Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #50
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest  Wednesday, April 23 1997  Volume 02 : Number 050

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:22:57 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1945 

>> Proposal 1945
>> Proactive Face Salvation
>> ThinMan
>> 
>> {{[ In my opinion, the Senate feels some obligation to "save face" in
>> Internomic by voting in favor of all IN proposals from Acka.  This
>> sense of obligation can be removed without any extra work by sending
>> IN-bound proposals through the Senate _first_, at a cost of only a
>> slight delay in proposal submission.
> 
> I am personally oposed to this proposal, but. as ambassador, I will
> galdly follow it if accepted.  Sure, internomic proposals from
> individual players represent Ackanomic as a whole, but that should
> not lead to any embarrasment.  If the senate votes against a
> proposal by one of our players, so be it.  Other nomics (for the
> most part) realize that we are a free and open society, and that in
> Ackanomic, anyone can make an internomic proposal.  I say, keep
> proposal making free.

Don't forget that there is now also the possibility of an Ackanomic
proposal being accepted in Internomic even if Ackanomic votes NO.
This proposal does not really allow for that.

It's unlikely, I'll grant you. But it can happen. And if any nomic did
it, it ought to be us.

xebra bod

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 21:39:50 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1945 

>Don't forget that there is now also the possibility of an Ackanomic
>proposal being accepted in Internomic even if Ackanomic votes NO.
>This proposal does not really allow for that.
>
>It's unlikely, I'll grant you. But it can happen. And if any nomic did
>it, it ought to be us.
>
>xebra bod

I agree.  YOu know, maybe we even ought to try for that :)

Perhaps if we do a sneak attack, you know?  Post a respectable looking
proposal that everyone will support, but hold off on voting until the last
minute when we object on the grounds that that since the other nomics
support it, it must be bad :)

snowgod
BWG

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:39:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #47

On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Ackanomic Voting Digest wrote:

> Proposal 1944
> Mr. Beale
> IdiotBoy
> 
> I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now.
> 
> Acceptance of this proposal will amend the complete text of rule 729 to
> read: 

This is a null proposal.  There is no longer a Rule 729.  I have 
submitted a proposal to help fix this problem in the future.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:42:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #47

On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Ackanomic Voting Digest wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 1944
> > Mr. Beale
> > IdiotBoy
> > 
> > I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now.
> > 
> > Acceptance of this proposal will amend the complete text of rule 729 to
> > read: 
> 
> This is a null proposal.  There is no longer a Rule 729.  I have 
> submitted a proposal to help fix this problem in the future.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

That's ok, it's purpose is served.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:27:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946

> I also note that while it may have been nine months since the rule has
> come into play, Red Barn *attempted* to take advantage of this rule as
> recently as the beginning of the previous Cycle. (Remember the thirty
> identical proposals?)
	That is an **excellent** reason to nuke this puppy.
	Nothing lives forever.

- -- 
Mohammed
Seven bakers led the big parade.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:52:18 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946 

>> I also note that while it may have been nine months since the rule has
>> come into play, Red Barn *attempted* to take advantage of this rule as
>> recently as the beginning of the previous Cycle. (Remember the thirty
>> identical proposals?)
> 	That is an **excellent** reason to nuke this puppy.

I might agree if his attempt had been successful. Or if it was easy to
do successfully. But neither of those things are true.

Hey, if a player manages to engineer their score to be exactly -60,
without at any time going lower, *and* if the situation is such that
it has a chance of actually being a non-insignificant advantage, then
I feel they've earned their points.

xebra bod

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:25:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946

re:  Red Barn's proposals
> > 	That is an **excellent** reason to nuke this puppy.
> I might agree if his attempt had been successful. Or if it was easy to
> do successfully. But neither of those things are true.
	It's not that I think this unbalances gameplay or is unfair; I 
just don't want to see 30 proposals at a time, Ever.

- -- 
Mohammed
I always laugh at a babe.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:52:01 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946 

>I might agree if his attempt had been successful. Or if it was easy to
>do successfully. But neither of those things are true.
>
>Hey, if a player manages to engineer their score to be exactly -60,
>without at any time going lower, *and* if the situation is such that
>it has a chance of actually being a non-insignificant advantage, then
>I feel they've earned their points.

I also strongly oppose this proposal, both for historical reasons, and
because I made the original rule. :)

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:53:05 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946 

>	It's not that I think this unbalances gameplay or is unfair; I 
>just don't want to see 30 proposals at a time, Ever.

There are other ways to solve that problem...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:47:06 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: acrobot

#vote 1959 n y

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 15:00:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1921 accepted (Malenkai's Gnome)

> Proposal 1921
> Malenkai's Gnome
> Malenkai
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  15 / 19 = 78.947368%
> Yes:  9    No:  5     Present:  6   ...Proposal accepted.
> 
> Malenkai attempted to bribe Tammany A$ 23 to vote YES,but didn't
> have enough A$.

Well *that's* certainly wrong!  And I didn't think Malenkai had
accumulated enough A$ to make the bot overflow. :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:58:35 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946

I support Malenkai's efforts to trim some of the fat from our rule
set...  and hope he has better luck in doing so than I did.

There are other rules that could possibly find their way under a similar
axe -- let me ask the group a question.  Should a rule that is never
used, that was put in merely because it was funny, or a pun, or a TMBG
(or animaniacs) reference be protected?  Or can we start to cut some of
those rules out?  I have in mind rules like Another truly deplorable pun
and Thank you Yacko for starters.

Narf

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1921 accepted (Malenkai's Gnome)

On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 1921
> Malenkai's Gnome
> Malenkai
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  15 / 19 = 78.947368%
> Yes:  9    No:  5     Present:  6   ...Proposal accepted.
> 
> 
> Malenkai attempted to bribe Tammany A$ 23 to vote YES,but didn't have enough A$.

Is this true?  I can't check the webpage right now, but I was kind of
under the impression that Malenkai had quite a bit of cash, what with all
those jobs.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:35:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1921 accepted (Malenkai's Gnome)

> Malenkai attempted to bribe Tammany A$ 23 to vote YES,but didn't have enough A$.
	This is hogwash.  Malenkai has plenty of money.
	I'm going to go look at the bot; I'll be back in a sec.  In 
either case it won't affect the outcome.

- -- 
Mohammed
In Nome a sourfaced romantic amazing macaw ran over stop signs.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 17:17:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public Health Emergency!!!

snowgod's disease, believed eradicated from the face of our fair nomic, 
has once again reared its ugly head.

I am calling a Public Health Emergency!  Narf is infected with snowgod's 
disease!  Run in panic, Ackazens.  Scream in terror!  Lose all sense of 
reason and force Narf into Quarantine!!  (Also, send your votes in to 
Count Tabula :)

Guy Fawkes
soon-to-be Medical Examiner

On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Joshua Nave wrote:

> #vote 1959 n y

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 18:39:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Health Emergency!!!

Guy Fawkes wrote:
 
> snowgod's disease, believed eradicated from the face of our fair nomic,
> has once again reared its ugly head.
> 
> I am calling a Public Health Emergency!  Narf is infected with snowgod's
> disease!  Run in panic, Ackazens.  Scream in terror!  Lose all sense of
> reason and force Narf into Quarantine!!  (Also, send your votes in to
> Count Tabula :)

Before you vote, I do not believe this action was performed on the 
correct list (the Hearing call).  Also, not to be pedantic, but voting
should occur *after* I call the Hearing I believe (because I set it all
nice with the choices and the reply-to field and a little mail folder
to count the votes :).

If I am mistaken, please correct me.

Count Tabula

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 15:39:27 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Health Emergency!!!

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> snowgod's disease, believed eradicated from the face of our fair nomic,
> has once again reared its ugly head.
> 
> I am calling a Public Health Emergency!  Narf is infected with snowgod's
> disease!  Run in panic, Ackazens.  Scream in terror!  Lose all sense of
> reason and force Narf into Quarantine!!  (Also, send your votes in to
> Count Tabula :)
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> soon-to-be Medical Examiner
> 
> On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Joshua Nave wrote:
> 
> > #vote 1959 n y

In my own defense, please note that prior to this message I posted
saying that I no longer had the address to the acrobot, nor my password
for www voting (since rectified).  I had no way of voting OTHER than to
do so in public.  I followed the correct file format so that the bot
would have an easier time with it.

Note that this has a historical precedence.  

Narf

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:54:33 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1946 

>I support Malenkai's efforts to trim some of the fat from our rule
>set...  and hope he has better luck in doing so than I did.
>
>There are other rules that could possibly find their way under a similar
>axe -- let me ask the group a question.  Should a rule that is never
>used, that was put in merely because it was funny, or a pun, or a TMBG
>(or animaniacs) reference be protected?  Or can we start to cut some of
>those rules out?  I have in mind rules like Another truly deplorable pun
>and Thank you Yacko for starters.
>
>Narf

I am opposed to these spring cleaning attempts.  I think if we are going to
make the ruleset easier to understand, there are better ways.  Like clean
up the language in the rules that ARE USED.  Make them intelligble to the
average joe, and not just laywers.

snowgod
t then what do I know, I can understand the rules

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:59:54 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Health Emergency!!! 

>Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>
>> snowgod's disease, believed eradicated from the face of our fair nomic,
>> has once again reared its ugly head.
>>
>> I am calling a Public Health Emergency!  Narf is infected with snowgod's
>> disease!  Run in panic, Ackazens.  Scream in terror!  Lose all sense of
>> reason and force Narf into Quarantine!!  (Also, send your votes in to
>> Count Tabula :)
>>
>> Guy Fawkes
>> soon-to-be Medical Examiner
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Joshua Nave wrote:
>>
>> > #vote 1959 n y
>
>In my own defense, please note that prior to this message I posted
>saying that I no longer had the address to the acrobot, nor my password
>for www voting (since rectified).  I had no way of voting OTHER than to
>do so in public.  I followed the correct file format so that the bot
>would have an easier time with it.
>
>Note that this has a historical precedence.
>
>Narf

so in other words "er, umm, I meant to do that", no?  Ha!  likely excuse.

snowgod
bwg

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #50
***************************************