Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #97
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Tuesday, July 9 1996         Volume 01 : Number 097

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 23:59:26 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official 

I vote YES to confirm mr cwm as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

ThinMan
Senator

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 08:10:33 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 219 (snowgod)

Mark Nau wrote:
> 
> >> Call for Judgement 219
> >>   Subject:  Voidness of R 423
> >>
> >> Statement:
> >>
> >> The proposals 936, 949, 951, 955, and 957 shall be voted on by the players
> >> as all other proposals, since rule 423 is "wholly void and without effect".
> >>
> >> Mellons reasoning:
> >>
> >> R104 states that "All proposals made in the proper way shall be voted
> >> on..."
> >
> >> R423 states that votes cast on retracted proposals shall be ignored.
> >
> >My reading of the rules indicate a verdict of FALSE for this CFJ. Had
> >R 423 stated "the retracted proposals shall not be voted on", the
> >initiator's case would be stronger. However, that is not what it says, it
> >only says that votes made shall be "ignored". Thus R 423 does not direct
> >that the retracted proposals not be voted on. Furthermore, voting is
> >still permissable after the retraction (I do this all the time, because I
> >can never remember what has been retracted), so there is no precedence
> >conflict between R 104 and R 423.
> >
> >Malenkai
> 
> Does this mean that those Proposals really fail due to quorum failure?
> That has consequences.
> 
> :)

This was exactly where I was going. I was going to get ahead in points,
but it seems I can still do it, so stay tuned for my next CFJ :-)

/Mellon

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:31:04 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 219 Verdict

On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> The following, CFJ 219, has been judged FALSE.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call for Judgement 219
> Subject:  Voidness of R 423
> Initiator:  Mellon
>   Judge:  snowgod (declined to judge)
> 2nd Judge:  pTang1001001sos (selected Jul 8, 1996, 19:40h New YorkTime)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The proposals 936, 949, 951, 955, and 957 shall be voted on by the players
> as all other proposals, since rule 423 is "wholly void and without effect".
> 
> R423 states that votes cast on retracted proposals shall be ignored. This is
> a contradiction to R104, and R423 is mutable.
> 
> R108 says that if there are inconsistensies between mutable and immutable
> rules the mutable rule is wholly void and without effect.
> 
> pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:
> 
> 
> 
> A judgement of TRUE seems clear-cut, but I have a reservation that
> will explain the judgement of FALSE.

It seems to me that you Judge the statement False, but for different
reasoning. There is nothing in the CFJ rule that says you have to Judge
the reasoning, so your judgement of false is quite appropriate.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:53:17 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official 

Yo.

Say, instead of messing the voting (if only once) by being counted as
abstaining, or being chosen as judge (again), could the person in charge of
vacations please put me as on vacation (for a few weeks)? I'll must say that
Acka just doesn't hold much of my attention anymore... snowgod, malenkai and
tinan - who can still make me enjoy this game - excepted, of course.

I'll keep reading the mail from the "official" list. Do I just send
unsubscribe to get off the others? (Not including the church one)

CnH

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 04:00:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

> Say, instead of messing the voting (if only once) by being counted as
> abstaining, or being chosen as judge (again), could the person in charge of
> vacations please put me as on vacation (for a few weeks)?

Hmm.  As acting Registrar I thought I was in charge of keeping track of who
is on vacation but examining the rules shows that a big stretch of the
registrar rule is required to require me to keep track of this.  Otherwise
the Speaker has to do it. :-)  Anyway, I've marked you as being on vacation
on the Registrar's page.  But note that I can't put you on vacation; you
have to do that yourself. :-)

> I'll must say that
> Acka just doesn't hold much of my attention anymore... snowgod, malenkai and
> tinan - who can still make me enjoy this game - excepted, of course.

Sorry if the general change in the game, towards fixing all the dozens of
problems in the existing rules, has turned you off, but it feels like a
natural reaction to the relative confusion of the last couple months.

When I joined Ackanomic, there were slower times (when the play of the game
mainly consisted of voting and people submitting new ideas as proposals) in
between the crisis periods.  I joined on the tail end of the Rule 416 crisis,
and got to see some random play before the quorum crisis began.  After the
quorum crisis, play went on for a while longer before the whole problem
when we didn't know how to handle Robert Sevin winning.  From there, we went
directly into the vacation crisis (when most of the officers went on an
extended vacation, or else just stopped doing their jobs)

After this there was another period of "normal" play, but then, starting on
the 1st of June we had, in short succession, all these situations:
  the "Resolutions" crisis
  the Prosthetic Forehead thing (OK, this one was my fault :-)
  the flaw in Protection
  The Governor giving points away
  Bascule's problems in reaching the Magic Number
  Malenkai's paradox win
  the application of Rule 829
  the UN-application of rule 829
  recursive application of rule 666 (not, but associated financial crisis
     while we thought it was)
  weird side-effects of winning the game instead of winning a cycle
     (Malenkai becoming speaker, and being Speaker and Justice at once)
  my win upon realizing the side-effect of Rule 892 not working
  ejecting vacationers by Rule 362
  setting n in Rule 110 equal to your score
  multiple simultaneous wins by Rule 110 (more financial crisis)
  players leaving and rejoining the game
  time limits on actions
  CFJ's with multiple statements
  fat lady's delayed singing/"office of declaring a winner"/etc.
  Malenkai & ThinMan giving me 2 Blue Crosses
  voting only once in the entire game.

This is a total of 20 problems in the rules (some of which were determined
not to be problems, and others of which have been fixed) exploited in less
than 40 days, and this includes an entire week of mostly nothing happening
before Rule 829 was CFJ'd into uselessness.  This method of playing the game
is *vastly* different than the way the game was played in April and May, and
in particular, in the last two weeks, there have consistently been multiple
potentially severe loopholes being exploited at the same time (or at least,
the results of these actions are being determined at the same time).  There
are still a few CFJs on the above actions outstanding, some of which will
have a *huge* effect on the game when their Judgements are returned (OK,
maybe only the Rule 110 wins will have a *huge* effect...)

> I'll keep reading the mail from the "official" list. Do I just send
> unsubscribe to get off the others? (Not including the church one)

Send [email-masked] mail with lines like this in the body:

  unsubscribe list-name

to unsubscribe from any lists you are on.  Send it a

  which

command if you don't know which lists you are on.  If you need to
know anything else, see the Postmaster's web page or send majordomo a

  help

command.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 01:21:05 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Confirmation Vote 

In the matter of the confirmation of mr cwm as a Justice, I vote YES.

snowgod
Acting Senator (seat c)

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 01:48:57 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Problems?  What problems 

/dev/joe proposed a list of problems and crisis that have occured recently
in the game.  For anyone who is interested, I am going to place a little
commentary next to each one describing my opinions of each.  The reason I
am doing this is to "prove my point" that not every "problem" requires a
solution.

... After the quorum crisis...

[agreed this was a real crises, but the creativity that was used to
overcome it made for some interesting and exciting gameplay]

...play went on for a while longer before the whole problem
when we didn't know how to handle Robert Sevin winning....

[another "fun" crises, though I admit it went on for a little too long and
rumpled some peoples feathers]

..From there, we went directly into the vacation crisis (when most of the
officers went on an
extended vacation, or else just stopped doing their jobs)...

[I don't nescasarily consider that to have been a crises at all... game
play was not impeded much, and the fixes required were minor]

...After this there was another period of "normal" play, but then, starting on
the 1st of June we had, in short succession, all these situations:

the "Resolutions" crisis

[was a fun little crises brought about by a loophole the size of montana,
didn't cause any harm, or disable game play very much.  CFJ's had it
cleared up in no time]

  the Prosthetic Forehead thing (OK, this one was my fault :-)

[again, not a crises, but a fun diversion from normal gameplay]

  the flaw in Protection

[I have no comment on this one, as I was not a participant in the discussion]

The Governor giving points away

[Didn't hurt or affect anyone, save for tinan, or impede gameplay in
anyway.  cleared up whether or not points were "enitites"]

 Bascule's problems in reaching the Magic Number

[This one amused the hell out of me, and required no fix.  I believe that
was standard gameplay at it's best]

Malenkai's paradox win

[again, not a crises, but an interesting diversion.  up to a point.  the
festival that occured simultaniously and the newly formed schism between
the nobs and the Church led to some hostilitiesduring this period that were
not related to Malenkai's win]

the application of Rule 829
  the UN-application of rule 829

[ see above for these two]

  recursive application of rule 666 (not, but associated financial crisis
     while we thought it was]

[Okay, possibly a little bit of a crises here.  Rule were in order]

  weird side-effects of winning the game instead of winning a cycle
     (Malenkai becoming speaker, and being Speaker and Justice at once)

[that wasn't a crises, but an interesting rule diversion again]

my win upon realizing the side-effect of Rule 892 not working

[sneaky and underhanded ;) ]

 ejecting vacationers by Rule 362

[A dispute that could have lead to some real ruffled feathers, but not a
crises or even a problem.  A CFJ settled the matter, and a rule fix should
bring the thing inline with previous interpretaion]

  setting n in Rule 110 equal to your score
  multiple simultaneous wins by Rule 110 (more financial crisis)
  players leaving and rejoining the game
  time limits on actions
  CFJ's with multiple statements
  fat lady's delayed singing/"office of declaring a winner"/etc.

[these are still ongoing debates to which I am not going to add commentary
for fear of taking this message of it's original course]

 Malenkai & ThinMan giving me 2 Blue Crosses

[fun and exciting, but not a problem]

  voting only once in the entire game.

[We'll see what happens here]

All in all, I figure the "problems" listed above have all been pretty fun
(for the most part, some obvious exceptions of course) and added to
gameplay rather than detracting from it.  A rule fix to solve each and
every one of these issues isn't nescasarily in order.  Granted, there are
(and always will b) problkems with the rule set, but these itmes add to the
growth and culture of a nomic game, rather than making game play less fun.
IMHO.

snowgod
having a ball in spite of the problems

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:03:24 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Ambassador: Internomic Rules 

I have registered the game of Ackanomic as a Voting Member Nomic in the
game of internomic.  P{lay should begin shortly.  For those of you that yet
to visit the ambassadors page I've attached the text of the initial rule
set for internomic to this message.

snowgod
- ---

Initial Set of Rules for InterNomic, second revision
by Don "Vanyel" Blaheta

Immutable Rules

101.  All member nomics must always abide by all Internomic rules then
      in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.  At the
      start of the first game, rules 101-114 are immutable, and rules
      201-216 are mutable.  Subsequently, the number of a rule does not
      indicate that rule's mutability.

102.  A nomic is a game in which the rules are changeable by those who
      play it.  The entities which play this nomic, aka "Internomic",
      are themselves nomics, aka "member nomics".  Every member nomic
      shall be either a voting member or a nonvoting member.  References
      in this ruleset to "nomics" or "members" shall mean member nomics,
      and shall include both voting and nonvoting members, unless
      otherwise noted.  References in the ruleset to "rules" shall mean
      Internomic rules, unless otherwise noted.

103.  At any time, there shall be exactly one moderator, who must be a
      player of at least one member nomic.  The moderator may not
      resign.  If the moderator is no longer a player in any member
      nomic, e must name a successor who is.  Once this is done, the
      successor replaces the moderator.

104.  The moderator for the first game shall be {Name}.

105.  Every member nomic shall have a liaison at all times.  The liaison
      must be an entity registered as a player of that nomic.

106.  A rule change is the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable
      rule, or the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable
      rule or vice versa.

107.  Every proposal shall be numbered by the moderator.  The numbers
      shall begin with 301, and each proposal shall receive the next
      successive integer.

108.  Every proposal shall be communicated to all voting members before
      it is voted on.  If adopted, it shall take effect in the form in
      which it was voted on.

109.  All proposals shall be voted on.  They will be adopted if and only if
      they receive the required number of votes.

110.  A proposal containing a transmutation rule change is adopted if
      and only if all votes on that proposal are in favor.
      Transmutation may not be implied, but must be stated explicitly.

111.  An immutable rule always takes precedence over a mutable rule.  If
      there is a conflict between the two, the mutable rule is entirely
      void.

112.  A member nomic may always withdraw from Internomic.

113.  It must never become completely impermissible to change rules.

114.  Whatever is not forbidden is allowed, except that changing the
      rules is only permitted when another rule allows it.

Mutable rules

201.  All members begin with 0 points.

202.  The game ends when a nomic achieves 100 points.  The winner is the
      first nomic to do so.  The liaison from that nomic becomes
      moderator, and all scores are reset to 0.  A new game is then
      begun, with all rules and proposals retaining the status they had
      at the end of the game.  The nomic that won must appoint a new
      liaison.

203.  A proposal is made by submitting it to the moderator.  All members
      may make proposals.  Upon receiving the proposal, the moderator
      shall assign it a number and distribute it to all nomics.

204.  Every proposal shall contain exactly one rule change.

205.  The voting period for a proposal shall be four weeks, beginning at
      the time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics.

206.  Each voting member may vote exactly once per proposal.  Nonvoting
      members may not vote.

207.  Voting members may vote either for or against any proposal by
      sending their vote to the moderator by the end of the voting period
      on that proposal.  The moderator may not reveal any votes until the
      end of the voting period.  Any voting member who does not vote has
      abstained.

208.  At the end of the voting period of a proposal, the moderator shall
      reveal all votes legally cast on that proposal.  If required, the
      moderator should indicate eir consent (or lack thereof) at this
      time.  If the moderator does not indicate eir opinion, it shall be
      assumed that e consents.

209.  A proposal passes if and only if all votes cast on it are in
      favor.

210.  A rule change takes effect at the moment the proposal containing
      it is adopted.  The rule which is changed takes the number of the
      proposal containing the rule change.

211.  If two or more rules conflict, the rule with the lower number
      takes precedence.

212.  Any nomic may submit a statement for judgement to the moderator.
      Upon receipt of such a statement, the moderator must randomly
      select a member to judge the statement.  The moderator must then
      distribute the statement and the identity of the judge to all
      member nomics.

213.  A nomic which has been selected to judge must deliver judgement
      within two weeks by sending its judgement to the moderator, who
      must then distribute the judgement to all members.  A legal
      judgement is either "true" or "false", and must be in accordance
      with the rules.

214.  All business to be conducted with a member nomic shall be
      conducted with the liaison to that nomic.  No entity may be
      liaison to more than one member nomic.

215.  The voting members in this Nomic are: {list of voting members}.
      The nonvoting members in this Nomic are: {nonvoting members}.

Revision history:
Second revision:
I removed quorum completely; clarified even more the difference between
rule changes and proposals; removed how non-votingness is determined;
moved the amendment-changes-number thing to mutables; simplified the
moderator succession.

Anything else to trim?

First revision changes:
Non-retroactivity rule removed; only amendment changes number;
removed rule restricting winning to points; removed rule allowing
self-modification (as this is already permitted); removed all point
awards; made all proposals require unan consent; simplified precedence;
cut out large swaths of judgement rules; removed "moderator's duties"
rule as either obvious or unnecessary; removed paradox win rule.

I'm down to 30 rules--any suggestions for further, ah, "trimming"?

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:09:29 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Ambassador: light delay (FWD) 

Just recieved this from the internomic list and thought I'd pass it along

>Due to problems concerning Liaisonship within Thring, the Internomic game
>will probably start some time next week, instead of this week as I had planned
>before. Starting members will be Thring, Agora, AckaNomic and Imperial Nomic
>14.
>
>Andre

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:11:28 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Ambassador: Internomic Rules 

I have registered the game of Ackanomic as a Voting Member Nomic in the
game of internomic.  P{lay should begin shortly.  For those of you that yet
to visit the ambassadors page I've attached the text of the initial rule
set for internomic to this message.

snowgod
- ---

Initial Set of Rules for InterNomic, second revision
by Don "Vanyel" Blaheta

Immutable Rules

101.  All member nomics must always abide by all Internomic rules then
      in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect.  At the
      start of the first game, rules 101-114 are immutable, and rules
      201-216 are mutable.  Subsequently, the number of a rule does not
      indicate that rule's mutability.

102.  A nomic is a game in which the rules are changeable by those who
      play it.  The entities which play this nomic, aka "Internomic",
      are themselves nomics, aka "member nomics".  Every member nomic
      shall be either a voting member or a nonvoting member.  References
      in this ruleset to "nomics" or "members" shall mean member nomics,
      and shall include both voting and nonvoting members, unless
      otherwise noted.  References in the ruleset to "rules" shall mean
      Internomic rules, unless otherwise noted.

103.  At any time, there shall be exactly one moderator, who must be a
      player of at least one member nomic.  The moderator may not
      resign.  If the moderator is no longer a player in any member
      nomic, e must name a successor who is.  Once this is done, the
      successor replaces the moderator.

104.  The moderator for the first game shall be {Name}.

105.  Every member nomic shall have a liaison at all times.  The liaison
      must be an entity registered as a player of that nomic.

106.  A rule change is the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable
      rule, or the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable
      rule or vice versa.

107.  Every proposal shall be numbered by the moderator.  The numbers
      shall begin with 301, and each proposal shall receive the next
      successive integer.

108.  Every proposal shall be communicated to all voting members before
      it is voted on.  If adopted, it shall take effect in the form in
      which it was voted on.

109.  All proposals shall be voted on.  They will be adopted if and only if
      they receive the required number of votes.

110.  A proposal containing a transmutation rule change is adopted if
      and only if all votes on that proposal are in favor.
      Transmutation may not be implied, but must be stated explicitly.

111.  An immutable rule always takes precedence over a mutable rule.  If
      there is a conflict between the two, the mutable rule is entirely
      void.

112.  A member nomic may always withdraw from Internomic.

113.  It must never become completely impermissible to change rules.

114.  Whatever is not forbidden is allowed, except that changing the
      rules is only permitted when another rule allows it.

Mutable rules

201.  All members begin with 0 points.

202.  The game ends when a nomic achieves 100 points.  The winner is the
      first nomic to do so.  The liaison from that nomic becomes
      moderator, and all scores are reset to 0.  A new game is then
      begun, with all rules and proposals retaining the status they had
      at the end of the game.  The nomic that won must appoint a new
      liaison.

203.  A proposal is made by submitting it to the moderator.  All members
      may make proposals.  Upon receiving the proposal, the moderator
      shall assign it a number and distribute it to all nomics.

204.  Every proposal shall contain exactly one rule change.

205.  The voting period for a proposal shall be four weeks, beginning at
      the time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics.

206.  Each voting member may vote exactly once per proposal.  Nonvoting
      members may not vote.

207.  Voting members may vote either for or against any proposal by
      sending their vote to the moderator by the end of the voting period
      on that proposal.  The moderator may not reveal any votes until the
      end of the voting period.  Any voting member who does not vote has
      abstained.

208.  At the end of the voting period of a proposal, the moderator shall
      reveal all votes legally cast on that proposal.  If required, the
      moderator should indicate eir consent (or lack thereof) at this
      time.  If the moderator does not indicate eir opinion, it shall be
      assumed that e consents.

209.  A proposal passes if and only if all votes cast on it are in
      favor.

210.  A rule change takes effect at the moment the proposal containing
      it is adopted.  The rule which is changed takes the number of the
      proposal containing the rule change.

211.  If two or more rules conflict, the rule with the lower number
      takes precedence.

212.  Any nomic may submit a statement for judgement to the moderator.
      Upon receipt of such a statement, the moderator must randomly
      select a member to judge the statement.  The moderator must then
      distribute the statement and the identity of the judge to all
      member nomics.

213.  A nomic which has been selected to judge must deliver judgement
      within two weeks by sending its judgement to the moderator, who
      must then distribute the judgement to all members.  A legal
      judgement is either "true" or "false", and must be in accordance
      with the rules.

214.  All business to be conducted with a member nomic shall be
      conducted with the liaison to that nomic.  No entity may be
      liaison to more than one member nomic.

215.  The voting members in this Nomic are: {list of voting members}.
      The nonvoting members in this Nomic are: {nonvoting members}.

Revision history:
Second revision:
I removed quorum completely; clarified even more the difference between
rule changes and proposals; removed how non-votingness is determined;
moved the amendment-changes-number thing to mutables; simplified the
moderator succession.

Anything else to trim?

First revision changes:
Non-retroactivity rule removed; only amendment changes number;
removed rule restricting winning to points; removed rule allowing
self-modification (as this is already permitted); removed all point
awards; made all proposals require unan consent; simplified precedence;
cut out large swaths of judgement rules; removed "moderator's duties"
rule as either obvious or unnecessary; removed paradox win rule.

I'm down to 30 rules--any suggestions for further, ah, "trimming"?

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 07:57:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt Results

On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, pTang1001001sos wrote:

> 
> 
> I don't claim to know anything about its use in determining the Earth's form,
> but pi was most recently useful when I calculated the total amount of matter
> composing the Earth.  Something to do with (PI/4 * r^3), if I remember
> correctly.  I could be mistaken.
> 

I'm SURE you must have used PI*r^2.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 08:55:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: 

> After this there was another period of "normal" play, but then, starting on
> the 1st of June we had, in short succession, all these situations:

Not to beat a dead horse (but I'm about to beat a dead horse :-)), I think
virtually all of the following were fun, or in the very least, interesting:

>   the "Resolutions" crisis
>   the Prosthetic Forehead thing (OK, this one was my fault :-)
>   the flaw in Protection
>   The Governor giving points away
>   Bascule's problems in reaching the Magic Number
>   Malenkai's paradox win
>   the application of Rule 829
>   the UN-application of rule 829
>   recursive application of rule 666 (not, but associated financial crisis
>      while we thought it was)
>   weird side-effects of winning the game instead of winning a cycle
>      (Malenkai becoming speaker, and being Speaker and Justice at once)
>   my win upon realizing the side-effect of Rule 892 not working
>   ejecting vacationers by Rule 362
>   setting n in Rule 110 equal to your score
>   multiple simultaneous wins by Rule 110 (more financial crisis)
>   players leaving and rejoining the game
>   time limits on actions
>   CFJ's with multiple statements
>   fat lady's delayed singing/"office of declaring a winner"/etc.
>   Malenkai & ThinMan giving me 2 Blue Crosses
>   voting only once in the entire game.

Whether this is a list of problems, situations, or what, I guess its all
relative to how you feel about gameplay. If one finds that they do *not*
enjoy a majority of the things on this list, such as the n win thing, then
perhaps some discussion can begin on a side channel of where people would
like to *steer* the game. I guess this has happened, which is cool, because
nomic is a conflict of ideas, resolutions, blah, blah blah. I'm not real
big on *steering* the game  personally, I rather enjoy the above. This 
could go on forever (discussion), but I must now go to work :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:14:49 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official 

/dev/joe wrote:

>Sorry if the general change in the game, towards fixing all the dozens of
>problems in the existing rules, has turned you off, but it feels like a
>natural reaction to the relative confusion of the last couple months.

I heartilly agree.  Moreover, I note that although I enjoyed working through
some of that confusion, I am much more interested by confusion that I
cannot forsee than by confusion that is already there, just waiting to
happen.  In my opinion, Nomic in general is about trying to write a tight
ruleset as a group, and trying to punch holes in it as an individual.  But
I'm repeating myself.

[some "interesting" situations deleted]

>After this there was another period of "normal" play, but then, starting on
>the 1st of June we had, in short succession, all these situations:

[many more "interesting" situations deleted]

Just wait until you see my newest attempt at a paradox win.  I have been
sitting on it for a couple of months, but my window of opportunity is
disappearing.  If the CFJ is judged true, then we may have rather big
problems indeed.  Coming soon from a Clerk of the Courts near you.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 15:58:06 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt Results 

> On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, pTang1001001sos wrote:

>> 
>> 
>> I don't claim to know anything about its use in determining the Earth's form>> but pi was most recently useful when I calculated the total amount of matter
>> composing the Earth.  Something to do with (PI/4 * r^3), if I remember
>> correctly.  I could be mistaken.
>> 
> I'm SURE you must have used PI*r^2.
> -mr cwm

You must be wrong. Even if the earth is flat it is definitely solid.
Ptang may have been thinking of a cylinder whose height is
1/4 of its radius. I'd call that flat. 
 Of course we can change the earths mass or shape by legislative fiat
rendering pTang's calculations pointless. There may even be those who 
want to make it round.

      Robin Hood

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:33:28 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt Results 

At 03:58 PM 7/9/96 BST, Robin Hood wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, pTang1001001sos wrote:
>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't claim to know anything about its use in determining the Earth's form
>>> but pi was most recently useful when I calculated the total amount of matter
>>> composing the Earth.  Something to do with (PI/4 * r^3), if I remember
>>> correctly.  I could be mistaken.
>>> 
>> I'm SURE you must have used PI*r^2.
>> -mr cwm
>
>You must be wrong. Even if the earth is flat it is definitely solid.
>Ptang may have been thinking of a cylinder whose height is
>1/4 of its radius. I'd call that flat. 

Errrrrr....yeah!  That's the ticket!

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:52:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

Malenkai wrote:
> Not to beat a dead horse (but I'm about to beat a dead horse :-)), I think
> virtually all of the following were fun, or in the very least, interesting:

[everybody's seen the list by now]

> Whether this is a list of problems, situations, or what, I guess its all
> relative to how you feel about gameplay. If one finds that they do *not*
> enjoy a majority of the things on this list, such as the n win thing, then
> perhaps some discussion can begin on a side channel of where people would
> like to *steer* the game. I guess this has happened, which is cool, because
> nomic is a conflict of ideas, resolutions, blah, blah blah. I'm not real
> big on *steering* the game  personally, I rather enjoy the above. This 
> could go on forever (discussion), but I must now go to work :)

I enjoy these things, to an extent, and I enjoy making the CFJ's, proposals,
or whatever else are needed to fix them up.  It seems that Malenkai and
ThinMan enjoy exploiting the problems more than fixing them, although both
have also submitted proposals to fix problems.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:01:09 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: official 

I submit that all of the Senatorial votes on confirming
justices have been invalid.

This is a PRIVILEGE of office, and most of the Senators
are acting Senators.

We really cannot continue to have effectively dead Players
filling those Senate seats.  We need real Players holding
the real Offices.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 12:22:42 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official 

/dev/joe wrote:

>[everybody's seen the list by now]
>
>I enjoy these things, to an extent, and I enjoy making the CFJ's, proposals,
>or whatever else are needed to fix them up.  It seems that Malenkai and
>ThinMan enjoy exploiting the problems more than fixing them, although both
>have also submitted proposals to fix problems.

I let it pass earlier when Malenkai attributed to me an admission of planting
an egg in the rules.  Malenkai was mistaken; what I did was to author Rule
904, which assured that if my R110 scheme was accepted as valid, that I
would reap the benefits.  I timed my application of R 110 so that it would
occur just before the close of voting on P915, which I fully expected to
pass and fill the loophole I had used.  What pTang did thereafter was not
carefully researched.

I am as quick as the next guy to exploit a problem in the Rules to my
advantage.  I consider that to be a normal and expected part of gameplay.
I have, however, worked to try to prevent those exploitations from being
harmful.  I'm afraid that the paradox CFJ that I have now submitted is
very far reaching, however, and there are no protective measures that I
could take in its case.  I submitted it anyway because, as I have previously
noted, I insist that the rules be obeyed.  It doesn't hurt that I might
get a win out of it, either.  I apologize for generalizing about the CFJ
before it is distributed, but I wanted to respond to /dev/joe's comments
quickly.

/dev/joe may also be referring to my relatively little recent rule-writing
activity.  I assure him and everyone that this is related to the time it
takes me to research, think out, and write up a good proposal, which
substantially exceeds the time it takes me to reply to correspondance.  My
two recent win attemtps were both written up many weeks ago.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:38:03 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Referee 

I've been thinking about some of the sticky situations
that we've encountered.  What it comes down to is:

"Do we need a referee?"

We currently use CFJ calls as the referee.  I don't intend
to suggest we replace that.  I think, however, that we
need someone whose duty it is to keep track of the state
of the game.  In other words, according to the Rules and
any pertinent CFJs, where are we now?  What questions still
linger that need to be decided before we know what the game
state is?

Maybe its more of a scorekeeper/ombudsman.

I dunno.  Riffing from the top of my head here.

As a concrete example, the "referee" might say:
"It seems that the Evil Ballot Stuffer is trying something
that might very well be forbidden by CFJ114, but it is
not entirely clear.  There should be a CFJ on this issue."

and then afterwards might say (major wishful thinking here):

"OK, the CFJ held up and was not overturned, so the Tabulator
should adjust the vote totals on the pertinent Proposals.
This seems to have the following effects upon the state
of the game:"

Comments?

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 21:19:37 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Referee

On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Mark Nau wrote:

> I've been thinking about some of the sticky situations
> that we've encountered.  What it comes down to is:
> 
> "Do we need a referee?"
> 
> We currently use CFJ calls as the referee.  I don't intend
> to suggest we replace that.  I think, however, that we
> need someone whose duty it is to keep track of the state
> of the game.  In other words, according to the Rules and
> any pertinent CFJs, where are we now?  What questions still
> linger that need to be decided before we know what the game
> state is?
> 
> Maybe its more of a scorekeeper/ombudsman.

Looks like what you are suggesting should be covered by an existing
office. Intuitively I would say the Speaker should be responsible for
this.
Nicolo Flychuck

> 
> I dunno.  Riffing from the top of my head here.
> 
> As a concrete example, the "referee" might say:
> "It seems that the Evil Ballot Stuffer is trying something
> that might very well be forbidden by CFJ114, but it is
> not entirely clear.  There should be a CFJ on this issue."
> 
> and then afterwards might say (major wishful thinking here):
> 
> "OK, the CFJ held up and was not overturned, so the Tabulator
> should adjust the vote totals on the pertinent Proposals.
> This seems to have the following effects upon the state
> of the game:"
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -pTang1001001sos
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 15:08:51 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 984

Proposal 984 - Tue Jul 09 15:08:51 EDT 1996
Ephemeral
pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)

A Proposal to create a new Rule entitled "Ephemeral":
- -----------------------------------------------------
{{pTang1001001sos shall have his point total adjusted
so that it is exactly equal to the Magic Number, thereby
winning the cycle.}}

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 15:09:22 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 986

Proposal 986 - Tue Jul 09 15:09:22 EDT 1996
Blanket Protection (Codifying CFJ 113)
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 592, "Protection", to read, in full:

      "A Protected entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated
except as specified by the Rules. It has no effect on the game other than
those effects specified by the Rules.

       A Protected action may not be performed except as specified by the
rules. An action's performance has no effect on the game other than those
effects specified by the Rules.

       All entities and actions in Ackanomic are Protected by default,
unless the rule(s) which specify or define their behaviour *explicitly*
state otherwise. This clause defers precedence to all such mutable rules
which *explicitly* state such." 

{{[ original text:
      A protected entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated
except as specified by the Rules. It has no effect on the game other than
those effects specified by the Rules.]}}

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #97
******************************