, this would be a Null proposal :(
>
>Malenkai
>--------------------------
>> >Text of Passed Proposal:
>> >-----------------------
>> >
>> >     This is a modest proposal.
>> >
>> >     Amend R891 By adding the following paragraph between the first and
>> >     the third:

Ouch, I wish someone had pointed that out to me earlier.  I suppose it
should be CFJ'd (hehe, acronyms as verbs, anyone?) to be on the safe side,
but I'm afraid that you are correct.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 17:45:20 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1560 Passes 

>Phil Ackley wrote:
>
>> Note that any newspaper that does not publish before January 1, Ackanomic
>> time, and has not already published this month, will go Belly-up, holiday
>> not withstanding.
>
>I'm not sure this is true, for I am not sure that P 1560 contained a
>valid rule change.  The question is, is the rule change described
>below "ambiguous", and thus voided by R 103, paragraph 3?  I would judge
>that it is, but if you want I can call a CFJ (which of course is a
>redundant expression, how about I could CFJ :o).
>
>If this is true, this would be a Null proposal :(
>
>Malenkai
>--------------------------
>> >Text of Passed Proposal:
>> >-----------------------
>> >
>> >     This is a modest proposal.
>> >
>> >     Amend R891 By adding the following paragraph between the first and
>> >     the third:

Ouch, I wish someone had pointed that out to me earlier.  I suppose it
should be CFJ'd (hehe, acronyms as verbs, anyone?) to be on the safe side,
but I'm afraid that you are correct.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:02:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1560 Passes

Phil Ackley wrote:

> Ouch, I wish someone had pointed that out to me earlier.  I suppose it
> should be CFJ'd (hehe, acronyms as verbs, anyone?) to be on the safe side,
> but I'm afraid that you are correct.

I just noticed it in my 3rd pass through the new proposals in my
capacity as speaker.  That is why I *really* hope that docket thing
fails, it will make my jobs so much harder.

sorry for not catching it earlier, I would have reported it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 19:09:33 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Call for Judgement 

Statement:

The rule change described in P1560 in not ambiguous, and is therefore a
valid rule change.

snowgod's Reasoning:

R103, Paragraph 3 states:

     If an amendment to a rule does not unambiguously describe the
     amendment to take place, it is not a valid rule change. Rule
     changes not defined as valid by the rules are invalid.

and P1560 reads:

     This is a modest proposal.

     Amend R891 By adding the following paragraph between the first and
     the third:

     A newspaper must publish at least one article during each calender
     month, or it will cease to exist. When this happens, the newspaper
     is said to have gone belly-up.

The question that must be answered is if the text "Amend R891 By adding the
following paragraph between the first and the third:" is ambigous or not.
I believe that the intent of the proposal is clear, even if the exact
wording isn't.

I quote from R451:

     If there is a typographical error in any number in any Ackanomic
     document, and the intended number can be determined beyond
     reasonable doubt, then the mis-typed number shall be treated as if
     it were typed as intended, and be considered a misspelled word
     with respect to Rule 1022 (with the correct spelling being the
     intended number).

Clearly this paragraph applies to P1560 and the number three in the the
second sentence of the proposal should be treated as if it was "two".

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 19:11:15 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Call for Judgement 

I apologize, this should have been sent directly to Malenkai.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:56:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade (Liaison, please read)

> 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.
	It's the same as burying a treasure.  What if several players do not 
want that stuff to be buried, perhaps never to be found?  That's just to 
bad for them, at the risk of sounding rude.  It's really no one else's 
business.
	The Eggplant doesn't belong to you, so you shouldn't be able to
prevent snowgod from giving it to whomever he pleases.  Our Officers will
still track it, so there's no added risk to the object as far as the
possibility of its being "lost" or "stolen".  The object doesn't enter the
other nomic's rules or name-space, so there's no added risk to them
either.
	No import/export controls are necessary because there is no
import/export of rules or rule-like material to worry about. 

> >         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.
	Actually, no one tracks it.  (Or, if you prefer, Physics tracks
it, or God tracks it, etc.)
	My question "What's the use in..." (quoted above) went unanswered.

> What if the source nomic goes under.
	It dies (unless it was Imported, as per your plan.)
	So trinkets get waxed.  If you were speculating on PFbonds, those
will get destroyed, too.  IMHO, it makes sense for bonds and A$ to be
destroyed when Ackanomic dies.

	I just realized Ackadollars shouldn't be Exported anyway.  The
rules say there are 75000 of them at a time, period, so the ruleset is
unable to "forget" them while another nomic tracks them.  :oP (However, if
we continue to track them, there's no such problem.)
	Hmm.  Anything that is manipulated or reset by our end-of-cycle
process can't really be Exported, not safely, right?  Because it's going
to be immune to our rules while it's out there.

> It makes no sense to track things once they leave our borders.
	*grin*  You're being awfully stubborn about this.  It makes sense
for at least three reasons: 

	1) the extreme speed, compared to I/E
	2) rule-defined entities can be transferred without fear of their
leaving our jurisdiction
	3) It allows players of other nomics to use our Gadgets to "play" 
Ackanomic on a limited scale.  Am I the only one who thinks that's neat?
	4) There's no "information junction" where ideas can be lost or badly 
translated.
	5) When an entity is transferred, our rules can guarantee that it 
gets to the right target owner, wherever e may be.  I/E can't.

> > 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.
	Fascinating thought.  Hmm.
	Suppose our ruleset said, "There is a Victorious Eggplant, and
Pumpkin Patch Nomic owns it."  Now suppose Pumpkin Patch's ruleset said,
"If a Victorious Eggplant ever exists, Pumpkin Patch is crashed."  Does
Pumpkin Patch crash?  I don't think it does; we don't have the authority 
to do that.  (If we *do* have that authority, the implication is that 
Pumpkin Patch must continuously monitor our rule set and all others... 
and read all the world's newspapers... to be sure they'll know if a 
Victorious Eggplant ever arises.)
	The way I see it, we can't crash them because they're not paying
attention to our rules.  So regardless of whether we give them a choice 
in the matter, they really have nothing to fear from our objects.

> > 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.
	Okay, I dissent, but it's not a big sticking point with me.

> > 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.
	Uhh... I'll try to explain what I was thinking... but it's 
tough.  please read this a couple times before responding.  *sheepgrin*
	The idea was that when we Export an object, our ruleset ceases to
recognize it; and when they Import it, their ruleset begins to recognize
it.  So under your scheme especially, this is a good rule to have.  (Under
my scheme no such rule is really necessary.)
	The reason I think homeworld shouldn't be tied to ownership so
closely, at least on the Internomic level, is this:  what if Thring's
rules define an object that (according to their rules) is owned by
Ackanomic?  What's the object's homeworld?  It ought to be Thring, I
think.  They never got our permission to pass that rule; it should be 
their problem.
	If, instead, ownership is the determining factor, we've got a
problem, because their rules say we own it, but we can't really track it 
properly without learning their rules.  :oP  So I decided to stick with 
rule recognition.
	I *think* that this decision works well with both your framework
and mine.  (After all, we're arguing over 15% of difference in a process
we seem to agree on for the most part.)

Sorry for the long quote here, but I didn't want to muddy the waters further.
> >         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.
	*blink*
	It looks like you are saying that just by writing a customs form,
the target nomic automatically brings in the rules associated with the
Gadget.  Say it ain't so.  You *do* need the nomic's Import approval. 
Right?  Otherwise the Import doesn't happen... right? 
	You say "just write a customs form" but in reality we're talking
about a lengthy process with possible filibustering and so on.  Right?  
Probably I'm misinterpreting you...

> I don't have a problem with statute of limitations.  Illegal things happen
> all the time in our nomic.  Its unfortuante.
	I still think limiting the applicability of CFJs is the worst move
a nomic can make.  :o(

> What if your Trinket is exported illegally. 
	In my system, it's unlikely anyone will want to Export a Trinket. 
You can perform a fast trade much more quickly with no problems, and that
method has the advantage of not creating internomic work or large amounts
of net mail.
	Under yours, I'll *have* to export the Trinket, if I want to send
it.  More likely, I'll decide it's just not worth the red tape.

> 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.
	Yes, any system that supports I/E will have this problem.  
However, since your system makes I/E the *only* way to trade, it'll cause 
more problems in the long run.
	I/E is inherently troublesome because it forces us to "deal with
extranomic situations", as you put it.  With a fast transfer, there is no
extranomic situation.  All the information is kept locally. 

> > > 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?
	I guess I didn't phrase that very clearly...

IF:  all nomics accept Malenkai's solution
THEN:  all nomics must set up quarantines before trading
THEREFORE:  there will be long, unnecessary delays.

IF:  Internomic decides not to restrict trade unduly
THEN:  nomics can enjoy limited trade without adding or changing any rules
AND:  there will not be long, unnecessary delays.

	What's the rush? you ask.  I just hate needless bureaucracy,
that's all.  It's an aesthetic concern, mainly, but one I feel quite
strongly about.
	Also, I'd like to be able to trade Ackadollars, somehow.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:06:33 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Not really Internomic Trade   

>Fascinating thought.  Hmm.
>	Suppose our ruleset said, "There is a Victorious Eggplant, and
>Pumpkin Patch Nomic owns it."  Now suppose Pumpkin Patch's ruleset said,
>"If a Victorious Eggplant ever exists, Pumpkin Patch is crashed."  Does
>Pumpkin Patch crash?  I don't think it does; we don't have the authority
>to do that.

I think it does *as far as ackanomic is concerned*.  I think that
furthermore, in that situation, it would be illegal for ackanomic to have
anything to do with pumpkin patch other than continualy claim that they no
longer exist.  It's all a game of diplomacy in a situation like that...
come to think of it, it would be kind of fun *not* to recognize something :)

Of course, at the same time Pumpkin Patch could claim that they do indeed
exist (though we of course would know that they are mistaken) and in turn
fail to recognize Ackanomic (as a protective (or retaliatory)) measure.

Such is how wars are started.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:11:51 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Our First Export 

WOuld anyone else support the case that the victorious eggplant was export
to the Pumpkin Patch by my transfer of it to sbuchaza?  R501/4 provides one
mechanism for export, but makes no provisions for others.  However, it does
state what happens to an entity once exported from Ackanomic, as I have
claimed to do.

snowgod
who opened up a can of worms :)

>Rule 501/4
>ExtraNomic Entities
>Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)
>
>     Other nomics may exist, although it is uncertain exactly where
>     they might reside (maybe in some of the smaller cells of the
>     Gaol.)
>
>     When the Rules specify that an entity is "imported" from another
>     nomic, that entity is, for the purposes of Ackanomic, created at
>     that time. Its behavior and ownership are generally governed by
>     the rules of the nomic from which it was imported. However, it may
>     not perform protected actions, create entities, or manipulate or
>     destroy entities that weren't imported from the same nomic; if a
>     nomic specifies that an entity imported from it performs any of
>     these actions, the entity is immediately exported. For the
>     purposes of Ackanomic, it is then destroyed.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:15:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trading (was Victorious Eggplant)

> 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?
	Yes!

> 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.
	Okay.  Malenkai and I were talking about this earlier, and it
sounds dangerous to me.  I dunno.  Hmm.

> 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)
	Ooh, tough.  The little Internomic rule I RFC'd last night doesn't
handle that one... or maybe it does.  If they destroy the entity, but we
still recognize it, that means that... to internomic... it exists, and 
Ackanomic is its homeworld.  Right?
	*think*
	I think so.  I don't remember the exact wording.

> 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?
	It doesn't have to be.  Importing and Exporting would be
implemented as an internomic rule...  but the kind of trade I'm talking
about, the fast transfer, happens entirely locally.
	Perhaps we should keep our own list of which nomics can make fast
transfers with us.  That would make us less dependent on Internomic, and
even if a nomic drops out of Internomic, we'd still be able to trade with
their players. 

> 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.
	Nomic N can't trade our A$ with M, because we're the ones 
responsible for tracking our own A$.  If M wants 'em, they'll have to 
trade with us personally.
	The whole fast-trading scheme happens under our rules for our 
entities... and their rules for their entities.  So even if N becomes 
hostile there's not much they can do... they can confiscate all 
N-entities that we own, but their ruleset can't touch the Ackadollar.

- --Mohammed

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #425
*******************************