[spoon-discuss] Market suggestions

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Orc in a Spacesuit
This sig has been ROT26 encrypted. Reading it is unlawful under the terms of 
the DMCA.

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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