Subject: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #121
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Voting Digest)
To: acka-voting-digest

Ackanomic Voting Digest    Saturday, July 19 1997    Volume 02 : Number 121

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:05:23 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2240

Proposal 2240
Wall-To-Wall Carpeting
Alfvaen

This is a Modest proposal.

{{ Amend the Blueprint for the Vending Machine as follows:

After the third paragraph, insert the following text(delimited by SELMA):

SELMA

If a Vending Machine is possessed by the owner of the Great Trombone of
Ackanomia, e may vend therefrom Walls of Trombones.  The price for which
A Wall of Trombones can be sold starts at A$10.

If a Vending Machine is owned by the possessor of the Little Lamb, e
may vend therefrom Santa's Beards.  The price for which a Santa's Beard
may be sold starts at A$8.

SELMA

[And while I'm here...]

In the last paragraph, replace the text "any non-broken Vending Machine"
with "any owned non-broken Vending Machine".  [This is intended to exclude
Vending Machines that are buried, in the Museum, or donated to the
Treasury.]

}}

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:34:05 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2241

Proposal 2241
Senate Resolutions
ThinMan

{{ [ This proposal empowers the Senate to make relatively quick, minor
changes to the rule set in case we encounter an extraordinary situation
in which the normal voting process is hung up or too slow.  The use of
this privilege exacts a price, however.  To further balance things and
spread the power around, I have decided to follow Niccolo's lead and
propose term limits for Senators as part of the package as well.  The
specifics of the Senator term limits is negotiable, but for now I just
set them equal to the presidential term.
] }}

A new rule entitled "Senate Resolutions" shall be created and numbered 
411.1, with the following, double-ampersand-delimited text:

&&
The President, the Speaker, the Supreme Court Justices, and the
Senators may each introduce a Senate Resolution at most once per
calendar month by publicly posting its text.  The officer introducing
the resolution shall then post a presumptuous, ostentatious speech,
at least as long as the text of the resolution, explaining why the
resolution should be accepted.

If the text of the resolution is longer than 20 80-character lines,
or if it is not prefaced in the same document with a statement to the
effect that the following text is a Senate Resolution and a provisional
title, then the Officer who introduced it is considered an Incompetent
Political Buffoon for the following three days.  Otherwise, a vote is
initiated in the Senate on the question of whether or not to accept the
Resolution; the voting period shall be three days for this.

If the Senate votes in favor of accepting a resolution then immediately
after the results of the vote are publicly announced (as described in
rule 1001), that resolution's text is added to the ruleset as a new
rule with its initial title the specified provisional title, and an
initial number equal to the first integer greater than 5000 which is
not already a rule number.  The player who initiated the resolution is
then permitted to cheer, strut, and make victory gestures.  The CSRR
Officer is permitted and encouraged to assign such a rule a new number
once within the first 7 days of its existence (in order to place it
in the correct section of the rules); the Harfmeister is permitted to
once rename such a new rule to any legal name during the first seven
days of its existence.

If the Senate votes against accepting the resolution then the player
who introduced it loses 10 points and is encouraged to moan, gripe,
and complain about their choice of either "tree-hugging,
big-government, hippie liberals" or "gun-toting, poor-hating,
draconian conservatives."

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, each Senator who votes in favor
of accepting a resolution is removed from his Senator seat at the same
time that the complete, final voting results on that resolution are 
publicly announced.  Senators who are removed from their seats in this
way shall not be eligible to be re-elected as Senators for eight
weeks following the removal.
&&

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:16:13 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P2222 accepted (Gettin a Share of the Profit)

Proposal 2222
Gettin a Share of the Profit
Niccolo Flychuck

Votes cast by active players:  16 / 19 = 84.210526%
Yes:  9    No:  4     Present:  3   ...Proposal accepted.

#award Niccolo Flychuck: 2 A$ : elec. potato P2222, July 18

YES votes:
	two-star
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	Calvin N Hobbes
	Rex Mundi
	ThinMan
	Karma
	Vynd
	Mr. Lunatic Fringe

NO votes:
	Chaos
	Guy Fawkes
	Techno
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:
	mr cwm
	Alfvaen
	breadbox

Active players who did not vote:
	You can call me Al
	Robert Sevin
	CarsesraC
	fnord
	Antimatter

Text of accepted proposal:

Proposal 2222
Gettin a Share of the Profit
Niccolo Flychuck
Distributed at 10:51:53 on Friday, 11 July 1997

This is a Modest Proposal.

Ammend  R1303  "Synod" in the followign way:
Append to section 8 the following text:
"
Whenever the word Organization or the word Organizations appear in the
second paragraph of this section, it means an eligible Organization as
defined in the first paragraph of this section.
"

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:16:13 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2242

Proposal 2242
We'll Let You Off With A Warning This Time
Alfvaen

This is a Modest propposal

Amend Rule 925, "The Press", as follows:

Replace the paragraph(delimited by SIBELIUS)

SIBELIUS

A newspaper must publish at least one article during each calendar
month, or it will cease to exist.  When this happens, the newspaper is
said to have gone belly-up.

SIBELIUS

with the following(delimited by DELIUS)

DELIUS

If a newspaper fails to publish at least one article during a calendar
month, but the owner publicly expresses a wish during the subsequent
month to keep the paper alive, e must pay a fee of A$15 to the
Treasury.  If it fails to publish at least one article in two
consecutive calendar months, or the owner does not keep it alive by the
above means after one month of inactivity, it will cease to exist.
When this happens, the newspaper is said to have gone belly-up.

DELIUS

{{ Any newspaper which went belly-up as the result of not having
published any articles in June, and whose owner expresses or has
expressed a wish to keep the paper alive during the month of July, is
hereby recreated in the possession of its former owner, who is
administered a fee of A$15. }}

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:44:00 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2243

Proposal 2243
If It Ain't Broke...
Alfvaen

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend Rule 595, "Gadgets", as follows:

Delete the existing clause (vi).  {{[ I've been led to believe that
entities being "Protected" doesn't really have the force of the Rules
behind it anymore. ]}}

Replace it with the following text(delimited by ALBUQUERQUE):

ALBUQUERQUE

(vi) A Gadget may become Broken as specified by its Blueprint, or by other
means, unless its Blueprint specifies that it is indestructible.  A Gadget
that is Broken will not perform any of the functions specifies in its
Blueprint, unless its Blueprint specifies otherwise.

ALBUQUERQUE

{{ Amend the Blueprint for the Butler as follows:

Append the sentence "A Butler is a mechanical Gadget." to the first
paragraph.  In the third paragraph, replace the first occurrence of the
word "entities" with "tradeable entities".  Before the last sentence of
that paragraph, insert the sentence "Any entities on the list are still
considered to be owned by the Butler's owner until they are traded."

[Hopefully this will fix any problems with the Butler.]
}}

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 22:48:04 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2244

Proposal 2244
Continuity
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest Proposal.

In R1303 "Synod" section 3 replace the word "three" with the word "two"

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 22:54:57 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2245

Proposal 2245
Simplicity
Niccolo Flychuck

In R1303 "Synod" section 8, replace the text:
"
Profits are defined as (A$ currently owned by the Synod minus (A$ owned by
the Synod after the previous profit distribution, or on the most recent
date the Synod was not in Session, whichever was more recent))
"

With the text"
"Profits are defines the number of A$ owned by the Synod at the moment
Profit Sharing Day is anounced, minus the number of A$ owned by the Synod
at the end of the previous Profit Sharing Day, or the most recent day on
which the Synod was not in Session, which was more recent. If this number
is determined to be negative, then Profits are defined to be equal to
zero.
"

[This was the original intent, and with some previous phrasing of other
rules, might have actually worked that way. Currently, I prefer to ammend
this to make this more air tight. ]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:24:09 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2246

Proposal 2246
Internomic a la Vynd
Niccolo Flychuck

Ammend 419.2 "Internomic Interface" in the following ways:

Ammend section III to read in full:
"
Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic, the
Liaison shall initiate a binding vote in the People's Council for
Internomic to determine how e should cast Ackanomic's vote in Internomic. 
If there are fewer than 4 members in the People's Council for Internomic,
then the Liasion shall initiate a binding vote in a Joint Assembly of the
Senate and the People's Council for Internomic to determine how e should
cast Acaknomic's vote in Internomic. In the latter case it is the Senate's
responsibility to report the results of the vote to Ackanomic.

In the event that the Institution or Institutions in which the vote was
initiated  do not reach a decision, the President shall determine how e
casts Ackanomic's vote. 
"

Ammend Section V to read in full:
"
In order to change the Attitude of Ackanomic toward any other member nomic
of InterNomic, a vote must be held. Each Senator has one vote, each
member of the People's Council for Internomic has one vote and the
Liaison has one vote (if the Liaison is also a Senator, or a member of
the People's Council for Internomic, e only gets one vote total). These
votes are duties of the respective offices. If 60% or more of these
eligible voters vote in favor of changing the Attitude of Ackanomic,
then the Liaison shall take whatever steps are necessary and possible to
carry out this decision in InterNomic. 
"

{{[ I didn't opt for Joint Assembly in this section because currently it
only allows for JA of  Institutions, and not of Officers. I have some
ideas to ammend that, and make it more flexible, but for now, this
phrasing inthis rule should do.]}}

Append the following text as section VI:
"
The People's Council for Internomic is an Institution. Any player may join
this Institution by posting a public message. Any players may leave this
Institution by posting a public message. The People's Council for
Internomic is in Session when it has one or more members. Whenever it is
necessary to appoint an Acting Ambassador, the Speaker should first
consider members of the People's Council for Internomic for the
appointment {{[this reflects that these are probably the players who are
more interested in inter-nomic relations]}}
"

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:34:39 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2247

Proposal 2247
Better Joint Assemblies
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest Proposal.

Ammend R1001 "Institutions" section 5 to read in full:
"
When two or more Institutions are called to vote on a matter in Joint
Assembly, then all the members of all the Institutions in the specific Joint Assembly vote on the
matter as if they were all members of one Institution.
If an Additive Joint Assembly was called, then 
each player votes once for each Institution in the Joint Assembly
that he is a member or an acting member of.
If a Union Joint Assembly was called, then each player who is a member of
at least one of the Institutions in the Joint Assembly votes exactly once,
regardless of the number of Institutions he is a member of.
If it is not specified whether the Joint Assembly is Additive or Union
then Union is assumed.

When an Officer initiates a vote in Joint Assembly e also designates a
player whose duty it is to count the votes and report the resupublically.
The player must be either the Officer emself, or a member of one of the
Institutions in the Joint Assembly.  If the vote was not initiated by an
Officer than the Speaker shall designate the player.

If two or more Institutions are called to vote on a matter and a Joint
Assembly is not explicitly specified, then each Institution votes
seperately, and each Institutions decision counts as one vot.
"

[I think this should codify Joint Assmebly more tightly.I don't how
necessary it is, IMO a group of people can get together and vote without
every matter ofprocedure dictated, but why not make things air tight]

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

End of Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #121
**************************************