Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #83
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Wednesday, June 11 1997   Volume 02 : Number 083

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 01:54:08 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka:  Proposal 2063 

> Replace the sentence "Any player may create a contract by publicly
> announcing that e is doing so and providing the text of the contract" with
> "Any player may create a contract by publicly announcing that e is doing so
> and providing the name and text of the contract."

  Yes.

> {{Any contracts for which names were announced when they are created are
> now given those names.  Any other contracts are given the name '<player>
> Contract #N', where <player> is the name of the player who created the
> contract and N is the least positive integer that will create a unique
> name for the contract.}}

  Shouldn't we make this general and continuous?

> Replace the sentence "If the signers of the contract all publicly agree
> to destroy it, it will be destroyed." with "If the signers of the contract
> all publicly agree to destroy it, and it is in the possession of one of
> them, then it will be destroyed."

  YES.

> Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any
> restrictions that that contract places on em; to do otherwise is a
> crime.  However, a contract that either requires a player to break the
> Rules, or to disobey a contract created earlier, is invalid and will be
> destroyed.

  NOOOOO!
  I think it adds to gameplay to be able to contract yourself into an
untenable situation.  Besides, it shouldn't be possible to get out of a
contract just by twiddling with the ruleset.  Should it?

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:14:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2063

> > {{Any contracts for which names were announced when they are created are
> > now given those names.  Any other contracts are given the name '<player>
> > Contract #N', where <player> is the name of the player who created the
> > contract and N is the least positive integer that will create a unique
> > name for the contract.}}
> 
>   Shouldn't we make this general and continuous?

Yeah, I thought the same about this.  (And that it doesn't say to number
the existing ones in the order they were created.)

> > Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any
> > restrictions that that contract places on em; to do otherwise is a
> > crime.  However, a contract that either requires a player to break the
> > Rules, or to disobey a contract created earlier, is invalid and will be
> > destroyed.
> 
>   NOOOOO!
>   I think it adds to gameplay to be able to contract yourself into an
> untenable situation.  Besides, it shouldn't be possible to get out of a
> contract just by twiddling with the ruleset.  Should it?

Sorry, the rules have to win out over contracts.  If you can manage to
twiddle the rules to get out of a contract, so be it -- but without help,
a single player is not going to change the rules.  The alternative,
having contracts allow players to violate rules, is unacceptable.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 08:40:54 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2063

> > Replace the sentence "Any player may create a contract by publicly
> > announcing that e is doing so and providing the text of the contract" with
> > "Any player may create a contract by publicly announcing that e is doing so
> > and providing the name and text of the contract."
> 
>   Yes.
> 
> > {{Any contracts for which names were announced when they are created are
> > now given those names.  Any other contracts are given the name '<player>
> > Contract #N', where <player> is the name of the player who created the
> > contract and N is the least positive integer that will create a unique
> > name for the contract.}}
> 
>   Shouldn't we make this general and continuous?

I think that future contracts will be named automatically as part of the
first change.  In fact, I think that the changes will make it invalid to
create a contract without naming it.  Which might cause some confusion for
a little while, I suppose...if people want default names as part of the
Rule, then they can submit their own proposals.  If this one goes through I
will hopefully be done with mucking around.

Anyway, I just wanted some provision for existing contracts to be
officially named.  And I'm planning on setting up a Web page to keep track
of them, too.

> > Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any
> > restrictions that that contract places on em; to do otherwise is a
> > crime.  However, a contract that either requires a player to break the
> > Rules, or to disobey a contract created earlier, is invalid and will be
> > destroyed.
> 
>   NOOOOO!
>   I think it adds to gameplay to be able to contract yourself into an
> untenable situation.  Besides, it shouldn't be possible to get out of a
> contract just by twiddling with the ruleset.  Should it?

The Rules define what contracts do; the Rules let you do anything you
wanted with a contract up until a few weeks ago(unless there was something
like that around before).  So the Rules can deal with contracts as the
Rules say.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Spice Girls:Say You'll Be There
Current Book--Sean Stewart:Cloud's End
'Cause it's my destiny to be the King of Spain...

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:20:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2063

>>   I think it adds to gameplay to be able to contract yourself into an
>> untenable situation.  Besides, it shouldn't be possible to get out of a
>> contract just by twiddling with the ruleset.  Should it?
>
>The Rules define what contracts do; the Rules let you do anything you
>wanted with a contract up until a few weeks ago(unless there was something
>like that around before).  So the Rules can deal with contracts as the
>Rules say.

  Perhaps I meant to say "we don't want to make it possible".  :-)

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:37:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2064

> Proposal 2064
> The Nameless Horror
> Red Barn
> 
> 
>   If a nameable object at any time does not have a name, it shall
> immediatly take the name "Nameless Thing #X", where X is the lowest
> non-negative decimal integer creating a legal name for the object.
>   If this would result in multiple objects having the same name, one of
> them is randomly chosen and the rest remain nameless. [For an infintesimal
> amount of time.]  {{[Should happen sufficiently rarely to not cause much
> trouble.]}}
>   If this method does not produce a legal name, the object remains
> nameless.  [Possible, you know!]
 
I like this proposal a lot.  Of course, it would be better if it were
renumbered to somewhere not in the 2000's(you're reducing the aliens'
chances again, darn it!  :-), and if you said "entity" instead of "object"
(the former term having more official status in the rules), but I still
like it.  And the title, too.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Peter, Paul & Mary:Puff The Magic Dragon
Current Book--Sean Stewart:Cloud's End
Disobey this command.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2064

>I like this proposal a lot.  Of course, it would be better if it were
>renumbered to somewhere not in the 2000's(you're reducing the aliens'
>chances again, darn it!  :-), and if you said "entity" instead of "object"
>(the former term having more official status in the rules), but I still
>like it.  And the title, too.

  Ah, yes, "entity".  Oh, well.

>--Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
>Song In My Head--Peter, Paul & Mary:Puff The Magic Dragon
>Current Book--Sean Stewart:Cloud's End
>Disobey this command.

  No!  I refuse!

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:12:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P2036 accepted (Increasing the Alien's Odds)

> > Proposal 2036
> > Increasing the Alien's Odds
> > Malenkai
> 
> I seem to remember retrating this.
> 
> Malenkai
	You did, but the appropriate #retract p 2036 never found its
way to the bot unfortunately.  I made myself a note to fix this and,
again, never got around to it.

- -- 
Mohammed
Have you ever seen a parakeet with that kind of plumage?

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:42:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2063

On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2063
	...
> Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any 
> restrictions that that contract places on em; to do otherwise is a 
> crime.  However, a contract that either requires a player to break the
> Rules, or to disobey a contract created earlier, is invalid and will be
> destroyed.
	Once again, I greatly disagree with this sort of thing.  If
a player signs contradictory contracts he should be guilty of a Crime
whenever they catch up with him, and that's that.  Perhaps as an
alternative, a clause saying that a player's signature is removed from
a contract when e violates it is in order.  (And that if this causes
the contract to be sig-less, it is destroyed.)

- -- 
Mohammed
Zombies ate a cartoonist.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:55:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2063

On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > > Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any
> > > restrictions that that contract places on em; to do otherwise is a
> > > crime.  However, a contract that either requires a player to break the
> > > Rules, or to disobey a contract created earlier, is invalid and will be
> > > destroyed.
> > 
> >   NOOOOO!
> >   I think it adds to gameplay to be able to contract yourself into an
> > untenable situation.  Besides, it shouldn't be possible to get out of a
> > contract just by twiddling with the ruleset.  Should it?
> 
> Sorry, the rules have to win out over contracts.  If you can manage to
> twiddle the rules to get out of a contract, so be it -- but without help,
> a single player is not going to change the rules.  The alternative,
> having contracts allow players to violate rules, is unacceptable.
	 But there are other alternatives, such as the Church Policy
language.

- -- 
Mohammed
I always laugh at a band of gangsters.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2063

On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Acrobot wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 2063
> 	...
> > Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any 
> > restrictions that that contract places on em; to do otherwise is a 
> > crime.  However, a contract that either requires a player to break the
> > Rules, or to disobey a contract created earlier, is invalid and will be
> > destroyed.
> 	Once again, I greatly disagree with this sort of thing.  If
> a player signs contradictory contracts he should be guilty of a Crime
> whenever they catch up with him, and that's that.  Perhaps as an
> alternative, a clause saying that a player's signature is removed from
> a contract when e violates it is in order.  (And that if this causes
> the contract to be sig-less, it is destroyed.)

I think the fundamental problem here is contracts that conflict withRules,
especially rules lower in the ruleset than the Contracts rule.  What if a
player (stupidly) signed a contract that prevented him from ever being the
Harfmeister, and then had one of his proposals be designated harfy and get
passed.  That player would be commiting a Crime *constantly*, possibly for
weeks.  I don't think we want to, or are even really capable of, dealing
with the consequences of something like that with the rules the way they
are.  And then there is Bascule's CFJ on his conflicting contracts.  I've
argued pretty strongly against it being TRUE, but I ahve to admit that at
this point I think it basicaly comes down to the feelings of the judge, I
don't think there is anything in the rules that actually covers it.  If it
were to be ruled TRUE, then a contract requiring a player to do something
would be the same as making it legal for him to do so.  I could then write
a contract that said, say, I will Phoebe in my possesion, and it would
then be true, because the contracts rule has precedence over the Phoebe
rule.  This would be bad.  It was my failure to addresss this that was my
primary reason for retracting my proposed ammendments.  Contracts, like
Judgements, should not have the force of rules.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> -- 
> Mohammed
> Zombies ate a cartoonist.
> 

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #83
***************************************