Doctor Ducker on 29 Apr 2003 21:01:02 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Nomicmarket] Market suggestions

Craig wrote:

> >> Regarding the Nomic Market:
> >>
> >> First issue: A reminder.  The Nomic Market mailing list is at
> >> .  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.
> I think that this is not a good idea. The Cursed Sushi and the hot potatoes
> were both created because it is fun to give people unwanted gifts. But, it
> isn't up to me; it's really up to the Nomic community.

The only problem is that the rules which define these objects only exist within
their respective Nomics, not in the others.  Trying to bring the silliness of
one game into another is going to be far more trouble than it's probably

> >> 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.
> Good idea. EXCEPTION: A player of two Nomics ought to be two traders, IMO.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I agree with Craig, except that such a player should
only be able to vote once on any General Rule...

> >> 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.
> No, that should be in the Nomic specific rules you suggst below. I like
> those. Plus it makes it easier on us restricted Nomics.

My thought was this:  I have a Coin, and I go to Market, bringing said Coin.  If
we had a Thermo Rule which said something to the extent that, a Coin that has
been brought to market cannot be destroyed while it is at the Market, then I
can't destroy it in Thermo, AND Trade it at the Market.  There also needs to be
Thermo Rules regarding things brought back that say something like: Any things
which a player brought with them into the Market which they have not returned
with are destroyed within Thermo;  Any things which a player did not have within
Thermo when they went to Market which they have returned with are created within

> >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.
> I like it.
> >> Fifth issue: This issue intentionally left blank.
> I agree. This is a very serious problem. Any solutions?

I suggest erasure.

> >> 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.
> All of these are good ideas. I also like my 2/3 of traders thing. I think
> the rules Dr D suggests make the most sense.
> How 'bout the following new, improved ruleset:

> SECTION I. General Rules.
> A. Definitions.
> The official mailing list of the Nomic Market is nomicmarket@xxxxxxxxxx A
> trader is a person who is at the market, and may be refered to more
> specifically as a XXX trader, with XXX replaced by the name of eir home
> Nomic. A trader's home Nomic is the Nomic in which e is a player. If a
> person is a player in more than one Nomic, that player may be a trader from
> each one; that is, they may be two traders with two distinct home Nomics. An
> object is a thing which it is possible for a player to posess according to
> the rules of eir home Nomic. A member Nomic is a Nomic which has its own
> section in the rules of the Nomic Market.
> B. How to come to the Market.
> Any player of any member Nomic may declare emself to be at the Market, as
> long as the declaration occurs on both the mailing lists of the member Nomic
> and of the Market. That person then becomes a trader.
> C. What to do while at the Market.
> A trader may give any object to any other trader whose home Nomic and its
> subsection of these rules allow that trader to recieve it.
> A trader may offer a trade to another trader. That player may accept or
> reject the trade. If it is accepted, the goods agreed on are given from one
> trader to the other, as agreed.
> SECTION II. Amending the Rules.
> A. Sections i and ii.
> The rules in sections I and II of the ruleset may be amended whenever 2/3 of
> traders agree to the amendment. However, any two member Nomics may
> officially veto such a change.
> B. Other sections.
> The rules in the section concerning a given member Nomic may be amended
> whenever 2/3 of traders from that Nomic agree to the amendment. However, any
> two member Nomics may officially veto such a change.
> SECTION III. B Nomic Rules.
> (I, not being a B Nomic player, am not qualified to draft these.)
> SECTION IIII. ThermodyNomic Rules.
> A. Reciept.
> Any Thermo trader who recieves an object may declare eir intention to bring
> that object into the game of Thermo, in which case it is an object within
> Thermo in that player's posession until such time as e gives it away. Such a
> declaration must be sent to the Thermo mailing list. A Thermo trader may not
> bring B Nomic Shillings into the game of Thermo.
> B. Exchanges.
> Any Thermo trader may transform one Coin into 1,000 B Nomic Shillings, or
> may transform 1,000 B Nomic Shillings into one Coin.
> C. Official vetoes.
> Thermo will participate in a veto of a suggested change to the Nomic Market
> rules if a simple majority of its players want it to.
> _______________________________________________

I LIKE IT!!!!!!! (for the most part, but the rest can be worked out through real

Nomicmarket mailing list