Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #238
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Wednesday, January 28 1998    Volume 02 : Number 238

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:22:36 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Towsner wrote:

> 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.

Are Corporations organizations?

> 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.

Would there be any difference between a Corporation who's stock is owned
entirely by one player, and the current one player orgs?  I assume that
Corporate Equipment would include such things as Secret Labs...  The one
player org problem is one of the things I would like to see dealt with in
any organization reforms.

Also, you mention casting Bonus Votes.  How would this work?  Did you ahve
some way for Corportations to vote in mind?

> g) Every Corporation has a charter.  The charter may only give properties
> away.  It may not perform any other action.
> BIG

I think you want this to read something more like:  Every Corporation has
a charter.  The charter describes how an Corporation's properties are to
be distributed in the event that the Corporation ceases to be.  It can do
nothing else.

As it reads now, it sounds more like the charter somehow gives away a
Corporations properties, itself, through some undefined means.

> 
> 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

These should not be gift entities.  Players should not be forced to join
Corporations, as it were, by other people giving them shares that they may
not want.

> 
> 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.

OK, I know this is supposed to be an org, so it should definitely say so.

> 
> 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."

And becomes a Church again?

> 
> 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:
> 

Heh, better fix this     ^^^^^   but otherwise this is a good idea.
"Other information made public" might be a little to broad/demanding,
however.  Is this supposed to cover things like determining whether or not
an org has approved something?  If so, it might be better to say:  and to
verify whether or not they successfuly attempted actions, if the need
arises.  Well, something like that anyway...

> --
> -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran
> 
> 	<[email-masked]>
> 

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 02:05:51 -1000
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: timing question

I have a question about the timing of events following the passage of a
proposal that I was hoping someone could help me clear up:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a proposal passes, it seems to me that
there are four possibly non-related types of actions that could happen:

- - any points gained or lost as a result of voting on the proposal are
distributed (e.g. anti-voting),
- - any effects generated by other rules as a result of the proposal's
passing would take place (e.g. becoming Silly if applicable) 
(this could be the same category as the previous one),
- - a new rule is created or an old rule amended, if applicable,
- - any one-time effects (e.g. self-deleting text) happen.

My question is, in what order do these things happen?  It would seem to me
that scoring and game effects should take place first, then one-time
effects, then a new Rule, if any, would be created.  Do the last two
depend on the order within the proposal that they were written?  I seem to
remember reading that somewhere, but I could be mistaken.  For example,
would the following proposal:

{{ Repeal rule 101. }}

Create a new rule, numbered 101, with the following "-delimited text:
"_Everybody_ knows what's in Rule 101."

have a different effect than

Create a new rule, (etc. etc.)

{{ Repeal rule 101. }}

It seems to me that the first would have the desired effect, whereas the
second would fail because Rule 101 already exists.

Even if this is the case (and it seems more and more likely that game
custom would support this), I am still interested to find out when the
scoring changes, these effects, and effects of other rules take place with
respect to each other.

Also (apologies for the longwindedness here, but I'd like to clear this up
before I submit my next probably-doomed proposal) how about the time
between one proposal's passing and the next?  I seem to remember it being
stated a while ago that it was one of those ubiquitous 'infinitesimal
amounts of time' after the first one, but in that case would all the
effects discussed above happen an IAoT before the second proposal?

On the other hand, rule 106 states that "The prescribed voting period on a
proposal is seven days, starting from the moment that the proposal is
publicly distributed as specified by the rules."  This would seem to imply
that an amount of time equal to the gap between the two proposals'
respective submissions passes between their acceptances.  Although this
time gap may be measured in milliseconds, a millisecond is an eon with
respect to an IAoT.

What do you beings think?  I'd appreciate any comments you might have.

- -rico

Consciousness: that annoying time between naps. 

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:18:01 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Towsner wrote:

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

I have comments:
1. This proposal would make Parties and Churches become entities which are
not Organizations.
I think that's a bad idea.
I also think Corporations should be Organizations. Creating them as
non-Organizations is a bad idea, it would introduce an additional
structure into the game and would bring us back to the dark ages before
Political Parties were integrated into the Organizational framework (which
worked out quite well before the party concept was turned into an
Organizational Power).

I will vote against this in its current form.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 	{{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 calledon 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 casta 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 werea 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 Partywhose 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 membersit 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 bea 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 PoliticalParties
> 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 weremembers 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:54:32 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: timing question

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a proposal passes, it seems to me that
> there are four possibly non-related types of actions that could happen:
> 
> - any points gained or lost as a result of voting on the proposal are
> distributed (e.g. anti-voting),
> - any effects generated by other rules as a result of the proposal's
> passing would take place (e.g. becoming Silly if applicable) 
> (this could be the same category as the previous one),
> - a new rule is created or an old rule amended, if applicable,
> - any one-time effects (e.g. self-deleting text) happen.

The anti-voting and silly points, etc. happen simultaneously (R205,
section 4). In general, it is not specified whether these occur before
or after the rule changes due to the proposal, but R205 section 5 makes
sure this usually doesn't matter, and the beginning of R207 makes its
scoring occur after scoring written directly into the proposal, so
presumably after all the effects of the proposal have been processed.

One-time effects which are part of a proposal, including rule changes,
happen in the order they are written in the proposal; self-deleting text
in a rule is handled separately, by the Conventions rule R340.

> For example, would the following proposal:
> 
> {{ Repeal rule 101. }}
> Create a new rule, numbered 101, with the following "-delimited text:
> "_Everybody_ knows what's in Rule 101."
> 
> have a different effect than
> 
> Create a new rule, (etc. etc.)
> {{ Repeal rule 101. }}
> 
> It seems to me that the first would have the desired effect, whereas the
> second would fail because Rule 101 already exists.

The numbering in the second case would fail. We long ago decided that
creating a new rule with an unexpected rule number was much preferable
to not creating the rule at all in the case of a rule number clash.
See R303.

> Also (apologies for the longwindedness here, but I'd like to clear this up
> before I submit my next probably-doomed proposal) how about the time
> between one proposal's passing and the next?  I seem to remember it being
> stated a while ago that it was one of those ubiquitous 'infinitesimal
> amounts of time' after the first one, but in that case would all the
> effects discussed above happen an IAoT before the second proposal?

It's only an IAoT if the tabulator sends more than one set of results
at once.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:41:13 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2663

> > 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".

Misplet it did I? :-)

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:08:53 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2667

> Proposal 2667
> Gimme Repeal
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> {{Each player who owns a Gimme Shelter receives A$105.}}
> 
> {{All Gimme Shelters are destroyed.}}
> 
> Repeal Rule 594.12.
> 
> {{[Gimme Shelters are redundant, because people can build towers to
> shelter themselves if they want.  To avoid owners of Gimme Shelters being
> left out, they each receive enough money in compensation to build a 35m
> tower]}}

They are a lot different from towers though. A tower is permanent; I
believe a gimme shelter lasts for one Tornado. A gimme shelter can also be
got by means other than buying one. 

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:43:34 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>Are Corporations organizations?
	No.

>Would there be any difference between a Corporation who's stock is owned
>entirely by one player, and the current one player orgs?  I assume that
>Corporate Equipment would include such things as Secret Labs...  The one
>player org problem is one of the things I would like to see dealt with in
>any organization reforms.
	That remains to be seen.  A Corporation is not an org, it's more
like an artificial person.

>Also, you mention casting Bonus Votes.  How would this work?  Did you ahve
>some way for Corportations to vote in mind?
	I'll add that.

>I think you want this to read something more like:  Every Corporation has
>a charter.  The charter describes how an Corporation's properties are to
>be distributed in the event that the Corporation ceases to be.  It can do
>nothing else.
	This is clearer, I'll change it.

>These should not be gift entities.  Players should not be forced to join
>Corporations, as it were, by other people giving them shares that they may
>not want.
	I'm not sure I agree.  Owning stock is no different from owning
money.  It doens't give you any responsibilities.  However I'll specify
them as tradeable and propose changin them to gift later.

>OK, I know this is supposed to be an org, so it should definitely say so.
	No they're not.  The only remaining orgs are the ones which were
rule-defined.  The player orgs were split into three groups.  (Parties,
Corps, and Churches.)

>> 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."
>
>And becomes a Church again?
	It was always a church.  Cults are a subset of churches.

- --
- -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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:48:06 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>I have comments:
>1. This proposal would make Parties and Churches become entities which are
>not Organizations.
>I think that's a bad idea.
>I also think Corporations should be Organizations. Creating them as
>non-Organizations is a bad idea, it would introduce an additional
>structure into the game and would bring us back to the dark ages before
>Political Parties were integrated into the Organizational framework (which
>worked out quite well before the party concept was turned into an
>Organizational Power).
	The whole point is to de-modularize the whole thing.  The problems
came because the one structure tried to do too much.  This leaves that
structure, replacing it with three.  While I admit it's more complicated,
it's also more flexible.  Corporations have a different structure which, at
least in my opinion, is more interesting.  Churches were never really
organization except in name, and are spun off.  Political Parties are the
only remaining kind of org, and rather then inherit all the org complexity,
they only keep the minimum (for example there's no open admission policy.)
Orgs which aren't any of these have no real power anyway, and can be
handled informally.

- --
- -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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:18:28 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2667

On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > Proposal 2667
> > Gimme Repeal
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > 
> > {{[Gimme Shelters are redundant, because people can build towers to
> > shelter themselves if they want.  To avoid owners of Gimme Shelters being
> > left out, they each receive enough money in compensation to build a 35m
> > tower]}}
> 
> They are a lot different from towers though. A tower is permanent; I
> believe a gimme shelter lasts for one Tornado. A gimme shelter can also be
> got by means other than buying one. 

Actually, Pitched shelters are destroyed as soon as they are pitched
according to the rule as it currently stands.  At least that is how I
interpret the last sentence of the rule.  Also, the rule as it stands says
nothing about Gimme Shelters being destroyed by Tornados.  (I just
checked).

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:40:31 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2667

- ----------
> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2667
> Date: 28 January 1998 22:18
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:
> 
> > > Proposal 2667
> > > Gimme Repeal
> > > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > > 
> > > {{[Gimme Shelters are redundant, because people can build towers to
> > > shelter themselves if they want.  To avoid owners of Gimme Shelters
being
> > > left out, they each receive enough money in compensation to build a
35m
> > > tower]}}
> > 
> > They are a lot different from towers though. A tower is permanent; I
> > believe a gimme shelter lasts for one Tornado. A gimme shelter can also
be
> > got by means other than buying one. 
> 
> Actually, Pitched shelters are destroyed as soon as they are pitched
> according to the rule as it currently stands.  At least that is how I
> interpret the last sentence of the rule.  Also, the rule as it stands
says
> nothing about Gimme Shelters being destroyed by Tornados.  (I just
> checked).

If you're right about pitched gimme shelters then maybe giving their owners
compensation for them is a bit unnecessary.

The Gingham Wearer, wondering if he's going to have as many disagreements
with Slakko in .Nomic.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:15:49 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >Are Corporations organizations?
> 	No.
> 
> >Would there be any difference between a Corporation who's stock is owned
> >entirely by one player, and the current one player orgs?  I assume that
> >Corporate Equipment would include such things as Secret Labs...  The one
> >player org problem is one of the things I would like to see dealt with in
> >any organization reforms.
> 	That remains to be seen.  A Corporation is not an org, it's more
> like an artificial person.

Well, I can't say I'm too enthused about this idea then.  We have enough
trouble with the real players, why add fake ones?  

> 
> >Also, you mention casting Bonus Votes.  How would this work?  Did you ahve
> >some way for Corportations to vote in mind?
> 	I'll add that.
> 

Fake players that can vote?  For the price of a standard harfer fee?  What
role do you see for Corporations, exactly?  All I really know right now is
some vague sense that you want them to be able to do a lot of things that
we normally reserve for players, and that isn't something I like the sound
of.

> 
> >OK, I know this is supposed to be an org, so it should definitely say so.
> 	No they're not.  The only remaining orgs are the ones which were
> rule-defined.  The player orgs were split into three groups.  (Parties,
> Corps, and Churches.)
> 

Ah, I misunderstood.  I'm still kind of used to the old system where most
of what would be organizations under your rules used to be Institutions.

> >> 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."
> >
> >And becomes a Church again?
> 	It was always a church.  Cults are a subset of churches.
> 

OK, I'm not familiar with Churches at all, I just wnated to be sure that
it was explicit that if a Cult ceased to be a Cult, it resumed being a
Church.

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:24:41 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>> >Also, you mention casting Bonus Votes.  How would this work?  Did you ahve
>> >some way for Corportations to vote in mind?
>> 	I'll add that.
>>
>
>Fake players that can vote?  For the price of a standard harfer fee?  What
>role do you see for Corporations, exactly?  All I really know right now is
>some vague sense that you want them to be able to do a lot of things that
>we normally reserve for players, and that isn't something I like the sound
>of.
	Ah! No!  I mean add a way to cast bonus votes.  I intend this to
take the place that orgs with trade licenses do now.  They have mostly the
same powers, but with a few taken away, a few added, and a different
structure.

- --
- -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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:32:10 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Message

>> letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc
>> letturc mkssage
>
>Are these mispelled?  It seems to me that they are deliberately typed
>nonsense.  There's a difference, in my eyes.  I honestly have no idea what
>"letturc" is suppose to be... lettuce maybe?  <shrug>  Its ambiguous, but
>thats because its gibberish.
	I'm beginning to think that this hat is unusable.  It can only be
used if there is an ambiguous spelling error, but if the spelling error is
ambiguous, how do we know what the words are?  My suggestion to Slakko is
to spend some time and find a message which has two reasonable and fairly
obvious interpretations, but we won't know which.

- --
- -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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:53:49 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Org Reorg

The one problem I have with the suggest Org Reorg is that it's tied
in with the whole Corporations thing, which I confess to not having
gone over yet.  I'd prefer the two to be separate.  I mean, there
should be one proposal to fix whatever's wrong with Orgs as they are,
and another to create something new with Shares and weird stuff like
that.  Otherwise, people who don't like the latter will have to throw
out the baby with the bathwater.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Stranglers:10
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Her thighs draw eyes as they arise in scission...  --filippi

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:59:50 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Org Reorg

>The one problem I have with the suggest Org Reorg is that it's tied
>in with the whole Corporations thing, which I confess to not having
>gone over yet.  I'd prefer the two to be separate.  I mean, there
>should be one proposal to fix whatever's wrong with Orgs as they are,
>and another to create something new with Shares and weird stuff like
>that.  Otherwise, people who don't like the latter will have to throw
>out the baby with the bathwater.
	My problem with that is that I don't think the org reorg covers
everything previously available.  Corporations fill that gap.

- --
- -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

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #238
***********************************