Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #202
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Monday, December 15 1997     Volume 02 : Number 202

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:34:20 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Big new org thing!

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >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.

You can't do that.  A Big Tent is an org power.  Remove Org Powers and no
new political parties can be formed.
- --
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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:12:12 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Big new org thing!

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> >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.
> 	This should apply to NO votes, and probably PRESENT's too.

I tried that! What do you think 2457 was about?  It didn't work then, and
I don't like the idea of having my idea taken without even asking me for
a proposal within 2 weeks.

- --
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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:33:46 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2525

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2525
> Rule 2000 Problem
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Repeal rule 2000, "Death to Immutability".
> 
> {{[this will remove one more page the rule-harfer has to deal
> with, and the rule doesn't do anything, as far as I can see,
> and continue the glacially slow effort to remove useless rules
> from the game.]}}

What a blatant attempt to eliminate the efforts of the SPAM cartel in
blocking the Evil Vulcan Overlords!

Two more proposals, to come after the holidays, will fix the problem
created by the last CFJ and make 2000 useful again.

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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:51:19 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2527
> Harf A Loaf
> Alvaen (Aaron Humphrey)
> 
> Amend Rule 1112, "Let there be Harf!", as follows:
> 
> In the first paragraph, replace "the Speaker" with "another voting
> player, chosen at random".
> 
> Append a paragraph to the Rule, delimited by CLONEZONE:
> 
> CLONEZONE
> Similarly, if it is publicly knowable that the Harfmeister has voted NO
> on a Harfy proposal during eir current term as Harfmeister, any voting
> player may point out this fact, at which point the title of Harfmeister
> shall be transferred to em.
> CLONEZONE
> 

I don't like this, actually.  I have named plenty of proposals as Harfy in
the past that I would never vote for in a million years.  Take snowgod's
"Binary Me" as an example.  The idea of conducting the entire game of
Ackanomic (including all conversation between its members) in binary code
was certainly harfy.  But it wasn't exactly practical.  Harf, in my
experience, is not always something even the Harfmeister can vote for
with a clear conscience.  I think the main effect this would create would
be that the Harfmeister simply wouldn't declare anything he was going to
vote against as harfy.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:08:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[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. 

  Or, if you can perform simultaneous actions, and only the 3rd follower
can't become one, could you found the church & become a follower
simultaneously?  Answer: no.

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Change Nomic!   http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
It's still paranoia, even if they really are out to get you.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:38:16 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> I don't like this, actually.  I have named plenty of proposals as Harfy in
> the past that I would never vote for in a million years.  Take snowgod's
> "Binary Me" as an example.  The idea of conducting the entire game of
> Ackanomic (including all conversation between its members) in binary code
> was certainly harfy.  But it wasn't exactly practical.  Harf, in my
> experience, is not always something even the Harfmeister can vote for
> with a clear conscience.  I think the main effect this would create would
> be that the Harfmeister simply wouldn't declare anything he was going to
> vote against as harfy.

If you are naming proposals harfy which never have a chance in a million
of succeeding, it appears that you would be not actually doing anything
towards getting rid of the harf.  This would leave you liable to a Hearing
claiming that you are hogging the harf.  Personally I think that making
proposals harfy when they are doomed to failure is a bad idea, so I agree
with Alf on this one.

Yours,
Slak
- --
Duncan "will abbreviate player names for food" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:03:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2525

Slakko wrote:
> > Proposal 2525
> > 
> > Repeal rule 2000, "Death to Immutability".
> 
> What a blatant attempt to eliminate the efforts of the SPAM cartel in
> blocking the Evil Vulcan Overlords!
> 
> Two more proposals, to come after the holidays, will fix the problem
> created by the last CFJ and make 2000 useful again.

What a blatant attempt to eliminate the efforts of the Vulcan party
to clean useless dreck out of the ruleset!

A proposal, to come after the holidays, will fix the problem created by
Slakko and remove his still-useless rules from the ruleset. :-)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:12:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

> I don't like this, actually.  I have named plenty of proposals as Harfy in
> the past that I would never vote for in a million years.  Take snowgod's
> "Binary Me" as an example.  The idea of conducting the entire game of
> Ackanomic (including all conversation between its members) in binary code
> was certainly harfy.  But it wasn't exactly practical. 

Not only that, but it creates more work for the speaker, as was
pointed out last time this proposal made its rounds :).  Having static
defaults, rather than defaults that require action on someone's part,
is a better idea, IMO.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:25:42 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > I don't like this, actually.  I have named plenty of proposals as Harfy in
> > the past that I would never vote for in a million years.  Take snowgod's
> > "Binary Me" as an example.  The idea of conducting the entire game of
> > Ackanomic (including all conversation between its members) in binary code
> > was certainly harfy.  But it wasn't exactly practical.  Harf, in my
> > experience, is not always something even the Harfmeister can vote for
> > with a clear conscience.  I think the main effect this would create would
> > be that the Harfmeister simply wouldn't declare anything he was going to
> > vote against as harfy.
> 
> If you are naming proposals harfy which never have a chance in a million
> of succeeding, it appears that you would be not actually doing anything
> towards getting rid of the harf.  This would leave you liable to a Hearing
> claiming that you are hogging the harf.  Personally I think that making
> proposals harfy when they are doomed to failure is a bad idea, so I agree
> with Alf on this one.
> 
> Yours,
> Slak
> --

Harf exists independant of practicality and the likelihood of passage of a
proposal.  If a proposal is harfy, there should be nothing to discourage
the Harfmeister from designating it as such.  If it so happens that
proposals are submitted which are harfy, but have a snowball's chance in
hell of passing, they should be designated harfy.  If proposals that are
likely to pass aren't harfy, then they most certainly should not be
designated harfy.  Anyone who is following these guidelines should never
have the Harfmeister title stripped from them just because there weren't
any proposals being submitted that were both harfy and likely to pass.

The real issue, however, is not how likely proposals are to pass, but
whether or not they should pass.  As in the "Binary Me" example, the
proposal was quite harfy and fun, but if it had actually been enacted it
probably would have ruined the game.  If a harfy proposal comes up that
hasn't a chance of passing, then it wouldn't matter whether or not the
Harfmeister voted for it, it would still fail.  The problem is if the
proposal might pass if the Harfmeister votes for it, but the Harfmeister
doesn't like the proposal and want it to fail.  Under the current system,
no big deal, the Harfmeister can oblige his duty to the Harf my
designating the proposal harfy, but follow personal preference and vote
against it.  With the new system, the Harfmeister has to choose between
voting for things he doesn't like, which I consider unlikely, or failing
the Harf and letting deserving proposals go by without being designated as
harfy.  The latter case seems like what would be most likely to occur, and
the end result would probably be less Harf, and a lot more boring
hearings, than the way things work now.

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:47:35 +0000
From: "Matt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

> Harf exists independant of practicality and the likelihood of passage of a
> proposal.  If a proposal is harfy, there should be nothing to discourage
> the Harfmeister from designating it as such.  If it so happens that
> proposals are submitted which are harfy, but have a snowball's chance in
> hell of passing, they should be designated harfy. 

Shouldn't that be snowgod's chance in hell of passing?

Vynd is spot on here. Anyone who thinks that all harfy proposals are
likely to pass, or should pass, has misunderstood the concept
somewhat IMO. Harfy proposals with more than a CnH's chance in hell
of passing are rarer than sky-blue-pink chartreuse geese.

Bascule

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:55:34 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Matt wrote:

> > Harf exists independant of practicality and the likelihood of passage of a
> > proposal.  If a proposal is harfy, there should be nothing to discourage
> > the Harfmeister from designating it as such.  If it so happens that
> > proposals are submitted which are harfy, but have a snowball's chance in
> > hell of passing, they should be designated harfy. 

Just one question.  Is "independent" here mipslet like "veracity" is on
alt.folklore.urban, as a deliberate mistake?

> 
> Shouldn't that be snowgod's chance in hell of passing?
> 
> Vynd is spot on here. Anyone who thinks that all harfy proposals are
> likely to pass, or should pass, has misunderstood the concept
> somewhat IMO. Harfy proposals with more than a CnH's chance in hell
> of passing are rarer than sky-blue-pink chartreuse geese.

Gee!  Look at that flock going by now!

I think getting over 40% without even a party campaign qualifies as more
than a Wayne's chance in hell.  See the prop about the B-Ack.

- --
Duncan "gonna keep this thread till all names are used" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:00:22 +0000
From: "Matt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

>> Harfy proposals with more than a CnH's chance in hell of 
>> passing are rarer than sky-blue-pink chartreuse geese.
> 
> Gee!  Look at that flock going by now!
> 
> I think getting over 40% without even a party campaign qualifies as more
> than a Wayne's chance in hell.  See the prop about the B-Ack.

Aye, but that's just one proposal. There have been many harfy 
proposals in the past which didn't even have a Bascule's chance in 
hell of passing, for example:

Proposal 617- Sat Apr 6 10:06:36 EST 1996
Official Language of Ackanomic
snowgod (Phil Ackley)
Decision: Rejected

     Pig Latin shall be the official language of Ackanomic.  All
     ackanomic list messages from this day forward must be posted in
     pig latin.  An english translation may be provided, but must be
     placed on the page following the complete text of the message
     originally written in Pig Latin.  In addition, the Web-Harfer
     will be required to maintain a pig latin version of all ackanomic
     pages.

     Proposals submitted in Pig Latin will be become rules in Pig
     Latin upon passage. 

Proposal 1012 - Sun Jul 14 00:56:01 EDT 1996
xvcoffee
snowgod (Phil Ackley)
Decision: Rejected

     The web harfer is required to maintain an image link to
     http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/xvcoffee on the main ackanomic
     page at all time (directly beneath the banner would be
     preferable) so that the citizens of ackanomic can always be aware
     of the status of the cambridge coffee machine. 

     The web harfer is relieved from this responsibility if the above
     URL is determined to be non-functioning. 

Proposal 916 - Tue Jun 25 14:39:26 EDT 1996
Surgery
snowgod (Phil Ackley)
Decision: Rejected

     Part A: 

     There shall exist the following ackanomic enitities: 

     A pencil
     paper
     a #20 beading needle
     an X-Acto knife handle
     matches
     a sterile gauze pad
     a medium sized adhesive-bandage strip
     topical disinfectant
     a nice hot cup of coffee 

     These entities shall not be owned by any one player. However any
     player may control any of these entities at any time he desires
     to. 

     Part B: 

     If at any time a player completes the following procedure the
     treasury shall transfer A$40 into his account. A player may only
     complete the following procedure once per game cycle. To complete
     the procedure, a player needs to post a step by step description
     of the procedure. The player may add colorful embellishments so
     long as he also describes each step in the procedure. 

     Procedure: 

     1) Place #20 beading needle in X-Acto knife handle. 

     2) Light match, and sterilize needle by holding it in the flame
     for at least 15 seconds, or until the needle is red hot. 

     3) Remove pants (being careful to first remove shoes), and sit
     down. Thoroughly swab an acessible area of your upper thigh with
     topical disinfectant. Grip needle firmly by X-Acto knife handle,
     and with a quick pwerful motion, plunge deeply into fat and
     muscle of thigh within swabbed area. 

     4) With needle still embedded in thigh, pick up pencil and paper
     and note your immediate reaction to having a red-hot needle
     plunged into your leg. 

     5) Upon completing step 4, put down pencil and paper, grasp
     handle, and extract needle carefully, pulling backward directly
     alon original trajectory of needle. Remove sterile gauze from
     packaging and hold over wound until bleeding stops. Dress wound
     and put pants back on. 

     6) Pour yourself a nice hot cup of coffee and review your notes.
     Post some commentary about your notes to the end of your message
     describing the procedure. 

Proposal 330- Wed Jan 24 1:00am 1996
Harfy Rules
Mitchell Harding
Decision: Rejected

     A new class of rules, called harfy rules, are hereby created. A
     harfy rule is a rule that cannot be amended, or altered in any
     way, unless the new rule is more complex (to be judged by the
     Speaker) and generally is more confusing and silly (again, judged
     by the Speaker). A harfy rule, once harfy, can never be made
     unharfy unless a proposal containing the following phrase '12
     ducks and mongoose named Larry' is voted on and passes
     unanimously.

etc. etc.

Bascule

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:09:53 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Matt wrote:

> >> Harfy proposals with more than a CnH's chance in hell of 
> >> passing are rarer than sky-blue-pink chartreuse geese.
> > 
> > Gee!  Look at that flock going by now!
> > 
> > I think getting over 40% without even a party campaign qualifies as more
> > than a Wayne's chance in hell.  See the prop about the B-Ack.
> 
> Aye, but that's just one proposal. There have been many harfy 
> proposals in the past which didn't even have a Bascule's chance in 
> hell of passing, for example:

Yes, but the most recent is not an isolated example either.  The previous
Harfy proposal definitely stood a this is not a name's chance in hell of
succeeding, and the one before that actually did succeed (clearly more
than a /dev/joe's chance in hell).

Anyone want to change their Ackanomic name to Chance in Hell?
- --
Duncan "conversing with the undead is fun, kids!" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:36:18 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Matt wrote:
> 
> > > Harf exists independant of practicality and the likelihood of passage of a
> > > proposal.  If a proposal is harfy, there should be nothing to discourage
> > > the Harfmeister from designating it as such.  If it so happens that
> > > proposals are submitted which are harfy, but have a snowball's chance in
> > > hell of passing, they should be designated harfy. 
> 
> Just one question.  Is "independent" here mipslet like "veracity" is on
> alt.folklore.urban, as a deliberate mistake?
> 

I'm a terrible spelller.  And I make lots of tyops.  Sorry. :)  Look on
the bright side, I c0UlD tal|{ L1Ke this.

                             - Vynd, kewl d00dz

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:14:34 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2527

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> I'm a terrible spelller.  And I make lots of tyops.  Sorry. :)  Look on
> the bright side, I c0UlD tal|{ L1Ke this.
> 
>                              - Vynd, kewl d00dz

I know.  It is just that I seem to be the only person with an independent
mind around here. :-)  And there's more than a fon's chance in hell of
that happening, especially given the Vulcan 3l33T.

- --
Duncan "will use the list of undead for this gag" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:12:46 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Big new org thing!

> You can't do that.  A Big Tent is an org power.  Remove Org Powers and no
> new political parties can be formed.

Only assuming that political parties are defined by Big Tents.  They
didn't used to be...Big Tents were a way of grandfathering the original
Parties into the Org framework.  (That's why they've all got Special
Grandfather Edition Big Tents.  Except for MetaMorph and SPAM, which were
formed after...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Pink Floyd:The Final Cut
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Outward Bound
Producing a book is like typing a lot.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:40:08 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2525

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Slakko wrote:
> > > Proposal 2525
> > > 
> > > Repeal rule 2000, "Death to Immutability".
> > 
> > What a blatant attempt to eliminate the efforts of the SPAM cartel in
> > blocking the Evil Vulcan Overlords!
> > 
> What a blatant attempt to eliminate the efforts of the Vulcan party
> to clean useless dreck out of the ruleset!

It's panto season.  Let's do it:

OH NO IT'S NOT!

- --
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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:04:27 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Org reorg 2nd draft

Here's my second draft. I think I've modified everything suggested.
Except for Niccolo Flychuck's proposals which are currently in the
queue. What exact changes do you want me to make regarding them? Most
of the bits in square brackets won't be part of the actual proposals
and are just notes for the draft. As always comments are welcome, nay,
required?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

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).E then becomes the
Proto-founder. Any other player may state eir intent to join such an
organization. The Proto-founder 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 Proto-founder has
enough Ackadollars to form the type of organization intended then e
pays that amount to the treasury and e becomes the Founder. 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. Such organizations are known as Player-sanctioned
Organizations.

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. 
[This is to cut down on scams. Remember, under normal circumstances an
org won't be disbanded, it will become a collection.]

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. 

4. Organization Similarity 

For any two Organizations X and Y, orgsim(X, Y) is defined as the
percentage of members of X who are also members of Y, except for the
case where X and Y are the same, in which case it is defined to be 0. 

The H Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the greater of
orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A). 

The L Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the lesser of
orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A). 

The M Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the average of
orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A). 

5. 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. 
"
[While maybe not all that useful at the moment this could have uses in
the future so I believe it should be kept]

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

"
The following are types of Organization:

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 and
may never be possessed by any entity other than the church in question.
A player may not use eir house for this purpose. If a player tries to
found a church and doesn't own such a building then the attempt fails.
"

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 in the same way 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 vote on that proposal in the same
manner as all the players from the party for every three active
non-vacationing player members it has. 

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 and own
powers but no other entities.

[This is for actions such as guarding proposals]

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

If a political party gains one or more unity votes against a proposal
for over fifty percent of proposals for which other political parties
do not gain a unity vote of any sort in a week then the political party
is disbanded.
[My best attempt at avoiding the possibility of a repeat of the problem
with the underworld...]
"

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

"
1. In addition to the elements normally required to form a church it is
also necessary to publicly post a document called Church Dogma or an
explicit statement that the church has no dogma. Church Dogma includes
any information concerning the Church that the Church wishes to make
public. 

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
or penalize em for doing so. 

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 Church at the same
time. 

6. a. A collection that was a church when it was an organization is
called a cult.

b. If a Church ever has fewer than one Priest, it is transformed into a
Cult. (This section of this rules takes precedence over all other rules
specifying what defines a cult and how a cult comes into being).

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
1006.

9. A Church may own and trade currency, gadgets and trinkets and may
own powers. 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. 
"

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.

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."

[Note that at the moment there are no powers. This is primarily so that
they can be added later. They are non tradable because to do otherwise
would create megalithic amounts of scams.]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:34:44 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Big new org thing!

> > 	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.
> 
> You can't do that.  A Big Tent is an org power.  Remove Org Powers
and no
> new political parties can be formed.

Have you actually been reading this thread? Go back and read it from
the start and you'll see that you are wrong.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:05:53 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Org reorg 2nd draft

On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Here's my second draft. I think I've modified everything suggested.
> Except for Niccolo Flychuck's proposals which are currently in the
> queue. What exact changes do you want me to make regarding them? Most
> of the bits in square brackets won't be part of the actual proposals
> and are just notes for the draft. As always comments are welcome, nay,
> required?
> 
> 
> The Gingham Wearer.
> 
> 
> 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 feel more comfortable if the current rules were repealed after the new
ones were created, if theres any reasonable way to do this.  Also, there
needs to be something that grandfathers existing organizations.

> 
> 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).E then becomes the
> Proto-founder. Any other player may state eir intent to join such an
> organization. The Proto-founder 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 Proto-founder has
> enough Ackadollars to form the type of organization intended then e
> pays that amount to the treasury and e becomes the Founder. 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. Such organizations are known as Player-sanctioned
> Organizations.
> 

You need ot make it absolutely clear that it is not the collection that
you are calling Player-senactioned Organizations.  Also, you might want to
change the part about having enough Ackadollars to having enough, um,
stuff, so as to cover the other prerequisites to founding an organization.
Otherwise, what with precedence and all, people might be able to form
Churches without their buildings.

> 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. 
> [This is to cut down on scams. Remember, under normal circumstances an
> org won't be disbanded, it will become a collection.]
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 4. Organization Similarity 
> 
> For any two Organizations X and Y, orgsim(X, Y) is defined as the
> percentage of members of X who are also members of Y, except for the
> case where X and Y are the same, in which case it is defined to be 0. 
> 
> The H Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the greater of
> orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A). 
> 
> The L Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the lesser of
> orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A). 
> 
> The M Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the average of
> orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A). 
> 
> 5. 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. 
> "
> [While maybe not all that useful at the moment this could have uses in
> the future so I believe it should be kept]
> 

I don't see anything that describes how Organizations take actions, is
that rule being left intact?

> 
> Create a new rule numbered 1002 entitled "Types of organizations",
> reading as follows:
> 
> "
> The following are types of Organization:
> 
> 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 and
> may never be possessed by any entity other than the church in question.
> A player may not use eir house for this purpose. If a player tries to
> found a church and doesn't own such a building then the attempt fails.
> "
> 

1002 and 1003 should probably be just one rule.  You shouldn't say that a
church building can never be possesed by an entity other than the chruch.
Just say that if the church ever losses possesion of the building, then it
ceases to be a church and can never become one again, or something.
Otherwise we'll eventually end up with all these unownable former churches
sitting around.

> 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 in the same way 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 vote on that proposal in the same
> manner as all the players from the party for every three active
> non-vacationing player members it has. 
> 
> 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 and own
> powers but no other entities.
> 
> [This is for actions such as guarding proposals]
> 
> A political party that becomes a collection is known as a pressure
> group.
> 
> If a political party gains one or more unity votes against a proposal
> for over fifty percent of proposals for which other political parties
> do not gain a unity vote of any sort in a week then the political party
> is disbanded.
> [My best attempt at avoiding the possibility of a repeat of the problem
> with the underworld...]
> "
> 

I really don't like this last part.  It could easily happen by accident,
for one thing.  For another, it will be a serious pain to keep track of.
I think we can probably survive the possibility of another UNderworld
style strike if need be.  If other people are concerned, then do something
to prevent it, but at least don't disband the Org outright.  Perhaps
probation of 10 days, and only if someone complains?

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

Chruches are something I don't even pretend to understand, so I won't
comment on them.  One thing that seemed to be missing was the whole "More
than Human" business though, oh, and Secret Labs.  Now personally, I don't
care much one way or the other if these remain, but you will undoubtedly
lose votes if you kill them.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #202
***********************************