Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #42
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest  Wednesday, April 16 1997  Volume 02 : Number 042

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:11:23 -0700
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #40 (but I voted, really I did.)

Um, I'm pretty sure I sent my votes on proposals, 1909 and 1910, before 
the deadline, although since I wasn't in the bot, the votes weren't put 
in until later. Do I have to put out a CFJ to get my votes counted?

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:59:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1920

Acrobot wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1920
> Indentured Servitude
> Guy Fawkes

Could this proposal be retracted and resubmitted, or could the
Promoter clarify its distribution?  I like the idea, but due to what
appears to be bot syntax errors, I must vote no to the form in which it
was distributed, because I do not have the time to guess at its effect.

Malenkai
sorry

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:10:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1920

> Could this proposal be retracted and resubmitted, or could the
> Promoter clarify its distribution?  I like the idea, but due to what
	Hmm.  Let's call this Tabulator error and redistribute.
	What I'll do is distribute the first "half" of that as P1920 and 
the second "half" as P1924 or whatever the next number is.

- -- 
Mohammed
The birthday of a strange distant thin parrot who is susceptible to flu is
a national holiday over there.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:14:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #40 (but I voted, really I did.)

> Um, I'm pretty sure I sent my votes on proposals, 1909 and 1910, before 
> the deadline, although since I wasn't in the bot, the votes weren't put 
> in until later. Do I have to put out a CFJ to get my votes counted?
	Nope, I have the ability to correct errors like that.
	two-star voted PRESENT on P1909 and NO on P1910.  This doesn't 
change anything, except that two-star is now an active player.

- -- 
Mohammed
The birthday of a strange distant thin parrot who are susceptible to flu is
a national holiday over there.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:17:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1920

> Proposal 1920
> Indentured Servitude
> Guy Fawkes

> 2. A player may create a CoI associated with emself at any time.  A player
> may destroy a CoI which he owns at any time.  Other rules may specify
> other conditions under which CoI's are created or destroyed.
> 
> 3. A CoI is used as follows:  A player sends a message to the Tabulator
> stating that e is using a CoI, which proposal under voting consideration e is
> using the CoI on, which player that CoI is associated with (the
> Indentured player), and the type of legal vote the Indentured player
> should cast.
 [...]
> 4. If all CoI usages for a single proposal Indenturing a single player
> state that the Indentured player should cast the same legal vote, the
> Indentured player's vote on that proposal is changed to (or remains) the
> vote specified by the CoI(s).  (This has precedence over Rule
> 106).  Otherwise, the CoI's have no effect.

As written here, CoI's are useless, because a player could create lots of
CoI's and use them (on himself) with specified votes the same way as he
wanted to vote, and never have his vote changed.  Just banning the use
of CoI's by the indentured player can fail just as badly if he gives a
bunch of CoI's to a trusted friend, using them the same way.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:24:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1920

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> As written here, CoI's are useless, because a player could create lots of
> CoI's and use them (on himself) with specified votes the same way as he
> wanted to vote, and never have his vote changed.  Just banning the use
> of CoI's by the indentured player can fail just as badly if he gives a
> bunch of CoI's to a trusted friend, using them the same way.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

Wait, wait, wait!  People have trusted friends in this game?  Where do I
get me one of them?

IB

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:01:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1924

> If the proposal whose number was one less than this rule's number passed,
	Ugh.  Ah well.  It's in cement now, unfortunately; I guess I should 
have read it before doing that...

- -- 
Mohammed
Save lawyers!

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:59:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1924 (Acrobot)

I am retracting both P1920 and P1924.  As /dev/joe has pointed out, P1920 
is uneffective, and P1924 is broken due to numbering.  Expect to see them 
both again soon.

#retract p 1920
#retract p 1924

#thanks

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #42
***************************************