Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #255
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest   Wednesday, February 11 1998   Volume 03 : Number 255

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:09:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INPs 360, 361 and 362

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> Vote Gingham: Vote Honour!

Will you please make up your mind? And whose acka name is Honour, anyway?
:)

Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 03:18:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INPs 360, 361 and 362

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:
> > Vote Gingham: Vote Honour!
> Will you please make up your mind? And whose acka name is Honour, anyway?
> :)

I've got absolutely no idea.

Yours,
Slakko "Honour" Richer
- -- 
Duncan C. "Honour" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:57:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> c)  If for any reason the ownership value is unspecified, it will be set to
> 10.  If the ownership value is less than 0, then it will immediately become
> 0.  Whenever a stock is purchased by any entity other than the Ackan
> Reserve, the ownership value will become P/S*(S+1) immediately before the
> stock is purchased, where P is the ownership value and S is the number of
> stocks in existance. Whenever a stock is sold by any entity other than the
> Ackan Reserve, the ownership value will become P/S*(S-1) immediately before
> the stock is sold, where P is the ownership value and S is the number of
> stocks in existance.

> {{100 stocks are created in the possession of the Ackan Reserve.}}

You haven't specified the formulae that unambiguously.  Do you mean

(P/S) * (S+1) 
or
P/ (S * (S+1))

The first is the only sensible option, but sensibility has never been
built in to Acka AFAIK.

Also, before the rule is submitted, there are a lot of plural/singular
things which need to be fixed up.

One more question: With voting-based changes - does the stock price change
retroactively when the voting period ends, or only when voting results
are announced?  This isn't clear as there is no public knowability
criterion in this proposal.

When you refer to proposals in the activity criterion, does your past list
of proposals include retracted ones?  Does it include ones deemed to be
invalid, which had nonetheless been distributed?  Does the CFJ count
include CFCJs?

I am intrigued by the idea, but I wouldn't mind seeing a simpler system
implemented to start, and the more complex ways to affect stock value
being added in later if the original experiment proves successful.
 -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:59:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robert G. Shimmin, an all-around Nice Guy" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka-research-digest V3 #254

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, acka-research-digest wrote:

> > Poetic liscence
> > Can twist the numbers slightly.
> > Read _Infinity's Shore_
> 
> Hey, when's the next flippin' book coming out, anyway?

May 1998.

GF

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:51:36 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 533

I'm having serious trouble ruling on this CFJ (the existence or
non-existence of Rule #1 is repealed. #1 Headquarters), for a couple of
reasons.  I'd really rather not get appealed, so I'm trying to find some
precedence for what I want to rule.

1)  Is there any rule covering name changes of entities?  If there is,
and the entity after the name change is the same as the entity before
the name change, then this is my reasoning:  a) Vulcan changed its name;
b) Rule #1 is repealed. #1 (R1R1) owns 12 kaas of land and R1R1
Headquarters.  Since this is the same org, would this be the same land?
If it owns a second building on 12 new kaas of land, does it also own
the previous building (this could be a great scam, but it doesn't sound
very reasonable).  Unforutnately, the org name change can't change the
building name, because building name changes can only be specified by
players.  What _should_ happen is that Vulcan HQ should be immediately
replaced by R1R1 HQ on the same 12 kaas of land, and then R1R1 HQ should
be replaced by Vulcan HQ when the name changed again.  I can't find any
precedent for any of this, however.

2)  If the name change created a new org (which doesn't seem to make any
sense, but hey...) there is a whole mess of things that change.  For one
thing, as the rule initially stated, if the name change wasn't
retroactive, none of the four players listed were Evil Overlords of
Ackanomic (retired), until the name changed back to Vulcan.  I don't
know if this matters or not.  On the other hand, it makes this specific
CJF easier to judge:

a)  A new org, Rule #1 is repealed. #1 is created, which owns a building
on 12 kaas of land.  All members of Vulcan are members of Rule #1 is
repealed. #1.  

b)  Vulcan disbands (it has zero members), its land becomes unowned and
the HQ is immediately destroyed.

c)  R1R1 changes its name to Vulcan, which disbands R1R1, frees its land
and destroys its HQ.  Vulcan now own 12 kaas of land and Vulcan HQ.

In any event, I think this should be ruled FALSE.  If nobody has any
suggestions (game custom I have overlooked, stupid things I've missed,
etc.) please point them out.  I've been working on this for a while, and
I'd hate to have to rule UNDECIDED.

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:49:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 533

> 1)  Is there any rule covering name changes of entities?

I think that even if the rules didn't specifically cover this, then
game custom would. It is clear that when something changes its name in
accordance with the rules, that that does not create a new entity.

Vulcan has, twice now, changed its name explicitly, and in accordance
with the rules. The building, however, did not expliticly change its
name. Rather, the rules that define it as an existing entity changed.

> If there is, and the entity after the name change is the same as the
> entity before the name change, then this is my reasoning: a) Vulcan
> changed its name; b) Rule #1 is repealed. #1 (R1R1) owns 12 kaas of
> land and R1R1 Headquarters.  Since this is the same org, would this
> be the same land?  If it owns a second building on 12 new kaas of
> land, does it also own the previous building (this could be a great
> scam, but it doesn't sound very reasonable).

> Unforutnately, the org name change can't change the building name,
> because building name changes can only be specified by players.

Minor quibble - the rules can always change names, not just
players. In fact, it was the rules (via a proposal) that changed
Vulcan's name the first time.

> What _should_ happen is that Vulcan HQ should be immediately
> replaced by R1R1 HQ on the same 12 kaas of land, and then R1R1 HQ
> should be replaced by Vulcan HQ when the name changed again.  I
> can't find any precedent for any of this, however.

It's a bit problematic, since the rules did not specify that the
building changed names, only that it exists.

> 2)  If the name change created a new org (which doesn't seem to make any
> sense, but hey...) 

I think it's safe to assume that the org itself only changed names,
and no orgs were created or destroyed in the process.

> In any event, I think this should be ruled FALSE.  If nobody has any
> suggestions (game custom I have overlooked, stupid things I've
> missed, etc.) please point them out.  I've been working on this for
> a while, and I'd hate to have to rule UNDECIDED.

My own personal opinions on the subject do not seem to be shared by
the majority, so I'd just as soon not go there.

Have you read CFJ 284? Its verdict was False on a technicality, but
the judge's reasoning might have some insights you could use.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:59:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2689 rejected

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Results of Proposal 2689
> 
> 20/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 11/20 YES votes: Proposal rejected

... and the Chrome Streak ends here.

> No:
> Slakko               (SPAM)       

Slakko, what were you doing?  I thought you liked this one.  Ouch.  This
is enough to make me renounce anti-voting forever.  (actually, I
considered anti-voting this one, just becuase people seemed to like it.)

Of course, it would also have passed if Bill TPK hadn't been off sticking
eir Boomerang where the sun don't shine...

- -rico

. . . Go hence, and sin more creatively next time. 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:11:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2690 accepted

> Results of Proposal 2690
> 
> 19/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 11/18 YES votes: Proposal accepted

I'm a little embarrassed to find that I voted Present on this. I guess
we all make mistakes.

I'm not in favor of free retractions. It's true that a CFJ retraction
can often simplify matters, but retractions without penalties often
encourage players to act precipitiously, since the consequences for
screwing up are tiny. It sometimes drives me crazy when I get a huge
proposal submission, and by the time I've distributed it, marked it up
with HTML and added it to the voting queue, someone has noticed a flaw
- - and the author has already retracted it and submitted a new one. So
I start over with the new submission, knowing that the odds that this
one will also be retracted and resubmitted to fix another discovered
error are pretty high, if history is any indicator. Of course,
eventually the player realizes that their score is getting blasted,
and learns to edit carefully, or to RFC their ideas, or to at least
wait more than three minutes before resubmitting.

I don't want to see CFJ submissions being treated like that.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:22:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 526 "attrbiutes" argument

Does anyone wish to take up Malenkai's argument on the whole
"attributes" issue? I am not going to filibuster CFJ 526's verdict
until Malenkai returns from vacation, and without better arguments
than what he provided, I for one and not going to push for addressing
this issue in the reasoning.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:08:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (TRUE)

> Oh, please.  I was just specifying the date as exactly as possible given
> the recent spate of CF(C)J's which were attacked due to ambiguous or
> incorrect dates.  Let me follow in the footsteps of my second, Slakko, by
> proving my point by quoting a dictionary definition on 'date':
> date [n]: 1. nichiji  2. fujitsu  3. deetsu.

Yeah, I know, I just thought I may as well mention it. Sorry.

> > Secondly, I'm pretty sure the penalty is invalid. AFAIK there are no
> > current players with the Ackanomic name of Rico.
> 
> 1) The penalty did not name Rico, the penalty named rico. (Yeah, I'm
being
> nitpicky, but so are you :-))

Dang. I'm slipping.

> 2) You're absolutely correct.  But if you appeal and the verdict is
> upheld, you might receive a *valid* penalty.  You really want that?

Absolutely. Justice must be maintained at all costs. :-)

> > Nextly, I point out that just having all the guidelines apply to you
does
> > not necessarily mean you have committed Zuriti'ili.
> 
> This is also true; that's why it's up to the judge's discretion.  I was
> going to add something about how a friend of a friend of a cousin of a
> cousin heard an unsubstantiated rumor from a noncredible source about how
> attempt to modify the Guidelines for Zuriti'ili constitutes Zuriti'ili,
> but realized that that actually *would* make it impossible to commit it.

A similar reason to when I accused K 2 of it, then. I actually thought it
might be nice to see the Zuriti'ili rule used.

> Oh, BTW Rex Mundi, you forgot to make your own Guideline, which was half
> the reason I submitted this CFCJ.  :-(

I thought he did. Go back and check...

> By the way, I *did* vote for your Proposal 2704; I think it is a good
idea
> to be able to start fresh if the Guidelines get too unwieldy.  I just
> wouldn't condone a hearing on the subject now unless the CFCJ 151 bit 
> becomes custom.

Thank you.

> > For five to be true, at least one other instance of Zuriti'ili must
have
> > been committed at *exactly* the same time. I say that this is not
possible.
> > First, I doubt that it is possible for any two things to happen
> > simultaneously. 
> 
> This is kind of halfway between the chicken-and-egg paradox and the
> information creation one.  I'm sure there's a parallel somewhere that I'm
> simply too brain-fried to think of (if anyone knows which one I'm
thinking
> of, please help me out...)  Yes, it is tough to prove that two things
> happen simultaneously.  If you asked me to prove that exactly as I typed
> this last letter 'r', you were inhaling gingham, I couldn't do it.  Even
> if you _were_ smoking gingham as I was typing this letter, because you're
> wherever you are and I'm off on this godforsaken rock in tropical
> paradise, I would have a tough time proving that you were inhaling
> simultaneously with me typing that 'r'.
> 
> So how can I prove that two or more instances of Zuriti'ili are committed
> simultaneously?  Because the Guidelines imply they must be, and that's
> good enough for me.  You say it can't be proved that they're simultaneous
> and therefore the Guidelines are wrong; I say the Guidelines are right,
> therefore they're simultaneous.  I suppose that's more a difference
> of opinion than a paradox, but you try thinking clearly after a night of
> Bacardi 151 and a test on Intelligent Agents the next morning.

It all boils down to what the supreme court thinks about it. I can see it
going either way and (probably, in case Slakko's watching:-)) won't appeal
again.

> > Second, how can Zuriti'ili be committed simultaneously with
> > itself if it can't be committed simultaneously with another crime? I
say it
> 
> Why not?  Doesn't 'another crime' imply a different one?  If I say I'm
> giving all my A$ to 'another person,' who would think I mean myself?  OK,
> that's a bad analogy, but how about this: "Broccoli can never be eaten
> with another vegetable."  Can I eat more than one stalk of broccoli now?

You eat broccoli? Didn't you know there's a law against eating more than
one stalk of broccoli? And how would you propose to eat two stalks
simultaneously? Seriously though, it's the Supreme Court's decision again.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:41:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (TRUE)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > date [n]: 1. nichiji  2. fujitsu  3. deetsu.
> 
> Yeah, I know, I just thought I may as well mention it. Sorry.

The positioning of your response made it seem as if it was my Japanese
reasoning that convinced you.  If that's the case, I'd suggest Slakko
start taking language classes at night... :-)

> A similar reason to when I accused K 2 of it, then. I actually thought it
> might be nice to see the Zuriti'ili rule used.

That's one point we definitely agree on.

> > Oh, BTW Rex Mundi, you forgot to make your own Guideline, which was half
> > the reason I submitted this CFCJ.  :-(
> 
> I thought he did. Go back and check...

Oh, I'm sorry, you're right.  I, for some unexplainable reason, thought
that was part of eir reasoning.  Sorry, Rex.

Now, if 'on' doesn't turn out to be an unambiguous misspelling of 'of,'
this could get interesting.

> And how would you propose to eat two stalks
> simultaneously?

You don't want to know.

> Seriously though, it's the Supreme Court's decision again.

Our poor overworked Supreme Court.  I'd Peach 'em both if I could.

- -rico

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:21:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2689 rejected

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:

> > No:
> > Slakko               (SPAM)       
> 
> Slakko, what were you doing?  I thought you liked this one.  Ouch.  This
> is enough to make me renounce anti-voting forever.  (actually, I
> considered anti-voting this one, just becuase people seemed to like it.)
> 
> Of course, it would also have passed if Bill TPK hadn't been off sticking
> eir Boomerang where the sun don't shine...

I liked the idea, but thought it was possibly a little too complicated.
It wasn't an anti-vote.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:23:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2690 accepted

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> I'm not in favor of free retractions. It's true that a CFJ retraction
> can often simplify matters, but retractions without penalties often
> encourage players to act precipitiously, since the consequences for
> screwing up are tiny. It sometimes drives me crazy when I get a huge
> proposal submission, and by the time I've distributed it, marked it up
> with HTML and added it to the voting queue, someone has noticed a flaw
> - and the author has already retracted it and submitted a new one. So
> I start over with the new submission, knowing that the odds that this
> one will also be retracted and resubmitted to fix another discovered
> error are pretty high, if history is any indicator. Of course,
> eventually the player realizes that their score is getting blasted,
> and learns to edit carefully, or to RFC their ideas, or to at least
> wait more than three minutes before resubmitting.
> 
> I don't want to see CFJ submissions being treated like that.

Ahhh, but you have to wait a week on substantially similar CFJs, so that
shouldn't be an issue.  If you don't think about it beforehand, and get
the statement wrong, you have to wait a week before trying again
regardless of the penalty or lack of it.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:25:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (TRUE)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:

> Now, if 'on' doesn't turn out to be an unambiguous misspelling of 'of,'
> this could get interesting.

I don't think Rule 340 applies.  on has not been misspelt - it is a real
word.  So I think we could be in trouble here anyway.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:26:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

>You haven't specified the formulae that unambiguously.  Do you mean
>
>(P/S) * (S+1)
>or
>P/ (S * (S+1))
>
>The first is the only sensible option, but sensibility has never been
>built in to Acka AFAIK.
	The former.  I'll add clearer parenthasies in the next draft.

>One more question: With voting-based changes - does the stock price change
>retroactively when the voting period ends, or only when voting results
>are announced?  This isn't clear as there is no public knowability
>criterion in this proposal.
	When announced, I'll clarify it.

>When you refer to proposals in the activity criterion, does your past list
>of proposals include retracted ones?  Does it include ones deemed to be
>invalid, which had nonetheless been distributed?  Does the CFJ count
>include CFCJs?
	Yes, yes, yes.

>I am intrigued by the idea, but I wouldn't mind seeing a simpler system
>implemented to start, and the more complex ways to affect stock value
>being added in later if the original experiment proves successful.
	I don't think there's much point in a stock system if it isn't
complicated enough to be unpredictable.  I think this reaches that point
without being too horribly complex.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:26:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2689 rejected

>Slakko, what were you doing?  I thought you liked this one.  Ouch.  This
>is enough to make me renounce anti-voting forever.  (actually, I
>considered anti-voting this one, just becuase people seemed to like it.)
	I feel really guilty, because I anti-voted on this one.  Sorry:)

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:43:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 155 (TRUE)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:
> 
> > Now, if 'on' doesn't turn out to be an unambiguous misspelling of 'of,'
> > this could get interesting.
> 
> I don't think Rule 340 applies.  on has not been misspelt - it is a real
> word.  So I think we could be in trouble here anyway.

True, but this is where the whole discussion of intent and interpretation
comes in, I suppose.  I personally think it would be fun to interpret it
as 'on' and see what the creative minds around here can come up with.

- -rico

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:45:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2689 rejected

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >Slakko, what were you doing?  I thought you liked this one.  Ouch.  This
> >is enough to make me renounce anti-voting forever.  (actually, I
> >considered anti-voting this one, just becuase people seemed to like it.)
> 	I feel really guilty, because I anti-voted on this one.  Sorry:)

If I were to Foolishly re-propose this, would enough people abandon their
evil anti-voting ways to pass it?  I think I can manage to pressure Bill
TPK into voting for it and that would get it two more.

Alternately, what problems did Slakko and the rest of those who voted
against it have with it?  I don't necessarily want to keep it immutable as
is; I'm quite open to suggestions.

- -rico, wondering at the prescience of eir "random" .sig generator, which
not only knows that e is discussing mutability, but has chosen the same
line three messages in a row.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:52:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Ackanomic Sensurround

This is an idea I'd been playing with for a while, and I thought I'd float
it out before I proposed it and see if the rest of you beings have any
suggestions and/or corrections:

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Create a Rule with a unique number X in the 1100's entitled "Ackanomic
Sound System Rule Suite" with the following BODLY-delimited text:

BODLY
[ Ackanomic needs a sound track.  The Ackanomic Sound System provides
this.  Players can, at any time, change the song playing for a meager A$5,
as long as the song is one that has no game effects.  Songs that have game
effects can be added to the Rule Suite via Proposal. (I was thinking of
having a Games-and-Contests-style hearing, but figured since the Songs
can affect the game state, and Games and Contests explicitly say they
don't, this had better all be on the up-and-up.) ]

I. Ackanomic Sound System & Songs
There exists a unique, unownable entity known as the Ackanomic Sound 
System (hereafter, for purposes of the Rules in this Rule Suite, known as
the ASS.)

There exists a class of entities known as Ackanomic Sound System Songs
(hereafter, for purposes of the Rules in this Rule Suite, known as Songs.)
Songs may be either Mundane or Esoteric, but not both.

A Mundane Song is one that has no trigger or game effects defined in a
Rule in this Rule Suite.  An Esoteric Song is one that has a Trigger
and Effect defined in a Rule in this Rule Suite.

II. Description
Nobody knows for certain the location of the ASS, for its music is audible
at exactly the same unobtrusive volume throughout the whole of Ackanomic.
It is said that those who wish not to hear the music of the ASS can
insulate their dwellings with ripe broccoli gathered with a golden
sickle (or Boomerang) on the night of a full Spotlight.  Unfortunately,
not being able to hear the music does not exclude a player from the
music's effects.

The control panel for the ASS is located in the Ackanomic Library.  Any
player who is in the library may cause the ASS to play any Mundane 
song e chooses by making a public post which states the following:

a) The sentence "And inside, the jukebox roars just like thunder." [ Van
Morrison, "Wild Nights" ] 
b) the action of placing A$5 into the banna-shaped slot in the control
panel, and  
c) the name of the song e wishes to play and the artist to whom the
song is credited.

[ Example of a request of a Mundane Song:
And inside, the jukebox roars just like thunder.
I am going to the Library.
I am placing A$5 into the slot on the control panel.
I wish to play "Wild Nights" by Van Morrison. ]

Upon these actions being successfully completed, one of the following four
events will take place:

d) If the Song requested is Esoteric, the request fails.
e) If the Song requested is Mundane and the Song currently playing on the
ASS is Esoteric, the request fails.
f) If both the Song requested and the Song currently playing are Mundane,
the Song currently playing will immediately cease playing, and, after a
pause of an infinitesimal amount of time to switch tracks, the ASS will
immediately begin playing the requested Song.

In any of these three cases, the A$5 is transferred from the player to the
Treasury.

It is the duty of the sadly overworked Web-Harfer to maintain a record
somewhere of what song is currently playing on the ASS and whether that
song is Esoteric or Mundane.

{{ The Ackanomic Sound System is currently playing "Romeo and Juliet" by
Dire Straits; a Mundane Song. }}

III. Creating & Playing Esoteric Songs
Esoteric Songs are defined by sub-rules of this Rule Suite, and nowhere
else.  A Rule that is part of this Rule Suite may define more than one
Esoteric Song.  Any definition of an Esoteric Song must include at least
the following four lettered attributes of the song:

a) Title: the title, or name, of the Song.
b) Artist: the artist or artists who wrote and/or performed the Song.
c) Trigger: a condition referring to the Ackanomic game state that can, at
any time, be easily and unambiguously identified to be either true or
false.  [ e.g. "Four or more players have a score of above 300." ]
d) Effect: the effect, if any, that the playing of this Song has on the
game and/or game state of Ackanomic.

The definition is encouraged, but not required, to include these two
attributes also:

e) Duration: The length of time for which the Song will play if not
interrupted.  If this is not included, it defaults to three days.
f) Explanation: The player submitting an Esoteric Song is encouraged to
explain why the game effects pertain to the title or lyrics of the song.

Rules defining Esoteric Songs may also define entities other than those
Songs.  However, an entity defined in a Rule defining an Esoteric Song may
never have affect the game state unless that Song is currently playing on
the ASS.  The entity will go Somewhere Else as soon as the Song ceases
playing, and all effects generated by its presence will cease at that
moment.  However, any permanent changes it made to the game state will
endure.  [ For example, if the Chocolate Frog were defined in such a Rule,
its owner would no longer get its bonuses once it left, but if the Really
Big Blue Thing etc. were, any names it had scrambled would remain so. ]

An Esoteric Song will begin playing immediately upon its Condition
becoming true, regardless of any other Song that may be playing on the
ASS.  The Song will continue playing until one or more of the following
become true:

 - its Duration is expired and its Trigger is no longer true, or
 - another Esoteric Song's Trigger becomes true,

upon any of which it will stop playing. All game Effects described in the
Song's definition will begin instantaneously when the Song starts to play,
and cease immediately when the Song stops playing, unless specified
otherwise in the Rule creating the Song.

IV. Precedence Issues
This Rule takes precedence over any Rules which state or imply that the
playing of a Song on the Ackanomic Sound System can have no effect on the
game and/or game state of Ackanomic.

This Rule, and all Rules that are part of this Rule Suite, defer
precedence to any Rules with which they might conflict, except as stated
in the sentence immediately preceding this one.
BODLY

Create a rule numbered X.1 (where X is the base number of the
Ackanomic Sound System Rule Suite) with the title "ASS Song: Dueling
Banjos" and the following WHEEWHEE-delimited text:

WHEEWHEE
Title: Dueling Banjos

Artist: Traditional {{ [if anyone knows who originally wrote this, or
remembers the names of the two guys (well, one guy and an
Australopithecus) who played it in "Deliverance," please let me know. ]}}

Trigger: When a valid team of four people, which possesses both the Great
Oars of Ackanomic and the Great Raft of Ackanomic, announces eir intent to
take a rafting trip down the Great River of Ackanomic.

Duration: Until the results of the rafting trip are publicly announced,
and for three Acka days thereafter.

Effect: While this song is playing, any player who is involved in a
rafting trip on the Great River of Ackanomic, or has been involved in such
a trip in the past three days, must include in all public messages text
evocative of the sound of a pig squealing, in addition to any other
inclusions mandated by the results of the rafting trip.  All such players
are also encouraged to complain publicly about pain in their posterior
region.  All other players are encouraged to mock them publicly, possibly
including such lines as "Squeal!  Squeal like a pig, boy!" and "E's got a
real purty mouth, ain't e?" ["Deliverance," John Boorman ]

Explanation: If you don't get it yet, watch "Deliverance."  You will.
{{[ Alternatively, check out the IMDb listing for it.  Some of the
keywords they list are pretty hilarious. ]}}
WHEEWHEE

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

- -rico

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:05:40 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Ackanomic Sensurround

> This is an idea I'd been playing with for a while, and I thought I'd
float
> it out before I proposed it and see if the rest of you beings have any
> suggestions and/or corrections:

I like it! I'll try to think of some decent songs it could play for before
you submit it too.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:08:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Ackanomic Sensurround

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:

> 
> This is an idea I'd been playing with for a while, and I thought I'd float
> it out before I proposed it and see if the rest of you beings have any
> suggestions and/or corrections:

Interestingly, I have seen the concept of songs having game effects used
before in a Nomic.  It was Imperial Nomic 9, one that I ran as TIE&THS.
We used letter labelled points, and you could spend C,D to get a CD which
would have certain effects.  It ended up being heavily involved in the
game win, but by then we had hit 300 Proposals, a record at the time for
Imperial Nomic.

I like the touch with Esoteric Songs.  Perhaps we could end up merging
this with Agenda Hats somehow :-)

> IV. Precedence Issues
> This Rule takes precedence over any Rules which state or imply that the
> playing of a Song on the Ackanomic Sound System can have no effect on the
> game and/or game state of Ackanomic.
> 
> This Rule, and all Rules that are part of this Rule Suite, defer
> precedence to any Rules with which they might conflict, except as stated
> in the sentence immediately preceding this one.
> BODLY

That's the neatest precedence language I've seen in a long while.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:09:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Ackanomic Sensurround

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > This is an idea I'd been playing with for a while, and I thought I'd
> float
> > it out before I proposed it and see if the rest of you beings have any
> > suggestions and/or corrections:
> 
> I like it! I'll try to think of some decent songs it could play for before
> you submit it too.

I suggest that rico's original proposal just put in one, or maybe two
esoteric songs.  We don't want it to get rejected just because someone
didn't like a song, and we can always add more songs in additional
proposals (or maybe later we could set up Song Submissions as Misc.
Submissions along the lines of Games and Equipment Submissions).

Yours,
Slakko

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:16:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 533

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Unforutnately, the org name change can't change the building name,
> > because building name changes can only be specified by players.
> 
> Minor quibble - the rules can always change names, not just
> players. In fact, it was the rules (via a proposal) that changed
> Vulcan's name the first time.
> 
> > What _should_ happen is that Vulcan HQ should be immediately
> > replaced by R1R1 HQ on the same 12 kaas of land, and then R1R1 HQ
> > should be replaced by Vulcan HQ when the name changed again.  I
> > can't find any precedent for any of this, however.
> 
> It's a bit problematic, since the rules did not specify that the
> building changed names, only that it exists.

At no stage did any rule or any effect specifically change the name of the
building, nor did any rule or any effect destroy R1isrepealed
Headquarters.  As a result, both buildings exist, and are currently owned
by Vulcan.  

That's how I've been harfing it.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:58:30 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 533

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, AARON KEESLER wrote:

> I'm having serious trouble ruling on this CFJ (the existence or
> non-existence of Rule #1 is repealed. #1 Headquarters), for a couple of
> reasons.  I'd really rather not get appealed, so I'm trying to find some
> precedence for what I want to rule.
> 
> 1)  Is there any rule covering name changes of entities?  If there is,
> and the entity after the name change is the same as the entity before
> the name change, then this is my reasoning:  a) Vulcan changed its name;
> b) Rule #1 is repealed. #1 (R1R1) owns 12 kaas of land and R1R1
> Headquarters.  Since this is the same org, would this be the same land?
> If it owns a second building on 12 new kaas of land, does it also own
> the previous building (this could be a great scam, but it doesn't sound
> very reasonable).  Unforutnately, the org name change can't change the
> building name, because building name changes can only be specified by
> players.  What _should_ happen is that Vulcan HQ should be immediately
> replaced by R1R1 HQ on the same 12 kaas of land, and then R1R1 HQ should
> be replaced by Vulcan HQ when the name changed again.  I can't find any
> precedent for any of this, however.

I think that a new building was probably created.  There is some debate as
to whether or not the old one still exists though, I had meant to do a CFJ
even...  perhaps I will now.

> 
> 2)  If the name change created a new org (which doesn't seem to make any
> sense, but hey...) there is a whole mess of things that change.  For one
> thing, as the rule initially stated, if the name change wasn't
> retroactive, none of the four players listed were Evil Overlords of
> Ackanomic (retired), until the name changed back to Vulcan.  I don't
> know if this matters or not.  On the other hand, it makes this specific
> CJF easier to judge:
> 

I really couldn't say if it created a new Org.

                                         - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:21:22 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Ackanomic Sensurround

I like this idea.  I have to say though, that I'd rather not have any
reminders of Deliverance in the ruleset...

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:59:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2689 rejected

>If I were to Foolishly re-propose this, would enough people abandon their
>evil anti-voting ways to pass it?  I think I can manage to pressure Bill
>TPK into voting for it and that would get it two more.
	I would.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #255
***********************************