Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #113
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Friday, July 18 1997    Volume 02 : Number 113

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:53:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff 

>> I am hearby founding a new Organization, it's name is Fort Knocks.
>
>Is anyone gonna fix this loophole?  I find it too amusing to fix,
>personally.  It seems we can either
>
>a) repeal the tax

No.  Like Malenkai says, tax loopholes seem like a cool thing to have.

>b) define player wealth

Possible, but it could get tricky.

>c) tax all A$ owned by player-controlled and player-controlled-controlled
>entities (I guess the latter would be the Synod)

This is an option.  Probably my favorite.

>d) prevent orgs with less than 3 members.

I don't like this.  RexBank and GF mini storage seem to cool to git rid of.
Also, There are possible uses for organizations that haven't opened up yet,
or don't seem obvious, and I don't want my chance to get in on the ground
floor of a growth industry to get taken away :)

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:17:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2235

> [  Gist:  removes all scorekeeping from the Parade rule.
> 
> I received this note from Doktor Welch of the Institute last Friday:
> 
> > Sadly, the Institute can no longer sponsor the Ackanomic Parades.
> > Due to some messy legal and plumbing problems (unrelated), we must
> > divert all our available funds to genetic research and malpractice
> > insurance.
> 
> Curious.  *shrug*  I guess that means it's back to cardboard cutouts
> on wheels.]

As the person most likely to become Scorekeeper, I would like to say that I
would have no problem keeping points for Parades.  It seems harmless
enough.  I will likely vote against this.  And not just because I have the
Great Trombone.  :-)

I would, however, vote for having more cardboard cutouts on wheels(with
perhaps a lesser or nonexistent penalty).

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--The Beatles:Let It Be
Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming
Strike a match, stand well back.  This boat's for burning.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:36:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Tax Reform

proposal Two Things Are Certain

Amend Rule 666, "End of Cycle", by replacing the existing text of section e)

{{[
e) If the amount of A$s in circulation plus the value of all
extant Trinkets and Majiks exceeded the amount in the Treasury at
the time this winner was declared, the following shall occur: 20%
(round down) of each Player's A$ balance is transferred to the
Treasury. The winner shall pay only 10% (round down), however. 20%
(round down) of each Undead's A$ balance is transferred to the
Treasury.
]}}

with the following:

e) If the amount of A$s in circulation plus the value of all extant
Trinkets and Majiks exceeded the amount in the Treasury at the time
this winner was declared, the following shall occur: the total wealth
of each Player, Undead, and Player-created Organization(which will all
be referred to for convenicence as "Players" in this clause) shall be
calculated by adding the Player's A$ balance to the total value of all
the trinkets e owns.  The Tax payable by each player is 20% of eir
total wealth(rounded down), except that the winner's Tax payable shall
be only 10%.  If a Player's Tax payable is greater than eir A$ balance,
then the trinket in eir possession with the greatest value(or one of
the trinkets with the greatest value chosen at random, if there is more
than one)is destroyed and the value added to eir A$ balance; the
procedure in this sentence is repeated until the Player's A$ balance
exceeds eir Tax payable.  At this point, A$ equal to each Player's Tax
payable is transferred from each respective Player to the Treasury.

I'm not 100% happy with this; I don't like the wanton destruction of
Trinkets, for instance, and I think this makes this clause incredibly
complicated(but I don't wnt to leave too many loopholes in it...).
Maybe it should be moved out into a separate Rule which is referenced
by R666.  Also, is there some other situation where a player should be
forced to liquidate a trinket when e owes to pay eir debts?  Maybe that
could be introduced elsewhere(in Rule 510, perhaps?).  And it doesn't
address the new player starting wealth at all, but there are other
possibilities for that one...

Suggestions on how to make this better are greatly welcomed.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--The Beatles:Let It Be
Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming
I have nothing to say, and I am saying it.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 01:50:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Tax Reform

> And it doesn't address the new player starting wealth at all, but there
> are other possibilities for that one...

I think that is the most important thing.  Starting new players at
a disadvantage seems the most unfair thing the rules can do.

Malenkai
who was a newbie along time ago

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:55:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Tax Reform

> > And it doesn't address the new player starting wealth at all, but there
> > are other possibilities for that one...
> 
> I think that is the most important thing.  Starting new players at
> a disadvantage seems the most unfair thing the rules can do.

Maybe it's time to go back to "A$900" as starting funds.

> Malenkai
> who was a newbie along time ago

Can't imagine that now...but then, I don't feel like a newbie anymore, and
haven't for a while now...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--King Crimson:In The Wake of Poseidon
Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming
What would hypochondriac acid dissolve?

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:50:25 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC 2: Tax Reform

Okay, I did all the hard work this time, putting the appropriate stuff into
some rules in the 500's, so that the amendments to R666 are minimal but
still effective.  Comments extremely welcome.  This will, of course, come
too late for the end of _this_ Cycle...:-)

proposal You notice you have no gold!  --More--

Amend Rule 505, "Treasury And Ackadollars" by appending the following
clause(delimited by DUAM XNAHT):

DUAM XNAHT

VI. Total Wealth:

The Total Wealth of a Player, Undead, or Organization is defined as the
sum of the total number of A it possesses plus the combined values of
all trinkets in its possession.

DUAM XNAHT

Amend Rule 510, "Voluntary Debt Prohibited", as follows:

First, replace "No player" with "No Player, Undead, or Organization
(referred to hereafter in this Rule as 'player' for simplicity)"

Then, append the following text(delimited by PRIRUTSENIE):

PRIRUTSENIE

Any time a Player owes money that is greater than the amount of A$ in
eir possession, then the following procedure is followed:

   i) If the Player in question owns no Trinkets, the procedure ends.

   ii) The Player's Trinket with the largest value is donated to the
       Treasury, and the corresponding number of A$ is added to eir
       total.  If there are multiple Trinkets which each have this
       largest value, then one is selected at random.

   iii) If the Player now has enough A$ to pay eir debt, the procedure
        ends.  Otherwise, return to step i).

A Player still cannot voluntarily make use of more A$ than e owns, even if
e owns Trinkets which may be disposed of for cash; e must dispose of said
Trinkets emself.

PRIRUTSENIE

Amend Rule 666, "End of Cycle", by replacing, in section e), each
occurrence of "A$ balance is transferred to the Treasury" with "Total
Wealth is owed to the Treasury".  {{[ This is just a lazy way of doing 
it, and may not be a satisfactory phrasing. ]}}

Amend Rule 261, "Zombie Master", by replacing "10% of their Ackadollars"
with "10% of their Total Wealth".

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--The Beatles:I Dig A Pony
Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming
If you can't speak softly, just use the stick.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:33:53 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

[snip]
> I don't like this.  RexBank and GF mini storage seem to cool to git rid
of.
[snip]
> Mr. Lunatic Fringe
> 
In recognition of your support, I present you with this special, one of a
kind poster on behalf of all of me here at RexBank.

#transfer Rex Mundi, Mr. Lunatic Fringe: RexBank promo poster.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:46:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > I am hearby founding a new Organization, it's name is Fort Knocks.
> 
> Is anyone gonna fix this loophole?  I find it too amusing to fix,
> personally.  It seems we can either
> 
> a) repeal the tax
> b) define player wealth
> c) tax all A$ owned by player-controlled and player-controlled-controlled
> entities (I guess the latter would be the Synod)
> d) prevent orgs with less than 3 members.
> 
> Personally I like d), but don't really care much except for the newbie
> money problem.  Repealing the tax seems no fun, because tax loopholes
> seem fun to have in the game.

Hrm, funny how this would leave open the possibility to say, donate all of
ones money to a Church one founded that actually has members, etc...
There's more than one loophole here in my opinion, and they're pretty damn
big loopholes, all of them.  What if I'd buried my money as a treasure and
then dug it up?  The trinket escape doesn't work for taxes, but it does
for most everything else.  The list goes on and on.  Basicaly, I think a
total rewrite of the rules on money would be necessary before we can
really have enforcable taxes and wealth based triggers and whatnot.

> 
> Malenkai
> hoping someone else fixes the loophole
> 

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:51:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stuff

> Hrm, funny how this would leave open the possibility to say, donate all of
> ones money to a Church one founded that actually has members, etc...
> There's more than one loophole here in my opinion, and they're pretty damn
> big loopholes, all of them.  What if I'd buried my money as a treasure and
> then dug it up?

Then you get the Goose.  I thought of doing that when I was planning on
blowing myself up...I ended up just burying everything as treasures anyway,
just for other people to dig up.

> The trinket escape doesn't work for taxes, but it does
> for most everything else.  The list goes on and on.  Basicaly, I think a
> total rewrite of the rules on money would be necessary before we can
> really have enforcable taxes and wealth based triggers and whatnot.

Hopefully you will soon stumble upon the RFC's I submitted last night,
which will at least count trinkets while taxing, and tax organizations so
they get the same cut taken.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Counting Crows:August & Everything After
Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming
Mother Very Easily Made a Jam Sandwich Using No Peanuts, Mayonnaise or Glue.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:25:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC 2: Tax Reform

> The Total Wealth of a Player, Undead, or Organization is defined as the
> sum of the total number of A it possesses plus the combined values of
> all trinkets in its possession.

Majiks should be included here too.  As much as I dislike the cliche
nomic thing to make everything OO, it would be simpler if Majiks were
a derived class of trinket.  As they are not, they must be included
explicitly whereever they should be.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:10:01 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:Internomic stuff

Nickolo Flychuck wrote:

Vynd had a good suggestion, setting up an Institution specifically for
the Internomic Interface, open membership.
there would need to be a clause about what happens when the membership
falls below a certain minumum. Let's say, for the sake of afgument that
the minimum is 4 players, below that minimum I see three possibilities

1. the Senate votes
2. The Ambassador votes
3. a Joint Assembly of the new Institution and the Senate

My prefference is for the third, but I could along with any of the
others,
whichever more players support.

Niccolo Flychuck

I also support Vynd's idea,  and would be happy to join such an
Institution.  While I definitely have nothing against our fine Senate
(having once been a Senator myself) I do like an idea that lets others
participate when they wish.Regardless of one's Voting Status,  Internomic
is one area that allows for extremely little participation. :(

I also support NF's third option;  it allows those interested in
Internomic to participate,  even when there aren't enough to speak for
all of Acka,  while ensuring  that Internomic activities are not at the
mercy of only a couple of crackpots.  BTW,  it would also make a hostile
takeover less likely.

Votying Gnome

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Internomic stuff

On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> Nickolo Flychuck wrote:
> 
> Vynd had a good suggestion, setting up an Institution specifically for
> the Internomic Interface, open membership.
> there would need to be a clause about what happens when the membership
> falls below a certain minumum. Let's say, for the sake of afgument that
> the minimum is 4 players, below that minimum I see three possibilities
> 
> 1. the Senate votes
> 2. The Ambassador votes
> 3. a Joint Assembly of the new Institution and the Senate
> 
> My prefference is for the third, but I could along with any of the
> others,
> whichever more players support.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> I also support Vynd's idea,  and would be happy to join such an
> Institution.  While I definitely have nothing against our fine Senate
> (having once been a Senator myself) I do like an idea that lets others
> participate when they wish.Regardless of one's Voting Status,  Internomic
> is one area that allows for extremely little participation. :(
> 
> I also support NF's third option;  it allows those interested in
> Internomic to participate,  even when there aren't enough to speak for
> all of Acka,  while ensuring  that Internomic activities are not at the
> mercy of only a couple of crackpots.  BTW,  it would also make a hostile
> takeover less likely.
> 
> Votying Gnome
> 

I just wanted to let everyone knwo that "Vynd's idea" can be considered
public property.  Don't worry about making me mad for "stealing" my idea
if you write up a proposal using it.  I'm glad everyone (well, a fw
people) liked it so much.  I don't have much time to spend on Acka right
now though, so I have to restrict myself to the things I find most
interesting.  Since I'm more or less OK with our Internomic interface
right now (which is not to say Id be against changing it) I leave it to
those of you who have a beef to do all the actual work. =)

                           - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #113
****************************************