Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #237
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Tuesday, January 27 1998     Volume 02 : Number 237

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:59:56 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2648

> While it's true that the magic number used to be lower, I don't think this
> is necessarily a good idea.  Back before the magic number got increased,
> I once had the Great Trombone for about 4 cycles, at least once narrowly
> missing 152 before somebody else won the cycle; people wanted to lower the
> score needed to lose the trombone.  Keep in mind how few players ever get
> to 2/3 of the magic number -- usually no more than 4 or 5 in a cycle won
> by points.  Only the 2nd cycle, when Bascule won by points after hopping
> back and forth around the magic number for a couple weeks before winning,
> back when you had to hit the magic number exactly, had more than this.

I would also like to see the Trombone given a bit more mobility.  /dev/joe
hogged it for a while, and then I hogged it for another while; at this rate,
it'll take a long time for everyone to get a turn.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Hookahman:Oh Hut...
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Turgid saxophones blew over Mick's jazzy quiff.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:44:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2662

> {{[The classic example is submitting thirty proposals all at once at
> the beginning of a cycle, so you can retract them and cause your score
> to hit -60 exactly. In fact, as Elder Wayne once pointed out, a player
> could engineer their score to be just about anything between -59 and
> 20, if they were willing to flood the game with the right number of
> submissions, solely for the purpose of retracting them. ANNOYING.]}}

  I for some reason wanted to once, and I remember wishing the acrobot
had syntax to submit a proposal and then immediately retract it...

___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
Memo to self:  Turn computer off before removing ROM.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:04:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2662

>   I for some reason wanted to once, and I remember wishing the acrobot
> had syntax to submit a proposal and then immediately retract it...

You did submit them, though. In case you've forgotten, check out
Proposals 1806-1839, inclusive.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:58:48 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2655

> >> "All players who were active on the date this rule was previously
amended
> >> or created and did not vote yes to the proposal that did so shall
loose one
> >> point every week at noon on Saturday."
> > 
> > 	If this is legal, it creates an interesting prisoner's dilemma.  To
> > go for personal gain, or fairness...
> 
> It's a debatable point, actually.
> 
> I believe that it manages to not run afoul of section I of Rule 313,
> since the proposal itself is not effecting the discrimation.
> 
> However, section III says:
> 
> > III. Effects Triggered on Changing the Triggering Rules
> > 
> > If a proposal adds, changes, or repeals rules that generate effects or
> > cause some entity to generate effects (including but not limited to
score
> > changes) based on the way players vote, then those rules generate no
> > effects based on the way players vote on that particular proposal.
> 
> I believe that this section can prevent the proposed rule from
> succeeding in its effect, no matter how delayed the effect may be....

I hereby retract proposal 2655. New version on the way in a moment.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:38:58 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2662

> {{[The classic example is submitting thirty proposals all at once at
> the beginning of a cycle, so you can retract them and cause your score
> to hit -60 exactly. In fact, as Elder Wayne once pointed out, a player
> could engineer their score to be just about anything between -59 and
> 20, if they were willing to flood the game with the right number of
> submissions, solely for the purpose of retracting them. ANNOYING.]}}

Right now, it'd only take me ten proposals.  But I won't.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Laurie Anderson:Over The River
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Lazy movers quit hard-packing of papier-mache jewelry boxes.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:03:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2663

> Proposal 2663
> More bribery
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> This is a modest proposal.
> 
> Create a new rule entitled "Bribery" and reading as follows:
> 
> "All players who were active on the date this rule was amended or created
> the time before the most recent amendment and did not vote yes to the
> proposal that did so shall loose one point every week at noon on Saturday.

I'm not sure I understand the above sentence.

Let me try to rephrase what I think the proposal is saying:

All players who were active at the time of this rule's next-to-last
amendment and did not vote in favor of the proposed amendment shall
lose one point every Saturday. For the purposes of the previous
sentence, creating a rule is considered to be an amendment to that
rule.

Is this accurate? (By the way, there is only one "o" in "lose". I'm
not sure how one looses a point, unless they're kept in pens.)

If it is, then I don't see how this gets around section III any more
than the last one. The proposal is still adding a rule that generates
scoring effects based on the way people voted on that proposal. The
delay between the voting and the scoring effects is the only thing
that's changed.

In any case, you could get this effect much easier by playing along
with Rule 313 and using a series of proposals - something like this:

Proposal 1:

Proposals which contain the word "threatening", and only such
proposals, are Threatening Proposals.

Proposal 2:

Players who do not vote in favor of a Threatening Proposal lose one
point every Saturday.

Proposal 3:

{{This is a Threatening Proposal.}}

The first two proposals need to be separate to avoid contravening
section I. Section III will prevent proposal 2 from generating any
effects, but the third one is kosher and will work as intended.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:06:58 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2663

> I'm not sure I understand the above sentence.
> 
> Let me try to rephrase what I think the proposal is saying:
> 
> All players who were active at the time of this rule's next-to-last
> amendment and did not vote in favor of the proposed amendment shall
> lose one point every Saturday. For the purposes of the previous
> sentence, creating a rule is considered to be an amendment to that
> rule.

I'll try to convey my intent with an example:

A proposal is submitted (proposal A). This amends the rule "Bribery" (which
I forgot to assign a number).
This proposal has no effect other than to modify the rule.
Another proposal (proposal B) then modifies the same rule again.
At this point all players who were active on the date proposal A was
accepted but voted against it shall be put into a situation whereby they
lose one point every Saturday.
If, after that, a proposal C is accepted those players who voted against A
will stop losing points and those who voted against B will start losing
points.

> Is this accurate? (By the way, there is only one "o" in "lose". I'm
> not sure how one looses a point, unless they're kept in pens.)

Didn't you know that? Where else would you keep points? Seriously, though,
that's one of the words I always get wrong. I can't do double letters at
all actually (although I've got three in this sentence already) but my
spell-checker normally picks them up.

> If it is, then I don't see how this gets around section III any more
> than the last one. The proposal is still adding a rule that generates
> scoring effects based on the way people voted on that proposal. The
> delay between the voting and the scoring effects is the only thing
> that's changed.

From rule 313:

"If a proposal adds, changes, or repeals rules that generate effects or
cause some entity to generate effects (including but not limited to score
changes) based on the way players vote, then those rules generate no
effects based on the way players vote on that particular proposal."

The important bit of this is _on that particular proposal_. No proposal in
any way has any effect due to the way people voted on it. It is the next
proposal that does that, and, if I am interpreting this rule right, that is
not forbidden.

> In any case, you could get this effect much easier by playing along
> with Rule 313 and using a series of proposals - something like this:
> 
> Proposal 1:
> 
> Proposals which contain the word "threatening", and only such
> proposals, are Threatening Proposals.
> 
> Proposal 2:
> 
> Players who do not vote in favor of a Threatening Proposal lose one
> point every Saturday.
> 
> Proposal 3:
> 
> {{This is a Threatening Proposal.}}
> 
> The first two proposals need to be separate to avoid contravening
> section I. Section III will prevent proposal 2 from generating any
> effects, but the third one is kosher and will work as intended.

I like the idea of a continually changing rule that causes players who vote
against any amendments which are accepted to lose points. I could probably
work a modification of this if what I'm currently trying doesn't work,
however.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:36:37 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

Unless anyone has some final comments, I'm going to submit this:

	{{Replace all instances of the word "rule-sanctioned organizations"
in the rules with "organization" except in rule 1003}}
	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

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."

Create a new rule entitled "Organization Harfer" reading as follows:
"
The Office Organization Harfer is a Functional Office.

The Duties of the Organization Harfer are:

a) To maintain an accurate record of what Churches, and Political Parties
exist, and who their members are, if applicable.

b) To maintain an accurate record of charters, dogma, and other information
made public by Churches, Political Parties, or Corporations.

The Privileges of the Financier are:

a) To receive the usual salary for a Functional Officer.
"

{{For each organization currently in existance, perform the following steps:
	If it owns a big tent, create a new political party with the same
name but with " Party" appended, make all players who were members of the
old organization members of the new one.
	If it owns a big tent but not a trade license, transfer everything
owned by it to the party swinger.  [Who is expected to distribute among the
members fairly.]  Then destroy the big tent and the organization.
	Destroy any big tents in owns.
	If it owns a trade license, create a Corporation with the same name
except with " Inc." appended.  Transfer everything owned by the
organization 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.  Destroy the trade license and the organization.
	Otherwise transfer everything the organization owns to the member
who has been a member the longest, and destroy the organization.}}

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

{{Repeal rules 1003, 1005, 1006, 1008,1009, 1011, 1013, and 1015.}}

- --
- -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: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:59:54 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

I've not looked through all of this in detail yet but it seems reasonable.
There are a few things that need changing however.

> 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.

Try replacing powers with corporate equipment. You might want to make them
non-tradable too.

> 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.

This amount seems too low. At the moment it's twelve times as big.

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

I support this but I know some people don't. Get rid of it and try again
later. There would also be a problem with people who are members of more
than one church at the moment.

> Create a new rule entitled "Organization Harfer" reading as follows:

You might want to number it

> The Privileges of the Financier are:

Shouldn't that be org harfer?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:11:58 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2663

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> 
> Didn't you know that? Where else would you keep points? Seriously, though,
> that's one of the words I always get wrong. I can't do double letters at
> all actually (although I've got three in this sentence already) but my
> spell-checker normally picks them up.
> 
You misplet "four".

rufus

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #237
***********************************