Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #277
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Monday, November 23 1998     Volume 03 : Number 277

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 704 (alpha - Pol Pot) (beta - K 2)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:12:17 -0500 (EST)

> Statement:
>
>  The player known as Pol Pot left acka (and became on Ice) on Saturday
> 21st November 1998.
>
> Reasoning:
>
>  He posted this to [email-masked]
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>
> > I give all my money to Vynd.  I resign from all my offices.  I leave acka.

While I believe there is precedent for being able to place ones self on
vacation on research, in that particular case the effected player also
unsubscribed from the lists. The fact that Pol Pot is still subscribed
to the official lists and submitting PWCFJ sugest that e was relining on
the "no public actions" clause of the research postal code. Based on
that I would rule this CFJ FALSE... but then I would be then judge. :)

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted actions
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:25:10 -0500 (EST)

The organisational action undertaken to admit else...if to Shell#10 on
15 Nov
1998 00:24:37 is/will be complete on 22 Nov 1998 00:24:37.

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:01:14 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Proposal 3774

I agree that there is a problem with Church Policies, and I agree that it
would be reasonable for other organizations to have policies as well.  I
like many of the reforms introduced by P3774.  I do not agree with P3774
as a whole, however.

>{{[When there isn't a scam in the offing societies just sit around and
>do nothing. Churches on the other hand have become a vehicle for players
>to circumvent ownership restrictions and penalties, since church
>policies can allow players to retrieve eir entities with out the even
>having to disturb eir co-members.
>This proposal reduces the powers of church policies and permits other
>org types to own em.]}}
>
>1. Create a rule numbered 1000 with the title "Zzimzypolicies" and the
>text:
>"
>Zzimzypolicies are documents and entities.
>"
>
>2. {{All existing church policies are converted into Zzimzypolicies
>owned by the church who's policy it was created from. }}
>
>3. Create a rule numbered 1018 with the title "Organisational Policies"
>and the text:
>"
>I. Description
>
>Each organisation may own a single policy. A policy is a entity and a
>document. Polices have effect within Ackanomic, only as described within
>the rules.

Good.

>Organisations may attempt the any of the following as organisational
>actions:
>i) create a policy in its possession, provided it doesn't already own
>one.
>ii) destroy its policy.
>iii) reveal or hide any part of its policy.
>
>Only the revealed portion of a policy has effect within Ackanomic.

I have never liked the bit about secret Church Policies which nevertheless
have game effects.  I am a bit uncomfortable even with this implementation,
because it is open to abuse by unscrupulous players (not that we have any
such in Acka).  I would prefer that policies be all public, all the time.
It is fine if an org wants to have private, internal rules, but these should
not be enforceable under the Acka rules.

>                                                                    This
>paragraph takes precedence over any rule which would allow otherwise but
>defers to the following paragraph.
>
>A policy may only be modified as described in that document or as an
>organisational action, unless it explicitly prohibits itself from being
>modified in that manner.

So, if a policy prohibits itself from being modified in "that" (which?)
manner, then how can it be modified?  Better wording would be:

A policy may be modified as an organizational action provided that the
policy does not forbid modification by that method.  A policy may be
modified as described in that policy.  If it cannot otherwise be determined
whether or how a policy can be modified, then it cannot be modified at all
(although it can still be destroyed).

Without the last sentence, this section is scam-bait.  (Can you say
"paradox"?  I knew you could.)

>                          Such modifications need not be made public
>except that any modifications to a revealed section of an organisation's
>policy must be reported publicly before the new version shall have
>effect within Ackanomic.

Again, make it all public, I say.

>II. Effects
>
>An organisation's policy may :
>
>i) place requirements upon its members.
>
>ii) detail penalties that will apply to a member who fails to meet a
>particular requirement. Unless specified otherwise the organisation
>shall receive the proceeds of the penalty.

I much prefer the current state of affairs for Churches, which makes
performing an action in violation of Church policy impermissable for
Church members.  This appears to have saved us a paradox win, and it
has the virtue of being simple.  I think it is possible to implement
a penalty model within the permissability model anyway.

>iii) establish conditions under which :
>a) an entity's request for membership in the organisation may be granted
>
>b) an entity may be removed from the organisation.

I am not sure what these mean.  In particular, it would probably be better
if "may be" were replaced by "is" in both of the above sub-sections.

>iv) contain other information, except that such information shall only
>have effect within Ackanomic as permitted by the rules.
>
>If any member of an organisation, which is not a VSO, publicly points
>out that a member of the same organisation is currently in violation of
>that organisation's policy then the penalty described in the policy is
>applied to the member who is in violation.

As I said, dump this model.

>III. Restrictions
>
>Unless the rules specify otherwise, an entity transfer initiated by a
>policy must abide by the following restrictions, otherwise it does not
>occur:
>i) it may only involve the org and its members, except that it may also
>transfer entities to the treasury.
>ii) it must be legal, at the time the transfer is initiated, for it to
>occur as a voluntary trade between the effected entities.

I strongly urge against any entity transfer being initiated by a policy.
Make the players do it, in conformance with policy.  Not only does it
save work for the Harfers, but it is safer, too.  Moreover, it makes the
bit above unnecessary (I think).

>If a particular section of a policy requires a member to perform an
>action which is either illegal or impossible for that member, then that
>section shall have no effect on that member.

Why?  Such a situation would put the member in a tough spot, but there
should be at least the potential for a cost to being an org member.  There
is always the option of leaving the org.

>A policy may not force any of its members to meet any of its
>requirements.
>"

Not necessary.  Not even useful.  Policies are not otherwise granted this
power, therefore they already do not have it.

>4. {{All Zzimzypolicies are converted into Policies. }}
>
>5. Repeal Rule 1000 (Zzimzypolicies).
>
>6. Create a rule numbered 1014 with the title "Churches and Cults: and
>the following text:
>"
>I. Churches
>A church is an organisation.
>
>
>A church may not be founded until at least three players in addition to
>the pseudo-founder have expressed eir consent to join.
>
>The player who founds a church is its founder. A church's founder may
>ordain and defrock priests. A player will remain a priest of that church
>until defrocked or e is no longer a member of the church.
>
>A church's Policy may specify which of its members are permitted to
>ordain and defrock priests, otherwise it shall be the privilege of the
>church's founder.
>
>A Church may own and trade currency and Entities.
>
>If a Church ever has no Priests, or (Heaven Forbid!) fewer than zero
>Priests, or fewer than four members, it is transformed into a Cult.

The above unloads a lot of Church-related stuff, some of which is well
done with, but other of which should probably be retained.  In particular,
I would like to see a good rationale for dumping the existing provisions
for Church founding.

Also, this is gives church policy power over priest ordination, in direct
contradiction to the current rule.  I don't particularly appreciate having
this snuck in in a reorganization proposal, nor am I convinced that I would
want to vote for it seperately.

And wasn't there once a provision in the Church rule which made the Founder
the equivalent of a priest?  I don't see that now, but it should be restored.

>II. Cults
>A cult is an organisation.
>It is impermissible for a Cult to trade or to use any Organisational
>Powers. This takes precedence over R1003.
>"

And just how does a Church become a Cult?  Or vice-versa?  That seems to have
been dropped entirely.

>9.3 Replace the following text from section 3 (Very Small
>Organizations):
>"
>b. Change admissions policy
>"
>with
>"
>b. Modify, reveal and hide sections of its Organisational Policy.
>"

As above, dump the hide/reveal bit.

>10. {{[The Organisation section of the rules is getting a little mixed
>up so the following groups the rules into three subsections: General
>(1000-1004), the different types of (1010-1014), Powers (1020-1023).]}}

All of that is well-done.  I have now discovered how annoying it is to
have the Church rules in an entirely different century from the other
org rules.

This proposal has some good ideas, but I don't think it is quite ready
for prime time yet.  I must urge retraction or rejection.  I would be
willing to review future drafts of this proposal before submission, if
desired.

ThinMan

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3774
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:25:14 -0500 (EST)

K 2 wrote:
>
> #retract 3774
> #end
>
> John Bollinger wrote:
> [some excellent points which leads me to believe I should
> a) retract P3774
> b) RFC a new version
> c) make use of the Spelling Exchequer.
>
> For now I just do b.
which is clearly a mis-spelling of a :)

K 2
>
> K 2

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

From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financier stuff
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:01:28 -0500 (EST)

Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:

> I am also getting a little sick of you continually beating up on Wild Card
> (metaphorically).  His SYI stuff failed, then he got hit for A$2500
> because other people SYId him as well.  (Do the dumb things I gotta do:
> rewrite that Otzma Card rule).  Now you put him further and further in
> debt with your hearings over _measly_pairs_of_Bonus_Votes_.  What do you
> want from him? Blood?

I perform the following OVER_EXPLOITATION delimited text 1000 times

OVER_EXPLOITATION
I convert 60 points into two bonus votes
I bury two bonus votes
OVER_EXPLOITATION

Except I don't of course because this is research, but if I did then you'd have
every right to be annoyed with me, and over what? "_measly_pairs_of_Bonus_Votes_
"
as you put it. In my opinion Wild Card was over exploiting a scam e shouldn't
have done and got the penalty for it *in*accordance*with*the*rules*. If the
proposal to put arf with their heads, or whatever that org was called, in power
had passed and we had then decided that we didn't like what Wild Card was doing
and punished em then I agree that you would have a case here. As it is there the
rules were clear so creating the bonus vootes was a risk that apparently didn't
pay off. Such is life I'm afraid.

As far as the situation with the SYI and go fish cards goes I will note that whe
n
Wild Card first used the SYI card it would have put A Mean Hat. into debt. IMHO
this was just as bad as anything anyone has done to Wild Card since.

Gromit.

--
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financier stuff
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:33:15 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> As far as the situation with the SYI and go fish cards goes I will note that w
hen
> Wild Card first used the SYI card it would have put A Mean Hat. into debt. IMH
O
> this was just as bad as anything anyone has done to Wild Card since.

 What?  Removing the same A$2500 from me twice?

 --
 Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.             #####
 http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html                  o__#######
 Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats.    \'#######
 Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo.  Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.
 Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do.  Touch the puppethead.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:39:18 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Governments Revisited

On Sun, 22 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> The main problem I see with governments is complete disenfranchisement of
> the populace (or at least some of it).  I see a way we can retain the
> principle of more power to some, without creating severe problems.  It
> may, however, be complicated.
> 
> Each Government has a subset of players called the Cabal.
> It is the Crime of Conspiracy to claim that the Cabal exists. [TINC]
> Each Government also has a Strength, an integer greater than or equal
> to 1.
> When a Government is active, all members of the Cabal have each of their
> votes counted as if it was a number of votes equal to the Strength of the
> government.  All other players have each of their votes counted as normal.
> So the Cabal has a greater ability to affect how proposals work, but can
> still be outvoted.
> 
> Example Strengths:
> Dictator: 8 (or possibly 1/3rd of the no. of active players)
> Elected Assembly: 3
> 
> What do people think?
> 

I would like to see Governments move away from, well, governing. Perhaps
the name of the rule suite should even be changed... paradigms? Anyway, I
would prefer for there to be no government in which certain groups of
players are favored over others. 

Vynd

[email-masked]

> -- 
> Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
> http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
> Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator  | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)
> 
> 
> 

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 699 (TRUE)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:40:32 -0500 (EST)

JT wrote:

> /dev/joe bring up a good point.
>
> With apologies to the arts and antiquities commision, I destroy "JT
> cleaned out his closet and found all of this junk" for A$.
>
> --JT, mainly curious to see if it will actually work

The Museum is a named entity and as such is allowed to own entities
[Rule 500.2].

When a Museum winning condition is achieved the entities "on display" in
the North Wing are "transferred" to the West Wing.

Customarily when something is "transferred" its ownership changes.
Officer's salaries for instance :)

Furthermore in order to have trinket be "on display" it must first be
"donated". Rule 505 used "donated" in the sense of ownership
transferral....

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:06:36 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Race

Its a race and the bets are on muppetlabs :)

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Race
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:07:26 -0500 (EST)

Its a race and the bets are on muppetlabs :)

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: (no subject)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:03:28 -0500 (EST)

Hose em down.

K 2

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>
> I purchase from the mad hatters the agenda hat E17 ("It is publically
> knowable that the Agenda Hat known as Clown-Like to plain folks became
> false in the last week while at the same time this hat, known as Clown-Like
> to plain folks, was publicly known to be worn.")
>
> I offer all my money and this hat to Studge in exchange for A$2.
>
> --Pol Pot
>
> Possible Butthead -- Crazy French Scotsman -- Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon
> Master  --  Really Weird --  Rule-Harfer -- Religious Caste -- Trying hard
> not to be annoying

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

From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:20:48 -0500 (EST)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> My sig is better than that of JT
> he had to pay money, but he is not me!
>
> --Pol Pot the crazy
> french-scotsman dungeon master
> and the rules harfer
>
> perhaps a butthead
> a daring adventurer
> also really weird
>
> postal, religious
> and trying very hard not
> to be annoying.

If this is going to be your .sig for the next day or so, then, for me,
you're failing in your goal not to be annoying. Long .sigs are one of my
personal pet peaves.

Gromit.

--
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Race
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:19:55 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, K 2 wrote:

:
:Its a race and the bets are on muppetlabs :)
:
Muppetlabs wins, by nearly two minutes to infocom.com.  And, it has the
added bonus of being RFC822 conformant.

rufus

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Race
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:29:13 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, David Scheidt wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, K 2 wrote:
>
>:
>:Its a race and the bets are on muppetlabs :)
>:
>Muppetlabs wins, by nearly two minutes to infocom.com.  And, it has the
>added bonus of being RFC822 conformant.

Listar should be RFC822 conformant.  If it's not, please tellme where and
it'll get fixed.

ackanomic.org is faster by about 2 minutes to me, and overall the times
seem to be about equivalent to various people.

--JT

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

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Race
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:00:37 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> Listar should be RFC822 conformant.  If it's not, please tellme where and
> it'll get fixed.
>
> ackanomic.org is faster by about 2 minutes to me, and overall the times
> seem to be about equivalent to various people.
>

Which is surprising considering the network woes I've experienced today.

IB

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #277
***********************************