Glotmorf on Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:13:22 -0500 (CDT)

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

RE: [spoon-discuss] Re: viving the Nomic Market idea

On 22 Apr 2004 at 1:05, Bill Adlam wrote:

> Teucer wrote:
> > I was thinking it would be better to individually ban each item we
> > want to have as contraband.
> > 
> > Remember, also, that once something is an Export Good from another
> > Nomic, we've got an nweek to do something about it.
> > 
> > I don't object to your way of doing it, however. If this passes,
> > we'll probably have a while to tweak it before it hurts us.
> Your way, everyone has to constantly scan the export lists of all
> recognised Market Nomics for potentially disruptive items.  Given the
> sketchiness of your proposed descriptions, we'll also need to monitor
> the rulesets to get any grasp of what they actually do.  This is a
> large and unreasonable burden to place on the players, not to mention
> the Admin.
> This prop would more or less merge the rulesets of all participating
> Nomics, creating a morass of contradictory effects.  (For example,
> what if we export the GIPEC and then pass a Declaration Of Extreme
> Cleverness?  Both rulesets agree there is only one prize, but
> according to our rules it belongs to a B Nomic player, while in the
> other Nomic it belongs to someone else, who is allowed to transfer it
> to one of us.)  Worse, it allows destructive rules to escape from
> their natural habitat and infect other Nomics, potentially wiping out
> all of them.
> We would also be vulnerable to pranks or worse from other games.
> Suppose I buy a Potion Of Belching from Y Nomic and then, during our
> voting period, Y Nomic changes its Export List to say that a Potion Of
> Belching prevents any changes to the ruleset from occuring, and cannot
> be destroyed or transferred.  In the very unlikely event that one of
> us notices this obscure alteration immediately, we still can't do
> anything about it before it takes effect.  
> Another possibility is for Z Nomic to export a candy as a palatable
> confection, but for a brief period (perhaps only seconds) change its
> definition to a deadly poison that causes anyone possessing it to lose
> the game.  You take one from a stranger and then, one nweek after the
> change of recipe on the Z Nomic export list, you drop dead.  And when
> someone claims Z Nomic changed the description, how do we know whether
> e's telling the truth?
> In general, there is far too much scope here for accidental or
> malicious carnage.  We need a firewall, not an orgy of promiscuity.

What we really need is an ex post facto rule, that pretty much 
says an object carries with it the properties that existed on 
creation and/or trade.  That way, even though they may start 
producing New Ncoke tomorrow, we've still got the Old Ncoke we 
purchased today.


The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.

spoon-discuss mailing list