From: owner-acka-research@wilma.che.utexas.edu (Ackanomic Research Digest) To: acka-research-digest Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #113 Reply-To: acka-research@wilma.che.utexas.edu Sender: owner-acka-research@wilma.che.utexas.edu Errors-To: owner-acka-research@wilma.che.utexas.edu Precedence: bulk Ackanomic Research Digest Friday, July 18 1997 Volume 02 : Number 113 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:53:36 -0900 From: Phil Ackley Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff >> I am hearby founding a new Organization, it's name is Fort Knocks. > >Is anyone gonna fix this loophole? I find it too amusing to fix, >personally. It seems we can either > >a) repeal the tax No. Like Malenkai says, tax loopholes seem like a cool thing to have. >b) define player wealth Possible, but it could get tricky. >c) tax all A$ owned by player-controlled and player-controlled-controlled >entities (I guess the latter would be the Synod) This is an option. Probably my favorite. >d) prevent orgs with less than 3 members. I don't like this. RexBank and GF mini storage seem to cool to git rid of. Also, There are possible uses for organizations that haven't opened up yet, or don't seem obvious, and I don't want my chance to get in on the ground floor of a growth industry to get taken away :) Mr. Lunatic Fringe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:17:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Aaron Humphrey Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2235 > [ Gist: removes all scorekeeping from the Parade rule. > > I received this note from Doktor Welch of the Institute last Friday: > > > Sadly, the Institute can no longer sponsor the Ackanomic Parades. > > Due to some messy legal and plumbing problems (unrelated), we must > > divert all our available funds to genetic research and malpractice > > insurance. > > Curious. *shrug* I guess that means it's back to cardboard cutouts > on wheels.] As the person most likely to become Scorekeeper, I would like to say that I would have no problem keeping points for Parades. It seems harmless enough. I will likely vote against this. And not just because I have the Great Trombone. :-) I would, however, vote for having more cardboard cutouts on wheels(with perhaps a lesser or nonexistent penalty). - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/) Current Album--The Beatles:Let It Be Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming Strike a match, stand well back. This boat's for burning. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:36:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Aaron Humphrey Subject: Acka: RFC: Tax Reform proposal Two Things Are Certain Amend Rule 666, "End of Cycle", by replacing the existing text of section e) {{[ e) If the amount of A$s in circulation plus the value of all extant Trinkets and Majiks exceeded the amount in the Treasury at the time this winner was declared, the following shall occur: 20% (round down) of each Player's A$ balance is transferred to the Treasury. The winner shall pay only 10% (round down), however. 20% (round down) of each Undead's A$ balance is transferred to the Treasury. ]}} with the following: e) If the amount of A$s in circulation plus the value of all extant Trinkets and Majiks exceeded the amount in the Treasury at the time this winner was declared, the following shall occur: the total wealth of each Player, Undead, and Player-created Organization(which will all be referred to for convenicence as "Players" in this clause) shall be calculated by adding the Player's A$ balance to the total value of all the trinkets e owns. The Tax payable by each player is 20% of eir total wealth(rounded down), except that the winner's Tax payable shall be only 10%. If a Player's Tax payable is greater than eir A$ balance, then the trinket in eir possession with the greatest value(or one of the trinkets with the greatest value chosen at random, if there is more than one)is destroyed and the value added to eir A$ balance; the procedure in this sentence is repeated until the Player's A$ balance exceeds eir Tax payable. At this point, A$ equal to each Player's Tax payable is transferred from each respective Player to the Treasury. I'm not 100% happy with this; I don't like the wanton destruction of Trinkets, for instance, and I think this makes this clause incredibly complicated(but I don't wnt to leave too many loopholes in it...). Maybe it should be moved out into a separate Rule which is referenced by R666. Also, is there some other situation where a player should be forced to liquidate a trinket when e owes to pay eir debts? Maybe that could be introduced elsewhere(in Rule 510, perhaps?). And it doesn't address the new player starting wealth at all, but there are other possibilities for that one... Suggestions on how to make this better are greatly welcomed. - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/) Current Album--The Beatles:Let It Be Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming I have nothing to say, and I am saying it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 01:50:23 -0400 From: Malenkai Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Tax Reform > And it doesn't address the new player starting wealth at all, but there > are other possibilities for that one... I think that is the most important thing. Starting new players at a disadvantage seems the most unfair thing the rules can do. Malenkai who was a newbie along time ago ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:55:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Aaron Humphrey Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Tax Reform > > And it doesn't address the new player starting wealth at all, but there > > are other possibilities for that one... > > I think that is the most important thing. Starting new players at > a disadvantage seems the most unfair thing the rules can do. Maybe it's time to go back to "A$900" as starting funds. > Malenkai > who was a newbie along time ago Can't imagine that now...but then, I don't feel like a newbie anymore, and haven't for a while now... - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/) Current Album--King Crimson:In The Wake of Poseidon Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming What would hypochondriac acid dissolve? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:50:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Aaron Humphrey Subject: Acka: RFC 2: Tax Reform Okay, I did all the hard work this time, putting the appropriate stuff into some rules in the 500's, so that the amendments to R666 are minimal but still effective. Comments extremely welcome. This will, of course, come too late for the end of _this_ Cycle...:-) proposal You notice you have no gold! --More-- Amend Rule 505, "Treasury And Ackadollars" by appending the following clause(delimited by DUAM XNAHT): DUAM XNAHT VI. Total Wealth: The Total Wealth of a Player, Undead, or Organization is defined as the sum of the total number of A it possesses plus the combined values of all trinkets in its possession. DUAM XNAHT Amend Rule 510, "Voluntary Debt Prohibited", as follows: First, replace "No player" with "No Player, Undead, or Organization (referred to hereafter in this Rule as 'player' for simplicity)" Then, append the following text(delimited by PRIRUTSENIE): PRIRUTSENIE Any time a Player owes money that is greater than the amount of A$ in eir possession, then the following procedure is followed: i) If the Player in question owns no Trinkets, the procedure ends. ii) The Player's Trinket with the largest value is donated to the Treasury, and the corresponding number of A$ is added to eir total. If there are multiple Trinkets which each have this largest value, then one is selected at random. iii) If the Player now has enough A$ to pay eir debt, the procedure ends. Otherwise, return to step i). A Player still cannot voluntarily make use of more A$ than e owns, even if e owns Trinkets which may be disposed of for cash; e must dispose of said Trinkets emself. PRIRUTSENIE Amend Rule 666, "End of Cycle", by replacing, in section e), each occurrence of "A$ balance is transferred to the Treasury" with "Total Wealth is owed to the Treasury". {{[ This is just a lazy way of doing it, and may not be a satisfactory phrasing. ]}} Amend Rule 261, "Zombie Master", by replacing "10% of their Ackadollars" with "10% of their Total Wealth". - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/) Song In My Head--The Beatles:I Dig A Pony Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming If you can't speak softly, just use the stick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:33:53 +0100 From: "Gavin Doig" Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff [snip] > I don't like this. RexBank and GF mini storage seem to cool to git rid of. [snip] > Mr. Lunatic Fringe > In recognition of your support, I present you with this special, one of a kind poster on behalf of all of me here at RexBank. #transfer Rex Mundi, Mr. Lunatic Fringe: RexBank promo poster. Rex Mundi. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:46:46 -0400 (EDT) From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote: > > I am hearby founding a new Organization, it's name is Fort Knocks. > > Is anyone gonna fix this loophole? I find it too amusing to fix, > personally. It seems we can either > > a) repeal the tax > b) define player wealth > c) tax all A$ owned by player-controlled and player-controlled-controlled > entities (I guess the latter would be the Synod) > d) prevent orgs with less than 3 members. > > Personally I like d), but don't really care much except for the newbie > money problem. Repealing the tax seems no fun, because tax loopholes > seem fun to have in the game. Hrm, funny how this would leave open the possibility to say, donate all of ones money to a Church one founded that actually has members, etc... There's more than one loophole here in my opinion, and they're pretty damn big loopholes, all of them. What if I'd buried my money as a treasure and then dug it up? The trinket escape doesn't work for taxes, but it does for most everything else. The list goes on and on. Basicaly, I think a total rewrite of the rules on money would be necessary before we can really have enforcable taxes and wealth based triggers and whatnot. > > Malenkai > hoping someone else fixes the loophole > - Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:51:03 -0600 (MDT) From: Aaron Humphrey Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff > Hrm, funny how this would leave open the possibility to say, donate all of > ones money to a Church one founded that actually has members, etc... > There's more than one loophole here in my opinion, and they're pretty damn > big loopholes, all of them. What if I'd buried my money as a treasure and > then dug it up? Then you get the Goose. I thought of doing that when I was planning on blowing myself up...I ended up just burying everything as treasures anyway, just for other people to dig up. > The trinket escape doesn't work for taxes, but it does > for most everything else. The list goes on and on. Basicaly, I think a > total rewrite of the rules on money would be necessary before we can > really have enforcable taxes and wealth based triggers and whatnot. Hopefully you will soon stumble upon the RFC's I submitted last night, which will at least count trinkets while taxing, and tax organizations so they get the same cut taken. - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/) Current Album--Counting Crows:August & Everything After Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming Mother Very Easily Made a Jam Sandwich Using No Peanuts, Mayonnaise or Glue. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:25:07 -0400 From: Malenkai Subject: Re: Acka: RFC 2: Tax Reform > The Total Wealth of a Player, Undead, or Organization is defined as the > sum of the total number of A it possesses plus the combined values of > all trinkets in its possession. Majiks should be included here too. As much as I dislike the cliche nomic thing to make everything OO, it would be simpler if Majiks were a derived class of trinket. As they are not, they must be included explicitly whereever they should be. Malenkai ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:10:01 EDT From: edg@juno.com Subject: Acka:Internomic stuff Nickolo Flychuck wrote: Vynd had a good suggestion, setting up an Institution specifically for the Internomic Interface, open membership. there would need to be a clause about what happens when the membership falls below a certain minumum. Let's say, for the sake of afgument that the minimum is 4 players, below that minimum I see three possibilities 1. the Senate votes 2. The Ambassador votes 3. a Joint Assembly of the new Institution and the Senate My prefference is for the third, but I could along with any of the others, whichever more players support. Niccolo Flychuck I also support Vynd's idea, and would be happy to join such an Institution. While I definitely have nothing against our fine Senate (having once been a Senator myself) I do like an idea that lets others participate when they wish.Regardless of one's Voting Status, Internomic is one area that allows for extremely little participation. :( I also support NF's third option; it allows those interested in Internomic to participate, even when there aren't enough to speak for all of Acka, while ensuring that Internomic activities are not at the mercy of only a couple of crackpots. BTW, it would also make a hostile takeover less likely. Votying Gnome ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:35:01 -0400 (EDT) From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka:Internomic stuff On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 edg@juno.com wrote: > Nickolo Flychuck wrote: > > Vynd had a good suggestion, setting up an Institution specifically for > the Internomic Interface, open membership. > there would need to be a clause about what happens when the membership > falls below a certain minumum. Let's say, for the sake of afgument that > the minimum is 4 players, below that minimum I see three possibilities > > 1. the Senate votes > 2. The Ambassador votes > 3. a Joint Assembly of the new Institution and the Senate > > My prefference is for the third, but I could along with any of the > others, > whichever more players support. > > Niccolo Flychuck > > > I also support Vynd's idea, and would be happy to join such an > Institution. While I definitely have nothing against our fine Senate > (having once been a Senator myself) I do like an idea that lets others > participate when they wish.Regardless of one's Voting Status, Internomic > is one area that allows for extremely little participation. :( > > I also support NF's third option; it allows those interested in > Internomic to participate, even when there aren't enough to speak for > all of Acka, while ensuring that Internomic activities are not at the > mercy of only a couple of crackpots. BTW, it would also make a hostile > takeover less likely. > > Votying Gnome > I just wanted to let everyone knwo that "Vynd's idea" can be considered public property. Don't worry about making me mad for "stealing" my idea if you write up a proposal using it. I'm glad everyone (well, a fw people) liked it so much. I don't have much time to spend on Acka right now though, so I have to restrict myself to the things I find most interesting. Since I'm more or less OK with our Internomic interface right now (which is not to say Id be against changing it) I leave it to those of you who have a beef to do all the actual work. =) - Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #113 ****************************************