Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #199
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Sunday, December 14 1997     Volume 02 : Number 199

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 08:29:38 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2509

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 2509
> > Multicolour Cross
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > 
> > Create a new Rule, numbered 906, entitled "Double Cross", and with the
> > following MORE-delimited text:
> > 
> > MORE
> > 1. Each player has a Black Cross Rank and a Crystal Cross Rank.
> > At all times, a player's Black Cross Rank is equal to the number of CFCJs
> > they have submitted whose last verdict was TRUE.
> > At all times, a player's Crystal Cross Rank is equal to the number of
> > CSRs they have issued which have been performed.  CFCJs and CSRs made
> > under a player's previous registrations count for the purposes of
> > determine the above Ranks.
> 
> I don't see the point of this last one.  As the rules stand now, at most
> two people are able to submit CSRs at all.  Neither of the two offices
> that can submit them have term limits, so there is going to be very little
> rotation of them.  So almost no one will ever earn any Crystal Cross Rank.

Well I've got a proposal up to make it 3 players.  What if we also then
gave the President that power?  That would get some rotation going.
Still - the Crystal Cross currently does no harm - if people think it
creates too much harfing then someone propose the position of Cross
Harfer, who keeps track of all Ranks other than Blue Cross (or maybe even
Blue Cross) and give it to me.

I can't see any reason to actually hate the Crystal Cross idea, so if you
like the Black Cross there's no reason to vote this down.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 08:31:50 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malenkai's Party

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> I'm not entirely certain of Malenkai's current Party affiliation.
> 
> It seems to me that Malenkai publicly announced that he was joining
> SPAM soon *after* SPAM took away their open door policy. I haven't had
> a chance to go back and harf this yet, which is why I showed a "(?)"
> after Malenkai's name in the recent voting results. (Fortunately it
> hasn't affected anything, as it turns out SPAM did not have any Unity
> Votes in the last couple of days regardless.)
> 
> If I'm mistaken about something, someone please let me know. Otherwise
> I'll be off to grep through the archives and figure this out.

We hadn't finished all supporting the open door policy before Malenkai
joined and supported it himself.
So he is actually a member of SPAM until and unless the CFCJ with the
penalty of expulsion from SPAM kicks in (3 days after it was sent)
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 09:58:40 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2505

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Proposal 2505
> > Fixing Up Publicly Knowable Judges
> 
> > Amend Rule 212 by replacing all instances of the phrase "by posting to the
> > applicable officer" with "as a public action".
> 
> It would seem that this would do nothing but add a few
> more messages to the flood on the main list.  If a judge
> wants to accept and post a verdict in the same message (indeed,
> posting a verdict itself has been construed as acceptance as
> long as I've been here), then why do we need more messages on
> the list?

What more messages?  Currently people are posting acceptances and declines
to the public list anyway.  This simply changes a de facto situation to a
de jure one.

If posting a verdict has been construed as acceptance, how come I've only
ever seen one CFJ Verdict without an acceptance beforehand - and that was
/dev/joe's Huberted one on my PWCFJ?

Besides, the current rules make it possible for acceptances to be not
publicly knowable.  This makes harfing the game state slightly tricky - as
my CFJ 485 situation indicates.  I don't see why it should be kept behind
closed doors at all, when most people are already putting their decisions
out in the open.
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:33:02 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

> > I think that the RFC floating around to seperate Churches, Parties,
social
> > orgs, and Corporations may be required to make the originizational
rules
> > make sense.  
> 
> The RFC that is floating around has a one very big problem. It
ignores the
> fact that Churches are already seperate, and ain't broken. It's
trying to
> fix the wrong thing.

If this thing about it being impossible to join a church is true then
it most definitely is broken. I think that it would be better to change
everything in one go anyway, as at the moment churches have access to
all the org powers, which is a problem.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:59:26 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC was: Re: Question

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > > I think that the RFC floating around to seperate Churches, Parties,
> social
> > > orgs, and Corporations may be required to make the originizational
> rules
> > > make sense.  
> > 
> > The RFC that is floating around has a one very big problem. It
> ignores the
> > fact that Churches are already seperate, and ain't broken. It's
> trying to
> > fix the wrong thing.
> 
> If this thing about it being impossible to join a church is true then
> it most definitely is broken. I think that it would be better to change
> everything in one go anyway, as at the moment churches have access to
> all the org powers, which is a problem.

Okay.  Quick RFC on rough ground:

1. Split the Org structure into the following parts:

(a) Collections, and (b) Organizations

Collections are groups of players which no longer have sufficient members,
or who have never had sufficient members, to become an Org.  Collections
may accept new members only.  Conversion to Organization is automatic.

A player attempts to create a Collection by making a public action which
specifies its name.  If the player has A$mumble or more, they then pay
A$mumble to the Treasury and the Collection is created.
If a Collection ever has (gromit) or more members, it immediately becomes
an Organization.  If an Organization ever has less than (gromit) members,
it immediately becomes a Collection.
If a Collection ever has 0 members, all its tradeable possessions are
returned to the Treasury, and the Collection is then destroyed.

2. Subclasses

Collections and Organizations belong to subclasses, labelled "C", "P",
"R" and "S" for Company, Party, Religion and Social respectively.  No
Collection or Organization can belong to more than one subclass - the
subclass a Collection is in must be stated when it is formed, and cannot
be changed. When a Collection becomes an Organization or vice versa, it
remains in the same subclass.

3. Organizational Powers
Collections may possess Org Powers, but may not use them.
Organizations may possess Org Powers, and can use them.
However, all Org Powers have restrictions on the subclasses.   Each Org
Power has a code, such as "CPR" or "PC" etc.  The code is a string, where
each character is the label of zero or one subclasses.  A Collection or
Org may only purchase an Org Power if they are in a subclass whose label
is in the code of the Org Power.  Org Powers are nontradeable.

(You then label all the Org Powers - e.g. a Synod Seat is "CR", a Trade
Licence is "C" etc.
You also label all existing orgs and collections.)

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:11:46 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC for orgs

>Church -Religion is just a change in name. Churhces used to disband when
>they fell below minimum membership. If single player Organizations are
>nuked, then I'd for this change as well. As for owning a More than Human,
>they can do so now.
>Churches are not the problem.
	Given the current uncertainties in the church rules, and the fact
that there are a number of anachronisms in it, I'd rather re-write them
into something which better fits with newer rules.  How about a limited
ability to majik trinkets?  The issue is that with all the other org
changes I'm suggesting, something like a more than human would no longer
make sense for any other type of org.  I also kind of like the idea of
having provisions for a state religion.

>Slakko's proposal about players can't denouncing their own ejection from
>the Party takes care of most of the above. with that proposal a 2/3
>majority of a Party can demand a certain vote or eject a member. I'd
>object to any other form of forcing a certain vote.
>Parties are not the problem either.
	Again, it would remain mostly the same, but change to fit with the
new rules.  The limits on owning things are just a provision I'd feel safer
having.  There's no reason a party should need to own things anyway.

>I think changes should start at the base level, because that's where the
>problems are created, the problems are not with the Church rule, or the
>Party rule.
	I think that's what my suggestion does.  Churches and political
parties are changed into seperate entities, and have a few additional
limits, but are otherwise left alone.  Miscellaneous orgs are split into
two types, one which is only social, and the other is where all the power
(and risks) would be.

>I see, you want to make Parties, and Corporations a type of Organization
>like a Church is now. I'm partly for it. But there is no need to prevent
>it from owning anything.

>With your scheme, Corporations could still carry out the same scam you
>just attempted. One player, could start more than corporation, each time
>he is done using one for the Org actions, transfer the Power, or the
>Gadget, sell the shares, and go on.
	A) There would be a fee (I'd say around A$100) to create a corporation
	B) Labs would be limited to creating 1 gadget per month REGARDLESS
or who owns it
	C) There might be a tax on anything a corp buys or sell

>A 100 shares per corp would generate enough work. A variable number of
>shares would be too much of a burden to track.
	I'm not sure it would be all that bad.  I think this is the only
point in my suggestion where I really see two major options (there are
little decisions elsewhere, but nothing this big.)  If people like the rest
of this, I'd probably take a poll as to which method people prefer.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:16:47 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : All those Unfounded Churches

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> 	(I go to sleep for a few hours, and THEN you have all the
> interesting discussions)
> 	What I see happening is that by announcin their intent to join,
> they are saying that the are followers (as in, following me to create the
> church.)  Since follower is used no where else, I'm not even sure that it
> requires a public action to be a follower, but I want to be careful.
> Regardless, I think it's quite clear that by announcing their intent to
> join, they are followers, and once three people do that, I'll found the
> churches.  (I was aware they weren't churches yet, by the way)

But becoming a Follower enables a church to eventually be created (at
least if you are the third Follower).  So what you are doing affects the
game state, and hence you can only become a Follower (or possibly the
third follower, I'm not sure) as described in the rules.  The rules don't
describe a way, and so you can't become one.  It's crazy but it might be
true.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:34:08 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : All those Unfounded Churches

>But becoming a Follower enables a church to eventually be created (at
>least if you are the third Follower).  So what you are doing affects the
>game state, and hence you can only become a Follower (or possibly the
>third follower, I'm not sure) as described in the rules.  The rules don't
>describe a way, and so you can't become one.  It's crazy but it might be
>true.
	Isn't there something in the rules about if it doesn't specify how
to do something, then you do it as a public action?

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:46:03 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> Okay.  Quick RFC on rough ground:
> 
> 1. Split the Org structure into the following parts:
> 
> (a) Collections, and (b) Organizations
> 
> Collections are groups of players which no longer have sufficient
members,
> or who have never had sufficient members, to become an Org. 
Collections
> may accept new members only.  Conversion to Organization is
automatic.
> 
> A player attempts to create a Collection by making a public action
which
> specifies its name.  If the player has A$mumble or more, they then
pay
> A$mumble to the Treasury and the Collection is created.
> If a Collection ever has (gromit) or more members, it immediately
becomes
> an Organization.  If an Organization ever has less than (gromit)
members,
> it immediately becomes a Collection.
> If a Collection ever has 0 members, all its tradeable possessions are
> returned to the Treasury, and the Collection is then destroyed.
> 
> 2. Subclasses
> 
> Collections and Organizations belong to subclasses, labelled "C",
"P",
> "R" and "S" for Company, Party, Religion and Social respectively.  No
> Collection or Organization can belong to more than one subclass - the
> subclass a Collection is in must be stated when it is formed, and
cannot
> be changed. When a Collection becomes an Organization or vice versa,
it
> remains in the same subclass.
> 
> 3. Organizational Powers
> Collections may possess Org Powers, but may not use them.
> Organizations may possess Org Powers, and can use them.
> However, all Org Powers have restrictions on the subclasses.   Each
Org
> Power has a code, such as "CPR" or "PC" etc.  The code is a string,
where
> each character is the label of zero or one subclasses.  A Collection
or
> Org may only purchase an Org Power if they are in a subclass whose
label
> is in the code of the Org Power.  Org Powers are nontradeable.
> 
> (You then label all the Org Powers - e.g. a Synod Seat is "CR", a
Trade
> Licence is "C" etc.
> You also label all existing orgs and collections.)

This all seems fairly reasonable to me. Do you want me to try writing
up a proposal including everything that we've got so far? I'll submit
an RFC on it before submitting it.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:51:13 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> This all seems fairly reasonable to me. Do you want me to try writing
> up a proposal including everything that we've got so far? I'll submit
> an RFC on it before submitting it.

Sounds fine to me.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:58:41 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>This all seems fairly reasonable to me. Do you want me to try writing
>up a proposal including everything that we've got so far? I'll submit
>an RFC on it before submitting it.
	Are we up to that point yet?  We still haven't decide which method
to use for corporations, and Slakko's suggestion doesn't seem to allow for
buying and selling corporation shares, so we have three different ways to
do corporations.  I'm worried that Slakko's system, while definately
elegant and flexible, is elegant and flexible.  I think one of the major
problems with the current system is that all that elegance, "Oh look,
everything works nicely together and is so flexible," is what makes it so
easy to take advantage of.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:52:21 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : All those Unfounded Churches

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >But becoming a Follower enables a church to eventually be created (at
> >least if you are the third Follower).  So what you are doing affects the
> >game state, and hence you can only become a Follower (or possibly the
> >third follower, I'm not sure) as described in the rules.  The rules don't
> >describe a way, and so you can't become one.  It's crazy but it might be
> >true.
> 	Isn't there something in the rules about if it doesn't specify how
> to do something, then you do it as a public action?

That's assuming that the rules say it is okay to do it.
It is okay to _be_ a Follower, but it is not specified in the rules that
it is possible to _become_ one.  This argument was the first of two used
to sink the effectiveness of the "More than Human".

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:56:13 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >This all seems fairly reasonable to me. Do you want me to try writing
> >up a proposal including everything that we've got so far? I'll submit
> >an RFC on it before submitting it.
> 	Are we up to that point yet?  We still haven't decide which method
> to use for corporations, and Slakko's suggestion doesn't seem to allow for
> buying and selling corporation shares, so we have three different ways to
> do corporations.  I'm worried that Slakko's system, while definately
> elegant and flexible, is elegant and flexible.  I think one of the major
> problems with the current system is that all that elegance, "Oh look,
> everything works nicely together and is so flexible," is what makes it so
> easy to take advantage of.

Any abuses allowed by my structure would probably be allowed under the
current system too.  I just realised that there are really two distinct
issues:
(1) Organizations below a certain size shouldn't be given any power.
 -- this led to collections
(2) Different types of Organizations should stay out of each other's way
 -- this led to subclasses

All my simple, flexible structure does is make the rules as they are
simpler to deal with.  However, it also allows Organizational Powers to be
restricted to particular groups.  This was one of the main ways people
planned to circumvent the problems, wasn't it?

I believe that a complete implementation of my structure into the rules
would also have the effect of simplifying the 1000s and 1300s.  In and of
itself, it doesn't mean much, but as a side bonus it sounds good.

Yours,
Slakko

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:09:14 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> >This all seems fairly reasonable to me. Do you want me to try
writing
> >up a proposal including everything that we've got so far? I'll
submit
> >an RFC on it before submitting it.
> 	Are we up to that point yet?  We still haven't decide which method
> to use for corporations, and Slakko's suggestion doesn't seem to
allow for
> buying and selling corporation shares, so we have three different
ways to
> do corporations.  I'm worried that Slakko's system, while definately
> elegant and flexible, is elegant and flexible.  I think one of the
major
> problems with the current system is that all that elegance, "Oh look,
> everything works nicely together and is so flexible," is what makes
it so
> easy to take advantage of.

We probably aren't up to the stage whereby we could submit a proposal
but if I write one down then we will be able to structure our thoughts
better. That's what I think anyhow.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:11:06 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>Any abuses allowed by my structure would probably be allowed under the
>current system too.  I just realised that there are really two distinct
	But the whole point of this is to get rid of those abuses.
	Currently there seem to be two suggestions on the table.  One
system is largely a simplification of the current system, with some
additional safeguards.  The other eliminates entirely the current open
system, and replaces it with four different types of organizations, all of
which are completely seperate from each other.  Which way do people prefer?

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:07:57 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >Any abuses allowed by my structure would probably be allowed under the
> >current system too.  I just realised that there are really two distinct
> 	But the whole point of this is to get rid of those abuses.
> 	Currently there seem to be two suggestions on the table.  One
> system is largely a simplification of the current system, with some
> additional safeguards.  The other eliminates entirely the current open
> system, and replaces it with four different types of organizations, all of
> which are completely seperate from each other.  Which way do people prefer?

I prefer mine. :-)

The main reason, though, is not that I invented it.  No, really.  It's
just that having to come up with four different types of organizations
creates four different globs of rules, which complicates the ruleset
unnecessarily.  The simplified system I came up with still enables
distinctions, but does it in a much shorter way.  If the two methods are
effectively equivalent, I see no reason why the longer one should be
chosen.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:12:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2505

> What more messages?  Currently people are posting acceptances and declines
> to the public list anyway.  This simply changes a de facto situation to a
> de jure one.
> 
> If posting a verdict has been construed as acceptance, how come I've only
> ever seen one CFJ Verdict without an acceptance beforehand - and that was
> /dev/joe's Huberted one on my PWCFJ?
> 
> Besides, the current rules make it possible for acceptances to be not
> publicly knowable. 

The current rules also make it impossible to know when a proposal has
been submitted, votes have been cast, tammany has been bribed, etc,
etc, etc.  Should we flood the already flooded list with all that too?

As far as your question in the second paragraph -- you are a new player.
The evidence is in the ftp archives.  It is true that many players
unnecessarily post their acceptance to the public forum, but using that
fact as an argument that it is required is very weak.  Posting of a
verdict has traditionally (even before I was CotC), been construed 
as acceptance of the CFJ.  Also, sometimes people post their acceptance
privately, or post it as part of the verdict, or just assume the posting
the verdict indicates acceptance.

It is possible that a judge will disagree with this almost 2 year old
custom, I dunno -- in which case the rules should be changed to make
it so, because its silly to require unnecessary extra steps that do
nothing but clutter up everyone's already over-bloated mailboxes :-)

As for your comment on harfing the game state being easier, I see
no hard evidence supporting the truth of that statement either.  I
think we've been doing an excellent job harfing the game state (those
who have actually volunteered to harf it), and this amendment will
actually make the game *harder* on players, ala the Postal Code when
it first came out.

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:24:56 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>The main reason, though, is not that I invented it.  No, really.  It's
>just that having to come up with four different types of organizations
>creates four different globs of rules, which complicates the ruleset
>unnecessarily.  The simplified system I came up with still enables
>distinctions, but does it in a much shorter way.  If the two methods are
>effectively equivalent, I see no reason why the longer one should be
>chosen.
	I don't think they are equivelent.  I think my system is more
interesting because it gives org types more in-game signifigance.
Personally, I'd be willing to support yours on the condition that
corporations are taken out.  I think the best feature of my system is that
corporations are no longer membership oriented, but, like real
corporations, can be bought and sold, have shares, and so on.  I think
that's the only major difference between the two systems, since all the
rest are stylistic.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:20:26 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >The main reason, though, is not that I invented it.  No, really.  It's
> >just that having to come up with four different types of organizations
> >creates four different globs of rules, which complicates the ruleset
> >unnecessarily.  The simplified system I came up with still enables
> >distinctions, but does it in a much shorter way.  If the two methods are
> >effectively equivalent, I see no reason why the longer one should be
> >chosen.
> 	I don't think they are equivelent.  I think my system is more
> interesting because it gives org types more in-game signifigance.
> Personally, I'd be willing to support yours on the condition that
> corporations are taken out.  I think the best feature of my system is that
> corporations are no longer membership oriented, but, like real
> corporations, can be bought and sold, have shares, and so on.  I think
> that's the only major difference between the two systems, since all the
> rest are stylistic.

I only put corps in because people seemed to think they were a good idea.
If you don't think my system allows for them properly, then fine, you can
drop them.  It doesn't bother me.
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:28:28 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2505

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> As far as your question in the second paragraph -- you are a new player.
> The evidence is in the ftp archives.  

May I have the address?  I can't seem to find it anywhere.

> It is true that many players
> unnecessarily post their acceptance to the public forum, but using that
> fact as an argument that it is required is very weak.  

I never said that posting acceptance to the public forum was required.  If
I thought it was, I wouldn't have to submit the proposal.

> Posting of a
> verdict has traditionally (even before I was CotC), been construed 
> as acceptance of the CFJ.

This is interesting.  Has there been a CFJ on this issue before?  
(Don't go through the archives to check - if you can't recall then just
say so and I may need to do the gold digging myself).

>  Also, sometimes people post their acceptance
> privately, or post it as part of the verdict, or just assume the posting
> the verdict indicates acceptance.

So how can I tell whether my CFJ was retracted or not?

> 
> It is possible that a judge will disagree with this almost 2 year old
> custom, I dunno -- in which case the rules should be changed to make
> it so, because its silly to require unnecessary extra steps that do
> nothing but clutter up everyone's already over-bloated mailboxes :-)

They're already cluttered up from practically everybody already performing
the unnecessary extra steps.

> As for your comment on harfing the game state being easier, I see
> no hard evidence supporting the truth of that statement either.  I
> think we've been doing an excellent job harfing the game state (those
> who have actually volunteered to harf it), and this amendment will
> actually make the game *harder* on players, ala the Postal Code when
> it first came out.

Okay.  I probably went overboard on that one.  It's just that I now have a
CFJ out about retraction, which only two players have the knowledge to
enable a correct answer on.  Fortunately, as CnH is a deadbeat by now, one
of the players with the knowledge (Malenkai) will become the next judge as
Praetor.  However, given that Malenkai is one of the two people at the
centre of this dispute over CFJ acceptances, I have no doubt he will defer
to another player to avoid any semblance of personal gain.  Unfortunately,
this passes the matter on to someone who doesn't know the situation
(unless Malenkai's dice fortuitously roll /dev/joe).

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:37:55 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>I only put corps in because people seemed to think they were a good idea.
>If you don't think my system allows for them properly, then fine, you can
>drop them.  It doesn't bother me.
	Sounds like we've reached agreement then.  Gingham Wearer can
probably start on a draft proposal now, and I'll work on a draft of the
corporation rules (they should be seperate proposals)  I'd like to conduct
an informal poll.  Do people prefer the simple corporation rules (100
shares/corporation) or the complicated ones (variable shares, board of
directors, share buyback programs, etc.)?

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:08:10 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> >I only put corps in because people seemed to think they were a good
idea.
> >If you don't think my system allows for them properly, then fine,
you can
> >drop them.  It doesn't bother me.
> 	Sounds like we've reached agreement then.  Gingham Wearer can
> probably start on a draft proposal now, and I'll work on a draft of
the
> corporation rules (they should be seperate proposals)  I'd like to
conduct
> an informal poll.  Do people prefer the simple corporation rules (100
> shares/corporation) or the complicated ones (variable shares, board
of
> directors, share buyback programs, etc.)?

I much prefer the complex ones. As I have already said, if there were
to be a new office to keep track of all this lot then I'd be prepared
to do it. In my proposal do you want me to repeal all the current org
rules or shall we concentrate on that when we've worked out what we
want to accomplish?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:16:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2505

> May I have the address?  I can't seem to find it anywhere.

I actually do not know it.  Ask breadbox.  I also do not know
if it includes the wilma archives or just the muppetlabs
archives.
 
BTW, you have edited out my point about submissions of proposals,
votes, and tammany being publically knowable.  It is the exact
same situation -- please comment, don't pull a ******* and dodge
the issue :-).  The issue here is really the merits (or lack thereof ;-))
of proposal 2505, not whether your CFJ was retracted.

> I never said that posting acceptance to the public forum was required.  If
> I thought it was, I wouldn't have to submit the proposal.

I have reread your argument and it seems to imply that because 
people post acceptance publically, construing posting of the 
verdict privately does not constitute acceptance.  If I have 
misread your writing, I apologize.
 
> > Posting of a
> > verdict has traditionally (even before I was CotC), been construed
> > as acceptance of the CFJ.
> 
> This is interesting.  Has there been a CFJ on this issue before?

No.  Based on my knowledge of the way acka works however, game custom
is generally upheld, as long as it can be demonstrated at least once,
and as long as the rule in question can be argued to be unclear, so I
would imagine that such a CFJ would uphold that tradition, although
one never knows.  Acka, IMO, is fairly loose constructionalist, if
you haven't noticed already ;-)

> >  Also, sometimes people post their acceptance
> > privately, or post it as part of the verdict, or just assume the posting
> > the verdict indicates acceptance.
> 
> So how can I tell whether my CFJ was retracted or not?

Well, you can ask a judge.  The fact that the verdict was posted 
traditionally had indicated that the judge has accepted eir appointment
as judge.  It would *not* have been too late to retract it, even if the
judge had accepted it, and not posted a verdict, so I think you are 
confusing two things here.  I do not understand why it needs to be 
publically knowable -- if a verdict has not been delivered, you may
retract it.  Rule 330:
 
> A player may retract his own CFJ as a public action. This action 
> will fail if a verdict on the CFJ has already been delivered.
> The player retracting the CFJ loses 1 point. 

Why do you care if it has been retracted, except to try to exploit a
little technicality to avoid your pate? :-)  It is certainly a
reasonable ploy (but one I do not think will be upheld), but that issue
should be seperated from discussion of this proposal.  I have already
stated why I think this proposal will just be a general annoyance,
and it has nothing to do with you being Huberted.

> They're already cluttered up from practically everybody already performing
> the unnecessary extra steps.

That doesn't make it right.  Perhaps people will stop doing those
unnecessary steps.  Again, that is another issue.  Its like posting
to ackanomic instead of acka-research when posting to the latter is
the right thing to do.  This proposal is like mandating posting
everything to the former.
 
> Okay.  I probably went overboard on that one.  It's just that I now have a
> CFJ out about retraction, which only two players have the knowledge to
> enable a correct answer on.

No, your CFJ and proposal 2505 are different issues, IMO, as previously
stated.  The answer is that under current ackanomic law and its 
customary interpretation, your CFJ was accepted, and a verdict was
delivered.  Now 3 people know (assuming it wasn't retracted per your
*first* argument in that CFJ, but again, that is a different issue).

> Fortunately, as CnH is a deadbeat by now, one
> of the players with the knowledge (Malenkai) will become the next judge as
> Praetor.

Actually CnH is a deadbeat on an unrelated CFJ that I submitted, and 
the Praetor never judges eir own CFJs.  Where is this coming from?
If the current judge deadbeats, It will indeed be assigned to me,
but that will not occur for a day or two.

> However, given that Malenkai is one of the two people at the
> centre of this dispute over CFJ acceptances, I have no doubt he will defer
> to another player to avoid any semblance of personal gain.

What?  I have nothing to gain from this.  I am only disputing this 
because I think you are wrong, and because both this potential change
in interpretation of the rules (for your own gain), and proposal 2505
will make the game more work but will not add more fun.  If this goes
against my position, it will really mean very little to me except more
work, and I can always resign.

If, however, the CFJ *is* assigned to me as Praetor, I will send it 
to the Supreme Court without ruling on it, because you have proven 
that you will appeal virtually everything anyway, regardless of the 
first judge's  comments, opinions, or experience, so why should the 
first judge even waste brain cells on your CFJs?  I know I have decided
not to, should one be assigned to me. :-)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:25:14 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>I much prefer the complex ones. As I have already said, if there were
>to be a new office to keep track of all this lot then I'd be prepared
>to do it. In my proposal do you want me to repeal all the current org
>rules or shall we concentrate on that when we've worked out what we
>want to accomplish?
	Looking at it, I'm not sure the "complex" method would be too bad
once the rules are in place.  Once everything else is finished, we'll have
to decide how to deal with the old org rules.  The tricky part will be
transitioning what we have now to the new system.  Here's what I see:
	Political parties and churches convert directly
	Regular, multi-player organizations with a trade license become
corporations at no cost, without they become societies.
	Single player organizations are dissolved, with everything owned
being given to the owner, except for organizational powers, for which the
owner is refunded.
	Because of the transitional issues, my proposal should probably be
formally proposed first, because we won't lose any information that way.
(Otherwise there's a period of time when corps don't exist, which won't
work well.)

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #199
***********************************