Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #129
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, July 23 1996        Volume 01 : Number 129

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:59:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: I've ALWAYS wanted to do this, just to see what happens

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1033 - Tue Jul 23 00:49:26 EDT 1996
> Bronze Torch
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
>       Bronze Torches are awarded as a recognition of merit to those
> players who have shown us the light through the stickiest of rule
> interpretation quagmires.[...]

By R 115, I take possession of a Bronze Torch.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 1:01:02 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1011 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 1011
  Proposal 1011 - Sun Jul 14 00:55:18 EDT 1996
  Punishment for using Dormant
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 16 eligible voters -- 12 players cast votes

7 YES votes   6 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

snowgod loses 9 points.  -33 -> -42

7 YES votes:  1 point each
  Robin Hood                                   24 -> 25           
  Malenkai               FUN                   32 -> 33           
  gnome                                       =   0               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           -42 -> -41          
  this is not a name     (None Yet)            49 -> 50           
  Habeous Corpus                               22 -> 23           
  Wayne                  Underworld            24 -> 25           

6 NO votes:  
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   0               
  De'ghew                Underworld           =  10               
  Nobs Unity vote                             =   0               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =  33               
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 = 132               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =  17               

0 PRESENT votes:

4 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Bascule                FUN                  
  Techno                 Underworld           
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  The Great Old One                           
  Mellon                                      
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Niccolo Flychuck                            
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  pTang1001001sos                             
  Pascal                                      

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 1:01:32 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1012 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 1012
  Proposal 1012 - Sun Jul 14 00:56:01 EDT 1996
  xvcoffee
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 16 eligible voters -- 12 players cast votes

7 YES votes   5 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

snowgod loses 9 points.  -41 -> -50

7 YES votes:  1 point each
  Robin Hood                                   25 -> 26           
  gnome                                       =   0               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           -50 -> -49          
  this is not a name     (None Yet)            50 -> 51           
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 132 -> 133          
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)            17 -> 18           

5 NO votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  =  33               
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   0               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  23               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =  33               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  25               

1 PRESENT votes:
  De'ghew                Underworld            =  10

4 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Bascule                FUN                  
  Techno                 Underworld           
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Mellon                                      
  The Great Old One                           
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Niccolo Flychuck                            
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  pTang1001001sos                             
  Pascal                                      

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:04:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1010 Fails

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Here are the voting results for : 1010
>   Proposal 1010 - Thu Jul 11 23:50:45 EDT 1996
>   amend 588
>   Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

> Proposal FAILS

And there was much rejoicing!!

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:43:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: CFCJ 106 (Robert Sevin)

Robert Sevin has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment. Would the Financier please note
Malenkai's A$20 Court Fee.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Criminal Judgement 106
  Subject:  CFJ 113, back in the spotlight
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  Robert Sevin

Statement:

Player Malenkai has broken R 101.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

      Extra-Nomic entities and CFJ 113 do not mix (or, why I voted no
on xvcoffee and regulation of all extra-nomic entities).

      I drink Coca-Cola every day, sometimes while playing Ackanomic
late at night. R 706 regulates Coca-Cola, so presumably my drinking of
the soft drink comes under the auspices of R 115.

      But we know the reasoning of CFJ 113. The synopsys is that
if the rules are silent on the issue, it is permitted, otherwise it is
Protected (I've always referred to it as "weak protection"). The rules 
are not silent on the issue of "Coca-Cola", "the official soft drink of
Ackanomic". I quote R 706 in part:

      "Coca-Cola is hereby made the official soft drink of Ackanomic.
The Financier must bill the Coca-Cola Company USD$16,209.62 as promotional
consideration..."

      This rule does not permit the *drinking* of the beverage, they only
regulates its official status. Therefore my manipulation runs afoul of 
the rules, and thus R 101.

      I've always been troubled by bringing extra-nomic entities into the
rules. Perhaps this is why.

Penalty: 1 day in the Gaol for Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 2:33:04 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1034

Proposal 1034 - Tue Jul 23 02:33:03 EDT 1996
Repeal R 989 "Definition of Judging Index".
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Repeal R 989 "Definition of Judging Index".

{{[The CotC's worst nightmare. JI is not used. Blow it away!!]}}

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:59:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 959 Fails

> 
> Note that my score should be reset to 0 then incremented by 1 as
> a result of the scoreing on this proposal.

I don't think this is correct.  
I believe that all the scoring when a proposal is accepted or rejected
should happen simultaneously.  Customarily you add the author's points
first, and there *might* be a basis for it, in that Rule 207 lists the
author's points before the voters' points, but if so, when are the points
from other rules (such as the Magic Potato, Shortness, etc.) added?

Such timing issues are one of the things Ackanomic's rules fail to
cover, but in the absence of any such rules, I believe it is only fair
to apply all such effects simultaneously.

I tried to reflect this in the pointlog, by grouping together the points
given to an author of a proposal for the acceptance/rejection of the
proposal, his vote, shortness, and the magic potato.

The change was wrong anyway, because you used my "everything in the
pointlog" scores to start this process, which includes some score changes
which occurred after some (most) of these proposal results apply.  As a
result of proposal 959, Wayne's score went from -42 to -50.
I will add an appropriate entry in the pointlog when Wayne's score
actually reaches -60 or below.

I've decided to do this the hard way, updating the scores after every
proposal, because auto-gnome passed, and I know I saw at least one proposal
whose acceptance or rejection could change if just the gnome's vote
changed.  I will report if any such events occur, and I suppose I'll
keep a "gnome log" along with the score changes.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 03:17:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 961 Fails

> Here are the voting results for : 961

> Quorum met : 19 eligible voters -- 17 players cast votes

> 8 YES votes   11 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
> Proposal FAILS

> pTang1001001sos loses 9 points.  9 -> 0

> 8 YES votes:  1 point each
>   Mellon                                       10 -> 11           
>   ThinMan                Nobs                   5 -> 6            
>   Niccolo Flychuck                             29 -> 30           
>   De'ghew                Underworld            -7 -> -6           
>   Nobs Unity vote                             =   0               
>   Kelly Martin           Nobs                  -1 -> 0            
>   /dev/joe               Nobs                  82 -> 83           
>   pTang1001001sos                               0 -> 1            

> 11 NO votes:  
>   Robin Hood                                  =   3               
>   Malenkai               FUN                  = -35               
>   gnome                                       =   0               
>   Bascule                FUN                  =  17               
>   snowgod                (None Yet)           = -30               
>   this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  25               
>   Habeous Corpus                              =   3               
>   Techno                 Underworld           =  19               
>   (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
>   mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =  12               
>   Wayne                  Underworld           = -63               

> 0 PRESENT votes:

> 2 ABSTENTIONS:
>   Brinjal                                     
>   Robert Sevin           Foozball             

In these voting results, I count 16 normal player votes.  Wayne
counted 17 for determining quorum; presumably he is counting the gnome.
(I chose this proposal to report on, because it has 2 unity votes
so it is clear Wayne is counting the gnome and not unity votes.)

Is this correct, according to the rules?

I don't think it should be this way.  For determining quorum, only the
regular votes of players should be counted.  If the rules say otherwise,
they should be changed.  This is an issue I first noticed when Niccolo
Flychuck posted his "Otzma card" proposals, which included an otzma card
which could be used to double all the Present votes on a proposal,
which (he claimed) 

Fortunately, we haven't been close to having any proposals fail due to
quorum in a long time, due to vacationers' abstentions not counting.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 09:27:59 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mentors Fails 

> From [email-masked] Mon Jul 22 23:13 BST 1996
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 14:15:41 -0800
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> I am curious why the players who voted NO or Present on this proposal did
> so.  Far as I could tell it would have created a methos of quickly getting
> new players oriented into the game without too much time and hassle on any
> existing players part.
> 
> If there is anything I could do to change ytour vote for a future version
> of this proposal, please let me know.  I would like to discuss it.
> 
> >6 NO votes:
> >  Robin Hood                                  =   8
> >  mr cwm                 (None Yet)
> 
> snowgod

 I don't have time to act as mentor.
I'd suggest either volunteers only, significant compensation,
or always pick the highest scoring (best) players

  Robin Hood 

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:21:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Magic Potato (Techno)

Techno gets the Magic Potato this week.

I note that in the proposal results Wayne recently distributed (958-1012)
there are no potato bonuses.  Niccolo Flychuck had several proposals pass,
but they didn't pass until July 17, when Robin Hood had the gnome.  Robin
Hood had no proposals accepted in this batch.  All proposals whose voting
periods have completed (with the possible exception of retracted proposals,
if it is decided retraction doesn't work) have had their results posted.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:18:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 961 Fails

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 

> In these voting results, I count 16 normal player votes.  Wayne
> counted 17 for determining quorum; presumably he is counting the gnome.
> (I chose this proposal to report on, because it has 2 unity votes
> so it is clear Wayne is counting the gnome and not unity votes.)

I always thought quorum was number of players who voted versus number of
active players - # on vacation. Gnomes, unity votes, and Tammany do
not count, IMO. I'm not sure about the extra vote you may buy for A$100,
as that is a player vote?

Truem it has not mattered for a long time.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:21:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Potato (Techno)

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> Techno gets the Magic Potato this week.
> 
> I note that in the proposal results Wayne recently distributed (958-1012)
> there are no potato bonuses.  Niccolo Flychuck had several proposals pass,
> but they didn't pass until July 17, when Robin Hood had the gnome.  Robin
> Hood had no proposals accepted in this batch.  All proposals whose voting
> periods have completed (with the possible exception of retracted proposals,
> if it is decided retraction doesn't work) have had their results posted.

As a seperate note, I would like to see the potato given retroactively
to Monday at midnight (-0400?), regardless of when the Registrar actually
gives it out.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:51:42 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Mentors Fails 

snowgod,

I have already given you my objection to your Mentors proposal, that being
the possibility that a Player who has not volunteered for such duty could
be selected if the volunteers are exhausted.  If that provision were not
in the proposal then I would probably vote for it.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:06:17 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official 

I am now officially returning from vacation.  Bond yields from the cycle
completed yesterday will be published presently.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:28:27 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Inventor: New Blueprint 

Greetings from your newly elected Inventor,

Here is my first Blueprint.  Hope you all enjoy it.  I will begin building
it one week from today.  That process takes three days, after which I will
auction it off.  Get your A$ out... Everyone is going to want one of these
beauties...

Blueprint :

A blueprint that creates a gadget known as "The Really Big Blue Thing That
Doesn't Do Too Much, Really"

The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really shall always
have dimensions slightly larger then those of the location in which it's
owner is located (which causes horrific problems when transporting The
Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really).  It is initially
Baby Blue, though the shade of blue can be changed at the whim of the owner
by stating publicly that he is doing so.  The Really Big Blue Thing That
Doesn't Do Too Much, Really changes shape.  On Monday, Wednesday, Friday,
and Sunday it is round.  On Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday it is shaped
similarly to a 1968 Ford Mustang Fastback.

No matter what shape or size The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too
Much, Really is, it shall always have a button somewhere upon it marked
"ENERGIZE"

The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really is able to
change the player name of any Ackanomic player to another name which is an
anagram of the original.  This is accomplished when the owner of The Really
Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really states publicly that he has
pointed The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really at x
(where x is the name of the player being renamed) and pressed the ENERGIZE
button.  The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really then
gives the owner an anagram of the original name which he must post to the
public forum.

The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really runs on
rechargable 9 volt batteries, and may be used no more than once every two
weeks, or the batteries will overheat and explode before The Really Big
Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really is able to change a players
name ( and thus causing The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really to be destroyed).

snowgod

Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Acting Senator (seat c)
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (twice) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 11:37:16 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: points and A$

>- Such timing issues are one of the things Ackanomic's rules fail to
>- cover, but in the absence of any such rules, I believe it is only fair
>- to apply all such effects simultaneously.

One solution I thought of is to have points only change as a result of
voting on proposals.  All other penalties and awards that are currently
point-based be converted to A$-based.  This would streamline the point
process and we would never have these timing problems again.

Points shouldn't be a commodity.  Lets start using the Ackadollor more.
If you want to appeal a judgement, you must pay a A$20 filing fee.  If
you find Phoebe's matchbox, you should get a A$xx reward.  Then all timing
problems with points are eliminated.

But then you say that the problems are shifted onto A$.  The A$ has very
few timing problems associated with it.  The only problem is if you spend
more money than you have.  We could work out some kind of penalty for a
person that bounces AckaChecks.

This would help with all of the race conditions with points.  Who can claim
the Trumbone, who is the gnome buddy, who is at the magic number, who is at
- -60. 

If this sould like the right way to do it, I'll start making a note of
all the needed changes.  If you disagree, let me know.

Wayne

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 11:41:52 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: Mentors Fails

>  I don't have time to act as mentor.
> I'd suggest either volunteers only, significant compensation,
> or always pick the highest scoring (best) players

>  Robin Hood 

I feel the same way.  Sometimes I don't have enought time to do everything
that I need to.  I don't like rules that legislate more work for me to do.
In the past, I've helped out new players by answering thier questions and
such.  I don't think a rule is needed to accomplish this.  Can't the people
who wish to be a "mentor" just help out the new players without a rule?

Wayne

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 12:22:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: points and A$

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> One solution I thought of is to have points only change as a result of
> voting on proposals.  All other penalties and awards that are currently
> point-based be converted to A$-based.  This would streamline the point
> process and we would never have these timing problems again.
> 
> Points shouldn't be a commodity.  Lets start using the Ackadollor more.
> If you want to appeal a judgement, you must pay a A$20 filing fee.  If
> you find Phoebe's matchbox, you should get a A$xx reward.  Then all timing
> problems with points are eliminated.
>  
> If this sould like the right way to do it, I'll start making a note of
> all the needed changes.  If you disagree, let me know.

Its a good idea, but I personally have to disagree. Points are much more
valuable that A$, as that is the only way one can win. Based on our 
current economics, a -20 point penalty for frivilous appeal is a much
worse sting than a -$A20, or even -A$100 penalty. As is -10 points for
a failed IP, etc.

I actually think points should be a commodity, and judicious use of A$
(buying votes, gadgets, etc) be a means to acquire them. I can see
a mix of where things like Phoebe's matchbox sometimes give you points,
and sometimes give you A$, though. With officer's salaries, CFCJ filing
fee, penalty for lateness by the Supreme Court, I feel we have *somewhat*
of a decent mix now.

As for the race condition, except for things like claiming the Trombone,
I don't think it will be that bad. Especially now that we have auto-gnome.
Do we have auto-gnome?

As for the scoring system itself, I think we moved it too far towards
emphasizing proposals and away from voting, when it was last changed.
Realisitically, you have to keep up with writing proposals, lots of them,
to have a chance of winning by points. I preferred writing some proposals
and strategic voting. To remove all the other ways of acquiring points
would push it even farther that direction.

I was thinking of an RFC to move the scoring system back to somewhere
*between* where it is (9/2/1) and where it was (10/5/3). How about 10/4/2 ?
The current scoring system also favors no-brainer rewrites, which have
little chance of failure, over risky, more creative fare that will tend
to develop the game. I'm not complaining about the ratios, ie no-brainer
rewrites should pass all the time, while risky stuff should only pass once
in a while, but the scoring should somehow reflect the risk taken, which
it doesn't now. In other words, in encourages maintenance over development.

My attitude has been to ignore the scoring system, and write what I like
to write, and realise that, realistically, I have no chance of winning,
because I write too much risk. It may inhibit others, though, I don't 
know. Anyone want a change? How about a bonus if a proposal creates a
new rule, rather than amendments and repeals?

I would also say if you *support* Wayne's idea to speak up. I don't want
one negative comment to deep-six the thing amongst passive support.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 19:26:36 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: decloaking for a few moments (my recent props,Chess,Wizard,Otzma)

Fellow citizens of Ackanomia. 

The undersigend is still on vacation.ince I had the chance to go on-line,
I asked Wayne to send the voting results on my recent props. I must say
that I am amused.

I'll only be back in a couple of weeks, but meanwhile I wouldlike to share
some thoughts.

My comments:
I pleased that Party Chess passed by such a large majority. However, the
Law of Party Gravity, which means that it will have no effect at all
outside Party Hall, and Party Hall remains simply an interesting place.
I'd like Party Chess to have some effect on Parties' standing. If no one
comes up with anything before I get back, I'll start the discussion once
again. I'd like to know what people objected to in this proposal. Please
send comments directly to me, while on vacation I am temporarily off the
list, I'll only be able to respond in a couple of weeks, though. However
this is just a minor problem.  Other than the King, there are no pieces to
play with. I suggest someone propose at least a few standard pieces, so
some sort of play can take place, later, other types of pieces may be
created, in time the game will evolve. For all I care, anyone can just use
the text for Bishop, Knight, Rook, etc. and just re-submit them, or alter
them or whatever. 

Wizard/Otzma cards etc. 

just one question - all those people who disliked it, where were you when
I posted all those RFCs?

RFCs are used not only to discuss proposals and refine them, but to feel
the pulse of ackanomia as well.

Judging index, and selecting Judges - a single word - 
ROTFL

Niccolo Flychuck

ps- 
Wayne also sent me the results for 988, which I believe I retracted and
therefore should not have been counted. Whoever is responsible for scores,
please check this out.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 12:49:16 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: counting for quorums

> In these voting results, I count 16 normal player votes.  Wayne
> counted 17 for determining quorum; presumably he is counting the gnome.
> (I chose this proposal to report on, because it has 2 unity votes
> so it is clear Wayne is counting the gnome and not unity votes.)
> 
> Is this correct, according to the rules?

You are correct, only players should be counted in determining a
quorum.  Thanks for pointing out this error.  I've corrected my
code to correct this.

Wayne

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:27:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: points and A$

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 Wayne wrote:

> 
> One solution I thought of is to have points only change as a result of
> voting on proposals.  All other penalties and awards that are currently
> point-based be converted to A$-based.  This would streamline the point
> process and we would never have these timing problems again.
> 
> Points shouldn't be a commodity.  Lets start using the Ackadollor more.
> If you want to appeal a judgement, you must pay a A$20 filing fee.  If
> you find Phoebe's matchbox, you should get a A$xx reward.  Then all timing
> problems with points are eliminated.
> 

The distinction between (result of voting) and (not a result of voting) 
doesn't seem to be the best, to me.  It may be better to use A$ penalties
for optional things, but point penalties for things we always want someone
to be capable of doing (negative scores don't seem to be a problem). 

Additionally, we really don't know how stable the Acka-economy is.
Rampant inflation or deflation could change the relative value of bonuses
or penalties that are in A$ dramatically, which doesn't seem to be a
problem with points.  

Is there another way to handle the timing problem?  Auto-gnome was one -
(if I remember it correctly) perhaps we could automate Trombone
dstribution, etc., as well (so one don't have to claim things that depend
on having particular points, one just gets them). 

Or we could revive the idea of a "day of rest" where nothing gets done,
but perhaps the re-distribution of things depending on scores at the
begining of that.

I don't really object to Wayne's idea - I just wonder if we could do
better as long as we're at it.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:38:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: points and A$

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> I'm not complaining about the ratios, ie no-brainer
> rewrites should pass all the time, while risky stuff should only pass once
> in a while, but the scoring should somehow reflect the risk taken, which
> it doesn't now. In other words, in encourages maintenance over development.
>

A good bit of the maintenance would seem to be the province of the CSRR
Officer, but it hardly seems worthwhile, given that someone is bound to
object, and the authors of maintainence-proposals have the incentive of
points.  I'd have hoped that players would inform me when they find
something they think needs fixing, but it doesn't seem to have worked out
that way.  Maybe I should advertise ...
 
> My attitude has been to ignore the scoring system, and write what I like
> to write, and realise that, realistically, I have no chance of winning,
> because I write too much risk. 

No chance of winning on points, that is.  Paradox winners should get
Extra-Juicy Pink Right-Handed Grapefruit :)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 15:31:03 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: points and A$

> Is there another way to handle the timing problem?  Auto-gnome was one -
> (if I remember it correctly) perhaps we could automate Trombone
> dstribution, etc., as well (so one don't have to claim things that depend
> on having particular points, one just gets them). 

Auto-whatever doesn't solve the problem.  We still need to correct the
timing problems.  Here is an example:

Player X was chosen for a CFJ.  He had until 12 noon to respond.  At 1, I
am ready to send out the voting results.  Has player X been penalized for
failing to respond?  Or has he responded and the CotC not yet posted it?
If player X is penalized, he might be the gnome buddy.  Or his score could
have dropped below -60 and been reset.  There are countless other ways
that someone's points may be modified.  We have penalties for overturning
judgements, appealing to the SC, and Phoebe.

It is game custom that these penalties occur as soon as they happen,
not when they are brought to the Scorekeepor's attention.  And sometimes
I have to apply penalties after I distribute a proposal, not before.
It was a big pain in the ass trying to keep it all straight.  That is
the reason I resigned.

Wayne

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: points and A$

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 Wayne wrote:

> 
> Auto-whatever doesn't solve the problem.  We still need to correct the
> timing problems.  Here is an example:
> 
> Player X was chosen for a CFJ.  He had until 12 noon to respond.  At 1, I
> am ready to send out the voting results.  Has player X been penalized for
> failing to respond?  Or has he responded and the CotC not yet posted it?
> If player X is penalized, he might be the gnome buddy.  Or his score could
> have dropped below -60 and been reset.  There are countless other ways
> that someone's points may be modified.  We have penalties for overturning
> judgements, appealing to the SC, and Phoebe.
> 
> It is game custom that these penalties occur as soon as they happen,
> not when they are brought to the Scorekeepor's attention.  And sometimes
> I have to apply penalties after I distribute a proposal, not before.
> It was a big pain in the ass trying to keep it all straight.  That is
> the reason I resigned.
> 

Thanks.  I see the extent of the problem better, now.  Would it be
possible to write a rule so that score changes *don't* happen until they
are brought to the scorekeeper's attention?  Notifying the scorekeeper
could be a necessary part of getting/losing points, like ... research
isn't done until the results are published.  (And if we could write such a
rule, would it solve the problem without causing worse ones?)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 16:07:57 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Chess-Umpire Vacant

The Chess-Umpire was created by Rule 991. Anyone wishing to volunteer for 
this position should email me. I will accept volunteers until Thu 25 July 
1996 4:04 PM EDT.

Note that Brinjal (NAP), /dev/joe (Nobs), Robert Sevin (Permanent 
Vacation), Techno (Underworld), this is not a name ((None Yet)), and 
Bascule (FUN) are not eligible unless they resign as swingers.

>1. Office of the  Chess-Umpire
>A.The functional office of Chess Umpire exists.
>B. Any player who is not a Swinger is eligible for the office of Chess-Umpire
>C. If a Chess-Umpire becomes a Swinger, e must immediately resign eir 
>position
> as Chess-Umpire.
>D. The Chess-Umpire has the following duties:
>  (i) maintaining and updating the Party Board
>  (ii) Checking for the legality of the moves
>  (iii) Notifying Swingers that it is their turn to move - by private e-mail
>  (iv) Alerting Swingers to the fact that they are being checked, by a 
>       public message, which indicates which Swinger or Swingers have been 
>	placed in a state of check.
>  (v) Calculating and posting the Swingers' Absolute and Relative Weights 
>	after each move.
>  (vi) Maintaining a list of game history - all the moves made, Pieces 
>purchased
> 	 and owned
>  (vii) The Chess-Umpire will make this information publically  available.
>	 If possible, the information will be maintained on a web-page as well.
>  (vii) Determining the playing order.

             this is not a name            [email-masked]
Appointer - Historian - File Clerk - Acting Senator - Priest - Swinger

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and
 child."                               --Dan Quayle
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:16:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: points and A$

mr cwm wrote:
>  
> Thanks.  I see the extent of the problem better, now.  Would it be
> possible to write a rule so that score changes *don't* happen until they
> are brought to the scorekeeper's attention?  Notifying the scorekeeper
> could be a necessary part of getting/losing points, like ... research
> isn't done until the results are published.  (And if we could write such a
> rule, would it solve the problem without causing worse ones?)

This is a good idea. That is the way CFJs and Proposals work. Points could
work the same way. Then, the Gnome Buddy could not change until the
Scorekeeper notified the Tabulator of such a change. Then auto-gnome
would work, especially if the scorekeeper had a secret command to
update the nomicbot. The Scorekeeper could also automatically distribute
trombones, etc.

The potential problems are inefficiency and batching. First, such a system
would require the scorekeeper be highly efficient; perhaps to the degree
of having a updateable and pollable "scoring bot". Second, score changes
could not be batched. I was thinking of an idea where scores could only
change at midnight; all score changes for the day being batched until
midnight. The problem is trying to hit the magic number exactly. Each
score would have to be applied individually, not batched, and checked
against the magic number, trombone, -60, etc. Mabye the gnome buddy 
could only change at midnight, or some other "convienent" time for Wayne
to work around.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:33:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Appeal Verdict 230

The following was just received for CFJ 230:

Clerk of the Courts

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

Unanimously, the Supreme Court overturns the decision of CFJ 230 to TRUE,
and penalizes the previous Judge 1 point.

Reasoning:

Techno has, indeed, claimed to win, and no one can stop him.  The Court
wishes to point out, however, that the fact that Techno has claimed to
win does not, itself, indicate that he has won.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
scoring penalty: -1 for this is not a name
financial penalties: -A$4 to mr cwm & Bascule, assuming TRUE on CFJ 237
                     -A$2 to mr cwm & Bascule, assuming FALSE on CFJ 237

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:20:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Prosthetic Forehead Purchase

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I was admiring snowgod's Prosthetic Forehead, as depicted on the
Ambassador's page, and decided the time had come for me to invest in one
for myself, or, better yet, two.  So, in accord with R818, I hereby spend
A$14 to purchase two Prosthetic Foreheads.

The first is exactly like my real forehead, to the extent that such
similarity is legal.  That is, it only differs enough as is necessary to
comply with the Rules.  I intend to keep this Prosthetic Forehead in
storage, to be used in the event of an accident occuring to my real
forehead.

The second is exactly like Simon Marty Harriman's real forehead, to the
extent that such similarity is legal.  That is, it only differs enough as
is necessary to comply with the Rules.  I intend to keep this Prosthetic
Forehead in storage, to be sold in the event that Prosthetic Foreheads
become very valuable.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:31:39 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka:  Prosthetic Forehead Purchase 

>From: mr cwm
>
>I was admiring snowgod's Prosthetic Forehead, as depicted on the
>Ambassador's page, and decided the time had come for me to invest in one
>for myself, or, better yet, two.  So, in accord with R818, I hereby spend
>A$14 to purchase two Prosthetic Foreheads.

Duly noted.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:34:24 +0000
From: The Supreme Court <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Appeal 227 ruling

The Supreme Court upholds the original decision of FALSE.

The reasoning in a CFJ is not _explicit_ game custom. It may or may
not be implicit game custom. Implicit game custom may become
explicit game custom through submitting a statement for CFJ. The
evolution of implicit game custom is a process that does not require
"manipulation" of game custom by any player.

The verity of the statement in CFJ 227 depends on any change being
defined as a manipulation. Game custom is self-evolving, changing
without being manipulated. Thus, the reasoning of CFJ 113 can become
a part of game custom without running afoul of the reasoning of CFJ
113.  Additionally, the decisions of CFJ's are explicit game custom -
the implication is that there is other, non-explicit, game custom. 
The rules that indicate that game custom should be used do not
specify that only explicit game custom should be used.  It is, then,
determined (and thus, is possible to determine) that game custom
beyond that explicitly created by rules can and should be considered
on those occasions when the rules specify that game custom should be
used. 

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #129
*******************************