Re: [Nomicmarket] Market suggestions

[Doctor Ducker <drduck@xxxxxxx>]

Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

> 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.
>

Well there's always the archives...

>
> 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.
>

I agree whole-heartedly (sp?)
Trade related Actions: Offerring, Giving, Accepting, Refusing.

>
> 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.
>

Again I agree.
Trader: An individual player.
XXXX Trader: A trader from XXXX member Nomic
Member Nomic: An external (to the nomic market) nomic, which has gone through
whatever steps are required to join into the market.

>
> 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.
>

I suggest that part of the joining process for a Member Nomic, should be the
establishment of a portion of the Member Nomics ruleset which helps to define
the transformations of things/objects/whatevers into a form where they are safe
from the effects of the external nomic's ruleset while those whatevers are
brought into the Market.

Also, there should be a specific subset of the Market Nomic's ruleset for each
Member Nomic, which describes the process by which the Tradable Goods of that
Member Nomic are transformed into the Market's standardized form.  The Member
Nomic's subsection of the rules should be limited in scope by the more general
rules, but should only be votable upon by Traders from the Member Nomic in
question.

For example, say the General Rules establish a standard of FishHeads.
The Thermo Sub-Section establishes that 10 FishHeads = 1 Coin
The B Sub-Section establishes that 1,000,000 FishHeads = 1 can of Whoopass
(forgive any spelling or conceptual breaks)

Thus a Thermo Trader could bring 100,000 Coins to the Market, change them in for
FishHeads, give them all to a B Trader, who changes them in for the whoopass,
and goes on back into B.

While this is very simple, as things progress we could begin providing some sort
of backing for "FishHeads", such as if BlogNomic joins they could provide
blogshares as backing.

>
> 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.
>

I disagree, I think something more like this:
General Rule: Require 2/3 of all Traders, with a Member Nomic being able to
formally veto.
Member XXXX Nomic Specific Sub-Section Rule: Require 2/3 of all XXXX Traders.
Additionally, a simple majority of all Member Nomics could formally veto.

Defining the rules for a "Formal Veto" should fall into the rules that a
potential member nomic's ruleset must encompass.

> 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.
>

Basically what I was saying under your Fourth Issue.

_______________________________________________
Nomicmarket mailing list
Nomicmarket@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/nomicmarket