Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #23
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest  Wednesday, March 26 1997  Volume 02 : Number 023

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:13:57 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1859

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1859
> Trials By Jury
> Calvin N Hobbes
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> {{renumber this rule to 218}}
> 
> [This would allow for the trials by jury. The effects would be minimal,
> considering Acka is nicely defined. However, it would add another
> possibility to deal with strange occurences. The rule was kept as simple as
> possible]

I like the concept, although considering the low rate of undecided
verdicts, this is the kind of thing that would be suitable for an Ad Hoc
Comittee (just to plug a new concept), where he Comittee would be the
jury.

> 
> The initiator of the CFJ will act as Prosaecuter. The Judge who ruled
> undecided will nominate a player, excluding the Prosaecuter, to act as
> Consaecuter. That player should have an opinion different from the
Even with the Judge's discretion clause I think all references to players'
opinions should be removed entirely. The Prosaecuter and Consaecuter
should be able to  present their respective sides of the case. If a player
feels e can't do so for whatever reason, e should be allowed to decline.

> 
> The possible rulings are as follows. If all agree to support oneof the two
> opinions presented to them, then they should present its result as verdict.
> The players may present their own verdict if all agree on it. If no
> consensus can be reached, the Consaecuter's opinion prevails and the result
> he outlined is implemented as verdict.

Why should this default to the Consaecuter?  Prsumption of innocense for
CFJs. This would mean that phrasing rather than actual content could
seriously tip the balance.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:36:15 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: P1841 accepted (Saving sendmail) 

In a message dated 97-03-25 00:55:37 EST, you write:

> YES votes:
>  	mr cwm
>  	IdiotBoy
>  	/dev/joe
>  	Robert Sevin
>  	fnord
>  	ThinMan
>  	Vynd
>  	Malenkai
>  
>  NO votes:
>  	Red Barn
>  	breadbox
>  	Mohammed
>  
>  PRESENT votes:
>  
>  Active players who did not vote:
>  	Jammer
>  	Calvin N Hobbes
>  	Niccolo Flychuck
>  	snowgod
>  	Strider
>  	Lestrade
>  	Techno

Hmmm... am I no longer an active player?  lol

I seem to recall voting no on this... but even if I didn't, I either voted,
or didn't vote, and should be on ONE of these lists.

narf

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:16:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #19

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Ackanomic Voting Digest wrote:

> Proposal 1842
> Speaking in Double Talk
> Malenkai
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  10 / 17 = 58.823529%
> Yes:  6    No:  5     Present:  0   ...Proposal rejected.
> 
> 
> YES votes:
> 	/dev/joe
> 	Red Barn
> 	Robert Sevin
> 	Narf
> 	Vynd
> 	Malenkai
> 
> NO votes:
> 	mr cwm
> 	fnord
> 	breadbox
> 	ThinMan
> 	Mohammed
> 
> PRESENT votes:
> 
> Active players who did not vote:
> 	Jammer
> 	Calvin N Hobbes
> 	Niccolo Flychuck
> 	snowgod
> 	Strider
> 	Lestrade
> 	Techno
> 

This log doesn't show me voting or not voting.  I can't figure from the
title what this proposal was, but since Malenkai wrote it, I probably
succombed to peer pressure and voted YES.

No, I don't have any bot results-
IB

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:43:22 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #19

IdiotBoy wrote:

> I can't figure from the title what this proposal was,

The title is supposed to help you figure other stuff out.
This proposal removed the retraction penalty on proposals.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:36:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1841 accepted (Saving sendmail)

> Hmmm... am I no longer an active player?  lol
	The states of the players in the bot are continually out of 
date.  I'll check the old bot mail for your vote.
	snowgod, could you please send the right #vacation and #active 
commands to the bot in order to make sure everyone's player state is 
right?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:43:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #19

> This log doesn't show me voting or not voting.  I can't figure from the
> title what this proposal was, but since Malenkai wrote it, I probably
> succombed to peer pressure and voted YES.
> No, I don't have any bot results-
> IB
	I just went through all my bot mail for the past week.  You did 
not cast a vote on P1841.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:49:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1865

  Hurray!  This is great!

>Create a new rule entitled "Entity Transfer Protocol, Part 3: Just in Case"
>with the following text:

  What happens if entities get "stranded" elsewhere?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:27:25 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1865

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1865
> The moment we've all been waiting for!
> snowgod
> 

I have one thing against this, and that is the necessity of creating
similar internal interfaces in different nomics in order to enable this.
Currently this would only allow us to trade with Pumpkin Patch. This
assumes parallel evolution among nomics. If we were to encounter a
previously unknown nomic who had different concepts about entity transfer,
we would not be able to transfer entities to them or from them, also, it
would agreement among all nomics we have previously traded with in order
to create some common protocol.

This is a major weakness of this concept. I'll still vote for it because
it's a good start, and it will allow to test some concepts
(not to mention that it's been a really long time since I voted for any of
snowgod's proposals:)
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:20:30 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1841 accepted (Saving sendmail) 

>> Hmmm... am I no longer an active player?  lol
>	The states of the players in the bot are continually out of
>date.  I'll check the old bot mail for your vote.
>	snowgod, could you please send the right #vacation and #active
>commands to the bot in order to make sure everyone's player state is
>right?
>
>--Mohammed

Oops, yeah.  I'll start remembering to do that.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:23:52 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1865 

>On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
>
>> Proposal 1865
>> The moment we've all been waiting for!
>> snowgod
>>
>
>I have one thing against this, and that is the necessity of creating
>similar internal interfaces in different nomics in order to enable this.
>Currently this would only allow us to trade with Pumpkin Patch. This
>assumes parallel evolution among nomics. If we were to encounter a
>previously unknown nomic who had different concepts about entity transfer,
>we would not be able to transfer entities to them or from them, also, it
>would agreement among all nomics we have previously traded with in order
>to create some common protocol.
>
>This is a major weakness of this concept. I'll still vote for it because
>it's a good start, and it will allow to test some concepts
>(not to mention that it's been a really long time since I voted for any of
>snowgod's proposals:)
>Niccolo Flychuck

Niccolo's objections are exectly entirely the point of this proposal.  It
IS a test case, and is initially designed to allow us to try oiut some
concepts with the pumpkin patch before we hoist something similar on the
whole internomic community.  If this work out we cna post a "standards"
rules in internomic and any nomic who wished to participate in internomic
trade could adopt these standards (assuming they proven to work).

This rule is a method of getting something done that we couldn't figure out
before, but remember it's only the first step.  Like everything else it
will evolve, etc.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:39:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1865

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, snowgod wrote:

> This rule is a method of getting something done that we couldn't figure out
> before, but remember it's only the first step.  Like everything else it
> will evolve, etc.
> 

I can't wait til the voting digest comes out!  This sounds very promising!

IB
wasting bandwidth

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:33:55 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1866

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1866
> Striking a Blow for Democracy
> IdiotBoy
>

I support this. 

I urge allplayers to support this.  I think this will inject a new influx
of creativity and dynamic activity into Ackanomic (not that it lacks any
now)

breadbox, take not of this week's discussions, they may well need to go
down the history books.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:06:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1865

> Proposal 1865
> The moment we've all been waiting for!

This proposal is fundamentally different from the approach I was
championing, and that was to develop a single interface with
Internomic.  The difference being we would only need to develop one
interface, and any other nomic who also did so could trade with us
(and with each other).  This approach requires us to develop some sort
of interface with each nomic with which we wish to trade.

I think of it as the way the Internet is designed.  Your host need only
establish a point to point connection with the 'internet cloud', rather
than a point to point connection with each host on the network.

A couple of other specific details that I am leery of:

> 2) a) Nomics who have assigned to one of their players the duties and
> responsibilities similar to those assigned in Ackanomic to the Customs
> Officer and whose rulesets include a rule or rules substantially similar to
> Ackanomic's Entity Transfer Protocol will be designated Trade Partners of
> Ackanomic.

The idea of requiring us to make judgements about another nomic's ruleset
and the duties and responsibilities of their officers strikes me as
problematic.  To comply with this fully, someone would have to become an
expert in that nomic's ruleset (to check precedence, etc).  Moreover, what
if a CFJ is called on this?  That would also require the judge to
acquire the necessary expertese also.  What if their ruleset is as large as
acka's, and written in polish?  What if their relavent rules are changed,
or the relavent officer is on leave or impeached?  The requirement that
we monitor these events to achieve strict compliance is troubling, 
especially when a solution that does *not* require this sort of thing
exists.  If we have five trading partners, the problem is compounded five
times.

Again, an Internet example would probably work here.

Another issue is the lack of standard required for the partner nomic.
That nomic could be a one player nomic set up by the customs officer with
one rule, the 'substantially similar' rule.  Although I'm not suggesting
anyone would wish to pull such a scam, part of the fun of nomic is 
finding solutions that are as scam-free as possible (at least for me).
Using an Internomic framework, while it does limit the nomics with 
which you could trade, does assure some sort of standard for the other
nomic, at least in theory.

So, my opinion is that unless there is a compelling reason to start
trading with a particular nomic post haste, that we examine the need
rush into this with this solution.  Also, considering the amount of 
work and debate a few of our players put into this a couple of months
back, I'm somewhat disapointed that this was not RFCed first.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:54:13 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1865 

>So, my opinion is that unless there is a compelling reason to start
>trading with a particular nomic post haste, that we examine the need
>rush into this with this solution.  Also, considering the amount of
>work and debate a few of our players put into this a couple of months
>back, I'm somewhat disapointed that this was not RFCed first.
>
>Malenkai

I know there are better ways to do this, but that is not what this proposal
is about.  This proposal is about a test case, an attempt to see if
internomic trade *can work*.  It is an experiment and not a solution.  It
was developed by p[layers in several nomics (tough mainly PP and Ackanomic)
and was RFC'd privately a number of times.  I know Niccolo Flychuck has
seen it and I am almost certain that I sent a copy to you at some time in
the past (no accustions here, these things can slip by on either end).

As for you other objections I say lets give it a hot, we can always repeal
it when we have a better system, or if this sysytem is proven not to work...

One more thing.  The really cool thing about this system is that it allows
us to trade with nomics who have no desire to join internomic, whereas the
other solution doesn't...

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:11:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1865

snowgod wrote:

> As for you other objections I say lets give it a hot, we can always repeal
> it when we have a better system, or if this sysytem is proven not to 
> work...

I have no doubt that this system will "work" in what it is attempting
to achieve (if you gloss over some of the implemetational problems I
pointed out previously); specifically the ability to exchange stuff
with Pumpkin Patch Nomic, but I guess, in my mind, I want to achieve
something else.
 
> One more thing.  The really cool thing about this system is that it allows
> us to trade with nomics who have no desire to join internomic, whereas the
> other solution doesn't...

I think that is a trivial benefit.  Another Internet analogy would work 
here too :)

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #23
***************************************