|Orc In A Spacesuit on 29 Apr 2003 14:18:02 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|[Nomicmarket] Market suggestions|
Regarding the Nomic Market:First issue: A reminder. The Nomic Market mailing list is at http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/nomicmarket . I'd be posting this just there there, but I think a few more people should be on that list before I start doing so.
Second Issue: Receiving. I think that accepting an object should be optional. Here's why:
Objects may be in themselves bad to have. A B Nomic example would be the Cursed Sushi of Babel; a Thermo example would be a Hot Potato. A future example would be if there was some limitation on what/how many objects a person could have; if a proposal that will be on B's next Ballot passes everything will have a Mass, and carrying oodles of stuff will be a Bad Thing?.
Duties might be imposed, which would be very problematic should people not have a choice in accepting. I'm wanting to write something like that into my current proposal, where certain (powerful) objects require a duty or tarriff be paid by the person receivng the object in order to get it. Also, some Nomics might want to say "each player may import X items per round", or something like that.
Management of sillyness: A Nomic might be able to mass-produce things, whether those things be useful or not. If someone decided to flood another Nomic with sillyness, the targeted player(s) would have to go along with it first. And would have to get past any restrictions on acceptance.
Third issue: Definitions. Because we're talking about multiple Nomics, I think that a special term for those who are At the Market would be a good thing for the Nomic Market. In my prop, I call them "Traders", or "B Nomic Traders" if they hail from B Nomic. Implemtenting such definitions (ie "Trader" or "<home nomic> Trader") within the scope of the Market rather than calling them 'players', would make things more straightforeward.
Fourth issue: Enforceability. The Market rules say that an object is "destroyed in one game and created in another" when traded. Aside from the fact it doesn't say which Nomic it is created in, there's the enforceability factor: Just because the Market says something is destroyed/created doesn't mean it happens; Nomics can ignore that, and in fact, will probably have to specify in its own ruleset that things get created and destroyed. Therefore, it is very close to a do-nothing, unless a Nomic gives the Market power over it, which very few are likely to do considering how little it may take to revise the rules.
Fifth issue: This issue intentionally left blank.Sixth issue: Revising. I think that revisions should be voted on by participating Nomics, rather than participating players. Also, change shouldn't be that heavily needed, and should be considered carefully. Maybe require a high percentage of participants, like 2/3 of the Nomics, or make it a majority but specify that a single negative vote (not an abstentention) could block a change.
Seventh issue: Compatibility. While it isn't something that new Nomics, or those that are Imperial, have to deal with much, definitions and compatibility can be tricky. While the other issues are more important, this is something to consider. I think that the best way to do things is to have objects be "interperted" by Nomic Market in a standard form, and each individual Nomic could have a simple converter between its home rules and what Nomic Market has.
Orc in a SpacesuitThis sig has been ROT26 encrypted. Reading it is unlawful under the terms of the DMCA.
_________________________________________________________________Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________ Nomicmarket mailing list Nomicmarket@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/nomicmarket