Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #228
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Saturday, January 17 1998    Volume 02 : Number 228

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:17:03 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Opinions

I'll just venture here my totally unsupported opinions that I kinda like
points, and anti-voting.  And while I'm Scorekeeper(which is my favourite
Office, I'd have to say), I'll have no problem keeping them around.
Although I'm glad that Processing Chips are gone.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rachmaninoff Plays Rachmaninoff
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
words dissemble, words be quick, words resemble walkingsticks

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:02:40 -0800
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Opinions

Well while we are throwing in our opinios I would like to say that while I havent
Ben a player long enough to have points I would like to win at least one cycle, if 
possible, before we go around eliminating winning and the like.  I would also 
like to add that managing to push nearly 400 points in proposals through before 
someone figures out a scam and wins seems pretty challenging to me and 
therefore a good way to win.
		Just my unsoliceted opinion:Bill the Pirate King

- ----------
From:  Aaron V. Humphrey
Sent:  Friday, January 16, 1998 9:17 PM
To:  acka-research
Subject:  Acka: Opinions

I'll just venture here my totally unsupported opinions that I kinda like
points, and anti-voting.  And while I'm Scorekeeper(which is my favourite
Office, I'd have to say), I'll have no problem keeping them around.
Although I'm glad that Processing Chips are gone.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rachmaninoff Plays Rachmaninoff
Current Book--Charles Dickens:Great Expectations
words dissemble, words be quick, words resemble walkingsticks

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:01:11 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Thread Collapse and Appeals

Obviously, if in neither thread is it necessarily entirely valid for the
(Acting) Clerk of the Courts to return the verdict of CFJ 513, the solution
should be to wait until Balsamic Dragon is Clerk of the Courts in both
threads, and then submit an equivalent CFJ.  Then, no matter what, Balsamic
Dragon will be able to return the verdict, and if necessary process the
appeal.

While I'm at it, I just had a few thoughts about possible revampings of the
CFJ system to take some of the burden off the Supreme Court, and give the
first-round judges a bit more of a chance.

The problem seems to be that the Supreme Court decision is considered more
authoritative than a random player's decision.  So perhaps the first-round
CFJ process can be made a bit more like the Supreme Court process.

1) The Supreme Court is made up of two people.  Maybe two people should be
picked to handle the first-round verdict.  Yeah, I don't think that'll
work either.

2) The Supreme Court does not have a one-week deadline.  It doesn't even
have to pay a penalty anymore.  Now obviously we can't give any Judge
an indefinite time to answer, or a Judge could hold up the entire game
by sort of an anti-filibuster.  But if it were possible for a Judge to
appeal for more time from the Supreme Court, or Senate, or Praetor, or
somebody, then maybe a more considered approach could work.

3) But also, if someone disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision, they
can appeal it again and it will go back to them.  So maybe appeals should
go back to the first-round Judge, and _e_ has the option to move it up to
the Supreme Court.

4) Or perhaps(this is not a Supreme Court thing, but just another idea),
the first posting of the verdict should be considered a sort of RFC.  The
Judge can post their initial judgement, and then the people who would
dispute it can make their comments.  Then the Judge can take it back and
try to consider the comments made on it, and if e would change eir verdict
based on these.

5) And then there's the increase in penalty for Supreme Court appeal, but
if we're getting rid of points, I don't know what we'll use to
penalize...:-)  No, seriously, I'm not sure if it'll work that well...  An
up-front payment(returned on successful appeal)of points or A$ or
what-have-you, maybe...  And, in such case, perhaps the choice to appeal to
the Supreme Court, to the original Judge, or to another Judge...

I like options 3) and 4) best, myself, basically giving the original
Judge the choice of sending it up to the Supreme Court(okay, maybe by
the third appeal it would go automatically to the Supreme Court, so that,
again, one player couldn't filibuster), and also posting an early version
of the verdict to get more comments.  Of course, we can RFC our judgements
right now, and I would've done it with my last one except that there was
too much other stuff going on at the time.

So, thoughts and comments?

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:08:21 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

Org Structure RFC:
	{{Repeal appropriate rules}}
	{{Replace all instances of the word "rule-sanctioned organizations"
in the rules with "organization."}}
	Create a Rule entitled Organizations reading:
"
Organizations are unownable, named entities.

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
publically 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. "

Create a rule entitled Corporations, delimited by BIG
BIG
a) Corporations are named, unownable entities.  Corporations may own only
tradeable and gift items.
b) Any Player may form a new Corporation by announcing its name publicly
and paying the standard Harfer Fee. (Its name must be a legal name.) When
this happens the player recieves 100 shares in the new Corporation, and the
Corporation will have a null charter.
c) Corporations may only perform actions as specified in the rules.  There
are two types of Corporate actions, privilaged and normal.  A Corporation,
as an action may offer, accept, or refuse the transfer of any entity.  As
an action it may give gift items to any entity capable of recieving them.
As an action it may use any Corporate Equipment it owns.  As an action it
may express approval for a suggestion or make suggestion to any Corporation
it owns at least one share in.  As an action in may cast a Bonus Vote it
owns on any proposal if it has not cast a Bonus Vote in the last three
days.  As an action it may declare bankruptcy or change its charter.  All
of these are normal actions except for offering or giving entities,
changing its charter, and declaring bankruptcy, which are all privileged.
d) Any time a Corporation gives or recieves a gift item with a value in A$
specified in the rules, it pays a tax to the treasury of 1% in A$ of the
value of the transfer, rounded up.  As long as a Corporation has a negative
amount of money, it may not perform any action which would require it to
pay a tax except for recieving A$.  Corporations pay a fee of A$1/per share
for each share the give or recieve in a Corporation other than themself.
Each Corporation is taxed at the end of each cycle as if were a player.
e) In order for a Corporation to perform an action, it must be suggested by
a player as a public action.  Players support the action by publicly
announcing their support, and specifying exactly what suggestion they're
supporting.  A normal action occurs when players and Corporations owning
more than half of the shares not owned by the Treasury or by itself support
the action, a privilaged action when 80% support it.
f) When a Corporation declares bankruptcy or is otherwise destroyed, its
properties are distributed as specified in the charter.  Properties given
away in accordance to the charter are not taxed.  Any properties not
accounted for in the charter are given to the Treasury.  If the corporation
has a null charter when it is destoryed, than all its properties are given
to the treasury.
g) Every Corporation has a charter.  The charter may only give properties
away.  It may not perform any other action.
BIG

Create a rule entitled Shares, delimited by BUSINESS
BUSINESS
Shares are nameless, gift entities which may only be created as specified
in the rules.  Shares must be associated with exactly one Corporation.  A
Corporation may never own more than 20% of the shares in another
corporation.  {{[Yes, it's still possible to set up a network of
Corporations such that none of them can do anything, but not by accident.
If you do it, you get what you deserve.]}}
BUSINESS

Create a rule entitled Corporate Equipment, delimited by AWORD
AWORD
Corporate Equipment are nameless, tradeable entities.  They may only be
created as specified in the rules.
Where the rules say that an Organization may buy a Power of a certain type,
what is meant is that the Organization may, as an action, contribute an
amount of currency to the Treasury in exchange for a new Power of the type
specified, which is then created in that Organization's possession.
AWORD

{{For each organization currently in existance which own a trade license, a
Corporation will be created with the same name.  Everthing owned by the
organization will be transferred to the Corporation.  The Corporation will
recieve 100-x shares in itself, where x is the largest number smaller than
100 which is evenly divisible by the number of members of the organization.
Each member of the organization will recieve x divided by the number of
members shares in the corporation.  The organization will then be
destroyed.}}

{{Give any entity which owns a Secret Lab A$1000.  Destroy all Secret Labs.
Destroy all trade licenses}}

Create a rule entitle Political Parties reading as folows:
"Political Parties are unownable, named entities.  Any Player may form a
new Political Party by announcing its name publicly and paying the standard
Harfer Fee. (Its name must be a legal name.) When this happens, that Player
becomes its only member.

A political party may not own anything.  [You can always create a
corrosponding Corporation to own things if need be.] No player may be a
member of more than one political party, and any action they attempt which
would cause this to be the case automatically fails.

A political party is disbanded if it ever has no members.  A player
requests membership in a political party as a public action.  The Political
Party may admit that player as a public action.  A political party can
eject any player as a public action, which the player being ejected may not
denounce.

An Political Party can attempt actions.  First, some member of the
Political Party sends a public message suggesting an action for the
Political Party to take. The suggestion must include the name of the
Political Party for which it is being suggested. The other members of the
Political Party may then approve of the suggestion or denounce it. If any
member denounces the suggestion, it is voided.

If, after a suggestion is made, all non-vacationing, non-gaoled members of
the Political Party approve it within seven days,and no member denounces
it, then the Political Party attempts the action as suggested. The time of
this attempt is the time of the last approval.

If seven days pass after a suggestion is made, then the Political Party
shall make the attempt, as suggested, if and only if no member of that
Political Party denounced the suggestion, and at least two thirds of the
Political Party members approved it within the seven-day period.

A member of an Political Party may proxy their approval to that Political
Party. A player whose approval is proxied to an Political Party may
renounce their proxy to that Political Party. Whenever an action is
suggested by a member of that Political Party, all members of that
Political Party whose approval is proxied automatically approve of the
action at the time it is suggested.

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 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 of that type on that proposal 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."

Replace section 1 of rule 1301 with this: "Churches are unownable, named
entities.  Churches may own gift entities and land, but nothing else."

Replace section 6 of rule 1301 with this: "A player may not be a member of
more than 1 church at a time."

Remove sections 8, 9 and 10 of rule 1301.

Add the folowing to the end of rule 1301: "

8a. If a Church ever has no Priests (counting the Founder as a priest), or
(Heaven Forbid!) fewer than zero Priests, or fewer than four members, then
it becomes a Cult.

8b. A Cult is a type of Church.

8c. A Cult, unlike other Churches, may not give or recieve any entities,
although it continues to own those it did before it was a Cult.

8d. Any Priest who leaves a Church or Cult cease to a Priest of that Church
or Cult. A Priest who is no longer a Priest of any Church ceases to be a
Priest.

8e. 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.

8f. If a Cult has at least four members, at least one of which is a Priest
of that Cult, it ceases to be a Cult.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	No iron can stab the heart with such force as a period put just at
the right place.
	-Isaac Babel

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 22:09:21 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Thread Collapse and Appeals

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Obviously, if in neither thread is it necessarily entirely valid for the
> (Acting) Clerk of the Courts to return the verdict of CFJ 513, the solution
> should be to wait until Balsamic Dragon is Clerk of the Courts in both
> threads, and then submit an equivalent CFJ.  Then, no matter what, Balsamic
> Dragon will be able to return the verdict, and if necessary process the
> appeal.

Well, that sounds good, but it is a bit late as "verdicts" have been
delivered.  I think the three day grace period might cover our butts on
this one.

> While I'm at it, I just had a few thoughts about possible revampings of the
> CFJ system to take some of the burden off the Supreme Court, and give the
> first-round judges a bit more of a chance.
> 
> The problem seems to be that the Supreme Court decision is considered more
> authoritative than a random player's decision.  So perhaps the first-round
> CFJ process can be made a bit more like the Supreme Court process.

> 2) The Supreme Court does not have a one-week deadline.  It doesn't even
> have to pay a penalty anymore.  Now obviously we can't give any Judge
> an indefinite time to answer, or a Judge could hold up the entire game
> by sort of an anti-filibuster.  But if it were possible for a Judge to
> appeal for more time from the Supreme Court, or Senate, or Praetor, or
> somebody, then maybe a more considered approach could work.

The main problem is that there are arguments which people miss on the
first round, which the appellant then realises only on going through the
first verdict.  Perhaps we should replace appeals with an Appeal Hearing,
on which the valid responses are TRUE, FALSE and UNDECIDED, plurality
winning if necessary.  The appellant has to be Appeal Harfer, so that
should get rid of frivolous appeals.  We can cut the number of appeals
down to one, and, after all, isn't the decision of most of the players a
reasonable way to say what the "truth" is?

I would still assess penalties, with the penalty depending upon the result
of the Hearing (e.g. round the % of votes for the winning verdict off to
the nearest 10%, then penalise the person who didn't want that verdict,
say 3 points per 10% for the appellant, and 1 point per 10% for the first
round judge.

This method should return verdicts relatively quickly, especially if we
make the voting period on the Hearing 3 days.

> 5) And then there's the increase in penalty for Supreme Court appeal, but
> if we're getting rid of points, I don't know what we'll use to
> penalize...:-)  No, seriously, I'm not sure if it'll work that well...  An
> up-front payment(returned on successful appeal)of points or A$ or
> what-have-you, maybe...  And, in such case, perhaps the choice to appeal to
> the Supreme Court, to the original Judge, or to another Judge...
> 
> I like options 3) and 4) best, myself, basically giving the original
> Judge the choice of sending it up to the Supreme Court(okay, maybe by
> the third appeal it would go automatically to the Supreme Court, so that,
> again, one player couldn't filibuster), and also posting an early version
> of the verdict to get more comments.  Of course, we can RFC our judgements
> right now, and I would've done it with my last one except that there was
> too much other stuff going on at the time.
> 
> So, thoughts and comments?
See mine throughout.

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
Ackanomic Player - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - SPAM Swinger

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:14:23 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Thread Collapse and Appeals

>1) The Supreme Court is made up of two people.  Maybe two people should be
>picked to handle the first-round verdict.  Yeah, I don't think that'll
>work either.
	Actually, I like this.  It means that there's more input, and that
obvious bias is avoided, or at least made less likely.

>2) The Supreme Court does not have a one-week deadline.  It doesn't even
>have to pay a penalty anymore.  Now obviously we can't give any Judge
>an indefinite time to answer, or a Judge could hold up the entire game
>by sort of an anti-filibuster.  But if it were possible for a Judge to
>appeal for more time from the Supreme Court, or Senate, or Praetor, or
>somebody, then maybe a more considered approach could work.
	I don't think time is a major factor.  People would appeal verdicts
just the same no matter how much time was granted.

>4) Or perhaps(this is not a Supreme Court thing, but just another idea),
>the first posting of the verdict should be considered a sort of RFC.  The
>Judge can post their initial judgement, and then the people who would
>dispute it can make their comments.  Then the Judge can take it back and
>try to consider the comments made on it, and if e would change eir verdict
>based on these.
	This looks good too.  Perhaps make a time limit of one week for a
preliminary verdict, and one more for the final verdict.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	No iron can stab the heart with such force as a period put just at
the right place.
	-Isaac Babel

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:26:40 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

>The problem we have here, which I believe is unique in Ackanomic
>history, is that the CFJs exist in both threads, but with different
>verdicts. Since it is those selfsame verdicts that collapse the game
>threads, they fail to collapse anything. Thus we are left with this
>question of whether a self-invalidating verdict can even be returned.
	As I see it, this means that both threads deny their own existance.
The only obvious solution would be for the SC to make the same decision in
both threads on appeal, thereby fixing things.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	No iron can stab the heart with such force as a period put just at
the right place.
	-Isaac Babel

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:35:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The CFJ Situation

>> The problem we have here, which I believe is unique in Ackanomic
>> history, is that the CFJs exist in both threads, but with different
>> verdicts. Since it is those selfsame verdicts that collapse the game
>> threads, they fail to collapse anything. Thus we are left with this
>> question of whether a self-invalidating verdict can even be returned.
> 	As I see it, this means that both threads deny their own existance.
> The only obvious solution would be for the SC to make the same decision in
> both threads on appeal, thereby fixing things.

Well, to be more precise, the solution is to have these CFJs given the
same verdict in both threads. (Or, actually, just one of the CFJs
would be sufficient, as it would provide precedent for judging the
other.)

Probably the easiest way to do this is to have the CFJs appealed in
both threads, yes. However, the CFJs are not currently appealable in
both threads, as the CotC has not posted all judgements. Furthermore,
we have to decide if we are going to use case X or case Y to proceed
before we can know if the verdicts even exist in all threads.

breadbox

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #228
***********************************