Subject: acka-voting-digest V2 #265
From: [email-masked] (acka-voting-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-voting-digest      Tuesday, January 27 1998      Volume 02 : Number 265

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 05:18:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2657

Proposal 2657
Short Term Memory
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

{{[when I was a harfer, shorter term durations made for the harf
mailbox to not get too full, and little is gained for the long
duration here]}}

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

Amend rule 404, "Offices, Impeachment", to replace:

"
Also, the author of the IP cannot author an IP for a period of 30 days.
"

with:

"
Also, the author of the IP may not author another IP for the remainder of the
calendar week.
"

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 05:19:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2658

Proposal 2658
Paranoid People Have Enemies Too
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

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

Amend rule 710, "Criminal Justice", to add the following subsection
directly after section 5), subsection g)

"
h) The IMPEACHMENT of Player X from a single specific office which
e currently holds.
"

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

Amend rule 404, "Offices, Impeachment", to replace:

"
This rule defers precedence to rule 593 where there is a conflict. 
"

with

"
This rule defers precedence to other rules which describe methods for
impeaching officers.
"

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 05:21:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2659

Proposal 2659
Pressure Over Drips
Alfvaen (Aaron Humphrey)

This is a Modest proposal.

Repeal Rule 450, "Experts".

{{[ It seems to have been some while since this was taken seriously,
and it doesn't have any relevance to the rest of the Rules, so perhaps
we're better off without it.  I'll leave it to someone else to actally
strip Experts of their titles... ]}}

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 05:23:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2660

Proposal 2660
Hats, Eggs and Things
K 2 (Kelly Kelly)

This is a Modest Proposal.

Amend Sections d) and e) in Rule 431 to read:

d) The Illuminatus may change the condition associated with any Nemesis
Eggplant if e believes any of the following :
    i) that it is impossible for a player to achieve that condition in
normal play
    ii) achieving the condition would prevent the player from winning by
agenda. [for example, the owner of this hat is undead, The owner of this
hat also has the Chartreuse Goose.]
    iii) the condition is otherwise unharfy [For example, a condition
that would be satisfied by spamming the mailing list with 1000's of
messages would be technically easy to achieve, but a bad idea all
around.]
The condition that the Illuminatus chooses should be easily attainable.
It should also be silly.

{{[I think fulfilling your conditions should allow you to win, not
prevent you from doing so ]}}

e) For each newly created Nemesis Eggplant an agenda Hat is created in
the hidden state, which has:
    i) with the same condition.
    ii) a weight equal to the lowest bid on its condition, that was
greater than the winning bid. If no bid was greater, the hat is assigned
the winning bid as a weight. Any Agenda Hats with a condition that was
chosen by the Illuminatus according to d) are Silly Agenda Hats, and
instead are created with a weight of (Magic Number / 4) rounded up.

{{[ I believe that this was the original intent ]}}

Amend section 7) of Rule 620 to read:

7) Upon a player who possesses the Goose achieving any of the following
titles, the Goose is transferred Somewhere Else:
Commander of the Blue Cross, Officer of the Blue Cross, Sage o'Doe Gas,
Agent of KAOS, Angry Villager. If the event which granted one of these
titles also would have established a winning condition had the player
not had the Goose, this transfer is deemed to have occurred an
infinitesimal amount of time after that event.

{{[It seems reasonable, that if a wining condition is thwarted by the
Goose, that it should at least go somewhere else. Sage o'Doe Gas already
does this, why not AOK and AV ? ]}}

{{ K 2 losses 2 points, two star gains 2 points }}
{{[ two star made the comment about section e ]}}

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:51:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2661

Proposal 2661
Don't Mess With Mother Nature
Fortunato (Aaron Keesler)

This is a Modest Proposal

Amend section 4 of Rule 836, replacing "Ignoring the laws of nature is a
crime." with "Ignoring the laws of nature is the Crime of Hubris."

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:11:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2662

Proposal 2662
The Original Annoyance
breadbox (Brian Raiter)

{{[Malenkai's Loophole ain't got nothing on *this* one.]}}

Amend Rule 721 ("Annoyances") by incrementing the [roman] numerals of
each section by one, and then inserting the following text before
section II:

I. Spam

Pursuing a game strategy which entails, as one of its effects, causing
excessive amounts of messages to be sent to the public fora [in the
judgement of a judge] is Annoying.

{{[The classic example is submitting thirty proposals all at once at
the beginning of a cycle, so you can retract them and cause your score
to hit -60 exactly. In fact, as Elder Wayne once pointed out, a player
could engineer their score to be just about anything between -59 and
20, if they were willing to flood the game with the right number of
submissions, solely for the purpose of retracting them. ANNOYING.]}}

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:23:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 2663

Proposal 2663
More bribery
The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)

This is a modest proposal.

Create a new rule entitled "Bribery" and reading as follows:

"All players who were active on the date this rule was amended or created
the time before the most recent amendment and did not vote yes to the
proposal that did so shall loose one point every week at noon on Saturday.

{{[I believe that this will work. When a proposal creates an effect like
this it is only the manner that players voted on the proposal creating the
effect that can't be used to generate scoring effects. Nothing else is
described. Therefore this should work. I actually think it will be quite
interesting this way. Possibly more interesting than if the previous
version had worked.]}}

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

End of acka-voting-digest V2 #265
*********************************