Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #185
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Monday, August 10 1998      Volume 03 : Number 185

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 03:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal RFC (Office Simplification)

Here are a few suggestions that tie in with an idea I voiced recently.
(it's very rough, but it gets the idea across)

Instead of unowned offices becoming owned by the players who own them,
they become owned by a Unique Organization called the Senade. More on this
Organizaion later. - This ownership change should ot include Senators.
Offices may only be owned by Organizations. Except for Capital Offices
which maybe owned by players.
Each office has a License associated with it.  A player currently holding
an office receives the License associated with that Office.
The owner of the Office may revoke the License at any time. 
When this happens the license is transferred to the owner of the office.
[here should  be a part about which member of that organization is
responsible for carrying outthe duties of office until the license is
given to another player - with Churchs it would trivially be the Founder -
naturally the Orgnaization can grant the License to one of its own
members]
- ---
Now about the Senade.

The Senade is a Unique Organization. The Senade owns a More Than Human.
[Senator Language remains unchanged except that..] The Senators and the
Churches are collectively known as the Senade [long section about
replacing various occcurences in the rules of Senate with Senade]

Each Church has a Measure. The Measure of a Church is defined as the total
score (or if we give that up, the total wealth) of all the Active members
of the Church. At the begining of each cycle, the Church with the greatest
measure becomes the Divine Church of Ackanomic.

In Addition to any other Action that is legal for the Divine Church to
perform, it may also grant and revoke licenses associated with Senade
owned Offices as if they were its own offices.
(this in no way excludes the possibility of the Senade acting upon its
Offices with an ORganizational Action.)

Other Organizations may joind the Senade, initially the Senade does not
have an open addmision policy. With the exception of the Senators, only
Organizations may become members of the Senade.
 
Trading Offices:
Offices can't just be traded like any other tradable entity.
First, with exception of offices defined in the rules as Capital, only
Organizations may own offices.

Organization may trade offices they own with any other Organization.
The Divine Church of Ackanomic may call for an Office Auction at any time
provided there has not been an OFfice Auction in the 14 days prior to
that day.
If no Office Auction has been called for four weeks then any Organization
may call an Office Auction ( this also requires amending the auction to
allow Organizatonsto bid at specifically designated Auctions - I wouldn't 
want org's to be able to bid at any auction)
In an Office Auction, a Senade owned office is randomly chosen to be
auctioned off. An org is eligible to participate in the Auction
if it is a member of the Senade and a member of that Organization held the
Licencse for that office for at least four (should it be a
larger number?) consecutive weeks during the past year. 
The minimum bid  in an Office Auction is A$200.

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

There are a couple of things in my above not-even-yet-an-RFC.
It goes with the current Feudalism theme that we are discussing.
It gives players who are not members of the Divine Church incentive to
win - a shorter cycle will give the Divine Church a smaller chance at
grabbing Offices (perhaps a couple more checks/balances could be added so
it isn't too easy)
Orgs may try to gain control of OFfices during Auctions, so they can keep
controlling them later. 
Players have incentives to increase whatever it is that will increase
Measure.

Note that this is not a complete Church rule - other orgs can join the
Senade, and not even a complete org rule - there are still the Senators,
and the Senade can carry out an Organizational Action - although the
Divine Church has a clear advantage.

I'd find it interesting to develop this, and anyone is welcome to join me.

This is, of course, compatible, with a multiple promoter system.

Niccolo Flychuck

 On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Here is the first part of my suggested reform of Offices.  It covers all
> of the major changes - the only parts remaining are minor tinkering to
> other Officers necessary to ensure this works.
> 
> Useful comments would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> #submit proposal Schultz, Office!
> 
> [Aim of this proposal: To radically revamp the structure of Offices in the
> game, by simplifying the system.
> We currently have three types of Offices: Functional, Political, Capital.
> Why?  The lack of significant difference between the way these offices are
> used indicates we can probably bring them all back under the one system.]
> 
> Create a new Rule, numbered 400, titled "Offices: Preamble", with the
> following DEFN-delimited text:
> 
> DEFN
> Offices are named, tradeable entities.
> 
> {{All Offices which are currently unowned, but held, become tradeable
> Offices owned by the player(s) who was/were holding them.}}
> 
> Unless otherwise specified, an Office may only have one owner.
> 
> A Player owning an Office may resign as a publicaction.  In such a case,
> they lose ownership of that Office.  If this results in the Office
> becoming unowned, it is transferred to the Treasury.
> 
> A. Duties and Privileges
> Duties are tasks which are required to be carried out by the owner of that
> Office.  Privileges are considerations received by the owner of an Office
> as a result of owning that Office, and may include such items as salary,
> and extra voting entitlements.  Offices need not have Duties or
> Privileges.
> 
> B. Salary
> On the first Monday of each month, each player receives an amount equal to
> the Standard Harfer Fee for each Office they own.
> 
> C. Term Limits
> Offices may have term limits.  If an Office has a term limit, and the
> owner of that Office has owned the Office continuously for the length of
> that term, then the Office becomes unowned.
> 
> If an Office has no other term limit specified, then it is subject to a
> Minimum Term of Office of Six Months.  If a player has owned an office
> continuously for longer than the Minimum Termof Office, any other player
> may request an Election for that Office, at which point the owner of the
> Office ceases to own that Office.
> 
> D. Efficiency
> 
> Officers have 3 days to complete the tasks and duties they are responsible
> for, not counting anytime the officer is inactive or in Gaol, unless
> other rules unambiguously specify a different finite amount of time for
> these things. 
> 
> Officers, in good faith, shall do all tasks and duties as quickly as
> feasible to keep the game moving along. 
> 
> 
> E. Elections
> When an Office contains N vacancies, where N is at least 1, any Player may
> request that an Election for that Office be held.  [It is good form for
> Count Tabula to do this.]  An Election proceeds as follows:
> 
> (a) Count Tabula announces the opening of Nominations.
> (b) The Nomination period lasts for three days.  During this time,
> volunteers shall notify Count Tabula privately of their desire to fill the
> Office.
> (c) At the end of the Nomination period, if there are fewer volunteers
> than vacancies, then the first N players to publicly express their desire
> to acquire the Office gain ownership of the Office immediately upon the
> public expression of said desire.
> (d) Otherwise, at the end of the Nomination period N of the Nominees are
> chosen at random, with equal probability, to become the new owners of the
> Office.
> 
> {{[This should be a faster method for dealing with Elections - we need not
> wait for votes to be counted, just for the Nominations to be received.]}}
> 
> F. Dealing withVacancies
> 
> A vacancy exists in an Office if the number of players Owning that office
> is fewer than the maximum number of players which may Own that office.
> The number of vacancies is equal to the difference between the maximum and
> current owner counts.
> 
> The Grand High Whatchamacallit is the player who owns the first of the
> below-mentioned Offices which is owned by a player:
> (a) Speaker
> (b) President
> (c) Clerk of the Court
> (d) Promoter
> (e) Web-Harfer
> 
> If vacancies exist in an Office, the Grand High Whatchamacallit may
> specify players to be Lackeys to that Office while the vacancy exists.
> There may only be as many Lackeys as vacancies.
> When the vacancy disappears the Lackeyships cease.  Lackeys are required
> to perform the Duties of the Office as if they owned it, but receive none
> of the Privileges.  Lackeys may resign from their Lackeyships.
> If a vacancy has no associated Lackey, then the Grand High Whatchamacallit
> shall be required to perform the Duties of that Office as if e owned it.
> 
> [Note: This rule has combined rules previously included in 401, 401.1,
> 402 and 403.  Thanks are due to the following people who made it possible:
> pTang1001001sos, Malenkai, /dev/joe, Guy Fawkes, Mohammed, Alfvaen, K 2,
> The Gingham Wearer, ThinManand rufus.]
> DEFN
> 
> Repeal Rules 401, 401.1, 402 and 403.
> [Now redundant.]
> 
> Amend Rule 404, "Offices, Impeachment", to read as delimited by IMP below:
> 
> IMP
> This rule defers precedence to other rules which describe methods for
> impeaching officers.
> 
> An Officer is Impeached by the following process: 
> 
> (i) An Impeachment Paper (IP) is authored by a voting Player and posted to
> the public forum. The IP shall contain the stated intent to remove
> one Player from one Office held by that Player. An author may only have
> one IP pending at any one time. A player may not submit more than
> one IP per calendar week, and may not submit more than one IP against the
> same officer in a calendar month. 
> 
> (ii) All voting Players except the Officer named in the IP shall be able
> to cast one vote either YES or NO on the matter of removing said Officer
> from Office. The voting period shall be 3 days. All votes on the IP shall
> be cast in the public forum. 
> 
> (iii) At the expiration of the voting period, there will be a resolution
> of ACCEPTED or REJECTED for the IP. An IP is REJECTED unless it meets
> ALL of the conditions below, in which case it is ACCEPTED: a) At least 1/2
> of all active players, excluding the Officer named in the IP, voted
> YES. b) At least 2/3 of all Players who voted on the IP voted YES. 
> However, if the IP is retracted before the voting period expires, no
> resolution shall occur.
> 
> (iv) If the IP is ACCEPTED, the Player named in the IP loses ownership of
> that Office.
> 
> (vi) If the IP is REJECTED, the author of the IP is penalized 10 points. 
> 
> (vii) The Rules may specify additional means of impeachment without
> invalidating the process outlined above. As well, this rule defers to all
> other rules on the matter of what conditions are required for an IP to be
> ACCEPTED. 
> 
> IMP
> 
> {{[Now for the long slow stuff - cleaning up the other Officer rules.]}}
> 
> Amend Rule 405, "Speaker", by deleting sections (ii) through (iv),
> relabelling sections (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) to (ii), (iii), (iv) and
> (v) respectively, deleting section (ix), and then amending the new section
> (ii) to read
> as delimited by BLAH below:
> 
> BLAH
> (ii) Performance of tasks required by Sections (iii) through (v) are
> duties of the Office of Speaker.
> BLAH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - -- 
> 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: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:54:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3392

>If any public message posted on April 23 is not solely in the form of
>blank verse (unrhymed iambic pentameter), the poster of that message
>shall be fined A$3.

Not wanting to sound dumb or anything, but wouldn't this be a bit difficult
for those of us who haven't a clue what iambic pentameter is?

MTM.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:55:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3394

At 02:54 10/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Proposal 3394
>Disaster Approacheth
>Attila the Pun (Micah Smukler)
>
>Create a new rule, numbered 1389 and titled "Doom 'n Gloom", with the
>following HELP!-delimited text:
>
>HELP!
>
>On October 23, 1998, Ackanomia will experience a vast Cataclysm.  The
>following events will occur:
>
>a) At 3:28 AM, amazingly high winds will sweep up half of all the A$ owned
>by each entity.  16/17 of the A$ swept up in this way will be transferred
>to the Treasury; the remaining 1/17 will be buried as a treasure, with the
>map "On November 6, 1998, a randomly selected entity eligible to do so
>shall find this treasure."

And who will be the custodian of this treasure? And what if theyend up
being the one to find it?

>b) At 5:46 AM, the ground shall open.  Five kaas shall be randomly selected
>by the Map-Harfer; all buildings wholly or partially on those kaas shall be
>destroyed.  If any rule-mandated buildings are destroyed, they shall be
>rebuilt at 11:59 PM on October 23, 1998.  Simultaneously, because of the
>disturbances, there is a 5% chance that any given treasure which is then
>buried shall be found by a randomly selected entity eligible to do so; this
>determination is to be made by the Map-Harfer.

And just how do we know who is elligible to find a given treasure? Some of
my treasure maps have included something along the lines of Mr. Tambourine
Man is not eligible to find this treasure. I could do this equally well
with other players if I wanted to. That said though, I wouldn't mind
finding treasure 194 :-).

>c) At 8:27 AM, a fire shall sweep through the Library.  As a result, no
>new mundane songs will be able to be played on the ASS for the next week,
>all players become nameless [and are then renamed "Nameless Thing #X" for
>some X], and one randomly selected rule from the Miscellaneous Rule Suite
>will be repealed.

Which I'm sure will be great fun for those players who can't afford to
change their names. Worse than that though is the risk that an important
rule could get repealed (unlikely with it being in the miscelaneous rule
suite I know but it's possible that in a big proposal one rule might not be
numbered and lots of other rules might not make sense without it).

>d) At 12:35 PM, there will be a leakage of toxic waste from the sewers
>of Ackanomia.  All players of Ackanomic shall gain one randomly selected
>mutation which no other rule prevents them from gaining.
>
>e) At 3:49 PM, an asteroid shall strike the Lonely Mountain, sending shock
>waves throughout the surrounding area.  As a result of these shock waves,
>all trinkets shall be damaged, and their worth shall be only 50% of what
>it was previously.

Love the Hubert situation! all players with access at the time will be able
to put all their money into a trinket before they lose their money and then
change all their trinkets back to money before this happens.

MTM.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Primes Defined

Tom Walmsley wrote:

> >> Then lets say at some point there were 31 players, who's going to go and
> >> prove that 31 is prime? Not me certainly.
> >>
> >> MTM.
> >
> >Me!!
> >
> >K 2
>

Yes!. No rules. Therefore game custom - permissiblity of the unregulated -
would allow me to change the rules.

K 2

> Okay, maybe you would. But what if it instead stated that all the rules
> would be repealed instead?
>
> MTM.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:44:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

Am I missing something here, or did P 3351 actually RAISE quorum?  I go back
and forth on the quorum issue, but I don't remember ever hearing anyone
suggest that quorum be greater than 50%.

>> Proposal 3351 - Sun 02 Aug 1998 09:11 EDT
>> Eliminating Quorum Paradoxes
>> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
>> 
>> This is a Modest Proposal.
>> 
>> Amend Rule 107, "Quorum", by replacing its last sentence with the following
>> TECHIE-delimited text:
>> 
>> TECHIE
>> Then, quorum is met if either (a) at least 60% of the players in the head
>> count have cast a vote, or (b) at least 36% of the players in the head
>> count have voted YES, or both. In no other circumstances is quorum met.
>> TECHIE

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:20:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

I think it did raise quorum, if there is significant opposition...but the reason
I voted against this is that now if 36% of the head count wants something, they
can get it, as long as no one else votes.  Probably a rare occurrence, but it
could be a major problem if it did happen.

John Bollinger wrote:

> Am I missing something here, or did P 3351 actually RAISE quorum?  I go back
> and forth on the quorum issue, but I don't remember ever hearing anyone
> suggest that quorum be greater than 50%.
>
> >> Proposal 3351 - Sun 02 Aug 1998 09:11 EDT
> >> Eliminating Quorum Paradoxes
> >> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> >>
> >> This is a Modest Proposal.
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 107, "Quorum", by replacing its last sentence with the following
> >> TECHIE-delimited text:
> >>
> >> TECHIE
> >> Then, quorum is met if either (a) at least 60% of the players in the head
> >> count have cast a vote, or (b) at least 36% of the players in the head
> >> count have voted YES, or both. In no other circumstances is quorum met.
> >> TECHIE
>
> ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:23:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3400

Also, it really ought to be a modest proposal, dontcha think?  :)

JT wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:
> >Proposal 3400
> >Removing the last vestiges of the undead
> >JT (JT Traub)
>
> I retract Proposal 3400.  I realized after I sent it that I'd missed a
> couple of places where undead were still referenced.  Sorry 'bout that.
>
> --JT

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:42:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3400

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

>Also, it really ought to be a modest proposal, dontcha think?  :)

Probably should have been, but I'd personally like to see modest/grandiose
go the way of the dino as well :)

With anti-voting they were a bit more important in that they might
influence a person not to anti-vote for only 1 point.  Without it, I think
the distinction is less useful.  (but then again, I've always been arguing
in favor of voting based on proposal content, not on the score generated
by the proposal for either yourself or some other player, so to me, the
fact that something is modest/grandious/neither has never been a deciding
factor in influencing my voting (nor even a relevant factor)).

- --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: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:53:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3351 accepted

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:

> I think it did raise quorum, if there is significant opposition...but the reason
> I voted against this is that now if 36% of the head count wants something, they
> can get it, as long as no one else votes.  Probably a rare occurrence, but it

If the people who don't want it don't vote, they must not have not wanted
it too terribvly much.  If you don't vote, you lose your right to object
to change.

rufus

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:29:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3400

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> With anti-voting they were a bit more important in that they might
> influence a person not to anti-vote for only 1 point.  Without it, I think
> the distinction is less useful.  (but then again, I've always been arguing
> in favor of voting based on proposal content, not on the score generated
> by the proposal for either yourself or some other player, so to me, the
> fact that something is modest/grandious/neither has never been a deciding
> factor in influencing my voting (nor even a relevant factor)).
> 
> --JT
> 

I knew you wacky anti-anti-voters had a sekkrit agenda!

IB
<snicker>

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3400

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, JT wrote:
>
>> With anti-voting they were a bit more important in that they might
>> influence a person not to anti-vote for only 1 point.  Without it, I think
>> the distinction is less useful.  (but then again, I've always been arguing
>> in favor of voting based on proposal content, not on the score generated
>> by the proposal for either yourself or some other player, so to me, the
>> fact that something is modest/grandious/neither has never been a deciding
>> factor in influencing my voting (nor even a relevant factor)).
>> 
>
>I knew you wacky anti-anti-voters had a sekkrit agenda!

Move along.  Move along.  Ignore the man behind the CRT.

- --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: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3400

IB wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, JT wrote:
>
>> With anti-voting they were a bit more important in that
>> they might influence a person not to anti-vote for only
>> 1 point.  Without it, I think the distinction is less 
>> useful.  (but then again, I've always been arguing in 
>> favor of voting based on proposal content, not on the 
>> score generated by the proposal for either yourself or 
>> some other player, so to me, the fact that something is
>> modest/grandious/neither has never been a deciding
>> factor in influencing my voting (nor even a relevant factor)).
>
>I knew you wacky anti-anti-voters had a sekkrit agenda!
><snicker>

It just struck me as very appropriate for someone to start an
Anti-Anti-Voting Preservationist Party, an AAVPP.  It makes me wish I had
formed a pasionate opinion before anti-voting was already gone.   :)

If we were to cancel out the Anti-'s it would end up as the Voting
Perservationist Party, which seems even sillier.

Studge

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

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brandon Ray <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3400

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Brandon Ray wrote:
> 
> >Also, it really ought to be a modest proposal, dontcha think?  :)
> 
> Probably should have been, but I'd personally like to see modest/grandiose
> go the way of the dino as well :)
> 
> With anti-voting they were a bit more important in that they might
> influence a person not to anti-vote for only 1 point.  Without it, I think
> the distinction is less useful.  (but then again, I've always been arguing
> in favor of voting based on proposal content, not on the score generated
> by the proposal for either yourself or some other player, so to me, the
> fact that something is modest/grandious/neither has never been a deciding
> factor in influencing my voting (nor even a relevant factor)).
> 
I guess it seems to me that there is still some sense in differentiating
- -- someone should not (in my view) receive the same score for fixing a
minor inconsistency in the rules as they receive for creating an entire
new concept.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #185
***********************************