Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #67
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Monday, April 13 1998      Volume 03 : Number 067

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 02:10:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> happened was that as I approached the hummock I saw it out of the corner of
> my eye and with super-human strength (not being human after all) I aim a kick
> at it, causing dirt to go into your eyes, temporarily blinding you and

Where's the Ref?  I can't believe e, a Klingon, would stand for this kind
of dishonorable foul play!  On the part of eir own race, nonetheless!

> causing you to be unable to catch your own razor boomerang that was flying
> back towards you and ended up lopping off your head.

OK, before I was just amused at your pitiful attempts, now you've got me
REALLY mad. With my remaining, non-blinded head, I snarl in furious rage
and, uh, fury, and throw my other two Boomerangs (check the P/E page -- I
have three) in quick succession into extremely uncomfortable portions of
your anatomy.  (Yes, like the back of a Volkswagen.)

Remember to count a guy's heads before you decapitate em next time.

- -Hubert (people who got the above VW reference might want to check out
www.viewaskew.com)

What happens if you get scared half to death twice? 

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 03:56:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > > > TGW, weird.
> > > 
> > > we knew that already.
> > 
> > ROFL! I'll take that as a compliment :-). Incidentally, for some reason
> > that's reminded me of something I was talking to two-star about on IRC
> > yesterday; am I the youngest current player of Acka. I'm currently 17 and I
> > couldn't actually think of anyone younger, although I know that there are a
> > few that come close. Am I right in this or is there anyone else out there
> > younger than I? Also, something else that I mentioned to breadbox and then
> > again on IRC, to Slakko I think; why is it that pretty much all of Acka are
> > either mathematicians, physicists, or do something connected to computers.
> > Any thoughts?

People who are likely to have read Hofstadter?

Niccolo Flychuck

> > 
> > TGW, still weird :-).
> > 
> 
> I'm 21, so you're younger than I am, at least.
> 
> I am NOT, however, a math or computer person.  I'll be graduating in a
> couple of weeks with a degree in psychology and interdisciplinary social
> science.  And then I'm going to go live at home untilsuch time as people
> start hiring folks like me.
> 
>                                     - Vynd
> 
> not bitter
> 
> [email-masked]
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

> Proposal 2875
> Try Again
> The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> This is a modest proposal.
> 
> Repeal rule 206 (Keep 'em in the Game).

Sigh.

I don't know why, but once every few months someone decides that this
rule should be repealed, and every time I come out and defend it.

For those of you who aren't sick of my little speech yet, I remind you
that this rule is one of the oldest rule changes that have survived
the past two years (it was proposed during Ackanomic's second day, and
accepted during the first week) with only minor alterations. It has
been used only rarely - I do not believe that it creates an excessive
burden for the Scorekeeper.

Furthermore, putting historical reasons aside, this rule is by now one
of the very few remaining that provide any unbalancing of the
hierarchy of points.

Thus I ask you to spare this rule yet again.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 05:57:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal Archives

> Yes, it was repealed rules I was thinking of.  There hasn't been an up-
> to-date repealed rules page for a while.  But I was actually just working
> on a project to try to look at the development of the ruleset over time...
> And it doesn't seem too unreasonable that the Proposal archives should show
> the time of acceptance if it can't be calculated trivially from the time of
> original distribution.
>
> But it may be sort of like the situation with paperback books at our
> local library.  They've never been individually catalogued(so it's
> impossible to tell if they have a particular paperback book in their
> collection), but by now it would be a monumental task to go through and
> do it for all of them, so I can understand their reluctance...
>

Perhaps this project would best be tackled in parts. I would be prepared (for
interest's sake) to tackle a portion of the proposal archive.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 07:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

> I'm 16.  Sorry 'bout that :-).

I don't mind, I was just curious. I was 16 a few weeks ago anyhow :-)

> AtP  (maybe we should start a society for People whose names have TLAs)

Maybe. Do you have any money around? I don't, but if you or CnH want to set
one up then I'll join :-)

TGW.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 09:24:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

> > Repeal rule 206 (Keep 'em in the Game).
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> I don't know why, but once every few months someone decides that this
> rule should be repealed, and every time I come out and defend it.
> 
> For those of you who aren't sick of my little speech yet, I remind you
> that this rule is one of the oldest rule changes that have survived
> the past two years (it was proposed during Ackanomic's second day, and
> accepted during the first week) with only minor alterations. It has
> been used only rarely - I do not believe that it creates an excessive
> burden for the Scorekeeper.
> 
> Furthermore, putting historical reasons aside, this rule is by now one
> of the very few remaining that provide any unbalancing of the
> hierarchy of points.
> 
> Thus I ask you to spare this rule yet again.

I suppose I probably ought to say why I want it repealed then. First off,
I've been playing Acka for almost five months now (is it really that long?)
and have never seen this rule used. If someone has managed to loose 60 points
through proper play (i.e. not doing it on purpose) then even when they were
put up to 20 points they'd still be too far behind to really stand a chance
of winning the cycle by points. On the other hand if someone looses the
points on purpose then they don't deserve it. Anyone remember what Red Barn
did when e first joined Acka? (No, I don't, but I've heard about it). I
believe it was Wayne who commented that you may as well allow any player to
set their score to anything between -59 and 20. Granted, we now have
annoyingness, but it would be better if no-one was even tempted to try. Oh,
and as for the history thing, and the bit about it being one of the first
rules, blah, blah, blah...I ask those that are old enough (or like me, know
their AckaHistory (TM)) to recall the Voting Gnome. Do we really want to
reward those who have picked up penalties like this? No we don't. Thank you
very much.

TGW (don't get me started or I'll launch into another anti points and
anti-voting tirade :-)).

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 10:30:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> TGW (don't get me started or I'll launch into another anti points and
> anti-voting tirade :-)).
> 

For the record, I am against voting and points, too.

IB
in favor of death and dismemberment

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 11:23:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> I suppose I probably ought to say why I want it repealed then. First off,
> I've been playing Acka for almost five months now (is it really that long?)
> and have never seen this rule used. If someone has managed to loose 60 points
> through proper play (i.e. not doing it on purpose) then even when they were
> put up to 20 points they'd still be too far behind to really stand a chance
> of winning the cycle by points. On the other hand if someone looses the

I will vote to keep the Rule there for one reason and one reason only: I
couldn't care less about my score -- score is an ephemeral quantity that
is reset every several weeks or so -- however, score is translated into A$
at the end of every cycle, and for most players, the end-of-cycle cash is
the major source of income.

That is to say, if the cycle ends and one's score is obscenely negative,
one loses a lot of cash, which isn't an easy loss to recover from, under
most circumstances.  Now, you only consider those cases in which someone
_loses_  (Honestly, I never once saw lose misspelled before I started
using email; now, I see it at least weekly, and by dozens of people.) the
points in the course of normal play or intentionally -- but what if the
point loss is suddenly and unexpectedly thrust upon them by someone else's
scam?  Beldin's Pants is only a few modifications away from causing
million-point losses to the unfortunate victim of the tailor.  A CFCJ can
take any number of points away from you, irreversibly unless the Supreme
Court takes compassion.  There are likely many loopholes of this nature
sitting in the Rules, just waiting to be exploited.  The safety net of
"Keep 'em in the game" provides that no score will ever become too
obscenely negative -- and thereby no hugely negative A$ balance will ever
haunt a player for months to come.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 11:25:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Matt Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > TGW (don't get me started or I'll launch into another anti points and
> > anti-voting tirade :-)).
> > 
> 
> For the record, I am against voting and points, too.

I am simply against voting -- random Rules modification for all!!
GF

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 11:41:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> That is to say, if the cycle ends and one's score is obscenely negative,
> one loses a lot of cash, which isn't an easy loss to recover from, under
> most circumstances.  Now, you only consider those cases in which someone
> _loses_  (Honestly, I never once saw lose misspelled before I started
> using email; now, I see it at least weekly, and by dozens of people.) the
> points in the course of normal play or intentionally -- but what if the
> point loss is suddenly and unexpectedly thrust upon them by someone else's
> scam?  Beldin's Pants is only a few modifications away from causing
> million-point losses to the unfortunate victim of the tailor.  A CFCJ can
> take any number of points away from you, irreversibly unless the Supreme
> Court takes compassion.  There are likely many loopholes of this nature
> sitting in the Rules, just waiting to be exploited.  The safety net of
> "Keep 'em in the game" provides that no score will ever become too
> obscenely negative -- and thereby no hugely negative A$ balance will ever
> haunt a player for months to come.

Why not fine someone 2 million points - and get Keep 'em in the game
bypassed?  As it stands it is an incomplete defence against obscenely
negative points.  It should not survive in its current form.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 12:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexandre Owen Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> > That is to say, if the cycle ends and one's score is obscenely negative,
> > one loses a lot of cash, which isn't an easy loss to recover from, under
> > most circumstances.  Now, you only consider those cases in which someone
> > _loses_  (Honestly, I never once saw lose misspelled before I started
> > using email; now, I see it at least weekly, and by dozens of people.) the
> > points in the course of normal play or intentionally -- but what if the
> > point loss is suddenly and unexpectedly thrust upon them by someone else's
> > scam?  Beldin's Pants is only a few modifications away from causing
> > million-point losses to the unfortunate victim of the tailor.  A CFCJ can
> > take any number of points away from you, irreversibly unless the Supreme
> > Court takes compassion.  There are likely many loopholes of this nature
> > sitting in the Rules, just waiting to be exploited.  The safety net of
> > "Keep 'em in the game" provides that no score will ever become too
> > obscenely negative -- and thereby no hugely negative A$ balance will ever
> > haunt a player for months to come.
> 
> Why not fine someone 2 million points - and get Keep 'em in the game
> bypassed?  As it stands it is an incomplete defence against obscenely
> negative points.  It should not survive in its current form.

If somehow a player's point total acheived negative millions, this would
be a very rare and amusing thing, and enjoyable to behold, and would not
break anything in the game. A one time fix to that player's score by
proposal (and relief of debt, if necessary,) would be an apropriate
response. I say keep it. Maybe I should actually vote on this one.

As for a fine of that magnitude, I think no reputable cortex would stand
for it, unless the crime truly warranted it.

**two-star

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 13:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

> I will vote to keep the Rule there for one reason and one reason only: I
> couldn't care less about my score -- score is an ephemeral quantity that
> is reset every several weeks or so -- however, score is translated into A$
> at the end of every cycle, and for most players, the end-of-cycle cash is
> the major source of income.

I too don't care a jot for my score. As it is scores are converted to A$
every fortnight. I don't see that that should be a reason to keep this rule
though.

> That is to say, if the cycle ends and one's score is obscenely negative,
> one loses a lot of cash, which isn't an easy loss to recover from, under
> most circumstances.  Now, you only consider those cases in which someone
> _loses_  (Honestly, I never once saw lose misspelled before I started
> using email; now, I see it at least weekly, and by dozens of people.) the

Haven't you heard about my revolutionary new system whereby points are kept
in pens and you're obliged to let them out every so often? Seriously though,
I'm a lously speller, especially when it comes to double letters. The problem
with this one is that "loose" is a word too so my spell checker doesn't pick
up on it. :-(

> points in the course of normal play or intentionally -- but what if the
> point loss is suddenly and unexpectedly thrust upon them by someone else's
> scam?  Beldin's Pants is only a few modifications away from causing
> million-point losses to the unfortunate victim of the tailor.  A CFCJ can
> take any number of points away from you, irreversibly unless the Supreme
> Court takes compassion.  There are likely many loopholes of this nature
> sitting in the Rules, just waiting to be exploited.  The safety net of
> "Keep 'em in the game" provides that no score will ever become too
> obscenely negative -- and thereby no hugely negative A$ balance will ever
> haunt a player for months to come.

Firstly, why would anyone try to pull off a scam to make someone else's life
a misery? Every single scam I've ever tried has been designed to give myself
a win or something similar. I don't think anyone in Acka has a grudge big
enough to try to disable someone else. If anyone were to want to do it, it
would be just as easy to try to rob someone of a million A$ as it would to
rob them of a million points. That too could be done through CFCJ or a few
amendments of Beldins pants. And as Slakko pointed out, why not just specify
a loss of over 2,000,000 points? Keeping this rule around in no way solves
this problem. If something like this were to come up, then I'd like to think
that the rest of Acka would do their best to counter it. For example, if
someone amended Beldin's Pants to read "Guy Fawkes loses A$2000000 at noon on
Thursday" and I were to be the next Beldin's tailor then I would change loses
to gains. If something like that didn't work then a proposal to reverse the
effects of the scam would probably pass. Basically, what I'm trying to say is
that Keep 'em in the Game isn't a fully functional safety net, but there are
other safety nets that do exist, and would do a better job in such an
instance.

TGW.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 13:44:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

>Firstly, why would anyone try to pull off a scam to make someone else's life
>a misery? Every single scam I've ever tried has been designed to give myself
>a win or something similar. I don't think anyone in Acka has a grudge big
>enough to try to disable someone else.

This does not overrule the possibility of pulling off a scam to make your own
life a misery, something which I believe has been tried at least once in the
history of Acka.

I agree with two-star: if somebody had a score less than -1,000,000, it would
probably enhance my enjoyment of the game (even if it were me) unless it had
been done maliciously.  The frequency of such events appears to be
sufficiently low (none having happened in over two years to the best of my
knowledge) that it would not be too great an inconvenience to submit a proposal
to fix the situation.  If and when people start regularly having scores below
- -1,000,000, I will vote to amend this rule.

"You don't understand! *First* I shot the arrows, and *then* I painted the
targets!"

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 15:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Portrait

> Why exactly am I pictured as Karma in the portrait gallery?
> 
> Grrrrr

Sorry, sorry, sorry. No need to get up-tight. The reason is that I'm a
hopeless incompetent. I promise, next time I update (which should be either
today or tomorrow, I've got some new pictures to put in) I'll make sure I put
that right.

Yours Apologetically,
TGW, assistant web harfer.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 16:53:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

>>>I'm 16.  Sorry 'bout that :-).
>>        Me too.
>>
>
>Just out of curiosity, when's your birthday?
	July 24

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 16:53:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

>> happened was that as I approached the hummock I saw it out of the corner of
>> my eye and with super-human strength (not being human after all) I aim a
>>kick
>> at it, causing dirt to go into your eyes, temporarily blinding you and
>
>Where's the Ref?  I can't believe e, a Klingon, would stand for this kind
>of dishonorable foul play!  On the part of eir own race, nonetheless!
	Agreed.  That's one point for Hubert.

>> causing you to be unable to catch your own razor boomerang that was flying
>> back towards you and ended up lopping off your head.
>
>OK, before I was just amused at your pitiful attempts, now you've got me
>REALLY mad. With my remaining, non-blinded head, I snarl in furious rage
>and, uh, fury, and throw my other two Boomerangs (check the P/E page -- I
>have three) in quick succession into extremely uncomfortable portions of
>your anatomy.  (Yes, like the back of a Volkswagen.)
>
>Remember to count a guy's heads before you decapitate em next time.
	Regardless, you lose A head.  That's a point for TGW.  Scores
remain tied:)

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 18:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2875

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Haven't you heard about my revolutionary new system whereby points are kept
> in pens and you're obliged to let them out every so often? Seriously though,
> I'm a lously speller, especially when it comes to double letters. The problem
        ^^^^^^
And I so hope this was an unintentional mispeling; it's so much funnier
that way.  And I too like the concept of loosing points.  It's fun to
watch them run around as if their heads were cut off.

- -monocephalic Hubert, aware of the irony

Some people say they can tell the time by looking at the sun, but I have 
never been able to make out the numbers. 

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 18:05:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Those election results

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Which means that JT is the new Senator, and Alfvaen the new DeeJay. It also
> means I've managed to get the dice server to work. Which was a pleasant
> surprise. :-)

Congratulations, JT and Alfvaen!  

May you prosper as Senator and DeeJay respectively!

Alfvaen, if you want the DeeJay's page I can e-mail it to you; let me
know.

- -Hubert

Some people say they can tell the time by looking at the sun, but I have 
never been able to make out the numbers. 

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 18:25:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mashing with the Tater.

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
> 
> > Ahhh, forget it. I don't have the energy.  I am exercising my privledge as
> > Beldin's Tailor to amend the rule known as Beldin's Pants.
> > 
> > Replace the word "Garment" with "rule".
> 
> Has it turned into Give Alfvaen a Win Month?

Not like much else is happening this month.

Actually, someone should be winning pretty soon in any case, given the
success of Harf the Mail!, so why not try a different way?

For that matter, there's no reason people can't change "Praetor" in the
second sentence.  Oops, shouldn't have said that.  <evil grin smiley>

- -Hubert

Dyslexic Cultist Sells Soul To Santa 

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 18:29:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mashing with the Tater.

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Hubert wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > Ahhh, forget it. I don't have the energy.  I am exercising my privledge as
> > > Beldin's Tailor to amend the rule known as Beldin's Pants.
> > > 
> > > Replace the word "Garment" with "rule".
> > 
> > Has it turned into Give Alfvaen a Win Month?
> 
> Not like much else is happening this month.
> 
> Actually, someone should be winning pretty soon in any case, given the
> success of Harf the Mail!, so why not try a different way?
> 
> For that matter, there's no reason people can't change "Praetor" in the
> second sentence.  Oops, shouldn't have said that.  <evil grin smiley>

I intend to change it to Valaraukar if I get the chance :-)

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 19:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Org Reform Take II

This post is a continuation of my post to the main list which attempted to
create a new Church solely for the purpose of getting the Razor Boomerangs
a working Secret Lab.  This part went to acka-research because I would
like to know how many players would be in favor of a Proposal intended to
return to Orgs at least some of the flexibility they once had.

I don't think I'm really entitled to complain about the current situation
because I abstained, if accidentally, from voting on Prop 2789, but I
definitely think some things need fixing.  

For example, Orgs being able to own and trade all types of ownable,
tradeable entities. If I'd been able to transfer my Big Blue Thing to the
'Rangs before the rafting trip, it'd still be alive. (*sob*) I realize
some of you may see this as a reason why Orgs _shouldn't_ be allowed to
own gadgets, and that kind of difference of opinion is what makes Acka
more interesting and you dead wrong.  Seriously, though, I don't see any
particular reason why Churches, out of the three types of
player-sanctioned orgs, should be allowed to own Gadgets and other Orgs
not.

Another thing that I feel needs repealing is VSOs.  I was rather
discouraged (and I'm pretty sure the members of RexBank, Shell #whatever,
and other personal Orgs are too) to discover that the 'Rangs could do
basically nothing once Bill left and we only had 2 members.

I may formalize this into an actual-proposal RFC in a couple of days, but
I'd like to know now who would be in favor of the general idea and who
opposed.  I think I can already guess Niccolo's opinion :-), but I would
like to ask em what e had in mind with this limitation of what Orgs can
do.

- -Hubert

Dyslexic Cultist Sells Soul To Santa 

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 19:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Org Reform Take II

>Another thing that I feel needs repealing is VSOs.  I was rather
>discouraged (and I'm pretty sure the members of RexBank, Shell
>#whatever, and other personal Orgs are too) to discover that the 'Rangs
>could do basically nothing once Bill left and we only had 2 members.
>
>-H

I'd certainly like to be able to at least reclaim my stuff from RexBank, and
to be able to actually use the secret lab that The Moral Kiosk owns.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:32:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Org Reform Take II

> This post is a continuation of my post to the main list which attempted to
> create a new Church solely for the purpose of getting the Razor Boomerangs
> a working Secret Lab.  This part went to acka-research because I would
> like to know how many players would be in favor of a Proposal intended to
> return to Orgs at least some of the flexibility they once had.

I would be in favour.

> For example, Orgs being able to own and trade all types of ownable,
> tradeable entities. If I'd been able to transfer my Big Blue Thing to the
> 'Rangs before the rafting trip, it'd still be alive. (*sob*) I realize
> some of you may see this as a reason why Orgs _shouldn't_ be allowed to
> own gadgets, and that kind of difference of opinion is what makes Acka
> more interesting and you dead wrong.  Seriously, though, I don't see any
> particular reason why Churches, out of the three types of
> player-sanctioned orgs, should be allowed to own Gadgets and other Orgs
> not.

I think all organisations should be allowed to own, trade, and even
(perhaps) *use* gadgets etc., subject to a limit on how often (say three
weeks between transactions with a single gadget) to prevent abuses such as
very temporary transfers of ownership.

> Another thing that I feel needs repealing is VSOs.  I was rather
> discouraged (and I'm pretty sure the members of RexBank, Shell #whatever,
> and other personal Orgs are too) to discover that the 'Rangs could do
> basically nothing once Bill left and we only had 2 members.

I like this aspect of it - I think otherwise you can have literally
'shell' organisations acting on behalf of individual players. I see no
reason for changes here. The rules are intentionally strict on VSOs
because organisations are supposed to represent groups of at least three
people. Recruit someone else! Or else fizzle out and disband, as
unsupported orgs should do.

> I may formalize this into an actual-proposal RFC in a couple of days, but
> I'd like to know now who would be in favor of the general idea and who
> opposed.  I think I can already guess Niccolo's opinion :-), but I would
> like to ask em what e had in mind with this limitation of what Orgs can
> do.

Good. I look forward to voting for your proposal, but I'm afraid I will
probably hold a pretty strict line on VSOs.

Thanks for reading this far.

Koxvolio

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ian K." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Org Reform Take II

> >Another thing that I feel needs repealing is VSOs.  I was rather
> >discouraged (and I'm pretty sure the members of RexBank, Shell
> >#whatever, and other personal Orgs are too) to discover that the 'Rangs
> >could do basically nothing once Bill left and we only had 2 members.
> 
> I'd certainly like to be able to at least reclaim my stuff from RexBank, and
> to be able to actually use the secret lab that The Moral Kiosk owns.
> 
> Rex Mundi.
> 
It's not your stuff. It belongs to RexBank, no matter who gave it to them.
This is what I have in mind when I say that VSOs should be restricted.
Organisations should exist to represent groups, not be be a front to
exempt people from certain rules and/or consequences (rafting, whatever).

If you want to reclaim your stuff, recruit someone else, and get the
majority of the organisation to vote to give it to you!

Koxvolio

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:40:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

>>>>I'm 16.  Sorry 'bout that :-).
>>>        Me too.
>>>
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, when's your birthday?
>        July 24

Mine's October 23.  I suppose this means that I can repeat TGW's question:
Am *I* the youngest one here?

"You don't understand! *First* I shot the arrows, and *then* I painted the
targets!"

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:45:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Micah Smukler wrote:

> >>Just out of curiosity, when's your birthday?
> >        July 24
> 
> Mine's October 23.  I suppose this means that I can repeat TGW's question:
> Am *I* the youngest one here?

Actually, I'm only 12.  (Proposals.)

- -Hubert

Two thirds of Americans can't do fractions. The other half just doesn't 
care. 

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

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 23:13:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joel Ricker" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Weirdness

> Also, something else that I mentioned to breadbox and then
> again on IRC, to Slakko I think; why is it that pretty much all of Acka are
> either mathematicians, physicists, or do something connected to computers.
> Any thoughts?

Although I'm somewhat of an amatuer web site designer, in Real Life 
(*ugh*) I'm a perishable manager in a grocery store... 

My attraction to nomic is strickly my love for games, gaming, and 
rules.

- -- Joe Java

- -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Joel Ricker [] [email-masked] [] ICQ# 6244364
                The Imperial Emporer of ImpNom #28
         http://www.Geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/1047/
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
              That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #67
**********************************