Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #12
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Friday, March 14 1997    Volume 02 : Number 012

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:15:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1797

> {{Upon the acceptance of this proposal, restore the games state and the
> ruleset to the state they would currently be in had proposal 1764 not been
> accepted.}}
	I consider this to be a retroactive effect; if that's the case it 
wouldn't work.  (It's open to debate though, imho.  Check out rule 103.)

> At first, I thought about simply ammending this rule, but I couldn't figure
> any clean way to do it.
	You could simply get rid of the part that says it's a Crime to be 
a member of two Parties at once.  I like that better (and would vote for 
it.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 11:47:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1798

> Proposal 1798
> Giving Harf Where Harf Is Due (Take 2)
> Robert Sevin

It would be a lot simpler, and have much the same effect, to simply
repeal Rule 1127. Once Harf was the name of an active player, no other
player could ever have it.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:57:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1798

> It would be a lot simpler, and have much the same effect, to simply
> repeal Rule 1127.
	I agree.  I might propose it.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:13:59 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1797

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308A.C14F96D0
Content-Type: text/plain

(sorry, this wound up being kinda long...)

Mohammed wrote:
> > {{Upon the acceptance of this proposal, restore the games state and
> the
> > ruleset to the state they would currently be in had proposal 1764
> not been
> > accepted.}}
> 	I consider this to be a retroactive effect; if that's the case
> it 
> wouldn't work.  (It's open to debate though, imho.  Check out rule
> 103.)
> 
The use of "restore" is probably unfortunate, as the state that I think
Narf wants to put the game into is not one that it has ever been in.
I think that what he wants to do is, among other things, undo several
amendments without having to figure out what the previous text of the
relevant rules was.  He has made an attempt at a catch-all solution
which is intended to cover any situation that might arise between now
and the (potential) acceptance of the proposal wherein the current
versions of those rules would have a different effect than the older
ones.

I do not consider this a retroactive effect.  It does not try to
change the fact of the acceptance of P 1764, nor the application of
the rule changes contained therein, nor the application of the revised
rules between then and the (potential) acceptance of P1797.  Rather,
the proposal seeks to, at the time it is accepted, cause a change in
the game state which would erase all those effects of the passage of
P 1764.  (Lengthy analogy and discussion trimmed.) 

All that being said, I also want to make it clear that
_I STRONGLY OPPOSE P 1797_.

> > At first, I thought about simply ammending this rule, but I couldn't
> figure
> > any clean way to do it.
> 	You could simply get rid of the part that says it's a Crime to
> be 
> a member of two Parties at once.  I like that better (and would vote
> for 
> it.)
> 
If Narf's only concern is the effect of Big Tents, then Mohammed's
suggestion, or a similar alternative, as much more palatable to me.
It would also be much easier to implement, and its potential effects
much easier to evaluate beforehand.

I object to wholesale "change the game state" proposals on philosophical
grounds.  I just don't like to do it unless the circumstances are dire
and there is no other alternative.  I am confident that Narf's intended
effects could be explicitly spelled out in a valid proposal if he were
willing to spend the time to research it and write it up.

Moreover, the Big Tent issue is no big deal to me.  It just means that
players must be careful about what organizations they join, and about
what those organizations do.  If Narf has no other objections to the
organizations rewrite, then I oppose the principle of P1797 as well as
its execution.

ThinMan

- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308A.C14F96D0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.0.1457.3">

</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1>(sorry, this wound up being kinda long...)</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">Mohammed =
wrote:</FONT>
<UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; {{Upon the acceptance of this =
proposal, restore the games state and the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; ruleset to the state they would =
currently be in had proposal 1764 not been</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; accepted.}}</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">I consider this to be a retroactive effect; if that's =
the case it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">wouldn't work.&nbsp; (It's open to =
debate though, imho.&nbsp; Check out rule 103.)</FONT>
<BR>
</UL><P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">The use =
of &quot;restore&quot; is probably unfortunate, as the state that I =
think</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">Narf wants to =
put the game into is not one that it has ever been in.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">I think that =
what he wants to do is, among other things, undo several</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">amendments =
without having to figure out what the previous text of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">relevant =
rules was.&nbsp; He has made an attempt at a catch-all solution</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">which is =
intended to cover any situation that might arise between now</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">and the =
(potential) acceptance of the proposal wherein the current</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">versions of =
those rules would have a different effect than the older</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">ones.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">I do not =
consider this a retroactive effect.&nbsp; It does not try to</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">change the =
fact of the acceptance of P 1764, nor the application of</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">the rule =
changes contained therein, nor the application of the revised</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">rules between =
then and the (potential) acceptance of P1797.&nbsp; Rather,</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">the proposal =
seeks to, at the time it is accepted, cause a change in</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">the game =
state which would erase all those effects of the passage of</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">P 1764.&nbsp; =
(Lengthy analogy and discussion trimmed.) </FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">All that =
being said, I also want to make it clear that</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">_I STRONGLY =
OPPOSE P 1797_.</FONT>
<BR>
<UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; At first, I thought about =
simply ammending this rule, but I couldn't figure</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; any clean way to do it.</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">You could simply get rid of the part that says it's a =
Crime to be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">a member of two Parties at =
once.&nbsp; I like that better (and would vote for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">it.)</FONT>
<BR>
</UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">If Narf's only concern is =
the effect of Big Tents, then Mohammed's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">suggestion, or a similar =
alternative, as much more palatable to me.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">It would also be much easier to =
implement, and its potential effects</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">much easier to evaluate beforeha=
nd.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">I object to wholesale =
&quot;change the game state&quot; proposals on philosophical</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">grounds.&nbsp; I just don't =
like to do it unless the circumstances are dire</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">and there is no other =
alternative.&nbsp; I am confident that Narf's intended</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">effects could be explicitly =
spelled out in a valid proposal if he were</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">willing to spend the time to =
research it and write it up.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">Moreover, the Big Tent issue is =
no big deal to me.&nbsp; It just means that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">players must be careful about =
what organizations they join, and about</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">what those organizations =
do.&nbsp; If Narf has no other objections to the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">organizations rewrite, then I =
oppose the principle of P1797 as well as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">its execution.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">ThinMan</FONT>
<BR>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308A.C14F96D0--

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:13:59 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1797

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308B.40DD17B0
Content-Type: text/plain

(sorry, this wound up being kinda long...)

Mohammed wrote:
> > {{Upon the acceptance of this proposal, restore the games state and
> the
> > ruleset to the state they would currently be in had proposal 1764
> not been
> > accepted.}}
> 	I consider this to be a retroactive effect; if that's the case
> it 
> wouldn't work.  (It's open to debate though, imho.  Check out rule
> 103.)
> 
The use of "restore" is probably unfortunate, as the state that I think
Narf wants to put the game into is not one that it has ever been in.
I think that what he wants to do is, among other things, undo several
amendments without having to figure out what the previous text of the
relevant rules was.  He has made an attempt at a catch-all solution
which is intended to cover any situation that might arise between now
and the (potential) acceptance of the proposal wherein the current
versions of those rules would have a different effect than the older
ones.

I do not consider this a retroactive effect.  It does not try to
change the fact of the acceptance of P 1764, nor the application of
the rule changes contained therein, nor the application of the revised
rules between then and the (potential) acceptance of P1797.  Rather,
the proposal seeks to, at the time it is accepted, cause a change in
the game state which would erase all those effects of the passage of
P 1764.  (Lengthy analogy and discussion trimmed.) 

All that being said, I also want to make it clear that
_I STRONGLY OPPOSE P 1797_.

> > At first, I thought about simply ammending this rule, but I couldn't
> figure
> > any clean way to do it.
> 	You could simply get rid of the part that says it's a Crime to
> be 
> a member of two Parties at once.  I like that better (and would vote
> for 
> it.)
> 
If Narf's only concern is the effect of Big Tents, then Mohammed's
suggestion, or a similar alternative, as much more palatable to me.
It would also be much easier to implement, and its potential effects
much easier to evaluate beforehand.

I object to wholesale "change the game state" proposals on philosophical
grounds.  I just don't like to do it unless the circumstances are dire
and there is no other alternative.  I am confident that Narf's intended
effects could be explicitly spelled out in a valid proposal if he were
willing to spend the time to research it and write it up.

Moreover, the Big Tent issue is no big deal to me.  It just means that
players must be careful about what organizations they join, and about
what those organizations do.  If Narf has no other objections to the
organizations rewrite, then I oppose the principle of P1797 as well as
its execution.

ThinMan

- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308B.40DD17B0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.0.1457.3">

</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1>(sorry, this wound up being kinda long...)</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">Mohammed =
wrote:</FONT>
<UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; {{Upon the acceptance of this =
proposal, restore the games state and the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; ruleset to the state they would =
currently be in had proposal 1764 not been</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; accepted.}}</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">I consider this to be a retroactive effect; if that's =
the case it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">wouldn't work.&nbsp; (It's open to =
debate though, imho.&nbsp; Check out rule 103.)</FONT>
<BR>
</UL><P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">The use =
of &quot;restore&quot; is probably unfortunate, as the state that I =
think</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">Narf wants to =
put the game into is not one that it has ever been in.</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">I think that =
what he wants to do is, among other things, undo several</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">amendments =
without having to figure out what the previous text of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">relevant =
rules was.&nbsp; He has made an attempt at a catch-all solution</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">which is =
intended to cover any situation that might arise between now</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">and the =
(potential) acceptance of the proposal wherein the current</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">versions of =
those rules would have a different effect than the older</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">ones.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">I do not =
consider this a retroactive effect.&nbsp; It does not try to</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">change the =
fact of the acceptance of P 1764, nor the application of</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">the rule =
changes contained therein, nor the application of the revised</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">rules between =
then and the (potential) acceptance of P1797.&nbsp; Rather,</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">the proposal =
seeks to, at the time it is accepted, cause a change in</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">the game =
state which would erase all those effects of the passage of</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">P 1764.&nbsp; =
(Lengthy analogy and discussion trimmed.) </FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">All that =
being said, I also want to make it clear that</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">_I STRONGLY =
OPPOSE P 1797_.</FONT>
<BR>
<UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; At first, I thought about =
simply ammending this rule, but I couldn't figure</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">&gt; any clean way to do it.</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">You could simply get rid of the part that says it's a =
Crime to be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">a member of two Parties at =
once.&nbsp; I like that better (and would vote for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">it.)</FONT>
<BR>
</UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">If Narf's only concern is =
the effect of Big Tents, then Mohammed's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">suggestion, or a similar =
alternative, as much more palatable to me.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">It would also be much easier to =
implement, and its potential effects</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">much easier to evaluate beforeha=
nd.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">I object to wholesale =
&quot;change the game state&quot; proposals on philosophical</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">grounds.&nbsp; I just don't =
like to do it unless the circumstances are dire</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">and there is no other =
alternative.&nbsp; I am confident that Narf's intended</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">effects could be explicitly =
spelled out in a valid proposal if he were</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">willing to spend the time to =
research it and write it up.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">Moreover, the Big Tent issue is =
no big deal to me.&nbsp; It just means that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">players must be careful about =
what organizations they join, and about</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">what those organizations =
do.&nbsp; If Narf has no other objections to the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">organizations rewrite, then I =
oppose the principle of P1797 as well as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">its execution.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">ThinMan</FONT>
<BR>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308B.40DD17B0--

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:48:30 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Proposal 1799

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308F.5A312CC0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Proposal 1799
> bonds bonds bonds
> Narf
> 
[etc.]

[Calculation of absolute score.  Summary: same as score except it
doesn't reset at cycle's end; see also below.]

> 2.  Whenever a players |score| reaches or exceeds 300, eir |score| is
> imediately halved (rounding up) and the number of pfBond's in eir name
> doubles.  In other words, if I hold 10 pfBonds in player x's name, and
> player
> x's score hits 300, my 10 pfBond x's become 20 pfBond x's.
> 
> 3. Every 2 weeks the bond-harfer shall compute the absolute value of a
> players pfBonds (referred to hereafter as |$pf|) according to the
> following
> formula :
> 
>              |score| * % of pfBonds held by other players   
> |$pf| =     ----------------------------------------------------
>                                               10
> 
[Etc.  Other details.  Bonds pay yields per bond proportional to |$pf| ]

> 6. When a player leaves the game, all pfBond e holds are haunted, and
> do not
> count as bonds held by other players when calculating |$pf|
> 
> [note: this means that if a player leaves the game, you can sell their
> bonds
> to the treasury and get a return on you money.  If you choose to hold
> on to
> them, however, their value will go down as other players sell eir
> bonds to
> the treasury]
> @@
> 
Although I acknowledge some benefit to be gained from the incentives
that this proposal would implement, I have to oppose it, and I urge
others to do the same.  The main problem is that it is drastically
inflationary.  The amount of money coming out of the Treasury into
players' pockets will continuously increase over time as a result of
the combination of players' absolute scores increasing and "stock
splits."  In RL, stock dividends are based on profits, not on stock
price.

I also note the less pressing problem that if a player holding some of
my bonds quit, then his undead would haunt my bonds, thus preventing
anyone else from getting them, but they would no longer count as
"outstanding," and thus the yield of all my other bonds would go
down.  This could be fixed by an amendment if it were the only problem.

ThinMan

- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308F.5A312CC0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.0.1457.3">

</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Proposal 1799</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">bonds bonds bonds</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Narf</FONT>
<BR>
</UL><P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">[etc.]</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">[Calculation =
of absolute score.&nbsp; Summary: same as score except it</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">doesn't reset =
at cycle's end; see also below.]</FONT>
<BR>
<UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">2.&nbsp; Whenever a players =
|score| reaches or exceeds 300, eir |score| is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">imediately halved (rounding up) and =
the number of pfBond's in eir name</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">doubles.&nbsp; In other words, if I =
hold 10 pfBonds in player x's name, and player</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">x's score hits 300, my 10 pfBond x's =
become 20 pfBond x's.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">3. Every 2 weeks the bond-harfer =
shall compute the absolute value of a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">players pfBonds (referred to =
hereafter as |$pf|) according to the following</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">formula :</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp; |score| * % of pfBonds held by other =
players&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">|$pf| =3D&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
- ----------------------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
10</FONT>
<BR>
</UL><P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">[Etc.&nbsp; Other details.&nbsp; Bonds pay yields per bond =
proportional to |$pf| ]</FONT>
<BR>
<UL><P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">6. When a player leaves the game, =
all pfBond e holds are haunted, and do not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">count as bonds held by other players =
when calculating |$pf|</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">[note: this means that if a player =
leaves the game, you can sell their bonds</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">to the treasury and get a return on =
you money.&nbsp; If you choose to hold on to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">them, however, their value will go =
down as other players sell eir bonds to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">the treasury]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">@@</FONT>
<BR>
</UL><P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">Although =
I acknowledge some benefit to be gained from the incentives</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">that this =
proposal would implement, I have to oppose it, and I urge</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">others to do =
the same.&nbsp; The main problem is that it is drastically</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">inflationary.&nbsp; The amount of money coming out of the Treasury =
into</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">players' =
pockets will continuously increase over time as a result of</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">the =
combination of players' absolute scores increasing and =
&quot;stock</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">splits.&quot;&nbsp; In RL, stock dividends are based on profits, =
not on stock</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">price.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">I also note =
the less pressing problem that if a player holding some of</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">my bonds =
quit, then his undead would haunt my bonds, thus preventing</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">anyone else =
from getting them, but they would no longer count as</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">&quot;outstanding,&quot; and thus the yield of all my other bonds =
would go</FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier New">down.&nbsp; =
This could be fixed by an amendment if it were the only problem.</FONT>
<BR>
<BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Courier =
New">ThinMan</FONT>
<BR>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------ =_NextPart_001_01BC308F.5A312CC0--

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:52:56 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1797 

In a message dated 97-03-14 14:25:01 EST, you write:

> You could simply get rid of the part that says it's a Crime to be 
>  a member of two Parties at once.  I like that better (and would vote for 
>  it.)
>  

I thought about it....

But then a small group of $A rich players could form several political
parties and get all those bonus votes... So I rejected that idea.

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:58:44 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1797 

In a message dated 97-03-14 15:20:03 EST, you write:

> If Narf's only concern is the effect of Big Tents, then Mohammed's
>  suggestion, or a similar alternative, as much more palatable to me.
>  It would also be much easier to implement, and its potential effects
>  much easier to evaluate beforehand.

I've explained in other responses why I didn't take that route.

>  I object to wholesale "change the game state" proposals on philosophical
>  grounds.  I just don't like to do it unless the circumstances are dire
>  and there is no other alternative.  I am confident that Narf's intended
>  effects could be explicitly spelled out in a valid proposal if he were
>  willing to spend the time to research it and write it up.

I didn't expect this to be popular <grin> But I had to make the case.  I
looked at several ways to do this, including cutting and pasting a lot of
text.  I even wrote out one such proposal before deleting it (so yes, I did
spend the time researching and writing it up).

There are other <small> objections that I have to the reorganization of
organizations (I voted against the original proposal) but that's not why I
did it this way.  I would vote for re-reorganizaing organizations if this
part were removed, and Political Parties were formed the way they were in the
past, or at least with the explicit consent of all members of the
organization.  Hmm... now there's an idea I hadn't thought of before...

Narf

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 00:05:36 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1797

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> In a message dated 97-03-14 14:25:01 EST, you write:
> 
> > You could simply get rid of the part that says it's a Crime to be 
> >  a member of two Parties at once.  I like that better (and would vote for 
> >  it.)
> >  
> 
> I thought about it....
> 
> But then a small group of $A rich players could form several political
> parties and get all those bonus votes... So I rejected that idea.
> 
> Narf
>
No.
The third paragraph of R723 states that Unity Votes are counted if no
member of the Party is also a member of another Party.
That was of my original objections, and without that statement I would
have opposed the proposal.

So deleting the crime bit would address your concerns, and have little
effect on the rule besides.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:08:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1799 

In a message dated 97-03-14 15:51:51 EST, ThinMan writes:

> Although I acknowledge some benefit to be gained from the incentives
>  that this proposal would implement, I have to oppose it, and I urge
>  others to do the same.  The main problem is that it is drastically
>  inflationary.  The amount of money coming out of the Treasury into
>  players' pockets will continuously increase over time as a result of
>  the combination of players' absolute scores increasing and "stock
>  splits."  In RL, stock dividends are based on profits, not on stock
>  price.
>  

Yes, it is inflationary.  It also creates a more stable bond market.  I'm
open to ideas for how to create the second without causing the first.  In the
mean time, I point out that inflation is a fact of life.  And it's not as
inflationary as it appears at first glance, because as players drop out of
the game a) their bonds will be sold back to the treasury and are therefore
no longer paying dividends and b) as you pointed out, bonds that they hold
are haunted, no longer paying dividends and no longer counting towards
outstanding bonds.

Inflationary?  Yes.  Drasticaly so?  Probably not.  It's the first step
toward creating a more interesting economic system.

And there are plenty of potential solutions to problems of inflation, just
ask Jimmy Carter.  Oh wait, bad example.  Um... Ask George Bush... Oh wait...
not a good idea either.  Umm... Alan Greenspan?

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:24:51 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1797 

In a message dated 97-03-14 17:06:50 EST, Niccolo showed me the error of my
ways:

> The third paragraph of R723 states that Unity Votes are counted if no
>  member of the Party is also a member of another Party.
>  That was of my original objections, and without that statement I would
>  have opposed the proposal.
>  
>  So deleting the crime bit would address your concerns, and have little
>  effect on the rule besides.

Admittedly I missed this little tidbit.  However, it merely shifts the
concern.

Were we to strike the part about being in two parties being a crime,  players
could sabotage parties by joining two or more at once.  More to the point,
organizations could.  Ie...  You are a member of organization A, which owns a
big tent.  You are also a member of Organization B.  Org B is providing you
some fantastic benefits, and you are not anxious to leave it.  Org B has a
leader capable of acting unilateraly and doesn't LIKE org A.  So he buys a
big tent for org B.  Now as a player you either have to leave org B and give
up those benefits, or you cost org A their potential unity vote.  I'll admit
this could make things interesting, but I for one don't particularly like it.

Here's another scenario.  I join org A (which has a Big Tent).  For whatever
reason, I decide I want to cost them their ability to get a unity vote (Maybe
I joined specificaly for that purpose...)  I form a new organization, with
myself as leader and with the power to act unilateraly (all I have to do is
make a public statement saying that that's my intent) and then I buy a Big
Tent.  Org A can't force me out... and they've lost their unity vote.

There are several loopholes with this rule.  

Overall, the reorg proposal contained a lot of good, fun ideas, but I think
the problems outweigh them.  What was wrong with the old system of political
parties?  Why was it so broken that we needed this fix?

Narf

a

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:26:28 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: acrobot 

#vote 1798 n
#vote 1796 y
#vote 1797 y
#vote 1799 y

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

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 02:33:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1797

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> In a message dated 97-03-14 17:06:50 EST, Niccolo showed me the error of my
> ways:
> 
> > The third paragraph of R723 states that Unity Votes are counted if no
> >  member of the Party is also a member of another Party.
> >  That was of my original objections, and without that statement I would
> >  have opposed the proposal.
> >  
> >  So deleting the crime bit would address your concerns, and have little
> >  effect on the rule besides.
> 
> Admittedly I missed this little tidbit.  However, it merely shifts the
> concern.
> 
> Were we to strike the part about being in two parties being a crime,  players
> could sabotage parties by joining two or more at once.  More to the point,
And the Organization could kick them out. A player can't be forced to be a
member of an Organization, and an early CFJ established that a player
can't for emself on a Party.

> organizations could.  Ie...  You are a member of organization A, which owns a
> big tent.You are also a member of Organization B.  Org B is providing you
> some fantastic benefits, and you are not anxious to leave it.  Org B has a
> leader capable of acting unilateraly and doesn't LIKE org A.  So he buys a
> big tent for org B.  Now as a player you either have to leave org B and give
> up those benefits, or you cost org A their potential unity vote.  I'll admit
> this could make things interesting, but I for one don't particularly like it.

Life is full of such decisions. The player would have to balance things
out and choose between two option, both of which havd advantages and
disadvantages. That is an interesting interaction. No action should be
all good or all bad. 

 > 
> Here's another scenario.  I join org A (which has a Big Tent).  For whatever
> reason, I decide I want to cost them their ability to get a unity vote (Maybe
> I joined specificaly for that purpose...)  I form a new organization, with
> myself as leader and with the power to act unilateraly (all I have to do is
> make a public statement saying that that's my intent) and then I buy a Big
> Tent.  Org A can't force me out... and they've lost their unity vote.

Yes, they can force you out.  An Organization has no obligation to accept
or keep anyone as a member.

> 
> There are several loopholes with this rule.  
> 
> Overall, the reorg proposal contained a lot of good, fun ideas, but I think
> the problems outweigh them.  What was wrong with the old system of political
> parties?  Why was it so broken that we needed this fix?

There was nothing wrong with it. This is not a fix, it's evolution. It's
not necessarily better, or worse - it is different. I wouldn't mind
leaving Parties out of the re-org, but essentially they are left
unchanged.

Now, if we could just get back to a single Unity Vote per Party....
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 21:37:50 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1798 

At 11:47 AM 3/14/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> Proposal 1798
>> Giving Harf Where Harf Is Due (Take 2)
>> Robert Sevin
>
>It would be a lot simpler, and have much the same effect, to simply
>repeal Rule 1127. Once Harf was the name of an active player, no other
>player could ever have it.
>
>breadbox

The difference is that if I did as you suggested, anyone could have Harf in
their Acka name. The original rule passed, so I can assume that at least
some players agree with me that Harf is not to be bestowed lightly upon a
player. I think that this solution is rather simple, and can be a way of
rewarding particularly harfy players.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 21:38:10 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1798 

>> It would be a lot simpler, and have much the same effect, to simply
>> repeal Rule 1127.
>	I agree.  I might propose it.
>
>--Mohammed

I would have to oppose that. It would be simpler, but that alone is not
enough to justify it. The game would be simpler without Silver Stripes, the
Magic Potato, the Politeness Moon, Aliens!, and Harfy Proposals. Does that
mean we want to get rid of them? Please consider carefully before taking
such a step, and allow me to try and dissuade you from that course...

A large part of Acka seems devoted to giving recognition to exceptional or
noteworthy players. I think this is a key part of the game -- while these
awards really have no value, they please a great deal of people. I think the
right to have Harf in one's name as a sign of one's harfiness would
contribute to this facet of Acka culture and tradition. Harf seems to have
been adopted by Acka as a standard by which we measure many things -- I
think this is fitting with our past traditions. I strongly urge you not to
repeal 1127.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:40:06 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1798 

In a message dated 97-03-14 22:38:50 EST, R7 wrote:

> I would have to oppose that. It would be simpler, but that alone is not
>  enough to justify it. The game would be simpler without Silver Stripes,
the
>  Magic Potato, the Politeness Moon, Aliens!, and Harfy Proposals. Does that
>  mean we want to get rid of them?

Do you really want an honest answer to that? <evil grin>

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 21:48:51 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1798 

>>  Magic Potato, the Politeness Moon, Aliens!, and Harfy Proposals. Does that
>>  mean we want to get rid of them?
>Do you really want an honest answer to that? <evil grin>
>
>Narf

Yes. If you would like to get rid of them, I'd like to ask you what sort of
nomic would be ideal to you -- IMO these sorts of things are what make Acka
be the unique nomic that it is. I don't wish to be too bold, but I think it
is safe to safe that a majority of Acka players support these silly facets
of Acka. Some might wish to reorganize the rules in such a way that they are
not so difficult to learn, but I don't think most players would support
simplifying the rule set if it were at the expense of Acka's
"personality"... I could be wrong -- I'd be interested to see what other
players feel about this.

Robert Sevin

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #12
***************************************