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

["Baron von Skippy" <baronvonskippy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Ambassadors are responsible for promoting and propagating trade and/or 
> > diplomatic relations between the Nomic they represent (the "home Nomic") 
> > and the embassy Nomic. This definition is purposefully open-ended; 
> > diplomatic relationships may span a wide range from peaceful trade to open 
> > war. In order to promote trade, Ambassadors must protect the ruleset of 
> > their home Nomic to prevent theft of definitions of items defined in the 
> > ruleset of their home Nomic. As such, Ambassadors may veto any proposal 
> > whose passing would create one or more rules or sections of one or more 
> > rules which are, in their opinion, overly similar to one or more rules or 
> > sections of one or more rules in the ruleset of their home Nomic. When an 
> > Ambassador vetoes a proposal, they must provide one or more URLs which 
> > will lead to the rules they are trying to prevent the copying of. In order 
> > to prevent misuse of this power, the Administrator of the Ambassador's 
> > embassy Nomic may override this veto if e feels that the reasoning behind 
> > the veto is not sound.
>
> This copyrighting of rules... I'm not sure it works for trade. If we 
> develop and produce Whoopass, and try to trade it to another Nomic, it 
> seems to me that the other Nomic will be unable to use it unless Whoopass 
> is defined for them, too; such a definition would, under the copyright 
> restrictions, have to be something completely different from its definition 
> here.
> Or, if another Nomic decided to invent a currency, we could veto, simply 
> because we have BNS; unless their currency is substantially different from 
> BNS, it would count as a violation.

-You must have missed the part where they agree to comply with our rule on 
Whoopass, which defines the effects. True, it still might not mean anything, 
but that's fixable: Add a section to the Whoopass rule which defines the 
effects in their game. Then we still have total control of the rule, but 
they can use the thing.-
> > C.5.1.1. Trade
> > Objects may be traded between Nomics by first having both Nomics agree to 
> > recognize the rule or section of a rule which defines each object. To do 
> > this, the Nomic which does not have the object defined in its ruleset may 
> > pass a rule with text along the lines of: "<Name of game> recognizes <name 
> > of other game> Rule <rule number>." If a rule in the ruleset of one Nomic 
> > which defines an object is changed, and another Nomic has recognized the 
> > rule, the other Nomic must be notified promptly.
>
> What if another Nomic wants, say, Big Sticks? They'd have to recognize B 
> Nomic Rule 301; that also includes Big Rocks, Sirens, Athames, Monoliths, 
> Radar, Bait, etc., not to mention also defining The Grid, Grid Squares, and 
> abilities of Players.

-They could choose to recognize section F.2. of B Nomic rule 301. "Objects 
may be traded between Nomics by first having both Nomics agree to recognize 
the rule /or section of a rule/ which defines each object."-
> Or what if something gets, say, Less is More'd out of its original rule? If 
> they'd adopted our Big Sticks before Big Sticks were moved to 301, they'd 
> be left with a rule stating that they adhere to a nonexistent rule of ours.
>
> That could cause problems...
-"If a rule in the ruleset of one Nomic which defines an object is changed, 
and another Nomic has recognized the rule, the other Nomic must be notified 
promptly."
> Also, this doesn't say anything about substantial changes - what stops 
> Nomicron or Agora from selling us objects they define, then suddenly 
> changing the definition of said objects to read, "if at any time a player 
> of a game possesses one of these, and the game e's in is called 'B Nomic', 
> then e, and all other players of that game, must forfeit all Nomic games 
> they play immediately."?
>
> All your rule says is that they have to notify us of the change; we'd still 
> have a rule declaring that we abide by their rule.

-We de-recognize the rule and go to war. Perhaps there should be a timer on 
that. Say, their rule changes don't affect us (and vice versa) for 5 days? 
Anyway, what was our Ambassador doing when they proposed that? E should have 
come screaming back to us immediately, don't you think?-
> > C.5.1.2. The Suber
> > There exists a unit of currency called the Suber. For any given Nomic, one 
> > Suber can be traded for a number of points (or the nearest equivalent, if 
> > and only if the Nomic in question does not have points as a method of 
> > scorekeeping/currency) equal to one ten thousandth the number of points 
> > (or equivalent unit) needed to win that game of Nomic. Prices of objects 
> > to be traded should be defined in Subers in the rules which define them. 
> > One Suber is also equivalent in value to one B Nomic Shilling, as defined 
> > at http://www.nomic.net/~g6/bykeyword.php?k=Score .
>
> Does that mean that 10000 BNS can be traded in for a win? And games without 
> score-based victory conditions have no use for Subers?
> This would cause some interesting effects in some Nomics... especially ones 
> like MacroNomic that have, or rather had, victory conditions based on the 
> accumulation of a scalar quantity, but not a score-based quantity... 
> (theirs was by 'Loyalty' to the ruling party).

-10000 BNS can't be traded for a win under our current ruleset; there's no 
exchange rate between BNS and points. And there's no exchange rate 
explicitly stated there, although some Nomics may choose to let their 
members trade Subers for points at their discretion. Such is not our 
business.-
> Better to have each Nomic define its own exchange rate, in terms of what 
> that Nomic has.
-Okay, then one B Nomic point is worth 10^10^10^10... Subers. There needs to 
be a rule for it, or inflation will get out of hand. Points are nearly 
universal. Maybe something could be added to the formula - like, say, the 
maximum points per turn. For example, in Nomicron, you can get up to 20 
points per turn (up to 10 for a prop plus up to 10 creativity bonus), 
whereas here... 5 Prose props in Haiku form is a maximum of 18 + 15 + 10 per 
proposal, that's 215 points in one turn... it's not likely, but it's been 
done. Although that's also inaccurate - no one ever does that. What about a 
formula which took into account the mean points for a passed proposal 
(ignoring frills like literary bonuses) and the number of days in a 
round/turn/nweek/etc.? So we figure how many they need, how many they get, 
and how fast.-
> > C.5.1.3. Use This Section
> > In order for a Nomic to have Ambassadors to other Nomics, that Nomic must 
> > have a rule or section of a rule which is functionally identical and which 
> > does not conflict in any way with Rule 625.C.5.1 and its subsections in 
> > the ruleset of B Nomic. Identical phrasing is advised, if possible. (The 
> > rule in question can be found at 
> > http://www.nomic.net/~g6/bykeyword.php?k=Minister .)
>
> Wouldn't that be a copyright violation? And what stops them from having 
> ambassadors if they don't have this section? Seems to me that it's just the 
> section they don't have.

-It's not a rule that defines an object, so it's okay. And if they don't 
have it, they don't trade with us, which is sad, but we'll get over it. And 
if they don't have it but do produce our stuff, we go to war. If we have a 
reasonable chance of winning.-

[[BvS]]

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss