Re: [spoon-discuss] Nomic relations

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/11/03 at 2:02 AM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>>>I said before that the proposed rule was too general, too vague, and
>tried
>>>to do too much with those general, vague terms.  Wonko, I think, has the
>>>same objections, but finds specific problems.
>>>
>>>I think the solution is to not try to build this giant structure with
>>>Subers and object limitations and such; instead, we should do each
>>>interaction with another nomic as a custom job.  Maybe trade a few items
>>>with one.  Maybe have interactions in another, not trading, but
>>>cause-effect things, like whenever Whoopass explodes here, it does
>>>something to another nomic.  Other stuff.  But each time it should be
>done
>>>with each nomic as a completly custom job.
>>>
>>>My 2¢.
>>>
>>>Orc in a Spacesuit
>>>
>>-I'm almost willing to agree, so keep talking. Just answer me one thing.
>>What happens when they steal our rules and make our stuff for next to
>>nothing, to spite us? Answer me that and I'll go over to your way of
>>thinking. Say "we crush them with great justice," and I'll pretend I
>never
>>suggested the idea in the first place.-
>>
>>[[BvS]]
>
>Well, what's to stop any nomic from looking at our ruleset, saying "ooh,
>those are cool!", and making a new rule that's like it?  And the fact that
>there is no single overarching authority (like a single unified ruleset)
>to
>govern such things, and such is damn impossible and/or wouldn't be agreed
>upon, opening up free-flowing commerce just doesn't seem to be something
>that'll work out too well.  I think that hammering out very specific rules
>in both nomics for each kind of interaction would be best; if they feel
>like
>"stealing" rules, they can, though if they set up rules specifically to
>trade Whoopass with us, I see little point -- we have rules defining the
>generation of Big Sticks, and whether these Sticks come from the nether or
>come from another nomic shouldn't be much an issue.
>
>If you're wanting a free-flowing commerce, that's another issue.  If you
>want to do that, then the only way to truly regulate it would be to create
>a
>new InterNomic, and have all everything -- points, Subers, objects,
>whatever
>-- be totally governed by this InterNomic, as its own objects.  It could,
>for example, have the rule "Any participant nomic may pay B Nomic 4 Subers
>to gain 1 Can of Whoopass."  Then, C-Nomic could have the rule "Whenever C
>Nomic gains possession of a Can of Whoopass in InterNomic, any player may
>purchase a Can of Whoopass in this nomic for 20 C-Notes."  We have our
>Cans,
>InterNomic has their own Cans, and C-Nomic has its own cans.  Heck,
>D-Nomic
>could even have "Whenever D-Nomic gains possession of a Can of Whoopass in
>InterNomic, all players become Flurbled and are moved to the Punishement
>Room".
>
>There's a lot to do with this.  But we either need to have each thing done
>real individually with each nomic, or get a central authority.

Middle ground: treaty groups, or trusts.  It's not necessary to unite all Nomics under a single org.  It might be sufficient to have either the one-to-one treaty relationships, or small groups of signatories to common treaties.

Ya know...if you want an independent currency, you could set up a blog somewhere, perhaps a treaty news blog or internomic news blog, and enter it into a site called www.blogshares.com, which is a sort of online game that trades in shares of blogs like shares of stock.  Issue X number of shares of the treaty blog, divide them up between treaty signers, and start from there.

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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