Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #26
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Tuesday, February 24 1998    Volume 03 : Number 026

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:01:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appellate Reform

> It presumes that there are always at least two Bronze Torch
> holders in the game, of course

Details :)  In this case, use the Preator and a random player 
eligible to be Preator.  If that still is a problem, use the Speaker,
if the same player, use a random player.  I'm sure an elegant
solution to this one is not too tough.

> And then what happens is that someone submits a CFJ on the 1st of the
> month, appeals it frivolously, submits a Paradox Win CFJ(retracting it
> as necessary until e gets a sympathetic judge), has it judged TRUE,
> and it cannot be appealed.

Details :)  I meant a *player* may appeal once per month, not only one
appeal total per month.  Also, the no-juryrigging provision would prevent
the above loophole anyway (or at least would limit it to once per week).

> Maybe a person should have to go to Gaol for a frivolous appeal.  That
> might be a more effective deterrent.  :-)

Perhaps the Chartreuse Goose would be appropriate.  The idea on really
high appeal penalties is to make the appealer do some of the research;
make them prove an overturn is appropriate.  The problem with nomic 
law, as Kelly Martin always pointed out, is that the burden of proof
is on the judge, not the litigants.  My proposals of being nice to
judges and mean to litigants, as opposed to the opposite which seems
to be the way we are now, would perhaps go towards putting more of
the burden on the litigants, which is a Good Thing.

> I'm all for the first part of it, at least.  I'm still willing to let
> the appeal thing slide for a bit.

Well, ok :)

Just a note to the SC, if they are reading this, and no reform occurs --
at the very least it would be nice if a weekly or tri-day status
were posted.  Part of the problem (a minor part), IMHO, besides 
everything else mentioned, is this whole veil of secrecy and exclusiveness.
All these ideas are really leading to the democratization of judgement,
which is a Good Thing.  It would be nice to know where deliberations 
on the current cases are, and what the current thought is.  Then 
others could participate, and perhaps it would be more fun.  Nomic is
about judgement, and judgement should not be monopolized.  I'm a good
nomic judge, and being virtually excluded from the whole process really
bothers me, especially when it is so slowooooo.  Despite these facts,
the judges never ask for my opinion.  Perhaps if the judges asked the
opinions of other players, it would be more fun and go faster.  There are
other good nomic judges here too; let them participate as well.  I 
guess that is the whole idea.   

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 01:52:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appellate Reform

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >3) Rework the Internomic appeal idea.  I personally am against the dogma
> >that two particular people are right by definition, as this 'attribute'
> >business has really driven home (at least for me :-)).
> 	In Agora, players can only vote by using voting tokens, and make
> proposals using proposal something-or-others.  Perhaps a similar system
> could be used here for appeals.  All players recieve an appealing
> certificate upon joining, and can get them for judging a certain number of
> CFJ's without being overturned.  If you don't have one, you can't appeal.

That leaves players at the mercy of the CotC's dice.  Unless CFJs were to
be ordered deterministically, or there was some mechanism t guarantee each
person a CFJ every so often, I would be against this.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:09:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appellate Reform

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > And then what happens is that someone submits a CFJ on the 1st of the
> > month, appeals it frivolously, submits a Paradox Win CFJ(retracting it
> > as necessary until e gets a sympathetic judge), has it judged TRUE,
> > and it cannot be appealed.
> 
> Details :)  I meant a *player* may appeal once per month, not only one
> appeal total per month.  Also, the no-juryrigging provision would prevent
> the above loophole anyway (or at least would limit it to once per week).

There's still a problem when you leave flooding the CFJ queues as an
option.  But to put a price on submitting a CFJ risks denying jusice
because a player might not be able to afford to even start their case.  So
I don't actually think that restricting appeals will work when there is
currently no way to restrict submissions, and, in fact, restricting CFJ
submissions would run counter to our Nomic's ethic AFAICS.

> > Maybe a person should have to go to Gaol for a frivolous appeal.  That
> > might be a more effective deterrent.  :-)

It would cut down on appeals, yes that is the case.  But why are we trying
to reduce appeals?  It appears to be to increase the importance of the
first round judge.  But if the first round judge makes an obvious mistake,
that is by no means a guarantee that their verdict was not still correct
(by a completely different means).  I would certainly be against mandatory
Gaol sentences for frivolous appeals for this reason. 

Perhaps you could take it in the points or in the Gaol.  Say 5 points lost
is equivalent to 1 day in Gaol.

> Perhaps the Chartreuse Goose would be appropriate.  The idea on really
> high appeal penalties is to make the appealer do some of the research;
> make them prove an overturn is appropriate.  The problem with nomic 
> law, as Kelly Martin always pointed out, is that the burden of proof
> is on the judge, not the litigants.  My proposals of being nice to
> judges and mean to litigants, as opposed to the opposite which seems
> to be the way we are now, would perhaps go towards putting more of
> the burden on the litigants, which is a Good Thing.

It would be currently unfair to put the same burden on the appellant as on
the Supreme Court.  The appellant has at most 3 days to prepare a case,
the Supreme Court has two people working for (theoretically) 7 days -
nearly 5 times the amount of person-time.  But if you increase the time
the appellant has, you only delay the court process further.

> Just a note to the SC, if they are reading this, and no reform occurs --
> at the very least it would be nice if a weekly or tri-day status
> were posted.  

What exactly would this status include?  "We still can't make up our
mind?" :-)  "We've 95% fixed our judgement on CFJ xxxx?"  I don't think
that this kind of status report could ever be all that informative.  Have
you got a proposed level of detail?

> I'm a good
> nomic judge, and being virtually excluded from the whole process really
> bothers me, especially when it is so slowooooo.  Despite these facts,
> the judges never ask for my opinion.

Well, given the frequency of the times that you (and I'll admit I do this
too) put arguments on the mailing lists relating to certain CFJs, the
Supreme Court can usually just read the mail to find out what your
opinions are.  There's no need for them to ask your opinion when you've
already given it to them.  

Plus, as a Bronze Torch Holder, if you feel sufficiently strongly about a
particular issue you can BTR it

>Perhaps if the judges asked the
> opinions of other players, it would be more fun and go faster.

I somehow doubt that asking the opinions of some other players would have
the effect of speeding up deliberation.  The difference in speed between
one player and two players is significant - do we really want to slow it
down further with 4 or 5 opinions?

"If you laid all the nomicians in the world end to end, they still
wouldn't reach agreement on a CFJ." to paraphrase.

>  There are
> other good nomic judges here too; let them participate as well.  I 
> guess that is the whole idea.   

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:25:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Impeachment?

It appears that an Impeachment Paper is fiendishly difficult to get
passed, because most people aren't going to bother to submit a vote.
It is much easier to get a proposal passed than an IP, and yet a proposal
could be used as an effective IP, to eject someone from office. 

Note: If the last 11 proposals to have been accepted were subject to the
same restrictions on acceptance as IPs, none of them would have made it.
(One that looks like it would have made it still fails once the Tammany
vote is removed).

If we can get effective Impeachment, on 7 day delay instead of 3 day
delay, with a lower threshold of voters and threats encouraging people to
vote rather than abstain, why should we even have Impeachment Papers?

If someone out there has a great reason why, I'd love to hear it.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:29:03 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeachment?

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> If we can get effective Impeachment, on 7 day delay instead of 3 day
> delay, with a lower threshold of voters and threats encouraging people to
> vote rather than abstain, why should we even have Impeachment Papers?
> 
> If someone out there has a great reason why, I'd love to hear it.

How do you get rid of a Promoter who doesn't do their job?

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:33:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeachment?

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > If we can get effective Impeachment, on 7 day delay instead of 3 day
> > delay, with a lower threshold of voters and threats encouraging people to
> > vote rather than abstain, why should we even have Impeachment Papers?
> > 
> > If someone out there has a great reason why, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> How do you get rid of a Promoter who doesn't do their job?

Point taken.  But what's the point of having it for the other offices?

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:51:45 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeachment?

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > How do you get rid of a Promoter who doesn't do their job?
> 
> Point taken.  But what's the point of having it for the other offices?

We don't *need* to have it for other offices.  But I think that it is a
better way to remove officers-- because it is harder, though the half of
all active players quorum, is a bit much for a hearing.   Maybe we could
change that, or lengthen the time that the hearing lasts?  Or at least not
count vacationing players?

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 03:14:00 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appellate Reform

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > My solution would be three-fold:
> 
> > 1) Create a pool of all the bronze torch holders.  Players may
> > abdicate from this pool.  On appeal, two of this pool would be 
> > selected to hear the appeal (excluding the submitter and appealer).
> > This would keep the two judge thing, which is a Good Thing, yet 
> > spread things around a bit, which would redistribute the fun, 
> > and should lead to faster verdicts.  I must say that the
> > current slowness is unacceptable,  and if I was not friendly with
> > the people who happen to be the judges, I may have filed an IP by
> > now :).  (This would also address the problem of the first round
> > judge's effort meaning nothing as it would  make  the bronze torch 
> > points more valuable).
> 
> This is kind of the thing I was working of.  It presumes that there are
> always at least two Bronze Torch holders in the game, of course, and
> there should be some emergency case for when this does not occur(like
> picking the two active players who have judged the most CFJ's).

This does seem like a reasonable method to me.  

> 
> > 2) Allow only one appeal per calendar month.  Lets face it, the frivolous
> > appeal cat is out of the bag, people are appealing frivolously, and
> > no one is doing anything about.  
> 
> And then what happens is that someone submits a CFJ on the 1st of the
> month, appeals it frivolously, submits a Paradox Win CFJ(retracting it
> as necessary until e gets a sympathetic judge), has it judged TRUE,
> and it cannot be appealed.
> 
> Maybe a person should have to go to Gaol for a frivolous appeal.  That
> might be a more effective deterrent.  :-)
> 

I have to agree that, while the current system has its frivolous appeal
problems, this would be overkill.  Maybe, we could retain the Supreme
Court, but rather than appeals going to them, we would use the Bronze
Torch holders (including the SC members), as described above.  The Supreme
Court would have the ability to declare an appeal frivolous, however, if
the appelate court upheld the original verdict, and requested that the
Supreme Court do so.  A player designated as having made a frivolous
appeal by the Supreme Court would then go to Gaol, or something.  We can
keep the SC around for this purpose, to fulfill specialized functions such
as issuing Acts of Judgement, and to serve as a court of last resort if
there are not enough bronze torch holders eligible to judge appeals.  The
praetor could probably go away under this system.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 04:42:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appellate Reform

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> > The major problems with the CFJ appeal process that I see are these:
> 
> [agree with previous problems]
> 
> 4. the same two people get the fun each time of judging the most
> interesting cases in Acka.  This is basically unfair, and isone
> of the reasons I quit recently.  Once the fun is taken away, and
> the proper steps are not taken to respect the first round judge,
> and one's opinion is put on a lower rung and not even addressed or
> upheld in the Court's reasonings, nomic is no fun(at least not 
> for me).  Most  frustrating was the inability for me to work this
> out in private with one of the judges.  
> 
> My solution would be three-fold:
> 
> 1) Create a pool of all the bronze torch holders.  Players may
> abdicate from this pool.  On appeal, two of this pool would be 
> selected to hear the appeal (excluding the submitter and appealer).
> This would keep the two judge thing, which is a Good Thing, yet 
> spread things around a bit, which would redistribute the fun, 
> and should lead tofaster verdicts.  I must say that the
> current slowness is unacceptable,  and if I was not friendly with
> the people who happen to be the judges, I may have filed an IP by
> now :).  (This would also address the problem of the first round
> judge's effort meaning nothing as it would  make  the bronze torch 
> points more valuable).

This would be an improvement.
> 
> 2) Allow only one appeal per calendar month.  Lets face it, the frivolous
> appeal cat is out of the bag, people are appealing frivolously, and
> no one is doing anything about.

One appeal per calendar month per player.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 05:11:57 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appellate Reform

Here is what I would propose based on the current discussion.  Keep the
first round the way it currently works.  For the second round use two
bronze torch holders, with some mechanism for dealing with the possibility
that there might not be two such players.  Call this the circuit court.
Give the Circuit Court some amount of time (a week, I would think) to
deliver a verdict.  If they fail to do so, the original verdict stands,
and the deadbeats get penalized. (10 or 15 pts?) A second appeal sends it
the supreme court, which would have more or less the same restrictions,
but perhaps a longer time to come up with a verdict, since anything that
has been appealed this far _should_ be tricky.

This wouldn't stop frivolous appeals, so do two things.  Give the circuit
court the power to penalize appealers severly, perhaps 1-25 points, or
up to three days in Gaol.  The SC would have the same power.   Create a
class of entity called the judical rutabaga.  Every month at the time
officer salaries are distributed, each voting player receives a judical
rutabaga.  To make an appeal, a player must spend a judical rutabaga.  If
the appeal is successful, they receive a judical rutabaga.  An appeal to
the SC would cost another JR.  This should discourage people from making
frivolous appeals, but not in a manner that keeps people from fighting for
justice when they need to.  

rufus

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:52:18 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Lamb

I'm pretty sure it happened when I first announced the results, and I
just misreported what actually happened.  If not, things are somewhat
messy...

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Monday, February 23, 1998 9:42 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: Lamb
>
>
>> I don't believe you can do that, because of my mistake.  CnH just got
>> the lamb.
>
>Well, when did the lamb transfer take place?  Did it take place when
>you announced "Calvin N Hobbes grabbed Illusion's donkey", or when you
>announced "Calvin N Hobbes tried to grab Illusion's donkey, but got
>the Little Lamb instead"?
>
>I favour the former case myself.
>
>
>--
>--Veal Fan(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
>Current Album--The B-52's:Wild Planet
>Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
>Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer a friend.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:34:22 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Andrew Stefanski)
Subject: Acka: Other nomic...

	Just thought I'd let people know that New Rishonnomic is looking for 
players...  There are currently only 6 of us.  It's not moving too fast, and is 
still close to the original rule set, so it's great for any of you that are 
pretty new to nomics in general.
	
	The web site for it is:
	http://www.tp3.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/~klaush/nomic/
	
	If any of you decide to join in, when you e-mail the speaker let him 
know that I (Andrew Stefanski) referred you over there.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled nomic...	

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:52:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeachment?

> We don't *need* to have it for other offices.  But I think that it is a
> better way to remove officers-- because it is harder, though the half
of
> all active players quorum, is a bit much for a hearing.   Maybe we
could
> change that, or lengthen the time that the hearing lasts?  Or at least
not
> count vacationing players?

Vacationing players don't count as active, IIRC. It's in the rule about
player states.

My feeling is this: why not just up the time to one week, and penalise
any player who fails to vote if it doesn't achieve quorum in the same way
as on proposals? Allowing a present vote might also be useful. Or
alternatively, just get rid of quorum entirely. :-)

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:53:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Trinket Creation.

>  I give the one inscribed with "The Gingham Wearer" to The Gingham
Wearer
> and the one inscribed with "Slakko" to Slakko.  I keep the one
inscribed
> with "Jon" myself.

Why thank you Jon/Wild Card. What a kind gift! I metaphorically ('cause
it's not allowed in the rules and attempting an impossible action is a
crime) place my Omega medal around my neck.

TGW.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:27:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Trinket Creation.

> >  I give the one inscribed with "The Gingham Wearer" to The Gingham
> Wearer
> > and the one inscribed with "Slakko" to Slakko.  I keep the one
> inscribed
> > with "Jon" myself.

> Why thank you Jon/Wild Card. What a kind gift! I metaphorically ('cause
> it's not allowed in the rules and attempting an impossible action is a
> crime) place my Omega medal around my neck.

Oh, it's perfectly permissible to manipulate entities in ways which do
not change the game state.  I flabellate "I Finally Finished _Infinite
Jest_!" to demonstrate.

- --
- --Veal Fan(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Eurogliders:Heaven
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
Of course I'm sane.  The voices said so.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:53:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > Why thank you Jon/Wild Card. What a kind gift! I metaphorically ('cause
> > it's not allowed in the rules and attempting an impossible action is a
> > crime) place my Omega medal around my neck.
> 
> Oh, it's perfectly permissible to manipulate entities in ways which do
> not change the game state.  I flabellate "I Finally Finished _Infinite
> Jest_!" to demonstrate.

Sorry.  Rule 500 says:

An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as
specified by the Rules. 

The Rules don't say you can flabellate that Trinket.

Caped Crusader, take him away.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:02:55 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

> > > Why thank you Jon/Wild Card. What a kind gift! I metaphorically ('cause
> > > it's not allowed in the rules and attempting an impossible action is a
> > > crime) place my Omega medal around my neck.

> > Oh, it's perfectly permissible to manipulate entities in ways which do
> > not change the game state.  I flabellate "I Finally Finished _Infinite
> > Jest_!" to demonstrate.

> Sorry.  Rule 500 says:

> An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as
> specified by the Rules. 

> The Rules don't say you can flabellate that Trinket.

Slakko, Slakko, Slakko.  If you read a _wee_ bit further down that very
same Rule, you see that it says:

   Manipulation of an entity is permissible if such manipulation is not
   explicitly regulated by the rules, and such manipulation would not
   have a material effect on the game. In other words, the game state
   must be the same after the manipulation as it would have been had the
   manipulation not occurred.

I defy you to find a single Rule that regulates flabellation of trinkets.

> Caped Crusader, take him away.

That Gaolbird?  I'd like to see em try.

- --
- --Veal Fan(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--John Stewart:Gold
Current Book--Katie Waitman:The Merro Tree
Save the whales.  Collect the whole set.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:20:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

>> The Rules don't say you can flabellate that Trinket.
	He didn't.  You can't perform actions on acka-research.

>> Caped Crusader, take him away.
>
>That Gaolbird?  I'd like to see em try.
	As previously mentioned, I had no access to e-mail during the
period in question.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:21:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > > Oh, it's perfectly permissible to manipulate entities in ways which do
> > > not change the game state.  I flabellate "I Finally Finished _Infinite
> > > Jest_!" to demonstrate.

> > The Rules don't say you can flabellate that Trinket.

Do you even still own that Trinket?  You put it in the BWG Laser if I
remember correctly, and even if your attempt to aim it at Slakko failed,
it would still have been aimed at the last player it was aimed at, who
would therefore now have the Trinket.  I have no idea who that last player
was, but unless they're you, you don't have the Trinket as far as I can
tell.  (If it was you, you're down a bunch of A$ for your contempt of
Hosiery.)

Not that not owning the Trinket would stop you from manipulating it, of
course.  I renooberate Goldenmean's Trinket "Goldie's Razor Boomerang" to
demonstrate.  In fact, I renooberate Goldenmean emself.  Try and stop me.

- -rico

I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose. 

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:25:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Rico wrote:

> Do you even still own that Trinket?  You put it in the BWG Laser if I
> remember correctly, and even if your attempt to aim it at Slakko failed,
> it would still have been aimed at the last player it was aimed at, who
> would therefore now have the Trinket.  I have no idea who that last player
> was, but unless they're you, you don't have the Trinket as far as I can
> tell.  (If it was you, you're down a bunch of A$ for your contempt of
> Hosiery.)

E couldn't put it in the fuel input end, because it wasn't aimed at an
unsheltered player.  So it should still be in Alfvaen's possession.

Yours,
Slakko
thought better of giving someone a wedgie to prove a point.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:32:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

>Not that not owning the Trinket would stop you from manipulating it, of
>course.  I renooberate Goldenmean's Trinket "Goldie's Razor Boomerang" to
>demonstrate.  In fact, I renooberate Goldenmean emself.  Try and stop me.
	Speaking of demonstrations, I turn Goldenmean's "Goldie's Razor
Boomerang" into A$.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:33:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> E couldn't put it in the fuel input end, because it wasn't aimed at an
> unsheltered player.  So it should still be in Alfvaen's possession.

This is true iff that Laser had never been aimed at any player since its
creation.  Otherwise it would still be aimed at the last player.  Veal Fan
[note correct spelling]'s attempt to re-aim it failed, not eir attempt to
fuel it.  Not having been a member of Ackanomic long enough, I don't know
who, if anyone, that laser was previously pointing at.  The task of
determining so would probably fall to... (drumroll, please) the Speaker.

- -rico

I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose. 

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:45:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Rico <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Trinket Creation.

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> 	Speaking of demonstrations, I turn Goldenmean's "Goldie's Razor
> Boomerang" into A$.

You really do want to get Impeached, don't you?

Rule 506 says that the Owner of a Trinket may turn it into A$.  Since you
are not the owner of that trinket, and since that action would change the
game state were it to take place, it is illegal.

Coming soon to a CFCJ near you?...

- -rico

I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose. 

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:36:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appellate Reform

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> > > My solution would be three-fold:
> > > 1) Create a pool of all the bronze torch holders.  Players may
> > > abdicate from this pool.  On appeal, two of this pool would be 
> > > selected to hear the appeal (excluding the submitter and appealer).
> > > This would keep the two judge thing, which is a Good Thing, yet 
> > > spread things around a bit, which would redistribute the fun, 
> > > and should lead to faster verdicts.  I must say that the
> > > current slowness is unacceptable,  and if I was not friendly with
> > > the people who happen to be the judges, I may have filed an IP by
> > > now :).  (This would also address the problem of the first round
> > > judge's effort meaning nothing as it would  make  the bronze torch 
> > > points more valuable).
> > 
> > This is kind of the thing I was working of.  It presumes that there are
> > always at least two Bronze Torch holders in the game, of course, and
> > there should be some emergency case for when this does not occur(like
> > picking the two active players who have judged the most CFJ's).
> 
> This does seem like a reasonable method to me.  

How about this slight extension:

The Supreme Court would become something of a Full Bench.
First appeals go to a pair of SCJs, randomly selected.

(All Bronze Torch holders have the option of sitting on the SC or not
sitting, and thereby getting first round judgements.  If ever there are
fewer than 2 Bronze Torch-holders, or fewer than two willing SC
Justices, the two players with the highest number
of CFJs successfully judged are automatically forced to be justices.)

A second appeal (well, currently four are allowed, and it is possible for
people to make mistakes as the factual error in my last CFCJ case
illustrates) would go to the Full Bench, but _only_ if at least one SC
Judge "sponsors" the appeal.  That should eliminate the frivolity.

No appeals beyond the second appeal are possible.

A second appeal will only happen if at least one SC Judge agrees with the
appellant that a miscarriage has occurred.  We could thereby reduce the
penalty for a second appeal once it gets to court, say down to 10 points,
because it will be impossible to get an appeal unless you already have one
of the SC Justices agreeing with you.

> 
> > 
> > > 2) Allow only one appeal per calendar month.  Lets face it, the frivolous
> > > appeal cat is out of the bag, people are appealing frivolously, and
> > > no one is doing anything about.

The above method would eliminate frivolous second appeals.  Perhaps the
"sponsorship" method (you must get a Justice sending a public message,
within 3 days of the appeal notice, acknowledging sponsorship, or the
appeal flounders) could be applied to initial appeals as well.  What do
people think?

> I have to agree that, while the current system has its frivolous appeal
> problems, this would be overkill.  Maybe, we could retain the Supreme
> Court, but rather than appeals going to them, we would use the Bronze
> Torch holders (including the SC members), as described above.  The Supreme
> Court would have the ability to declare an appeal frivolous, however, if
> the appelate court upheld the original verdict, and requested that the
> Supreme Court do so.  A player designated as having made a frivolous
> appeal by the Supreme Court would then go to Gaol, or something.  We can
> keep the SC around for this purpose, to fulfill specialized functions such
> as issuing Acts of Judgement, and to serve as a court of last resort if
> there are not enough bronze torch holders eligible to judge appeals.  The
> praetor could probably go away under this system.

Under my slightly modified suggestion, the Praetor could go away, the SC
(2 justices) taking passed over first judgements.

We could also set a time limit on 2 Justice SC Judgements, with fines for
non-performance of a modest but not insignificant level.  Say A$10 for
being overdue, and a limit of 10 days?  At which point the judgement is
automatically sent to the Full Bench?

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 18:03:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Towsner wrote:

> 	Since the major complaint about the Stock Market proposal seems to
> be complexity, I've simplified it, while trying not to sacrifice the
> complexity of teh actions of the Stock Market itself.

This looks small enough to be understandable at a first glance through
(very handy for a proposal which creates a whole new aspect to the game),
while still seeming reasonably hard to predict.  Good idea - you have my
support.

Yours,
Slakko
Peter Costello to else...if's Alan Greenspan
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 18:10:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

#submit proposal Greenspan Lives
	Create a rule numbered 530 named "The Stock Market" reading as
delimited by TSM
TSM
a) There is an unownable, nameless, unique entity known as the Stock
Market.  The Stock Market has a value which is at all times equal to the
positivity value plus the activity value..

b)  If for any reason the positivity value is unspecified, it will be set
to 10.  If the positivity value is less than 0, then it will immediately
become 0.  Whenever a proposal passes, at the moment its results are
publicly knowable, the positivity value will increase by 0.1 for every
player who voted in favor of the proposal.  Whenever a proposal fails, at
the moment its results are publicly knowable, the positivity value will
decrease by 0.1 for every player who voted against it.

c)  If for any reason the activity value is unspecified, it will be set to
10.  If the activity value is less than 0, then it will immediately become
0.  At the end of each Acka day, a value called the ACT quotient will be
calculated.  It will be equal to the number of proposals and CFJ's combined
publicly announced during the day, divided by the average number of
proposals and CFJ's combined which have been announced on average in the
course of the game.  If the ACT quotient is greater than 1, then the ACT
quotient minus 1 rounded to the nearest quotient will be added to the
activity value.  If the ACT quotient is less than 1 but greater than 0,
then the recipricol of the ACT quotient, minus 1, rounded to the nearest
quotient will be subtracted from the activity value.  {{[If the ACT
quotient is 0, there will be no change, to reduce the ability of the
Promoter and CotC to manipulate this value.]}}  For purposes of this
section, CFCJ's qualify as CFJ's, and proposals and CFJ's which were
retracted or deemed invalid, but were distributed by the appropriate
officer, are still used.

d) Players may purchase or sell a number of stocks by publicly announcing
that they intend to do so.  The cost of a share will be the value of the
stock market.  If the player lacks enough money to purchase the number of
shares they requested, than the purchase request will be treated as if they
requested the largest number of stocks they can buy without going into
debt.  When a player buys or sells multiple stocks at the same time, than
the stocks will be bought or sold consecutively, one at a time; the cost of
the purchase will be rounded after all stocks specified to be bought or
sold in one group are bought or sold.  At the end of a purchase, the cost
or profit from the sale is rounded to the players disadvantage, except as
specified by the preceeding sentence.  When a player buys a stock they pay
the cost to the treasury and a stock will be created in their possesion.
When a player sells a stock they recieve the cost of the stock from the
treasury, and a stock in their possession is destroyed.
TSM

Create a rule numbered 532 entitled "Stocks" reading as delimited by SSSS
SSSS
	Stocks are nameless, giftable entitied.  They may only be created
as specified in the rules.
SSSS

	Create a rule numbered 534 entitled "The Ackan Reserve" reading as
delimited by TAR
TAR
	There is a named, unownable, unique entity known as The Ackan
Reserve.  There is a functional office with one seat known as Chair of the
Ackan Reserve.

It is a duty of the Chair of the Ackan Reserve to track the value of the
Stock Market, including the calculation of the ACT quotient, and to make
this value available to all players.

{{else...if is appointed Chair of the Ackan Reserve.}}
TAR
#end proposal

- --
- -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 #26
**********************************