Subject: Ackanomic Discussion Digest V1 #529
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Discussion Digest)
To: acka-discuss-digest

Ackanomic Discussion Digest  Saturday, March 1 1997  Volume 01 : Number 529

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:08:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1742 accepted (Non-voting Players)

> I ask Mohammed to start sending proposals and results to acka-voting as
> soon as this is feasible.  (*) If receiving proposals and results in digest
	This is done.

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:21:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  RFC proposal revision mk 2

I don't like "ammendments" as they were RFC'd because it violates rule of 
thumb #3:  The game should be fully playable by people who check their 
mail once every three days.

(#2 is, The game should be fully playable by people who have only e-mail 
access to the Internet.  #1 is, It should be fun for all the players.)

That being said, I do not object to the work this RFC would 
generate for me if it were added to the rules.

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:23:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1759

> I suspect this may have been my fault.  I seem to have crashed his bot :)
> Sorry gang.
	Let me say, once and for all, that any time the bot crashes, it's 
my fault, regardless of who sent the message it's reading when it 
happens.
	I hereby publicly object to Narf's apology.  If a second player 
objects within three days, I think we can consider it annulled....

- --Mohammed (starting to lose grip on reality)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:29:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1742 accepted (Non-voting Players)

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I ask Mohammed to start sending proposals and results to acka-voting as
> soon as this is feasible.  (*) If receiving proposals and results in digest
> form does not bother you, I ask that you switch from acka-voting to
> acka-voting-digest.  IdiotBoy is currently subscribed to both (because he
> signed himself on acka-voting-digest a week ago).
> 

Ok, am I the big doofus then?  Yeah, I want to switch.. I'll attempt this on
my own, if I fail, do it by fiat!

IB

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:38:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: RFC

> I much prefer our current system, which encourages proposal authors
> to do their research _first_ -- or face possible consequences -- and
> which is procedurally simple.

I have to agree with this. If a proposal is important enough to amend,
it ought to be important enough to be worth the two lousy points that
retraction costs (if not taking the time to do right the first time).

b

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:15:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1759

> > Proposal 1759
> > Controlling Interest
> > IdiotBoy
> Ermm, I retract this, so I can do it when I am not being interrupted, and
> now that I understand how the bot works more clearly.
	This may be another Hubert situation.
	According to the time stamps on these, IdiotBoy tried to retract 
"Controlling Interest" two or three minutes before it was officially 
distributed.
	However, if one or both of our ISPs keep lousy time, it may be 
that IdiotBoy could actually have retracted P1761.
	In any case, P1759 is still in the queue.

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:33:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1759 

In a message dated 97-02-28 16:27:24 EST, you write:

> > I suspect this may have been my fault.  I seem to have crashed his bot :)
>  > Sorry gang.
>  	Let me say, once and for all, that any time the bot crashes, it's 
>  my fault, regardless of who sent the message it's reading when it 
>  happens.
>  	I hereby publicly object to Narf's apology.  If a second player 
>  objects within three days, I think we can consider it annulled....
>  

Hmmm... Let me RFC another proposal then <warning, tongue in cheek proposal>

1. As soon as this proposal passes, all players are permitted to sneer at
Narf and throw small objects at him for a period of 22 minutes, as a penalty
for public apologies

end proposal

That having been said,
I hereby retract my apology, point my finger at Mohammed and say "It's his
fault!  He's the one who did it!!"

Narf

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:24:21 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:Organized Crime 

Welp, it's official.  Organized Crime is now an organization and actively
recruiting members. 

Those of you who sent me mail suggesting that you might like to join...
please do so again so that it may be official.

Malenkai: I have a question about the finances of Organized Crime.  When
Tammany accepts a bribe, what needs to happen in order for that money to be
transfered to the account of OC?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:28:16 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: RFC

Narf wrote:

[regarding his proposal amendment RFC]

>This is one of the reasons I RFC'd this proposal.  On the other hand, this
>may reduce the number of retractions.

Retractions are not currently a problem.  At least, they don't seem so
to me.  Although the mechanics of this new suggested procedure for
changing in-queue proposals are different than those of the old
procedure, it shares problems associated with the concept itself.
To wit: (i) it makes predicting the end of the voting period on any
proposal difficult; (ii) it encourages, or at least abets, sloppy
proposal writing; (iii) it creates extra procedural work without much
benefit (that I see).

I much prefer our current system, which encourages proposal authors
to do their research _first_ -- or face possible consequences -- and
which is procedurally simple.

ThinMan

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:10:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal problems.

> I tried to resubmit a "corrected" proposal but the bot rejected the
> #proposal command (perhaps it remembers me from last time), and now
> Mohammed's mail is bouncing indiscrimnately.  I plan to place a "spelling
> bee free" version asap.
	It is?  *alarmed look*

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:12:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal problems.

> I consider my proposal retracted and you should, too.  I take the penalty,
> etc.
	Hi there!
	Please send in an acrobot command that looks like this:

#retract proposal 1761

	Thanks!

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:27:16 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Alien Invasion 

>I am hereby giving him A$100 to help pay for the purchase.
>
>snowgod

Oops, sorry Malenkai.

snowgod -100, misc transfer
strider +100, misc transfer

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:34:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1759

>> Actually, it is exactly the same as what we have now. A caller of a
>> duel is allowed to put a condition upon the Duel which has the
>> force of rules.
> 
> Either participant of the Duel may commite eirself to an action
> prior to the Duel, which depends on the results of the Duel, but
> they may not place conditions as specified in the proposal.  If it
> were as you state it would make Duels a much too powerful weapon to
> manipulate each other.

I don't see the distinction. If I call for a Duel, I can require a
condition that the Challenged has to fulfill if they lose. The
Challenged is still free to decline the Duel if they don't want to
commit to the condition. But if they accept, and then lose, they are
required to fulfill the condition.

Same with this proposal.

b

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 00:37:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1747 accepted (Ammend proposal 1739)

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> "1. There exists a type of  organization known as Organized Crime, which is
> not nearly as organized  as its organizers might wish.  There also exists an
> organization known as Organzied Crime, which is the only legal Organized
> Crime organization."
> }}
> 
So now we have an Organization called Organzied Crime of type Organized
Crime.
A good thing Narf didn't name the Organization Organized Crime as well,
because that would have been a violation of " "
(The uniqueness of names)

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:37:58 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC 

In a message dated 97-02-28 17:34:24 EST, you write:

> If you found out that you got your proposals wrong, retract, take the
>  minuscle point penalty,and resubmit. Next time, spend a couple of more
>  minutes on the proposal (This is not meant as a snide remark. A look
>  through the proposal archive will show that I've retracted several
>  proposal only to resubmit them, just to correct small error, and they
>  still creep in sometimes)

Worry not, I'll readily admit that some of my mistakes were due to enthusiasm
untempered by responsibiliity...

On the other hand, certain things I never would have seen no matter how much
research I've put into it.

Again, I like the idea of ammendments because it allows players other than
the original proponent to proposem ammendments.  I understand the value of
the three day rule, and obviously this proposal can not go forward as
written.  I still like the idea of being able to ammend proposals in the
queue, but I'll have to find another way to do it.

Narf

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:42:37 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1759 

>I don't see the distinction. If I call for a Duel, I can require a
>condition that the Challenged has to fulfill if they lose. The
>Challenged is still free to decline the Duel if they don't want to
>commit to the condition. But if they accept, and then lose, they are
>required to fulfill the condition.

ASs I understand it, the challenged could accept the duel, but decline the
condition.  This rproposal would not give them the option of declining the
condition.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:45:59 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: P1747 accepted (Ammend proposal 1739) 

So now we have an Organization called Organzied Crime of type Organized
Crime.
A good thing Narf didn't name the Organization Organized Crime as well,
because that would have been a violation of " "
(The uniqueness of names)

******************************************************************************
**

Hmmm....  I can't remember when I was happier to see a typo.  And I had to
read this message three times before spotting it, even now.  I truly wish the
AOL mailer had a spell checker on it <sigh> or that they would get around to
letting us use piggyback mail programs like Eudora.

Hrrrmmm... Well.... I guess we have Organzied Crime.   'course, this leads to
all sorts of other problems <shaking head in frustration>

Narf

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 00:52:43 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1759

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> Actually, it is exactly the same as what we have now. A caller of a
> >> duel is allowed to put a condition upon the Duel which has the
> >> force of rules.
> > 
> > Either participant of the Duel may commite eirself to an action
> > prior to the Duel, which depends on the results of the Duel, but
> > they may not place conditions as specified in the proposal.  If it
> > were as you state it would make Duels a much too powerful weapon to
> > manipulate each other.
> 
> I don't see the distinction. If I call for a Duel, I can require a
> condition that the Challenged has to fulfill if they lose. The
> Challenged is still free to decline the Duel if they don't want to
> commit to the condition. But if they accept, and then lose, they are
> required to fulfill the condition.

The distinction is that the Duel rule gives you no such power. Feel free
to CFJ this if you like, but I'm afraid you're misinterpreting the rule.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Same with this proposal.
> 
> b
> 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 00:54:08 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> On the other hand, certain things I never would have seen no matter how much
> research I've put into it.
> 
> Again, I like the idea of ammendments because it allows players other than
> the originalproponent to proposem ammendments.  I understand the value of
> the three day rule, and obviously this proposal can not go forward as
> written.  I still like the idea of being able to ammend proposals in the
> queue, but I'll have to find another way to doit.
> 
> Narf

Such as putting upper limits, either time limits, number of ammendments or
both.
Including these won't mean I'll support this, but they will be an
improvement.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 00:56:32 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1747 accepted (Ammend proposal 1739)

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> Hmmm....  I can't remember when I was happier to see a typo.  And I had to
> read this message three times before spotting it, even now.  I truly wish the
> AOL mailer had a spell checker on it <sigh> or that they would get around to
> letting us use piggyback mail programs like Eudora.
> 
> Hrrrmmm... Well.... I guess we have Organzied Crime.   'course, this leads to
> all sorts of other problems <shaking head in frustration>
> 
> Narf
> 

If you had given them identical names, you'd simply have to rename the
latter one. 
There are a couple of ways you could ammend this.
Anyway, I claim that for now, Tammany bribes are not transferred to either
one of the named entities above.

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:00:25 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: disorganized crime 

Well, if nothing else, I'm being forced to learn the rules at a rapidly
increased rate <grin>

I quote from rule " "

3. If two names are discovered to be identical, the procedure below is
followed to resolve the problem: 

          a. If a name chosen by a player (such as a player name, party name,
church name, etc.) conflicts with a
          name previously in use, the player choosing the name may not use
that name and must choose a new name.
          b. If a rule has the same name as something it defines or creates,
then a comma and the phrase "Creation
          of" is appended to the name of the rule. 
          c. If a rule has the same name as something it doesn't define or
create, and that other thing is not another
          rule, then " Rule" is appended to the name of the rule. 
          d. If a rule has the same name as another rule, then the rule whose
name was most recently chosen or
          changed shall have " #2" appended if it doesn't already end with "
#" and a number; otherwise the number
          at the end of the name of the rule shall be incremented. 
          e. If parts 3a-3d do not resolve the problem, then the CSRR officer
(if one exists) shall change a name in
          such a way to fix the problem. This change is not a CSR. If no CSRR
officer exists, the Speaker shall
          make the change. 

end of quote.

Hrmph.  Ok, I guess the rule name has to be changed, according to part b
above.

Organzied Crime was a typo.  How does the spelling bee work exactly?

If the spelling bee can fix Organzied crime, then provision e, above, will
kick in.

>If you had given them identical names, you'd simply have to rename the
>latter one. 

As mentioned above, that was the intent.

>Anyway, I claim that for now, Tammany bribes are not transferred to either
>one of the named entities above.

Concur.  As I see it, Tammany is a member of Organized Crime, which at this
point STILL doesn't exist.

Narf

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 01:08:55 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1759 - Duel conditions

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >I don't see the distinction. If I call for a Duel, I can require a
> >condition that the Challenged has to fulfill if they lose. The
> >Challenged is still free to decline the Duel if they don't want to
> >commit to the condition. But if they accept, and then lose, they are
> >required to fulfill the condition.
> 
> 
> ASs I understand it, the challenged could accept the duel, but decline the
> condition.  This rproposal would not give them the option of declining the
> condition.
> 
> snowgod
> 
> 
This proposal would only apply to PM Duels, and it has a major problem of
creating ambiguity by repeating language similar to R1215 "Duels"

Now I quote from R1215:

The results of the Duel have no other direct influence over Ackanomic.
However if either the Challenger or the Challenged have committed
themselves in a public message to a certain action depending on the
results of the Duel, then they must perform that action if the rules
permit performance of the action. Should they fail to perform that action,
they are breaking the rules. 

Please note the words "committed themselves", not required of the other
one.
Either participant may anounce publically something along the lines of "If
I lose the Duel I will vote for Niccolo Flychuck's next proposal"
and this will be a binding statement.

Neither one is obliged to do this, and neither one can specify an action
for the other to perform. So basically snowgod's interpretation is not
wrong (b-box's is), since one can still suggest an action for the other.
But the only binding statement is a statement which the player comits
eirself to. 

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:40:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Organized Crime

Narf wrote:

> Malenkai: I have a question about the finances of Organized Crime.  When
> Tammany accepts a bribe, what needs to happen in order for that money to be
> transfered to the account of OC?

No, I will track it automatically.  However, it would be nice if 
Mohammed could add a ledger entry in the bot when reporting Tammany
bribes, once this naming issue gets worked out.

I am assuming due to the naming thing (and I have not read this is much
detail -- please correct me if I'm wrong), that no Tammany 
money has gone anywhere except the treasury.

Since the Godfather rule was accepted, only one Tammany bribe has occurred
(I believe, P Aliens).  The bribe *on* the Godfather proposal is not
affected by the Godfather proposal (I think, anyway, again, more research
into the timimg of bribes and release of results may be needed.  
Fortuntely, due to the naming issue, it appears moot).

Malenkai
Financier (and so much more :))

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:33:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  RFC proposal revision mk 2

Mohammed wrote:

> That being said, I do not object to the work this RFC would
> generate for me if it were added to the rules.

Thats fine, but Wayne almost quit Promoting and Tabulating because of
the work the old R 423 generated.  It was also a pain in the badugi
for the voters.  I would not want to add alot of extra work because
the *current* officer can handle it; try to make the rules player
independent, if possible.

I think the RFC -> submit -> <- [retract] -> vote -> publish results

works fine, and think the work/payoff ratio with amendments is a bad
bet.  The argument is we have limited X capacity to do game stuff.  
Lets spend it on game-like activity, not work (at least that is MHO;
of course, "game-like" activity is subjective...)

Malenkai
did Red Barn rejoin ?

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:04:14 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Red Barn 

>Malenkai
>did Red Barn rejoin ?

Red Barn is currently on Ice.  I have tried to send him mail at a couple of
different adresses but it always bounces.  /dev/joe could probably confirm
if he is currently bouncing.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:02:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Red Barn

snowgod wrote:
> 
> >Malenkai
> >did Red Barn rejoin ?
> 
> Red Barn is currently on Ice. 

I realised that.  It was an attempt at a joke based on bandwidth
consumption today :).  Havent had a 100+ day in a while.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:13:54 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More crazy foreign peopl (part 3) 

>Noted.  Would you like to make a gif for this for the players page.
>Rules are 54x54 to 60x60, transparent background, public domain.
>
>Which reminds me.  Our entity creation has not kept up with gif creation.
>If anyone has time on their hands and would like to creats gifs, let
>me know :)
>
>Malenkai
>wasting BW

If someone wants to give me a list, I'll make some GIFs, but I'm not sure
what needs made at the moment.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:15:13 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Red Barn 

>I realised that.  It was an attempt at a joke based on bandwidth
>consumption today :).  Havent had a 100+ day in a while.
>
>Malenkai

Oops, that went right over my head.  Sorry.  I hadn't even realised we've
had that many messages today (guess thats what happens when you keepiong
checking your email all day long :)

Oh well, We'll get smiley and Vynd off to a good start :)

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:22:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Red Barn

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> I realised that.  It was an attempt at a joke based on bandwidth
> consumption today :).  Havent had a 100+ day in a while.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

It's that darn acrobot, again! ;)

IB
no, really, I like it, please don't take it away!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:29:59 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More crazy foreign peopl (part 3)

snowgod wrote:

> If someone wants to give me a list, I'll make some GIFs, but I'm not sure
> what needs made at the moment.

Champions Cloak/Purple Robe of Justice (don't knock yourself out, 
I remember these being a problem).

Gravitational Monopole
Evil Ballot Stuffer
Processing chips
otzma cards
Great Tuba
Amber banana
spell book of chorg/codex of kra
automatic sculpture
Widget of Yendor
belt for grab-a-donkey
JMCL
Badge of glory
Badge of many thanks
+ a million trinkets + a million other things, probably

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:34:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Red Barn (this is silly)

>> I realised that.  It was an attempt at a joke based on bandwidth
>> consumption today :).  Havent had a 100+ day in a while.
>> 
>> Malenkai
> 
> Oops, that went right over my head.  Sorry.  I hadn't even realised we've
> had that many messages today (guess thats what happens when you keepiong
> checking your email all day long :)
> 
> Oh well, We'll get smiley and Vynd off to a good start :)

I myself was beginning to wonder if we were attempting a trial by fire
for them. Especially with all of the welcome emails. (Boy, nobody sent
*me* any public welcomes when *I* joined. The closest I got was a
message from Habeous Corpus thanking me for setting off his Whamiol.)

breadbox
adding fuel

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:05:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Widget

> Also, I am frobbing the widget.
> 
> snowgod

Suddenly Proposal 1748's purpose takes on a new light. Maybe there's
even some bond options involved, hm? Harfy, indeed!

breadbox

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:46:43 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Widget 

>> Also, I am frobbing the widget.
>>
>> snowgod
>
>Suddenly Proposal 1748's purpose takes on a new light. Maybe there's
>even some bond options involved, hm? Harfy, indeed!
>
>breadbox

Muhahahahah!!  Wait till you see what comes next :)

snowgod
who wouldn've made sure you were welcomed if *I* was the Registrar :)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:59:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1758

> > Proposal 1758
> > Public Actions
> 
> breadbox asked why is this needed, or something to that effect.
	I thought breadbox asked why it had the catchall; at least, 
that's the question I answered earlier today.

>  With
> all the talk of the bloated ruleset, I'm curious too (and apologize in
> advance if that question was answered and I missed it), or wonder why
> it is not at least Modest.
	It's not needed if you want to go on for the rest of the game 
writing stuff like "A player may dive into a black hole by publicly 
sending a message to that effect and announcing which black hole e is 
diving into." rather than "A player may dive into any black hole."
	Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the legalese in this silly game!  
This is something I feel strongly about.  Let's get *on* with it!

	Which is more bloated, one rule (18 lines of text) or a 5%
overhead on the rest of the 400K ruleset?  One of my goals with the Entity
rewrite, as well as with this one, was to put all the boring rules in one
big, dark hole where they'll never be seen again.  Hopefully they'll work
as expected most of the time... 

	I think it'll decrease the ruleset, net.  I know it'll make
Blueprints **much** shorter.  I've tried writing Blueprints with and
without public actions, and it's so much more pleasant with that I can't
really describe it.
	It's almost as if I were using plain English.

	Also:  Right now, there are player actions in the ruleset with no
restrictions on how they are to be taken.  I would judge that such actions
can be taken at any time, by any player, if the CFJ were to land before me
a few months ago.  Luckily, by now there's game custom in the opposite
direction.  It's been tradition (kinda) to codify game custom after a
while. *shrug*

	And darn it, I'm still a little unhappy over the results of CFJ 140:

Mohammed & The FOOZBALL Party
Initiator: Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (Andy Swan)
Judgement: FALSE
 
Statement:
   Mohammed is currently a member of the FOOZBALL party

Judge's Comments: 
   I judge false. Why do I keep having these things anyway? Any way I
   think that the party can enforce it's own rules, otherwise why
   bother having them????

	Not that that has much, if anything, to do with this proposal.

	Never mind.  The fact that it isn't modest is a mistake.  If it 
passes, I'll make the follow-up proposal modest, even though I'm sure 
I'll spend a looong time working on it.  Fair?

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 22:42:53 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1758 

>	It's not needed if you want to go on for the rest of the game 
>writing stuff like "A player may dive into a black hole by publicly 
>sending a message to that effect and announcing which black hole e is 
>diving into." rather than "A player may dive into any black hole."
>	Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the legalese in this silly game!  
>This is something I feel strongly about.  Let's get *on* with it!

I think it is necessary on some level. A solution to this problem, as I have
proposed before, is to have 2 rule sets. They both contain a listing of all
the rules, but one version is your "layman's version", which is easy to
understand, and is brief where possible. The other version is the "lawyer's
version", which would contain all of the legalese. Experts would assist in
creating the legal version, if the author of a proposal didn't wish to do it
themselves. What do you think of this idea?

Robert Sevin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 23:24:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  legalese

> proposed before, is to have 2 rule sets. They both contain a listing of all
> the rules, but one version is your "layman's version", which is easy to
> understand, and is brief where possible. The other version is the "lawyer's
> version", which would contain all of the legalese. Experts would assist in
> creating the legal version, if the author of a proposal didn't wish to do it
> themselves. What do you think of this idea?
	I think if it happened, I would want to be on the layman's side 
of the fence.  :o)

- --Mohammed
sleepy

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 07:59:47 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Balancing the Books

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> If anyone knows of an entity not on the following list that 
> possesses A$, please let me know:

The Synod proposal had self deleting text that gave the Synod A$400.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> A$s held by players:   28,969 A$
> A$ value of Trinkets:   3,023
> Church of Markovian:       45
> Church of Seleya:         100
> RERS:                     173
> Treasury:              42,690 (of this, A$ 7826 is haunted)
>                      ------
>                      75,000
> 
> Malenkai
> Financier
> 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 22:18:10 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Let us Pray

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> ceremoniously spake in tongues the golden frog (to me via the Amulet):
> 
> "dk jqigkvcdcv jgogbqtvbk jqigkvcdquv bqtvbk jqigkvcdcv dk dquv
> jgogbqtvbk jqigk ugk dquv dcv jqigk bqtvbk dquv jgogbqtvbk jgogtgvbk"
> 
> unmiraculously treasure of processing chips shall you find
> unless misdirectionally led you have been
> 
> Malenkai
> Priest
I am struck by a feeling of deja vu.

Strider

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:53:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:JMCL 

>Salutations!!
>
>I am targetting snowgod's fragment #18  with my Mind Control Laser.  I
>am pushing the button marked "Push Me"
>
>Strider
><giggle>

I get it!  It's revenge for making the Presidency more and more expensive
:)  I see how it is...  That being said, fragment 18 was no fun anyway :)

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 23:02:17 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:JMCL

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> >Salutations!!
> >
> >I am targetting snowgod's fragment #18  with my Mind Control Laser.  I
> >am pushing the button marked "Push Me"
> >
> >Strider
> ><giggle>
> 
> I get it!  It's revenge for making the Presidency more and more expensive
> :)  I see how it is...  That being said, fragment 18 was no fun anyway :)
> 
> snowgod
Naah.  The real reason is that I was scrolling through my mail looking
for a fragment I hadn't seen, and 18 came up first.  No ulterior
motives, I'm not that sneaky.  Usually.

Strider

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Discussion Digest V1 #529
******************************************