Subject: Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #6
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Discussion Digest)
To: acka-discuss-digest

Ackanomic Discussion Digest  Thursday, March 6 1997  Volume 02 : Number 006

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 01:02:03 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Evil Twin 

>Salutations!
>
>I am asking Red Barn to be my Evil Twin, assuming he acks.
>
>Strider

If he doesn't ack you aren't going to ask him? :)

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 01:05:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hretics on IRC 

>There is a rumor circulating on IRC that the earth is as round as the
>bowling ball which has replaced Calvin N Hobbes head.  I am viamently
>opposed to this theory but figured that I should pass it along so that
>others know of the evildoing that goes on there.

Note that it is a *round* (gasp) bowling ball.

CnH

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

Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 23:04:01 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Evil Twin

Mitchell Harding wrote:
> 
> >Salutations!
> >
> >I am asking Red Barn to be my Evil Twin, assuming he acks.
> >
> >Strider
> 
> If he doesn't ack you aren't going to ask him? :)
> 
> Robert Sevin
Uh...Dammit, stop replying to what I said!  -I- knew what I meant.

I am asking Red Barn to be my Evil Twin.

Strider
confused -and- confusing

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 02:17:18 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Evil Twin 

At 10:55 PM on 3/5/97, Stephen McCulley wrote:

> Salutations!
>
> I am asking Red Barn to be my Evil Twin, assuming he acks.
>
> Strider

  I ack.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 01:43:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

> > 6. The 96 hours following the
> We have tried to standardize on 3 days or 7 days for stuff.  Try not
> to throw odd times into the rules.  (I realize there are a couple of
> other non-standard rules, but only one of them has a good reason to be
> non-standard, IMO).
	Lest Malenkai sound like the sole defender of this concept, I'll 
go ahead and say I agree.  (What has a good reason to be non-standard?)

- --Mohammed
curious

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 02:47:00 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Greetings all

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> >> >> Narf offer A$5 for 5 pfBond Vynd
> >> >
> >> >IdiotBoy offer A$10 for 5 PFVynd
> >> 
> >> I offer A$15 for 6 PFVynd
> >
> >Oh, phsaw!  I offer $A25 for 1 (yes, just one!) PFVynd
> >
> >fnord
> 
> I offer A$60 for 2 PFVynd
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 
> 

I accept Robert's offer, which means (and correct me if I am wrong here):

Vynd +A$60 -2 PFVynd
Rober Sevin -A$60 +2 PFVynd

I'm interested in some of the earlier offers too, but seeing as how they
might not still want to make the deal (now that Sevin managed to get some
first, or something) I'll wait for them to ask again before I accept any.

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 01:56:55 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Greetings all 

>> I offer A$60 for 2 PFVynd
>> 
>> Robert Sevin
>
>I accept Robert's offer, which means (and correct me if I am wrong here):
>
>Vynd +A$60 -2 PFVynd
>Rober Sevin -A$60 +2 PFVynd
>
>I'm interested in some of the earlier offers too, but seeing as how they
>might not still want to make the deal (now that Sevin managed to get some
>first, or something) I'll wait for them to ask again before I accept any.
>
>
>                             - Vynd
>
>[email-masked]

Vynd,

You did this correctly. Thank you for the transaction.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 03:09:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Greetings all

Vynd wrote:

> I accept Robert's offer, which means (and correct me if I am wrong here):
> 
> Vynd +A$60 -2 PFVynd
> Rober Sevin -A$60 +2 PFVynd

These trades have to occur on the acka-finance list.  A simple reply-to
by both of you acking it will make it so.

Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 03:16:24 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

Mohammed wrote:

>         Lest Malenkai sound like the sole defender of this concept, I'll
> go ahead and say I agree.  (What has a good reason to be non-standard?)

I can think of 4 things that are non-standard.  These may have changed,
though:

1) No dead players allowed: 2 days to respond.  This should be changed to
3 days.
2) Duels.  I believe duels have non-standard times, and they should be
changed if they do.  In fact, I remember one of the times being something
bizzare like 5 days.
3) Party Chess.  There is something in there that I remember being 6
days.  This should be 7.

4) The one I support:  Supreme court appeals must occur within 4 days
of the verdict.  When I standardized all the times, I felt I could not
make this 3, because of players who do not log on on the weekend.  CFJ
appeals can take a bit of work and research, so a CFJ handed down on
friday would disadvantage (can I verb that :)) a player who wanted to 
appeal it who didn't log on on the weekends.  7 days seemed too long.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 02:32:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

> Doesn't something explicit have to be said in the rule so that an organization
> can own things?
	Nope.  The rules are rigged to allow anything with a name to own
stuff. 

> Also, what if a player is supposed to pay more money than e has?  If I own
> 50 shares, and only have $A30, where should the remaining money come from?
	The rules cover that, too.

	Proof that standards make things easier on the rule-writer.  Or 
at least make the rules less brittle.

- --Mohammed
nothings broken?  weird

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 03:59:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

> 1) No dead players allowed: 2 days to respond.  This should be changed to
> 3 days.
	I have a miscellaneous reharfing proposal that will, among other 
things, reharf this.  I need to tweak that before submitting it, though.

> 2) Duels.  I believe duels have non-standard times, and they should be
> changed if they do.  In fact, I remember one of the times being something
> bizzare like 5 days.
	Duels are normalized now, I think.  Please check me.

> 3) Party Chess.  There is something in there that I remember being 6
> days.  This should be 7.
	Actually, it's all 4 days and 2 days-- yuck!  I have now fired off a 
proposal to change this to 3 and 7.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 01:14:00 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Recent IRC Ghost game 

>  Well, I had a sideline bet with CnH over who would win, and, as I lost,
>here's
>the promised limerick:
>
>  <ahem>
>  On IRC a ghost game was played,
>  with responses a good deal delayed.
>  Dev/joe played "hiphuggers",
>  among many others,
>  but RSevin is now quite repayed.
>
>  Thank you, thank you.
>
>-Red Barn

Okay, fine, but can you write a limerick using the words panache, uestiox
and brr?

snowgod
panache of uestiox

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 05:15:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC stock options

> Ok... in search of a smoother economic system, I have come up with the
> following idea and am looking for suggestions.
> 
> 1. A type of organization known as a Company exist.  Players may form new
> companies in accordance with this rule.
	This is awfully similar to the Powerball idea (except I like
Powerballs better, because you can have several people all in charge of an
Organization that way, and there aren't 100 silly shares to track-- just
13.  Also, powerballs relabel themselves automatically, blah blah etc.)
	If the Powerball proposal is accepted, I believe it would be
redundant to have both of them.  Why not wait, and if P1769 passes,
rewrite this as an amendment to the Powerball rule?  (Stuff like "If there
are any Powerballs associated with a given Organization, that Organization
is a Company.")

> 8.  Companies may write proposals.  If a Company proposal is approved, the
> Company receives A$200.  The Company must divide A$100 among its share
> holders at A$1 per share of stock.  It may either keep the other A$100 or pay
> it out as a dividend.  If a Company proposal is rejected, the company must
> pay A$100 to the treasury.  If the Company does not have A$100 in its
> account, then the stock holders must give A$1 per share of stock they own.
	Unlike Malenkai, I like the idea of Organizational Proposals and
want to see them happen.  The idea of rewarding an Organization with money
(where a Player is rewarded with points) is IMO *very* cool, very promising.
	...but as Malenkai pointed out a few days ago, a lot would have to be
changed to make it work, starting with R103 and R104.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:46:27 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Mohammed wrote:
> 
> >         Lest Malenkai sound like the sole defender of this concept, I'll
> > go ahead and say I agree.  (What has a good reason to be non-standard?)
> 
> I can think of 4 things that are non-standard.  These may have changed,
> though:
> 
> 1) No dead players allowed: 2 days to respond.  This should be changed to
> 3 days.
> 2) Duels.  I believe duels have non-standard times, and they should be
> changed if they do.  In fact, I remember one of the times being something
> bizzare like 5 days.

I was under the impression you already ammended all the duration in Duels.
Anyway, I don't think there was ever 5 days in there.

> 3) Party Chess.  There is something in there that I remember being 6
> days.  This should be 7.
6 Days - the length of time an Office is vacant before it becomes Warm.

Length of a turn is 4 days, but I feel this one is necessary.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 4) The one I support:  Supreme court appeals must occur within 4 days
> of the verdict.  When I standardized all the times, I felt I could not
> make this 3, because of players who do not log on on the weekend.  CFJ
> appeals can take a bit of work and research, so a CFJ handed down on
> friday would disadvantage (can I verb that :)) a player who wanted to 
> appeal it who didn't log on on the weekends.  7 days seemed too long.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:51:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 	Actually, it's all 4 days and 2 days-- yuck!  I have now fired off a 
> proposal to change this to 3 and 7.
> 
> --Mohammed
> 

As far as PartyChess is concerned, there is one time limit which should
not be shortened, and that is the length of a turn. 
The 4 days are necessary.

The only two day period is the provision to allows players to suggest
moves for a vacant NAP Swinger's Office. 
If you dislike that bit one might as well do away with it altogether.

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire
Chess Expert

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:27:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  debt

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Hey, i've been tinkering.  What do you think about our debt rules? 
> They're cool little rules.  I like the idea of "divots" and "slavery".
> (What happens if the Treasury doesn't have enough A$, though?)
> 

I like 'em, too.

> I don't think the rules are necessary, tho, because the rules don't say 
> negative A$ can exist.  They *do* say negative points can exist, but to 
> me -A$ sounds like a stretch.  Whatever rule claims to be sucking A$ out 
> of your account is overruled by R500.1, IMO.  You can't suck something 
> that doesn't exist.  Or can you?
> 

I would like to believe we could.  I haven't studied and tinkered as much as
you.  But I would like to require that FINEs and other payments defined in
the rules be paid, even if such results in the player possessing -A$.
Perhaps instead ever calling them -A$ we could create a "Debt Object" which
is kind of like A$ constructed out of Anti-Matter, if the concept of -A$
disturbs anyone.  Whenever a Debt Object and an A$ are both held by the same
entity, both are immeadiately destroyed.  And whenever an A$ is required
from some entity and they don't possess them an A$ and a Debt Object are
both created.

This would require some rewriting. (Debt Objects should /actually/ be called
bonds, but can't for some obvious reasons.) I would like to see it happen
for several reasons, but I don't know if others are interested enough to put
the effort into it.  

Part of the reason this interests me: if Controlling Interest should happen
to pass, I could be required by the rules to pay more A$ than I actually
hold for Stiffing My Shareholders.  Essentially, I get away with ignoring
the rules related to this, or the voting results change... neither of which
is very pleasant to contemplate.

> Trim fat?  I dunno, they're charming rules... a lot of the rules in that 
> area still refer to players where it sort of ought to be entities.  
> (R505, e.g.)  I might propose a rip to change it.
> 

I agree with the need to change pretty much everything over to entities.  If
I had the brains, I'd do it myself.

IB

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:30:27 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  debt

IdiotBoy wrote:

>I agree with the need to change pretty much everything over to entities. 

And thus the push for object-orientation comes to Acka.

ThinMan
;-)

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:57:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  debt

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> And thus the push for object-orientation comes to Acka.
> 
> ThinMan
> ;-)
> 

Cool, can we have "paradigm shift" meetings, where people cower in fear of
change like cavemen before a fire?

IB

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:02:38 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  debt

IdiotBoy wrote:
[I wrote:]
>> And thus the push for object-orientation comes to Acka.

>Cool, can we have "paradigm shift" meetings, where people cower in fear of
>change like cavemen before a fire?

Sounds promising.  Maybe we can couple it with a witch-burning and
prehistoric-themed costume party, just for additional effect.

:^)

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:59:12 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Greetings all

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Vynd wrote:
> 
> > I accept Robert's offer, which means (and correct me if I am wrong here):
> > 
> > Vynd +A$60 -2 PFVynd
> > Rober Sevin -A$60 +2 PFVynd
> 
> These trades have to occur on the acka-finance list.  A simple reply-to
> by both of you acking it will make it so.
> 
> Malenkai
> Financier
> 

There...

                        - Vynd

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:17:12 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

Mohammed writes:
> > Doesn't something explicit have to be said in the rule so that an organization
> > can own things?
> 	Nope.  The rules are rigged to allow anything with a name to own
> stuff. 
> 
> > Also, what if a player is supposed to pay more money than e has?  If I own
> > 50 shares, and only have $A30, where should the remaining money come from?
> 	The rules cover that, too.

Hmm... have I forgotten so many rules already?  Could you point out to 
me, please, where these two things are already defined in the Rules?  

I thought there had been a big to-do over the new Org stuff about Org's
being able to trade stuff but not being written as being able to own stuff.

Or have I completely lost it?

>       Proof that standards make things easier on the rule-writer.  Or 
> at least make the rules less brittle.

*chuckle* But how about us poor brainless rules-readers?

fnord

- -- 
Michael J. Thomas                              [email-masked]
"Opinions are falling like drops of rain"  In that case, I'm in a downpour!

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:54:56 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments 

I'll trade Frag 18 with you /dev/joe or with anyone else that has a frag I'm
missing.

Narf

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:23:17 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options 

In a message dated 97-03-06 02:44:52 EST, you write:

> > > 6. The 96 hours following the
>  > We have tried to standardize on 3 days or 7 days for stuff.  Try not
>  > to throw odd times into the rules.  (I realize there are a couple of
>  > other non-standard rules, but only one of them has a good reason to be
>  > non-standard, IMO).
>  	Lest Malenkai sound like the sole defender of this concept, I'll 
>  go ahead and say I agree.  (What has a good reason to be non-standard?)
>  

Acknowledged, agreed, and changed in my text file version of the proposal...

Thanks

Narf

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:24:37 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Greetings all 

Well, Vynd, my offer of A$5 for 5 pfVynd still stands.

Or course, given the odd inflationary pressures around here, you may not be
interested.

Narf

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:55:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: debt

re:  Can we own negative A$?
> I would like to believe we could.
	But consider the consequences; if some rule decided to transfer a 
Harf Magnet from me to someone else, and I didn't have a Harf Magnet, 
what happens?  Until now I would have just assumed the transfer can't 
happen because there's no Harf Magnet in my possession.  Now it looks 
like a Harf Magnet and a "negative" Harf Magnet are created, and I have 
- -1 Harf Magnets.  If I come into possession of a Harf Magnet later, I 
then have 0 Harf Magnets.
	I think you're right (right now), and the result is unexpected.
	
> I haven't studied and tinkered as much as
> you.  But I would like to require that FINEs and other payments defined in
> the rules be paid, even if such results in the player possessing -A$.
> Perhaps instead ever calling them -A$ we could create a "Debt Object" which
> is kind of like A$ constructed out of Anti-Matter, if the concept of -A$
> disturbs anyone.  Whenever a Debt Object and an A$ are both held by the same
> entity, both are immeadiately destroyed.  And whenever an A$ is required
> from some entity and they don't possess them an A$ and a Debt Object are
> both created.
[etc.]
	I remember wrestling with this when I was re-harfing the rule 
that defined points.  Finally I just gave up and said "it is possible to 
own a negative number of points" and went off to do something else.  It 
didn't seem worthwhile to have antipoints floating around... it's 
something like 15 lines of text that basically do nothing.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:28:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: RFC Stock Options 

I've cleaned up the text a bit, incorporated some of the changes, and am re
posting it for further comments and refinements before submitting it to the
promoter.

RFC: Stock Options
{{name this rule Companies and number it 725}}

1. A type of organization known as a Company exist.  Players may form new
companies in accordance with this rule.

2. Players form companies by publicly posting a message containing the
following information: The name of the Company, the initial Board of
Directors (a minimum of three players). the name of the CEO (must be one of
the players on the Board of Directors), the initial offering price for their
stock, and the division of the stock.  Stock can either be owned by a player
or owned by a company.  Stock can never be unowned except for as allowed by
the rules [for example, stocks buried as part of a treasure].

3.  The Board of Directors of a company consists of every player that owns
stock in that company.  The Board of Directors convenes once per month to
choose a CEO.  At anytime, a member of the Board of Directors can call a
meeting by publicly announcing eir intent to do so providing no meeting has
already been called in that calendar month.  When a Board of Directors
meeting is called, each member of the Board of Directors has 72 hours to
publicly vote for one member of the Board of Directors to take over as CEO.
 Each member of the Board of Directors gets one vote per share of stock they
own in the company.

4. The CEO is the only player permitted to take actions on behalf of the
company.  These actions include, but are not limited to, submitting
proposals, and posting public messages.

5. When a new company forms, 100 shares of stock bearing the company's name
are created and distributed in accordance with the initial announcement.
 Each member of the Board of Directors must pay the company the amount
specified per share of stock.  Until such time as each player in the original
Board of Directors posts an acceptance of such, the company has not been
formed.

6. The 72 hours following the formation of a company is known as the Initial
Public Offering (hereafter called the IPO) period.  During the IPO period,
the original members of the Board of Directors may not sell or purchase stock
in the company, but all other players may purchase the remaining shares of
stock from the company at the initial price.  All purchases of stock from the
company go into the company's account.

7.  Once the IPO period has ended, any player may buy or sell stock from any
other player at any agreed upon amount.  Players may sell stock to the
company or buy unowned stock from the company at the price specified by Wall
Street.  This is automatic, and does not require the CEO to ack it.  If the
company does not have enough money to purchase the stock, the company goes
bankrupt.  When a company goes bankrupt, its money is divided amongst the
stockholders, each stock being worth 1% of the ammount in the company's
account.  The company then ceases to exist, and all stock in the company's
name vanishes.

8.  Companies may write proposals.  Only the CEO of a company may submit
company proposals to the promoter, and e may do so unilateraly [the moral of
the story is -- if you don't trust the CEO, sell your stock].  If a Company
proposal is approved, the Company receives A$200.  The Company must divide
A$100 among its share holders at A$1 per share of stock.  It may either keep
the other A$100 or pay it out as a dividend.  If a Company proposal is
rejected, the company must pay A$100 to the treasury.  If the Company does
not have A$100 in its account, then the stock holders must give A$1 per share
of stock they own.

{{Create a rule called Wall Street and number it 730}}

1. There exists a unique unownable entity known as Wall Street.  Wall Street
sets the price of stocks in the following manner.  The initial price of stock
is the price set by the company when it first forms.   When a company
proposal passes, the value of its stock increases by $A1.  If the company
pays additional dividends, its stock price increases by a further $A1.  If a
company proposal fails, the stock price decreases by $A1.  If, on the first
day of the month, every share of stock is owned by a player, the stock price
increases by $A1.  If 50% or more of the stock is owned by the company, then
the stock price decreases by $A1.

{{
ammend rule 104 as follows. 

replace: 

Voting players may make proposals by e-mailing them to the Promoter, who
shall post them publically to be voted on. Accepted proposals must guide play
in the form in which they were distributed to the players. 

with:

Voting players and CEO's of companies may make proposals by e-mailing them to
the Promoter who shall post them publicly to be voted on.  Accepted proposals
must guide play in the form in which they were distributed to the players
}}

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:58:44 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Recent IRC Ghost game 

At 01:14 AM 3/6/97 -0900, you wrote:
>>  Well, I had a sideline bet with CnH over who would win, and, as I lost,
>>here's
>>the promised limerick:
>>
>>-Red Barn
>
>Okay, fine, but can you write a limerick using the words panache, uestiox
>and brr?
>
>snowgod
>panache of uestiox

That's "brrr", and let's not forget "shacuumsolence".

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:09:27 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Recent IRC Ghost game 

There once was a player who was told,
when he played ghost he shaccumsoled,
He shook and said "brrrrrr",
and pulled on a fur,
It's too tough to play ghost in the cold.

/sound narf.wav

Narf

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:10:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: debt

> re:  Can we own negative A$?
> > I would like to believe we could.
> 	But consider the consequences; if some rule decided to transfer a 
> Harf Magnet from me to someone else, and I didn't have a Harf Magnet, 
> what happens?  Until now I would have just assumed the transfer can't 
> happen because there's no Harf Magnet in my possession.  Now it looks 
> like a Harf Magnet and a "negative" Harf Magnet are created, and I have 
> -1 Harf Magnets.  If I come into possession of a Harf Magnet later, I 
> then have 0 Harf Magnets.
> 	I think you're right (right now), and the result is unexpected.

Hmm, I don't like the idea that a harf magnet and a negative harf magnet
can appear out of nowhere.  Here's a wonderful scam:  Jack has a harf
magnet.  John, who doesn't care to ever have a harf magnet, uses a OMCL
on John to take his harf magnet in exchange for A$1 (or some such thing).
Jack files a CFJ to undo the exchange, per the OMCL blueprint, and it
comes back true, but before that, John has given the Harf Magnet to Bill.
Now Jack and Bill both have Harf Magnets, and John has a negative Harf
Magnet.  As long as John never owns a Harf Magnet, there is now one more
"real" Harf Magnet than there rightfully should be.  Worse, what if John
buries the negative Harf Magnet?  If you think this looks bad, imagine
if Malenkai copied his 79 PFMalenkai a few times over.

I would prefer that for most voluntary things, the transaction is simply
voided (i.e., auction bids are invalid w/o enough A$, trades simply fail
to occur, etc.).  

When a rule *requires* some transfer to occur and a player doesn't own
enough of some entity, that player is given one or more nontradable,
nameless entities called debts.  Each debt records the date it was
created, the name of the player owed, and the name of an entity owed to
that player.
[This could be written as "John has a debt of a harf magnet to Jack since
Dec 31, 1969, 19:00 EST".  Now Jack doesn't actually have a Harf Magnet
until John acquires another one somehow.  If two harf magnets are owed,
make two debts of one harf magnet each, rather than one debt of two harf
magnets, to handle the case when John later comes to possess exactly
one harf magnet.]

At any time that a player possesses an entity and a debt of that entity,
the entity is transferred to the player named in the oldest debt he has
naming that entity, and that debt is destroyed. 
[In other words, debts are paid off in the order created.  If I owe the
Treasury A$5 for bond dividends, and then a CFCJ makes me pay A$10 to
Bill, the first A$5 I obtain, by any means, is immediately transferred to
the treasury, and the next A$10 after that is paid to Bill.]

Other bits:
Wherever I wrote "player" above should be "any entity which can own stuff".

Add some way to determine which debts are paid off first when a player/entity
simultaneously gets debts of the same entity to different players/entities
(one way this can happen is if a CFCJ makes me pay John A$10 and the
treasury A$10).

Handle what happens if players leave the game (possibly debts of the
undead and debts owed to the undead simply don't get paid off, and are
ignored for purposes of determining whether the player owes the entity
and what his oldest debt is; if a player has left the game and doesn't
have an undead, all his debts and all debts owed that player are
destroyed).  Similarly handle when non-player entities which owe or
are owed cease to exist.

BTW, that reminds me, did we destroy all the PBP's of the ZZimsy undead?
If not, we should do so.  Did anybody own any of The Great Old One's PBPs
and did anything happen to them when he rejoined as Ackers?

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:50:57 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Stock Options

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> I've cleaned up the text a bit, incorporated some of the changes, and am re
> posting it for further comments and refinements before submitting it to the
> promoter.
> 
> RFC: Stock Options
> {{name this rule Companies and number it 725}}
> 
> 1. A type of organization known as a Company exist.  Players may form new
> companies in accordance with this rule.
> 
> 2. Players form companies by publicly posting a message containing the
> following information: The name of the Company, the initial Board of
> Directors (a minimum of three players). the name of the CEO (must be one of
> the players on the Board of Directors), the initial offering price for their
> stock, and the division of the stock.  Stock can either be owned by a player
> or owned by a company.  Stock can never be unowned except for as allowed by
> the rules [for example, stocks buried as part of a treasure].

Reading this, I think that Companies are the type of Organization that
could benefit from having Organizations as members as well.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:44:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Stock Options 

In a message dated 97-03-06 17:24:32 EST, you write:

> Reading this, I think that Companies are the type of Organization that
>  could benefit from having Organizations as members as well.
>  
>  Niccolo Flychuck

I don't oppose this... but I would rather see that changed as a later
ammendment.  Why?  A) Organizations appear to be in a state of turmoil/flux
at the moment B) Although I don't oppose it, others might.  I'd hate to see
this proposal get rejected for that reason.

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:48:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: debt

> Hmm, I don't like the idea that a harf magnet and a negative harf magnet
> can appear out of nowhere.
	I kinda like it, but it does sound sort of open to abuse.
	The Blueprint for the Orbital Mind Control Laser is worded in 
such a way as to avoid the specific scam you're talking about.  So are 
the Rental rules, now (I think they were worded otherwise for a while).

> When a rule *requires* some transfer to occur and a player doesn't own
> enough of some entity, that player is given one or more nontradable,
> nameless entities called debts.
	Debts should be tradeable...  Anyway, this sounds like a lot of
language for not much benefit.  I'd rather hammer the player in the score
department and leave it at that. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 18:47:08 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time Check (Malenkai)

/dev/joe wrote:

> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I; 16bit)

I think that says it all :)

> This will probably affect all Malenkai's
> advtelecom.com messages until he fixes the problems. :-)

Actually, only mail from that machine.  That machine just crashed the
HD and was reinstalled from scratch, so I have yet to configure that
stuff.  Mail from me from work is so rare that it should not be a
problem, and I usually send it from my Sun which is only 8 minutes
off (and needs to be fixed too...).  

I just didn't want to delay the game of Ghost, so I made the lookup 
retroactive a few hours ;)

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:28:17 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  debt 

>In light of that, I think we should just repeal R510 and R511.  Or repeal
>R511 and replace R510 with much, much weaker language, something like:

This sounds crazy, but I'd actually like to see the rules amended to make
it easier to go into debt.  Maybe a player could always ttake an action and
spend more than they have (this was prohibited before we allowed for debt)
and the treasury will always bail them out, but it will get harder and
harder to get out each time...

just thinking,
snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:39:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Recent IRC Ghost game 

>There once was a player who was told,
>when he played ghost he shaccumsoled,
>He shook and said "brrrrrr",
>and pulled on a fur,
>It's too tough to play ghost in the cold.
>
>/sound narf.wav
>
>Narf

I'm outraged! Whres the uestiox?

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:10:26 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bye. 

> No undead is created, and Smiley's possessions do not become haunted,
> because he never became an active player, as far as I know anyway...
>
> Malenkai

  Perhaps we should have "wills" which describe what happens to players'
posessions after they undie.  This would permit, for example, "Fine, you
can have the Frobotzner, but if I ever come back, I want it!".  Does anyone
think this would be a good/bad idea?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:34:48 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bye.

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Dan Knapp wrote:

> > No undead is created, and Smiley's possessions do not become haunted,
> > because he never became an active player, as far as I know anyway...
> >
> > Malenkai
> 
>   Perhaps we should have "wills" which describe what happens to players'
> posessions after they undie.  This would permit, for example, "Fine, you
> can have the Frobotzner, but if I ever come back, I want it!".  Does anyone
> think this would be a good/bad idea?
> 
> -Red Barn

But what if I don't WANT the Frobnotzer?  What if I take it, give it to
someone else, and then you come back and demand it from me?  This could
concievably work, but only if you made each will a set of rules unto
itself, where the will would decribe all of the conditions for each and
every item handed out.  This could lead to some fairly ridiculous
consequences, say if someone leaves and wills me his Frobnotzer so long as
I post the entire text of James joyce's Ulysses to acka-discussion.  After
all, the guy who's gone won't care how annoying that is to everyone.  And
imagine how annoyed I'll be when he comes back 2 weeks later and I have to
give him the mighty Frobnotzer back......

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:48:28 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bye. 

> But what if I don't WANT the Frobnotzer?  What if I take it, give it to
> someone else, and then you come back and demand it from me?  This could
> concievably work, but only if you made each will a set of rules unto
> itself, where the will would decribe all of the conditions for each and
> every item handed out.  This could lead to some fairly ridiculous
> consequences, say if someone leaves and wills me his Frobnotzer so long as
> I post the entire text of James joyce's Ulysses to acka-discussion.  After
> all, the guy who's gone won't care how annoying that is to everyone.  And
> imagine how annoyed I'll be when he comes back 2 weeks later and I have to
> give him the mighty Frobnotzer back......

  Yeah, that's true.  I was thinking of wills primarily to keep the
property from going unused until/unless the player returns.  But I think it
would still work - we could have wills looking like this:

1.  I loan my Frobnotzer to so-and-so.
2.  I give my vending machine to whoever, provided e <verb>s <annoyance>.

  ... where it's stated whether it's a loan or a gift.  Granted, the gift might
be handled in advance; still, as with Habeous Corpus and now Smiley, the
reasons for leaving might be pressing, and having on-file a document
stating what to do under such circumnstances might be nice.

  Comments?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:58:40 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1779

> B) The species of the pet.  The pet must be an animal, and it must be no
> larger than a horse or cow in size.

What if  I want a pet Elephant?  I don't think this restriction 
should be in there.  Heck, we've all wanted a pet whale at one time 
or another.  
 
- ---
Ackers
[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:11:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: BuzzBee

> BuzzBee has been On Ice for 68 days.  8 of those days were 
> holidays.  He was removed from the game as of 00:22 this morning.
> 
> Would the Undead-Harfer and other officers please update their
> records, etc?  I will leave his player record on the P/E page for the
> next week or so.  Was he ever active?  If not, the Undead-Harfer may
> not have to do anything.

According to my records, he was never active.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper, who has to watch for players becoming active to handle Whamiols.

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

Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 00:08:56 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: debt

/dev/joe wrote:

> BTW, that reminds me, did we destroy all the PBP's of the ZZimsy undead?
> If not, we should do so.  Did anybody own any of The Great Old One's PBPs
> and did anything happen to them when he rejoined as Ackers?

Rule 1751 destroyed all of the ZZimsy Undead's PBP's, on March 3rd.
Acker's rejoined on March 4th, therefore it is as if he was a new player.
Had he joined before P 1751 was accepted, he may have ended up with 2
sets of bonds.  At this point, all PBP's have been destroyed except for
those of the Undead on the Undead-Harfer's page.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 00:35:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> I was under the impression you already ammended all the duration in Duels.
> Anyway, I don't think there was ever 5 days in there.

Limericks must be posted within 5 days of the start of a Duel or
Limerick contest.  This should be changed to 3 the next time someone
does a cleanup proposal.

Malenkai
BTW, going through all the old e-mail archives, you used to spell your
name Nicolo Flychuck.  Did you ever legally change it?  More curious 
than anything else.

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

End of Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #6
****************************************