Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #120
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, July 20 1996        Volume 01 : Number 120

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 01:24:48 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Supreme Court Deadline 

I notice that the Supreme Court is overdue on the verdicts of three
appeals.  Will judgement be forthcoming shortly, or are the justices
deadlocked on a decision?  It's like waiting for jury to com back... al the
suspense is killing me :)

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic (twice)
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream
Candidate for Inventor - Candidate for Senator

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 96 11:43:11 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1022

Proposal 1022 - Sat Jul 20 11:43:11 EDT 1996
Spelling Bee
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

{{[this is an attempt to allow the web-harfer to fix misspellings when
rules and CFJs are adopted, and not need to go through the proposal
process, thus simplifying the whole thing, and putting it in the
background]}}

Create a new rule entitled "Spelling Bee", reading:

This rule takes precedence over any mutable rule which would prohibit
the type of Rule and CFJ changes described here.

1) This Rule creates a Protected entity known as the Spelling Bee. Its
purpose is to fly through the Rules and CFJ Archive and sting out
misspelled or mistyped words. It may not fly through, or sting, any
other entities.

2) Its flight may only be initiated by an officer privileded to do so.

3) Its flight may be initiated at any time, including immediately after
the Adoption of a Rule change, or the filing of a CFJ verdict.

4) An officer initiates its flight by posting a public message with
the term "Spelling" in its subject line. Its flight consists of, in that
post, a listing of all Rule and CFJ changes being made, clearly labeled
by rule or CFJ number, old word, and replacement word. These changes are
called "stingings" and must be made in accordance with the rules
below. Words in titles and headers of Rules and CFJs may be stung.
No one may initiate a flight which is illegal, or contains illegal
stingings.

5a) Permissible Stingings:
        a) Replacing a misspelled word with its correctly spelled
equivelent.
        b) Changing the capitilization of the first letter of a word.
        c) Replacing correctly spelled words with the word that was
intended. Ie, replacing "an" with "and" in the following example from
R 214: "A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons an arguments".
        d) Replacing proper nouns with their proper spelling when the
proper spelling is generally known and accepted.

5b) Impermissible stingings. This list takes precedence over 5a) where
there is conflict:
        a) Replacing a creative or made up word, such as "Torkola".
        b) Replacing British, American, or archaic spellings with their
American, British, or non-archaic equivelent.
        c) Replacing a foreign word with its Anglicized equivelent.
        d) Replacing Spivak pronouns with other pronouns, or replacing
non-gender neutral language with gender neutral language, or replacing any
pronoun or phrase with a Spivak pronoun.
        e) Replacing words in quotes or words followed by [sic].
        f) Replacing slang or colloquial words, or spellings thereof.
        g) Changing the word, such as replacing "superceeds" with "takes
precedence over", or "computer" with "machine", even if the word being
replaced is misspelled.
        g) Fixing grammar errors, except what is allowed by 5a) section c).
        i) Replacing abbreviations and acronyms.
        j) Making any change that violates the "spirit" of what was
intended in the writing being edited.

6) Once the flight has been announced, it has been considered to be made,
and the changes may be physically made by the officer. If a player objects
to a stinging or stinging(s), they must Call for Judgement on the matter
that the change violated this, or other rules. If the CFJ finds for the
player's position, the change(s) must be undone. (Note that the officer will
be liable for CFCJ as well, for initiating an illegal flight of the
Spelling Bee). If the CFJ does not find for the player, their only recourse
is a Proposal to change the language back.

7) Changes made by the Spelling Bee are not noted below the Rules, as is
customary for other changes. This clause takes precedence over any
mutable rule which would require such notation.

8) Where there is doubt, corrent spellings are adjudicated by the Official
Dictionary.

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

Amend R 411, "Office of the Web-Harfer", to read, in full:

      The Office of the Web-Harfer is a Functional Office. The Duties
are:
        a) To keep the information on the Ackanomic WWW page up-to-date.
        b) To select and maintain a link to the Official Dictionary of the
English language (hereafter referred to in the rules as the "Official
Dictionary").

        The Privileges are, in addition to receiving the customary salary:

        a) To initiate flights of the Spelling Bee.
 
        It is the responsibility of other players to make public any
information that should be reflected in the WWW page."

{{[original text:
      "The Office of the Web-Harfer is a Functional Office. It is the
Duty of the Web-Harfer to keep the information on the Ackanomic WWW page
up-to-date. It is the responsibility of other players to make public any
information that should be reflected in the WWW page."]}}
 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amend R 798 "Palindromes are Inherently Amusing", to replace section
(2) under "conditions" with:

      "(2) each word in the Rule exists either in the Ackanomic Rule Set
previous to the creation of the Rule, or in the Official Dictionary,
provided that such dictionary exists and is not under the control of any
Player."

{{[original:
      (2) each word in the Rule exists either in the Ackanomic Rule Set
previous to the creation of the Rule, or in an electronically accessible
dictionary of the English language selected by the Web-Harfer, should that
office exist, provided that such dictionary is not under the control of
any Player]}}

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 96 12:03:02 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1023

Proposal 1023 - Sat Jul 20 12:03:02 EDT 1996
Auction
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

{{[Not only includes a new auction rule reuseable by anyone, but rewrites
Gadgets and Blueprints for conformity.

It came to me when writing the Pizza proposal that it might be
nice to piggyback on the existing gadget/blueprint/auction stuff that
was already out there, but those rules were specific and not reuseable.

It seems to me that anyone should be able to create a blueprint/gadget,
if 2/3 of the electorate approve it (eg, magic potato, pizza). Its really
not that much different than a rule. The Inventor could still do so by
priveledge, but I wanted to extend the process to where a *rule* could
create blueprints and gadgets, thus reusing the concept. It was especially
important to me in the case of auctions, where I do not want to rewrite
the auction procedure every time I wanted to create something like Pizza
by rule, so I broke out auctions into a seperate rule, which also allows
the Inventor a chance to bid on the gadget.

I also extended the term Gadget to Artifact and Creature, because the term
Gadget seems mechanical and limiting. (I have the term
Chartreuse Goose in my mind, but haven't found anything to do with it yet
(pTang's Horrid Green Thing comes to mind))]}}

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

Amend R 594, "Blueprints, Creation of", to read in full:

      (i) The Inventor can create a new Blueprint by publicly posting its
text. In this case, the Inventor is considered the creator of the
Blueprint. A Rule can also create a new Blueprint by specifying that it
is doing so, and by specifying its text. In this case, the Rule's author
is considered the creator of the Blueprint.
  
       If a new Blueprint does not
      (a) introduce exactly one new type of Gadget, (b) name the new Gadget
type, and (c) unambiguously define the behavior of such a Gadget, it is
immediately destroyed.

      (ii) When a Blueprint is judged to be in conflict with one or more
Rules, the Blueprint is destroyed.

      (iii) A Blueprint is lonely if and only if there do not currently
exist any Gadgets made from that Blueprint. The creator of a Blueprint
may destroy their lonely Blueprint. If an Inventor leaves office for any
reason, all of his or her lonely Blueprints are destroyed. [This gives the
Players a way to get rid of the Blueprint for some Doomsday device: impeach
the Inventor. In other cases, the Blueprint is generally approved by vote.]

      [A Blueprint is not a legally binding document except where the Rules
say that it is.]

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

Amend Rule 786 "Gadgets, Creation of", to read in full:

      (i) The terms "Artifact" and "Creature", as used elsewhere in the
      rules, shall be considered synonomous to the term "Gadget", and
      all rules pertaining to Gadgets shall apply to these terms.

      (ii) A Gadget's Blueprint is the Blueprint that defines the class
      of Gadget to which that Gadget belongs. If a Gadget's Blueprint
      exists, the Gadget behaves in the manner defined by the Blueprint,
      and may be manipulated in accordance with it.

      (iii) A Gadget has at most one owner. The ownership of a Gadget may
      be transferred from one Player to another by mutual consent, but
      both Players must write messages to the public forum stating the
      terms of the transfer. The time of the transfer is the time of the
      later of the two messages.

      (vi) The ability to create Gadgets is a Privilege of the Inventor.
      The Inventor may create a Gadget only by performing these tasks, in
      this order:

         (a) choosing a type from those defined by existing Blueprints.

         (b) announcing publicly that a new Gadget of that type is being
         made. This cannot be done if the Inventor is already in the process
         of making a Gadget.

         (c) building the gadget. This task is completed when the Inventor
         has spent at least three days building, and the Blueprint defining
         the type of Gadget to be made has existed for at least one
         week. The Gadget is created at the end of this time. It has no
         owner.

         (d) announcing publicly that the new Gadget has been built and
         initiating the process to publically Auction the Gadget, as defined
         by Rule XYZ.

{{Upon adoption of this rule change, all occurrences of the string "XYZ"
in the resultant rule, other than this one, shall be replaced by the
proposal number which led to this rule change.}}
      
         (e) If, during the creation process, the Inventor's Privileges
         are suspended, the process is paused. If, during the creation
         process, the Inventor leaves office, no new Gadget is created, or
         the new Gadget is destroyed (whichever case applies). The process
         is then aborted and cannot be continued by the succeeding Inventor.

      (v) Gadgets, Creatures, and Artifacts may also be created by rules,
      provided the rule specifies the quantity created, the Blueprint which
      defines its behaviour, and how ownership is to be determined. If
      ownership is to be determined by Auction, The Auction shall be
      conducted by the process defined by Rule XYZ.

      (vi) A Gadget's owner can destroy it by publicly announcing that he
      or she is doing so, unless the Gadget's Blueprint specifies that it
      is indestructible.

      (vii) A Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a Protected entity
      if its Blueprint so specifies. [So, Gadgets can affect other Gadgets,
      create points, and so on, as long as this behaviour does not conflict
      with the Rules.]

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

A new rule shall be created with the title "Auction", and have the following
text:

1) An Auction can be called either by the Rules or by any Player. The
call for Auction must include:
        a) the item to be Auctioned, which must be unowned if the Rules
           are calling for the Auction, and must be owned by the Player
           calling the Auction if it is being called by a Player.
        b) the quantity to be Auctioned (default = 1)
        c) the minimum bid (default = A$0)
        d) whether the Auction is to be private or public (default = private)

{{[the following is to allow the Inventor a chance to bid on inventions]}}
 
2) The Auctioneer will be the Assistant Tabulator if the day of the week
when the Auction is called is odd (based on New York Time), and the
Inventor otherwise. If either office is unfilled or on vacation, the other
shall be the Auctioneer. If both are unfilled or on vacation, the Speaker
shall be the Auctioneer. If this is impossible as well, there shall be
no Auction until the situation is corrected. To go on vacation just to
avoid Auctioneer duty is to be considered bad taste, and the other Players
are permitted to sneer.

3) The Auctioneer is disqualified to bid in the Auction. The Auctioneer
may use either the title of Auctioneer, or Chief Cheese for the duration
of the Auction.

4) The Auction shall last for 3 days, after which time the Auctioneer
shall announce the results, and all currency and items shall be transferred
to their new owners. If the Auction was not initiated by a player, the
Auctioneer shall keep a 10% commission of all monies transferred to the
Treasury as compensation for performing the work and not being permitted
to bid.
 
5) The Auction shall be conducted as follows:
     5a) All qualified players are permitted to submit bids of an amount of
currency equal to or less than the amount they possess. If a player submits
multiple bids, only the highest will be considered. Anyone who submits a
bid in excess of the currency they have is disqualified, and their bids
are disqualified. Anyone who submits a bid below the minimum bid is
also disqualified. Bids may not be retracted.

     5b) Let N be the quantity of items up for Auction. The players who
made the N highest qualified bids shall each receive an item in exchange
for the amount of currency they bid. If the number of players who made
qualified bids is less than N, then the Auctioneer shall receive all the
the remaining items, if the minimum bid was A$0. If it was not A$0, then
the remaining item(s) shall revert to the player initiating the auction.
If, instead, they were unowned when the Auction was initiated, they are
destroyed.

     5c) If the bids are tied such that the Auctioneer cannot determine
who gets item(s), the Auctioneer shall resolve the tie(s) via random
means, and disclose this fact.

     5d) If the Auction is private, the Auctioneer shall not disclose the
results to anyone during the process of the Auction. If the Auction is
public, the Auctioneer shall make a good faith attempt to keep the players
apprised of the current high bid(s), either via e-mail or the Web page,
for the duration of the Auction.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:12:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC - vacation tinkering

RFC - R 457 Vacation rewrite - Malenkai

{{[I've done some tinkering with the vacation rule to attempt to handle
long and ambigious vacations. Any comments?]}}

Amend R 457, to read in full:

      A player shall be considered "on vacation" when he or she makes a
public request that he or she desires to be on vacation. Players are
allowed to put only themselves on vacation. The Rules may specify other
ways a Player may be put on vacation.

      A player should specify the expected duration of their vacation. If
the duration is not specified when they go on vacation, it is assumed to
be 14 days. If the period specified is longer than 30 days, it is assumed,
and recorded, as 30 days. It is a duty of the Register to keep a record
of the expected duration of vacationing players.

 {{     Grandfather clause: Any player who was on vacation the instant this
rule was adopted will have recorded for them an expected duration of 30
days from the time the rule was adopted. This paragraph has precedence
over the previous one.}}
 
      While a player is on vacation, the player shall not not be randomly
selected for anything. The player shall also not be chosen to perform any
task. The duties of any offices held by the player shall be performed by
the Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker.

      A player on vacation is not considered and "active player" while
they are on vacation. Nor may they be removed from the game by any 
procedure, unless that procedure *explicitly* states that it applies
to vacationing players, or that procedure is part of this Rule.

      The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take
himself off vacation. A player shall take himself off vacation by declaring
to the public forum that he is back from his vacation. As soon as the
player makes this public declaration, he shall no longer be considered on
vacation.

      Votes cast before a player went on vacation shall count normally. If
a vacationing player does not cast a vote on a proposal, then the player
shall have no vote or abstention recorded for that proposal.

      Succession Proceedings may not be called against a player on
vacation.

      If a player is still on vacation when their expected duration
expires, they are put "on ice", and it is a duty of the Registrar to
announce this fact publically. A player on ice is still considered a
vacationing player, and their on ice status is removed at the same time
they are removed from vacation.

      A player who is on ice for 14 consecutive days is automatically
Impeached from any offices they may hold. A player who is on ice for 90
consecutive days is removed from the game.

      This rule has precdence over any mutable rule which conflicts in
whole or in part, with any of its provisions.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 02:00:16 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1013

> Once the uncertainty as been resolved as specified in the injunction
> all prohibitions made by it are removed.

All prohibitions made by the uncertainty are removed? I presume you
mean prohibitions made by the injunction, but its not very clear...

Brinjal.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 14:29:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Locations

RFC - Location - Malenkai

{{[The Hotel proposal indicated the possible need for an abstract structure
known as Location. I have tried to do such, and have added a Hotel
rewrite at the end using this. I also have amended all other Locations
in the rules. I do not count things like senate and party hall as 
locations. Any comments ?]}}

A Rule that defines an entity or class of entity may specify that the
entity is a Location. Unless otherwise specified, a Location may contain
any number of players. Instances of Locations are entities and are unique,
unless otherwise specified.

A player must be in exactly one Location at any one time. A player may
not move, or be moved, between Locations except as specified by the
Rules. Locations are unowned except as specified by the Rules.

Let the Location known as the Wilds of Ackanomia exist. If a player leaves
any other Location, and it is unspecified to which Location that they go,
they go to the Wilds of Ackanomia.

Any player rejoining the game goes to the Location they were in when they
quit. If this is undefined or no longer exists, they go to the Wilds of
Ackanomia. Any player joining the game for the first time goes to the 
Wilds of Ackanomia.

{{All players who are not currently in another Location are moved to the
Wilds of Ackanomia [I believe snowgod and Pascal are in the afterlife,
everyone else is locationless]}}

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

Amend R 709, "Gaol, Creation of", to make the following changes:

      1) replace the first paragraph, which currently reads:

      "This rule shall create an Ackanomic entity known as the Gaol. The
Gaol is unlimited in capacity; it may hold 0 or more players
simultaneously."

      with:

      "The Location known as the Gaol is hereby created. A player may not
be relocated from the Gaol to any other Location except by a rule which
explicitly defines a procedure for a player to be released from the Gaol." 

      2) Add the following sentence as the last sentence of the rule:

      "This rule has precedence over any mutable rule which conflicts in
whole or in part, with any of its provisions."

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

Amend R 729, "Ackanomic Middle Ages", to replace the last paragraph, which
currently reads:
 
      "If the witch has been burned, e shall enter the Ackanomic afterlife,
should such a place exist. E shall be excommunicated from the Ackanomic
Catholic Church, should such an organisation exist. And e shall lose 10 
points."

       with:

      "If the witch has been burned, e shall enter the Ackanomic 
Afterlife, and shall lose 10 points."

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

Amend R 767, "Nothing Important", to replace the first paragraph, which
currently reads:

      "The Ackanomic Afterlife hereby exists. It is unique and all other
rules referring to this location use the definition below."

      with:

      "The Location known as the Ackanomic Afterlife hereby exists." 

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

{{[Hotels, it it were a rule, would be rewritten as follows. I have
removed all the business about Protection as well, if "Blanket Protection"
has passed, it won't be needed, and to me, has always been unappealing]}}

A class of Locations called the Hotel (plural Hotels) is hereby created.
Each particular Hotel may only be created by the passage of a Rule. If the
Rule that creates a particular Hotel ceases to exist, that Hotel vanishes
in a cloud of dust.

Any Player may stay in a Hotel upon announcing it to the public forum and
paying the hotel's fee. If the fee for a particular Hotel is not defined
elsewhere in the rules, it is 10 units of the official currency per
24-hour period or fraction thereof. The fee for staying in a Hotel is
paid to the owner of the Hotel, unless otherwise specified. If a Hotel
has no other owner, its owner is considered to be the Treasury. If the
owner of a Hotel is a Player, that Player may set the fee for that Hotel,
but any increase in a Hotel's fee will not apply to any Player staying in
that Hotel at the time of the fee increase. If the owner of a Hotel
ceases to be a Player, ownership of that Hotel reverts to the Treasury. A
Hotel is considered to be an asset [and therefore can be bought and sold
on the Free Market].

A Player staying in a Hotel is considered a Guest of that Hotel. A Player
may stay in a Hotel for any length of time as long as e has enough 
currency to pay for the privilege.

If a Guest goes on Vacation, e will remain in the Hotel as long as e has
enough currency to pay for the privilege, provided that no other rule
requires the Player to leave the Hotel.

A Guest will not leave the Hotel until either e posts to the public forum
that e is leaving, e runs out of money to pay for the stay, the Hotel
ceases to exist, or e is required to leave the Hotel by any applicable
Rule. The owner of a Hotel does not have the ability to make a Guest
leave that Hotel unless otherwise specified by another applicable Rule.

Players who are staying in Hotels and owners of Hotels may have other
privileges, duties or special characteristics as specified by another
applicable Rule.

This rule defers to any rule requiring that a player enter a Location
other than a Hotel. A Player staying in a Hotel who is required by any
rule to enter another Location automatically leaves the Hotel. 

{{[this last sentence is redundant with Locations, but I left it for
clarity]}}

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 96 20:14:37 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1013 

> From [email-masked] Sat Jul 20 19:09 BST 1996
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 02:00:16 GMT
> > Once the uncertainty as been resolved as specified in the injunction
> > all prohibitions made by it are removed.
> 
> All prohibitions made by the uncertainty are removed? I presume you
> mean prohibitions made by the injunction, but its not very clear...
> 
> Brinjal.
> 
> 
> 
Pronouns normally refer to the last possible referent, which in this case
is 'the injunction', or to dummy subjects such as the last which. 
 Pronouns that refer further back than the previous referent tend
to result in unreadable prose.
 My meaning is given by the simplest reading of the proposal which
is intended to let  supreme court take steps to stop people from
aggravating thread splits if they want to.

    Robin Hood

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 96 20:17:47 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Locations 

> RFC - Location - Malenkai
> 
> {{[The Hotel proposal indicated the possible need for an abstract structure
> known as Location. I have tried to do such, and have added a Hotel
> rewrite at the end using this. I also have amended all other Locations
> in the rules. I do not count things like senate and party hall as 
> locations. Any comments ?]}}
> 
> A Rule that defines an entity or class of entity may specify that the
> entity is a Location. Unless otherwise specified, a Location may contain
> any number of players. Instances of Locations are entities and are unique,
> unless otherwise specified.
> 
> A player must be in exactly one Location at any one time. A player may
> not move, or be moved, between Locations except as specified by the
> Rules. Locations are unowned except as specified by the Rules.
> 
> Let the Location known as the Wilds of Ackanomia exist. If a player leaves
> any other Location, and it is unspecified to which Location that they go,
> they go to the Wilds of Ackanomia.
> 
> Any player rejoining the game goes to the Location they were in when they
> quit. If this is undefined or no longer exists, they go to the Wilds of
> Ackanomia. Any player joining the game for the first time goes to the 
> Wilds of Ackanomia.
> 
> {{All players who are not currently in another Location are moved to the
> Wilds of Ackanomia [I believe snowgod and Pascal are in the afterlife,
> everyone else is locationless]}}

 I would suggest that everyones default location should be their house.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 15:34:45 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Misc

This post in response to the comments made by Mitchell Harding regarding
my previous posting.

Either e failed to understand the argument I was making, or e just likes
to argue.  Either one is equally likely from the stand e took,  and
either or both are just as much fun for me;  I like a good scrap every
now and then

I won't bother with all the direct quotes and responses, ey are available
on Ackanomic Digest V1 #119.

His first argument misses the point entirely.  Nothing prevent two
sovereign states from enjoining in commerce without a formal treaty or
trade agreement,  it's done all the time,  But in order to enforce
payment for trade,  then a treaty is absolutely required.  One state
cannot _force_ another to make payment or deliver goods without formal
agreements between them. And I still know of no such treaty or agreement
between Acka and the USA.

His second statement hits a little closer to the mark.  It is perfectly
legal to request,  barter,  trade for,  or purchase anything not
specifically prohibited by law,  whether it has any value or not.  { of
course I understand that the Permisibnility Rule is still under attack
and this philosophy of personal freedoms may change in the near future. 
ed} That was why Thin Man was allowed to make the attempt to collect from
the American corperation in the first place.  

All in all,  it was a very well written,  entertaining response;  and I
hope he will not be put off by my rebuttal.  Please,  don't hesitate to
disagree with me,  I always enjoy a chance to sound my horn and get my
nose bloodied.

Respecfully,

Habeous Corpus
<If a Burglar comits Burglary,  and a Forger comits Forgery,  then God is
an Iron---Larry Niven>

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 17:20:28 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Official

RFC- Habeous Corpus

I would like to throw out the following tentative proposal. 

Offered for consideration:
Soapbox
There shall be an Acka Entity known as the "Soapbox".  It is a Protected
Entity.  It may not be bought or sold,  given away or destroyed.  It has
no other function save that specified in this Rule.  It permanently
resides in the main square of Ackanomixc,  should that place exist.  If
such a place does not exist,  then it will reside in any other place
where it may be accessable by all Players at any given time.

Whenever a Player wishes to make a public comment not otherwise specified
by other Rules,  but solely for the purpose of personal expression or the
solitation of dialog,  e shall first place emself on the Soapbox with the
opening comment "I am standing on the Soapbox".  

Any number of Players may stand on the Soapbox at all times,  whether ey
are part of the same discussion or not.  While on the Soapbox,  no Player
may be removed from the Soapbox without due process,  if such process(es)
exist.  While on the Soapbox,  no Player may conduct any official
bussiness (offering proposals,  requesting CFJ's, campaigning for office,
 etc.) 

 When a Player has concluded eir discission,  diatribe,  etc.  e will
close with the comment "I am off the Soapbox".  There is no time limit
nor number of postings that shall limit a Player's stay on the Soapbox.

Respectfully submitted:
Habeous Corpus
<If a Burglar comits Burglary,  and if a Forger comits Forgery,  then God
is an Iron--Larry Niven>

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 14:42:39 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Locations

At 2:29 PM 7/20/96, Malenkai wrote:
>RFC - Location - Malenkai
>
>{{[The Hotel proposal indicated the possible need for an abstract structure
>known as Location. I have tried to do such, and have added a Hotel
>rewrite at the end using this. I also have amended all other Locations
>in the rules. I do not count things like senate and party hall as
>locations. Any comments ?]}}
>

The senate is a building but not a location?  Is that because it is not a
building people have the option of staying in?

>A Rule that defines an entity or class of entity may specify that the
>entity is a Location. Unless otherwise specified, a Location may contain
>any number of players. Instances of Locations are entities and are unique,
>unless otherwise specified.
>
>A player must be in exactly one Location at any one time. A player may
>not move, or be moved, between Locations except as specified by the
>Rules. Locations are unowned except as specified by the Rules.
>
>Let the Location known as the Wilds of Ackanomia exist. If a player leaves
>any other Location, and it is unspecified to which Location that they go,
>they go to the Wilds of Ackanomia.

I think if a player leaves a location, and it is unspecified as to their
destination then they shall revert to thier home.  Maybe if their home is
not named they could revert to the wilds of ackanomia.

>Any player rejoining the game goes to the Location they were in when they
>quit. If this is undefined or no longer exists, they go to the Wilds of
>Ackanomia. Any player joining the game for the first time goes to the
>Wilds of Ackanomia.

Once again, I think players should go home if the location they were
previously in no longer exists.

>{{All players who are not currently in another Location are moved to the
>Wilds of Ackanomia [I believe snowgod and Pascal are in the afterlife,
>everyone else is locationless]}}

You need to set up a sytem that allows players to move from one location to
another if the location rule doesn't specify how it's done.  For instance,
if one player wants to reside in another players home (with his permission
of course) there should be a uniform way of allowing that.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Amend R 709, "Gaol, Creation of", to make the following changes:
>
>      1) replace the first paragraph, which currently reads:
>
>      "This rule shall create an Ackanomic entity known as the Gaol. The
>Gaol is unlimited in capacity; it may hold 0 or more players
>simultaneously."
>
>      with:
>
>      "The Location known as the Gaol is hereby created. A player may not
>be relocated from the Gaol to any other Location except by a rule which
>explicitly defines a procedure for a player to be released from the Gaol."
>
>      2) Add the following sentence as the last sentence of the rule:
>
>      "This rule has precedence over any mutable rule which conflicts in
>whole or in part, with any of its provisions."
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Amend R 729, "Ackanomic Middle Ages", to replace the last paragraph, which
>currently reads:
>
>      "If the witch has been burned, e shall enter the Ackanomic afterlife,
>should such a place exist. E shall be excommunicated from the Ackanomic
>Catholic Church, should such an organisation exist. And e shall lose 10
>points."
>
>       with:
>
>      "If the witch has been burned, e shall enter the Ackanomic
>Afterlife, and shall lose 10 points."
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Amend R 767, "Nothing Important", to replace the first paragraph, which
>currently reads:
>
>      "The Ackanomic Afterlife hereby exists. It is unique and all other
>rules referring to this location use the definition below."
>
>      with:
>
>      "The Location known as the Ackanomic Afterlife hereby exists."
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>{{[Hotels, it it were a rule, would be rewritten as follows. I have
>removed all the business about Protection as well, if "Blanket Protection"
>has passed, it won't be needed, and to me, has always been unappealing]}}
>
>A class of Locations called the Hotel (plural Hotels) is hereby created.
>Each particular Hotel may only be created by the passage of a Rule. If the
>Rule that creates a particular Hotel ceases to exist, that Hotel vanishes
>in a cloud of dust.
>
>Any Player may stay in a Hotel upon announcing it to the public forum and
>paying the hotel's fee. If the fee for a particular Hotel is not defined
>elsewhere in the rules, it is 10 units of the official currency per
>24-hour period or fraction thereof. The fee for staying in a Hotel is
>paid to the owner of the Hotel, unless otherwise specified. If a Hotel
>has no other owner, its owner is considered to be the Treasury. If the
>owner of a Hotel is a Player, that Player may set the fee for that Hotel,
>but any increase in a Hotel's fee will not apply to any Player staying in
>that Hotel at the time of the fee increase. If the owner of a Hotel
>ceases to be a Player, ownership of that Hotel reverts to the Treasury. A
>Hotel is considered to be an asset [and therefore can be bought and sold
>on the Free Market].
>
>A Player staying in a Hotel is considered a Guest of that Hotel. A Player
>may stay in a Hotel for any length of time as long as e has enough
>currency to pay for the privilege.
>
>If a Guest goes on Vacation, e will remain in the Hotel as long as e has
>enough currency to pay for the privilege, provided that no other rule
>requires the Player to leave the Hotel.
>
>A Guest will not leave the Hotel until either e posts to the public forum
>that e is leaving, e runs out of money to pay for the stay, the Hotel
>ceases to exist, or e is required to leave the Hotel by any applicable
>Rule. The owner of a Hotel does not have the ability to make a Guest
>leave that Hotel unless otherwise specified by another applicable Rule.
>
>Players who are staying in Hotels and owners of Hotels may have other
>privileges, duties or special characteristics as specified by another
>applicable Rule.
>
>This rule defers to any rule requiring that a player enter a Location
>other than a Hotel. A Player staying in a Hotel who is required by any
>rule to enter another Location automatically leaves the Hotel.
>
>{{[this last sentence is redundant with Locations, but I left it for
>clarity]}}

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic (twice)
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream
Candidate for Inventor - Candidate for Senator

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:31:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Election Results

Synopsis:

Inventor: snowgod (4 votes)
Senator: snowgod (8 votes), Kelly Martin (4 votes)
Appointer: this is not a name (7 votes)

- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Votes for Inventor were accepted until Sat 20-Jul, 00:05 hrs.

The election for Inventor is over. The votes were:

for Snowgod (4 votes):

	ThinMan
	this is not a name
	snowgod
	Malenkai

Snowgod is thus elected Inventor. Would the Financier please
record the change for the purposes of salary computation.

Elections are governed by R 611:
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/rule600.html#R611

Assistant Tabulator

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

Votes for Senator were accepted until Sat 20-Jul, 19:00 hrs.

The election for Senator is over. The votes were:

for Kelly Martin (4 votes):

	ThinMan
	/dev/joe
	Pascal
	De'ghew

for Snowgod (8 votes):

	this is not a name
	snowgod
	Malenkai
	Brinjal
	Calvin N Hobbes
	Habeous Corpus
	mr cwm
	Robert Sevin

snowgod is thus elected Senator.

Elections are governed by R 611:
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/rule600.html#R611

Assistant Tabulator

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

Votes for Appointer were accepted until Sat 20-Jul, 19:00 hrs.

The election for Appointer is over. The votes were

for this is not a name (7 votes):

	ThinMan
	this is not a name
	snowgod
	Malenkai
	Brinjal
	mr cwm
	Robert Sevin

this is not a name is thus elected Appointer. Would the Financier
please record the change for the purposes of salary computation.

Elections are governed by R 611:
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/rule600.html#R611

Assistant Tabulator

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 20:38:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Supreme Court Deadline

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I notice that the Supreme Court is overdue on the verdicts of three
> appeals.  Will judgement be forthcoming shortly, or are the justices
> deadlocked on a decision?  It's like waiting for jury to com back... al the
> suspense is killing me :)
> 

It seems like the truth of the following rather nasty situation is 
possible, or will become possible:

The Court rules TRUE on CFJ 227 (and thus FALSE on CFJ 228, to me I'm
not sure how that could happen, but its possible, I suppose).

The Court also rules TRUE on CFJ 232, given a TRUE on 227, or uses
reasoning similar to 232 when deliberating or delivering on the other
verdicts.

I do not believe 234 could be an issue, given the TRUE on 235.

If all of the above is TRUE, then the Court could never deliver any of
the appeal verdicts, and we could wait forever for them, and never know
it! Thus the Tabulator could wait forever for a verdict on CFJ 220, and
never deliver the voting resuts.

If this is TRUE, there seems no way to *know* if it is TRUE, or at least
I haven't thought of a way yet (true but unknowable :)).

The only workaround I can think of is the CSRR fixing R 660 and R 390.
Discuss?

Malenkai
Speculating

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #120
*******************************