bd on 8 Apr 2003 22:32:01 -0000

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

Re: [spoon-discuss] Step one on the road to InterNomic II

Hash: SHA1

On Monday 07 April 2003 10:22 pm, Baron von Skippy wrote:
> [[BvS]]
> >>>>No one commented last time. That's annoying - how do I know what you
> >>>>think if you don't comment? So let me know if there are any problems. I
> >>>>tweaked this some, maybe it's a little less unwieldy now.
> >>>
> >>>My thoughts?  I'm not sure.  I think you may be trying to make this a
> >>> bit too broad, a bit too general.  I think it would be better to
> >>> negotiate individual things with the different Nomics one at a time.  I
> >>> don't think I'll vote against the prop as it stands now, but I think
> >>> you may going too broad.
> >>>I am all for standardization of things, but to standardize something,
> >>> you have to have a good idea of the big picture and small picture of
> >>> what's going on first.  Me, personally, I don't have either.  So I
> >>> can't really pass judgement on this.  That's why I'll not be against
> >>> this if you think it's a good idea, because I hope you know more about
> >>> this than I do.
> >>
> >>-If I read you right, you're more or less saying I haven't really
> >>explained what I'm going for. I think you may be right... here it is,
> >>then. I'm looking at a less structured, more real-lifeish version of
> >>InterNomic, where instead of a central Nomic controlling all, individuals
> >>link up and interact. It's broad so that they can do all kind of things,
> >>you see. Initially, there will be very few links, and most of them will
> >>come from B Nomic. This is a good thing. What I'm really going for is two
> >>unprecedented things. One, this game uniting behind a cause. Two, the
> >>cause: B Nomic becoming a power in the land, and, if they don't have a
> >>land for us to be a power in, us making one. What I envision is most
> >>players joining a second game and promoting the cause of B Nomic there.
> >>You don't have to be a full-time player. Just join, vote some, and
> >>occasionally propose something that will make their ruleset better
> >>compatible with ours.
> >>      But it isn't all about our profit. Think of the gains to our game
> >>when our representatives can come back every nweek with tales of the
> >> ideas of other Nomics, and propose versions of them. Not their sellable
> >> objects, but the concepts and philosophies of their games. Everyone
> >> stands to win here, especially the people who can make the most stuff to
> >> sell. Might I point out that we have a lot to sell?
> >>      Ambassadors will have advantages too. Especially once it's realized
> >>that it's easiest to have B Nomic Ambassadors to other Nomics become
> >> other Nomics' Ambassadors to B Nomic. Ambassadors will get power and
> >> paychecks both ways.
> >>      So, give it a little thought. Maybe this won't work. Maybe it will.
> >>I certainly would like to see it succeed. Inasmuch as Nomic has history
> >>books, let us go down in them.
> >>      I'll get off the soap box now.-
> >>
> >>[[BvS]]
> >
> >I understand the broad, general idea of what it is you are trying to
> >accomplish.  I guess what I'm trying to say is, each link will require
> >special rules, which will also probably have some sort of exceptions to
> >what you're stating here.  You're trying to make a one-size-fits-all rule,
> >and I really don't know if it'll fit.  I don't know.
> >A particual point would be this "copyright of rules" concept; if I assume
> >correctly, that's to keep them from, say, mass-producing Whoopass and
> >distributing it freely to players here.  I think that rather than this
> >overly-broad terminology here, it would be better to make specific
> >restrictions on a case-by-case basis.  We can trade Whoopass with them?
> >Well, at the same time, let's outlaw them making Whoopass.  If they want
> > to make Whoopass, then we aren't trading Whoopass with them.
> >
> >Orc in a Spacesuit
> -Well, to make it more general, it has to get less specific and more open
> to interpretation and possibly loopholes. Can you give me a more specific
> idea of what you're talking about? Anyway, they don't have to be totally
> compliant with anything more than the "Ambassadors get veto power" clause.
> Past that, it /is/ case-by-case - they have to agree to our rules one at a
> time. Also, we can't just outlaw Whoopass from them - if this gets big
> enough, that's no protection. Nomic A steals Whoopass. So we embargo Nomic
> A. Nomic A sells Whoopass for next to nothing to Nomic B, who sells it back
> to B Nomic... hmm, bad choice of letters. But do you see what I'm saying?
> It has to be stopped when it starts, and that means Ambassadors need all
> the power they can get.-

Here's another scenario:
You have three nomics:
* A Nomic Jr.
* B Nomic
* C Nomic
B & C nomics are in a trade agreement for Whoopass. A steals B's whoopass 
rule, starts trading it for low prices to C. C then trades it to B at lower 
prices than B's ruleset allows for domestic goods.
- -- 
Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided
at all costs.
		-- N. Alexander.
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

spoon-discuss mailing list