Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #25
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Saturday, March 29 1997   Volume 02 : Number 025

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:27:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1849 accepted (Let's Clear This Up)

> Once again... I don't know for certain whether I voted on this or not... But
> I either voted or didn't... and am not listed as having done either.
	The bot mistakenly believed you were pending, rather than active, 
so it didn't list you.  I am going back over the results now that snowgod 
has brought the bot completely up-to-date (thanks a meg, snowgod) to see 
if any of those proposals failed quorum.  Wish me luck.  (halfgrin)
	Thanks for noticing, Narf.  I just didn't realize what you were 
saying until now.  :o)

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:51:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1874

CnH, I wish you'd RFC'd this first.

> On the first day of each month, a player may claim to be working their
	Could it be the first three days of each month?

> The treasury may claim half of what was produced on the first day of the
> month from each player. Both plastik and zlogerium are raw materials and
> tradeable entities.
	The treasury may... I don't understand, if someone mines one kilo 
of plastik, does the treasury get half of it?  Meaning he then has half a 
kilo?

	Otherwise, this is really cool.   I like the idea of raw materials.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:40:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1874 

>CnH, I wish you'd RFC'd this first.

My dear evil twin, would I be evil if I didn't surprise everyone with these
strange packages that hardly anyone understands?    ; )

Plus, it means it is more likely the proposal will not be accepted and I get
to reach 100 failed proposals first. I still have a running bet with snowgod
you understand.

Enough joking. I'll RFC next time, but just because it's you who asked.

>> On the first day of each month, a player may claim to be working their
>	Could it be the first three days of each month?

No. It should be more difficult and rarer. One day was the intent. Three
days makes it easier and so more stuff would be produced.

>> The treasury may claim half of what was produced on the first day of the
>> month from each player. Both plastik and zlogerium are raw materials and
>> tradeable entities.
>	The treasury may... I don't understand, if someone mines one kilo 
>of plastik, does the treasury get half of it?  Meaning he then has half a 
>kilo?

Just what the english means, yes. The treasure _may_ "tax" by taking 50% of
what someone produced that day. Or it may not. It is up to the person in
charge of the Treasury. This has implications for what the population thinks
of their president, financier, etc, so I think it's interesting. In dire
times (see below) taxing would be popular and people might even give stuff
to the Treasury, but I think it's nice for the Treasury to be able to build
up reserves.

Basically, I was thinking of having very complex, very expensive stuff such
as Orbital Space Stations, Space Destroyers, Deep Space Telescopes, etc,
created from blue prints using processing chips, raw materials. If Acka
wanted to have some, then it would have to get the raw materials to produce it.

Now the point is, if we get attacked by aliens, should we leave Acka's
defenses up to private citizens who have their own space fleet, or should
Ackanomic itself be able to own and maintain one for its defense?

I know by this point, everyone is probably looking at this message thinking
I've gone off the deep end [just call me Mulder]. Perhaps. Let's just say
that the rough draghts were... very... very... very long and complex. Then I
thought that there was a 2000% chance it'd fail so I incorporated everything
as blueprints and raw material. Now it only has a 99% chance of failing,
which is pretty acceptable by my standards, considering half a dozen (or
more) people have me blacklisted.

>	Otherwise, this is really cool.   I like the idea of raw materials.

Thanks. What I enjoy is making zero work proposals. Or I should say
"epsilon" work proposals. The proposals have automatic shutdowns if no one
wants to use them, stay dormant until someone wants to make us of it. It
takes minimum amount of time to go through it. It's done only once a month
at people interested have to done most of the work. Officers don't have to
do anything long term except perhaps keep track of how much is owned, but
that is really something that should be automated. And can be rather easily.

Talking of which, could you email me some info on how you've set up your
bot? The coding is no problem, I'm wondering how you go about configuring
the email stuff so that it reads it for you.

I guess I could save the messages and run them manually. Hum...

Calvin N Hobbes
who is considering making a stuffbot

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:15:52 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1874 

>CnH, I wish you'd RFC'd this first.
>
>> On the first day of each month, a player may claim to be working their
>	Could it be the first three days of each month?
>
>> The treasury may claim half of what was produced on the first day of the
>> month from each player. Both plastik and zlogerium are raw materials and
>> tradeable entities.
>	The treasury may... I don't understand, if someone mines one kilo
>of plastik, does the treasury get half of it?  Meaning he then has half a
>kilo?
>
>	Otherwise, this is really cool.   I like the idea of raw materials.
>
>-- Mohammed

Damn You, CnH!!!!

I was just about to submit my own raw materials proposal, though mine was
with Molybdenum....

Oh well, I like yours better anyway :)

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:40:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1874 

>Damn You, CnH!!!!

Oh this ought to be good.

>I was just about to submit my own raw materials proposal, though mine was
>with Molybdenum....
>
>Oh well, I like yours better anyway :)
>
>snowgod

I'm sorry, didn't know. We have a generally similar personality you and I
(perhaps), and since great minds think alike... well...     ; )

You should still propose it so that we have more raw materials. Raw is good.
Material is good. Evil is good. Oops. Freudian slip.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:22:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1876

> Proposal 1876
> Ad Hoc Gaming Fixin

> {{[Puts Decks of Cards into G&C.

I have the same objections to this proposal, on both philosophical
and technical grounds, that I did last time.  I won't bore people with
the philosophical objections except to say that the trend of moving
rules to non-rules is a bad one, because you lose the inheritance that
you get from being a rule, such as precedence, spelling bee, rule
changes, 'the rules must be interpreteted in accordance with game 
custom', and a million other things that take rules as operands.  The
trend should be to move blueprints and G&C stuff into rule suites
with subordinated precedence, or the same precedence, for all I care.

As for the technical issues, I do not see where in this proposal that
the rules for the decks of cards are actually repealed.  This proposal
will not break the Game of Pure Skill and [questionably] Spades like
the previous one did, but I am not sure of its intended effect.  What
we will have if  this proposal is accepted is the decks of playing
cards rules in the rule set (where they belong), *and* the same (or
similar) entries on the G&C page.

Although I am still opposed to the idea, I will append a proposal which
I believe will have the intended effect of moving the decks of cards
to the G&C page, *and* not breaking any card games.  Feel free to use
any part or all of this, if it has value.

Malenkai
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This is a Modest proposal.

I.  Create a new rule called "Deck Relocation" which reads:

{{

This rule has precedence over rule 1201 [I believe this is necessary].

[I had to edit out of the following description the reference to acka
rules, as R 1201 prevents G&C equipment from scoping out to the acka
rules.]

A.  Add a listing to the Games & Contests General Equipment Section,
with title "Decks of Playing Cards", and authorship credit of "/dev/joe",
and with the following text:

"
A Deck of Playing Cards (or Deck) consists of some
number of elements called Playing Cards (or simply Cards).
Cards may not be exchanged between Decks.

Unless the description  of a specific Deck states otherwise, each Card in
a Deck has two attributes, which are called suit and rank, and a
Deck consists of one card for each combination of suit and rank; these are
called the Normal Cards.

The order that the ranks and suits are listed in the definition of a
particular deck defines the order of those ranks and suits in any game
that cares about the order, unless a different order is specified for that
game.

Standard symbols or abbreviations for the suits and ranks can and should
be defined in the definition of a deck, to make it easier to write the
contents of a player's hand that might contain many cards.

The definition of a particular deck may specify none, some, but not all,
of its cards as optional. Upon instantiation, the Games and
Contest rule which is instantiating the deck may specify the exclusion
of any or all of the optional cards in a deck. If no such specification
is made, the optional cards are said to be included in that instance of
the deck.
"

==================================================================

[for this one, I changed the title from 'Legacy Deck' to 'Standard Poker
Deck'.  The term legacy deck is confusing to me, because this deck is
very modern in the development of decks of cards, historicially 
speaking.  I've seen it referred to as the 'Standard American Deck' or
'Standard International Deck', but many places in Europe and elsewhere
do not use it, and I do not like those names.]

B.  Add a listing to the Games & Contests General Equipment Section,
with title "Standard Poker Deck", and authorship credit of "Niccolo
Flychuck", and with the following text:

"
A Standard Poker Deck is a Deck of Playing Cards. 

It has four suits: Spades (S), Hearts (H), Diamonds (D), and Clubs (C),
and 13 ranks: Ace (A), King (K), Queen (Q), Jack (J), 10, 9, 8,7, 6,
5, 4, 3, 2. Spades and Clubs are black. Hearts and Diamonds are red.

There are also two Jokers in this Deck (?1, ?2). Jokers have no suit, rank
or color. Jokers are optional.
"

=========================================================================

C.  Add a listing to the Games & Contests General Equipment Section,
with title "Eleusis Deck", and authorship credit of "Niccolo Flychuck",
and with the following text:

"
An Eleusis Deck is a Deck of Playing Cards.

It has 8 suits: Wands (!), Strudels (@), Pounds (#), Dollars
($), Maces (%), Spears (^), Daemons (&), and Stars (*), and 15 ranks:
Suber (S), Nomic (N), Monarch (M), Knave (K), Page (P), 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5,
4, 3, 2, Ace (A). In addition to the Normal Cards, there are four
indistinguishable Wild cards (W) in this Deck which have neither suit nor
rank nor color. The Wild cards are optional. In this deck, Wands and
Strudels are blue, Pounds and Dollars are green, Maces and Spears are
black, and Daemons and Stars are red.
"

=========================================================================

II.  [Repleal the old ones.  This is where I was not sure of the intent,
but the titles 'relocating' seemed to indicate that is what we want]

Repeal rule 1203, "Decks of Playing Cards"
Repeal rule 1205, "Description of a Legacy Deck"
Repeal rule 1207, "Description of a Eleusis Deck"

=========================================================================

III.  [Remove the first technical problem, in that R1201, the way 
previous proposals have attempted this, would still require card games
to fetch their decks from the rule document]

Amend rule 1201, "Games and Contests", to remove the following text:

"
d. It is permissible for a Game to create legal Decks, as long as the
Deck is defined by a "Description of a <name> Deck" rule. The created 
Deck is said to have no owner, unless the Game's description specifies
otherwise.
" 

=========================================================================

IV.  [This was the thing I was always talking about, where we were making
the decks equipment, but the games did not instantiate them as equipment]

A.  Amend Games and Contest game 102, "Game of Pure Skill", to replace:

"
The game uses one Legacy Deck (deck) without the optional cards, and no
equipment from the General Equipment Section.
"

with:

"
The game uses one Standard Poker Deck (deck) without the optional cards,
from the General Equipment Section.
"

==========

[This may or may not be a problem, I like to be explicit, though.  Also,
I like to be explicit about not instantiating the optional cards, even
though the rules handle it.  Since this is not my proposal, you can't
throw tomatoes at me for my style :).

I do note that a good case can be made for this game, as well as
diplomacy, not existing as G&C entries at all.  Rule 1201 is somewhat
vague as to what exactly a G&C 'entry' is, but one reasonable rendering,
based on the language of the rule, is that it is anything accepted and
put on that web page is a G&C.  Spades and Diplomacy were accepted, but
never put on the web page as R 1201 directs, so the GamesMaster may have
committed a crime.  The retractable error amendment to Crime, however,
may let this error of ommission stand, thus they may not exist.  I do not
remember whether or not the Crime amendment applies to errors of ommission,
and how strict the wording of R 1201 is.  I may CFJ it, as it interests
me.  This will assume, though, that 108 exists as diplomacy, and 109
exists as spades.]

A.  Amend Games and Contest game 109, "Spades", to replace:

"
Equipment: 1 legacy deck
"

with

"
Equipment: 1 Standard Poker Deck from the General Equipment Section, 
without the jokers.
"

}}

The rest of this is other parts of the proposal that have nothing to
do with the above.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> IV. In R1201 "Games & Contests" section 9 replace the text :
> "Procedure 2:
> 
> A Game or a an entity from the General Equipment section can be added by a
> Proposal which has been submitted and accepted according to the Ackanomic
> Rules. "
> With the text
> "Procedure 2:
> A Game or an entity in the General Equipment section can be added by a
> rule."
> 
> V. In R1803 "Ad Hoc Comittees section 1 a is ammended to read in its
> entirety:
> "By a rule which explicitly states that it makes such a call."

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:52:13 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1876

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> As for the technical issues, I do not see where in this proposal that
> the rules for the decks of cards are actually repealed.  This proposal
> will not break the Game of Pure Skill and [questionably] Spades like
> the previous one did, but I am not sure of its intended effect.  What
> we will have if  this proposal is accepted is the decks of playing
> cards rules in the rule set (where they belong), *and* the same (or
> similar) entries on the G&C page.

It is for these technical issues that I will retract it. I noticed this
negligence after it was ditributed.

I intend to go he other way with this.

I'll submit the necessary fix to G&C and Ad Hoc Comittees, for the faulty
language they both share.

Then I'll submit a proposal that will G&C and three existing rules that
deal with Decks of Playing Cards into a single Rule Suite and add language
that will make it subgames described in that Rules Ruite legal G&C as
well. 
I'll not move the existing G&C just yet.
Something I seem to be missing in G&C is a provision for a game whose
rules change while an instance of the game is being played.
I was thinking of stating that a G&C is played according to the rules that
were in effect when the specific instance started, unless its rules state
otherwise - this would not break games like Diplomacy, who have the self
ammending nomic nature.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 02:10:43 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : G&C, Rule Suites and Tiers

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Proposal 1876
> > Ad Hoc Gaming Fixin
> 
> > {{[Puts Decks of Cards into G&C.

It is my understanding that multi Tiers are not popular right now, but the
absence of Tiers is one of the main reasons I want to keep the current
procedure of adding items to G&C.  G&C, as they stand now, are quite
harmless. I don't think we should a 2/3 majority, or even a 3/5 majority,
should that pass (VOTE FOR IT).  A simple majority would work for me.

So if many players still object to the introduction of Tiers, perhaps some
would agree to the a limited introduction of Tiers within Rule Suites. 
I have already explained once before why I thing the Tier system would be
especially suitable to Rule Suites, specifically to the currently existing
Rule Suites. 

Furthermore, I feel that if more support would be necessary to introduce a
new game or ammend an existing one, some of the restrictions should be
relaxed. As long as we have both methods, G&C adopted under the current
method would be under the current restrictions, G&C adopted as rules,
would enjoy more relaxd restriction. If the current method is ever
abolished - which seems to be the current trend, we'll be left with just
one method. I don't see any problem with moving all G&C into the ruleset,
the current method has served its purpose, it gave a kickstart to G&C, we
now have something like 8 or 9 different games, and that is good.
As long as we enjoy playing, we'll keep proposing games, if all that is
needed is a simple majority, I have no doubt that G&C will continue to
grow.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:09:56 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: RFC: fixing land sales

RFC: land sales

I. Amend rule 839, "Buildings", as follows:

 1. Delete the paragraph which reads:

    "All deals to sell or buy common land which would result in a player
     owning more than 5kaa of land must be approved by Senate vote.
     Otherwise the Financier will acknowledge the transactions."

    {{[I'm moving this to R844 where it fits better.]}}

 2. Add to the end of the rule:

    "Buildings are always owned by whoever or whatever owns the land that
     the building sits on.  If the land which a building sits on is at
     any time not all owned by the same player or entity (or all unowned),
     the building is immediately destroyed."

II. Amend rule 844, "Land Baroncy", as follows:

 1. Delete the sentence "This purchase does not require senate
    approval; this paragraph takes precedence over rule 839."

 2. Add to the end of the first paragraph:

    "All deals to buy common land at any other price or which would result
     in a player owning more than 5 kaa of land, and all deals to sell land
     to the treasury must be approved by senate vote.  When the senate
     approves a land deal, the transaction occurs when the approval is
     announced, if there is no other reason it cannot occur."

     {{[ We also should have something that allows for land to be traded
     between players, but just saying "land is tradable" is going to make
     it easy to get around the 5 kaa per player limit, so maybe something
     like: ]}}

    "Land may be exchanged between players as if it was a tradable entity,
     except that any transaction which would result in a player owning
     more than 5 kaa of land must be approved by senate vote."

     {{[ This also means no burying land in treasures, which doesn't make
     sense anyway, but then neither does burying a swinger office. :-) ]}}

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 18:24:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : G&C, Rule Suites and Tiers

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> A simple majority would work for me.
> 
> So if many players still object to the introduction of Tiers, perhaps some
> would agree to the a limited introduction of Tiers within Rule Suites.
> I have already explained once before why I thing the Tier system would be
> especially suitable to Rule Suites, specifically to the currently existing
> Rule Suites.
> 
> Furthermore, I feel that if more support would be necessary to introduce a
> new game or ammend an existing one, some of the restrictions should be
> relaxed.

I like the current acceptance/rejection methodology of G&C.  My suggestion
would be to have "chartered rule suites", where the charter of the
rule suite would define alternate ways for rules to be added, and define
a precedence other than standard.

For example, 2 charters (and this is *real* rough):

Blueprints:

a) rules may be added to this suite by a scientist (following the current
procedures/impeachment associated with blueprints).

b) rules may be deleted from this suite by their author, provided no
entities defined by the rule exist

c) if any rule in this suite is in conflict with any rule outside this
suite, it is null and void.  [This is the old R108 style "axe", it can be
softened to apply to the particular provision]

Games and Contests:

a) rules may be added to this suite by receiving 5 endorsements, being
commonly recognizible as a game, being approved by the gamesmaster, and
all the other whys and wherefores of the current system (I really like
the 5 endorsement thing.  As these are harmless, I would like as many
as possible to do the grid someday).

b) these rules defer precedence to all other rules

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 02:34:31 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : G&C, Rule Suites and Tiers

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Games and Contests:
> 
> a) rules may be added to this suite by receiving 5 endorsements, being
> commonly recognizible as a game, being approved by the gamesmaster, and
> all the other whys and wherefores of the current system (I really like
> the 5 endorsement thing.  As these are harmless, I would like as many
> as possible to do the grid someday).
> 
> b) these rules defer precedence to all other rules
> 
> Malenkai
> 
A Tier by any other name...

I don't think this is as simple as Tiers internal to Rule Suites, but I
can work with this as well.

As an initial step I'll just do what I stated previously, I'll propose
creating the Rule Suite, and move G&C and Decks into it. 
We'll need to work on this idea of yours.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 18:34:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : G&C, Rule Suites and Tiers

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> A Tier by any other name...
> 
> I don't think this is as simple as Tiers internal to Rule Suites, but I
> can work with this as well.

I do not think it is a tier.  It is different because the charter is 
arbitrary, where as I rememeber tiers, they pertained to voting 
ratios.  The power is in the arbitrary charter, where you can implement
things with much more color, such as the way blueprints work, which
defines a specific way rules are enacted and repealed, with no voting
at all.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:48:29 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: fixing land sales 

>    "Buildings are always owned by whoever or whatever owns the land that
>     the building sits on.  If the land which a building sits on is at
>     any time not all owned by the same player or entity (or all unowned),
>     the building is immediately destroyed."

What if the building is defined by a rule (ie, cowtown?)

>    "Land may be exchanged between players as if it was a tradable entity,
>     except that any transaction which would result in a player owning
>     more than 5 kaa of land must be approved by senate vote."
>
>     {{[ This also means no burying land in treasures, which doesn't make
>     sense anyway, but then neither does burying a swinger office. :-) ]}}
>
>/dev/joe

Oh sure, take all my fun away from me :)

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:50:39 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: P1849 accepted (Let's Clear This Up) 

In a message dated 97-03-28 12:29:48 EST, you write:

> Thanks for noticing, Narf.  I just didn't realize what you were 
>  saying until now.  :o)
>  
That's ok, it was my pleasure.  When the first one came back without my name
attached I half thought everyone was so frustrated by my CFJ's and the
ensuing debates that I had secretly been removed from the game :)

Narf

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #25
***************************************