Subject: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #43
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Voting Digest)
To: acka-voting-digest

Ackanomic Voting Digest     Friday, April 18 1997     Volume 02 : Number 043

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:26:34 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1927

Proposal 1927
...Never came back to tell us why.
Mohammed

This is a Modest proposal.

Repeal Rule 1519 ("The Size of Things").

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:26:34 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1928

Proposal 1928
Rental: minimal fun... and a bother to track
Mohammed

This is a Modest proposal.

Create a new rule, reading:  "{{ Ownership of each entity currently 
being rented is transferred from the entity's current owner to the player 
or organization renting the entity. }}"

Repeal Rule 513 ("Rental").

Amend Rule 256 ("Leaving the Game") by removing section 3 and by 
renumbering sections 4-9 to 3-8 respectively.

[--The rather bizarre language being killed is:

3) The rental period for any rented entities in his possession ends. 
[They return to their true owners.) If there exist any entities being
rented from him, such entities are no longer considered rented; the 
rental period for such entities does not end, but simply cease to exist;
their current possessors become their owners in fact. ]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:25:10 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1929

Proposal 1929
Loosening the Rule Change Necktie
Mohammed

[it isn't a noose, but all the same it's a little restrictive and we
can make the rules less complicated by doing this...]

1.  [Move the retroactivity ban up.]  Amend Rule 101 ("The Game of
Ackanomic") by inserting the following sentence just before the last
paragraph:

No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
before the generation of the effect.

2.  Amend Rule 103 ("Proposals and Rule Changes") by renaming it to
"Proposals" and changing its text to read:

- ---
A Voting player may submit a proposal by sending its text to the
Promoter, who shall then post it publicly to be voted on.

All proposals shall be voted on, unless they are retracted or deemed
invalid in accordance with the Rules.  In these cases, they are
removed from consideration, and are considered to be neither accepted
or rejected.

As soon as possible after a proposal's prescribed voting period ends,
the votes on that proposal shall be posted publicly.  The proposal is
then accepted if a quorum has been achieved and the required number of
YES votes were cast on the proposal.

If a proposal is accepted, one of two things happen.  If the proposal
consisted of a list of one-time effects, such as changes to the rules,
then those effects shall be applied, one at a time, in the order in
which they appear in the proposal.  (Ambiguous, conditional,
retroactive, and/or meaningless effects are ignored.)

Otherwise, the proposal itself changes from a proposal to a rule.  [It
is assigned a title and number as described in Rules 301 and 303.]
- ---

3.  Repeal Rule 104 ("Adopting Proposals").

[--replaced text:

Rule 103/10
Proposals and Rule Changes

A proposal is any collection of text designated as a proposal,
submitted and distributed as described in Rule 104. If a proposal is
accepted, any valid rule changes in the proposal are applied, one at a
time, in the order in which they appear, starting at the time its
tabulated voting results are officially reported. This is considered
the "time of application", or "when the rule changes are applied".

A rule change is a description of a game effect. A rule change is
valid if it describes the creation of a new rule, the amendment of an
existing rule, the repeal of an existing rule, or the renumbering of
an existing rule.  If an accepted proposal does not refer to amending,
repealing, renumbering, or creating rules, then it is treated as a
valid rule change to create a new rule with the entire body of the
proposal as its text; this implicit creation of a new rule is only
applied in the case defined in this sentence.

If an amendment to a rule does not unambiguously describe the
amendment to take place, it is not a valid rule change.  Rule changes
not defined as valid by the rules are invalid.  A renumbering rule
change is not valid if it attempts to assign a rule a number which is
already the number of some other rule, or if it attempts to assign a
rule number that is not valid.

When a valid rule change takes effect, at its time of application, the
effect described by the rule change happens. The adoption of an
invalid rule change has no effect.

No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
before the generation of the effect. A rule change that would have
effects retroactive to before the time of its application is invalid.

Rule 104/5
Adopting Proposals

Voting players may make proposals by e-mailing them to the Promoter,
who shall post them publically to be voted on. Accepted proposals must
guide play in the form in which they were distributed to the players.

All such proposals shall be voted on, unless they are retracted,
nullified, or deemed invalid in accordance with the Rules. In these
cases, they are removed from consideration, and are considered to be
neither accepted or rejected.

When a proposal's prescribed voting period ends, or all voting players
have cast a vote on a proposal, then that proposal is accepted if a
quorum has been achieved and the required number of YES votes were
cast on the proposal.

]

Rule 205/4
When Score Changes Take Effect
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

4.  Rule 205 ("When Score Changes Take Effect") is amended by changing
section 4.a), replacing "a rule change created by that proposal" with
"an effect generated from that proposal".

[ --current text
a) If a Score change is called for based on the content of a Proposal,
or a rule change created by that proposal, it is deemed to have
occurred simultaneously with any score changes mandated by R 207. It
is the duty of the Scorekeeper to announce such score changes.
]

[Section 5 also mentions "rule changes" but that uses it in a looser,
more unofficial meaning, so it's probably okay.]

5.  Rule 207 ("Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported")
is amended in the following ways:

by replacing "new rule or rule change" in section I. with "new rule or
effect";

[ --current text:
All the following scoring changes are applied at the time the
Proposal's tabulated voting results are officially reported, unless
the new rule or rule change calls for an instantaneous change to 1 or
more players' score, in which case the score changes detailed in this
rule are applied an infinitesimal amount of time after those effects
are applied.]

and by replacing "does not contain at least one valid rule change"
with "does not become a new rule or generate at least one valid
effect under Rule 103" in section VIII.

[ --current text:
The above provisions notwithstanding, if an accepted proposal does not
contain at least one valid rule change, no points are scored by any
player as a result of that proposal being accepted, the preceding
provisions of this rule notwithstanding. Such proposals, and only such
proposals, are "Null Proposals".]

6.  Rule 219 ("Winning By Paradox") is amended by changing "rule
changes are impossible" to "changing the rules is impossible".  [I
think the language was okay as-is, but considering I stepped down from
the SC, I'd better play it safe.  :o]

7.  Rule 301 ("Proposal and Rule Titles") is amended by removing this:

- ---
The title of a rule may only be changed when a rule change amends the
rule, or when a rule changes the title.
- ---

[Changing the title of a rule is manipulating the rule, which is
already restricted under R500.]

8.  Rule 303 ("Proposal and Rule Numbering") is amended by replacing this:

- ---
II. When a rule change in an accepted proposal creates a new rule, it is 
numbered as follows:
- ---

with this:

- ---
II.  When a new rule is created as a result of the acceptance of a
proposal, it is numbered as follows:
- ---

and by replacing this:

- ---
III. When a new rule is created by another rule, or by some entity (other
than a rule change in an accepted proposal) granted the power to
create rules by some rule, it is numbered as follows:
- ---

with this:

- ---
III.  When a new rule is created by another rule, or by some entity
(besides a proposal) granted the power to create rules by some rule,
it is numbered as follows:
- ---

9.  Rule 313 ("Proposal Bribery") is amended in the following ways:

by changing "if it contains one or more rule changes" to "if it calls
for one or more effects" in section I.;

[ --current text
A proposal is invalid if it contains one or more rule changes that
discriminate in any way between players based on their voting actions
on that proposal, or any other specific proposal or proposals
identified in the proposal. ]

and by changing "before any of the other rule changes" to "in preface
to the main text of the proposal" in section VI.A.  [This puts it in
the same category as modesty and grandioseness.]

[ --current text
A. A proposal may include a Bribe section, which must be in a separate
paragraph before any of the other rule changes in a proposal,
beginning with the word "Bribe" and a colon [as in "Bribe: A$1"). Any
Bribe which violates any of the rules regarding Bribes is invalid.]

[716 ("Patent Infringement") also mentions rule changes, but doesn't
need to be changed.  1131 mentions rule changes in two places.  I'm
not sure exactly what it *means* in those two places, to begin with,
so I decided to leave them alone.  I'm sure the change won't hurt
them, anyway.]

10.  Rule 1213 ("Grab-A-Donkey") is amended by changing this:

- ---
An exception to this is maintenence proposals, or proposals whose rule
changes would fix bugs or paradoxes, are permitted by anyone.
- ---

to this:

- ---
An exception to this is maintenence proposals, or proposals to fix
bugs or paradoxes, are permitted by anyone.
- ---

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:01:33 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1931

Proposal 1931
Terms of Indenture
Guy Fawkes

This is a Modest Proposal.

{{[ Possible applications of Indentured Servitude, included in a separate
proposal so that specific applications might not kill the general idea.]}}

Create a new rule with text as follows:

If the proposal preceding this one entitled "Indentured Servitude" passed,
the rule changes numbered 1 and 2 below shall take place, and then this
rule shall repeal itself.  If that proposal failed, this rule shall repeal
itself without enacting the rule changes numbered 1 and 2 below.  This
section takes precedence over all other parts of this rule. 

{{[ Name-calling and a 10-point penalty haven't seemed to be an effective
deterrent against deadbeating.  This might be, and if it isn't, it should
at least make things interesting. ]}}

1) Amend the last paragraph of Rule 212 "Selecting a Judge" to read,
"Whenever a player is considered a deadbeat as per this rule or rule 213,
their name is added to the CFJ Ineligibility List if it is not already
there.  Also, three Certificates of Indenture associated with that player
are created and sold at in a Public Auction."

{{[ Getting thrown in Gaol over Contempt always seemed like more of a
nuissnace for all the other players than a punishment for the Contemptuous
one, particularly when the only Contempt that happens reguarly in the
Senate as a whole getting thrown in Gaol. ]}}

2) Amend the first paragraph of Rule 715 "in Contempt" to read, "A player
who is held in Contempt shall either have a Certificate of Indenture
associated with em created and sold at public auction (with the proceeds
going to the treasury), or be placed in the Gaol for three days. The
player who is in Contempt is allowed to choose which of the two options he
would like. If the player does not make a choice within three days of
being held in Contempt it will be assumed that he has chosen the
Certificate of Indenture."

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:01:33 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1932

Proposal 1932
Do We Really Need a 2nd Rate Spud (and a 4th Rate Pun)
Guy Fawkes

This is a Modest proposal.  Strike the last two paragraphs from Rule 901, 
"The Magic Potato."  Also, in Rule 667, "Fat Lady," replace "the Great 
Tuba of Ackanomia" with "the Magic Potato".  {{[ Who ever said there was 
no such thing as a Concerto for Trombone and Spud? ]}}

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

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:01:32 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1930

Proposal 1930
Indentured Servitude
Guy Fawkes

Create a new rule with text as delimited by @@

@@
{{ Renumber this rule to 318}}

1. Certificates of Indenture (CoI's) exist.  Each CoI is
associated with exactly one player.  They have all the aspects of 
Tradeable Entities save one -- a player may not trade, give, sell, bury, or 
otherwise voluntarily transfer a CoI associated with emself from eir own 
possession by any means other than a public Auction.

2. A player may create a CoI associated with emself at any time.  A player
may destroy a CoI which he owns at any time.  Other rules may specify
other conditions under which CoI's are created or destroyed.

3. A CoI is used as follows:  A player sends a message to the Tabulator
stating that e is using a CoI, which proposal under voting consideration e is 
using the CoI on, which player that CoI is associated with (the
Indentured player), and the type of legal vote the Indentured player
should cast. This message must be unambiguous.  Also, the player sending
this message must own the CoI both when e sends the message and when the
voting results for the proposal are released.  A player may not use a CoI 
associated with himself.  Any attempt to use a CoI not in accordance with 
this section fails.

4. If all CoI usages for a single proposal Indenturing a single player
state that the Indentured player should cast the same legal vote, the
Indentured player's vote on that proposal is changed to (or remains) the
vote specified by the CoI(s).  (This has precedence over Rule
106).  Otherwise, the CoI's have no effect. When the Tabulator reports the
voting results for that proposal, he should report all CoI's used on it.
When this report is made, those CoI's are destroyed.

{{[ Why?  On the positive side, a player could create CoI's associated
with himself and sell them as a fundraiser.  On the negative side, the
rules could state conditions under which CoI's associated with a player
might be created and sold at public auction. ]}}

@@

Amend Rule 256 as follows:

Increment the numbers of steps 4-9 by one.

Insert the following, immediately after step 3:

4) All players owning Certificates of Indenture associated with the
departing player are paid the lesser of A$100, or the number of A$
possessed by the departing player divided by the number of CoI's
possessed by other players (rounding down), from the departing player's
account for each CoI associated with the departing player they own.  All
CoI's associated with the departing player are then destroyed.

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

End of Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #43
*************************************