Subject: Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #123
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Voting Digest)
To: acka-voting-digest

Ackanomic Voting Digest     Monday, July 21 1997     Volume 02 : Number 123

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 16:31:14 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2251

Proposal 2251
A Big Dingleberry I found while trying to figure out this duel thing
/dev/joe

This is a modest proposal.

Amend R1215, 'Duels', as follows:

Change section 3 to read:

  3. When a duel is forfeited, the player who forfeited loses 6 points,
     and his opponent in the duel gains 6 points.  The seconds scores are
     not changed in this case.

{{[ It now says:

     3. Whenever a duel is forfeited,  the Challenged player loses 6
     points, and the Challenging player gains 6 points.  The Seconds scores
     are not changed in this case.

but it is possible for the Challenging player to forfeit duels by going
on vacation or to Gaol, by section 4f.  Alfvaen thus forfeited the
tromino go duel back on July 9.

Also fix some stuff to ensure it is always well-defined who forfeits: ]}}

At the end of the 4th paragraph of section 2, change
  "he is considered to have forfeited the Duel"
to:
  "the Challenged player forfeits the Duel"

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:05:27 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2252

Proposal 2252
Eliminate CFCJing onself
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[To me, calling a CFCJ on onself seems out the spirit, or does not
exploit the harf of the rule.  There seem to be two cases to call a 
CFCJ, and neither of them are appropriate on onself.  If one wants to
penalize onself, there are easier, and perhaps more interesting, ways
to do so.  While it may be a noble goal to penalize onself, it seems
that if there is enough damage, harf, or interest in the crime, someone
else will call the CFCJ]}}

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

Amend rule 710, "Criminal Justice", to replace:

"
3) Its "statement" shall be "X has committed a Crime", where X is
replaced with the name of a registered player. 
"

with:

"
3) Its "statement" shall be "X has committed a Crime", where X is replaced
with the name of a registered player other than the initiator. 
"

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:15:47 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2253

Proposal 2253
Defining self-similarity
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend rule 1003, "Organizations", to replace:

"
For any two Organizations X and Y, orgsim(X, Y) is defined as the
percentage of members of X who are also members of Y. 
"

with:

"
For any two Organizations X and Y, orgsim(X, Y) is defined as the
percentage of members of X who are also members of Y, except for the
case where X and Y are the same, in which case it is defined to be 0. 
"

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:55:56 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2254

Proposal 2254
List Cleanup
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[Gist: remove any observers who are not actively observing when setting
up the new lists]}}

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

Create a new rule numbered 422.1 titled "List Cleanup", which reads:

"
I.  For the purposes of this rule, the term "observer" is defined as it
is in rule 422, except that those who would hold the title Elder if
they rejoined the game two weeks after the date this rule was created
are excluded [Brinjal and Bascule, I believe].  {{All observers lose
the ZZimsy attribute.}}

II.  It is a duty of the Postmaster to send a message to all observers,
asking them if they wish to remain subscribed to the lists they are
subsribed to.  This message shall be sent within 7 days of the creation
of this rule [to allow a big window on transition of the office].

III.  All observers who fail to send an affirmative response to the
Postmaster within 7 days of the message being sent are ZZimsy observers.
Acquiring the ZZimsy attribute is considered a change in the game state.

IV.  The Postmaster shall remove all ZZimsy observers from all lists
to which they are subscribed.

V.  The Postmaster shall publically post a list of all ZZimsy observers;
upon doing so, this rule shall repeal itself.
"

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

Amend rule 422, "Postmaster", to replace:

"
Any person subscribed to any public forum who is not a player is
considered to be an observer.
"

with:

"
Any person subscribed to any public forum who is not a player is
considered to be an observer.  It is a privilege of the Postmaster to
remove any observer from any list provided they are given 7 days notice,
and they do not object within that time.
"

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:10:37 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2255

Proposal 2255
Remove some more unused rules
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[these rules may have been fun to read while in the proposal
queue, but I do not think we need them in the ruleset]}}

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

Repeal Rule 42, "Revenge of Life, the Universe, and Everything"
Repeal Rule 938  "We Shall Inherit The World!"
Repeal Rule 1322 "Doomsday! Part II"
Repeal Rule 1324 "More Blatant Elitism"
Repeal Rule 1326 "Gimme that Gnome yet again"
Repeal Rule 2103 "Doomsday! Part II"
Repeal Rule 2104 "More Blatant Elitism"
Repeal Rule 2105 "Universal Nomic Strikes Back!"
Repeal Rule 2106 "Gimme that Gnome yet again"

{{[listed twice because that is the way they are in the rules document.
The one that is wrong will fail.  Also, I have no idea why they were in
the 1300s, any renumbering should have put them in the 1100's]}}

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:22:00 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2256

Proposal 2256
vault: not found
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[this is like the Synod was when proposal 2220 was submitted,
a complex, unused rule.  Perhaps this proposal will spur interest
and proposals to simplify and repair (as 2220 did), perhaps not and
acka will decide to eliminate the rule.  In any case, same comments I
made in the proposal 2220 debates apply here too, nothing more, no
need to rehash them.  It is still my opinion that a useable rule,
(meaning a rule meant to be used in the course of normal, as opposed
to extradordinary gameplay, should be either used or repealed, if its
been around awhile.]}}

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

Repeal rule 607, "Winning by Finding the Crystal Chalice"
Repeal rule 607.1, "Vault Divination"

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:53:44 -0500
From: Acrobot <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 2257

Proposal 2257
Table Lookup Is Easier
Alfvaen

Amend Rule 207, "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are Reported",
as follows:

Replace the existing text of section III

{{[
     III. Scoring on Accepted Proposals If a non-Modest proposal is
     accepted, the player who proposed it receives 10 points, and every
     player who voted NO on it receives 3 points.
]}}

with the following(delimited by FOO):

FOO

     III. Scoring on Proposals 

     If a Modest proposal is accepted, the player who proposed it receives
     5 points, and every player who voted NO on it receives 1 point.  If a
     Grandiose proposal is accepted, the player who proposed it receives
     16 points, and every player who voted NO on it receives 5 points.
     If a proposal which is neither Modest nor Grandiose is accepted,
     the player who proposed it receives 10 points, and every player who
     voted NO on it receives 3 points.

     If a Modest proposal is rejected, but meets quorum, the player
     who proposed it loses 5 points, and every player who voted YES
     on it receives 1 point.  If a Grandiose proposal is rejected, but
     meets quorum, the player who proposed it loses 12 points, and every
     player who voted YES on it receives 5 points.  If a proposal which
     is neither Modest nor Grandiose is rejected, but meets quorum,
     the player who proposed it loses 7 points, and every player who
     voted YES on it receives 3 points.

     Voting NO on a proposal which is accepted, or voting YES on a proposal
     which is rejected, is called "anti-voting".

     A proposal can only be declared to be Modest or Grandiose as defined
     by the Rules.

FOO

Delete the existing section IV.  {{[This has been folded into Section III.]}}

{{[
     IV. Scoring on Rejected Proposals If a proposal is rejected, but
     meets quorum, the player who proposed it loses 7 points and every
     player who voted YES on it receives 3 points.
]}}

Replace the existing text of section VI

{{[
     VI. Short Proposal Bonus If a non-Modest proposal is accepted which
     contains less than five lines, none of which contains more than
     80 characters, including space characters, of text in the body of
     the proposal (excluding whitespace and furniture), the player who
     submitted it is awarded 5 extra points.
]}}

with the following(delimited by BAZ):

BAZ

     VI. Short Proposal Bonus

     If a proposal is accepted which contains less than five lines,
     none of which contains more than 80 characters, including space
     characters, of text in the body of the proposal (excluding whitespace
     and furniture), the player who submitted it is awarded half again
     as many points as e would have gained from Section III, above,
     rounded up.

BAZ

In Section VII, replace "a three-point bonus" with "a bonus equivalent to
the points which would be gained by anti-voting[one point for Modest
proposals, five points for Grandiose proposals, three points otherwise]".

Renumber Sections V-VIII of the Rule as Sections IV-VII.

Amend Rule 209, "Modesty and Pride", by deleting the second and fourth
paragraphs.

{{[ All the scoring information has been moved into Rule 207. ]}}

Also, append the following text(delimited by QUUX):

QUUX

The sentence that declares a Proposal to be Modest or Grandiose is
considered "furniture" for the purposes of Rule 207.

QUUX

Renumber Rule 207.2, "Keep 'em in the Game", to 206.  Renumber Rule 207.3,
"Foolishness", to 207.2.

{{[ It fits uncomfortably in the R207 Rule Suite anymore, which is
devoted otherwise entirely to scoring on _proposals_ only.  Perhaps the
other Rules in the Suite should be folded into R207 for simplicity as well.
]}}

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

End of Ackanomic Voting Digest V2 #123
**************************************