Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #75
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest     Monday, June 2 1997     Volume 02 : Number 075

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:08:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2034

On Sat, 31 May 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2034
> ParlePlace
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> The number of Seats of the the Office of Parlor is the highest of 5 and
> the number of players divided by 8. The Parlors are collectively known as
> an Institution known as the ParlePlace.
> Whenever there is more than one unoccpied Seat of Office of Parlor, and
> the begining of the nomination period on the unoccupied Seats  has not
> been anounced yet, the Speaker anounces the nomination period for all of
> the unoccupied Offices in a single message. In such a case, players do not
> volunterr for a specific Seat, but for any unoccupied Seat of the Office
> of Parlor.
> During the Voting period, players may vote for at most (2/n)+1 candidates,
> where n is the number of unoccupied Seats . The players who receives the
> 1st to nth highest number of votes win the elections.
> Whenever the number of Seats of the Office of Parlor decreases then
> governement Cutbakcs are declared and the
> following things occur to determine which Parlor ceases to be Parlor:
> Any Parlor may Challenge any other Parlor to a Parlor Duel. The loser of
> the Parlor Duel ceases to be Parlor. Once a challenge for a Parlor Duel
> has been accepted, no other Duels are considered to be Parlor Duels.
> If no Challenge for a Parlor Duel has been made and accepted within a week
> of the declaration of Cutbacks, and no Parlor has resigned of eir own
> volition, then the Speaker anounces Full Parlor elections - 
> All Parlors cease to be Parlors.
> 
> A Parlor's term in office is 14 weeks.
> 

This rule doesn't actually explain what a Parlor Duel is, does it?  And
what does "Once a Challenge for a parlor duel has been accepted, no other
Duels are considered to be parlor Duels." mean?  finally, um, what is this
for, why should it exist?  Any ideas?

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2035

On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2035
> Otzma Card Impeach Officer
> Niccolo Flychuck

> 5. Counter-Action: The Impeached Officer is reinstated. The player who
> played the card loses 20 points. If he holds any Offices. He is Impeached
> from an Office chosen at random. Otherwise, he becomes ineligible to hold
> political Office for a period of 21 days.

Is the "player who played the card" supposed to be the player who played
the original Impeach Officer card or the player who counteracted the
Impeach Officer card, or what?

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:22:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2035

> > 5. Counter-Action: The Impeached Officer is reinstated. The player who
> > played the card loses 20 points. If he holds any Offices. He is Impeached
> > from an Office chosen at random. Otherwise, he becomes ineligible to hold
> > political Office for a period of 21 days.
	This counter-action is a bit much.  I think it should
specifically exclude functional offices.

- -- 
Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:49:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2036

> Proposal 2036
> Increasing the Alien's Odds
> Malenkai
> 
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.  
> 
> Repeal Rule 2014, "Complying With Eir Last Wishes".  {{[This rule
> probably should have been created with self-deletion braces]}}

I was under the impression that, since it contained only a list of one-time
actions, Proposal 2014 would not create a new rule, as stated in Rule 104.
ICOCBW about the effects of the proposal being one-time actions; should I
submit a CFJ to clear that up?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Cougar:American Fool
Current Book--Lesley Choyce:Trapdoor To Heaven
Imitation is the sincerest form of battery.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 18:14:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2015 rejected ("See the Ancient Wonders of Pumpkin Patch!")

> Proposal 2015
> "See the Ancient Wonders of Pumpkin Patch!"
> two-star
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  19 / 22 = 86.363636%
> Yes:  11    No:  8     Present:  1   ...Proposal rejected.

> YES votes:
> 	Bascule
> 	Robert Sevin
> 	Calvin N Hobbes
> 	Alfvaen
> 	Techno
> 	Harf Unity vote

This is amazing. :-)
This is, as far as I can see, the first Unity vote in the history of
the Harf party.  There was one reported on P1855 but it was reported
incorrectly, as Robert Sevin voted present on the proposal.

> NO votes:
> 	Malenkai

I thank Malenkai for providing the one NO vote needed to counteract the
above amazing feat.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 19:23:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2036

Aaron Humphrey wrote:

> I was under the impression that, since it contained only a list of one-time
> actions, Proposal 2014 would not create a new rule, as stated in Rule 104.
> ICOCBW about the effects of the proposal being one-time actions; should I
> submit a CFJ to clear that up?

That's possible.  I have not been keeping up with things as much as 
I should, I guess.  I really *hope* that is not the case though, the
{{ }} mechanism is much less ambigious.  Imagine a proposal that
said:

"
Create a Unique, mimsy, non-tradeable enntity called the Chartreuse
Loophole, the owner of which may not use the letter 'K' in any public
messages.
"
 
Is this a one time effect?  Possibly not the best example, but
I imagine that an arguably ambiguous example will come along sooner
or later, and since the {{ }} only adds 4 characters to a proposal,
I'm not sure why we would replace it with this.  The {{ }} also gives
a quick visual indicator to the reader, which is nice as well.
I guess I should check the rule though.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:35:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2015 rejected ("See the Ancient Wonders of Pumpkin Patch!")

> > Votes cast by active players:  19 / 22 = 86.363636%
> > Yes:  11    No:  8     Present:  1   ...Proposal rejected.
> 
> > YES votes:
> > 	Bascule
> > 	Robert Sevin
> > 	Calvin N Hobbes
> > 	Alfvaen
> > 	Techno
> > 	Harf Unity vote
> 
> This is amazing. :-)
> This is, as far as I can see, the first Unity vote in the history of
> the Harf party.  There was one reported on P1855 but it was reported
> incorrectly, as Robert Sevin voted present on the proposal.

Actually, there was one on P2014, too, and that one actually passed.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Beethoven:Symphony No. 5/Egmont
Current Book--Lesley Choyce:Trapdoor To Heaven
A is for Amy who fell down the stairs, B is for Basil assaulted by bears.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 00:38:56 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2015 rejected ("See the Ancient Wonders of Pumpkin P

> > Proposal 2015
> > "See the Ancient Wonders of Pumpkin Patch!"
> > two-star
> > 
> > Votes cast by active players:  19 / 22 = 86.363636%
> > Yes:  11    No:  8     Present:  1   ...Proposal rejected.
> 
> > YES votes:
> > 	Bascule
> > 	Robert Sevin
> > 	Calvin N Hobbes
> > 	Alfvaen
> > 	Techno
> > 	Harf Unity vote
> 
> This is amazing. :-)
> This is, as far as I can see, the first Unity vote in the history of
> the Harf party.  There was one reported on P1855 but it was reported
> incorrectly, as Robert Sevin voted present on the proposal.

I was thinking exactly this myself. Amazingly enough, we had another
Unity vote on "Complying With Eir Last Wishes" as well!!! Two in one
day, quite incredible. To be pedantic, the old FUN party (renamed 
Harf) had one or two unity votes. Although not many.

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 20:16:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2036

On Sat, 17 May 1997, Malenkai wrote:
	[example deleted]
> Is this a one time effect?  Possibly not the best example, but
> I imagine that an arguably ambiguous example will come along sooner
> or later
	Maybe one will come up sooner or later.  We could either
insert a when-in-doubt clause (like the one in the C++ standard for
telling weird declarations from weird expression statements) or stick
to CFJs.  No problem either way.
	OTOH, there have been quite a few examples of proposals that
should have had {{}} but instead became rules, and the trickle of
proposals to fix those, when they happen, was something we apparently
decided we could do without.
	If I'm going to be reading the proposal anyway, there's no
particular reason for me to need a visual indicator telling me exactly
what kind of effect it is.  I also think {{}}s are a little esoteric
and weird, and therefore antidemocratic.  In a mild sort of way.

- -- 
Mohammed
Chefs stalked a funny Martian for cash.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:12:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2040

> Add the following to the end of the third paragraph:
> 
> If, however, two or more contracts signed by a player require him to take
> mutually exclusive actions (or inactions), then the contract which that
> player signed earliest will take precedence over the other, more recent,
> contracts.  In this case, it is not a crime for the player to fail to
> honor the more recent, superceded contracts.
	I object!  If you sign contradictory contracts you should be
liable.

> 1) If the signers and owner of the contract all publicly agree to destroy
> it, it will be destroyed.
	The argument could be made that this isn't explicit enough.
What if the contract is buried (or otherwise unowned)?

- -- 
Mohammed
Meanwhile, this summer, a vampire from Canada cackled evilly.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:41:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2040

> 
> > Add the following to the end of the third paragraph:
> > 
> > If, however, two or more contracts signed by a player require him to take
> > mutually exclusive actions (or inactions), then the contract which that
> > player signed earliest will take precedence over the other, more recent,
> > contracts.  In this case, it is not a crime for the player to fail to
> > honor the more recent, superceded contracts.
> 	I object!  If you sign contradictory contracts you should be
> liable.

And I think they should just cancel each other out...no, wait, that'd make
it too easy to weasel out of contracts after the fact.  I could've done one
to get out of the Acid Rain Dance that way, for instance.

I'm sure it will take at least one more proposal to work all the bugs out
of Contracts...:-)  I mean, Vynd didn't steal all the ideas in my RFC or
anything...

> > 1) If the signers and owner of the contract all publicly agree to destroy
> > it, it will be destroyed.
> 	The argument could be made that this isn't explicit enough.
> What if the contract is buried (or otherwise unowned)?

Then it can't be destroyed.  But need that be explicitly stated?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--The Best of The Band
Current Book--Lesley Choyce:Trapdoor To Heaven
If your breasts are too big, you will fall over.  Unless you wear a rucksack.

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:58:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2040

On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:

> > 
> > > Add the following to the end of the third paragraph:
> > > 
> > > If, however, two or more contracts signed by a player require him to take
> > > mutually exclusive actions (or inactions), then the contract which that
> > > player signed earliest will take precedence over the other, more recent,
> > > contracts.  In this case, it is not a crime for the player to fail to
> > > honor the more recent, superceded contracts.
> > 	I object!  If you sign contradictory contracts you should be
> > liable.

Well, this was the best solution I coudl come up with to the possiblity of
contracting yourself into a paradox, which seems to merather too cheap of
a scam even for this place.

> 
> And I think they should just cancel each other out...no, wait, that'd make
> it too easy to weasel out of contracts after the fact.  I could've done one
> to get out of the Acid Rain Dance that way, for instance.
> 
> I'm sure it will take at least one more proposal to work all the bugs out
> of Contracts...:-)  I mean, Vynd didn't steal all the ideas in my RFC or
> anything...

Um, oops.  Was that actually an RFC?  Sometimes we seem to get so much
talk and so little action around here that I take it upon myself to put
some of ones I liked into action.  Um, I guess I owe you one man.  Maybe
I'll write up a contract to that effect... =)

> 
> > > 1) If the signers and owner of the contract all publicly agree to destroy
> > > it, it will be destroyed.
> > 	The argument could be made that this isn't explicit enough.
> > What if the contract is buried (or otherwise unowned)?
> 
> Then it can't be destroyed.  But need that be explicitly stated?
> 
> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:59:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2040

> > I'm sure it will take at least one more proposal to work all the bugs out
> > of Contracts...:-)  I mean, Vynd didn't steal all the ideas in my RFC or
> > anything...
> 
> Um, oops.  Was that actually an RFC?  Sometimes we seem to get so much
> talk and so little action around here that I take it upon myself to put
> some of ones I liked into action.  Um, I guess I owe you one man.  Maybe
> I'll write up a contract to that effect... =)

No, that's okay.  Mohammed pointed out most of the problems publicly, and I
was just too lazy to actually get around to fixing them yet.  I think
nameability was the other big one.

Someday I might get that "Sharing Credit" proposal into shape, though.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Lyle Lovett:Joshua Judges Ruth
Current Book--Lesley Choyce:Trapdoor To Heaven
A cat's worst enemy is a closed door.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 00:05:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2040

On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > > I'm sure it will take at least one more proposal to work all the bugs out
> > > of Contracts...:-)  I mean, Vynd didn't steal all the ideas in my RFC or
> > > anything...
> > 
> > Um, oops.  Was that actually an RFC?  Sometimes we seem to get so much
> > talk and so little action around here that I take it upon myself to put
> > some of ones I liked into action.  Um, I guess I owe you one man.  Maybe
> > I'll write up a contract to that effect... =)
> 
> No, that's okay.  Mohammed pointed out most of the problems publicly, and I
> was just too lazy to actually get around to fixing them yet.  I think
> nameability was the other big one.

Fixed that to, I thought...

> 
> Someday I might get that "Sharing Credit" proposal into shape, though.
> 

I know that in the past I ahve seen proposals where the author just
included something like {{Reduce Malenkai's score by 3.  Increase fnord's
score by 3.}} so that a "co-author" would get some points out of it.

> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #75
***************************************