Subject: Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #8
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Discussion Digest)
To: acka-discuss-digest

Ackanomic Discussion Digest  Saturday, March 8 1997  Volume 02 : Number 008

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 00:29:46 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC right now 

Come play Ghost!

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:34:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> 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.
>
I didn't notice that. One would to find the posting that anounced my
joining to see which one is the legal spelling.

Nic(c)olo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 01:53:08 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Recent IRC Ghost game 

In a message dated 97-03-06 21:21:16 EST, you write:

> I'm outraged! Whres the uestiox?

Hard to write a limerick using "uestiox" when I'm not sure how many syllables
are in it...  
]
Narf

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 09:43:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Here's Niccolo's signon message from the former registrar, chess piece face

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>                 acka name: Niccolo Flychuck

That's the way it's written on 'The Prince', too.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 03:27:26 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1779

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

> > 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]
> 

I know, I would have kind of liked to have a pet Anklyosaurus, you know,
the one with a club for a tail?  Anyways, I decided to put in the
limitation because I stumbled across a rule on the size of things.  As
far as I could tell no one has really bother to apply it to much of
anything.  Still, I didn't want the proposal to get shot down because
people could buy pets taht were too big to fit in their house or
something.  Nor was I about to set forth the sizes for all available pets
(my goodness, my screen just went apeshit there, hope none of that made it
into the letter....).  If everyone decides that they really want to buy
pet Giraffes or Giant Squids or whatever, then we can always ammend it
later....

                         - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 04:29:56 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bye. 

> Good idea. It would involve some bookkeeping, and it would also complicate
> selling such an item. Would the inheritor be able to sell it, and if so what
> if the dead guy returned after it had been sold? Does he still get it? I'm
> not against the idea, but we'd have to work out all the ramifications.
>
> Robert Sevin

  The easy way to resolve this is to treat it like a rental without a fee.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 04:41:03 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1779 

> I know, I would have kind of liked to have a pet Anklyosaurus, you know,
> the one with a club for a tail?  Anyways, I decided to put in the
> limitation because I stumbled across a rule on the size of things.  As
> far as I could tell no one has really bother to apply it to much of
> anything.  Still, I didn't want the proposal to get shot down because
> people could buy pets taht were too big to fit in their house or
> something.  Nor was I about to set forth the sizes for all available pets
> (my goodness, my screen just went apeshit there, hope none of that made it
> into the letter....).  If everyone decides that they really want to buy
> pet Giraffes or Giant Squids or whatever, then we can always ammend it
> later....

  The location of a new pet would be unspecified anyway, so it doesn't
matter.  C'mon, take out the size restriction...

  Anyway, I'm making mine a Midget Roc Bird...

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 00:53:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bye. 

>Ackanomians,
>
>	I'm sorry, but I've gotta' leave......forever.  :o(  (For now. my dad
>doesn't understand it, and doesn't think I do.)  Well, sorry.
>Bye........ :o(
>
>						Smiley

Well, If your dad changes his mind, feel free to come back.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 00:56:43 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BuzzBee 

>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.
>
>Malenkai
>Speaker

He was active.  He voted on something or other when I was still tabulator.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 04:00:30 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bye.

Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) wrote:
> 

> 
>   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

It seems to me like it's more trouble than it's worth. If a player wants
to have an informal will, fine. However, I see two problems with
formalizing this. First someone will have to keep track of the wills,
updating them when necessary. That will create a lot of work for
somebody. Second, if one wanted to have an up to date will, one would
have to change it every time a new item was picked up.

All in all, it seems to me like it would be better if such things were
disposed of, like Guy Fawkes did, on a players undeath bed. At that time
the player could make what ever stipulations e wanted, if not let the
items stay in the undead house.

Lestrade

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:08:33 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bye.

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, john duncan wrote:

> 
> All in all, it seems to me like it would be better if such things were
> disposed of, like Guy Fawkes did, on a players undeath bed. At that time
> the player could make what ever stipulations e wanted, if not let the
> items stay in the undead house.
> 
> Lestrade
> 

Or, if we manage to formalize cross-nomic trading, transfer it to eir
alter ego in another nomic, if e has one.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 04:28:40 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: BuzzBee

snowgod wrote:
> >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.
> 
> He was active.  He voted on something or other when I was still tabulator.

I'm looking at your prop results mail, and I don't see it.  You marked
him as a New Player Who Hasn't Voted Yet on P1540-1592, and then Mohammed
took over.  Maybe you're confusing him for another player?

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 01:47:34 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BuzzBee 

>I'm looking at your prop results mail, and I don't see it.  You marked
>him as a New Player Who Hasn't Voted Yet on P1540-1592, and then Mohammed
>took over.  Maybe you're confusing him for another player?
>
>/dev/joe

I must be.  Hmm.  I just looked through my old prop results and didn't see
it either.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:20:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bond Trading

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

<SNIP of interesting bond history>

> In those days, players had A$100 apiece.  The average balance as of 
> a couple days ago is A$1060, indicating A$8 per bond, all other things
> being equal.  Given that we accumulate points faster now than in those
> days, all things are not equal.  Perhaps A$35 per bond is too cheap ;)
> 

And playing the part of Alan Greenspan today, Malenkai!

I guess that's not fair, Alan was trying to drive prices down.

IB

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

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 01:59:49 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : RFC Cross-Unions

RFC - Cross Union

1. A Cross Union is a type of Organization.
2. Any entity which is a member of a nomic which is a member of Internomic
is eligible to become a member of a Cross Union.
3. The members of a Cross Union which are also members of Ackanomic are
collectively known as the Ackanomic Branch of that Cross Union.
4. An entity becomes a member of a Cross Union by notifying the Cross
Union, or an official appointed by the Cross Union for that purpose of its
desire to become a member. If the current membership of the Cross Union
approves of the new member by majority vote, then the Cross Union posts a
public message to that effect and the entity becomes a member.

- --------------------------
{{ [
OK. I'll start with that. This proposal just lays down a basic structure,
other than that it's a do nothing Organization, but that's not really the
point. Quit a lot of O/I used to be do-nothing.  My point here is
exploring the concept, and I'd rather explore it, and test it before
providing such Organizations with any roles.  
I can think of several possible roles - such as entity transfer
privileges, and other cross-nomic things which don't really need to go
through Internomic.
I see possibilities here. Organizations and ideologies forming in one
nomic, expanding, and eventually migrating to other nomics. 
But first I'd like some commentary about the concept
] }}

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:15:34 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : RFC Cross-Unions 

>
>4. An entity becomes a member of a Cross Union by notifying the Cross
>Union, or an official appointed by the Cross Union for that purpose of its
>desire to become a member. If the current membership of the Cross Union
>approves of the new member by majority vote, then the Cross Union posts a
>public message to that effect and the entity becomes a member.
>

Okay, where do they post this public message?  here or in internomic, or in
every nomic where there is a branch?  Also, how do we convince other nomics
to pass a similar rule.  PP will be conserned about sovergnty issue.

Other than that, I think it's a great idea and is worth pursuing.  A cross
Union could be a useful internomic tool.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 02:28:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : RFC Cross-Unions

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >
> >4. An entity becomes a member of a Cross Union by notifying the Cross
> >Union, or an official appointed by the Cross Union for that purpose of its
> >desire to become a member. If the current membership of the Cross Union
> >approves of the new member by majority vote, then the Cross Union posts a
> >public message to that effect and the entity becomes a member.
> >
> 
> 
> Okay, where do they post this public message?  here or in internomic, or in
> every nomic where there is a branch?  Also, how do we convince other nomics
> to pass a similar rule.  PP will be conserned about sovergnty issue.

This would be specified in a later RFC, but IMO, for Ackanomic entities,
the posting should be to Ackanomic. As for other entites, this depends on
other nomics.
I think you are missing a point here. We don't need other nomics to pass
similar rules.  In a nomic which does not recognize cross nomic
Organizations, or Groups, will have no official local branches of Cross
Unions. That's why there's no sovereignty issue.

I see  working like this. Suppose there exists a Cross Union with an
Ackanomic Branch, initially, most of them would have this. The Ackanomic
Branch is bound by Ackanomic rules, including public postings of
membership changes.
Now, suppose there exists a Cross Union with no Ackanomic Branch. This
rule would recognize it as an existing Organization which has no power in
Ackanomic. If an ackanomic player (or Organization) joins that Cross
Union, that would result in the creation of an Ackanomic Branch. Ackanomic
rules only recognize an Ackanomic Branch that has been created according
to the rules. So if the Cross Union does not inform Ackanomic that one of
Ackanomic's members joined that Cross Union, then as far as Ackanomic is
concerned, there is no local Branch of thac Cross Union, and said
Ackanomic entity is not a member of that Cross Union.

This way each nomic only regulates the local Branch of the Cross Union.

I suppose some players would prefer a more explicit way of specifying
those two different cases. I'm posting this mostly to fire up the
discussion.

 > 
> Other than that, I think it's a great idea and is worth pursuing.  A cross
> Union could be a useful internomic tool.
> 
> snowgod
> 
> 
> 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 02:33:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : RFC Cross-Unions

On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> This way each nomic only regulates the local Branch of the Cross Union.

I suppose I could another note here. Many contests, and mail order book
clubs have some small print 'void where prohibited by law'
Such a provision might be useful here  as well. phrased differently of
course.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> I suppose some players would prefer a more explicit way of specifying
> those two different cases. I'm posting this mostly to fire up the
> discussion.
> 
> > 
> > Other than that, I think it's a great idea and is worth pursuing.  A cross
> > Union could be a useful internomic tool.
> > 
> > snowgod
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 02:35:15 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : RFC Cross-Unions

I noticed I've been replying to my own mail, this reminds of a posting I
saw once  in a newsgroup. Someone posted about a trivial computer problem,
and 12 hours later he posted a follow up to his own post, quoting his
original post and adding:

"I have exactly the same problem."

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 19:44:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not Really Acke

snowgod wrote:

[about the "hollywood stock exchange"]

> we need something like this for acka :)

I have been working on something like this for some time,  based on
a similar idea for sports betting I had when I was a kid, and 
subsequently ran in college.

It would be completely generic, however.  A statement would be made,
and players would buy and sell shares in the statement.  If the statement
turned out to be true, the longs would collect A$1 for each share held;
if it turned out to be false, the shorts would collect.

The trading price generally represents the collective consensus of 
the statement becoming true in the future, less the time value of money
over the time it will take for it to become true.  Since acka (and most
simulations of this sort) have no time value of money, it works out well.

In any case, someone at Rutgers University wrote a paper on this sort of
simulation, and it is implemented on the net at http://www.ideosphere.com.
I do not know if they have the volume of snowgod's movie site, but the
genericness of their implementation appeals to me more.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 16:18:33 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not Really Acke 

>In any case, someone at Rutgers University wrote a paper on this sort of
>simulation, and it is implemented on the net at http://www.ideosphere.com.
>I do not know if they have the volume of snowgod's movie site, but the
>genericness of their implementation appeals to me more.
>
>Malenkai

I checked out the foresight exchange, and its fascinating.  Slightly
different than HSX, but probably a better implentation for a nomic.  The
fun in HSX comes from real time trading, and this doesn't have that, but it
provides more options in the avialibility of trades.

Hmm, I think I'll play it for a while and see what happens.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:57:08 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Mad Scientist

O the monster it can be said
Must be made of most things quite dead
However I think
They've had too much to Frink
When it could be just stupid instead.

Ode to voters:
  Oh precious suffragers unite!
Thy virtues are so candidly displayed
  Oh that the stunning voters' might
Could possibly at my feet be laid

His name...
Must be original...
Quaint, strong...
Howe're I choose to set it forth
Must at last be spoken...
Thus the air of expectantcy fills the forgotten minds third eye
The eye that sees the monster unfold his tortured
tale
indeed, he shall be named Wahrheit
or in a long dead tongue Verdad
For he stands for Truth!
in the Latin 'Veritas odium parit'
Truth begets Hatred

Thanx, Ludwig 

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>I think this sets a record for volunteers for an office.  The
>>candidates follow; voting ends in 3 days.  Send your votes to me
>>for the office of Mad Scientist.
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Ackers
>>IdiotBoy
>>Ludwig
>>Narf
>>Vynd
>
>Before I cast my vote I need to know what each of the candidates hopes to
>name their first monster.  Also, if each candidate could compose a poem
>praising the voters it would be much appreciated.
>
>snowgod
>
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 21:02:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: wills (was Bye.)

	So you use the Frobnotzer before he has a chance to reanimate.
	There should be a way to offer a trade that will then stand after
you leave the game.  That would be simple enough-- wouldn't it?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 22:16:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:RFC stock options 

In a message dated 97-03-05 20:47:56 EST, you write:

> Hmmm.... not good, I think.  Shouldn't the company own its stock (as in
real
>  life)?  Also, consider that somewhere down below, you say that players can

> buy
>  the stock if they pay the company money, so technically, the company
should 
>  own any stock not owned by players.

Ahhh... that was the intention, guess I need to be more specific about it :)

>Doesn't something explicit have to be said in the rule so that an
organization
>can own things?

'pends on what happens with Mohammed's proposals

>So if a company has A$101, they don't have to pay the fee for writing a 
>rejected proposal?

Not sure I follow your logic there...

>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?
  
Involuntary debt?  Or mandatory sale of stock.
                                                               
Wall Street should have someone to take care of it.  Yes, it makes sense for
the Financier to take care of it, but in this case, Malenkai already has more
than enough to do for Ackanomic.           

Do you also intend for there to be no way to increase or decrease the number
of shares available for a company?  Or will it always stay at 100?

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 21:25:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1779

> (my goodness, my screen just went apes*$&@*+|||$_) )$=|@T<%)@|@#B}{TT|#@)%0

		()%*@)$#- there, hope none of 
> that made it
> into the letter....).
	Hey! Watch your language-- I mean, line noise!

- --Mohammed :o)

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 22:28:08 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code 

In a message dated 97-03-07 17:43:53 EST, you write:

> To:   Ackanomians
>  From: mr cwm
>  
>  What do people think of the Postal Code?  After closer inspection (and
>  discovering it will increase the amount of mail I must handle), I think
>  its a step backward, but if I'm the only one, I'll drop it.
>  
I agree 100 %

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 21:38:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code

mr cwm:
>  What do people think of the Postal Code?  After closer inspection (and
>  discovering it will increase the amount of mail I must handle), I think
>  its a step backward, but if I'm the only one, I'll drop it.

Narf:
> I agree 100 %

	I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.  Postal Code 
has done nothing to increase the amount of mail you must handle.  The 
amount of game mail has skyrocketed on its own.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 22:43:19 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code 

In a message dated 97-03-07 22:40:46 EST, you write:

> 	I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.  Postal Code 
>  has done nothing to increase the amount of mail you must handle.  The 
>  amount of game mail has skyrocketed on its own.
>  
>  --Mohammed

Granted... I should have been more specific.

It's a pain to make certain that every message is on the correct list... it
doesn't count if I don't ack this one here and that one there... that sort of
thing.

narf

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

Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 22:57:25 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: IRC 

Come to IRC!

Narf

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

Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 00:46:51 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mad Scientist

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >I think this sets a record for volunteers for an office.  The
> >candidates follow; voting ends in 3 days.  Send your votes to me
> >for the office of Mad Scientist.
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Ackers
> >IdiotBoy
> >Ludwig
> >Narf
> >Vynd
> 
> Before I cast my vote I need to know what each of the candidates hopes to
> name their first monster.  Also, if each candidate could compose a poem
> praising the voters it would be much appreciated.
> 
> snowgod
> 

My poetry is generaly pretty attrocious (even worse than Ludwig's) but
here's a haiku:

Jovian voters
synergisticaly act
the harf is joyous

My monster shall be named.....  Trumpy!

                                  -  Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #8
****************************************