Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #171
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Sunday, August 2 1998      Volume 03 : Number 171

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 00:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Anti-voting and society

As I looked over Proposal 3330, I wondered for the umpteenth time why, for
the entire time I have been in Ackanomic, there have been players who want
to ditch anti-voting?

I would imagine that most of their reasons revolve around not wanting to
see their proposals fail, just cuz somebody would rather gain a point or
two than help to ensure its passage.  Oftentimes, people will blame the
failure of their proposals on anti-voting, and even resubmit them.
Occasionally, they even pass the second time around.

I think that anti-voting serves an important purpose, however, one which
we have overlooked.  I'm not talking about it being a source of steady
point/cash income, although it certainly can be that.  No, I think what a
lot of us have failed to realize all this time is just how useful
anti-voting is as a justification, an excuse.

Without anti-voting, theres only one reason for anyone to ever vote
against anything.  At thats because they want it to fail.  Do you really
want to look at the list of every proposal results, and know without a
doubt that the people listed in the NO column have looked at all of your
hard work and found it lacking?  To make an analogy, lets say you just
asked an attractive woman or, being open-minded about these things,
unattractive woman, out on a date.  Of course you want her to accept, but
if she is going to turn you down, do you really want the only answer
possible to be: "Get out of my face you loser"?  Wouldn't a "Oh I'm sorry,
but I have to visit my sick grandmother that week" option be a lot nicer?
Sure, you'll still want to kill yourself, but at least you won't want to
kill her too.

Now I realize that this isn't much of an analogy, most of us online game
types would never ask a girl out on a date.  But it does highlight the
important social function that anti-voting serves in Ackanomic.  Its what
keeps every voter from having to decide if he wants to run the risk of an
offense by voting no.  Its what keeps him from wondering, every time he
votes against something, if the author is going to demand an explanation
later (Although this does sometimes occur).

An anti-voting system would be indefensible in a situation with serious,
real world consequences.  In those cases, the voters, the decision-makers,
should be able to defend their decisions.  But Ackanomic isn't like this.
Its a game, at times a rather, shall we say, whimsical, game.  Like most
games, the goal is to have fun.  Anti-voting, I believe, helps to further
that goal, because it helps to cover up the things we don't want to see.
Sure, we all know when one of our proposals fails that some of the no
voters really didn't like it?  But which ones?  Who knows?  And a few days
later, who cares?  I think this sort of attitude would quickly disappear,
if a lack of anti-voting incentive laid bare everyone's likes, dislikes,
fancies, whims, grudges, etc.  Some of you might say that you wouldn't
care if you did know these things.  Some of you are no doubt correct.  But
if no one cared at all why their proposals failed, why would they want
to get rid of anti-voting?

                                   Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 01:07:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-voting and society

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
>later, who cares?  I think this sort of attitude would quickly disappear,
>if a lack of anti-voting incentive laid bare everyone's likes, dislikes,
>fancies, whims, grudges, etc.  Some of you might say that you wouldn't
>care if you did know these things.  Some of you are no doubt correct.  But
>if no one cared at all why their proposals failed, why would they want
>to get rid of anti-voting?

I'm only going to answer the last bit of this.  I dislike anti-voting, and
in fact have made two previous attempts to repeal it or modify it, so this
shouldn't really come as a shock to anyone.

I (and I speak only for myself of course) would much rather see someone
vote against my proposal because they didn't like it.  People don't like
things for many reasons.  Maybe I mistyped something and they feel the
error is egregious enough to warrent poleaxing the entire proposal.  Maybe
they don't feel it furthers the game (either mechanics wise or fun wise).
Maybe they just don't like me.  That's fine.  That's honest.   I can
respect that.  What I don't like to see, and don't respect are people who
vote against something merely to scam a point or 5.   I want to get rid of
anti-voting because I feel it detracts from the fun-quotient of the game.
Not seriously enough that I won't play if it remains, but seriously enough
that I will support this attempt at repealing it, and will vote against
any measure reinstating it, or should this attempt fail, either support or
author future attempts to remove it.

To address vynd's concern of knowledge.  To me, that's a good thing.. As I
said above, when someone votes against my thing, I like knowing they voted
against it because they think the way they voted expresses their opinion
of how the game should go.  That is what anti-voting sabatoges.  It offers
people the chance to vote not based on their interest in the game, but
rather on their interest in their score.

Now don't get me wrong.  I'm as big a fan of score as the next person.  I
just don't feel that score should be the reason to vote for or against a
proposal.   If a person doesn't care about a proposal they should abstain,
not try to guess the majority and then vote against it.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 08:09:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-voting and society

>I (and I speak only for myself of course) would much rather see someone
>vote against my proposal because they didn't like it.  People don't like
>things for many reasons.  Maybe I mistyped something and they feel the
>error is egregious enough to warrent poleaxing the entire proposal.  Maybe
>they don't feel it furthers the game (either mechanics wise or fun wise).
>Maybe they just don't like me.  That's fine.  That's honest.   I can
>respect that.  What I don't like to see, and don't respect are people who
>vote against something merely to scam a point or 5.   I want to get rid of
>anti-voting because I feel it detracts from the fun-quotient of the game.
>Not seriously enough that I won't play if it remains, but seriously enough
>that I will support this attempt at repealing it, and will vote against
>any measure reinstating it, or should this attempt fail, either support or
>author future attempts to remove it.
>
>To address vynd's concern of knowledge.  To me, that's a good thing.. As I
>said above, when someone votes against my thing, I like knowing they voted
>against it because they think the way they voted expresses their opinion
>of how the game should go.  That is what anti-voting sabatoges.  It offers
>people the chance to vote not based on their interest in the game, but
>rather on their interest in their score.
>
>Now don't get me wrong.  I'm as big a fan of score as the next person.  I
>just don't feel that score should be the reason to vote for or against a
>proposal.   If a person doesn't care about a proposal they should abstain,
>not try to guess the majority and then vote against it.

Esentially, I agree with JT, so I'm not going to add much. What I will say though is that whilst 
Vynd may be correct in thinking that it could be annoying not to have anti-voting as a "shield" 
(and I must say that I disagree here, I would prefer to know why people voted against my 
proposals (and sometimes ask)) I still hold that having a random proposal fail once every so 
often for no reason is more annoying. I also fail to see why voting in the different way as 
everyone else should be a method of winning. It seems....almost trivial, I suppose. The final 
difference between my views and those of JT are that I don't like score at all, but that's a 
different matter :-).

Brie Clump. I think.

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 08:30:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Question about #3349

Okay...I am a worthless lowlife....yadda yadda yadda.  My proposal on
the Greater and Lesser Poobahs was rife with typos -- I have fixed those
and in haste resubmitted it -- and now someone else points out an
unintended consequence in the area of salary.

This really was unintended, but I don't know how big a problem it is.
It obviously would affect any given person for only one week, which
means (as I understand things) it would not affect some people at all.
Also, it is easy to fix -- in fact, I could write a proposal right now
to amend the Poobah rule.  I could even include a line of self-deleting
text denying myself any points if the amendment passes.  With any luck,
the original proposal and the amendment would all be in the same
batch.Somehow, this makes me feel like less of an idiot than retracting
the damned thing AGAIN, editing it, and re-submitting it.

What d'y'all think?  (I am really learning what I assume is the desired
lesson -- that one must pay very close attention to the apparently petty
little details -- as they say, "the devil is in the details"....)

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 08:57:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3350

>> Proposal 3350
>> Slay that weasel!
>> Publius (Brandon Ray)
> 
>> In Rule 309, strike the phrase “substantially similar” and
>> replace it with the phrase “identical”, wherever it occurs.
> 
> In this Proposal, as well as 3349, those things up there that look
> to some people like quotes look to others of us not like quotes.

Indeed. At the risk of repeating myself, for me either they don't
show up at all, or else they appear as \223 and \224.

> I think their status as delimiters is not in question, as long as we
> don't let them get into any Rules...:-)

Also remember, folks, that non-ASCII characters are not legal name
characters.

As regards the proposal itself: This is, IMHO, another case of False
Weasels. The determination of what is "substantially similar" is the
responsibility of the judge, not the rules.

There is no reason why the rules cannot speak directly to the spirit
of the law instead of the letter, on occasion -- and in fact there are
a huge number of such examples in our ruleset. Most every rule that
describes a hearing includes such False-Weasel language that describes
the purpose of the hearing, for example. Such language provides
guidance without binding us, and there is nothing wrong with that.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 15:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3355

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
>Proposal 3355
>An End To Tyranny
>Slakko (Duncan Richer)

[Some clippage occured]

>A punishment is exactly one of the following:
>(1) A public apology of between 1 and 10 lines, to be performed by the
>transgressor within 3 days of the issuance of the WN.
>(2) An amount of money no more than A$25, to be transferred from the
>transgressor to the Treasury.
>(3) A deduction of at most 10 points from the score of the transgressor.

Hrmm.. a deduction of -100000 points would seem to be legal according to
this :).  I think that would be a bit umm.... scammy?

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 16:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3355

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> >Proposal 3355
> >An End To Tyranny
> >Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> [Some clippage occured]
> 
> >A punishment is exactly one of the following:
> >(1) A public apology of between 1 and 10 lines, to be performed by the
> >transgressor within 3 days of the issuance of the WN.
> >(2) An amount of money no more than A$25, to be transferred from the
> >transgressor to the Treasury.
> >(3) A deduction of at most 10 points from the score of the transgressor.
> 
> Hrmm.. a deduction of -100000 points would seem to be legal according to
> this :).  I think that would be a bit umm.... scammy?

Damn.

- -- 
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 16:56:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3330

'Cause you willl-fully decalared "The Land Reform Proposal" that we/I
had all
been waiting for (for several months) to be non-modest.

Take that. POW. ZIP. PIP KAPOW. Etc
K 2

John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> As has lately been my custom, I didn't bother reading this proposal until
> I actually went to vote on it.  Now that I have, it begs the question: Why
> give me 6 points?
>
>                                  Vynd
>
> [email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 16:56:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-voting and society

P3330 doesn't ditch anti-voting, P3333 does.

The motivation behind P3330 is to reduce the points at stake in a
grandiose
proposal so maybe people will actually use that designation...

K 2

John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> As I looked over Proposal 3330, I wondered for the umpteenth time why, for
> the entire time I have been in Ackanomic, there have been players who want
> to ditch anti-voting?

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 17:05:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3355

JT wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> >Proposal 3355
> >An End To Tyranny
> >Slakko (Duncan Richer)
>
> [Some clippage occured]
>
> >(3) A deduction of at most 10 points from the score of the transgressor.
>
> Hrmm.. a deduction of -100000 points would seem to be legal according to
> this :).  I think that would be a bit umm.... scammy?

Only if no one appealed it during it 4 day cooling off period...

K 2

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 17:07:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3355

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:

> JT wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> > >Proposal 3355
> > >An End To Tyranny
> > >Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> >
> > [Some clippage occured]
> >
> > >(3) A deduction of at most 10 points from the score of the transgressor.
> >
> > Hrmm.. a deduction of -100000 points would seem to be legal according to
> > this :).  I think that would be a bit umm.... scammy?
> 
> Only if no one appealed it during it 4 day cooling off period...

What cooling-off period?

- -- 
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 - Web-Harfer,RuneMaker,ChessUmpire,Map-Harfer - www.ackanomic.org

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 17:32:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka : akcA :eR

JT wrote:

> Based on /dev/joes reasoning (which he helpfully appended to the CFJ)
and

/dev/joe's reasoning seems to support the notion that 'a former name'
(aui R348) should be interpreted as "any name the player has been known
by with regards to his participation in Ackanomic", Thus precluding
"Eric Plumb" as a legal Ackanomic Name for any player other than The
RL/Natural Person called Eric Plumb and (I think) the entity currently
called Small Mew Toy.

> the fact that the rules really don't let me object for 'any' reason
but
> only 2 specific ones,

On 26 Jul 1998 14:52:45 and 26 Jul 1998 15:19:45 JT was heard to reject
both MTM's and Jenny's attempted name changes on the grounds of lexical
equivalency. Every time I read R251 I become more and more certain that
the registrar has the power to do this.

Thus it is my opinion that the voluntary name changes to Eric Plumb and
Tom Walmsley failed and neither entity was charged for eir attempt.

Rex Mundi's RBBT worked tho, as did Alfvaen's...

> I'm reluctantly giving up the argument and changing
> the name since I believe it has now actually occured.

Does this mean you acking the change you previously rejected, or stating
that you believe the Vynd clause expired without a valid rejection?

K 2

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 18:44:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka : akcA :eR

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:
>> Based on /dev/joes reasoning (which he helpfully appended to the CFJ)
>
>/dev/joe's reasoning seems to support the notion that 'a former name'
>(aui R348) should be interpreted as "any name the player has been known
>by with regards to his participation in Ackanomic", Thus precluding
>"Eric Plumb" as a legal Ackanomic Name for any player other than The
>RL/Natural Person called Eric Plumb and (I think) the entity currently
>called Small Mew Toy.

The way /dev/joe phrased it and the way the judge interpreted /dev/joes
opinion seem to allow the possibility that /dev/joe meant something other
than how you interpreted above, therefore, I think the question is still
slightly open to debate although I wish it wasn't.  Legislation that is in
the queue should fix this problem however, so I'm not too worried about
it.

>> the fact that the rules really don't let me object for 'any' reason
>> but only 2 specific ones,
>
>On 26 Jul 1998 14:52:45 and 26 Jul 1998 15:19:45 JT was heard to reject
>both MTM's and Jenny's attempted name changes on the grounds of lexical
>equivalency. Every time I read R251 I become more and more certain that
>the registrar has the power to do this.

I believed (and still do) that I was within my rights to object.  However,
as the entity formerly known as Mr. Tambourine Man pointed out, the word
'ONLY' in the current rules is problematic.  Again, the legislation in the
queue fixes this problem.

>Thus it is my opinion that the voluntary name changes to Eric Plumb and
>Tom Walmsley failed and neither entity was charged for eir attempt.

That is my opinion as well, but it doesn't seem to have convinced either
of the two people who are doing the name change.  I had hoped that my
CFJ on 'former name' would solve the issue, but it didn't seem to.  If
anyone wishes to issue a more authoritative CFJ, please be my guest.  I'm
at this point willing to let them be charged the extra cash, and then have
them forced to spend the money to change their name once more once the
legislation in the queue passes (assuming it does :)

>> I'm reluctantly giving up the argument and changing
>> the name since I believe it has now actually occured.
>
>Does this mean you acking the change you previously rejected, or stating
>that you believe the Vynd clause expired without a valid rejection?

No.. It means that I'm giving up the argument, allowing the game state to
be harfed as if the change occured (after the 3 day timeout) and the
letting the legislation in the queue fix matters.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:40:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Acktions

>>I've already promised JT that I'll get revenge on him if he becomes
>>Speaker. Now it's looking like I'll need revenge whoever it is. :-)
>
>Promises promises :)

As it happens, there's something just lying in breadbox's mail folder as I
speak, waiting for him to spelling exchequer it and then it will be going
to the promoter so expect it fairly soon. I don't make idle threats y'see
(idle anything else, yes. Just not threats :-)).

Brie Clump.

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 23:08:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Anti-voting and society

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, K2 wrote:

> P3330 doesn't ditch anti-voting, P3333 does.
> 
> The motivation behind P3330 is to reduce the points at stake in a
> grandiose
> proposal so maybe people will actually use that designation...
> 
> K 2

Oh yes, pardon me.  

Vynd

> 
> John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > As I looked over Proposal 3330, I wondered for the umpteenth time why, for
> > the entire time I have been in Ackanomic, there have been players who want
> > to ditch anti-voting?
> 

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 23:41:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3355

> > JT wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> > > >Proposal 3355
> > > >An End To Tyranny
> > > >Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > >
> > > [Some clippage occured]
> > >
> > > >(3) A deduction of at most 10 points from the score of the transgressor.
> > >
> > > Hrmm.. a deduction of -100000 points would seem to be legal according to
> > > this :).  I think that would be a bit umm.... scammy?

Uh...I haven't taken math in a long time...but it seems to me that if you deduct
a negative amount, that results in an INCREASE in the positive balance.  900 -
(-100000) = 100900

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 23:50:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3355

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
>> > > >(3) A deduction of at most 10 points from the score of the transgressor.
>> > >
>> > > Hrmm.. a deduction of -100000 points would seem to be legal according to
>> > > this :).  I think that would be a bit umm.... scammy?
>
>Uh...I haven't taken math in a long time...but it seems to me that if you deduct
>a negative amount, that results in an INCREASE in the positive balance.  900 -
>(-100000) = 100900

This is why I said it was a bad idea :)
Basically, this would have let a justice cause someone to win by points or
do quite a bit of other points related junk by deducting a negative
amount.
If it had said 'a deduction of at most 10 and at least 0 points' then I
would have not had a problem (or some other language which prevented
negative points from being deducted :)

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 23:55:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  CFD:  Poobahs

Okay, here is what I hope will be the final version.  I'll submit this
formally, barring further fixable complaints.

And thanks for the input, even if I did do this ass-backwards...  :)

{{After the following DISTRIBUTE-delimited text in Rule 408:

DISTRIBUTE
(d) to be the Substitute for the Office of Count Tabula.
DISTRIBUTE

Add the following NEWDUTY-delimited text:

NEWDUTY
(e)  Proclaim the identities of the Greater Poobah and the Lesser
Poobah.
NEWDUTY}}

{{Create a new rule with the number being the lowest integer greater
than 400 which is not already in use, to read as follows:}}

A.  There shall be two new Functional optional offices, the Greater
Poobah and the Lesser Poobah.

B.  The Greater Poobah shall be that player who had the greatest number
of proposals accepted during the most recent calendar week, as
determined by the Tabulator.  The Lesser Poobah shall be that player who

had the fewest number of proposals rejected during the most recent
calendar week, as determined by the Tabulator.  For purposes of this
rule only, the Tabulator shall count only those proposals for which
voting expired during the most recent calendar week.

C.  The identity of the Greater Poobah and the Lesser Poobah shall be
proclaimed by the Tabulator no more than three days after the end of
each calendar week.  Each Poobah shall take office immediately, and
shall hold office for exactly seven days from the moment e is proclaimed

by the Tabulator, or until a new Poobah is proclaimed, whichever happens

sooner.  The Tabulator may proclaim only one Greater Poobah and one
Lesser Poobah during each calendar week.

D.  A player may not be proclaimed to be either the Greater Poobah or
the Lesser Poobah if any of the following are true:

1.  The player was Inactive at 11:59 p.m. on the last day of the most
recent calendar week.

2.  The player was in Gaol at 11:59 p.m. on the last day of the most
recent calendar week.

3.  The player had no proposals acted upon during the most recent
calendar week.

E.  In the event that two or more players shall be equally qualified to
be proclaimed Greater or Lesser Poobah, the Tabulator shall resolve the
tie using the Ackanomic dice, with each player’s chance of selection
(among those qualified) being equally weighted.

F.  In the event that no player shall be qualified to be proclaimed
Greater or Lesser Poobah, the Tabulator shall proclaim that the office
for which no player qualified will remain vacant for that calendar
week.  The other office, however, shall be filled in the normal manner.

G.  In the event that one player qualifies for both offices, the player
shall be proclaimed to be the Greater Poobah, and the office of Lesser
Poobah shall be proclaimed to be vacant for that calendar week.

H.  The Greater Poobah shall have the following duties:

1.  Sign all is posts with the phrase: “So spake the Greater Poobah, may

his name be revered!”

2.  To proclaim imself to be co-sponsor of at least one but not more
than three proposals written by other players, and for which voting
expires during the seven days following the moment e was proclaimed to
be Greater Poobah.

a.  If any proposal for which the Greater Poobah is co-sponsor shall be
accepted, e shall receive two points fewer than the number of points
received by the proposer (but not less than zero points).

b.  If any proposal for which the Greater Poobah is co-sponsor shall be
rejected, e shall lose a number of points equal to the number lost by
the proposer.

I.  The Lesser Poobah shall have the following duties:

1.  To sign all posts with the phrase, “So spake the Lesser Poobah,
legend in song and story!”

2.  To proclaim imself to be in Opposition to at least one but not more
than three proposals written by other players, and for which voting
expires during the seven days following the moment e was proclaimed to
be Lesser Poobah.

a.  If any proposal to which the Lesser Poobah is in Opposition shall be

rejected, e shall receive two points fewer than the number of points
the proposer would have received if it had been accepted (but not less
than zero points).

b.  If any proposal to which the Lesser Poobah is in Opposition shall be

accepted, e shall lose a number of points equal to the number the
proposer would have lost if it had been rejected.

J.  Neither the Greater Poobah nor the Lesser Poobah shall receive any
salary soley for serving as a Poobah.  This shall not prohibit a player
from receiving salaries, payments, gifts, or any other benefit to which
the Rules may entitle im.

H.  Where conflicts occur, this rule takes precedence over all other
rules pertaining to Offices.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #171
***********************************