Subject: acka-voting-digest V2 #225
From: [email-masked] (acka-voting-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-voting-digest      Friday, December 12 1997      Volume 02 : Number 225

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 04:42:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2491

Proposal 2491
Blatant Grab For Power
Slakko (Duncan Richer)

This is a Modest Proposal.
In Rule 1230.2, section 1, create a new subsection, immediately after the
end of subsection C, labelled D, as delimited by PUTSCH below:
PUTSCH
D. It is a Privilege of the Chess-Umpire to issue CSRs which have no
effect on all rules not in the Party Chess Rule Suite.
PUTSCH
{{[This gives people a chance to complain if the Chess-Umpire does
something sneaky, just as with any other Common Sense report.  It seems to
be Common Sense that the Chess-Umpire should be able to fix bugs in the
Party Chess Rules without having to submit a proposal every time.]}}

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 04:42:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2492

Proposal 2492
I Don't Even Know What Our Past Will Be Like in 3 Years
Slakko (Duncan Richer)

Create a new Rule, numbered 0 {{[!]}}, and titled "Restrictions on
Retrospectivity", as delimited by BILL&TED below:

BILL&TED
Calls for Judgement can determine what the game state was at any
particular point in time that has passed.  The game state at any past
point in time is referred to as the game snapshot for that time.
The game snapshot for any time more than 15 days previous to the present
may not be altered.  This rule takes precedence over all rules, except for
any rule which is both numbered 1 and called "The Evil Overlords of
Ackanomic (retired)". If such a rule as described in the previous sentence
exists, then this rule defers to that rule.
BILL&TED

{{[I find that retrospective changes to the game state make things
extremely creepy.  However, in certain circumstances a limited amount of
leeway is permissible.  That is the reason for the 15 day limit - to deal
with resolution of Crises.
The Speaker has 3 days to notice there is a Crisis.
The President has 3 days to issue the Resolution of Crisis Document (6)
The people have 3 days to challenge the document (9)
The Hearing lasts for 3 days (12)
Count Tabula has 3 days to post the result of the hearing (15).
Anything more than this leads to ambiguous chaos, something Acka has far
too much of in my opinion.  This Rule has been numbered 0 simply because 
the existing retrospectivity legislation has insufficient precedence.
]}}

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 04:43:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2493

Proposal 2493
Shouldn't Be That Easy
Slakko (Duncan Richer)

This is a Modest Proposal.

{{[Currently it is easier to pass changes as a Crisis Resolution Document
than as an ordinary proposal.  The only reason for a CRD as far as I can
see is to speed up the fixing process, not to enable a smaller fraction of
the players to pass something through]}}

Append the following SIXTY delimited text to Rule 362:
SIXTY
Unlike other Hearings, Hearings which result from challenges to a State of
Crisis Resolution Document will return a verdict of "This will patch
the crisis" only when at least 60% of all repsonses to the Hearing
are "This will patch the crisis", and at least one response to the
Hearing is received. If less than 60% of all responses to the Hearing are
"This will patch the crisis", or no responses are made to the Hearing,
then the verdict will be "The President is scamming us".
SIXTY

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 04:43:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2494

Proposal 2494
Kick
Slakko (Duncan Richer)

Create a new Rule, numbered Rule 1006, and entitled "When You Don't Get a
Say", with text as follows, delimited by NECESSARY:

NECESSARY
A player may not denounce an Organizational action which:
1) consists entirely of eir removal from that Organization.
NECESSARY

{{[Otherwise it is impossible to remove someone from an organization,
unless the proxy support gets in and they proxy their own support to the
organization.]}}

{{[I intend that this rule will grow over time, as people realise that
certain denouncements are just a way to be obstructionist, rather than
fair ways of objecting to "wrong" actions.]}}

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:16:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2493

> Append the following SIXTY delimited text to Rule 362:
> SIXTY
> Unlike other Hearings, Hearings which result from challenges to a State of
> Crisis Resolution Document will return a verdict of "This will patch
> the crisis" only when at least 60% of all repsonses to the Hearing
> are "This will patch the crisis", and at least one response to the
> Hearing is received. If less than 60% of all responses to the Hearing are
> "This will patch the crisis", or no responses are made to the Hearing,
> then the verdict will be "The President is scamming us".
> SIXTY

  What if the crisis consists of possible deregistration or forced
inactivity of players?  No responses made could be quite annoying.  There
may be no simple way to deal with the no-response case.  Ideas?

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Visit ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/ and find out about text adventures!
If it's before midnight, it's early in the morning.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:57:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2495

Proposal 2495
Quick Fix For Free
Slakko (Duncan Richer)

Amend Rule 207 section VIII by replacing all instances of "if and only if"
with "if", and by appending the following DECLARE-delimited sentence:
DECLARE
A non-Modest proposal,  which contains the sentence "This is a
Boring Proposal" is Boring.
DECLARE

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:57:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2496

Proposal 2496
Save Myself Two Points
Slakko (Duncan Richer)

This is a Boring Proposal.
If there is no rule numbered 1 when this proposal is adopted, but Rule 0
exists, then the last two sentences of rule 0 are deleted.  Otherwise this
proposal has no effect.

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

End of acka-voting-digest V2 #225
*********************************