acka-research Digest Monday, March 01 1999 Volume: 04 Issue: 047 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4105 Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:49:13 -0500 (EST) I'll be voting against this one. As I started reading this it seemed almst liek deja vu all over again, except not quite. Powers, Admissions policies, all those little mechanics that decorated the former org structure. Well, that was never what orgs were about, IMO, and when I read it all together, in this one big proposal, it seems very uninteresting. The religious dogma thing claims to be similar to current rules Church, it isn't really, perhaps on the surface. Also, no real differentiation is made between a Church and a Cult. The whole Swinger-Backer relationship is something I'd rather see remain as it is now, kept out of an org structure. We've divorced Swingers from Parties, I see no reason to reverse that. Niccolo Flychuck On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > Proposal 4105 > Instituting some Organisation > K 2 > Due: Sun Mar 7 04:19:41 1999 >=20 > This is a Modest Proposal. >=20 > {{[This is a proposal to functionally reinstate Organisations in the > rules. The proposed structure defines one entity - the Institution, > which may own Institutional Powers which in turn effect how the > Institution operates. >=20 > The following Institutional Powers are also proposed: > Admissions Policies - roughly the same as before; they permit entities > to join. > Procedural Documents: - affectwho can make a Suggestion to the > Institution > (similar to suggesting an organisational action) > Corporate Structure: - Group Approval is determined on the basis of > Share ownership > (same as the previous definition of corporations) > Funding Charter: -All of the Institution's Trades are handled by this > document > (if it has one) > Political Doctrine: - A Political Party with a fuzzy Unity vote. > Religious Dogma: - Just like Churches operate now. > Social Contract: - A Contract for an Institution > Chess Sponsorship: - Party Chess Backers by another name. >=20 > The proposed structure effectively permits =91roll-your-own=92 > "Organisations" - A political Church, A Religious Corporate Trust Fund > etc=85. >=20 > I would like to ask those players who like the proposed implementation > but not some (or all) of the Institutional Powers that come with it, to > still vote for this proposal - they can always be amended or repealed > (right now even if your not afraid of a null proposal :-), but splitting > this into threeor four different proposals would end up frobbing me out > for another week; since I'm bubbling over with ideas at the moment=85. >=20 > ]}} >=20 > Create rule 16 titled "Institutions", with the following text: > " > Institutions are named, unownable, Trading, Intelligent entities. >=20 > Any player who is not a pseudo-Founder may publicly announce their > intent to form an Institution. By so doing they become a pseudo-Founder. > If during the following seven day period at least two other players > publicly announce that they wish to join the Institution the > pseudo-Founder intends to form, then the pseudo-Founder may form the > Institution by: > i) announcing its name, > ii) the names of its initial members (who must be the pseudo-Founder and > at least two of the players who have publicly announced their desire to > join) , > iii) any Institutional Powers it will initially own, and any ancillary > information required to create those Powers. > iv) paying the standard harfer fee and any fees associated with the > creation of its initial Institutional Powers. >=20 > Upon doing so they cease to be a pseudo-Founder and the Institution is > created along with its initial Powers, if any. If a player has been a > pseudo-Founder for a contiguous seven day period then they cease to be > one. >=20 > An Institution is only permitted to perform those actions, or have those > behaviours or properties, which are permitted for all Institutions, or > which are accorded to it by the Institutional Powers it owns. >=20 > Institutions may only own tradeable entities which they are explicitly > permitted to by the rules. All Institutions may own A$ and Trinkets and > are permitted to perform any operations which are defined on any > entities it owns. If an Institution ever owns entities it is not > permitted to own, thoseentities become unowned. >=20 > When an Institution disbands or is disbanded: > a) each of its Institutional Powers are destroyed in the order in which > they are defined in the rules; then, > b) anything owned by the Institution becomes unowned; then, > c) the Institution is destroyed. > " >=20 > Create Rule 16-1 titled "Institutional Powers" with the text: > " > Unless specified otherwise, descendants of this rule define types of > Institutional Powers and shall only have an effect on those Institutions > which own an Institutional Power of that type. >=20 > Institutional powers are tradeable entities that may only be owned by > Institutions; this takes precedence over all rules regarding entity > ownership. Unowned Institutional Powers are automatically destroyed. >=20 > Unlessspecified otherwise, an Institution may create or destroy a > particular type of Institutional Power as an Institutional Action and by > paying the Standard Harfer Fee. An Institution may only own one > Institutional Power of each type. If it ever acquires more than one of a > particular type all but the most recently acquired one are destroyed. >=20 > Any Characteristics of an Institutional Power are considered to be > Characteristic of the Institution which owns it. >=20 > This rule defers to its descendants. > " >=20 > Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Admissions Policies", with the > following text: > " > An Admissions Policy is an Institutional Power which effects how an > entity may become a member of the Institution. >=20 > I. The following applies to all types of Institution, but defers to all > other Institutional Powers: > a) An intelligent entity may not be made a member of an Institution > without first having publicly requested membership. > b) A non intelligent entity may not become a member of an Institution. > c) An entity may always leave any Institution of which it is a member. > d) An entity must conform to all membership restrictions placed on the > Institution, to become a member. If an entity is ever a member of an > Institution in conflict with any restrictions on that Institution, it is > immediately removed from that Institution. > e) If an Institution has no members it is disbanded. >=20 > II. The following are different classes of Admissions Policy: >=20 > a) Standard: An entity may be made a member as an Institutional Action. > b) Open: An entity becomes a member upon request. > c) Privileged Faction: Any privileged member may grant membership to an > entity. Members may be made privileged with respect to this class as an > Institutional Action. > d) Quasi open: An entity becomes a member after three days, unless any > member refuses the entity admission during that time. > e) Communist Single Player: Any member may make an entity a member. > " >=20 > Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Procedural Documents" with the > text: > " > A Procedural Document is an Institutional Power which effects which > members are permitted to make a Suggestion to an Institution. >=20 > The following are different classes of Procedural Document: >=20 > a) Standard: Suggestions may be made by any member. > b) Privileged Faction: Only privileged members may make Suggestions. > Members may be made privileged with respect to this class as an > Institutional Action. > c) Group Leader: The group's leader may make Suggestions. Unless > specified otherwise, an Institution's group leader is the entity which > founded the Institution. >=20 > The following applies to all Institutions: > a) If it is ever the case that no member of an Institution is able to > make a Suggestion, then all active players are permitted to make > Suggestions. > b) If, after the application of a), there are still no members who may > make Suggestions, any member may make a Suggestion. > c) After an entity has made a Suggestion to an Institution, it is > attempted, subject to the group approval of the rest of the > Institution's members, who were also capable of making that Suggestion. > d) An Institution which does not own a Procedural Document receives a > Standard Procedural Document. > " >=20 > Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Corporate Structure" with the > text: > " > A Corporate Structure is an Institutional Power which determines > membership and Group Approval for its Institution. >=20 > A Corporate Structure has a Characteristic called its Portfolio Size > capable of taking any integral value between 1 and 100, with a default > value of 100. It may be modified as an Institutional Action and by > paying the Standard Harfer Fee. When a Corporate Structure as is > created, its initial Portfolio's size may be specified. >=20 > An Institution which owns a CorporateStructure may be referred to as a > Corporation. >=20 > I. Membership >=20 > a) When membership is granted in a Corporation, the new member shall be > issued with a number of Stock equal to the Corporation's Portfolio Size > by the Corporation. > b) At the time an Institution receives a Corporate Structure all members > of that institution are issued with a number of Stock equal to the > Corporation's Portfolio Size by the Corporation. > c) Those Intelligent Entities who own Stock in a Corporation are members > of that Corporation; all other entities are non members. The Treasury is > never a member of a Corporation. > d) A Corporation's Group Leader is the member who owns at least two > thirds of all Stock issued by it, if such a member exists. >=20 > II. Group Approval >=20 > Were the rules require Group Approval for an Institutional Action by a > Corporation, it shall be determined in the following way: >=20 > One week after a Suggestion is made, or when sufficient votes have been > made such that no additional votes would change theoutcome, whichever > is sooner, the action is attempted if the majority of the votes cast on > it were FOR the Suggestion. >=20 > Unless the rules specify otherwise for a particular Suggestion, valid > votes on a Suggestion shall be either FOR or AGAINST. >=20 > III. Stock >=20 > Stock is an ownable, operable entity capable of casting one vote on any > Suggestion legally put to the Corporation which issued it. When it casts > its vote any prior votes made by it on that Suggestion are destroyed. > Whenever Stock is issued,it is created in the recipient's possession. > All types of Institution are permitted to own Stock. >=20 > A Corporation shall always accept any one sided trade made to it which > only involves Stock issued by it. A Corporation may not Operate any > Stock whichwas issued by it. >=20 > Voting is an Operation on a Stock which will cause it to vote in a > specified way on any specified Institutional Suggestion, provided that > the vote is appropriate and it is capable of voting on that Suggestion. > Unless specified otherwise the Operation shall occur on all of the > appropriate Stock owned by the entity. >=20 > When an entity makes a Suggestion to a Corporation, it automatically > Operates on all its Shares to vote FOR it. >=20 > IV. Ownership Restrictions >=20 > a) If no shares exist which have been issued by a Corporation, then its > Corporate Structure is destroyed. > b) If there exists a group of Institutions such that no entity other > than those Institutions owns any shares issued by any of any of the > Corporations in that group,then all of the Corporate Structures owned > by those Institutions are destroyed. > c) When an Institution ceases to own a Corporate Structure, all Stock > issued by it when it was a Corporation are destroyed. > " >=20 > Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Funding Charter" with the > following text: > " > A Funding Charter is an Un-tradeable Institutional Power which permits > its Institution to perform only those trades specified by it, upon > request. >=20 > An Institution which owns a Funding Charter is a Trust Fund. A Trust > Fund is not permitted to undertake Trades except as specified by its > Funding Charter. A Trust Fund may exist without members. >=20 > The Funding Charter's text must be specified at the time of creation, > after which it may not be altered. Any player may object to the text of > a Funding Charter. If to players do so, the Funding Charter is > destroyed. >=20 > A Funding Charter is permitted to cause its Trust Fund to offer and > accept trades, according to its text, whenever a player points out any > associated criteria have been met. A Trust Fund may own any tradeable > entity. >=20 > If ever it is impossible to determine what action (if any) a Funding > Charter takes or whether it takes an action at all, then the Funding > Charter is destroyed. >=20 > If a Trust Fund does not own any tradeable entities for which its > Funding Charter is capable of initiating a trade, then its Funding > Charter is destroyed. > " >=20 > Create a rule as a child of 16-1 titled "Political Doctrine" with the > text: > " > A Political Doctrine is a Document and an Institutional Power. >=20 > An Institution may only create a Political Doctrine as an Institutional > Action and by paying ten times the Standard Harfer Fee. The text of the > Political Doctrine may be specified at the time of creation. The text of > a Political Doctrine shall have no effect, except as specified by the > rules, and may be altered as an Institutional Action and by paying the > Standard Harfer Fee. >=20 > An Institution which owns a Political Doctrine may be refereed to as a > Political Party. >=20 > For a voting player to be a member of more than one Political Party > simultaneously is the Crime of Branch-Stacking. >=20 > A Political Party is capable of casting a positive vote with a value > equal to or less than one hundred times the smallestVoting > Characteristic possessed by its members. >=20 > At the end of a proposal's voting period, but before votes on that > proposal are counted, if: > i) every voting player who is a member of a given Political Party voted > to accept that proposal, and > ii) no voting player who is a member of the Party is also a member of > some other Party, and > iii) the party has at least three voting players as members, then the > Political Party itself shall cast a vote equal to the lesser of: > a) the percentage that the total vote of its members represented of the > maximum total vote its members were capable of casting on that proposal, > multiplied by the number of voting players in the party > b) the maximum vote it is capable of casting. > " >=20 > Create a rule as a child of16-1 titled "Religious Dogma" with the text: >=20 > " > Religious Dogma is a Document and an Institutional Power. An Institution > which has a Religious Dogma is a Church, unless it has no Priests, or > (Heaven Forbid!) fewer than zero Priests, or fewer than four members, in > which case it is a Cult. >=20 > When a Religious Dogma is created, its text may be specified. Religious > Dogma may be modified as described by itself, or as an Institutional > Action. If ever it is impossible to determine the exact wording of a > Religious Dogma, then the Religious Dogma is amended to have no text at > all. >=20 > I. Religious Dogma is also permitted to: > i) define Seniority; if it doesn't then the most senior Priest will the > one who has been Priest for the longest duration of time,likewise for > standard membership. > ii) define alternative terminology for the Church specific terms defined > in this rule. Any terms that the Church intends to use in a public > forum, must be defined in Church Dogma. If undefined terminology is used > byChurch members in a public forum, any player may publicly request the > Church to provide an explanation of that term. Members of the Church may > respond to this however they like, and any such response has the > official Ackanomic Seal of Politeness, regardless of how > brain-stoppingly offensive it is. > iii) define a code of conduct for its members. A member of a Church > which disobeys its Religious Dogma is guilty of Iconoclasm, which is a > Crime. It is impermissible for an Intelligent Entity to take a game > action which constitutes Iconoclasm if it has any legal alternative > which would not constitute Iconoclasm. [That is, Iconoclasm normally > doesn't happen unless there is no alternative. It is possible for a > player to commit Iconoclasm by inaction, though.] >=20 > Religious Dogma cannot prevent a member from leaving an Institution. >=20 > II. The Church Founder & The Priesthood >=20 > The player who Founded the Institution is the Church Founder and is > considered a Priest. In the absence of the Church Founder, the most > senior Priest will perform the duties, and have the authority of the > Church Founder, except for the power to ordain Priests. If the original > Church Founder is no longer a member of the Church, the most Senior > priest may become the new Church Founder after the following conditions > have been fulfilled: >=20 > (1) the Church has 5 or more Active members and 3 or more Priests . >=20 > (2) at least one of its Priests has already read, while being a Priest, > one of the Ackanomicon pages that refer to any of the following: >=20 > (a) the Arcane Lore > (b) Ancient Artefact > (c) Long Lost Treasure >=20 > (3) After (1) and (2) were completed the most Senior Priest publicly > stated: "Follow me all you members of ! Follow me and you will > never get lost in the darkness!", where is the name of the > Church. >=20 > The Church Founder has the following powers: > i) ordain a member as a Priest > ii) defrock a Priest of their church (strip them of their Priestly > status) > iii) Excommunicate a member (expel then from the Church) > iv) delegate any of her duties or authorities to the Priesthood, except > those contained on this list. >=20 > A player may not become a member of a Church until they have fulfilled > all other requirements and public approval has been given by the Church > Founder. >=20 > Priesthood is relative to a particular Church; in other words, a player > may not be simply a Priest, but must be a Priest of a particular Church. > (It is possible for a player who is a member of two Churches to be a > Priest in one Church but not in another.) A Player may only be a Priest > of a Church if e has been Ordained a Priest of that Church since the > last time e joined that Church. Any Priest who leaves the a Church cease > to a Priest of that Church. >=20 > III. Membership >=20 > If a player is ever a member of more than three Churches at the same > time, she is removed from the Institution which most recently became a > Church or to which she most recently joined, whichever is the more > recent event. > " >=20 > {{A Church is an Institution. Each Church receives a Church Dogma and a > Group Leader Procedural Document. Rule 15-2 (Church) is repealed.}} >=20 > Amend Rule 15-3 (Social Contracts) by making it a child of 16-1 and > making it read in full: > " > A Social Contract is a type of Contract and anInstitutional Power. >=20 > A Social Contract Differs from a standard Contract in the following > respects: > 1. They are operable and may be modified as an operation. > 2. All of the members of the Institution are considered to have signed > the contract. All other players are not signatories. > 3. Expulsion from the Institution is permitted in the penalty clause. > 4. A player may not voluntarily un-sign from it except by leaving the > Institution. > " >=20 > Amend Rule 12-8-5 (Backers) by making it a child of 16-1 and making it > read in full > " > A Sponsorship is an Institutional Power. An Institution which owns a > Sponsorship is known as a Sponsor. >=20 > A Sponsorship is associated with a Swingership (known as the sponsored > Swingership). >=20 > A Sponsor may perform a special type of Institutional Action, known as a > Support Payment. At the time a Support Payment is Suggested a positive > amount of A$ must also be specified A Support Payment is Financial > Obligation of the Sponsor and is a gift of the specified amount of A$to > the player who controls the sponsored Swingership. >=20 > The player who controls the sponsored Swingership may request that the > Sponsor purchase a specific Party Chess Piece. Such a request is a > Financial Obligation of the Sponsor and when carried outwill cause the > Sponsor to pay for the purchase of the specified Piece which is then > created in the Swingership's possession. >=20 > When a Sponsor does not own sufficient A$ to meet a Financial > Obligations, each member of the Sponsor shall transfer one Ackadollar, > if it has one, to the Sponsor until the Sponsor owns sufficient A$ to > fulfil its obligations. If, after the application of the previous > sentence, an Sponsor still does not own enough A$ to meet some > obligation, then it shall not meet that obligation. >=20 > If the sponsored Swingership is Warm, its Sponsor may transfer it to a > specified player as an Institutional Action. > " >=20 > Re-number Rule 1-2-6-1 (Group Approval) to 16-2 >=20 > Create rule 16-3 titled "Unique Organisations" with the text: > " > Unique Organisations are Institutions which only own those Institutional > Powers which the rules specify them to own. > " >=20 > Re-number Rule 15-1 (Castes) to 16-3-1. [This automatically re-numbers > number Rule 15-1-1 (Grey Council) to 16-3-1-1]. >=20 > Re-number Rule 15-2-1 (Prophets and Prophecies) to 16-4 >=20 > Repeal Rule 15. >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 > End of acka-voting Digest V4 #52 > ******************************** >=20 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4105 Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:51:30 -0500 (EST) Uri Bruck wrote: > I'll be voting against this one. > As I started reading this it seemed almst liek deja vu all over again, > except not quite. > Powers, Admissions policies, all those little mechanics that decorated the > former org structure. The main aim of this proposal was to establish mechanisms for effecting the operation of an institution - previous implementations which address the reason for an orgs existence (unity votes, trust funds etc) were included mainly cause I liked them :-) > Well, that was never what orgs were about, IMO, and > when I read it all together, in this one big proposal, it seems very > uninteresting. I was hoping that the flexibility of the structure would make it more interesting. The boomerangs are an example of an org which would've benefited from such flexibility in the past.... a separate religion and party... > The religious dogma thing claims to be similar to current rules Church, it > isn't really, perhaps on the surface. Having the founder rule by fait is addressed in other institutional powers, but otherwise there is little difference. > Also, no real differentiation is > made between a Church and a Cult. From memory some of a founders powers are dependent on it being a church.... > The whole Swinger-Backer relationship is something I'd rather see remain > as it is now, kept out of an org structure. We've divorced Swingers from > Parties, I see no reason to reverse that. Backers as they stand are effectively orgs anyway. they would remain divorced from parties but could be linked to an institution if the backers deemed it appropriate, having one 'org' instead of two reduces the number of structures (ie membership lists) that need to be tracked. > Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4106 Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:40:29 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: >{{[It occurred to me as DM, with the encroaching end of the month, to >determine which team of players has the greatest chance of success at >slaying the dragon. Turning to rule 1-99, I see that the process of >Defeating this vile and pernicious Evil is called a Characteristic Test. >Searching for the rule that defines Characteristic Test turns up >nothing. Similarly a search for the repeal of rule 451 or 4-4-1 in the >proposal archive between P3539 (last known modification) and P4013 also >turns up nothing. It was also known to exist at 27 Dec 1998 15:40:21 >when CSR 168 re-numbered it to 4-4-1. So where is it? Assuming that my >searches are correct rule 4-4-1 is titled "Characteristic Tests" and >some rule in the 99s (99-1 prolly) is titled "Proposal Rights". Since >its been more than two weeks, its prolly more likely that "Proposal >Rights" was erroneously given the number 4-4-1 and that we now have two >rules with that number.... oh well :-) I have no clue where rule 4-4-1 disappeared to. I know that *I* didn't remove it, so I can only surmise that it got deleted by accident before I took over harfing rules. I will endeavor to put it back into the rules tonight. I believe you correct in that we currently have 2 rules 4-4-1. I believe btw that knight and horse need to be two distinct players, so rufus on rufus isn't valid. However, I seem to recall (and I'd intended that characteristic tests be more fair than you were portraying). I'd be interested in how you determined your probabilities. --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: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4099 accepted Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 16:51:16 -0500 (EST) > Abstainers: > Laa Laa > > Subject: Acka: Proposal 4099 > > Proposal 4099 > ? > K 2 > Due: Mon Mar 1 14:59:28 1999 > Status: accepted > Declared Harfy by rice at tue, 23 feb 1999 02:52:20 -0500 (est) > > This is a Modest Proposal > > {{Re-title this rule "Grease is the Word".}} I self flagelate myself stearnly for not getting around to voting on this of all things. Laa Laa. -- Tom Walmsley womble@tmbg.org http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739 Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo. ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4099 accepted Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:05:04 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > Subject: Acka: Proposal 4099 > > Proposal 4099 > ? > K 2 > Due: Mon Mar 1 14:59:28 1999 > Status: accepted > Declared Harfy by rice at tue, 23 feb 1999 02:52:20 -0500 (est) This created rule 99-1. I am using the ability granted me by rule 99 to renumber this rule to 330155-127570. Kudos to anyone (other than the folks on IRC this evening) who can tell me why I chose those numbers :) --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: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4106 Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:24:26 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, JT wrote: >I have no clue where rule 4-4-1 disappeared to. I know that *I* didn't >remove it, so I can only surmise that it got deleted by accident before I >took over harfing rules. I will endeavor to put it back into the rules >tonight. I believe you correct in that we currently have 2 rules 4-4-1. I still have no clue how the original version of 4-4-1 got removed, but for now there is rule 4-4-1 and rule 4-4-1X (X is the Characteristics Test rule). --JT -- [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V4 #47 **********************************