Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #161
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Wednesday, October 15 1997    Volume 02 : Number 161

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

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:45:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC : Organization/Institution reform

Unfortunately I don't appear to have received ThinMAn's full post (I did
get a lot of empty ones
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> ThinMan wrote:
> > I _like_ player-sanctioned organizations.  Even if generic organizations
> > are nuked, player-sanctioned organizations currently serve as a template
> > covering both Political Parties and Churches. 

Player sanctions Organizations never served as a template for Churches.
The Church rule serves as a template for Churches, and it's always been
rule-sanctioned.

> (How would you start a
> > new Church under the proposed rule?)  
The same you start it now, thesame it was possible to start one under the
pre-Mohamedan orgs. and Parties would now work the same way.

>I am unclear on why generic
> > organizations are a problem, however, or at least unclear on how any
> > problem that may exist with generic organizations is solved by getting
> > rid of them.  I could still use a Church as a tax shelter, for instance.
> > I could attempt to utilize Malenkai's loophole through the creation of
> > a Political Party.  These require some degree of cooperation from
> > other players, but that can usually be arranged.

I didn't attempt to solve either of these problems. I have a stronger
objection to single player Orgs then to generic Orgs in general. I think
single player Orgs give a single player Powers intended to be used by a
group of players together. It ruins game balance. Organizations should be
just that - groups of players.
I dislike generic Organizations. However, as I stated before, there is
nothing to prevent you from proposing a type of Organization that for all
practical purposes is identical to the current generic Organization.

 > 
> I agree with ThinMan.  Making institutions be unique organizations is
> good; tearing down Mohammed's organization structure is bad --
> particularly if you don't rebuild some of the necessary torn-down parts
> [specific objections deleted].
You'd have to resend the specific objections to me, because for some
reason I didn't get ThinMan's mail.

> 
> In fact, I'd like to go further by adding an Org power called an Altar
> to make churches/cults work more like other types of orgs.  I don't have
> the proposal to do this written up, but I'm tossing the idea out for
> consideration.

When Mohammed  proposed the org re-org he tried this. I objected then, and
I object now.   Churches would lose a lot if something like is proposed.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> /dev/joe
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of acka-research-digest V2 #160
> ***********************************
> 

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

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:54:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: counter-RFC

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> Here is an alternative suggestion for organizational reform,
> incorporating Institutions:
> 
> RFC ReOrganization
> 
> This is a Grandiose proposal.
> 
> (1) Amend rule 1003 to read in full:
> 
> "
> I. Forming an Organization
> 
> Any Player may attempt to form a new Organization as a public action.
> Such an attempt will succeed if and only if the player provides a legal
> Ackanomic name for the new Organization at the time that he attempts to
> create it.  The player who creates a new Organization in this manner
> becomes its first and (initially) only member; that player is the
> Founder of that Organization.  Organizations created in this manner are
> player-sanctioned Organizations.
> 
> Alternatively, the rules may create Organizations or specify that
> certain players are, collectively, an Organization.  Such Organizations
> are rule-sanctioned Organizations.

Currently the rule says :
Alternatively, an Organization may be created and defined by other Rules.
Such Organizations are called
Rule-sanctioned Organizations. A Rule-sanctioned Organization does not
necessarily have a Founder. 

which allows for such rules as Church that define a class of
Organizations. Your phrasing would not allow for that.

I've posted my objections to single player orgs, and consequently to
generic orgs.

> Restricted Organizations

Fine idea. Which might serve as a compromise between my objection to
generic Organizations, and your objection to removing them. Except that
the Orgnizational frameword was much more coherent before that.
However, restricting the Synod the same way Cults are now restricted is
not a good idea, because the function of the Synod, when it is in session,
is to trade.

Also, I don't want the Synod to be unabe to purchase Organizational
Powers, I just want it to be unable to use them.

I'm for typed Organizations with option to purchase Extra Powers.

> 
> VII. Organizational Voting
> 
> If an Organization is called upon to conduct a vote, then the voting
> period shall be seven days unless otherwise specified by the rules.
> If at any time during the voting period each member who is elligible to
> cast a vote on a particular matter has done so then any member of the
> organization may end the voting period for that matter at that time by
> announcing the results.  If the voting period elapses without the
> results being reported then the organization has three days to report
> the results.  If the resultsof the voting on a particular matter are
> reported within these limits, or if the results do not favor a single
> outcome, then the organization makes no decision on that matter.
> "

This phrasing I like. I might adopt it.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:31:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC : Organization/Institution reform

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't appear to have received ThinMAn's full post (I did
> get a lot of empty ones

I'll find ThinMan's message and re-send it to Niccolo after I finish this
e-mail.

[ThinMan discussed other ways to exploit some of the loopholes without
generic orgs, which require 3 or 4 players to cooperate]

> I didn't attempt to solve either of these problems.  I have a stronger
> objection to single player Orgs then to generic Orgs in general. I think
> single player Orgs give a single player Powers intended to be used by a
> group of players together. It ruins game balance. Organizations should be
> just that - groups of players.

Now this is a point I can agree with.  The single player orgs do seem
to violate the spirit of organizations.  I suggest you simply make org
powers be dormant when an org has less than 3 members; make up some name
for 1 or 2 player orgs, which will only be allowed to perform the org
actions of accepting new members and disbanding. [anything else?]
Keep the bit about disbanding generic orgs with fewer than 3 members
a week after the new rule takes effect.

Drop the membership drive bit for parties; a party is an org with a
big tent and 3 or more members.  An org with a trade license and 3
or more members is a corporation.  [Change all those "trade-licensed
organizations" in the synod rule to "corporations".]  A player-sanctioned
org that is not a church, party, or corporation, but has 3 or more members,
is a society. (i.e., TMBSG)  [Later, if somebody comes up with another
org power which marks a different type of org, we can add it to this list
if that's appropriate.]

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:31:48 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: counter-RFC

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> > Alternatively, the rules may create Organizations or specify that
> > certain players are, collectively, an Organization.  Such
> Organizations
> > are rule-sanctioned Organizations.
> 
> Currently the rule says :
> Alternatively, an Organization may be created and defined by other
> Rules.
> Such Organizations are called
> Rule-sanctioned Organizations. A Rule-sanctioned Organization does not
> necessarily have a Founder. 
> 
> which allows for such rules as Church that define a class of
> Organizations. Your phrasing would not allow for that.
> 
My phrasing does not _have_ to allow for it.  It just has to not
contradict it.  The Church rule works because it is a rule, not
because some other rule says it does.  My phrasing is principally
a definition, and that is all that is necessary.

> I've posted my objections to single player orgs, and consequently to
> generic orgs.
> 
The objections that I remember about single-player orgs all revolve
around giving individual players abilities that they otherwise would
not have (for a price).  I'm not altogether sure that I'm against
that, actually, but I am willing to go with the flow for now.  I
don't remember any general objections to generic orgs, though, and I
certainly have none myself.  I may well have just forgotten.

> > Restricted Organizations
> 
> Fine idea. Which might serve as a compromise between my objection to
> generic Organizations, and your objection to removing them. Except
> that
> the Orgnizational frameword was much more coherent before that.
> However, restricting the Synod the same way Cults are now restricted
> is
> not a good idea, because the function of the Synod, when it is in
> session,
> is to trade.
> 
Much more coherent?  I don't agree.  It might work better to put the
effect of restriction into the "Organizational Powers" rule, though,
and leave just the definition in the Organizations rule.

There is another possible problem that I originally intended to
incorporate into the "Restricted" framework, but which didn't fit
particularly well: certain of the new Organizations must be incapable
of utilizing the new member procedure in the Organizations rule.
Precedence largely covers this area already, but relying on precedence
to protect us from sloppy rule-writing is a strategy prone to backfire.

> Also, I don't want the Synod to be unabe to purchase Organizational
> Powers, I just want it to be unable to use them.
> 
That is eminently feasible.  Restricted Organizations need not be
forbidden from purchasing Organizational powers.

> I'm for typed Organizations with option to purchase Extra Powers.
> 
I'm for organizations that have whatever combination of abilities and
powers that they care to have, can afford, and are legal.  I don't see
the point of assigning type names, except insomuchas it allows other
rules to treat subclasses of Organizations individually with less
verbiage.  There are already types of Organizations, and there always
will be as long as two or more distinguishable Organizations exist.
That is, "Organizations with Secret Labs," "Organizations with 'Odo' in
their names," and "Organizations of which ThinMan is a member" are all
undisputably types of Organizations.  If we want to give special names
to certain types of Organization (e.g. Churches, Political Parties),
fine.  But what does that have to do with disallowing Organizations
that are not one (or more) of the named types?

> > 
> > VII. Organizational Voting
> > 
> > If an Organization is called upon to conduct a vote, then the voting
> > period shall be seven days unless otherwise specified by the rules.
> > If at any time during the voting period each member who is elligible
> to
> > cast a vote on a particular matter has done so then any member of
> the
> > organization may end the voting period for that matter at that time
> by
> > announcing the results.  If the voting period elapses without the
> > results being reported then the organization has three days to
> report
> > the results.  If the resultsof the voting on a particular matter are
> > reported within these limits, or if the results do not favor a
> single
> > outcome, then the organization makes no decision on that matter.
> > "
> 
> This phrasing I like. I might adopt it.
> 
I'm glad you approve.  There are one or two typos in that copy; no
doubt you have recognized them already.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:22:43 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: RFC : Organization/Institution reform

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > I agree with ThinMan.  Making institutions be unique organizations
> is
> > good; tearing down Mohammed's organization structure is bad --
> > particularly if you don't rebuild some of the necessary torn-down
> parts
> 
> > In fact, I'd like to go further by adding an Org power called an
> Altar
> > to make churches/cults work more like other types of orgs.  I don't
> have
> > the proposal to do this written up, but I'm tossing the idea out for
> > consideration.
> 
> When Mohammed  proposed the org re-org he tried this. I objected then,
> and
> I object now.   Churches would lose a lot if something like is
> proposed.
> 
Can you be a little more specific?  What, exactly, would Churches lose?

Without having examined the matter in much depth, I would currently
support an attempt to bring Churches closer under the Organizational
umbrella.

ThinMan

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #161
***********************************