Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #53
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, June 15 1996        Volume 01 : Number 053

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 02:07:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Bored?

If you are bored with the game, and particularly bored at the minimum two
week delay imposed by rules 829 & 629, you may want to look at the new
initial ruleset I have been working on.  It isn't finished yet, but it
could be finished and ready to go in a couple days.

http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/newinit.html

Suggestions are welcome.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:18:00 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Bored?

At 2:07 AM 6/15/96, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>If you are bored with the game, and particularly bored at the minimum two
>week delay imposed by rules 829 & 629, you may want to look at the new
>initial ruleset I have been working on.  It isn't finished yet, but it
>could be finished and ready to go in a couple days.

I for one am not bored with the game.  The festival provided a great
slowdown period, in which we could all ge caught up.  And then, as luck
would have it, Malenkai's paradox win during the festival, removed all
proposals from the voting que.  Now would be a great time for new players
to join.

I for one found the spare time provided by the festival to be a great boon.
It's hard work founding a church.  Now, I'm going to listen eagerly for
reports from the constitutional convention.  I'll also use the new spare
time to develop a few ideas for proposals.

Everyone else should do the same.  Now would be a great time for some
interesting RFC's.

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
In fear of being burned as a heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 08:10:08 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 831 

"Malenkai" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:

>> If at any time a political officer has been on vacation for the
>> past 7 days, he is considered to have resigned from that office and
>> it shall be filled as the rules specify for filling that office
>> when it is vacant.

Malenkai> I urge a NO vote on this. I was "legitimately" travelling in
Malenkai> Europe for 10 days. Had this been distributed the day I
Malenkai> left, I could have come back, and been "bogusly" removed
Malenkai> from office. Please up the number to something like 21, or
Malenkai> 28 days, or allow the person to get their job back.

/dev/joe's proposal is quite generous.  if i wrote it, i would not
allow Officers to go on vacation _at all_.  you go on vacation without
nominating a deputy (if a process for doing so exists), you lose your
office(s).  period.  allowing officers to disappear on vacation
indefinitely is very bad for the game; the game falls apart rather
quickly when its officers aren't around to do their duties.

Malenkai> We should not try to exclude relatively inactive players
Malenkai> from the game.  I believe this proposal does this.

it only excludes relatively inactive players from being officers.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 08:12:59 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: I'm Confused! 

"Phil" == Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> writes:

Phil> Malenkai, I'm confused.  Are you on vacation now or not?  All
Phil> that switching back and forth is gonna cause my brain to
Phil> explode. I think I'll take a vacation until my head stops
Phil> hurting.

Phil> I am now placing myself on vacation.  Please disregard this
Phil> sentence.  I am returning from vacation.

we clearly need a rule stating that a Player, once on vacation, must
stays on vacation for at least, oh, three days.  none of this "i'm
here, i'm not, i'm here, i'm not" crap.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 08:33:00 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Disc: Proposal 866 

"Uri" == Uri Bruck <[email-masked]> writes:

Uri> I think I was concerned because we have a tendency to pass
Uri> proposales that later everyone ends up complaining about.

welcome to Nomic. :)

besides, proposals that nobody complains about are boring.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 10:16:58 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Bored?

104:
>
>       When a proposal is adopted, any text contained in double square 
>brackets
>       [[e.g. this]] is deleted, and it becomes a rule change. 

should end "the remaining text, if any, becomes a rule change"

I still prefer Acka.

this is not a name
[email-masked]
Historian
File Clerk
Priest, Church of the Markovian Dream
Party Hall Swinger for (None Yet)
Candidate for Delegate: vote now to [email-masked]

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
         "I would have made a good Pope." --Richard M. Nixon          
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:18:15 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 899 

"Jazz" == Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]> writes:

Jazz> I respectfully request a clause, or at least existing game
Jazz> custom, to allow for people like myself with dreadful ISPs who
Jazz> must do so to maintain game play. I cannot switch ISPs lightning
Jazz> fast.

a better way of expressing Pr.899 would be to prohibit the sending of
email in such a way as to conceal or misrepresent the identity of its
sender.  this would prohibit the recent gnomish incidents while
allowing a Player whose email service dies unexpectedly to use
extraordinary measures to communicate with Players as needed.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:34:18 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 900 

"Pr900" ==   <[email-masked]> writes:

Pr900> No one player is said to "run" Ackanomic. Ie, there is no
Pr900> meta-ruler or similar entity who is "in charge". These duties,
Pr900> and the offices that claim them, can only be given explicitly
Pr900> by the rules.

Pr900> Furthermore, all things Ackanomic, including, but not limited
Pr900> to, the rules, artifacts, game custom, are owned "in common",
Pr900> by the players of Ackanomic.

i'm not sure what purpose this serves.  however, may i suggest:

      In matters of law wholly external to the Rules, Ackanomic shall
      be considered an unincorporated voluntary society established in
      the State of Texas under the laws thereof.  The membership of
      this society shall be comprised of the several Players duly
      registered under these Rules.

      The Ambassador, or in the absence of an Ambassador, the Speaker,
      is authorized to act in the stead and on behalf of the several
      Players of Ackanomic in any proceeding occuring wholly external
      to the Rules; but he shall not do so in any manner which is
      prohibited by the Rules.
      
this rule would have no effect within the Rules; however, it would
define Ackanomic's legal status and specify a representative, which
might have significance if, say, Ackanomic wanted to sue someone. :)

i could also draft a copyright disclaimer if y'all wanted. :)

and, by the way, no, i am not an attorney.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:37:58 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Amber Banana 

"Jerome" == Jerome Herrman <[email-masked]> writes:

Jerome> I acknowledge that Malenkai has purchased an Amber Banana and
Jerome> eaten it. I will vote yes on 894.

too bad there's no penalty for making unenforceable promises, as
Pr.894 has been irrevocably withdrawn from consideration, and thus you
cannot vote upon it at all.

however, it may be that your legal inability to cast a vote on Pr.894
at all may put you in violation of Rule 827.  depends on the
precedence relations, which i have not adequately explored in this
case.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:46:35 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: CFJ 92.9 + 2.718i 

"cwm" == cwm  <[email-masked]> writes:

cwm> I will once the US government and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway
cwm> join Ackanomic as Players, and become subject to the game custom
cwm> of CFJ 113.

game custom which is in contradiction with the Rules has no
applicability.  CFJ 113 is extremely bad law to begin with, and in any
case many Rules have been adopted since it was handed down that i
personally believe that CFJ 113 no longer has any standing as
precedent, the rules not even resembling the state which existed when
it was handed down.

but i understand that many Ackanomicians have, um, bizarre
conceptualizations of "game custom"; it seems that some of them place
game custom above the rules at times.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:41:59 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 904 

"Matt" == Matt  <[email-masked]> writes:

Matt> Well, no. The changes described above would not remedy any
Matt> problem.  The changes will happen instantaneously whether the
Matt> rule says "if" or "when". 

i don't see any particular reason for assuming this to be the case.
what in the Rules establishes this principle of immediate causation?
i don't see a Rule that says "When an Entity is required by the Rules
to do something, it does so immediately upon being so required."  (of
course, such a Rule would be terribly dangerous, as it would require
instantaneous compliance with the Rules by Players, which would be
draconian and rather silly).

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 17:55:15 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Amber Banana 

On Sat, 15 Jun 1996, Kelly Martin wrote:

> "Jerome" == Jerome Herrman <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> Jerome> I acknowledge that Malenkai has purchased an Amber Banana and
> Jerome> eaten it. I will vote yes on 894.
> 
> too bad there's no penalty for making unenforceable promises, as
> Pr.894 has been irrevocably withdrawn from consideration, and thus you
> cannot vote upon it at all.
> 
> however, it may be that your legal inability to cast a vote on Pr.894
> at all may put you in violation of Rule 827.  depends on the
> precedence relations, whichi have not adequately explored in this
> case.
> 
> k.
>
He can still send a yes vote to Wayne, it just won't have any meaning.
Better yet. He could send it to the nomicbot, and get a 'vote receipt'
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:07:50 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Appeal Ruling CFJ 164 

"Supreme" == Supreme Court <[email-masked]> writes:

Supreme> Robert Sevin is no longer the Speaker, and there is no longer
Supreme> a R443/1, to consider, nor has it been renumbered to
Supreme> something else. Therefore the original statement on which
Supreme> judgement was called is FALSE, based on the current facts.

it has always been my opinion that a Statement should be judged in the
context, including the temporal context, in which it was made.  the
Judges should consider the Rules which were in force at the time the
CFJ was _made_, not those in force at the time it was judged.  in
fact, i believe that doing otherwise violates Rule 215.

in short, i disagree vehemently with the Court's finding that 

Supreme> current facts must hold sway unless the original statement
Supreme> contains tense or other temporal language to call other facts
Supreme> into force.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:18:15 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 897 -retracting 

"Uri" == Uri Bruck <[email-masked]> writes:

Uri> TV commercials have their own slot on TV, and it is clear to
Uri> everyone that they are commercials. Likewise newspaper ads. I
Uri> don't see anyone claiming that such practices violate the
Uri> manufacturers freedom of speech and expression.

in the United States, the laws (actually, regulations proglumated by
the FCC, rather than laws passed by Congress) that require that
commericial programs of more than 2 minutes in length be marked as
such do in fact limit the freedom of speech of advertisers and courts
have in fact ruled to this effect.  however, is has also been
determined that the State has a "compelling interest" to allow this
abridgement, because of the unique nature of the TV broadcast medium
(the full argument arises from issues such as the public ownership of
the electromagnetic spectrum) and the state's interest in preventing
fraud.

newspaper advertising is unregulated by law, except that false or
deceptive advertising is illegal under common law fraud statutes.  the
print medium is (at least up until last thursday) the least regulated
of all broadcast media.  most newspapers choose to clearly identify
advertisements as such, but they are under no legal obligation to do
so.

you'll forgive me, but the study of First Amendment litigation is one
of my avocations.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:04:18 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Politness Moon (again) 

"Phil" == Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> writes:

>> I strongly support Malenkai(?)'s proposal to introduce double
>> braces to replace the Resolution idea.

Phil> As do I

i strongly oppose it.  it's an ugly kludge that can be easily and
completely avoided.  just declare that "The effect of adopting a
Proposal is to implement the provisions within it, to the extent that
doing so is permitted by the Rules; this may include the application
of one or more Rule Changes."  the only problem with this is that it
requires that Proposals that are intended to create Rules must
explicitly say so (i.e. "This Proposal creates a Rule, which shall
read: ...").  i note that several, although not all, players here are
already doing this in their proposals (sometimes leading to inanities
like the first words of Rules 495 or 542).  i don't consider requiring
such language to be a serious problem.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:17:02 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P831

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 
> "Malenkai" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> >> If at any time a political officer has been on vacation for the
> >> past 7 days, he is considered to have resigned from that office and
> >> it shall be filled as the rules specify for filling that office
> >> when it is vacant.
> 
> /dev/joe's proposal is quite generous.  if i wrote it, i would not
> allow Officers to go on vacation _at all_.  you go on vacation without
> nominating a deputy (if a process for doing so exists), you lose your
> office(s).  period.  allowing officers to disappear on vacation
> indefinitely is very bad for the game; the game falls apart rather
> quickly when its officers aren't around to do their duties.
> 

The Speaker had a reasonable process for doing so, and did so. I did not
disappear indefinitely, I stated I would be back on the 5th of June,
or earlier, and was. Despite this, an attempt was made to remove me from 
office because of an announced 10 day vacation, which may have succeeded,
had I not come back earlier.
 
Members of the Indiana State Government take vacation, and it manages
to continue just fine. I'm not from Indiana, but I imagine when the
Governor goes to Europe for 10 days, his or her office is still there
upon return. It is so in Pennsylvania.

Its a game. I think it is saying something if people need to take
vacation from it. Besides, we all cannot play 356 days a year. Some of
us like to travel, and pursue other interests as well. The acting
officers solves the problem nicely, while allowing the players who
earned the offices in the first place to expect that they will be there
upon return. Its a game.

The game did not fall apart rather quickly. Intolerance is worse for
the game, and it will fall apart quicker.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:21:50 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream

Malenkai wrote:
>John Bollinger wrote:
>> 
>> >Once the Constitutional Convention finishes its business, Malenkai will
>> >become the new speaker under 666, which will be in effect after the
>> >Convention.
>> 
>> This, however, is true under the current rule set.  Not particularly good
>> or useful, but true.
>
>I appreciate your confidence :)

I suspect that Malenkai took that as I meant it, but just in case: I was not
referring to Malenkai taking over the speakership particularly, but rather
to the Speakership changing hands in the event of a win in general.  I do not
doubt that Malenkai will make a good Speaker.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:22:35 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC Senate purge 

"Malenkai" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:

Malenkai> Fon stated he would be back in September. 

given the rate at which things change in many Nomics, there's a good
chance there won't _be_ a Senate in September.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:40:00 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 897 -retracting 

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 
> "Uri" == Uri Bruck <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> Uri> TV commercials have their own slot on TV, and it is clear to
> Uri> everyone that they are commercials. Likewise newspaper ads. I
> Uri> don't see anyone claiming that such practices violate the
> Uri> manufacturers freedom of speech and expression.
> 
> in the United States, the laws (actually, regulations proglumated by
> the FCC, rather than laws passed by Congress) that require that
> commericial programs of more than 2 minutes in length be marked as
> such do in fact limit the freedom of speech of advertisers...

Perhaps in Isreal, things are different. In any case, I personally do
not feel the compelling need to model the legislation and custom of
Ackanomic after legal institutions, governments, and agencies found in
the United States, or elsewhere.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:44:12 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Appeal Ruling CFJ 164 

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 
> "Supreme" == Supreme Court <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> Supreme> Robert Sevin is no longer the Speaker, and there is no longer
> Supreme> a R443/1, to consider, nor has it been renumbered to
> Supreme> something else. Therefore the original statement on which
> Supreme> judgement was called is FALSE, based on the current facts.
>  
> in short, i disagree vehemently with the Court's finding that...
> 

If you feel new facts or thought has come to light since the decision,
the rules define how, and if, the decision may be appealed.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:48:56 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC Senate purge 

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 
> "Malenkai" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> Malenkai> Fon stated he would be back in September.
> 
> given the rate at which things change in many Nomics, there's a good
> chance there won't _be_ a Senate in September.

The problem with the vacations being... ?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:00:54 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Bored? 

"Joseph" == Joseph W DeVincentis <[email-masked]> writes:

Joseph> If you are bored with the game, and particularly bored at the
Joseph> minimum two week delay imposed by rules 829 & 629, 

keep in mind that this is a _minimum_.  only the gods know how long
it'll take for the Delegates to produce a report unanimously--Rule 629
specifies no time limit for this activity.  and even once they do, the
chances of getting that report adopted with a 7/8th supermajority
could be pretty damn slim.  and keep in mind that 829 will require a
whole new ConCon if the report is not accepted--which means at least
two more weeks delay, plus however long it takes the new delegates to
produce a report.

we could be "suspended" for a _very_ long time.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:51:40 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 835 

"Mohammed" == Mohammed  <[email-masked]> writes:

Mohammed> 	There are plenty of people here who would beg to
Mohammed> differ with you on that, based on the amusing circular logic
Mohammed> that game custom dictates that game custom can come and go
Mohammed> based on the opinion of a majority of the players.  

actually, it's seemed to me more like game custom comes and goes based
on the opinion of the loudest players.  but i am probably just being
snippy. :)

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:42:51 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Miscellaneous 

"Mohammed" == Mohammed  <[email-masked]> writes:

Mohammed> The original nomic ruleset has a 25-mutable-rule limit!  We
Mohammed> can't go that far here and preserve the game, but the idea
Mohammed> was there for a reason.

the problem with a fixed rule count is that it leads to
"rulepacking".  you end up with Rules that are hundreds, if not
thousands, of lines long.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:39:51 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Winning and Scores 

"Malenkai" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:

Malenkai> I agree that the temporal situation vis-avis CFJs is thorny,
Malenkai> but a CFJ has been ruled TRUE that says Bascule has won the
Malenkai> *current* cycle. Do you advocate ignoring that verdict?

i will gleefully ignore an clearly incorrect verdict.  Judges are not
infalliable.

by the way, the statement "X has won the current cycle" is
tautologically false, because the act of winning a cycle causes that
cycle to end and a new one to begin.  it is always the case that the
"current cycle" has no winner.

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:47:09 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Constitutional Convention Candidacy 

"this" == this is not a name <[email-masked]> writes:

this> Votes are to be sent to Wayne at [email-masked] .

this> I believe that I am uniquely qualified to address the present
this> situation, having judged the paradox CFJ that resulted in this
this> Convention.

i believe you are clearly unqualified, in that you seem to believe
that there is some sort of "voting" involved in selecting delegates,
when in fact Rule 629 makes no such specification.  there is merely
"nominating", and the three Players with the most nominations after
the "Official Voting Period" (whatever that is) become Delegates.  in
any case, your apparent inability to read the Rules makes me doubt
your qualification to be put into a position of exceptional authority
to rewrite them as well...

there is a veritable truckload of problems with 629, and especially
with how 629 and 829 interact in the present situation.  too bad we
can't call CFJs (or, rather, have them Judged in a timely fashion).

k.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:27:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 897 -retracting 

On Sat, 15 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Kelly Martin wrote:
> > 
> > "Uri" == Uri Bruck <[email-masked]> writes:
> > 
> > Uri> TV commercials have their own slot on TV, and it is clear to
> > Uri> everyone that they are commercials. Likewise newspaper ads. I
> > Uri> don't see anyone claiming that such practices violate the
> > Uri> manufacturers freedom of speech and expression.
> > 
> > in the United States, the laws (actually, regulations proglumated by
> > the FCC, rather than laws passed by Congress) that require that
> > commericial programs of more than 2 minutes in length be marked as
> > such do in fact limit the freedom of speech of advertisers...
> 
> Perhaps in Isreal, things are different. In any case, I personally do
> not feel the compelling need to model the legislation and custom of
> Ackanomic after legal institutions, governments, and agencies found in
> the United States, or elsewhere.
> 
> Malenkai

This comment is completely irrelevant. 
"Perhaps where you come from things are different" is not something I
expect to read from someone who preaches tolerance.

Anyway, modelling things on real world legislature was never an issue. The
issue was about public information. I think that the infosumer has the
right to know whetherthe information is a factual report or propaganda.
Presenting information in a way which could cause confusion, and is, IMO,
a violation of the civil rights of citizens, who have the the right the
source of the information.  Without such knowledge the citizens' capacity
for making an educated evaluation of the informational content is
diminished, and is, for all practical purposes, at the mercy of the media,
and the interest groups which contorl it.
This is a general, non-geographical opinion.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:21:34 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: RFC: New office

Protoproposal
Office of Acting, non-Vacationing, Rule Ripper, Creation Thereof
Malenkai

The Office of Acting, non-Vacationing, Rule Ripper, is hereby created.
(Office of "Rule Ripper", for short).

The pronoun he, and its variants, as used in this rule, is explicitly
gender neutral, and no disrespect is intended. This claims no scope
beyond this rule, and thusly defers.

The Office of Rule Ripper is a functional office.

The Office of Rule Ripper shall be filled by the individual who is
clearly the best rule writer among the players. Reputation alone is
sufficient; the individual need not have written many "good" rules or
proposals at all, in fact, it is permissible for the individual to
have written a few "bad" ones themselves, but they shall pledge to do
so no more after taking office. This clause takes precedence over any
mutable rule which would define other functional office selection
procedures.

The Rule Ripper may not go on vacation. The Rule Ripper's duty to the
game is far to important to allow that, in fact, the game would suffer
gravely without the Rule Ripper's presense. Therefore the Rule Ripper's
personal interests outside the game are irrelvent, and duty binds the
individual to the game full time. This clause takes precedence over
rule 457.

The Rule Ripper is already an "Acting" office. Therefore he can
never be replaced by an "Acting Rule Ripper", should the need arise.
[This is considered "handwaving" by some; and even though explicitly
allowed by R 457, is frowned upon, by arcane reasons known only to
those so frowning. Thus it is made explicit here]. This clause takes
precedence over rule 457.

The Rule Ripper's initial duties shall be:

1) To eliminate all traces of "game custom", and "spirit of the game"
from the rules and the game. All that matters are the rules. [[This
clause explicitly does not apply to this clause]].

2) To transmute R113 to Mutable (and to transmute a few more while there,
and pooh-pooh the consequences).

3) To explicitly define a rule that requires all rules be interpreted
under the auspices of "strict constructionalism", and to define that
term itself, preferrably in terms of the cultural values of citizens
of the United States; or better yet, in the absence of any cultural
background, experience, or opinions at all! This definition must
explicitly *not* be self-referential, or circularily self-referential
in terms of other rules. This clause takes precedence over R113.

The Rule Ripper's primary duty shall be:

To rewrite everyone elses rules, immediately upon them being passed. The
Rule Ripper must disregard the time, effort, sweat, joy and creativity
the original author put into the rule. The Rule Ripper may not consider
the fun of the original version versus his version; indeed he cannot,
as that would fall under the auspices of "game custom" or "spirit of the
game", and is irrelevent. The Rule Ripper must disregard any interest
the rule would have in its originally written form, and any interesting
interactions it would have with other rules. In fact, if the Rule 
Ripper has been doing his job properly, such interactions would be
trivial, if not nil. Again, the fun, on the part of others to incur
it, of such interactions may not be considered.

The Rule Ripper's ancillary duties shall be:

1) To make a rude comment, at least once a fortnight, about other peoples
rules, proposals, or RFCs to the public forum, in order to stifle future
rules which the Rule Ripper would find "beneath himself" and annoying to
his duties. The Rule Ripper is not confident that the electorate will
filter such "trash", as the electorate is not as smart as he, and sees
no point in the end being just to put an opinion up to vote. In fact,
in the absense of "game custom" and "spirit of the game", opinions do
not matter. 

2) To constantly make critical and condescending posts to the public
forum about other people's work; work that doesn't measure up to his
standards. The Rule Ripper may not praise the work of others, either
in public or private; indeed he cannot, as by rule it is of lower 
quality than his own.

3) To do reasearch into other extra-Ackanomic entities, such as 
governments and other rule making bodies, and bodies of rules. To find,
and report, the most efficient and sterile of these entities. The 
purpose and the fun of the participants of these entities shall not
matter, and shall not be a measurement criteria. The Rule Ripper shall
structure the rules of Ackanomic to conform as closely as possible to
these entities and structures. Those entities that resemble *games* shall
be explicitly disregarded. The creativity of Acka, to explore alien,
non-conforming, even contradictory structures to those so reported, shall
be discouraged, if and when it exists.

Impeachment of the Rule Ripper:

This clause claims precedence over all other rules dealing with the
Impeachment Process.

1) The slightest deviation, non-performance, or abuse, of the Rule
Ripper's duties shall be cause for impeachment. There shall be no
tolerance or middle ground, especially if the deviant behaviour was
done in good fun (such as political advertising), and the response to
the behaviour was done in good fun. Fun is not a quantity or entity
defined by the rules, therefore it matters not.

2) Any player may call for a "Sterility Hearing" (SH) on the rules. At this
point the game is suspended, and no other game action may take place.
The Speaker shall then appoint three delagates to the SH. The Speaker,
nor the Rule Ripper, shall be a delegate. Should the likely event that
there are not 3 other players left in the game at this point, making this
impossible; the rules are considered Sterile, and the Rule Ripper keeps
his job. 
	Otherwise the delegates convene and come to a unanimous verdict
on the truth or falsehood of the the 'Statement Below'. The delegates
have 12 hours to deliberate, and should be prodded by the Rule Ripper
if they seem slow, or do not seem to have the time.

	This is the phrase immediately preceeding Statement Below, the
next statement is Statement Below:

	1) The rules are Sterile, or are sufficiently on their way to
becoming so.

	This is the phrase immediately after Statement Below.

	The Rule Ripper keeps his job on a verdict of TRUE, is impeached
otherwise.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 13:43:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: [good] trash, ct'd

> Well, I don't rate very high any organization that actively tells its
> members to go out and "exploit", "abuse" loopholes.
	(I assume you're talking about Nobs now.)  You misread the charter.

> I also find disturbing the notion that a few people
> are certain _they_ know what's best for the rules.
	Oh, come on.  Everyone's got an opinion; otherwise no one would vote.

> And while TMBG fans exist, there is no
> recognized entity or list of SCs. So it's a legally empty set.
	Is there a recognized entity or list of TMBG fans?  Did I miss
something?
	Look, "entityship" don't enter into it.  You could insult Jello
lovers, Mau players, or people with birthmarks on their wrist, and it
wouldn't matter that they don't exist legally within Ackanomic.  I would
interpret each volley as being directed, at least in part, toward me.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 13:59:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream (fwd)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Church of the Markovian Dream.

- --Mohammed, Speaker of Ackanomic
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 02:25:26 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream

I am founding the "Church of the Markovian Dream"  Church membership is
open to all who accept it's dogma as the Truth.  I am the founder of the
church, and the followers are Malenkai, this is not a name, and Calvin N.
Hobbes.  For more information about the Church, or to become a follower,
please send me email.

The Church of the Markovian Dream has an internal church policy.  Policy
will remain private, and be distributed only to followers.

The Church Of the Markovian Dream shall have the following dogma:

The Prophet, in searching for the edge of the
Earth, discovered something. He did not find the edge
of the Earth, but did discover a Golden Frog. Upon
smiling at the Frog, it spoke thusly:

Diversity, creativity, free-thinking, and openness are
boons to Ackanomia, those qualities shall be sought out
and encouraged for the long life and fun of Acka and its
citizens.

Intolerance, elitism, de-humanization, and anal strict-constructionalism
are the banes, those anti-qualities shall be avoided and discouraged,
lest Acka begin to fester into a dark age.

No person, or group of people, is a "better" rule writer than
another. No person, or group of people, is suitably divine enough
to judge whether rule A, or revision thereof, is "better" than
rule B, or revision thereof; and any statement to the contrary
is heresy. Rules can only be measured by the fun that they engender,
and are measured differently by those who incur that fun.

"Rule-ripper" type rules truly promote efficiency. However, their cost
is greater than their benefits in that they are de-humanizing and
disrespectful to the Great Ones who founded the land. They
stifle individuality, creativity, and free-flowing prose in writing
new rules; for the fear that they instill, and the comments they
contain. They make the rules less fun, for they encourage no
discourse or debate of ideas.

The Golden Frog thus offered proof: "I submit for you the Gumball.
Called a useless or do-nothing rule by some heretics, it engendered
lively discussion, argument, and debate over its composition. It
even now, from its original form, founds a Church. But now that it
has been sterilized, however, it festers like dead weight, and no
longer engenders discussion or joy".

Intolerance and rudeness in the public, for anyone's work, is a bane,
for it discourages new talent from participating, and it makes the
land less enjoyable for the Old Ones. The people shall be free to create
and let the electorate judge their work; not fear rude, opressive,
comments.

The duty of one's office, and duty towards Calls for Judgement and
other calls made by Acka shall take precedence over one's personal or
group adgenda. The former benefits all of Acka, the latter only serves
ones self.

The concentration of many powerful offices, such as the Speaker,
Appointer, President, Inventor, and CSRR, in a single bloc, or
behind a single idealogy, promotes elitism and stifles diversity,
making Acka a less festive land. It is a boon to Acka that power
be spread amongst the diverse talents of its citizenry, and
opportunity be given to all idealogies to blossom in a particular
position.

Disrespect for the Great Old Founders of Acka is a bane, for a part
of your history, and soul, therein resides. The Great Ones shall take
leave from Acka from time to time, to pursue other matters that
can only enhance Acka upon their return. To force upon them actions,
that they would not take were they present, is a harmful disrepect
and gross injustice that instills fear into any citizen who aspires
to a position of greatness within Acka. Due to Acka's creativity and
diversity, when not repressed, it is possible to find other solutions
to the minor inconvienences caused by the Great One's sabatticals.

Acka, and this Church, is open to all lands an cultures. Barriers to
entry, such as removing the functions of the Welcomer and Publicist,
and overloading the newcomer with information, are a bane, for they
limit the flow of new talent and ideas. Acka should have high on its
adjenda creative solutions to these problems, lest it fester under its
own weight. It is a boon for citizens, instead of constantly pursuing
their own adjenda, to think how they can take some time to get new
citizens, or those less involved, more involved.

These facts are self-evident; it is not necessary to form political
organisations to promote them or to gain advantage in promoting
them. It is not necessary for those who see the Truth of these facts
to aspire to powerful places; but those that do, see it only as a means
to serve Acka better, and make it more festive for all. These facts
transcend Acka, but Acka will be a more enjoyable and festive land when
their Truth is universally recognized.

Thus Spoke the Golden Frog

- ------------------
Please note: Though Rule 775/1 requires the speaker to announce the
existance of a church,  I am sending this message to the public forum
becuase I do not know who the current speaker is.  I assume it is either
Bascule or Malenkai.  Would the appropraite person please make this
official.

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
In fear of being burned as a heretic

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:54:34 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 897 -retracting 

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 15 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> > >
> > > "Uri" == Uri Bruck <[email-masked]> writes:
> > >
> > > Uri> TV commercials have their own slot on TV, and it is clear to
> > > Uri> everyone that they are commercials. Likewise newspaper ads. I
> > > Uri> don't see anyone claiming that such practices violate the
> > > Uri> manufacturers freedom of speech and expression.
> > >
> > > in the United States, the laws (actually, regulations proglumated by
> > > the FCC, rather than laws passed by Congress) that require that
> > > commericial programs of more than 2 minutes in length be marked as
> > > such do in fact limit the freedom of speech of advertisers...
> >
> > Perhaps in Isreal, things are different. In any case, I personally do
> > not feel the compelling need to model the legislation and custom of
> > Ackanomic after legal institutions, governments, and agencies found in
> > the United States, or elsewhere.
> >
> > Malenkai
> 
> This comment is completely irrelevant.

The comment is relavent.

> "Perhaps where you come from things are different" is not something I
> expect to read from someone who preaches tolerance.

The statement "Perhaps where you come from things are different", is
true. The statement "Perhaps in Isreal, things are different", is true,
when "different" is taken in the proper referential context of Kelly's
post. I do not see how it is intolerant, please enlighten me. If the
Truth becomes intolerant, so be it.

I know for a fact, in some countries, they are different than the United
States, and that some contries do not have the equivelent of the
United State's First Amendment. I do not know anything of Isreal in this
regard, hence the keyword "Perhaps".
 
I believe, in good faith, you misread my response in the threaded response
to Kelly's response to yours. If you reread it, and still disagree, I
encourage private discussion of the matter.

Anyway, to avoid similar confusion, on either my part or Nicolo's, the
point of the post was to say that all litigation need not mirror custom,
institutions, law, or other structures found in the United States, and
elsewhere, nor need it be compared to such for the game to be playable.

I will be clearer in the future, and surely apologize for the
misunderstanduing, and regret that my attitudes through game play and
posts have not been clear enough to avoid such misinterpretation.

Malenkai
Accused cultural bigot, denying the charges

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #53
******************************