Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #87
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Sunday, June 15 1997    Volume 02 : Number 087

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:04:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2085

> Proposal 2085
> Modifying the Senate

> {{[ This makes the Praetor the head of the Senate, which only really
> matters when there is a tie vote in the Senate. I'd prefer not to 
> have a Functional office as the head of a political group. ]}}

Given the amout of stuff Speakers in this game have to do, its nice to
leave a few privs for them too.  If you make the job too undesirable,
no one will want it, and hence the work won't get done.

This amendment will also force ThinMan to give up one of his offices,
which he seems to enjoy and does a good job at.  That seems unreasonable
as well, in relation to the benefit derived from the change.

Malenkai
Speaker
as always, has an opinon on the matter

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 06:18:54 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2086

> Proposal 2086
> We Shall Inherit The World!
> Calvin N Hobbes
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> {{renumber to 938 [so it's harder to find]}}
> 
> The Ambassador must seek all nomics that contain the letters 'h', 'a', 'r'
> and 'f' in their name. It will then be his job to organize an assault on
> those nomics until they are captured. The Ambassador will gain 40 points for
> every such nomic captured. Players assisting the Ambassador will gain 20
> points for aiding in the successful capture of a nomic (as acknowledged by
> the ambassador).
> 
> A nomic is considered captured if it recognizes our president as their
> almighty Harf god, the supreme deity.

Oh I love this. I hope it's accepted. It reminds me of that
wonderful old rule "Coke is it" which had me snorting tea through my
nose when I first read it. (I was drinking tea at the time. I think)
Unfortunately our Financier was a bit slack about chasing up the Coca
Cola company and we never got our money. I hope Mr Lunatic Finger 
puts plenty of energy into organising these assaults.

Bascule

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:21:10 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2052 accepted (This name has been changed to protect the innocent)

> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Repeal Rule 1060 Organized Crime

Alas, Organized Crime, we barely knew ye!  <sigh>  I suppose it just
never worked as well as anyone wanted it to, did it?

Though I suppose this does increase our chances of getting a Chrome
Streak...I think we're up to five in a row now, though ICOCBW.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In The Other Room--Mike Oldfield:Talk About Your Life
Current Book--Sean Stewart:Clouds End
Candidates should write on at least one side of the paper.
   [_1066 & All That_, Sellar & Yeatman]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:32:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2052 accepted (This name has been changed to protect the innocent)

> Alas, Organized Crime, we barely knew ye!  <sigh>  I suppose it just
> never worked as well as anyone wanted it to, did it?

On the other hand, the *actual* scam I was trying to use the rule
for will not occur either.  When Narf left the game, I believe the
office of Godfather was vacant for a bit of time before I claimed
it.  I wanted to let someone else give the rule a go, but since no
one wanted to, there was nothing left to do with it but repeal it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 02:52:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2080

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2080
> Secret Masters of The Universe II
> Alfvaen
> 
> 
> Create a new rule, numbered 430, with the title "The Librarian", and text
> as follows(delimited by SMOTU):
> 
> SMOTU
> 
> The optional political Office of Librarian exists.
> 
> The purpose of the Librarian is to keep track of Literature.  It is a
> Duty of the Librarian to verify that any quotation submitted as part of
> a proposal is accurate, as well as its citation, and, as a Privilege,
> e may negate some or all of the point bonus specified in Rule 210,
> "Literature"(depending on how inaccurate the quotation or citation is),
> within seven days of the passage of any proposal that receives such a
> bonus.
> 
> Additional Duties and Privileges of the Librarian concern the
> Literature list itself.  A Librarian may add or remove entries from the
> list by stating publicly that e is doing so.  A total of five additions
> or removals can be made per week.  Other players may also request of
> the Librarian, publicly or privately, that an entry be added to or
> removed from the list, without having to submit a Proposal; such
> changes are only made at the discretion of the Librarian.  If changes
> are made to the Literature list by means of a Proposal during a
> particular Librarian's term, that Librarian may not undo any of the
> effects of that proposal until at least two weeks have passed.

I don't care much one way or another about having a Librarian to check the
accuracy and truthfulness of quotes.  I think that, assuming we don't
start puttong really weird stuff on the list, it should be relatively easy
to get a hold of the works and authors being used and check for ourselves
if we have any doubts, using CFJs to correct misscorings.

I am very much opposed to letting any officer alter the list as a
privilige or duty.  One of the coolest things about the list, in my view,
is that we collectively decide (via voting on proposals) what it is we
consider literature.  With one officer more or less leading the show, such
proposals will be less common, and we'll start seeing more books and
authors on the lis tthat only a few people are at all interested in.  It
also, as Malenkai pointed out, give some rather serious scam potentials to
the Librarian, although I think not quite as bad as the example he gave
us, as the rules are quite clear on what constitutes a valid entry.

> 
> If a player objects publicly to the addition or deletion of an entry
> within three days of its announcement, then a Hearing is called, with
> the valid responses being "The Librarian knows what e is doing" and
> "No!  Keep our Library the way it is!"  If the response of the Hearing
> is "The Librarian knows what e is doing", then the changes to the
> Literature list stand; if the response is "No!  Keep our Library the
> way it is!", then the Librarian is fined A$10.  After the third such
> fine, the Librarian is automatically impeached.  The Speaker, President or
> Senate may also veto any changes in the Literature list within three days
> of its announcement.  Such action should be accompanied by a brief
> explanation as to why.
> 
> It is also the Librarian's Duty to find copies of works on the Literature
> list to use as reference.  If copies are found online, then the Librarian
> shall maintain a Web page with links to these online works.  If there are
> no online copies of a work on the Literature list, or a work that e has
> been requested to add to the list, then this is a good basis for removing
> said entry or refusing to add it, unless an offline copy of the work can be
> easily obtained and consulted by the Librarian.

I am very much opposed to this part as well.  I think it is very
unrealistic to think that anything we might want to put on the list will
be readily accessible on the web, not just as some sort of fan site or
whatnot, but the whole text.  I've never looked, but I sincerely doubt
that one can browse through the complete works of J.R.R. Tolkein online,
forexample.  Encouraging the Librarian not to use sources that can't be
quoted online is even worse, encouraging players to not even bother with
ay works or artists that aren't extremely well known, with lots of sites
devoted to them.

                                          - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:41:54 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2086 

>> Proposal 2086
>> We Shall Inherit The World!
>> Calvin N Hobbes

>
>Oh I love this. I hope it's accepted. It reminds me of that
>wonderful old rule "Coke is it" which had me snorting tea through my
>nose when I first read it. (I was drinking tea at the time. I think)
>Unfortunately our Financier was a bit slack about chasing up the Coca
>Cola company and we never got our money. I hope Mr Lunatic Finger
>puts plenty of energy into organising these assaults.
>
>Bascule

I love this proposal.  I encourage everyoe to vote for it.  And, I promise,
as your ambassadorial finger, I will make every attempt to conquer the
nomic world for Ackanomic.

Mr L. Finger

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:03:50 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka:  Proposal 2086 

> We Shall Inherit The World!

> A nomic is considered captured if it recognizes our president as their
> almighty Harf god, the supreme deity.

  Nice.  Useful solution to the problem of inter-nomic warfare.

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:06:21 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka:  Proposal 2090 

> If a player achieves a score of exactly 57, their score is changed to 42.
> If a player achieves a score of exactly 5, their score is changed to 137.
> If a player achieves a score of exactly 196, their score is changed to 257.

  *Very* nice.

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

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 00:05:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Proposal Sections

I have been toying with the idea of clearly defined sections, like
headers, footers, and body, for Proposals lately.  The idea came to me
while I was trying to think of ways to make the Great Works idea a bit
more practical, and I am wondering if anyone else sees other possible uses
for such a system.

what I was thinking of would be a way of distinguishing between the real
meat of a proposal, and all the window dressing that usually accompnies
them.  By window dressing, I mean stuff like: "The is a Modest proposal;"
"Create a new rule numbered 747;"  "Ammend Rule 101 by adding the
following paragraph enclosed within AKBAR;" and also the many
{{[comments]}} one sees in a lot of proposals.  Stuff that is important
for explaining the purpose of the proposal, and for formatting it, but not
anything that actually goes into the rules, or has a game effect.

As far as Great Works is concerned, this would make it relatively simple
to come up with a new definition that would be easier to attain.  Simply
require all of the text in the "body" of the proposal to be quotations,
instead of the entire proposal.  This would, coincidentaly, make it
possible for proposals which are meerly ammendments to become Great Works,
as opposed to the current system that requires new rules to be created.

I think this sort of thing might have some other applications, perhaps
when it comes to brief proposals, or perhaps even prove helpful in
providing clear definitions to be incorporated into later rules.  Some
other possible applications would be to only give the Silly bonus if the
silly phrase was in the body, or only give a lierature bonus if the quote
was in the body.

The clear definitions part is rather troublesome, unfortunately.  One of
the main reasons I am RFCing this is to get some input on how you guys
think different sections could be defined.  Clearly, anything that
actually goes into the ruleset has to be part of the body.  Likewise,
anything which would change the gamestate (for example {{Change my score
to the Magic Number}}) would also have to be part of the body.  I'm a
little puzzled as to how one could state this clearly though, and I am
wondering if there are other things that should always be considered part
of the body.  Headers (my slightly more legalistic term for windwo
dressing) are also kind of hard to define.  One could say that any section
(and what would a section be, anyways?  A paragraph?) that doesn't change
the game state in and of itself, although it may help define ways in which
the proposal as a whole changes the game state, is a header.  I'm afraid
this might not unambiguously cover phrases like "{{Number this Rule 999}}"
though.  I'm also afraid that there would be occasions in which entire
proposals would consist of headers, such as the renumbering proposals.

So, basicaly, I'm seeking any kind of input on this.  I was hoping to sort
this all out and get a proposal in before I took another stab at my more
workable Works proposal (which I think I may have gotten confused with the
rule as it stands now while I was writting some of this, oops), but it
gets messier all the time so I'm just going to forge ahead on thta stuff,
and patch things up later if the collective minds of acka yeild a good
Proposal Sections scheme.

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #87
***************************************