Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #201
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Sunday, December 14 1997     Volume 02 : Number 201

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:56:44 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Big new org thing!

> I'm still not sure how to change all the current orgs but that can
> wait. For now what do you think of this? I'm sure that there must be
> hundreds of mistakes in there (prize for whoever spots number
> one-hundred!) Also if you completely hate what I've done or feel I've
> missed something then say so. Please.

> Repeal rule 1003
> Repeal rule 1005
> Repeal rule 1009
> Repeal rule 1011
> Repeal rule 1013
> Repeal rule 1015
> Repeal rule 1301
> Repeal rule 1303 if it exists

I'd almost say that it'd be better if the rule repeals came at the end
of the Proposal.  But I'm not sure if it makes much difference.

There should definitely be grandfathering clauses.  The current
Parties and Churches in existence should be transformed seamlessly into
the new types, or at least re-created as such at the end of the
Proposal's effects.

> Create a new rule numbered 1001 entitled "Organizations" reading as
> follows:

> "
> Organizations are unownable, named entities. 

> 1. Forming an Organization 

> Any player may announce eir intention to form an organisation by
> publicly posting that they intend to do so, stating which type of
> organization e plans to form, and what the intended name for the
> organization will be (the name must be a legal name). Any other player
> may state eir intent to join such an organization. The player who
> initially stated eir intentions to form an organization may at any time
> form an organization by publicly posting that e is doing so, announcing
> what type of organization it is to be (which must be the same type as
> when e posted eir intention to found the organization), announcing the
> name of the organization (which must be the same as when e posted eir
> intention to found the organization), and who is to be a member. All
> members must have publicly stated their intent to join. If the founder
> has enough Ackadollars to form the type of organization intended then e
> pays that amount to the treasury. If e has insufficient funds then no
> money is transferred to the treasury and no organization is formed. All
> organizations must have at least three members. If it ever has fewer
> than three members then it becomes a collection. The player who
> initially
> announced eir intention is the founder of the organization. Such
> organizations are known as player sanctioned organizations.

You need some whitespace in here!  Luckily the rule-harfer can insert
it...:-)  Also, maybe instead of saying "The player who initially stated
eir intentions..." you can call em the "proto-Founder" or something.
If there is concern over the proper definition of Founder, state it
clearly.  And "Player-sanctioned" and "Rule-sanctioned" should have
the same case.  :-)

> 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 nor
> does it necessarily have at least three members. 

> Any player may request membership in an Organization. The Organization
> may then grant the request as a public action. When a request for
> membership is granted, the player becomes a member of the Organization.

> A player-sanctioned Organization may, as a public action, give a
> particular member the ability to grant any request for membership in
> that Organization, without waiting around for the consent of the rest
> of the members. A player-sanctioned Organization may also, as a public
> action, establish an open admissions policy, which means that anyone
> can join that Organization at any time. 

> 2. Organization Disbandment 

> The rules may call for the disbandment of an Organization. When an
> Organization is disbanded, everything owned by the Organization is
> transferred to the Treasury, and the Organization is then no more. 

> 3. Organization Size 

> The Size of an Organization is the number of members it has. Terms such
> as 'larger' and 'smallest', when applied to Organizations, refer to the
> Sizes of the Organizations being compared. [For example, to say that
> one organization is larger than another is to say that it has more
> members.] 

> The Active Size of an Organization is the number of Players who are
> members of that Organization and are not on vacation. 

I like that.  You might even want to make it voting members; I'm not sure
under which circumstances one might want to exclude non-voting members
from the count, but for Party Unity purposes...

> 4. Player Liberty Clause 

> No player may become a member of an Organization without first
> expressing their consent to joining it. A player may leave an
> Organization of which he or she is a member at any time. 

> When an Organization is called on to vote, it has 7 days to conduct and
> publicly report the results of the vote, and how each member voted,
> unless the rules call for a different amount of time. If everyone who
> is eligible to cast a vote in a given has done so, the results may be
> announced before the voting period ends. For the purposes of this rule,
> the composition of an Organization is taken to be its composition at
> the end of any voting or decision period. Acting members are considered
> to be members in place of the members they are acting for. 
> "

I wonder if the above paragraph really applies to anything except
for the Senate and Ad Hoc Committees(are they Orgs?).  I wonder if
it could be put elsewhere.

> Create a new rule numbered 1002 entitled "Types of organizations",
> reading as follows:

> "
> There are three different types of organization. These are:

> 1. Social Clubs
> 2. Churches
> 3. Political Parties
> "

> Create a new rule numbered 1003 entitled, "Founding costs" which reads
> as follows:

> "
> The cost to set up an organization is as follows:
> 1. A political party costs A$300.
> 2. A social club is free to set up.
> 3. A church doesn't require any money to found but it does requires
> that the founder owns a cosy building to become the church. This
> building becomes possession of the church if and when it is formed. If
> a player tries to found a church and doesn't own such a building then
> the attempt fails.
> "

The previous two could be combined into one rule, IMHO...or even folded
into 1001.  But then, I'm more in favour of big monolithic rules over
bunches of little tiny ones.  Especially now that the Aliens can't
abduct them, it doesn't matter if we put all our eggs in one basket.  :-)

> Create a new rule numbered 1004 entitled, "Politics and party unity"
> reading as follows:

> " 
> It is a Crime to be a member of more than one Political Party at once. 

> At the end of a proposal's voting period, but before votes on that
> proposal are counted, if every active non-vacationing player member of
> a given Political Party voted YES on that proposal, and no member of
> the Party is also a member of some other Party, then the Political
> Party itself shall cast an additional YES vote on that proposal for
> every three active non-vacationing player members it has. 

I would also support NO unity votes.  Maybe this could be done with:

"if every active player [I think I put in the non-vacationing thing,
but since active players cannot be on vacation, it may be unnecessary]
voted the same way on that proposal...then the Political Party itself
shall cast an additional vote the same way..."

Would this work?  Anybody?

> Party membership and how players voted are determined based on the
> facts in force at the end of the voting period for each proposal. 

> A political party is permitted to own and trade Ackadollars but no
> other entities.

What, for purposes of bribery?  :-)

> A political party that becomes a collection is known as a pressure
> group.
> "

Heh.

> Create a new rule numbered 1005 and entitled Churches reading as
> follows:

Well, we should have pretty much cleared out the 1300's soon, then...

> "
> 1. In addition to the elements normally require to form a church it is
                                          ^^^^^^^ required
> also necessary to publicly post a document called Church Dogma. Church
> Dogma includes any information concerning the Church that the Church
> wishes to make public. 

I still think there should be provisions for Null Dogma, as in "This
Church has no Dogma."

> 2. a. Each Church may have a Church Policy. 

> b. Church Policy is an internal Church document. 

> c. A Player who disobeys the Church Policy of a Church of which e is a
> member is guilty of Iconoclasm, which is a Crime. It is impermissible
> for a Player to take a game action which constitutes Iconoclasm if he
> or she has any legal alternative which would not constitute Iconoclasm.
> [That is, Iconoclasm normally doesn't happen unless there is no
> alternative. It is possible for a player to commit Iconoclasm by
> inaction, though.] 

> d. The initial Church Policy will be set by the Founder. Church Policy
> may only change according to Church Policy. 

> e. A Church is not obliged to divulge Church Policy, in whole or in
> part, in a public forum. 

> f. Church Policy has no effect over the power to ordain Priests. It
> cannot take this power away from the Founder, neither can it give this
> power to anyone else. 

> g. Church Policy cannot prevent a Church member from leaving a Church. 

> 3. a. The Church Founder has the power to ordain Priests, and to strip
> Priests of their Priestly status (which is called defrocking). The
> Church Founder also has the power to expel Players from eir Church;
> this is called Excommunication. 

> b. A Founder may ordain a Player as a Priest, defrock a Player who is a
> Priest, or Excommunicate a Player, if and only if that Player is a
> member of eir Church. 

> c. The Founder may delegate any of his duties or authorities to the
> Priesthood, except for the power to ordain Priests, to defrock Priests
> and to Excommunicate. 

> d. In the absence of the Founder, the most senior Priest will perform
> the duties, and have the authority of the Founder, except for the power
> to ordain Priests. If seniority is not defined in Church Policy, then
> the most senior Priest, will the one who has been Priest for the
> longest duration of time. 

> e. If a decision is to be made by the Priesthood, and no method for
> making such decisions is defined in Church Policy, then the decision
> will be made by a simple majority rule. In case of a tie, then
> seniority is taken into account. If seniority is not defined in Church
> Policy, then the seniority of a Priest will be defined as the length of
> time that has passed since that Player has been ordained as a Priest in
> that Church. If there is still a tie after this, then the Founder will
> break the tie. 

> 4. a. A Church may define its own alternative terminology for the
> Church specific terms defined in this rule. 

> b. Any terms that the Church intends to use in a public forum, must be
> defined in Church Dogma. 

> c. If undefined terminology is used by Church members in a public
> forum, any player may publicly request the Church to provide an
> explanation of that term. Members of the Church may respond to this
> however they like, and any such response has the official Ackanomic
> Seal of Politeness, regardless of how brain-stoppingly offensive it is.

> d. A Church mailing list is not considered a public forum. 

> 5. A player may not be a member of more than one Churches at the same
> time. 

Yeah...I think we have enough of a population now to support multiple
Churches with no overlap.  When "Trinity" passed to change it to three,
I don't think there was.

> 6. a. A collection that was a church when it was an organization is
> called a cult
               ^period(or full stop, as you prefer)

> b. If a Church ever has fewer than one Priest, it is transformed into a
> Cult. 

You should make sure that the Rules allow this.  Since a Cult is a
collection, but a Church with eight members and no Priest can become a
collection, there should be no built-in "less than three" rule for
Collections, or it should defer precedence to this one.

> c. For purposes of membership, the Church Founder is considered a
> Priest. 

> d. Any function that can be performed by a Priest, can also be
> performed by the Church Founder. 

> e. Any Priest who leaves a Church cease to a Priest. 

> f. A player who joins a Cult and was previously a Priest or a Founder
> of the Church that was transformed into that Cult, becomes a Priest of
> that Cult. 

> g. A cult may only transform itself back into a church only if it
> contains a priest in addition to sufficient members as stated in rule

"as stated in rule..."?

> 9. Church, Church membership, Foundership, Priesthood, and Church Dogma
> are Protected. 

I believe Niccolo Flychuck has already submitted a Proposal to change
this clause, as well as a few others in the Church rule...  Rather than
recreate the whole thing, maybe the Proposal should add the relevant
sections, or amend them, and then renumber Rule 1301.

> 10. A Church may own and trade currency and trinkets. If Church policy
> is silent about the managing the Church's Currency and trinkets, then
> the Church Founder manages the Church's Currency and trinkets. 
> "

What about Gadgets?  What if a particular type of Gadget is holy to
your Church?

> Create a new rule numbered 1006, entitled, "Collections" reading as
> follows:

> "
> Collections are unownable, named entities. 

> A collection may only be created by an organization dropping below
> three members. When such a collection is created it has the same name
> as the organization from which it was formed, owns all the same things
> as the organization from which it was formed, is of the same type as
> the organization from which it was formed and has the same players as
> the organization from which it was formed.

See, this is what should defer to the Church rule about Cults.

> Whenever a collection has three members it becomes an organization
> again. Whenever a collection has fewer than one member it is disbanded.
> Collections are disbanded in the same way as organizations. 

> Collections may not make any actions except accepting new members or
> changing policy.
> "

> Modify rule 1007 such that the word "tradable" is changed to
> "non-tradable", the sentence "All Organizations can own Powers." is
> changed to "Churches, cults, political parties and pressure groups can
> own powers but only Churches and Political Parties may use them."

If this leaves Secret Labs in place, then how do the various types of
Orgs trade the Gadgets they create, if they can only manipulate A$ or
trinkets?  For now, leave them able to manipulate all types of tradeable
entities, as long as you make Powers non-tradeable.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Collective Soul
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Outward Bound
I've never been on TV, but I've been on radar 54 times...

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:23:27 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2505

> > 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.

They're on the Postmaster's Page, or should be.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Collective Soul
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Outward Bound
He was very nonplussed.  In fact, he was positively minussed.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:05:46 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Big new org thing!

>> >g. Church Policy cannot prevent a Church member from leaving a Church.
>> 	Or penalize them for doing so.
>
>How can it penalize them?  They're not a member anymore.  And I think
>that it should be within the rights of a Church to penalize members who
>_did_ leave at one point, and later returned...:-)
	"A player may not leave this church without paying a fine of
A$1000.  To do otherwise is Iconoclasm"

>Org powers should never, ever, ever be tradeable ever again.  I will vote
>against any Proposal which keeps them so in an Org re-org.
	Personally, I think we should get rid of org powers.  The only one
which survives is more than human, which can be a special case, or we could
simply do without.

- --
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 21:12:57 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Big new org thing!

>The previous two could be combined into one rule, IMHO...or even folded
>into 1001.  But then, I'm more in favour of big monolithic rules over
>bunches of little tiny ones.  Especially now that the Aliens can't
>abduct them, it doesn't matter if we put all our eggs in one basket.  :-)
	Agreed.

>> A political party is permitted to own and trade Ackadollars but no
>> other entities.
>
>What, for purposes of bribery?  :-)
	I'm not thrilled about the idea myself.  Political parties don't
need to  own things.

>What about Gadgets?  What if a particular type of Gadget is holy to
>your Church?
	Tough.  Letting them own gadgets makes too many potential problems.
Instead it should say gift entitities.

- --
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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:42:52
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2445 rejected

Public Health Warning: Reading this message may cause cancer.

Yes it was(is) correct.
I was being greedy ( for points) and anti-voting on a grandose proposal.
However, just in case said anti-vote tipped the scales and caused said
proposal to be rejected in said manner I paid Tammany to make the said vote
for me, thus cancelling out my said anti-vote.

(needless to say) It didn't work <sigh>....

At 08:32 PM 12/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> Results of Proposal 2445
>
>> 17/21 votes: Quorum achieved
>> 6/18 YES votes: Proposal rejected
>
>>     YES:
>> Tammany                                 [K 2 bribed Tammany A$25]
>
>>     NO:
>> K 2
>
>Is this in fact correct?  Somehow it doesn't look right, and since
>K 2 was listed as making that same Tammany bribe on P2442 makes me
>suspicious.
>
>
>--
>--Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
>Current Album--Army of Lovers:Massive Luxury Overdose
>Current Book--Philip Jose Farmer:Dayworld Breakup
>Different all twisty a of in maze are you, passages little.
>
>

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:20:28
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2442 rejected

If I were a more suspisous person :) I'd beleive this was a conspiracy ;)

>18/21 votes: Quorum achieved
>8/18 YES votes: Proposal rejected
>
>    NO:
>ThinMan             (Vulcan)
>The Gingham Wearer  (SPAM)
>Niccolo Flychuck    (MetaMorph)
>breadbox
>else...if           (SPAM)
>/dev/joe            (Vulcan)
>Fortunato           (SPAM)
>Balsamic Dragon     (SPAM)
>Crackfoo            (Harf)
>two-star            (MetaMorph)

>> Proposal 2442 - Wed 3 Dec 1997 18:19:49
>> Prolix Propositions
>> K 2 (Kelly Kelly)

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #201
***********************************