Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #26
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Sunday, March 30 1997    Volume 02 : Number 026

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 00:10:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: fixing land sales

>     "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. :-) ]}}
	Yuck.  Rule 515 defers to all other rules, you can just say

Land is tradeable.  However, any transaction which would result in blah 
blah must be approved blah blah.

	and that will work.
	I think burying land makes sense; in RL one would bury the 
deed...

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 00:13:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : G&C, Rule Suites and Tiers

Malenkai,
	I thought about Rule Suites a little the other day and decided 
we'll probably have to change Rule 102, maybe adding a little bit, to 
make it work the way I think it should work.
	Also, each Rule Suite Head (you called them charters, right?)
should say "The GamesMaster (Scientist, whatever) is responsible for
updating this Rule Suite; the Web-Harfer is not." and the Web-Harfer rule
should defer to all this. 

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:21:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : G&C, Rule Suites and Tiers

Mohammed wrote:
> 
> Malenkai,
>         I thought about Rule Suites a little the other day and decided
> we'll probably have to change Rule 102, maybe adding a little bit, to
> make it work the way I think it should work.
>         Also, each Rule Suite Head (you called them charters, right?)
> should say "The GamesMaster (Scientist, whatever) is responsible for
> updating this Rule Suite; the Web-Harfer is not." and the Web-Harfer rule
> should defer to all this.

Right.  Charters is a new idea.  Rule suites now don't do much except
get some of the stuff out of the main doc, and provide an easy way
to add rules on numerically.  The current ones could have the null
charter.  I think a bit of work is going to have to occur for the
charter idea to work, so it probably should be RFCed a bit first if
we want to do that.  For as long as I can remember, I've wanted to get
rid of what I call 'pseudo-rules'.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 00:45:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : G&C, Rule Suites and Tiers

> Right.  Charters is a new idea.  Rule suites now don't do much except
> get some of the stuff out of the main doc, and provide an easy way
> to add rules on numerically.  The current ones could have the null
> charter.
	Would the charter be part of the text of the Head of the rule
suite, or would it go somewhere else?  I guess if the point is to get rid
of pseudo-rules, it makes more sense to put the text right there.. 
	There's an interesting case with Blueprints in that a Scientist
can make a Blueprint with no approval and no delay.  So as rules, they 
need to be made appropriately weak-- something like "the rules in this 
suite may only generate effects through existing Gadgets..." although 
even that is open to abuse.  Hrm.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:02:36 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : G&C, Rule Suites and Tiers

Mohammed wrote:

>         Would the charter be part of the text of the Head of the rule
> suite, or would it go somewhere else?  I guess if the point is to get rid
> of pseudo-rules, it makes more sense to put the text right there..

Yep.

>         There's an interesting case with Blueprints in that a Scientist
> can make a Blueprint with no approval and no delay.  So as rules, they
> need to be made appropriately weak-- something like "the rules in this
> suite may only generate effects through existing Gadgets..." although
> even that is open to abuse.  Hrm.

Blueprints are given the power of rules through other rules.  I'm sure
the exact same functionality can be achieved when they are rules,
at least that is the premise.  Like you said, blueprints describe 
the way gadgets work, and have no power in the absense of a gadget
to deliver the power.  I see charters, among other things, as having
necessary and sufficient conditions for rules to be added to the 
rule suite.  One necessaary condition would be that the rule unambigiously
describe the behaviour of a gadget (or whatever the current wording is).

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:06:23 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1884

> Proposal 1884
> Ad Hoc Enhancement

> IV. Append to section the following text:

This rule change appears ambigious.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:25:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1884

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Proposal 1884
> > Ad Hoc Enhancement
> 
> > IV. Append to section the following text:
> 
> This rule change appears ambigious.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
I'll resubmit this. But I'll do it tomorrow, I'm too tired now to check
for more typos.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 18:43:23 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1855 accepted (If the Justices Don't Remember to Penalize the Original Judge, Then They Didn't Want to Give a Stiff Penalty Anyway)

Mohammed wrote:
 
> Proposal 1855
> If the Justices Don't Remember to Penalize the Original Judge, Then They Didn't Want to Give a Stiff Penalty Anyway

It seems that the "tinkering" in the bot possibly ate the proposal
text? :).

Actually, what I am writing to point out is that my proposal 1857,
which basically does the same thing and was distributed about 30 
seconds later, is invalid, by the substantially similar rule (so no
scoring should result from it).

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:59:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1880

> Proposal 1880
> Exorcising Demons
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Repeal 1230.18 "Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon"
	I just bought a Demon for A$ 15 and placed it on the board.  The
piece is indeed far, far, far too powerful (in my opinion) for its
material weight, but I don't think I should be punished for having bought
one.  It would be different if this proposal suggested to transform each
Demon that is on the board to a... I dunno, a Prophet or something...
before the rule gets repealed.
	When my Demon is removed from the board, I won't just lose the
Demon; I'll probably lose my Rook, too (I placed my Demon specifically to
defend that Rook).  Please vote No on 1880. 

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 18:06:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1874

> >> 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.
	Interesting point-- but I think it would be better if the rarity 
were accomplished by making it more *difficult* or more *costly* rather 
than merely more *inconvenient*.  It's more fun that way.
	But your answer is good enough that I'll vote for it-- and 
propose an amendment later.  :o)

> 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.
	Nobody controls the Treasury right now, so I assume the Treasury
doesn't take any of it, by default, right? 

> 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.
	Send me private mail about this.  Bots vary from system to system;
because I'm using UNIX it's very easy.  Do you know python?

Your evil twin,
- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:29:24 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1880

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Proposal 1880
> > Exorcising Demons
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> > This is a Modest proposal.
> > 
> > Repeal 1230.18 "Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon"
> 	I just bought a Demon for A$ 15 and placed it on the board.  The
> piece is indeed far, far, far too powerful (in my opinion) for its
> material weight, but I don't think I should be punished for having bought

This has nothing to do with being punished. 
PartyChess is a chess variant in a nomic environment. This means that
changing the rules, as we do in nomic, is a part of PartyChess as well.

When I originally discussed PartyChess with, back in early RFC stages, I
raised the possibility such a proposal as a strategic move in PartyChess.

You say the piece is far too powerful, I'm convinced. 

> one.  It would be different if this proposal suggested to transform each
> Demon that is on the board to a... I dunno, a Prophet or something...
> before the rule gets repealed.

That's a nice idea, but I don't like proposals that directly interfere
with the board position.

There is nothing personal against you in this repeal. It will affect all
Demons.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 	When my Demon is removed from the board, I won't just lose the
> Demon; I'll probably lose my Rook, too (I placed my Demon specifically to
> defend that Rook).  Please vote No on 1880. 
> 
> -- Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:33:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1880

If other players feel the same about this let me know.
I may retract and submit an alternative. Perhaps just ammending the
promotability bit, which is the bit that makes it really powerful.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Proposal 1880
> > Exorcising Demons
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> > This is a Modest proposal.
> > 
> > Repeal 1230.18 "Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon"
> 	I just bought a Demon for A$ 15 and placed it on the board.  The
> piece is indeed far, far, far too powerful (in my opinion) for its
> material weight, but I don't think I should be punished for having bought
> one.  It would be different if this proposal suggested to transform each
> Demon that is on the board to a... I dunno, a Prophet or something...
> before the rule gets repealed.
> 	When my Demon is removed from the board, I won't just lose the
> Demon; I'll probably lose my Rook, too (I placed my Demon specifically to
> defend that Rook).  Please vote No on 1880. 
> 
> -- Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 18:35:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1855 accepted (If the Justices Don't Remember to Penalize the Original Judge, Then They Didn't Want to Give a Stiff , Penalty Anyway)

> It seems that the "tinkering" in the bot possibly ate the proposal
> text? :).
	As well as the names of the voters-- well, not exactly; I'll send 
the results again in a sec.

> Actually, what I am writing to point out is that my proposal 1857,
> which basically does the same thing and was distributed about 30 
> seconds later, is invalid, by the substantially similar rule (so no
> scoring should result from it).
	That's good news.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 18:37:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1880

> > It would be different if this proposal suggested to transform each
> > Demon that is on the board to a... I dunno, a Prophet or something...
> > before the rule gets repealed.
> That's a nice idea, but I don't like proposals that directly interfere
> with the board position.
	*lol*

> There is nothing personal against you in this repeal. It will affect all
> Demons.
	That's right.  All 1 of them.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 19:38:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1880

Mohammed wrote:

>         I just bought a Demon for A$ 15 and placed it on the board.

When, and on what list, did you buy the Demon?  I completely missed
it.

Malenkai
afraid for his ISP again

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 18:54:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1880

> >         I just bought a Demon for A$ 15 and placed it on the board.
> When, and on what list, did you buy the Demon?  I completely missed
> it.
	I don't have the message; it went to acka-chess, I believe.
	The purchase and place were made in the same message.  The 
purchase is not in the Party Chess purchase log and the play is not in 
the play log, but the Demon is shown on the board and it is in the list 
of my on-board pieces.  Hrm.

- -- Mohammed
unsure of the game state

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 20:00:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1880

Mohammed wrote:
> 
> > >         I just bought a Demon for A$ 15 and placed it on the board.
> > When, and on what list, did you buy the Demon?  I completely missed
> > it.
>         I don't have the message; it went to acka-chess, I believe.
>         The purchase and place were made in the same message.

Is this sort of purchase legal on acka-chess?  There certainly is
no assurance that the Financier will be on that list; indeed it
would be undesirable to require him to be.  (I actually was on the
list, but still missed it when I was Financier).  If you could give 
me the approximate date, I will try to track it down.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 20:31:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1855 accepted

> YES votes:
> 	mr cwm
> 	IdiotBoy
> 	/dev/joe
> 	Niccolo Flychuck
> 	Narf
> 	fnord
> 	Calvin N Hobbes
> 	breadbox
> 	ThinMan
> 	Mohammed
> 	Vynd
> 	Malenkai
> 	(None Yet) Unity vote
> 	Harf Unity vote
> 	Vulcan Unity vote

There's a problem with these unity votes.
Bascule and Robert Sevin are members of Harf, and snowgod is a member
of (none yet), but none of them voted YES, but yet you have YES unity
votes for these parties.

> PRESENT votes:
> 	Robert Sevin
> 
> Active players who did not vote:
> 	snowgod
> 	Bascule

[other non-voters deleted -- it looks like all the right players are shown
here]

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:38:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1855 accepted (If the Justices Don't Remember to Penalize the Original Judge, Then They Didn't Want to Give a Stiff Penalty Anyway)

> Proposal 1855

> Active players who did not vote:

>         Simon Marty Harriman

SMH is not active.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:53:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Tab

> Proposal 1855
> If the Justices...
> /dev/joe
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  13 / 20 = 65.000000%
> Yes:  13    No:  0     Present:  1   ...Proposal accepted.
	This got 13 YES votes, not 15; as /dev/joe noted the Unity Votes 
weren't being handled properly by the bot.
	This affects nothing but might explain why you got two results on 
this rather than one... I was testing the fix.

- -- Mohammed
crazy python coder

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

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 08:57:44 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1880

I sent malenkai a copy of the original message.
If it ain't legal, it should be.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 29 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Mohammed wrote:
> > 
> > > >         I just bought a Demon for A$ 15 and placed it on the board.
> > > When, and on what list, did you buy the Demon?  I completely missed
> > > it.
> >         I don't have the message; it went to acka-chess, I believe.
> >       The purchase and place were made in the same message.
> 
> Is this sort of purchase legal on acka-chess?  There certainly is
> no assurance that the Financier will be on that list; indeed it
> would be undesirable to require him to be.  (I actually was onthe
> list, but still missed it when I was Financier).  If you could give 
> me the approximate date, I will try to track it down.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #26
***************************************