Create a new child of rule 6, "Tribunes" with the following PLEBIAN delimited text PLEBIAN The Tribunicate is a Political Office with two seats. The holder of one of these seats is known as a Tribune. It is a privilage of a Tribune to veto a public action which occurred within the preceding three days as a public action. A Tribune may veto the veto of another Tribune unless the vetoed action was performed by a Tribune [note that this prevents an infinate regress of vetoing]. When an action is vetoed any effects it had on the game are undone and the game proceeds as if it had not occurred. Tribunes are encouraged to use their powers only to prevent players from exploiting loopholes, flaws, or other mistakes in the rules. A Tribune's Term of Office expires when it has been two weeks since the last election of a Tribune. If a Tribune steps down from eir office than the other Tribune is immediately removed from that office as well, and new elections for the Tribunes are held; when this happens neither Tribune may be nominated for the office of Tribune during the next three weeks. PLEBIAN
Create a new child of rule 6, "Tribunes" with the following PLEBIAN delimited text PLEBIAN The Tribunicate is a Political Office with two seats. The holder of one of these seats is known as a Tribune. It is a privilage of a Tribune to veto a public action which occurred within the preceding three days as a public action. A Tribune may veto the veto of another Tribune unless the vetoed action was performed by a Tribune [note that this prevents an infinate regress of vetoing]. When an action is vetoed any effects it had on the game are undone and the game proceeds as if it had not occurred. Tribunes are encouraged to use their powers only to prevent players from exploiting loopholes, flaws, or other mistakes in the rules. A Tribune's Term of Office expires when it has been two weeks since the last election of a Tribune. If a Tribune steps down from eir office than the other Tribune is immediately removed from that office as well, and new elections for the Tribunes are held; when this happens neither Tribune may be nominated for the office of Tribune during the next three weeks. This rule takes precedence over all other rules. [I know it's a lot, but it's neccessary to enforce the rule.] PLEBIAN
Amend "If ever (a) more than 50% of all voting players have a rebelliousness characteristic of "on", (b) no Revolution is in progress, and (c) at least one Paradigm Type other than the current one and Anarchy exists,>and any player points this out publicly, then a Revolution shall begin." in ruel 1-7 to read "If ever (a) either more than 50% of all voting players have a rebelliousness characteristic of "on", or the same Paradigm has been active for the past consecutive month, (b) no Revolution is in progress, (c) at least one Paradigm Type other than the current one and Anarchy exists, and (d) any player points this out publicly, then a Revolution shall begin."
Create rule 7-17-2, reading as delimited by FISHY FISHY Cheesium is an element. Any player may create a nose-sack of Cheesium in eir possession by destroying a cheese e owns; this is a public action. FISHY
This is a Modest Proposal.
{{[This is a proposal to functionally reinstate Organisations in the
rules. The proposed structure defines one entity - the Institution,
which may own Institutional Powers which in turn effect how the
Institution operates.
The following Institutional Powers are also proposed:
Admissions Policies - roughly the same as before; they permit entities
to join.
Procedural Documents: - affect who can make a Suggestion to the
Institution
(similar to suggesting an organisational action)
Corporate Structure: - Group Approval is determined on the basis of
Share ownership
(same as the previous definition of corporations)
Funding Charter: -All of the Institution's Trades are handled by this
document
(if it has one)
Political Doctrine: - A Political Party with a fuzzy Unity vote.
Religious Dogma: - Just like Churches operate now.
Social Contract: - A Contract for an Institution
Chess Sponsorship: - Party Chess Backers by another name.
The proposed structure effectively permits ‘roll-your-own’
"Organisations" - A political Church, A Religious Corporate Trust Fund
etc….
I would like to ask those players who like the proposed implementation
but not some (or all) of the Institutional Powers that come with it, to
still vote for this proposal - they can always be amended or repealed
(right now even if your not afraid of a null proposal :-), but splitting
this into three or four different proposals would end up frobbing me out
for another week; since I'm bubbling over with ideas at the moment….
]}}
Create rule 16 titled "Institutions", with the following text:
"
Institutions are named, unownable, Trading, Intelligent entities.
Any player who is not a pseudo-Founder may publicly announce their
intent to form an Institution. By so doing they become a pseudo-Founder.
If during the following seven day period at least two other players
publicly announce that they wish to join the Institution the
pseudo-Founder intends to form, then the pseudo-Founder may form the
Institution by:
i) announcing its name,
ii) the names of its initial members (who must be the pseudo-Founder and
at least two of the players who have publicly announced their desire to
join) ,
iii) any Institutional Powers it will initially own, and any ancillary
information required to create those Powers.
iv) paying the standard harfer fee and any fees associated with the
creation of its initial Institutional Powers.
Upon doing so they cease to be a pseudo-Founder and the Institution is
created along with its initial Powers, if any. If a player has been a
pseudo-Founder for a contiguous seven day period then they cease to be
one.
An Institution is only permitted to perform those actions, or have those
behaviours or properties, which are permitted for all Institutions, or
which are accorded to it by the Institutional Powers it owns.
Institutions may only own tradeable entities which they are explicitly
permitted to by the rules. All Institutions may own A$ and Trinkets and
are permitted to perform any operations which are defined on any
entities it owns. If an Institution ever owns entities it is not
permitted to own, those entities become unowned.
When an Institution disbands or is disbanded:
a) each of its Institutional Powers are destroyed in the order in which
they are defined in the rules; then,
b) anything owned by the Institution becomes unowned; then,
c) the Institution is destroyed.
"
Create Rule 16-1 titled "Institutional Powers" with the text:
"
Unless specified otherwise, descendants of this rule define types of
Institutional Powers and shall only have an effect on those Institutions
which own an Institutional Power of that type.
Institutional powers are tradeable entities that may only be owned by
Institutions; this takes precedence over all rules regarding entity
ownership. Unowned Institutional Powers are automatically destroyed.
Unless specified otherwise, an Institution may create or destroy a
particular type of Institutional Power as an Institutional Action and by
paying the Standard Harfer Fee. An Institution may only own one
Institutional Power of each type. If it ever acquires more than one of a
particular type all but the most recently acquired one are destroyed.
Any Characteristics of an Institutional Power are considered to be
Characteristic of the Institution which owns it.
This rule defers to its descendants.
"
Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Admissions Policies", with the
following text:
"
An Admissions Policy is an Institutional Power which effects how an
entity may become a member of the Institution.
I. The following applies to all types of Institution, but defers to all
other Institutional Powers:
a) An intelligent entity may not be made a member of an Institution
without first having publicly requested membership.
b) A non intelligent entity may not become a member of an Institution.
c) An entity may always leave any Institution of which it is a member.
d) An entity must conform to all membership restrictions placed on the
Institution, to become a member. If an entity is ever a member of an
Institution in conflict with any restrictions on that Institution, it is
immediately removed from that Institution.
e) If an Institution has no members it is disbanded.
II. The following are different classes of Admissions Policy:
a) Standard: An entity may be made a member as an Institutional Action.
b) Open: An entity becomes a member upon request.
c) Privileged Faction: Any privileged member may grant membership to an
entity. Members may be made privileged with respect to this class as an
Institutional Action.
d) Quasi open: An entity becomes a member after three days, unless any
member refuses the entity admission during that time.
e) Communist Single Player: Any member may make an entity a member.
"
Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Procedural Documents" with the
text:
"
A Procedural Document is an Institutional Power which effects which
members are permitted to make a Suggestion to an Institution.
The following are different classes of Procedural Document:
a) Standard: Suggestions may be made by any member.
b) Privileged Faction: Only privileged members may make Suggestions.
Members may be made privileged with respect to this class as an
Institutional Action.
c) Group Leader: The group's leader may make Suggestions. Unless
specified otherwise, an Institution's group leader is the entity which
founded the Institution.
The following applies to all Institutions:
a) If it is ever the case that no member of an Institution is able to
make a Suggestion, then all active players are permitted to make
Suggestions.
b) If, after the application of a), there are still no members who may
make Suggestions, any member may make a Suggestion.
c) After an entity has made a Suggestion to an Institution, it is
attempted, subject to the group approval of the rest of the
Institution's members, who were also capable of making that Suggestion.
d) An Institution which does not own a Procedural Document receives a
Standard Procedural Document.
"
Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Corporate Structure" with the
text:
"
A Corporate Structure is an Institutional Power which determines
membership and Group Approval for its Institution.
A Corporate Structure has a Characteristic called its Portfolio Size
capable of taking any integral value between 1 and 100, with a default
value of 100. It may be modified as an Institutional Action and by
paying the Standard Harfer Fee. When a Corporate Structure as is
created, its initial Portfolio's size may be specified.
An Institution which owns a Corporate Structure may be referred to as a
Corporation.
I. Membership
a) When membership is granted in a Corporation, the new member shall be
issued with a number of Stock equal to the Corporation's Portfolio Size
by the Corporation.
b) At the time an Institution receives a Corporate Structure all members
of that institution are issued with a number of Stock equal to the
Corporation's Portfolio Size by the Corporation.
c) Those Intelligent Entities who own Stock in a Corporation are members
of that Corporation; all other entities are non members. The Treasury is
never a member of a Corporation.
d) A Corporation's Group Leader is the member who owns at least two
thirds of all Stock issued by it, if such a member exists.
II. Group Approval
Were the rules require Group Approval for an Institutional Action by a
Corporation, it shall be determined in the following way:
One week after a Suggestion is made, or when sufficient votes have been
made such that no additional votes would change the outcome, whichever
is sooner, the action is attempted if the majority of the votes cast on
it were FOR the Suggestion.
Unless the rules specify otherwise for a particular Suggestion, valid
votes on a Suggestion shall be either FOR or AGAINST.
III. Stock
Stock is an ownable, operable entity capable of casting one vote on any
Suggestion legally put to the Corporation which issued it. When it casts
its vote any prior votes made by it on that Suggestion are destroyed.
Whenever Stock is issued, it is created in the recipient's possession.
All types of Institution are permitted to own Stock.
A Corporation shall always accept any one sided trade made to it which
only involves Stock issued by it. A Corporation may not Operate any
Stock which was issued by it.
Voting is an Operation on a Stock which will cause it to vote in a
specified way on any specified Institutional Suggestion, provided that
the vote is appropriate and it is capable of voting on that Suggestion.
Unless specified otherwise the Operation shall occur on all of the
appropriate Stock owned by the entity.
When an entity makes a Suggestion to a Corporation, it automatically
Operates on all its Shares to vote FOR it.
IV. Ownership Restrictions
a) If no shares exist which have been issued by a Corporation, then its
Corporate Structure is destroyed.
b) If there exists a group of Institutions such that no entity other
than those Institutions owns any shares issued by any of any of the
Corporations in that group, then all of the Corporate Structures owned
by those Institutions are destroyed.
c) When an Institution ceases to own a Corporate Structure, all Stock
issued by it when it was a Corporation are destroyed.
"
Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Funding Charter" with the
following text:
"
A Funding Charter is an Un-tradeable Institutional Power which permits
its Institution to perform only those trades specified by it, upon
request.
An Institution which owns a Funding Charter is a Trust Fund. A Trust
Fund is not permitted to undertake Trades except as specified by its
Funding Charter. A Trust Fund may exist without members.
The Funding Charter's text must be specified at the time of creation,
after which it may not be altered. Any player may object to the text of
a Funding Charter. If to players do so, the Funding Charter is
destroyed.
A Funding Charter is permitted to cause its Trust Fund to offer and
accept trades, according to its text, whenever a player points out any
associated criteria have been met. A Trust Fund may own any tradeable
entity.
If ever it is impossible to determine what action (if any) a Funding
Charter takes or whether it takes an action at all, then the Funding
Charter is destroyed.
If a Trust Fund does not own any tradeable entities for which its
Funding Charter is capable of initiating a trade, then its Funding
Charter is destroyed.
"
Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Political Doctrine" with the
text:
"
A Political Doctrine is a Document and an Institutional Power.
An Institution may only create a Political Doctrine as an Institutional
Action and by paying ten times the Standard Harfer Fee. The text of the
Political Doctrine may be specified at the time of creation. The text of
a Political Doctrine shall have no effect, except as specified by the
rules, and may be altered as an Institutional Action and by paying the
Standard Harfer Fee.
An Institution which owns a Political Doctrine may be refereed to as a
Political Party.
For a voting player to be a member of more than one Political Party
simultaneously is the Crime of Branch-Stacking.
A Political Party is capable of casting a positive vote with a value
equal to or less than one hundred times the smallest Voting
Characteristic possessed by its members.
At the end of a proposal's voting period, but before votes on that
proposal are counted, if:
i) every voting player who is a member of a given Political Party voted
to accept that proposal, and
ii) no voting player who is a member of the Party is also a member of
some other Party, and
iii) the party has at least three voting players as members, then the
Political Party itself shall cast a vote equal to the lesser of:
a) the percentage that the total vote of its members represented of the
maximum total vote its members were capable of casting on that proposal,
multiplied by the number of voting players in the party
b) the maximum vote it is capable of casting.
"
Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Religious Dogma" with the text:
"
Religious Dogma is a Document and an Institutional Power. An Institution
which has a Religious Dogma is a Church, unless it has no Priests, or
(Heaven Forbid!) fewer than zero Priests, or fewer than four members, in
which case it is a Cult.
When a Religious Dogma is created, its text may be specified. Religious
Dogma may be modified as described by itself, or as an Institutional
Action. If ever it is impossible to determine the exact wording of a
Religious Dogma, then the Religious Dogma is amended to have no text at
all.
I. Religious Dogma is also permitted to:
i) define Seniority; if it doesn't then the most senior Priest will the
one who has been Priest for the longest duration of time, likewise for
standard membership.
ii) define alternative terminology for the Church specific terms defined
in this rule. Any terms that the Church intends to use in a public
forum, must be defined in Church Dogma. If undefined terminology is used
by Church members in a public forum, any player may publicly request the
Church to provide an explanation of that term. Members of the Church may
respond to this however they like, and any such response has the
official Ackanomic Seal of Politeness, regardless of how
brain-stoppingly offensive it is.
iii) define a code of conduct for its members. A member of a Church
which disobeys its Religious Dogma is guilty of Iconoclasm, which is a
Crime. It is impermissible for an Intelligent Entity to take a game
action which constitutes Iconoclasm if it has any legal alternative
which would not constitute Iconoclasm. [That is, Iconoclasm normally
doesn't happen unless there is no alternative. It is possible for a
player to commit Iconoclasm by inaction, though.]
Religious Dogma cannot prevent a member from leaving an Institution.
II. The Church Founder & The Priesthood
The player who Founded the Institution is the Church Founder and is
considered a Priest. In the absence of the Church Founder, the most
senior Priest will perform the duties, and have the authority of the
Church Founder, except for the power to ordain Priests. If the original
Church Founder is no longer a member of the Church, the most Senior
priest may become the new Church Founder after the following conditions
have been fulfilled:
(1) the Church has 5 or more Active members and 3 or more Priests .
(2) at least one of its Priests has already read, while being a Priest,
one of the Ackanomicon pages that refer to any of the following:
(a) the Arcane Lore
(b) Ancient Artefact
(c) Long Lost Treasure
(3) After (1) and (2) were completed the most Senior Priest publicly
stated: "Follow me all you members of <name>! Follow me and you will
never get lost in the darkness!", where <name> is the name of the
Church.
The Church Founder has the following powers:
i) ordain a member as a Priest
ii) defrock a Priest of their church (strip them of their Priestly
status)
iii) Excommunicate a member (expel then from the Church)
iv) delegate any of her duties or authorities to the Priesthood, except
those contained on this list.
A player may not become a member of a Church until they have fulfilled
all other requirements and public approval has been given by the Church
Founder.
Priesthood is relative to a particular Church; in other words, a player
may not be simply a Priest, but must be a Priest of a particular Church.
(It is possible for a player who is a member of two Churches to be a
Priest in one Church but not in another.) A Player may only be a Priest
of a Church if e has been Ordained a Priest of that Church since the
last time e joined that Church. Any Priest who leaves the a Church cease
to a Priest of that Church.
III. Membership
If a player is ever a member of more than three Churches at the same
time, she is removed from the Institution which most recently became a
Church or to which she most recently joined, whichever is the more
recent event.
"
{{A Church is an Institution. Each Church receives a Church Dogma and a
Group Leader Procedural Document. Rule 15-2 (Church) is repealed.}}
Amend Rule 15-3 (Social Contracts) by making it a child of 16-1 and
making it read in full:
"
A Social Contract is a type of Contract and an Institutional Power.
A Social Contract Differs from a standard Contract in the following
respects:
1. They are operable and may be modified as an operation.
2. All of the members of the Institution are considered to have signed
the contract. All other players are not signatories.
3. Expulsion from the Institution is permitted in the penalty clause.
4. A player may not voluntarily un-sign from it except by leaving the
Institution.
"
Amend Rule 12-8-5 (Backers) by making it a child of 16-1 and making it
read in full
"
A Sponsorship is an Institutional Power. An Institution which owns a
Sponsorship is known as a Sponsor.
A Sponsorship is associated with a Swingership (known as the sponsored
Swingership).
A Sponsor may perform a special type of Institutional Action, known as a
Support Payment. At the time a Support Payment is Suggested a positive
amount of A$ must also be specified A Support Payment is Financial
Obligation of the Sponsor and is a gift of the specified amount of A$ to
the player who controls the sponsored Swingership.
The player who controls the sponsored Swingership may request that the
Sponsor purchase a specific Party Chess Piece. Such a request is a
Financial Obligation of the Sponsor and when carried out will cause the
Sponsor to pay for the purchase of the specified Piece which is then
created in the Swingership's possession.
When a Sponsor does not own sufficient A$ to meet a Financial
Obligations, each member of the Sponsor shall transfer one Ackadollar,
if it has one, to the Sponsor until the Sponsor owns sufficient A$ to
fulfil its obligations. If, after the application of the previous
sentence, an Sponsor still does not own enough A$ to meet some
obligation, then it shall not meet that obligation.
If the sponsored Swingership is Warm, its Sponsor may transfer it to a
specified player as an Institutional Action.
"
Re-number Rule 1-2-6-1 (Group Approval) to 16-2
Create rule 16-3 titled "Unique Organisations" with the text:
"
Unique Organisations are Institutions which only own those Institutional
Powers which the rules specify them to own.
"
Re-number Rule 15-1 (Castes) to 16-3-1. [This automatically re-numbers
number Rule 15-1-1 (Grey Council) to 16-3-1-1].
Re-number Rule 15-2-1 (Prophets and Prophecies) to 16-4
Repeal Rule 15.This is a Modest Proposal.
{{[It occurred to me as DM, with the encroaching end of the month, to
determine which team of players has the greatest chance of success at
slaying the dragon. Turning to rule 1-99, I see that the process of
Defeating this vile and pernicious Evil is called a Characteristic Test.
Searching for the rule that defines Characteristic Test turns up
nothing. Similarly a search for the repeal of rule 451 or 4-4-1 in the
proposal archive between P3539 (last known modification) and P4013 also
turns up nothing. It was also known to exist at 27 Dec 1998 15:40:21
when CSR 168 re-numbered it to 4-4-1. So where is it? Assuming that my
searches are correct rule 4-4-1 is titled "Characteristic Tests" and
some rule in the 99s (99-1 prolly) is titled "Proposal Rights". Since
its been more than two weeks, its prolly more likely that "Proposal
Rights" was erroneously given the number 4-4-1 and that we now have two
rules with that number.... oh well :-)
Anyway on to the main purpose of this dissertation - using many and
various arcane mathematical procedures I have determined that the
probability of the knight most likely to beat the Dragon in combination
with the horse most likely to beat the dragon (rufus on rufus) is a
stunning 0.1%. intrigued I delved further and determined that it the
Dragon were to ride itself to fight itself (prolly by dodging its wild
blows before stabbing itself to death) it would have a 3% chance of
success. Two maxed out players (all stats 18) have a 6% chance. After
the rufus/rufus combination we have the rAtF/ThinMan combo at 0.01%,
ThinMan/rAtF at 0.004%, skipping down the list - K 2 on a default horse
at 0.0005% and my personal favourite IdiotBoy riding IdiotBoy at a
stunning 0.000003% :-)
This proposal gives the hero's of Ackanomic a bit of a leg up; giving
our current best (but unfortunately illegal) team of rufus on rufus a
chance of 35% and RAtF on rufus a chance of 34% (other probabilities
available upon request).
]}}
{{[Fixing the Dragon]}}
Amend Rule 1-99 (The Dragon) by:
A. replacing list items 2) & 3) with the following text:
"
2) Characteristic tests are performed. For the duration of each of the
tests the Knight's BPCs are increased by half of the Horse's and vice
versa. In order, the tests are:
The Knight's Intelligence vs. Dragon's
The Horse's Constitution vs. Dragon's
The Knight's Strength vs. Dragon's
The Horse's Wisdom vs. Dragon's
If any of these tests failed, than the attack fails, other wise it
succeeds.
3) If the attack fails, the Dragon breaths on the Team and both the
Knight and the Horse are transported to the Ackanomic After-Life and
have eir score set to -10.
"
B. Deleting list item 4).
{{[Fixing Characteristic Tests]}}
Repeal the rule entitled "Characteristic Tests".
Create a new rule as a decedent of Rule 4-4 with the title
"Characteristic Tests" and the text:
"
Other rules may call for a test of a characteristic. A test of a
characteristic is only valid if all objects to be tested contain the
characteristic to be tested, and if the
characteristic is defined as Testable.
For each object to be tested, a Characteristic Roll is performed. A
Characteristic Roll is defined as a random number generated such that it
has the same distribution
as that characteristic. [For instance to generate a characteristic roll
for Strength one would use 3d6].
For each object the Characteristic Roll is compared subtracted from the
Characteristic Value. The resulting number is the Test Value.
The object with the highest Test Value is declared to have won the test.
"{{two-star is removed from vacation}}Blest Lax Monk Pal is placed on vacation.
Wibble.
{{ Renumber to 13-2-2. }}
When this Paradigm Type is active, normal precedence rules are suspended.
Instead, when two Rules conflict, the Rule with more verbs shall take
precedence. If there is any confusion about which constructs within a
Rule qualify under the previous sentence, the Evil Grammar Troll shall
arbitrate the dispute. If there is no Evil Grammar Troll the
responsibility shall fall on the Speaker. In the case of a tie in the
number of verbs, precedence goes to the the Rule with more fricatives.
Each time this Paradigm Type becomes active, replace each occurrence of
"verbs" in this Rule with a randomly chosen semicolon-delimited part of
speech or lexical construct from the SCHUBERT-delimited list below,
appropriately capitalized if necessary.
SCHUBERT
verbs; nouns; prepositions; adverbs; subordinate clauses; zeugma; Boolean
operators; homonyms; mispellings; silent letters; words derived from
Algonquin; semicolons; paragraphs; amendments; letters which represent a
digit in base 23; words which do not exist in the Official Dictionary;
SCHUBERT
Words may be added to, but not deleted from, the SCHUBERT-delimited list
above by CSR. If an entry is ever duplicated, its second occurrence shall
be deleted.
When this Paradigm Type is active, this Rule takes precedence over any
Rule which would attempt to establish precedence otherwise. And it has
the verbs to prove it.
{{ Renumber as a child of the Paradigms Rule Suite. }}
{{Renumber this rule 13-2-1}}
All players with the string "ldca" in their names gain a winning
condition.
Only one winning condition may ever be gained by means of this rule.
This is a Modest Proposal
{{[My previous calcs where a little in error. The new scheme will make
things more likely (~30% for a good team against the current dragon)]}}
{{[Fixing the Dragon]}}
Amend Rule 1-99 (The Dragon) by:
A. replacing list items 2) & 3) with the following text:
"
2) Characteristic tests are performed. For the duration of each of the
tests the Knight's BPCs are increased by an amount equal to the Horse's
and vice
versa. In order, the tests are:
The Knight's Intelligence vs. Dragon's
The Horse's Constitution vs. Dragon's
The Knight's Strength vs. Dragon's
The Horse's Wisdom vs. Dragon's
If any of these tests failed, then the attack fails, other wise it
succeeds.
3) If the attack fails, the Dragon breaths on the Team and both the
Knight and the Horse are transported to the Ackanomic After-Life and
have eir score set to -10.
"
B. Deleting list item 4).
{{[Fixing Characteristic Tests]}}
Renumber the rule entitled "Characteristic Tests" as a decedent of Rule
4-4 and make it unassailable
{{
[These rules we could live without for a while]
The following rules lose their unassailability:
1-8 (Retractions)
1-99 (The Dragon)
6-20-1 (SHF)
[Losing these rules would either generate work for another officer or
create fundamental problems]
The following rules become unassailable:
2-1-3 (Substantially Similar Proposals)
3-6 (Criminal Justice) [How else can we remove players who register
under multiple names etc]
4-4-2 (Basic Player Characteristics) [No rule defining Characteristics
makes rescue a hubert situation]
5 (Hearings) [Crisis resolution documents are reliant on this for anti
scam]
6-3 (Offices, Impeachment)
6-5-1 (President) [Functional office re-assignment]
7-4 (Points) [Hubert Scam]
[The officers who fill these duties would more than likely continue to
fulfil eir duties - so what's the point of having em kidnapped rather
than some other rule?]
6-4-4 (Rule-Harfer)
6-4-5 (Financier and Free Market)
6-4-6 (Scorekeeper)
6-4-9 (Count Tabula) [Default Hearing Harfer and Election runner]
6-4-15 (Trinket-Harfer)
6-4-19 (Dungeon Master) [Default Characteristic Tracker]
}}
This is a modest proposal.
{{[Without quorum AWOL players are not were near as deadly to the game
state as before; possibly only effecting revolutions.... This proposal
gives non-officers two weeks to perform a game action and seven days of
vacation, it also prevents continual AWOL declarations]}}
Amend Rule 4-3 (No Dead Players Allowed) by retitle it "Far Out" and
making it read in full:
"
Any active player who has not performed a game action within the last
fourteen days (seven if they are an officer) is Off in Fairy Land. If
the speaker is made aware that a player is Off in Fairy Land, then the
Speaker shall ask that player if they wish to continue playing. For the
purposes of this rule, responding to such a request is considered a game
action. If the player does not respond within 3 days, their location is
changed to Fairy Land.
As soon as it is publicly knowable that a player who is Off in Fairy
Land wishes to continue play, they cease to be Off in Fairy Land and are
said to have Come Down To Earth. If a player indicates that e wishes to
leave the game, then e may be removed from the game by the Speaker
making this known, in which case they are removed from the game.
If the Speaker is Off in Fairy Land, however, and this fact is pointed
out publicly, the Speaker has 3 days to respond or their location is
changed to Fairy Land.
"
Create a new rule as a decedent of rule 10-1 (Locations) with the title
"Fairy Land":
"
Fairy Land is a strange and mystical location. It is full of bright
flashing lights and spaced out players. No one is certain exactly were
Fairy Land is, thus it is not possible for a player to voluntarily move
to Fairy Land, although eating or smoking certain mushrooms and herbs
common to Ackanomic may make it possible.
Players who are in Fairy Land are always considered to be On Vacation,
unless they are On Ice. A player who performs a game action while in
Fairy Land wakes up on the Town Hall steps naked and quite possibly with
a hangover.
Unfortunately Players have been known to occasionally eat a few too many
mushrooms in order to prolong their stay. Such experiments can have
chilling effects. A player who has been in Fairly Land continuously for
seven days goes On Ice. Office bearers have a much lower tolerance for
the sacred mushroom and go On Ice after only three days. Players who
have not prepared themselves for the experience by voting, go On Ice
immediately upon arrival.
"
This is a Modest Proposal.
Amend Rule 2-1 (Voting on Proposals) by replacing the fourth paragraph
which reads:
"
A proposal's Acceptance Index is the sum of all votes legally cast
within its prescribed voting period. A proposal's Acceptance Threshold
is 0, unless changed as described in the rules.
"
with:
"
A proposal's Acceptance Index is the sum of all positive votes, plus 1.5
times the sum of all negative votes. Only those votes legally cast
within its prescribed voting period are considered. A proposal's
Acceptance Threshold is 0, unless changed as described in the rules.
"
{{[ This effectively sets the pass mark to 60% of the yes/no vote (if we
were in a system of fixed vote values)
yX+1.5*n(-X) = 0
yX = 1.5*nX
y = 1.5*n
y/(y+n) = 1.5n/(1.5n+n)
= 1.5/2.5
= 0.6
where X is the value of the fixed vote
y is the number of YES votes
n is the number of NO votes
Apologies to those who would prefer 55%; Fact is there aren't many
proposals that reach 55% but not 60%, so the difference is minimal.
]}}
{{[K 2 for Evil Math Troll]}}
This is a Modest Proposal
{{[Fixing Characteristic Tests]}}
Renumber the rule entitled "Characteristic Tests" as a decedent of Rule
4-4 and make it unassailable
{{
[These rules we could live without for a while]
The following rules lose their unassailability:
1-8 (Retractions)
1-99 (The Dragon)
6-20-1 (SHF)
[Losing these rules would either generate work for another officer or
create fundamental problems]
The following rules become unassailable:
2-1-3 (Substantially Similar Proposals)
3-6 (Criminal Justice) [How else can we remove players who register
under multiple names etc]
4-4-2 (Basic Player Characteristics) [No rule defining Characteristics
makes rescue a hubert situation]
5 (Hearings) [Crisis resolution documents are reliant on this for anti
scam]
6-3 (Offices, Impeachment)
6-5-1 (President) [Functional office re-assignment]
7-4 (Points) [Hubert Scam]
[The officers who fill these duties would more than likely continue to
fulfil eir duties - so what's the point of having em kidnapped rather
than some other rule?]
6-4-4 (Rule-Harfer)
6-4-5 (Financier and Free Market)
6-4-6 (Scorekeeper)
6-4-9 (Count Tabula) [Default Hearing Harfer and Election runner]
6-4-15 (Trinket-Harfer)
6-4-19 (Dungeon Master) [Default Characteristic Tracker]
}}
Amend rule 3-4-2 to read " Whenever the Rules call for the Supreme Court to consider a CFJ for the= first time, the Clerk of the Courts shall assign that CFJ to a Supreme= Cortex. A Supreme Cortex exists only for the purpose of judging a single= case, although there may be multiple Cortices with overlapping or identical= memberships. A Supreme Cortex has two members, who are refered to as= owning the Cortex. A member of the Supreme Court may decline a case which= has been appealed as a public action. If a member of the Supreme Court= declines a case which has already been assigned to em, then a new Cortex is= selected. =20 The CotC shall select two players for the Supreme Cortex (hereafter Cortex)= based on the following guidelines: 1) All active members of the Supreme Court are considered to be in the pool= of candidates 2) Any player who has declined the case is removed from the pool 3) Any player who is named as a defendant is removed from the pool 4) Any player who made the case initially is removed from the pool 5) Any player who appealed the case is removed from the pool 6) Any member of the Supreme Court considering more cases than any other= player in the pool is removed from the pool 7) Two players are randomly selected from the pool if possible 8) If there are fewer than two players in the pool, players are added as= follows until there are enough players in the pool to complete the cortex= (if at any time there should be more players in the pool than are needed to= complete the cortex, a random selection is made among them and the process = stops): 8a) The member or members of the Supreme Court who were removed from the= pool in step 6, not returned in step 8a, and are considering fewer cases= than any other member of the Supreme Court removed during step 6 and not= returned during step 8a are returned to the pool. 8b) Repeat step 8a until all players removed from the pool in step 6 are re= turned 8c) Return the players removed in step 5, then 4, then 3, in that order 8d) If there are still not enough players in the pool then the case is= considered by the entire Supreme Court If the Rules direct the Supreme Court to consider a given CFJ for a second= time, the entire Court shall consider the matter (as opposed to a single Co= rtex). " Repeal rule 3-4-1 are renumber 3-4-2 to 3-4-1 Remove section VI from rule 3-4
Amend rule 3-4-2 to read " Whenever the Rules call for the Supreme Court to consider a CFJ for the first time, the Clerk of the Courts shall assign that CFJ to a Supreme Cortex. A Supreme Cortex exists only for the purpose of judging a single case, although there may be multiple Cortices with overlapping or identical memberships. A Supreme Cortex has two members, who are refered to as owning the Cortex. A member of the Supreme Court may decline a case which has been appealed as a public action. If a member of the Supreme Court declines a case which has already been assigned to em, then a new Cortex is selected. The CotC shall select two players for the Supreme Cortex (hereafter Cortex) based on the following guidelines: 1) All active members of the Supreme Court are considered to be in the pool of candidates 2) Any player who has declined the case is removed from the pool 3) Any player who is named as a defendant is removed from the pool 4) Any player who made the case initially is removed from the pool 5) Any player who appealed the case is removed from the pool 6) Any member of the Supreme Court considering more cases than any other player in the pool is removed from the pool 7) Two players are randomly selected from the pool if possible 8) If there are fewer than two players in the pool, players are added as follows until there are enough players in the pool to complete the cortex (if at any time there should be more players in the pool than are needed to complete the cortex, a random selection is made among them and the process stops): 8a) The member or members of the Supreme Court who were removed from the pool in step 6, not returned in step 8a, and are considering fewer cases than any other member of the Supreme Court removed during step 6 and not returned during step 8a are returned to the pool. 8b) Repeat step 8a until all players removed from the pool in step 6 are returned 8c) Return the players removed in step 5, then 4, then 3, in that order 8d) If there are still not enough players in the pool then the case is considered by the entire Supreme Court If the Rules direct the Supreme Court to consider a given CFJ for a second time, the entire Court shall consider the matter (as opposed to a single Cortex). " Repeal rule 3-4-1 are renumber 3-4-2 to 3-4-1 Remove section VI from rule 3-4
This is a modest proposal.
Amend rule 2-2, "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported",
by changing section VI, "Boring Proposals", to read
"A proposal is Boring if and only if the majority of votes cast on it,
ignoring votes of exactly 60 or -60, were between -59 and 59 inclusive.
The above provisions notwithstanding, no points are scored by any player
as a result of a Boring proposal being accepted or rejected."
{{[ This makes proposals less likely to be boring than what we have now,
which makes far too many proposals boring. Now, you will have to have
more <60 votes than >60 votes for a proposal to be boring. This would have
made Proposals 4069, 4070, 4071, 4074, and 4079 boring, but none of the
others since we changed the definition of boring. ]}}
{{[ Also, this reinstates the no-scoring-for-boring-props to the rules.
I think it is actually still there, and has just been harfed incorrectly;
P4053 specified the entire text of this section, and P4062 changed the
first sentence, and nothing touched it since then, but the second sentence
does not appear in the rules on the web. ]}}
I. Repeal R15-1-1 "Grey Council" II. In R1-6-1 "Player Names" remove the string "or any Grey Councillor" and remove the string "nor any Grey Councillor" III. In R6-5-2 remove the string " Within the first two weeks of eir Justicehood, the Grey Council may, as an organizational action, remove the appointee from office"
Amend Rule 1-2, "Conventions", by changing "mean the mean" to
"mean the unweighted arithmetic mean".
{{[ This refers to the definition of an average. Somebody thought that
"average" used elsewhere in the rules wasn't clear enough, but the
proposal that added this section to the rule only made it worse, since
the "average" almost exclusively refers to the arithmetic mean, but in rare
cases a weighted average, while the "mean", a more mathematically-oriented
term, may refer to harmonic, geometric, root-mean-square, and other power
means, all of them possibly weighted. If we're going to bother to define
this, at least do it right. ]}}
Amend Rule 1-2-9, "Colours", by putting the list of colors into
alphabetical order (if it is not already so), then adding the
following colors to the list so that they appear in alphabetical
order: tan, hazel, khaki, topaz, auburn, bronze, violet, amethyst,
ruby, coral, salmon, cream, ivory.
Amend Rule 1-6-1-1, "True Names", by changing "players" to "player's" in
the second paragraph and in the section labeled "a)".
Modiffy rule 6-4-3 by deleting the text: "c) To seek and appoint Assistant Web-Harfers (who must be volunteers) to help keep the Ackanomic WWW page up-to-date. [This mainly would be, for example, putting an assistant in charge of the CFJ portion of the page.] " Create a new rule called "Assistant Officers" numbered 6-2-1 reading as follows: "Any officer may, as a privilege of office which is permitted for acting officers, as a public action appoint any player as an acting officer for eir office (e.g. the web harfer may appoint someone assistant web harfer, the registrar may appoint an assistant registrar, etc.) providing the appointed player is willing (and posts acceptance within three days). An officer is considered to have performed a duty if either e or any of the assistant officers of that office have performed this duty."
All players who have had 5 or more different Ackanmoic names in the history of the game achieve a winning condition.
Repeal R16-1 "Institutional Powers" Repeal R16-1-1 "Admissions Policies" Repeal R16-1-2 "Procedural Documents" Repeal R16-1-3 "Corporate Structure" Repeal R16-1-4 "Funding Charter" Repeal R16-1-5 "Political Doctrine" Repeal R16-1-6 "Religious Dogma" Repeal R16-1-7 "Social Contracts" Repeal R16-2 "Group Approval" Repeal R16-3 "Unique Organizations" Repeal R16-3-1 "Castes" Repeal R16-3 "Prophets and Prophecies"
Repeal Rule 1-2-8-3, "I'm a Teapot".
Repeal Rule 1-7-7, "Paradigm Type: Puppet Dictatorship"
In Rule 4, "Players and Player States", change "rues" to "rules" wherever
it appears.
Repeal Rule 8-8, "Winning is pretty harfy (Winning by doing a lot of stuff)".
The text of Rule 10-1-2-1-1, "Dogver and Ratver", is appended to the end of
Rule 1-2, "Conventions", as a new section, preceded by a roman numeral one
greater than that of the previous section, and the word "Ackanomicon" in
this new section is replaced by "Ackanomic". Rule 10-1-2-1-1 is repealed.
Repeal rule 10-1-9, "The Ackanomic Printing Guild". The Ackanomic Printing
Guild (the building) is destroyed.
{{[Enough buildings already!]}}
Repeal rule 10-1-12, "Ackanomic University". Ackanomic University (the
building) is destroyed.
{{[Enough buildings already!!!]}}
In Rule 12-3, "General Equipment", in section III, change
"ftp://sable.ox.ac.uk/pub/wordlists/dictionaries/Unabr.dict.Z" to
"ftp://sable.ox.ac.uk/pub/wordlists/dictionaries/Unabr.dict.gz"
{{[I'm sure I fixed this once, but it is still wrong]}}
In Rule 12-3, "General Equipment", in section VI, delete
"a) wilma.che.utexas.edu, port 9942" and relabel section b) as section a).
Repeal Rule 12-4-1-2, "Spades", and Rule 12-4-2-1, "Eleusis".
{{[These games take tooooooooo long to play by e-mail.]}}
Rule 5-4, "snowgod's Disease", becomes an Excellent rule, then immediately
afterwards it is repealed.
Repeal rule 6-5-4, "Historian". The Historian (if there is one) is removed
from that office. The office of Historian is destroyed. In Rule 8-2-4,
"Commission D'Arts", replace "Historian" with "Dean" wherever it appears.
In Rule 10-1-2, "Library", delete the sentence containing the word
"Historian". In Rule 10-1-4, "Hall of Elders", replace "Historian" with
"Speaker".
Create rule 42-23 named "Posthumous Degree Awarded" with the following,
HISTORY-delimited text:
HISTORY
{{The text of the article "The History of Ackanomic", an HTML-ized
version of which is still available at
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/acka/hist/hist.html,
becomes an accepted Thesis of type History, and Elder breadbox receives
a degree in the major History. This takes precedence over any rule
which would prohibit breadbox from receiving this award.}}
HISTORY
{{[If anybody else wants to write a history, they can do so as a thesis.]}}
The rules of Ackanomic are reset to the state they were in at midnight on the 1st of December, 1998.
Repeal rule 867-5309.
{{[
Rule 6-2-1 appears to have some problems. First, it gets confused between
acting and assistant officers. Perhaps the misspelling rule would clean
that bit up, but it still should be fixed. Second, the rule makes no
provision for getting rid of assistants, or for assistants quitting. Third,
the mechanics are a bit loosey-goosey. This proposal is nothing
revolutionary, it just rewrites the rule in question in a way that I think
addresses the problems without changing the idea.
]}}
Amend rule 6-2-1 (Assistant Officers) by replacing the entire text with
the following MU-delimited text:
MU
An officer is considered to have performed a duty if either he or any
assistant officer for that office has performed that duty.
Any officer may, as a privilege of office which is permitted for acting
officers, appoint any player eligible to hold that office as an assistant
officer for that office. (E.g. the Web Harfer may appoint someone
assistant Web Harfer.) The player so appointed becomes an assistant officer
for that office upon publicly accepting the appointment within three days.
Any officer may, as a privilege of office which is permitted for acting
officers, dismiss any assistant officer for that office. (E.g. the Spelling
Exchequer may dismiss any assistant Spelling Exchequer.) The assistant so
dismissed immediately ceases to be an assistant officer for that office,
but no other assistant officer positions he may hold are affected.
An assistant officer may resign from any or all of his assistant officer
positions at any time. Upon resigning from an assistant officer position
for a particular office, a player ceases to be an assistant officer for
that office.
All appointments, dismissals, and resignations described by this rule are
accomplished as public actions. Players may not become or cease to be
assistant officers except as described by this rule.
MU
This is a modest proposal. Append the following text to the end of rule 7-18 (Spiro Agnew: Grow a WHAT?!?): "No player may take possesion of the The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really if e has used it during the last 28 days."
If two proposals currently in the proposal queue would have identical effects on the game state if passed, or a CFJ finds them to be substantially similar, then the later of the two to be submitted shall be deemed invalid and removed from voting consideration.
Create rule 6-2-2, "Election Crimes" with the following NAUGHTY-delimited text NAUGHTY It is the Crime of Wishy-Washyness for a player who has been nominated for an office for which elections are currently being held to publicly suggest that they do not want players to vote for em, or to publicly support another candidate for the same office. (E may still vote for another candidate) NAUGHTY
If there is no rule 6-2-2, create one, name it "Election Crimes", and give it the following NAUGHTY-delimited next. If there is a rule 6-2-2, append the following NAUGHTY-delimited text to it. NAUGHTY It is the Crime of FDRism to nominate for the office of President a player who has already held it for three consecutive terms. The penalty for FDRism may not include removal from the office of the President; this sentence takes precedence over any rule with which it disagrees. NAUGHTY
Lottery Tickets are tradeable entities.
Winning Tickets are tradeable entities.
{{All Lottery Tickets and Winning Tickets are destroyed.}}
Players may purchase lottery tickets at a cost of A$10 each.
Every Monday at 11:59 am, all Winning Tickets are destroyed.
Every Monday at noon the Grand Ackanomic Lottery is drawn, by choosing
five tickets at random with equal probabilities. If fewer than five
tickets exist at the time of the lottery, then all tickets are chosen.
All chosen tickets become Winning Tickets.
Any player may convert a Winning Ticket into either 25 points or a Random
Boon of the Ancients as a public action.
Create rule 6-2-2, "Election Crimes" (or if such a rule already exists create rule 6-2-2-1, "Further Election Crimes") with the following NAUGHTY-delimited text NAUGHTY It is the crime of Undue Silliness to vote in an election for a candidate who has publicly stated e does not wish people to vote for em. NAUGHTY
Should a nominee for an Office ever be duly elected to said Office after
posting a public message in which e withdraws emself from the
current Election, eir hold on that Office shall thereafter become
permanent; i.e. e shall never again by any manner be able to abdicate from
eir seat in that Office, even by leaving Ackanomic. This Rule takes
precedence over other Rules where necessary.
{{ Renumber so the precedence above would actually work. }}
Create rule 16-1, "Spheres" with the following CUBOIDAL delimited text. CUBOIDAL A Spherical Rator is an institutional power. There is no additional cost for buying a Spherical Rator, however a Rator may not be created except as part of a newly created Institution. Spherical Rators are not tradeable. Spherical Rators are either glowing or dim. An Institution which owns a Glowing Spherical Rator is known as a Sphere of Influence. The members of an Institution which owns a Spherical Rator may, by unanimous public support, admit a player who has publicly asked to join the Institution. A player may leave an Institution which owns a Spherical Rator as a public action. A Spherical Rator is Glowing if the Institution which owns it has three or more players, otherwise it is Dim. A subcommittee is a Sphere of Influence which has been selected by a player as the subcommittee for one of eir proposals. It is the Crime of Branch Stacking to be a member of more than one Sphere of Influence. If an Institution owns both a Spherical Rator and any other Institutional Power than the Spherical Rator is instantly destroyed. CUBOIDAL After the first sentence of rule 2, add "If there is at least one Sphere of Influence in existance, the submitter must specify a Sphere of Influence as the subcommittee of the proposal or the proposal is invalid." In rule 2, replace "The proposal is then accepted if the proposal's Acceptance Index exceeds its Acceptance Threshold." with "If the Subcommittee Acceptance Index exceeds its Subcomittee Acceptance Threshold then the proposal is considered to have passed in subcommittee. Otherwise it is rejected in subcommittee. A proposal is rejected in subcommittee if its subcommittee is no longer a Sphere of Influence at the end of the proposal's voting period. If the proposal does not have a subcommittee than it is treated as automatically being passed in subcommittee. If the proposal passes in subcommittee and its Acceptance Index exceeds its Acceptance Threshold then it is accepted. Otherwise it is rejected." In rule 2-1, insert after the second-to-last paragraph "A proposal's Subcommittee Acceptance Index is the sum of all positive votes cast by members of the proposal's subcommittee, plus 1.5 times the sum of all negative votes cast by the same subcommittee. Only those votes legally cast within its prescribed voting period are considered. A proposal's Subcommittee Acceptance Threshold is 0, unless changed as described in the rules. Amend section III of rule 2-2 to read "If a Grandiose proposal is accepted, the player who proposed it receives 10 points. If a proposal which is neither Modest nor Grandiose is accepted, the player who proposed it receives 5 points. If a Modest proposal is rejected, the player who proposed it loses 4 points. If a Grandiose proposal is rejected, the player who proposed it loses 12 points. If a proposal which is neither Modest nor Grandiose is rejected, the player who proposed it loses 7 points. A proposal can only be declared to be Modest or Grandiose as defined by the Rules." In rule 2-2, insert a new section IV with the following ROUNDSCORING delimited text, and renumber the subsequent rules accordingly. ROUNDSCORING Each time a proposal passes in subcommittee, that Sphere of Influence's Generosity increases by one. Each time a proposal is rejected in subcommittee, that Sphere of Influence's Generosity decreases by one. Each time a proposal which has a subcommittee is accepted or rejected, if the subcommittee is a Sphere of Influence, all members of the Sphere receive 2 points. When a proposal with a subcommittee is accepted, the player who proposed it receives 3 points for each Sphere of Influence with a higher Generosity than the subcommittee on that proposal. When a proposal with a subcommittee is rejected, the player who proposed it loses 2 point for each Sphere of Influence with a lower Generosity than the subcommittee on that proposal. ROUNDSCORING "
{{[Party Chess has been on hold for a long time, and the current position
look more like a random starting setup, than a mid-game position.
Also, pieces are now so abundant, that the prices set for pieces way back,
are too low. The make up of individual armies is still affected by the
original sets to some degree. This proposal set out to do a couple of
things: clear the board. Destroy all existing pieces, with the exception
of Kings, and refund the Swingers. Destroy all existing Stabber's knives.
Raise the cost of pieces. If the game kicks off again, and peopel are
interested, I'll propose the multi-board proposal I RFCed a while back]]}
{{
I. All Party Chess Pieces are removed from the Party Board. That
is - they become off-board pieces, without changing ownership.
II. Each Party Chess Piece which is not a King is detroyed.
Upon its destruction, the Swinger who controlled the piece
just prior to its destruction, receives a number of A$ equal
to 1+7*M, where M is the material value of the destroyed
piece.
III. All Stabber's Knives are destroyed.
IV. In R12-8-1 "Swingers Play Around I - the board and the
playing pieces", ammend section 2E to read in full:
"
A player or an Institution may create a new Party Chess Piece of any
existing type for a Swinger. When this is done, the player or
Institution pays the piece cost to the Treasury, and the new piece is
created, off-board, in the possession of the specified Swinger. A new
piece costs plus A$12 times the material value of the piece. A King
may not be purchased in this way.
"
}}
{{[Party Chess has been on hold for a long time, and the current position
look more like a random starting setup, than a mid-game position.
Also, pieces are now so abundant, that the prices set for pieces way back,
are too low. The make up of individual armies is still affected by the
original sets to some degree. This proposal set out to do a couple of
things: clear the board. Destroy all existing pieces, with the exception
of Kings, and refund the Swingers. Destroy all existing Stabber's knives.
Raise the cost of pieces. If the game kicks off again, and peopel are
interested, I'll propose the multi-board proposal I RFCed a while back]}}
{{
I. All Party Chess Pieces are removed from the Party Board. That
is - they become off-board pieces, without changing ownership.
II. Each Party Chess Piece which is not a King is detroyed.
Upon its destruction, the Swinger who controlled the piece
just prior to its destruction, receives a number of A$ equal
to 1+7*M, where M is the material value of the destroyed
piece.
III. All Stabber's Knives are destroyed.
IV. In R12-8-1 "Swingers Play Around I - the board and the
playing pieces", ammend section 2E to read in full:
"
A player or an Institution may create a new Party Chess Piece of any
existing type for a Swinger. When this is done, the player or
Institution pays the piece cost to the Treasury, and the new piece is
created, off-board, in the possession of the specified Swinger. A new
piece costs plus A$12 times the material value of the piece. A King
may not be purchased in this way.
"
}}
All proposals which are made by the Harfmeister must include an approved silly word. The approved list of silly words is as follows: spong, wibble, ni!, pheeeeew, zopzop, boing, banana, squawk, thatcher, yeenewkleorrrrmeeesseilllllee. [Original Author: Julian Richardson aka Dr McSpong, Proposal 357, reincarnated by Robert Sevin in proposal 2096.]
The Universe is a self-modifying game of rules. The Name of the Universe
is "hunt a resonant fungus". All players must always abide by all the
rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect, and
interpreted in accordance with current game custom.
The rules and the state of the Universe may only be changed as described
in the rules. Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and
shall only have those effects, as specified by the rules. Whatever is
not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however, is
permitted and unregulated.
Game custom, spirit of the game, and linguistic interpretation are
external concepts and are not regulated or part of the game state.
A player may not win the Universe. A player always has the option to
leave the Universe. The Universe recognizes the existance of Ackanomic,
and all of its constituent entities, although they may only have an
effect in the Universe as specified by the rules of the Universe. The
only player in the Universe is the player known as two-star in
Ackanomic. This player may change the rules of the Universe at his
discretion.
{{[Original author two-star with proposal 2156] 5 points are transferred
from Laa Laa to two-star}}
This is a Modest Proposal.
{{[Attempting to make it a little simpler to harf; of course at the
moment its real simple because no one is using it :-)]}}
Amend Rule 2-2-2 (Literature) by:
I. Deleting the following pieces of text:
A. "(iii) a phrase that is not found in any other piece of literature."
B. "V. Any player may issue a CSR that consists solely of modifications
to the Literature list. Otherwise, the Literature list may only be
modified by Proposals and by the Spelling Bee."
II. Replacing:
"
[The reasoning for these limitations is to try and stop people from
trying to pass off "to be" as a quote from Hamlet, and the like. There
are however some short
snippets that are very unique to individual pieces and this takes that
into account.]
"
with:
"
[The reasoning for these limitations is to try and stop people from
trying to pass off "to be" as a quote from Hamlet, and the like.]
"
III. Replacing:
"
X is either, the number of sentences, or series of sentences, quoted
according to section I of this rule, or the total number of words quoted
according to section I divided by 14, whichever is smaller. [That is,
for each sentence or phrase which is eligible to be literature the
author scores one point, taking the lower total if there are more than
two ways in which such a phrase is eligible, i.e. two complete sentences
making a total of fourteen words would only score one point.]
"
with:
"
X is the number of citations in the proposal.
"
{{ Add "Artist: Terry Prachett; Author of the Discworld novels." to the
literature list }}
This is a Modest Proposal
{{[This ties score changes that stem from proposals into the proposal's
acceptance index]}}
A. Replace section III of Rule 2-2 (Scoring When A Proposal's Voting
Results are Reported) with:
"
III. Scoring on Proposals
The Base Yield of a proposal is its Acceptance Index divided by 100.
Modest Proposals have a Yield equal to their Base Yield.
Grandiose Proposals have a Yield equal to three times their Base Yield.
Proposals which are nether modest nor grandiose have a Yield equal to
twice their Base Yield.
This section defers to alternative methods for determining a proposal's
Yield or Base Yield.
When a proposal's results are reported, its author's score is adjusted
by the proposal's Yield. [A Modest proposal with an acceptance index of
666 gains its author 7 points, the same proposal with an acceptance
index of -666 loses its author 6 points.]
{{[The current range for proposal acceptance indexes is roughly 800 to
-400]}}
A proposal can only be declared to be Modest or Grandiose as defined by
the Rules.
All players who voted on any proposal receive one fifth of the absolute
value of its Yield.
{{[For modest proposals this would prolly give up to 2 points. Grandiose
proposals could result in 5 points]}}
"
B. Amend Section II of Rule 1-7-3 (Paradigm Type: AntiVoting) to read:
"
II. Scoring for anti-voting.
Players who anti-vote on a proposal shall gain one fifth of the absolute
value of the proposal's Yield
"
C. Amend Section II of Rule 1-7-5 (Paradigm Type: Flow Voting) to read:
"
II. Scoring for flow-voting.
Players who flow-vote on a proposal shall gain one fifth of the absolute
value of the proposal's Yield
"
This is a Modest Proposal The harfmeister may announce a new harfy phrase of less than four words, provided it does not appear in any proposals currently under consideration. The harfy phrase may only be changed once a month. An accepted proposal which contained the harfy phrase when it was submitted has a base yield 5 higher than it otherwise would.
This is a Modest Proposal
-A. Insert the following as a new paragraph after the table in Section I
of Rule 2-3 (Proposal and Rule Numbering):
"A rule's family consists of its parent and its parent's decedents"
A. Amend Rule 1-7 (Paradigms Rule Suite) by:
I. renaming it "Paradigms".
II. deleting the phrase "This is the head of the Paradigms Rule Suite."
III. replacing the phrase "are defined by rules within this rule suite"
with "are defined by descendants of this rule"
B. Repeal Rule 2-3-1 (Rule Suites)
C. Amend Rule 4-8 (Quests Rule Suite) by:
I. renaming it "Quests"
II. deleting the phrase "This is the head of the Quests Rule Suite."
III. replacing the text "Each rule in the Quest Rule Suite" with "Each
decedent of this rule"
IV. deleting the phrase "Each quest must be defined within a rule
contained within this rule suite."
D. Amend Rule 4-11 (Boons of the Ancients) by:
I. replacing the text:
"c) Ancient wisdom. An Otzma Card is added to the Otzma Card Rule Suite,
which the player Must Describe (5)."
with:
"c) Ancient wisdom. An new type of Otzma Card is added as a decedent of
the Otzma Card rule, which the player Must Describe (5)."
E. Amend Rule 6-4-11-1 (Common Sense Reports) by:
I. deleting the text:
"(Thus, a player who is both Chess-Umpire and RuneMaker may issue a
single CSR which affects both the Party Chess Rule Suite and the Otzma
Card Rule Suite.)"
{{[This situation is on longer true - neither the Chess-Umpire nor the
RuneMaker are empowered to issue CSRs of this nature]}}
F. Amend Rule 7-14 (Definition of Otzma Cards) by:
I. deleting the phrase "This is the head of the Otzma Card Rule Suite."
II. replacing the text:
"1. Otzma Card types may be defined by other rules which explicitly
claim that they are defining Otzma Card Types, and belong to the Otzma
Card Rule Suite. This rule takes precedence over any rule which defines
an Otzma Card type."
with:
"1. Otzma Card types may be defined by other rules which explicitly
claim that they are defining Otzma Card Types, and are a decedent of
this rule. This rule takes precedence over any rule which defines an
Otzma Card type."
G. Amend Rule 7-14-1 (Otzma Card of Type Go Fish) by:
I. replacing the phrase:
4. This rule takes precedence over all other rules in the Otzma Card
Rule Suite except rule 7-14-2 to which it defers precedence."
with:
"4. This rule takes precedence over all other rules in its family except
the Otzma Card of Type Shield rule to which it defers."
H. Repeal Rule 12-8 (Party Chess Rule Suite), but not its decedents, and
renumber its decedents by removing thier third locator. (ie the third
integer in each of their rule numbers.)
This is a Modest Proposal
-A. Insert the following as a new paragraph after the table in Section I
of Rule 2-3 (Proposal and Rule Numbering):
"A rule's family consists of its parent and its parent's decedents"
A. Amend Rule 1-7 (Paradigms Rule Suite) by:
I. renaming it "Paradigms".
II. deleting the phrase "This is the head of the Paradigms Rule Suite."
III. replacing the phrase "are defined by rules within this rule suite"
with "are defined by descendants of this rule"
B. Repeal Rule 2-3-1 (Rule Suites)
C. Amend Rule 4-8 (Quests Rule Suite) by:
I. renaming it "Quests"
II. deleting the phrase "This is the head of the Quests Rule Suite."
III. replacing the text "Each rule in the Quest Rule Suite" with "Each
decedent of this rule"
IV. deleting the phrase "Each quest must be defined within a rule
contained within this rule suite."
D. Amend Rule 4-11 (Boons of the Ancients) by:
I. replacing the text:
"c) Ancient wisdom. An Otzma Card is added to the Otzma Card Rule Suite,
which the player Must Describe (5)."
with:
"c) Ancient wisdom. An new type of Otzma Card is added as a decedent of
the Otzma Card rule, which the player Must Describe (5)."
E. Amend Rule 6-4-11-1 (Common Sense Reports) by:
I. deleting the text:
"(Thus, a player who is both Chess-Umpire and RuneMaker may issue a
single CSR which affects both the Party Chess Rule Suite and the Otzma
Card Rule Suite.)"
{{[This situation is on longer true - neither the Chess-Umpire nor the
RuneMaker are empowered to issue CSRs of this nature]}}
F. Amend Rule 7-14 (Definition of Otzma Cards) by:
I. deleting the phrase "This is the head of the Otzma Card Rule Suite."
II. replacing the text:
"1. Otzma Card types may be defined by other rules which explicitly
claim that they are defining Otzma Card Types, and belong to the Otzma
Card Rule Suite. This rule takes precedence over any rule which defines
an Otzma Card type."
with:
"1. Otzma Card types may be defined by other rules which explicitly
claim that they are defining Otzma Card Types, and are a decedent of
this rule. This rule takes precedence over any rule which defines an
Otzma Card type."
G. Amend Rule 7-14-1 (Otzma Card of Type Go Fish) by:
I. replacing the phrase:
"4. This rule takes precedence over all other rules in the Otzma Card
Rule Suite except rule 7-14-2 to which it defers precedence."
with:
"4. This rule takes precedence over all other rules in its family except
the Otzma Card of Type Shield rule to which it defers."
H. Repeal Rule 12-8 (Party Chess Rule Suite), but not its decedents, and
renumber its decedents by removing thier second locator. (ie the second
integer in each of their rule numbers.)This is a modest proposal. Amend Rule 16-1, Spheres, by adding a new paragraph to the end, reading: "Each Institution which owns a Spherical Rator has a Characteristic named Generosity, which is initially at a value of 0 and has a range which includes all the integers."
This is a modest proposal.
In Rule 2-4, "The Blue Cross", change "OBC to "OMBC" in the sentence which
reads "Reaching or exceeding BCR 60 makes a player an OBC."
{{[ This is necessary to make this rule match the terminology in the
Awards and Orders rule, 4-10.
This is also a test of the sphere and proposal naming system. ]}}
{{[I'm disconnecting Backers from Institutions because they don't
fit under the current Insts. structure, and I don't think it's a good idea
to drasticly revamp Insts. to support them. As it stands now, chess is
badly messed up, so I ask you to vote for this and reintegrate them with
Insts. after if that's what you wnat.]}}
Amend rule 16-1-8 to read as delimited by FRIENDSANDFAMILY, and
renumber it to rule 16-2.
FRIENDSANDFAMILY
All player are either Swingers or Non-Swingers. A Non-Swinger may
choose to Back a Swinger as a public action. If the Swinger and more than
half of that Swinger's Backers accept the Non-Swinger publicly, than the
Non-Swinger ceases to Back any other Swingers, and becomes a Backer of the
Swinger who accepted him. A Backer may cease to Back a Swinger as a public
action. As a public action, a Backer may approve a Support Payment of a
specified number of A$. If, within seven days, more than half of the
Backers of the same Swinger approve the Support Payment, it is Ordered.
One week after the Support Payment is ordered, all active Backers of that
Swinger automatically transfer the specified number of A$ to the associated
Coalition. Backers who don't own the specified number of A$ cease to be
Backers; this is the only way a Backer can cease to be one involuntarily.
If a Swingership is Warm, a Backer may publicly approve that it be
transfered to a specified player. If, within one week, more than half of
the Backers approve that the Swingership be given to the same player, and
the player accepts, than the Swingership is transfered to that player. As
a public action, A Backer may approve changing the Swinger's salary. If
more than half of the Backers of a Swinger approve the same salary change
with seven days, the Swinger's salary is set to that amount.
Coalitions are unownable, named entities. Each Swingership has an
associated Coalition. Coalitions may only own A$ and Point Pointers. A
Swinger may order eir Coalition to buy PartyChessPieces for the Swinger as
a public action. The cost of the piece is transfered to the Treasury from
the Coalition, and the Swinger receives the PartyChessPiece. If the
Swinger would not be allowed to purchase the Piece, e may not order eir
Coalition to. Point Pointers are ownable, nameless entities which may not
be owned by anything other than a Coalition.
FRIENDSANDFAMILY[ Spurning the Ackanomic University as a collection of crackpots, lunatics, and Treasure hunters, I had gone to the Library to study. Perhaps I frank way too much Ali'i Macadamia Nut Ale, perhaps I wandered too close to *that* room, but I soon drifted into a dreamless sleep, my cheeks pressed against the surface of the tome I'd been studying. Jokes about learning by osmosis aside, I discovered upon awakening that it is possible to learn by *imprinting*: when I looked in the mirror this morning, the three-dimensional ink used by the Ancients had formed lines and whorls on my faces. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the previously undecipherable gibberish was easily legible simply by looking in a mirror!* I set to work feverishly transcribing it before my rebellious integument could erase it. It seemed to be a treatise on the economic system of Ackanomic: setting forth the iconoclastic concept that our economy is based not on material objects like Ackadollars, points or even Mannnnnnnnnnna from above, but on the very words in our beloved Rules. To this end, the Ancients seemed to propose a plan for bolstering this meta-economy that is stunningly beautiful in its very simplicity. I set it forth here in the hope that, even if it doesn't capture the hearts and minds of other Ackans as it did mine, it will at least ] replace the entire text of the Rule delineating "Paradigm Type: Inflationary" with the following EGGS-delimited text: EGGS It is known to us now that Ackanomic's economy depends not on ephemeral objects such as points or Ackadollars, but on the words of which our very Rules are comprised. While this Paradigm is active, the Ancients' powerful Device for the Overinflation of a Rule-based eKonomee, or DORK, shall also be, working tirelessly to bolster and fortify this nebulous meta-economy. Therefore, each time text is to be added to the Rules, whether by Proposal or otherwise, (even if the text is simply to be replaced), the DORK will change any string in the added text which spells the name of an ordinal or cardinal number to spell the name of the appropriate number which is one higher. For example, "three" would become "four," "sixth" would become "seventh," and "intentional" would become "ineleventional." However, "2" or "187" would be unchanged as they are numerals. The modified text shall then be inserted into the Rules in place of the original text. This Rule has sufficient precedence to override any other Rule governing how Proposals add text to the Ruleset where there is a conflict. EGGS I lose 4 points. The creator of any Rule amended by this Proposal gains 2 points. Victor Borge gains 2 points. If any Ackanomic entity is named "Victor Borge" at the time of this Proposal's passage, then that entity or that entity's creator, whichever is a player, shall be renamed "Gretchold the Evil Malenkai's Loophole Troll," including the comma, before any player scores are affected by this Proposal. This Proposal takes precedence over any sissy Rule governing name length or timing of effects generated by Proposals. [ * Yes, I do know that imprinted text should read "forwards" when viewed in a mirror. If you can figure out how the Ancients got it to show correctly after being reversed twice but not when viewed originally . . . you have way too much spare time on your hands. ]
Any proposal submitted under the Sphere of Influence of the Wombles of
Wibbledon must contain the phrase "This is a Silly Proposal." or at least
one of the approved silly words, or be referred to publically at least
once during its voting period as "silly," "stupid," "weird,"
"game-breaking," "pointless," or "harfy," or else it shall fail in
subcommittee.
{{ Add the text of Proposal 4139 as a new Rule, numbered as the
Rule-Harfer chooses, to the Ruleset. Add the phrase "12 ducks and a
mongoose named Larry" to the list of approved silly words. Raise Laa
Laa's, Robert Sevin's, and Dr McSpong's scores by 5 points each. }}