Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #426
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, December 26 1996      Volume 01 : Number 426

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:19:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade (Liaison, please read)

> 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.
	In the form of the rule I RFC'd, Internomic objects *do not 
have* Internomic names.  So Internomic can't force any particular 
interpretation on Pumpkin Patch....

	Even without namespaces, the effect of our Eggplant on their 
ruleset is a matter for their Judgement process, and frankly it's none of 
our business.  :o)  (I wonder if they'd agree.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:24:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 325 - Getting it or missing it?

> 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.
	That's not what the rule actually says, though...

From R506 ("Trinkets"):
     A player may create a Trinket by publically announcing its name,
     description, and value, and by paying its announced value to the
     Treasury. A player may not create a Trinket he cannot afford the
     value of. Once created, the creating player becomes the owner of the
     Trinket.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:34:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Trinkets

I hereby create a trinket called Agora, worth A$1, which looks a lot 
like a very large number of very happy Walruses that may or may not 
exist.  I pay A$1 to the treasury for it.

Mohammed	-1,	Agora Trinket

I hereby create a trinket called Pumpkin Patch, worth A$1, which looks 
like a rolling farmland from which fresh Ps are constantly being 
harvested.  I pay A$1 to the treasury for it.

Mohammed	-1,	Pumpkin Patch Trinket

I hereby create a trinket called Thring, worth A$1, which is a little 
snow-dome containing a model of the entire Thring universe.  I pay A$1 to 
the treasury for it.

Mohammed	-1,	Thring Trinket

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:37:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Blueprint

> 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.
	Argh!  There's no such thing as a Plunky Monkey Wrench!
	When did *that* happen?!

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 07:45:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Trade (Liaison, please read)

On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 
> 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
>
In an earlier post I started rambling about nomic name spaces. I'd like to
elaborate on that now, and show how it implicitly allows us to adopt a
system with the strengths of both Malenkai's and Mohammed's systems.

The concept of nomic name spaces should be defined in the internomic
level. 

We have named entities and nameless entities, the latter belnng to named
classes of entities.  As long as an entity is disucssed/used/exists within
Ackanomic, it is reffered to by the name given by Ackanomic rules. When it
discussed/reffered to /etc. outside Ackanomic it would prefixed by the
string Ackanomic to signify that it was created by Ackanomic. Similarly,
when we discuss Agora entities, for example, we should prefix the string
Agora to their name. The legal intrnomic name of any entity consists of
the name of the entity in the nomic in which it was created, prefixed by
the name of the nomic.

How does that reflect both of the above systems.
Let us take the Victorious Eggplant. Under the above concept, giving it to
Pumpkin Patch Nomic would have no effect of Pumpkin Patch Nomic regardless
of any rules they may or may not have about a named entity called
Victorious Eggplant, because the legal name of that entity would be
Ackanomic Victorious Eggplant. 
Thus they could accept ownership immdiately, as per Mohammed's scheme,
without needing to worry about crashing Pumpkin Patch. Should they wish to
import it later, they can always initiate Import  procedures. This could
be done at any time, with no need for Customs, Quarantine or anything
else.  
The concept of nomic name space allows immediate transfer of ownership,
with absolutely no danger to the nomic which accepts the entity.

One might counter, specifically Malenkai might, but suppose Pumpkin Patch
has a rule that says Ackanomic Victorious Eggplant crashes their system.
Well, introducing nomic name spaces into internomic will take a couple of
weeks, due to the voting period, which would be sufficient time for any
nomic which desires 'safe' trading to clear its rules of any such
refferences, though the existence of such is highly unlikely.

Mohammed further wrote:
>> 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.
>	In the form of the rule I RFC'd, Internomic objects *do not 
>have* Internomic names.  So Internomic can't force any particular 
>interpretation on Pumpkin Patch....
>
>	Even without namespaces, the effect of our Eggplant on their 
>ruleset is a matter for their Judgement process, and frankly it's none of 
>our business.  :o)  (I wonder if they'd agree.)
>
>
>--Mohammed

I realize that. I think the concpet I'm forwarding would be a very useful
one for internomic trading, just as retaining a name for an object, so we
would recognize it later should we chance upon it again.

Now, once a nomic, or a player within a nomic acquires an entity from
another nomic, e may have several option. He could leave it be, in which
case it will probably have no effect there, unless some rules specifically
legislate such an effect. It could given a local alias, which would simply
make it simpler to refer to within that nomic, this should not be
necessarily the same as Importing. This could simply be recognition of
similarity with some locally created entities, or a matter of convenience.
The legal consequences of a local alias should up to each particular
nomic.

It could be Imported. Whether or not an Imported entity changes its name
space is debatable, and in fact being debated.
I argue that it shouldn't. In fact, I see three cases.
1. An Imported Entity is Imported into the name space of the new nomic in
which its owner is a player.
 This would require that for each entity a history would be maintained, so 
 a nomic can recognize an Imported object that was originally created in
 that nomic and treat it accordingly.
 I believe that this option would require that nomics re-Import such
 objects. They could certainly refer to the object's history and 
 make such a procedure simpler should it be known that it originated
 in that nomic.

2. An Imported entity maintains its existing Internomic name. The
Importation procedure gives it certain powers in the new nomic where it
currently resides. It's basically a "Made In.." labet. It reflects the
fact that even if a nomic is imported to another nomic, having been
exported from its cradle nomic, once it returns 'home', so to speak, it
is affected only by the rules that govern it in that nomic. 

3. Whenever an entity is Imported, the name of the Importing nomic is
prefixed to its Internomic name, thus adopting it entirely into the
Importing nomic name space.
This is really option 1 in a different guise. The only difference is that
the names can become ridiculously long, and that the history is maintained
in the name.

I would opt for no.2 (this is another thing that needs to be established
in Internomic)
And summarise that while an entity should retain its original Internomic
name, an alias exists within the name space of the nomic that created the
alias. Thus, when re-acquiring a previously exported object, a nomic has
the option of Importing some properties it acquired elswhere, however, if
it chooses to do nothing, the object simply retains whatever properties
the current rules of that nomic dictate.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:46:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not really Internomic Trade 

> >	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.
	*laugh*  That sounds like fun...
	I don't think it happens though, because we don't grant any 
credibility to their rules... we'll see that they exist and say, "that's 
funny, their ruleset must be mistaken."
	If you trust both rulesets, you have to think that Pumpkin Patch 
is crashed; however, they don't trust ours and we don't trust theirs, so 
both of us will stay convinced that Pumpkin Patch is still up & running.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 07:48:49 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Trinkets

I'm not sure what the point is, however, if the point is to show a
weakness in the  concept of nomic name spaces, it fails.
And merely strengthens option 2 as outlined in the end of my previous
post.

Under name spaces the Internomic names of those trinkets would be:

 On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> I hereby create a trinket called Agora, worth A$1, which looks a lot 
> like a very large number of very happy Walruses that may or may not 
> exist.  I pay A$1 to the treasury for it.
> 
> Mohammed	-1,	Agora Trinket
Ackanomic Agora Trinket
> 
> I hereby create a trinket called Pumpkin Patch, worth A$1, which looks 
> like a rolling farmland from which fresh Ps are constantly being 
> harvested.  I pay A$1 to the treasury for it.
> 
> Mohammed	-1,	Pumpkin Patch Trinket

Ackanomic Pumpkin Patch Trinket

> 
> I hereby create a trinket called Thring, worth A$1, which is a little 
> snow-dome containing a model of the entire Thring universe.  I pay A$1 to 
> the treasury for it.
> 
> Mohammed	-1,	Thring Trinket

Ackanomic Thring Trinket

> 
>
 
> 
> --Mohammed
> 
This merely displays another disadvantage of option 3 of that same post,
but otherwise has no bearing on the concept.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #426
*******************************