Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #155
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Friday, October 3 1997      Volume 02 : Number 155

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:53:55 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : On the matter of Institutions. (fwd)

Recently Malenkai commented on eir wish to nuke Institutions, it was my
understanding that he intended to get rid of them entirely.

Currently we have the following Institutions in Ackanomic:
Senate
Party-Hall
Synod
The History Guild (not in Session)
The People Council for Internomic (soon to be repealed in favor of publich
Hearings)

The Institutions rule defines some default procedures for Institutions,
where the original intent was that some Institutions will follow those
defaults, whereas others may over-ride some of those defaults with their
own procedures. The reality is that the only Institution that operates
anything like those defaults is the Senate. The other Institutions might
as be well be defined by their own rules, and it is not necessary to have
this kind of extra baggage. This is not inherent to Institutions, it's
just the way Acka happened to evolve.
The Institutions rule does have some useful tools. One of them being
the Joint Assembly. However, Joint Assembly can be a much more verstile
tool without being restricted to Institutions. A Joint Assembly of
entities would allow any combination, I'm not saying it necessarily
should. That is why I intend to submit a proposal that will do the
following:
1. Repeal the Institutions rule
2. Ammend the rules governing current Institutions so that they simply
become entities.
3. Eliminate or ammend, as each specific case demands, various references
such "any Institution"
And submit a seperate proposal that will recreate Joint Assembly for
entities rather than Institutions.

rfc

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:13:35 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : on the matter of Organizations

The current Organization rules are a mess. There are several things I
don't like about them:
1. Single player Organizations - they  are destructive to game balance,
one might as well have let players purchase the various powers, but that's
what we have  Otzma and Gadgets for.  It is also a very odd concept. I
think that since Organizations are treated differently than players, a
clear distinctions should be made.  A single player can't be an
Organization.

2. Generic Organizations - I don't like this idea either. I have nothing
against having Parties and Churches, and types of Organizations purchasing
 and using Organizational Powers, but this is completely antithetical to
waht I view as Organizations. It was an interesting experiment, but IMO it
fails. I'd prefer to have more types of Organizations. 

I intend to publish an RFC that reforms Organizations in the following
way:
1. All generic Organizations will be given one week to put their affairs
in order. At the end of that week their assets will be distributed as
follows:
a. All Organizational Powers are destroyed. All Organizations with a
Grandfather Tent become Political Parties.
b. All Trinkets will be converted to A$.
c. All entities except for A$ are Auctioned in a public Auction, with half
the money transferred to the Treasury, the other Half transferred to the
Organization.
d. A$ are distributed equally among the members of the Organizations, the
remainder (from an integer division) transferred to the Treasury.
e. The Organization is disbanded

2. There will be no more generic Organizations

One objection I can foresee now - "but what if we want to start an
Organization that's neither a Party nor a Church"
My suggestion - propose a rule that will define a type of Organization
that's neither a Party nor a Church.
In fact, I intend to propose a few of those (yes - again)

3. Rewrite the Political Party rules so that it will be once again a type
of Organization.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:23:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : on the matter of Organizations

> a. All Organizational Powers are destroyed. All Organizations with a
> Grandfather Tent become Political Parties.
 
I think it would be fair to give the orgs their money back
for the powers they bought that this proposal will destroy.
Otherwise I like it.  Of course, I'd like to see it go farther,
but destroying the generic orgs is a good start.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:45:47 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka : on the matter of Organizations

> 1. All generic Organizations will be given one week to put their affairs
> in order. At the end of that week their assets will be distributed as
> follows:
> a. All Organizational Powers are destroyed. All Organizations with a
> Grandfather Tent become Political Parties.
> b. All Trinkets will be converted to A$.

I presume here that you mean "all Trinkets owned by Organizations"?
Otherwise I'd have to opposed it.  :-)

> c. All entities except for A$ are Auctioned in a public Auction, with half
> the money transferred to the Treasury, the other Half transferred to the
> Organization.
> d. A$ are distributed equally among the members of the Organizations, the
> remainder (from an integer division) transferred to the Treasury.
> e. The Organization is disbanded

> 2. There will be no more generic Organizations

Still, sounds good.

> One objection I can foresee now - "but what if we want to start an
> Organization that's neither a Party nor a Church"
> My suggestion - propose a rule that will define a type of Organization
> that's neither a Party nor a Church.
> In fact, I intend to propose a few of those (yes - again)

There's nothing that prohibits the Rebellion or the Committee for
Understanding from being totally unofficial, but it would be nice if they
could be some type of org, "Committee" or something.  Just a thought.
Something that could be formed by three players getting together and
declaring an org?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Basia:From Now On
Current Book--Donald Kingsbury:Courtship Rite
I'm tolerant of your fruitcake-like beliefs.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:05:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : on the matter of Organizations

On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> The current Organization rules are a mess. There are several things I
> don't like about them:
> 1. Single player Organizations - they  are destructive to game balance,
> one might as well have let players purchase the various powers, but that's
> what we have  Otzma and Gadgets for.  It is also a very odd concept. I
> think that since Organizations are treated differently than players, a
> clear distinctions should be made.  A single player can't be an
> Organization.

As a member of that wonderful Organization Fort Knocks, I must, well,
agree.  Indeed, I think anything less than 3 people is pushing it,
organization-wise.

> 
> 2. Generic Organizations - I don't like this idea either. I have nothing
> against having Parties and Churches, and types of Organizations purchasing
>  and using Organizational Powers, but this is completely antithetical to
> waht I view as Organizations. It was an interesting experiment, but IMO it
> fails. I'd prefer to have more types of Organizations. 
> 

I agree wholeheartedly.  I was actually toying with the idea of
reforming these rules myself, but the way things are going I wouldn't have
had time for it until, say, December.  My ideas thus far centered around
getting rid of the current method of forming new organizations entirely.
Instead of simply being able to declare one has been created, you would
instead have to get a proposal passed that created some sort of rule
defining your organization.  

> 
> I intend to publish an RFC that reforms Organizations in the following
> way:
> 1. All generic Organizations will be given one week to put their affairs
> in order. At the end of that week their assets will be distributed as
> follows:
> a. All Organizational Powers are destroyed. All Organizations with a
> Grandfather Tent become Political Parties.
> b. All Trinkets will be converted to A$.
> c. All entities except for A$ are Auctioned in a public Auction, with half
> the money transferred to the Treasury, the other Half transferred to the
> Organization.
> d. A$ are distributed equally among the members of the Organizations, the
> remainder (from an integer division) transferred to the Treasury.
> e. The Organization is disbanded
> 
> 2. There will be no more generic Organizations
> 
> One objection I can foresee now - "but what if we want to start an
> Organization that's neither a Party nor a Church"
> My suggestion - propose a rule that will define a type of Organization
> that's neither a Party nor a Church.
> In fact, I intend to propose a few of those (yes - again)
> 
> 
> 3. Rewrite the Political Party rules so that it will be once again a type
> of Organization.
> 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 

Sounds good to me.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:38:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2321

On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2321
> Moribund Games
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Amend rule 1250.1, "Games & Contests" to add the following text
> to the end of the rule:
> 
> "
> XII. Moribund Games
> 

Heh.  I agree this is a good ammendment.  In the case of the game of YORL,
though, I am kicking myself.  I waited FOREVER for it to come back around
to me, and then I managed to let it slip my mind...

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #155
***********************************