Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #177
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Wednesday, August 5 1998     Volume 03 : Number 177

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:07:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC (long, very long)

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Here is draft two. I've probably been a bit to radical this time because
> I'm getting rid of A$ too. Modification of rules come first, then repeals
> (well over 50) and then new rules. You'd probably be best off reading the
> new rules first but it's up to you. I would appreciate any comments (
> except for "It sucks". "It sucks because..." is fine though).

It sucks because we're turning it into Agora.
If I wanted to play Agora, I would play Agora.
Acka has a way of thinking which attracted me.  Over the time I have spent
here I have seen it change, obviously, as the influence of players waxes
and wanes. 

I am worried that the current trend of radically revamping the rules is
going too far with a proposal such as this.  We risk cutting back so much
that we might lose that undefinable quality which keeps Acka so harfy.

I'm happy with points being removed (it's an interesting experiment).
Removing points and A$ in one fell swoop, though, is just too much.
Yes, I agree that we need to remove some aspects if new ones are to be
introduced.  However, with this proposal, and all the other repeals you
have proposed today, I'm running out of places I can see where any of the
existing ideas have survived.  If we take all of these proposals onboard,
we might as well start from scratch with a new game.

Also, on a more petty note, thrall was my idea.  Yes, I swiped it from an
Imperial game, but it was my idea in that game too!

Oh yeah - if you repeal Auctions, how is the RuneMaker going to distribute
Otzma Cards?
[One example of another problem with this proposal:  by eliminating so
many rules, but keeping some of the existing ones, there are going to be
so many holes - I can see that you might need to rewrite every single rule
to bring consistency back.]

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:25:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Intriguing Suggestion

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> Let's skip the first ThrallMaster for a moment. How about, the person who
> wins by this method becomes the ThrallMaster. So he is only ineligible
> until someone else wins by the same method.
> Niccolo Flychuck

I don't see why the restriction is all that necessary.

The Tabulator is allowed to vote.
The Scorekeeper is allowed to get points.
The Chess-Umpire is allowed to be a Swinger.
Why shouldn't the ThrallMaster be allowed to enthrall people?

> > > 5. Above all, it keeps the proposals as a method to win problem which might
> > > not be a good thing.
I think it is a good thing.  We need some kind of non-trivial incentive to
keep people proposing.  It probably ensures that authorship is more spread
than if no such incentive existed.

- -- 
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: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC (long, very long)

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
> 
> > Here is draft two. I've probably been a bit to radical this time because
> > I'm getting rid of A$ too. Modification of rules come first, then repeals
> > (well over 50) and then new rules. You'd probably be best off reading the
> > new rules first but it's up to you. I would appreciate any comments (
> > except for "It sucks". "It sucks because..." is fine though).
> 
> It sucks because we're turning it into Agora.
> If I wanted to play Agora, I would play Agora.

Yup.  It unmakes much of Acka.  That is not a bad thing, per se.  It
however, is not something to do lightly.  There are whole bunch of little
things that are indvidually just jizz, but together are much of Acka;'s
harf supply.  I oppose any effort to reduce it.  Don't try to do much at
once.  Repeal points, and replace them with something else, or not.  Do
the same with Ackadollars.  Please don't do that at the same time, or you
will break all sorts of things.  I see at least half a dozen problems with
the proposal, and that is having read it once, with out cross-checking a
rule set.  For instance, you have seriously changed the cost of many
things.  If a new player gets five chits, then they are worth A$180 a pop,
but you have made the standard harfer fee (why don't you keep the name:
avoid magic numbers, that is what external constants are for?) one chit.
That will  seriously change the acka economy.  You may have thought about
this;  I don't know.  I would like t o seee some evidence of it though.  I
am sure that with some though, i will be able to come with many, many more
holes.  

rufus

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Intriguing Suggestion

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I don't see why the restriction is all that necessary.

I would like tto see thrall on a proposal be secret, so you won't know who
is going to be enthralled if the proposal passes.  That gives the the
thrallmaster, privlaged info. 

rufus

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:37:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Intriguing Suggestion

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > I don't see why the restriction is all that necessary.
> 
> I would like tto see thrall on a proposal be secret, so you won't know who
> is going to be enthralled if the proposal passes.  That gives the the
> thrallmaster, privlaged info. 

The tabulator has privileged info.
Yet they can still vote.
- -- 
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: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 16:14:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC (long, very long)

Well, I'll point out what *I* see wrong.  {I see this proposal going through
a dozen revisions over many months if its author(s) don't give up first.}

> Append the following text to the end of rule 106:
> 
> "Each player gets one vote automatically but may increase the number of
> times they may vote on any one proposal by using a Chit. Each Chit used in
> this way will entitle the player to one extra vote. A player may have a
> maximum of four votes on any one proposal. Upon it becoming publically
> knowable that aplayer has used a Chit in this way then the Chit woll be
> destroyed."

> In rule 313 delete sections IV and V.
> 
> In the same rule replace:
> 
> "A. Casting a legal vote as defined by rule 106. 
> B. Bribing Tammany by rule 315. 
> C. Being part of a political party that gets a unity vote. 
> D. Using a Bonus Vote by rule 317. "
> 
> with
> 
> "A. Casting a legal vote as defined by rule 106. 
> B. Being part of a political party that gets a unity vote."

You should add "C. Using a chit to obtain an extra vote on a proposal."

> >From rule 419.2 delete the following:
> 
> "If said Proposal is adopted by InterNomic, the player who requested it
> receives 7 points upon the Liaison reporting the fact of its adoption to
> Ackanomic. "

No chit for Internomic proposals, when we going to give a chit for having a
proposal pass in Ackanomic?

> Append the following text to the end of rule 854 (Ackanomic Institute of
> Genetic Replication):
> 
> "Except for this sentence no part of this rule has any effect." {{[I havean
> idea how to reintegrate this if Alfvaen's characteristics proposal passes
> so donn't wnat to repeal this. For now it's just put "on hold" as it were]}}

Is there any reason not to simply give each mutation a cost in chits, other
than making pointy ears hideously much more expensive than before?

> In rule 909 replace all occurences of the phrase "6 points" with "A$6" and
> the phrase "3 points" with "A$3"

Huh, I thought we were getting rid of A$.

> "Vile prophecies (5 pages): These are pages describing all manner of
> terrible events that are to befall the reader in the near future. The
> reader of one of these pages suffers a loss of 5 points. 
> 
> Inner workings (5 pages): These pages give glimpses into some of the basic
> workings of the universe of mortal men, at a price. The reader gains A$50,
> but loses 5 points."
> 
> with:
> 
> "Vile prophecies (5 pages): These are pages describing all manner of
> terrible events that are to befall the reader in the near future. The
> reader of one of these pages is such a gibbering wreck that e is unable to
> leave the library for the next week."

How about keeping the inner working page, giving the player a chit, and
making him lose thrall of a random player he has in thrall, if any.

> and replace:
> 
> "Terrorizing pages (3 pages): These pages inspire indescribable terror in
> all who read them, causing a loss of 15 points. 
> 
> Ancient artifact (1 page): A page describing the workings of a powerful
> ancient device. The reader loses A$50, and receives a newly created random
> Qualified Gadget, which, if it's a mechanical Gadget, breaks when the
> reader receives it. This page has no effect on a player without sufficient
> A$. "
> 
> with:
> 
> "Terrorizing pages (3 pages): These pages inspire indescribable terror in
> all who read them. The player may not submit any proposals in the next week."

Why not keep the ancient artifact page, dropping the A$50 or making the player
lose a chit, with no effect if the player has none.

> and replace:
> 
> "Long lost treasure (2 pages): These pages describe the locations of long
> lost treasure troves. The reader gains A$250 and an Otzma Card of Type Map
> Shard, provided no Otzma limits would be exceeded. This card will be
> destroyed within 3 days of receipt if not used. 

> with:
> 
> "Long lost treasure (2 pages): These pages describe the locations of long
> lost treasure troves. The reader gains 5 Chits and an Otzma Card of Type
> Map Shard, provided no Otzma limits would be exceeded. This card will be
> destroyed within 3 days of receipt if not used."

Here you keep the Map Shard bit, but later on you repeal the treasure rules.
(I would rather see treasures stay, though they may be different now and
some of the existing ones may get destroyed.)

> [I need help with rule 075 (Yes Virginia). What do people think should be
> done with this?]

Let's see:

I. change the A$2500 in diamonds to a mystical diamond.  A mystical diamond
is a non-tradeable entity which can be used by its owner to place any one
other player in thrall to him.  A mystical diamond is destroyed upon being
used in this way.

Are we keeping rocks? If not, just delete III.

IV. Simplest is to change the Bonus Vote at the start and the A$1 at the end
to chits, and change the limit on bonus votes to a maximum number of chits
needed before all the other things are attempted, with the player getting a
chit anyway if he fails to get any of the other things.  Delete any of the
other things you get rid of.

V. Another chit?  Maybe something more creative.

> Help with rule 1040 would be nice to. What do I do with capital swingers?]

Uh, replace the A$ by an appropriate formula for a number of chits?

> "a. A Player may, as a public action, convert four of his own Swingpoints
> into one Bonus Vote. 

Did you mean a chit?

> b. A Player may, as a public action, convert ten of eir own Swingpoints
> into a Benefyt. Benefyts are tradeable entities. 
> 
> e. All these actions fail if the Player owns fewer Swingpoints than he is
> attempting to convert or if the player has performed any Swingpoint
> conversion within the past seven days, or if the Player has performed the
> same type of Swingpoint conversion within the past fourteen days."

BTW, what are you going for PartyChessPiece purchases?  Do you even look
at the rule suites? :-)

> In rule 1215 replace:
> 
> "When the Duel is over, the winner of the Duel receives 6 points in
> addition to any rewards or penalties he may have received as part of the
> Contest itself. The loser of the Duel loses 6 points in addition to any
> rewards or penalties he may have received as part of the Contest itself.
> The winner's Second receives 3 points, the loser's Second loses 3 points."
> 
> with:
> 
> "When the contest is over the loser of the duel is placed in Thrall to the
> winner and the loser's second is placed in Thrall to the winner's second."

How about: "W.t.c.i.o., if the winner is in thrall to the loser, that
thrall is broken, otherwise, the loser is placed in thrall to the winner."
(and similar for section 3).

> Repeal rule 516 (Auction)

This could be retained, with bidding in terms of chits or possibly other
currency to be specified by the auctioneer.

> Repeal rule 429 (Treasure Harfer)
> Repeal the blueprints rule suite (i.e. all rules with a base number of 594)
> Repeal rule 595 (Gadgets)
> Repeal rule 821 (Real Estate)
> Repeal rule 826 (Constructions and Architectural Aesthetic)
> Repeal rule 841 (Towers)
> Repeal rule 915 (Prosthetic Foreheads)
> Repeal rule 919 (Brass Monkey).
> Repeal rule 1008 (Organizational Powers)
> Repeal rule 1011 (Excavation Permit)
> Repeal Rule 1013 (Secret Laboratories)
> Repeal rule 1017 (Trusts)
> Repeal Rule 1217 (Buried Treasure!)

If you try harder you can save some or most of these rules.
I.e., the brass monkey just needs to give an extra chit to a limit of
3 per player when a chrome streak ends.  I realize trinkets have to go
under this plan, which will mess up many of the existing treasures, and
some of the gadgets make no sense without points or A$ either, but
some could be kept, and treasures containing the entities we aren't
getting rid of could still be done.

> Create a new rule called "Chits" reading as follows:
> 
> "Chits are tradeable entities. Whenever the rules call for a Chit to be
> transferred to a player, or given to a player then one will be created and
> thenbe transferred to the player." {{All Chits are destroyed. All players
> are given 5 Chits.}}

Gift entities, maybe?

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 16:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> 
> See my comments about Fuedalities :) I'll give the slightly longer than
> brief summary here.
> 
> Each player starts as a Fuedality and is Prince of his fuedality.
> Whenever the member of one Feudality beats a member of another feudality
> in a duel and the loser's honor is brought to 0 or less through the duel,
> he  switches allegience to the fuedality of the victor. (note, there could
> be otherways of switching allegience)
> If ever a player is Prince of a Fuedality with a size larger than 60% of
> the player population of Acka, that player becomes King.  (becoming King
> grants the King a Winning condition and all players become their own
> fuedality again)
> A player with 0 or less honor may not be challenged in a duel (but may
> issue challenges)

I was thinking of using existing structures. But that's not necessary.

> 
> There could also be benefits to having subjects (like perhaps being able
> to force them to vote your way on one proposal each week or something)
> 
> If I were to try and institute this I'd probably try to remove political
> parties (which would have the benefit of opening Party Chess up to more
> people as well)

A long time ago, before there were Capital Swingers, there was a big lobby
to open up Party Chess to more people. So Capital Swigners were added, and
since there so few Parties back then, getting such an office was quite
cheap. For several months no one did so. Eventually I financed indirectly
( I was Vulcan Swinger at the time and couldn't buy it myself) to be
buried as Treasure by my then Party member ThinMan. Eventually it ended up
in my ownership. The only other Capital Swinger Office was bought by Ben
Goodman who quickly left acka to found his own chess based nomic.

Please don't take this as opposition to breaking the PartyChess/Political
Party tie. Since every now and then a player joins acka and reports that e
found it through the chess variants site, I believe there is more interest
n Party Chess now then there back then.
However, if the tie is broken, it should be done carefully.

Having said all that, a few comments of Feudalities.
Duels, Fueds, Churches vying for control, all seem to me to be very
interesting in this context.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 16:53:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
>I was thinking of using existing structures. But that's not necessary.

It could be done using existing structures as well.  I freely admit that I
am one to put things into my own terms instead of munging existing terms
to fit the need.  Perhaps that's a failing, perhaps not :)

>> If I were to try and institute this I'd probably try to remove political
>> parties (which would have the benefit of opening Party Chess up to more
>> people as well)
>
>Please don't take this as opposition to breaking the PartyChess/Political
>Party tie. Since every now and then a player joins acka and reports that e
>found it through the chess variants site, I believe there is more interest
>n Party Chess now then there back then.
>However, if the tie is broken, it should be done carefully.

If I did this, I'd probably make it so that any player who wanted to play
Party Chess could (There certainly seems to be enough people interested in
playing, and doing that wouldn't cause anyone else who cannot play to
start playing, nor would it force anyone new to play)

>Having said all that, a few comments of Feudalities.
>Duels, Fueds, Churches vying for control, all seem to me to be very
>interesting in this context.

So far I've had nothing but positive feedback from this, so I will
probably take some time over the next few days to write up a proposal.
Since it really doesn't impact on or impinge on the points discussion at
all, I will probably do it sooner rather than later.

Nicollo, I'd welcome any thoughts you might have on how you'd like to see
this done and would be more than happy to share any points gained through
this proposal with you if you desire (or anyone else who wishes to help me
make this thing good and fun and harfy :)

- --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: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 17:00:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Point Pool RFC

>How many people are infavor of a system similar to this one?  You don't
>have to comment on thespecifics, but if there is sufficient interest (this
>is a big change), I'd liek to work with else...if to get this into a
>workable form.

I'd be willing to vote for it, or for practically any large change of this
nature. I'd prefer  to see my channges adopted, obviously, but if no-one
else likes them then this sounds good to me.

Mr. Tambourine Man.

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 17:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 3364

While I like the proposal in general, there is one change in it that I
don't like and don't think was changed to the 'correct' office.

To be specific, the following change:

>"VI. Door Prize 
>
>On the first day of each month, the Museum throws a party honoring its
>benefactors. This is a private gathering. There are door prizes, but as
>the Museum is always tight on funds, they are pretty lame. The only
>one of note is a random Otzma Card, which is awarded to a random
>benefactor as determined by the OiCoRT. Each benefactor's probability of
receiving this Card is their BV divided by the total BV. If the total
>BV is zero, however, no award is bestowed." 
>
>{{[Changed to OiCoRT since they then have to deterrmine the otzma card.]}} 

I believe this should either have remained the Financier, or should have
changed to the RuneMaker (who needs to know which cards are out there
anyway).

For that reason I'm voting against it in it's current incarnation.
I'd probably vote for it otherwise.

- --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: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 17:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Yet Another New Order

Here a few ideas, they could work seperately, or in some combinations, or
could even enrich the Thrall RFC in some way.

First the simpler version
At any given time exactly one Church holds a position of being in control
of some functions. This functions would include a combination of function
currently held by the Senate, the President, and the Speaker, although not
necessarily all of the above. This would include the power to appoint
officers. At the end of a cycle the Church whose members collectivly have
the largest score/thrall becomes that controlling Church.

Slight enhancement - during the cycle other players/entities/organizations
could gain control of some of those functions via a thrall system.
Some officers could gain a hold, similar to a thrall over their offices,
and thus if the controlling Church changes, it wouldn't be able to replace
them right away with their own people.  Or perhaps a former ruling Church
manages to keep hold of some function (like the authority to appoint an
Ambassador, over the cycle change), through the exercise of a thrall like
investment.

Another, unrelated idea, but that could be easily combined with any
system, is to open up some roles for free enterprise. Let us take the
Promoter's job. Why have only one Promoter. We could have some officiating
body grant Promoting licenses.  Instead of being paid by the Treasury,
Promoters would be paid by the players submitting proposals. And
similarly, pay for the privilege of owning a Promoting license. Promoters
could set up their own fee systems, compete for the business of Promoting.
(and before someone shouts 'SCAM' I 'll just submit a 100 proposals
through one Promoter and transfer em a lot of points - I suppose you could
just give em without submitting - what SCAM?)
Setting a slightly different system of uniquely identifying proposals
would be necessary, but simple.
In some ways this reminds me of Feudal taxing systems. This may
necessitate combining the Promoter and Tabulator jobs, in practice they
were nearly always combined. In the rules this could presented as a duty
of each Promoter to tabulate the votes for the proposals they have
distributed, and release the results in a timely manner. Failure to do so
may be grounds for the termination of the license.

RFC, I guess

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 17:55:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Yet Another New Order

>Another, unrelated idea, but that could be easily combined with any
>system, is to open up some roles for free enterprise. Let us take the
>Promoter's job. Why have only one Promoter. We could have some officiating
>body grant Promoting licenses.  Instead of being paid by the Treasury,
>Promoters would be paid by the players submitting proposals. And
>similarly, pay for the privilege of owning a Promoting license. Promoters
>could set up their own fee systems, compete for the business of Promoting.
>(and before someone shouts 'SCAM' I 'll just submit a 100 proposals
>through one Promoter and transfer em a lot of points - I suppose you could
>just give em without submitting - what SCAM?)
>Setting a slightly different system of uniquely identifying proposals
>would be necessary, but simple.
>In some ways this reminds me of Feudal taxing systems. This may
>necessitate combining the Promoter and Tabulator jobs, in practice they
>were nearly always combined. In the rules this could presented as a duty
>of each Promoter to tabulate the votes for the proposals they have
>distributed, and release the results in a timely manner. Failure to do so
>may be grounds for the termination of the license.
	I really like this one.  We could do it with other offices too.
Have the CotC only handle CFJ's, and let PWCFJ's, CWCJF's, and CCFJ's all
be handled by contractors.  There could be three different licenses, or
just one Clerk license.  Well we're at it, why not do it with the
Tabulator.  Each Promotor has to have a contract with a Tabulator so that
proposals submitted to them can be counted.  We wouldn't be able to
eliminate A$ with this, but I think this would work better without points.
As far as I can tell this is incompatible with the point pool, although not
with the thrall system.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 17:56:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC (long, very long)

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Here is draft two. I've probably been a bit to radical this time because
> I'm getting rid of A$ too. Modification of rules come first, then repeals
> (well over 50) and then new rules. You'd probably be best off reading the
> new rules first but it's up to you. I would appreciate any comments (
> except for "It sucks". "It sucks because..." is fine though).

In reality you are combining them into a new scoring system, but let us
read on.

> 
> Mr. Tambourine Man.
> 
> - ------------------------------------------
> Append the following text to the end of rule 106:
> 
> "Each player gets one vote automatically but may increase the number of
> times they may vote on any one proposal by using a Chit. Each Chit used in
> this way will entitle the player to one extra vote. A player may have a
> maximum of four votes on any one proposal. Upon it becoming publically
> knowable that aplayer has used a Chit in this way then the Chit woll be
> destroyed."

Just how common can we expect these chits to be?
A historical note - when A$ were first legislated, each player got A$100,
and a tammany bribe of A$5 was considered high. Extra votes went for
A$100. Soon afterwards, it was decided that we either need more A$
or fractions. It was decided to go multiply the number of A$ each player
had by 10, prices of goodies weren't raised until much later.
If you're thinking of chits as such scarce entities, beware that we don't
get too greedy too soon. This four extra chits thing seems too easy. It
also lacks the anti-hubert character of Bonus Votes.

> with
> 
> "A. Casting a legal vote as defined by rule 106. 
> B. Being part of a political party that gets a unity vote."
I rather like Bonus Votes -  a little scarcer than chits, but possibly
redundant. I suppose it's better to start off a chit system without them.

> - ----
> 
> In rule 909 replace all occurences of the phrase "6 points" with "A$6" and
> the phrase "3 points" with "A$3"

Aren't A$ supposed to go away with this RFC?

> - ----
> 
> From rule 1009 delete the following text:
> 
> " A$, Trinkets,"
> 
> In the same rule replace the final sentence with the following:
> 
> "Any society may change into a Political Party as an organizational action."

I object to this. This misses the entire point. There should be
advangtages and disavantages to either both decisions. Early binding has
the advantage of flexibility (parties may transofrm into societies, but
it's disadvantageous, because it would cost to change back)
Creating a society first leaves questins of org type and exclusive
membershp for later, OTOH, it incurs an exra cost should they decide
to become a Party later. it's a decision that means  something, that take
consideration.

> 
> "Any Organization is allowed to have non-player Entities as members,
> provided that said Entities are capable of expressing eir consent in the
> public forum, or that the rules allow for some method by which said
> Entities can become members of Organizations. Any Organization is allowed
> to enable non-player Entities to become members, by expressing its consent
> to the joining of the non-player Entity (or by having an openadmissions
> policy), and by the non-player Entity expressing eir consent to join the
> Organization in the public forum."
Why not keep this as a Power?
> 
> - ----
> 
> Help with rule 1040 would be nice to. What do I do with capital swingers?]
Actually you ignored the entire Party Chess Rule Suite. One should set a
price on Capital Swinger offices. How many chits? I have no idea. perhaps
setup other ways of purchasing them.

> 
> In rule 1044 replace:
> 
> "a. A Player may, as a public action, convert any positive number of his
> own Swingpoints into twice as many points (which are added to his score). 
> 
> b. A Player may, as a public action, convert four of his own Swingpoints
> into one Bonus Vote. 
> 
> c. A Playermay use any set of his own Swingpoints to offset the cost of a
> PartyChessPiece purchase. In order to fully specify this action, the Player
> must state the piece he is purchasing and the number of Swingpoints he is
> using to offset the cost. This action fails if five times the number of
> Swingpoints he attempts to use is greater than the cost of the piece. If
> the action succeeds then the player purchases the piece as if he had
> exercised rule 1230.1, part D, except that the cost of the piece is reduced
> by five A$ for each Swingpoint used. This action constitutes a type of
> Swingpoint conversion for the purposes of this rule. 
> 
> d. A Player may, as a public action, convert ten of eir own Swingpoints
> into a Benefyt. Benefyts are tradeable entities. 
> 
> e. Actions (a) through (d) fail if the Player owns fewer Swingpoints than
> he is attempting to convert. Actions (b) through (d) fail if the player has
> performed any Swingpoint conversion within the past seven days, or if the
> Player has performed the same type of Swingpoint conversion within the past
> fourteen days. "
> 
> with:
> 
> "a. A Player may, as a public action, convert four of his own Swingpoints
> into one Bonus Vote. 

You keep bonus votes here, but repal them elswhere.
> 
> b. A Player may, as a public action, convert ten of eir own Swingpoints
> into a Benefyt. Benefyts are tradeable entities. 
Why repeal c. It is a very natural way of usign SwingPoints, if anything,
there should be more things to be gained for SwingPoints, not less.

While we're on the subject, you didn't touch any of tghe rule suitesParty
Chess specifies prices in A$ on Party Chess Pieces. There should be a way
of acquiring more pieces. Concepts I'd maintain are the ability to usea
combination of APrty Chess rewards and non-PartyChess awards (ormer:
SwingPoint,latter- A$ curretnly) to acquire them, and the relation between
material value and cost.

 > 
> e. All these actions fail if the Player owns fewer Swingpoints than he is
> attempting to convert or if the player has performed any Swingpoint
> conversion within the past seven days, or if the Player has performed the
> same type of Swingpoint conversion within the past fourteen days."
> 
> - ----
> 
> In rule 1112 replace all occurences of the phrase "5 points" with "1 Chit".
> Also, delete from the same rule the following string:
> 
> " (a score change based on proposal content)"
> 
> - ----
> 
> Ammend rule 1160 by replacing: 
> 
> "the Standard Harfers Fee less A$5"
> 
> with:
> 
> "1 Chit".

Woudn't it be simpler to specify that the standar harfer's fee _is_ one
chit?

> to pay the Standard Harfer Fee then one Chit in their possesion will be
> destroyed."
I see you did state this!

> 

I see a lot of repeals here. That's fine.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 18:00:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Yet Another New Order

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Towsner wrote:
>	I really like this one.  We could do it with other offices too.
>Have the CotC only handle CFJ's, and let PWCFJ's, CWCJF's, and CCFJ's all
>be handled by contractors.  There could be three different licenses, or
>just one Clerk license.  Well we're at it, why not do it with the
>Tabulator.  Each Promotor has to have a contract with a Tabulator so that
>proposals submitted to them can be counted.  We wouldn't be able to
>eliminate A$ with this, but I think this would work better without points.
>As far as I can tell this is incompatible with the point pool, although not
>with the thrall system.

I'll admit this sounds intriguing.  I'm worried that it might add more
complexity to the game without adding any more substantial amount of fun
however.  I do know from when I was acting CotC that the majority of CFJs
were CFJs not sub-types, so I'm not sure you need a seperate license for
the sub-types.   If this comes up to vote, I'll certainly give it a lot of
thought before voting on it however.

- --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: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 18:01:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Long proposals

I didn't reply to the very long RFC that was posted earlier today,
because I truly don't want to single anyone out.

Speaking as a Newbie, I am very unlikely to vote for a long, complex
proposal like this one, at least for the foreseeable future.  The reason
being that I am still learning the rules, and I am inevitably biased
against anything that makes that job significantly harder -- and major
whirlwinds uprooting things of which I have (at best) an unsteady
understanding, and replacing them with other things which undoubtedly
have unforeseeable consequences falls squarely under that heading.

I'm not saying there should never be large, sweeping changes; I can
imagine that sometimes such things might be needed.  But you will have a
tough task in showing me the necessity.

And on top of all that, I have a bias towards legislation that is
focussed on one issue at a time -- for example, in the current pending
proposal queue, I like the fact that the proposal for repealing a long
list of items (which I have not yet studied in depth) is broken up into
ten proposals.  That allows me to pick and choose which ones I think
ought to be repealed, and which ones ought to be kept.  If they were all
lumped together in one massive proposal, I would probably vote against
it; as it is, I may vote in favor of some of them.

That's all...and as I say, this isn't meant as an attack on any one
individual or proposal.  Just food for thought, and an explanation of my
personal biases.

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 18:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Yet Another New Order

>I'll admit this sounds intriguing.  I'm worried that it might add more
>complexity to the game without adding any more substantial amount of fun
>however.  I do know from when I was acting CotC that the majority of CFJs
>were CFJs not sub-types, so I'm not sure you need a seperate license for
>the sub-types.   If this comes up to vote, I'll certainly give it a lot of
>thought before voting on it however.
	I think the CotC should remain a standard office because normal
CFJ's may be needed to deal with crises.  The other types are more "harfy,"
and in my opinion can be safely handled on the basis of money.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 18:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Long proposals

At 18:01 05/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Speaking as a Newbie, I am very unlikely to vote for a long, complex
>proposal like this one, at least for the foreseeable future.  The reason
>being that I am still learning the rules, and I am inevitably biased
>against anything that makes that job significantly harder -- and major
>whirlwinds uprooting things of which I have (at best) an unsteady
>understanding, and replacing them with other things which undoubtedly
>have unforeseeable consequences falls squarely under that heading.

I understand your problems. However, I would point out to you that my RFC
(the ridiculously long one) actually would repeal a sizeable number of
rules, thus potentially making your life easier. New ideas would also put
you on more of a level playingfield with the rest of us, because we'd all
be learning the new rules :-).

>And on top of all that, I have a bias towards legislation that is
>focussed on one issue at a time -- for example, in the current pending
>proposal queue, I like the fact that the proposal for repealing a long
>list of items (which I have not yet studied in depth) is broken up into
>ten proposals.  That allows me to pick and choose which ones I think
>ought to be repealed, and which ones ought to be kept.  If they were all
>lumped together in one massive proposal, I would probably vote against
>it; as it is, I may vote in favor of some of them.

I generally tend to favour that sort of thing as well. The problem is that
quite a few players go for exactly the opposite. It's difficult to know
where the happy medium is.

Again, just a thought.

MTM.

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 18:16:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Long proposals

>I didn't reply to the very long RFC that was posted earlier today,
>because I truly don't want to single anyone out.
	All legitimate points, and fairly stated.  However, I'd like to
comment on a few of these.

>Speaking as a Newbie, I am very unlikely to vote for a long, complex
>proposal like this one, at least for the foreseeable future.  The reason
>being that I am still learning the rules, and I am inevitably biased
>against anything that makes that job significantly harder -- and major
>whirlwinds uprooting things of which I have (at best) an unsteady
>understanding, and replacing them with other things which undoubtedly
>have unforeseeable consequences falls squarely under that heading.
	When I was a newbie I did the same thing, and I think it's a
mistake.  I realize that it may make the game a little harder, but if you
agree with the concept then I think you should vote for it.  Remember that
Acka is in a constant state of change, and that if it stopped being so, it
would fall apart.  If you ever get confused almost anyone is willing to
answer questions.  Most proposers would be happy to help you get used to
the new system.  I think it's much better to vote for changes you like,
even if they are complicated, and then get some help learning them.

>And on top of all that, I have a bias towards legislation that is
>focussed on one issue at a time -- for example, in the current pending
>proposal queue, I like the fact that the proposal for repealing a long
>list of items (which I have not yet studied in depth) is broken up into
>ten proposals.  That allows me to pick and choose which ones I think
>ought to be repealed, and which ones ought to be kept.  If they were all
>lumped together in one massive proposal, I would probably vote against
>it; as it is, I may vote in favor of some of them.
	This is true for most of us.  As I recall JT and K2 both tried a
buch of repeals recently.  JT did in one proposal, K2 in several.  Some of
K2's passed, JT's didn't.  However Acka is very intertwined.  It is
difficult to make a large change without altering 10 or 20 or 30 rules.
Something like points of A$ is integrated into a huge number of rules, and
requires a great deal of tweaking to remove.  Again, especially as a newbie
there is no need to understand what each clause of a proposal does, what
counts is the proposal as a whole, and that's what I think you should vote
on.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #177
***********************************