Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #54
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Sunday, June 16 1996         Volume 01 : Number 054

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:03:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream

> No person, or group of people, is a "better" rule writer than
> another.
	...and no person is a better pianist than another.  Salvador Dali was 
not a better painter than my ten-year-old sister, nor Joseph Heller a better 
novelist than Justin Bruener.

> 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.
	See, this is my main concern.  Newcomers have to read an enormous
amount of fluff before they can become a meaningful part of the game.  The
Rule Ripper proposal that passed cut out a tiny part of that.  A small
ruleset makes the game more playable for newcomers and old-timers alike;
anyone who's ever tried to read ours all the way through can testify to
that.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 15:06:32 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bored

Can someone who is *bored* explain where the "two week delay" comes
from, and then why that is necessarily bad? 

Furthermore, could they explain why the con-con couldn't be a 10
minute agreement to eliminate the 2 paradoxi, rubber stamp it,
and get on with game play?

Perhaps, instead of complaining about being bored, and our lousy rules,
you could look for a creative solution within those rules to clear
the matter up. I am not bored, so I have not done so.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:32:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bored

> Can someone who is *bored* explain where the "two week delay" comes
> from, and then why that is necessarily bad? 

> Furthermore, could they explain why the con-con couldn't be a 10
> minute agreement to eliminate the 2 paradoxi, rubber stamp it,
> and get on with game play?

> Perhaps, instead of complaining about being bored, and our lousy rules,
> you could look for a creative solution within those rules to clear
> the matter up. I am not bored, so I have not done so.

The Constitutional Convention rule (629) specifies that the election for
Delegates shall last for the "Official Voting Period".  Then the Delegates
have to agree on a report.  Finally, the report goes to a vote among the 
players, again for the "Official Voting Period".  This is the delay time --
two Official Voting Periods, plus the time it takes for the delegates to
make their report.

There's one problem with this.  "Official Voting Period" isn't defined in
the rules.  The one other place it appears is in the CSRR rule.

Before I read these rules closely, I had believed that CSRRs had a 7 day
approval period.  This may come from confusing "Official Voting Period"
with "Prescribed Voting Period" -- the length of time that a proposal is
up for vote.  Nevertheless, it may be a part of the game custom if most
of the players share this belief.  Otherwise, by rule 115, anybody can
choose any length of time to be the Official Voting Period.  Yes, if this
is the case, it means these two rules are horribly broken.

Which reminds me -- the nomination period for CSRR should have ended
a day or two ago.  Techno, mr cwm, and I nominated ourselves for this
office.  It seems that Mohammed's choice for CSRR is much more
important than it seemed a few days ago.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 14:46:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Return of the Rule Ripper, revised

> 10. Amend R609, 'Offices, Commonalities', by adding this new section at
>     the end:
>     "(viii) Political and Functional Offices
>         Political Offices and Functional Offices are Offices."
	Is that -really- necessary?  I mean, if it ever comes right down 
to it, this can be established by judgement.  I don't see any point in 
making such a trivial thing into a rule.

> 11. Amend rule 414 'The Office of the Tabulator' to read:
>   "The Office of the Tabulator is a Functional Office.  The Duties of
>    the Tabulator are:
> 
>   "(a) to receive and to count votes on each proposal.
>   "(b) to maintain the voting records of each player on each proposal.
>   "(c) to report the acceptance or rejection of each proposal.
> 
>   "If the rules require any other vote and don't otherwise specify who
>    should conduct the vote, the Tabulator shall conduct the vote and have
>    the same duties for that vote as are listed above for proposals."
> 
>   [[I added the last part to clear up any confusion about elections, and
>     added "to receive" in part (a).  This will further standardize 
>     elections.]]
	Thank you!  It's about time.

>     "1) There shall be a functional office called Historian.  There shall
>      never be an Acting Historian.  This takes precedence over all other
>      rules for filling offices."
	You could have the rule for acting officers defer to all rules 
that specify that a certain office not be filled in acting capacity.  
Then this precedence clause (which appears elsewhere, too) would be 
unnecessary.

> 19. Amend R695 "Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy"
>    to read, in full:
	[snip]
	I'm not so sure about this one.  We could rightly be charged with 
cutting out the parts of this rule that make it clear what the -point- 
is.  The following sentence should be kept as a note, at least:

>    (b) The purpose of the Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy
> is to make changes to the rules when it finds that the rules, as written, do
> not make sense, are redundant, do not conform _in fact_ to their
> interpretation in game custom, or are redundant.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 15:14:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream

> 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.
	I think Malenkai will make a very good Speaker.  Note that this 
means Malenkai will also be acting Speaker in the case of his own 
absence.  (The Clerk of the Courts gets that honor.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 15:26:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  the end of resolutions as we know them

> 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."
	I prefer this language, too.  This is the type of process 
CyberNomic uses.  What do you think, Malenkai?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 13:11:41 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream

At 2:03 PM 6/15/96, Mohammed wrote:
>> No person, or group of people, is a "better" rule writer than
>> another.
>        ...and no person is a better pianist than another.  Salvador Dali was
>not a better painter than my ten-year-old sister, nor Joseph Heller a better
>novelist than Justin Bruener

I'd have to argue that since the is no rule that defines who is a better
rule writer than another, strictly interpreted our Church Dogma is correct.
Until such time as a rule passes stating otherwise, there shall be no
better rule writers.  The quality of a rule ginges on the fun that rule can
produce, at least in the minds of the church.  A tightly written rule may,
or may not provide more fun to any group of players.  A lack of rules, or
rules that do not interact with other rules, are bound to lead to boredom.

>
>> 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.
>        See, this is my main concern.  Newcomers have to read an enormous
>amount of fluff before they can become a meaningful part of the game.  The
>Rule Ripper proposal that passed cut out a tiny part of that.  A small
>ruleset makes the game more playable for newcomers and old-timers alike;
>anyone who's ever tried to read ours all the way through can testify to
>that.

There are other methods of making game play easier for begginers besides
reucing the rule set.  I am working on  proposal (which I will submit when
things get back to normal) that will create mentors.  Basically, for each
new player entering the game, the registrar will pick a mentor at random
for that player from a pool of volunteers.  It will be the duty of the
mentor to answer a newcomers questions, or give him a capsule history of
the arguments on both sides of a proposal.  There's more to it, but that
gives you an idea....

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 16:15:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  sanity check

> 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.
	Okay, time for a sanity check.
	Has the author of any of the rules modified by the first Rule
Ripper proposal actually complained about this with regard to his own
precious work, or is it just something Calvin made up and everyone
subsequently latched onto, without considering whether or not it is true?
	I get this image of players weeping over the hours they worked, 
slaving away on these carefully crafted and -extremely- *FUN* words, now 
heartlessly cut out by some masked bastard with a machete.
	That can't possibly be the case.  I mean, look at what got cut. 
Here's an example:

> The office of the Web-Harfer is hereby created.  The Web-Harfer will be
> chosen by the Speaker on a volunteer basis. In the case of multiple
> volunteers, the officer will be chosen using random selection. In the
> event that no volunteers come forth, the Speaker will hold the office of
> the Web-Harfer.

	Hoo hoo!  What a barrel of camels!  You're right, when that was in
the rule set I was just smilin' away all day, having fun every second that
ticked by, but now that it's gone, I feel strangely... empty...  *sob*

	I don't mean any disrespect to Mitchell and Sean, or anyone else
who contributed to the original text of those rules.  That should be
clear.  And the charge that I've done psychological harm to new players is
foreign to me.  I for one wasn't ever that fragile, even as a newbie.  I
don't think anyone else was/is, either. 

- --Mohammed

P.S.
> 2) To transmute R113 to Mutable (and to transmute a few more while there,
> and pooh-pooh the consequences).
	R113 could in fact be transmuted, or even repealed, with no effect
whatever on the game.  To my knowledge there have never been unfortunate 
consequences associated with the transmutation from Immutable to Mutable 
of any rule.

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:22:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Official (birthday)

> Which reminds me -- the nomination period for CSRR should have ended
> a day or two ago.  Techno, mr cwm, and I nominated ourselves for this
> office.  It seems that Mohammed's choice for CSRR is much more
> important than it seemed a few days ago.
	Indeed.  It was my birthday.
	Ahem.

	Nomination period for CSRR is over; Techno, mr cwm, and /dev/joe 
were the Nominees.  I appoint mr cwm to the office of Common Sense, 
Redundancy, and Redundancy.

- --Mohammed, Appointer

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:28:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  auction

This is your very last chance to bid on the Electronic Potato.  Own a 
part of Ackanomic History--the first-ever Gadget!

The current top bid on this beautiful technological marvel is... an 
astounding 100 Ackadollars!

The auction closes at 5PM tonight, so bid now (and bid high!) to stake 
your claim.

Folks, I'd also like comments on how you think the auctions should be run 
from now on.  Specifically, should I indicate in the acknowledgement 
message for a bid whether or not that bid is the top bid (so far)?  Or, 
should the amounts all be kept secret until the auction is over?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 13:37:14 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  auction

I am bidding an astounding a$206 for the potato!  I want that sucker on my desk!

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 16:43:04 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Digest V1 #53 

*snip*
>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. :)
Say, Coca-Cola, Inc.? They haven't paid up their 'promotional
consideration' fee yet, have they?

>i could also draft a copyright disclaimer if y'all wanted. :)
>
>and, by the way, no, i am not an attorney.
Coulda fooled me.

>
>k.

- ---Pascal

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 18:40:56 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  the end of resolutions as we know them

Mohammed wrote:
> 
> > 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."
>         I prefer this language, too.  This is the type of process
> CyberNomic uses.  What do you think, Malenkai?
> 

The thread is chopped, so I'm not sure what the referrant is, but I 
assume it is my {{double curly braces}} idea. If so, I shall say:

I do not think it is an "ugly kludge". In fact, I think it is more 
elegant than the "resolution" idea, and the "This is the start of
paragraph B" idea which it replaces, and more elegant than the overly
verbose language that the "strong opposition" suggests. The extra 
verbosity does not add value, in my opinion.

I do not know the rationale for desiring to "completly avoid" it. It
does not threaten me. We did fine with [[double square brackets]] until I
exploited the egg, and had fun. I think we could do the same with {{ }},
and quite honestly, I did not think it was such a big deal. The {{ }}
notation conveys the idea and effect clearly to the reader.

Admittedly, if they did not have the effect I indended, due to an 
oversight of rule interpretation on my part, or mis-application of game
custom, then I should like to amend the appropriate rules as part of the
package to get the intended effect. I must point out however, that the
same argument must hold sway in terms of Resolutions, as {{ }} are
semantically equivelent, and if the argument re-surfaces, I'd ask the 
Web-Harfer to add all resolutions to the rules page, for the convienence
of the players.

As for what "CyberNomic" uses, I am not familiar with that, but my opinion
in general is that the players of Ackanomic are numerous and talented
enough to develop their own structures without over-reliance on those
from other Nomics, and thus keep a distinctly fun, and Harfy, Ackanomic
flavor.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:58:42 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Tolerance, and blessed Individuality 

At 02:54 PM 15/06/96 -0700 , Malenkai  wrote:

>
>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
>

The issue in the post you replied to, is an issue completely outside the
scope of Ackanomic, and I have no desire to discuss it in this forum. 

You might also note that you have been apologizing quite a lot lately.
I considered calling a Politeness Moon on this but has decided against it,
mainly because it has been , as I noted, outside the scope of Ackanomic.

For the reasons stated above and for other reasons, which I will make clear
in a further post, in addition to your rather harshly worded Office of the
Rule Ripper post, I anounce publically that I am leaving the Church of the
Markovian Dream, in accordance with R775 section 7.d and if necessary R723
as well

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:58:44 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong problems 

I was Calvin N Hobbes's post the other day and was appalled.

Calvin N Hobbes wrote:

>First, we agree that we have two competing philosophies in play. Either they
>will continue to fight, with more problems and disagreements, or one will
>win and the other players will leave. Neither is acceptable to me.

No. We do not have two competing philosophies, we have closer to 20
philosophies. All of those different philosophies have different areas where
they meet, or touch each other. Some are closer  to each other than to
others. Often temporary groupings may form. But at its essence, Ackanomic is
a pluralistic society. The Ackanomic ruleset represents a balance between
those philosophies. 
Ackanomic is not just the ruleset. Constant discussion, constant doubt is
its life force. Uniformity is its demise.   
I believe that CNH misrepresents the situation. 
Yes, we will continue to have disagreements - and that is a good thing.
Yes, we will continue to have problems - and we will resolve them.
Yes, we will continue to promote our own agendas, and each of us will try to
pull Acka in their own direction, and Acka will grow to mirror partial
images of all of our philosophies.
That's what makes its Acka, and not chess (f'rinstance) , or Agora.

>
>What I propose is to have a controlled schism before we have an
>uncrontrolled one. Better to tackle the problem now than let it spread until
>it is too late. Now is the time, and probably the last time with the way
>things are going.
>
>The plan would be create one MetaAcka rule set, which would contain the bare
>core of similar beliefs of the two sides. A few offices would be located in
>that realm to act as the binding force between the two (or three) states.
>Each state would have its own extra rule set that would be independent of
>the other states, while all would defer to the federal rules.
>
While you completely misidentify the problem, if it is a problem, you offer
a solution that is no solution at all. Suppose we identify the common ground
you speak off, we will probably find them as uncontested parts of our
ruleset. This common ground may unify Acka in its present game state, in the
present time, but people viewpoints react to change, philosophies evolve,
and rules that may be suitable for the present time may little sense in some
future time. 
Anyway - the Power proposals already contain much of the functionality you
describe, within the context of the rules.

One example of this so called division can be seen in the formation of two
Organizations.
Let us take a loog at excerpts from their publically available information

From the Dogma of the Church of the Markovian Dream:

>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.

I can hardly argue with that, I believe that most player will agree with
this to some extent.

>
>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.

I myself am not very strict about the construction of anuses. The other
banes are obviously things I do not support. Therefore I can't say I can
argue with this either.
>
>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.

Quite true. Rules have no absolute values. A rule that makes perfect sense,
and is rock steady, with no loopholes whatsoever, can be quite a devatating
rule, paradox making rule in the context of another ruleset. That's why the
rule set is called a rule _set_, and not a hodge-podge of dictionary
rejects. A rule by itself is not 'good' or 'bad'.  Rules can only be
evaluated within a context. I don't believe that any single person is
qualified to make such evaluations better than all others. But that's why we
have RFCs. So people can comment on each other's ideas, point out possible
problems.
We have been taking criticisms on our proposals much too personally, and
using them as an excuse to polarize our ideological differences.
Compare this to section 1 of the Nobs party charter:

From the The Charter of Nobs:
>
>1. The goal of the Nobs party is to repeal or rewrite poorly written
>rules in the existing rule set, and prevent more such rules from
>being added.  Fun rules are OK, but they should be well-written fun
>rules.  Rules with some purpose are preferable to do-nothing rules.
>

'repeal poorly written rules in the existing ruleset...'
Not 'repeal poorly written rules. period.'
but in the existing ruleset. They only claim that some rules don't work very
well within the cntext of Ackanomia. They did not attempt to start a
revolution. They did not declare that they are an elite. They propose to act
as a group.
'Fun rules are OK...'  - they're not against fun, as long as its well written.
One example I can think of right of the top of my head is Prosthetic Foreheads.
IMO, it was a badly written fun rule, which served no purpose whatsoever.
Which is the reason I voted against it. 
Nigh two days have passed after it has been adopted, and it has already
produced a a near crisis and a CFJ.
I balked to see the great majority it got. Had we had Power back then,
there's no telling what would have happened.
Which brings me to the last sentence:
'Rules with some purpose are preferable to do -nothing rule' - I agree, but
for some rules I don't think we could reach agreement  on which rules have
purpose and which rules are useless.

As you can clearly see, there is very little contradiction between the Dogma
of the Church of the Markovian Dream and the charter of the Nobs party. They
differ on some minor points, but as far as the major issues, I find some
part I can support in either one. 

There is no way for me to be fully support  just one of those organizations.
Neither one is inclusive enough for me, nor are they sufficiently
restrictive of each other to cause any real contradiction.  

The contradiction is a fiction. The motive for promoting this fiction is
unclear to me. 

Some may feel that Ackanomia is about power struggles, and that might be a
possible motive.  I disagree.
Interactions between different entities, be they individuals, organizations,
officers, kings, institutions, or fruits and vegetables are not all about
power struggles. Once we escape the this trap, we will find that there is a
lot more to explore in ackanomia. 

I suggest that we abolish everything that has a semblance of government,
such as President and Senate.
Create other kinds of Institutions which will have a meaning within Ackanomia.
An institution like Party Hall can have meaning for those who feel that
parties have meaning. I find it odd that  party members  think that Parties
have no role in Ackanomia other than the unity vote.  They have no role only
as long as you insist stifling your imagination.

I see Organizations as represnting various social structures withing
Ackanomia, and Institutions as representing the interactions between various
parts of Ackanomia, not just between Organizations. This is not the only
role they could play. 

I may soon post something on Acka-research to that effect.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 18:19:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church of The Markovian Dream

> A lack of rules, or rules that do not interact with other rules, are
> bound to lead to boredom. 
	Amen to that.

> There are other methods of making game play easier for begginers besides
> reucing the rule set.  I am working on  proposal (which I will submit when
> things get back to normal) that will create mentors.
	Sounds good to me.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 18:24:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: the end of resolutions as we know them

> As for what "CyberNomic" uses, I am not familiar with that, but my opinion
> in general is that the players of Ackanomic are numerous and talented
> enough to develop their own structures without over-reliance on those
> from other Nomics, and thus keep a distinctly fun, and Harfy, Ackanomic
> flavor.
	I apologize for that comment.  I didn't mean to imply Ackanomic 
is devoid of originality.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 18:36:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Inventor (potato sold)

The Electronic Potato is sold! to snowgod for A$206, by far the highest 
bid received.  Wow.  Financier, please note that transfer; the money goes 
to the Treasury.

I'm destroying the lonely Blueprints for the Pyraic Frobnotzer and Plunky
Monkey Wrench because I tried building miniature prototypes for each, and
they simply don't work.  *sigh*  I'll submit new Blueprints for them soon.

In the meantime, I am beginning work on a Scroll of Crumble, which will 
be ready for sale on Tuesday at about this time.  See you then!

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 18:46:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Party Hall

> The usefulness of Party Hall is in direct proportion to the role of Parties
> in Ackanomic.
	Party Hall could equally well be done without any rule to dictate 
its existence, though.  Party Hall itself might be useful, but the Party 
Hall rule is not--cannot be--because it has absolutely no effect on gameplay.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 19:05:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  the Markovian Dream team

> I'd have to argue that since the is no rule that defines who is a better
> rule writer than another, strictly interpreted our Church Dogma is correct.
	Yes, but in real life, there are such things as skill, forethought, 
care, and spell-checkers.

	It is not the mission of Nobs to define "talent" or "good 
writing" in game context, by passing rules to that effect.  Rather, we 
will assume that everyone is perceptive enough to know what we mean by 
those terms, and show their agreement or disagreement with their votes.  
I think, despite all the rhetoric, it will be hard to garner votes against a 
Rule Ripper proposal, because in reading the actual proposal one can't 
help but notice that it does -not- cut out anything anyone could call "fun".
	I mean, I get the point, but the Rule Ripper 2 RFC is more like 
fixing a miscast horseshoe than a Borg invasion.  ("But that 
miscast shoe was part of the horse's charm"?  I don't think so.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 96 03:43:50 +0200
From: [email-masked] (Olivier Dewolf)
Subject: register for Nomic 

Hi,

I recently found out about your Ackanomic. I would like to know whether the game is still on and register as an observer if this is the case.

Thanks,

Olivier de Wolf
[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:54:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: registrarness

We have a new observer in Ackanomic:
Olivier de Wolf ([email-masked])

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 21:13:57 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Digest V1 #53 

Pascal wrote:
>*snip*

[Kelly Martin:]

>>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. :)

>Say, Coca-Cola, Inc.? They haven't paid up their 'promotional
>consideration' fee yet, have they?

To my knowledge they have not.  However, there will be no suing going on
over that matter so long as I am Financier.  The Rule leaves it up to my
judgement to determine the means, if any, by which we (I) should attempt
to collect the money.  In my judgement, no means are appropriate.  If you
don't like that, impeach me.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 22:23:08 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  the Markovian Dream team

Mohammed wrote:

The following referrent post is untrue, at least as I know the facts,
and interpret "fun" to be with respect to the person to incur it.

One of the rule rippers, either proposal, protoproposal, or otherwise,
ripped up either Rxxx or Ryyy. There is enough fun left in the unspecified
rule to last a lifetime. This is only an example. There are several other
rules, yet really unplayed, with fun potential that are being sterilized.

Furthermore, I see no harm in letting the original author's work sit. Its
one thing to create your own concepts, structures, and other game material,
its another to reword the work of one of the people that built the game.
The latter adds less value than it would to spend the same energy and
effort creating a new structure, or playing the rule of another player,
thus making them feel a little more part of the game. (IMHO, of course)

We all know what the Web-Harfer does; do we need to reword the rule. Let
Mitchell's writing stand for history buffs to read. Its not Shakespeare,
but it is part of the soul of the game. Spend the same time creating
and expanding (or flaming :)).

I, for one, would rather spend time with a dictionary to try to earn the
title of Sage O'Doe Gas, playing an existing rule, than fix spelling 
errors in the rules. I enjoy it more, and it does not bore me. Therein
lies the idealogy difference.

If I wasn't spending so much time flaming, I would find the precedence
argument that nukes R829. That has got to be non-boring for someone.
But I won, its time for someone else to find an in-rule fix to the
crisis. My AOJ solution the first time around is enough to last a lifetime.

If it is not, then perhaps we need a sterile ruleset.

Malenkai

> 
> > I'd have to argue that since the is no rule that defines who is a better
> > rule writer than another, strictly interpreted our Church Dogma is correct.
>         Yes, but in real life, there are such things as skill, forethought,
> care, and spell-checkers.
> 
>         It is not the mission of Nobs to define "talent" or "good
> writing" in game context, by passing rules to that effect.  Rather, we
> will assume that everyone is perceptive enough to know what we mean by
> those terms, and show their agreement or disagreement with their votes.
> I think, despite all the rhetoric, it will be hard to garner votes against a
> Rule Ripper proposal, because in reading the actual proposal one can't
> help but notice that it does -not- cut out anything anyone could call "fun".
>         I mean, I get the point, but the Rule Ripper 2 RFC is more like
> fixing a miscast horseshoe than a Borg invasion.  ("But that
> miscast shoe was part of the horse's charm"?  I don't think so.)
> 
> --Mohammed

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #54
******************************