Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #114
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Saturday, July 19 1997   Volume 02 : Number 114

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:17:21 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Prop 2239 

>{{ Any newspaper which went belly-up as the result of not having published
>any articles in June is hereby recreated in the possession of its former
>owner, who is administered a fine of A$15. }}

Okay, fair enough.  But what happens to the SFG, which apperantly went
belly up in april? :)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:14:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2239

> Proposal 2239
> We'll Let You Off With A Warning This Time

> {{ Any newspaper which went belly-up as the result of not having published
> any articles in June is hereby recreated in the possession of its former
> owner, who is administered a fine of A$15. }}

I object to this proposal.  I intentionally let 'RTe lapse, and to
have it reinstated, especially with a retroactive fine, is unreasonable.
Retroactive fines, especially in these sort of circumstances, are 
unreasonable on their own right.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:28:58 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Organizational burying

This is my first RFC, so I hope I've done everything right. This is
intended to allow organizations to bury treasure.

Rex Mundi.

proposal Organizational Burying

This is a Modest proposal.

Prepend the following text to rule 1217, "Buried Treasure":

The term player as used in this rule also refers to any organization. Any
action undertaken by a player in this rule may also be undertaken by an
organization in the usual fashion for organizational actions.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:41:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prop 2239

> >{{ Any newspaper which went belly-up as the result of not having published
> >any articles in June is hereby recreated in the possession of its former
> >owner, who is administered a fine of A$15. }}
> 
> Okay, fair enough.  But what happens to the SFG, which apperantly went
> belly up in april? :)

You'll have to pay the A$20 startup fee again.  Retroactivity only goes so
far...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Cowboy Junkies:Sun Comes Up It's Tuesday Morning
Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming
Ring Death's doorbell and run.  He hates that.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:55:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Organizational burying

> This is my first RFC, so I hope I've done everything right. This is
> intended to allow organizations to bury treasure.

I'm unclear as to why organizations should be allowed to bury treasure in
the first place.  In what way could an Organization be a Map Writer or Map
Custodian?  This seems like just another tax shelter attempt to me.  And as
the person who's going to submit a proposal to get of them RSN, I can't
agree with that.  If there was a way to legislate against things like the
Bonus Vote scam(burying items and then telling certain other players how to
retrieve them, privately, in order to overcome built-in limits on
possession), then I would do that too.  Hmmm.

> proposal Organizational Burying
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Prepend the following text to rule 1217, "Buried Treasure":
> 
> The term player as used in this rule also refers to any organization. Any
> action undertaken by a player in this rule may also be undertaken by an
> organization in the usual fashion for organizational actions.

I will not support a Proposal like this without, at the least, a
provision that, if an Organization buries a Treasure, the same
penalties will apply if a member of that Organization retrieves it as
would occur if a player find eir own Treasure.  (Or, probably, anyone
who's been a member within the past week...) And similarly if a player
buries it an an Organization finds it(which this amendment would
probably allow).  Also, only Organizations which may transfer other
entities(like, perhaps, Churches or Orgs with Trade License)should be
able to do this at all.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Cowboy Junkies:Sun Comes Up It's Tuesday Morning
Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming
They may eat lamb or stroke each other.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:09:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2239

> > Proposal 2239
> > We'll Let You Off With A Warning This Time
> 
> > {{ Any newspaper which went belly-up as the result of not having published
> > any articles in June is hereby recreated in the possession of its former
> > owner, who is administered a fine of A$15. }}
> 
> I object to this proposal.  I intentionally let 'RTe lapse, and to
> have it reinstated, especially with a retroactive fine, is unreasonable.
> Retroactive fines, especially in these sort of circumstances, are 
> unreasonable on their own right.

You're right.  Perhaps I should make this more voluntary.

#retract proposal 2239

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Cowboy Junkies:Sun Comes Up It's Tuesday Morning
Current Book--Heather Spears:The Taming
Hot dog, jumping frog, Albuquerque

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:07:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Tax Reform

re:  starting wealth
> I think that is the most important thing.  Starting new players at
> a disadvantage seems the most unfair thing the rules can do.
	I think new players should start out at a disadvantage
compared to players who have been in the game a while and worked
building up their assets or whatever.  I would be in favor of starting
new players with no money and no house.
	Fortunately for them, even my own cabinet disagrees.  :o)

- -- 
Chaos

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 22:33:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Tax Reform

> re:  starting wealth
> > I think that is the most important thing.  Starting new players at
> > a disadvantage seems the most unfair thing the rules can do.
> 	I think new players should start out at a disadvantage
> compared to players who have been in the game a while and worked
> building up their assets or whatever.  I would be in favor of starting
> new players with no money and no house.
> 	Fortunately for them, even my own cabinet disagrees.  :o)

I would be interested in working up a new version of the "Starpoints"
proposal, by which a player would receive money, house, etc. for actually
participating in the game.  Which would require a certain amount of
tracking of stuff; I think this could be assigned to the Mentors(to point
out to their charges what they need to do), and the Registrar, to confirm
that the new players had in fact performed the required actions.  I'll try
to RFC it sometime next week or so.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Laurie Anderson, John Giorno & William S. Burroughs:You're The Guy I Want To Spend My Money With
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
Pardon my circumlocutions, I seem to be soliloquizing.

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #114
****************************************