Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #130
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, July 23 1996        Volume 01 : Number 130

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:36:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Gnome-ness (Proposal 1002 fails)

I am still working on the scores; I am up to proposal 1002 now.
I found that Wayne's score never actually got as low as -60; mostly
his score hovered in the -40 range.  A complete pointlog for Wayne
through proposal 1001's results is attached at the end of this message.
The lowest other player was usually snowgod, who was always above -30.

I have chosen not to count the results of retracted proposal 988, on
the reasoning that if these should be counted, then several other
retracted proposals should also be counted, and it's better to have
a chance to have the right scores than to have scores that are definitely
wrong in some way.

As a result, Wayne has been the Gnome Buddy all along.  For some of the
proposals before Auto-Gnome, Wayne voluntarily had the Gnome vote the way
Malenkai or snowgod voted instead of copying his own vote.  The only
crucial one here is P975 -- if Wayne had had the gnome copy his own vote
on this one, the proposal would have passed, but as posted it failed.
I am not sure how to properly proceed with this one, but I have treated it
as not changing from what was posted, since the rules did not require Wayne
to do what he did with the gnome.

After P983 (Auto-gnome) passed, there are several proposals where the rule
requires the gnome to vote differently than Wayne posted.  In each case,
Wayne voted no, and had the gnome copying somebody else's yes vote.
These are on proposals 993,996,1000, and 1001 -- which all failed anyway --
and proposal 1002 -- which fails 9-5 instead of passing 10-4 when the gnome's
vote changes from yes to no. 

I will continue with the score report, with proposal 1002 being treated
as having been rejected.

Jul 1 00:54 EDT: +1 Wayne: p913 (yes)
Jul 2 14:38 EDT: +1 Wayne: p915 (yes)
Jul 2 14:39 EDT: +1 Wayne: p917 (yes)
Jul 2 14:40 EDT: +1 Wayne: p918 (yes)
Jul 3 00:23 EDT: +2 Wayne: p924 (no)                       (6)
Jul 3 02:09 EDT: -8 Wayne: p926 (author,yes)
Jul 3 02:12 EDT: -8 Wayne: p927 (author,yes)
Jul 3 02:13 EDT: -8 Wayne: p928 (author,yes)
Jul 3 02:14 EDT: -8 Wayne: p929 (author,yes)
Jul 3 02:14 EDT: -8 Wayne: p930 (author,yes)
Jul 3 02:15 EDT: -8 Wayne: p931 (author,yes)
Jul 3 02:16 EDT: -8 Wayne: p932 (author,yes)              (-50)
Jul 8 16:51 EDT: +2 Wayne: p937 (no)
Jul 8 16:53 EDT: +2 Wayne: p939 (no)
Jul 8 16:55 EDT: +1 Wayne: p942 (yes)
Jul 8 16:56 EDT: +2 Wayne: p944 (no)
Jul 8 16:56 EDT: +1 Wayne: p946 (yes)
Jul 8 16:57 EDT: +1 Wayne: p947 (yes)
Jul 9 11:50 EDT: +2 Wayne: p954 (no)                      (-39)
Jul 9 14:50 EDT: -3 Wayne: not posting what Phoebe said.
Jul 10 12:50 EDT: -8 Wayne: p959 (author,yes)             (-50)
Jul 10 17:24 EDT: +2 Wayne: p962 (no)
Jul 10 18:45 EDT: +2 Wayne: p964 (no)
Jul 10 18:45 EDT: +2 Wayne: p965 (no)
Jul 11 01:53 EDT: +2 Wayne: p966 (no)
Jul 11 01:54 EDT: +1 Wayne: p968 (yes)
Jul 12 17:54 EDT: -3 Wayne: not posting a SVH design      (-44)
Jul 12 22:20 EDT: +1 Wayne: p975 (yes)
Jul 14 00:07 EDT: +1 Wayne: p979 (yes)
Jul 14 16:42 EDT: +2 Wayne: p981 (no)
Jul 15 08:22 EDT: +2 Wayne: p983 (no)                     (-38)
Jul 17 01:28 EDT: +1 (*) Wayne: p988 (yes) [not counted]
Jul 17 01:32 EDT: +1 Wayne: p997 (yes)
Jul 17 01:33 EDT: +1 Wayne: p998 (yes)
Jul 17 01:52 EDT: -10 Wayne: not responding to CFJ 201    (-46)
Jul 17 15:39 EDT: +1 Wayne: p999 (yes)                    (-45)

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:42:07 +0000
From: The Supreme Court <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Appeal 228 ruling

CFJ 228:
> CFJ 227 cannot be judged TRUE.

The Supreme Court upholds the original decision, FALSE.

The Supreme Court's reasoning:

Given that the Supreme Court has ruled 227 FALSE, could it rule rule
228 TRUE on that basis? If the statement in 228 had been "CFJ 227
_will_ be judged FALSE", then the Supreme Court could have happily
ruled 228 TRUE. However, CFJ 228 alleged that CFJ 227 _cannot_ be
ruled true. Whilst ultimately there can only be one verdict, that
does not preclude other verdicts being returned that are later
overturned by the Supreme Court (if this were not the case, the 
Supreme Court would never overturn any verdicts). The judge of CFJ
227 could have considered the rules and game custom as required by
rule 215, and returned a verdict of TRUE (for instance, /dev/joe
clearly believes CFJ 227 to be true). Therefore, CFJ 227 _could_ have
been ruled TRUE, even though it wasn't. 

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 13:52:41 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Mentors Fails

At 9:51 AM 7/23/96, John Bollinger wrote:
>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

ThinMan,

What if a player who has not volunteered for Mentor Duty could turn down
the selection if he is chosen?

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 1996 13:54:44 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Mentors Fails

At 9:27 AM 7/23/96, R Shaw wrote:
>> 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

Robin Hood,

It was my original goal to keep the rule Volunteers only, and then I
realized that the registrar would be in violation of the rules if there
were no more volunteers.  How about if I added a clause that said that a
player who is selected (and has not volunteered) may refject the
mentorship?  Would you vote for it then?

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 1996 17:56:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeal 228 ruling

scoring penalties:
- -20 /dev/joe: CFJ 227
- -20 Malenkai: CFJ 228

financial lateness penalties:
- -A$7 for Bascule & mr cwm: CFJ 227
- -A$4 for Bascule & mr cwm: CFJ 228

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court wrote:
> 
> CFJ 228:
> > CFJ 227 cannot be judged TRUE.
> 
> The Supreme Court upholds the original decision, FALSE.
> 
> The Supreme Court's reasoning:
> 
> Given that the Supreme Court has ruled 227 FALSE, could it rule rule
> 228 TRUE on that basis? If the statement in 228 had been "CFJ 227
> _will_ be judged FALSE", then the Supreme Court could have happily
> ruled 228 TRUE. However, CFJ 228 alleged that CFJ 227 _cannot_ be
> ruled true. Whilst ultimately there can only be one verdict, that
> does not preclude other verdicts being returned that are later
> overturned by the Supreme Court (if this were not the case, the
> Supreme Court would never overturn any verdicts). The judge of CFJ
> 227 could have considered the rules and game custom as required by
> rule 215, and returned a verdict of TRUE (for instance, /dev/joe
> clearly believes CFJ 227 to be true). Therefore, CFJ 227 _could_ have
> been ruled TRUE, even though it wasn't.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:03:04 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Mentors Fails 

snowgod wrote:
>What if a player who has not volunteered for Mentor Duty could turn down
>the selection if he is chosen?

That would satisfy me.  I note, however, that in such a case it might take
some time to find an agreeable Mentor for a new player, and that such a
situation would render the Mentor relatively useless for that player.

An alternative would be to start recycling the Volunteers who already have
a charge.  Of course, that might not be quite so agreeable to those people.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:04:09 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Prosthetic Forehead Purchase

Aha,

A forhead dealer!  Don't worry... If I have my way Captain Cosmic Decoder
Rings, and Prosthetic foreheads will become two of the most valuable
entites in ackanomic!  By the way, I like your foreheads.  Very Subtle.

At 5:20 PM 7/23/96, mr cwm wrote:
>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 18:06:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeal 228 ruling

The Supreme Court wrote:

> (for instance, /dev/joe clearly believes CFJ 227 to be true). Therefore,
> CFJ 227 _could_ have been ruled TRUE, even though it wasn't.

There is a difference between *believing* something is True, and 
being able to *demonstrate* that it is True. That was the point of 228,
and its appeal. For example, I *believe* the earth is ROUND, but cannot
*demonstrate* that it is :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:11:56 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Mentors Fails

At 5:03 PM 7/23/96, John Bollinger wrote:
>snowgod wrote:
>>What if a player who has not volunteered for Mentor Duty could turn down
>>the selection if he is chosen?
>
>That would satisfy me.  I note, however, that in such a case it might take
>some time to find an agreeable Mentor for a new player, and that such a
>situation would render the Mentor relatively useless for that player.
>
>An alternative would be to start recycling the Volunteers who already have
>a charge.  Of course, that might not be quite so agreeable to those people.

Perhaps, a bonus is in order for a non volunteering mentor?  10 points or
A$20... Something along those lines?  Perhaps that would make it a little
easier to find a Mentor when the volunteer pool is depleted.

About Waynes comment... I feel that mentors should be required.  Myself,
and a couple other members of the church _have been_ providing mentor
service to new players, but it might not always be the case, and everyone
knows how difficult it can be for a new player to join the game.

If mentors passes when I repropose it, I will volunteer to be a mentor, and
I encourage anyone else who has a little free time to do the same.

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 1996 18:20:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mentors Fails

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 

> snowgod
> 
> Ambassador - Liason to Internomic

Note that 2 rules which recently passed, "Ackanomic/Internomic Interface"
and "Speed" require snowgod to petition us for Internomic within 3 days
(ignoring the fact that that 3 days was up a week or 2 ago due to the
delay). I'm just curious to know where that stands, now that we sort of
have our act together again.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:33:22 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Official: Ambassador

>
>Note that 2 rules which recently passed, "Ackanomic/Internomic Interface"
>and "Speed" require snowgod to petition us for Internomic within 3 days
>(ignoring the fact that that 3 days was up a week or 2 ago due to the
>delay). I'm just curious to know where that stands, now that we sort of
>have our act together again.

Not much point in petitioning for Internomic right now, as I already did so
two weeks ago (even before the interface was passed) in my capacity as
Ambassador.  Ackanomic is registered as a Voting Member Nomic in the first
game of internomic.

Internomic should begin shortly.  Thring has solved their problems with
their Liason, and Internomic has been informed that ackanomic is no longer
in a state of crises.  Once play begins, I will keep and archive of
Internomic Proposals on my Ambassadors Page.  I am planning on having a
"Voting Form" so that after reading each proposal you may either press the
yes button or the no button to inform me of your views on that proposal.  I
am required to vote based on the will of Ackanomic, so please, no apathy :)

Proposals that directly relate to ackanomic (or have some other great
significance) will be posted to the public forum so that we may discuss
them.  Perhaps we should have an internomic discussion list?

The Voting Period for internomic proposals is 4 weeks.

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 1996 17:50:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Update

These are the scores for:
(Score) Jul 23, 18:45 EDT
(Score22) Jul 22, 18:25 EDT (end of a bond cycle)
(Score8) Jul 8, 18:25 EDT (end of a bond cycle)

I am not counting the results of (retracted) proposal 988; if we need to
count these, we need to count a lot of others.

I want to go back and double-check some things too, but I *think* these
are correct.

Bascule's recent reports seem to be coming in with Date: headers that show
the wrong time zone, as evidenced by my receiving one of them before it
was sent if the time zone was correct.  Other headers seem to show Bascule's
correct time zone is +0100.  This may affect the timing of some other
events based on Bascule's mail dates, but I have not checked anything
except what he sent out today.

On July 21, when I claimed the trombone, my score was then 160, so the
trombone immediately returned to Somewhere Else due to me having too
high a score.

Score	Score22	Score8	Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----	-------	------	--------------      ---  -------------
120	140	66	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
55	56	18	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
40	40	18	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
32	32	0	Kelly Martin         A   (Kelly Martin) 
31	31	12	pTang1001001sos      V   (Mark Nau)   
29	29	13	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
28	28	8	Mellon               V   (Niklas Mellin)
27	27	1	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
23	23	0	Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
18	18	3	mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
15	35 [*]	-11	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
11	11	-7	De'ghew              A   (John Spickes) 
9	9	-5	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
2	2	9	ThinMan              V   (John Bollinger) 
0	0	0	chess piece face     V   (Paul Swan) 
0	0	0	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
0	0	0	Simon Marty Harriman V   (Andy Swan) 
0	0	0	The Great Old One    V   (Sean Crystal) 
- -2	-2	0	Robert Sevin         A   (Mitchell Harding) 
- -14	-14	11	Niccolo Flychuck     V   (Uri Bruck) 
- -19	-19	-19	Calvin N Hobbes      V   (Thierry Joffrain)
- -19	-19	-20	Pascal               V   (Jason Reed) 
- -42	-42	-41	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
- -51	-51	-3	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
10 [%]	10	14	Mohammed             D   (Jason Orendorff) 

[%] Score when he quit the game on Jul 12 19:03 EDT
[*] I added in Malenkai's points for proposals 920-925, but not 927 & 930
since I believe he was not a player when these proposals' voting periods
ended, and thus could not have scored the points.

Gnome Log: 
starting at prop 958, Wayne was Gnome Buddy.
Wayne *could* have made P975 pass w/ the gnome's vote
P983: auto-gnome passes
P993: Wayne voted no, gnome must vote no.  still fails.
P996: Wayne voted no, gnome must vote no.  still fails.
P1000: Wayne voted no, gnome must vote no.  still fails.
P1001: Wayne voted no, gnome must vote no.  still fails.
P1002: Wayne voted no, gnome must vote no.  proposal fails 9-5 instead of
  passing 10-4.
P1003: Wayne voted no, gnome must vote no.  still fails.
P1009: Wayne voted no, gnome must vote no.  still fails.
P1010: Wayne voted no, gnome must vote no.  still fails.
after P1011: snowgod became the Gnome Buddy (-43, to wayne's -42)

Some recently reported score changes:
- -1 Niccolo Flychuck: -1 penalty for retracting p988 should have been -2.
+5 Shortness bonus on 966(tinan), 969(Malenkai), 981(/dev/joe), 985(pTang)
- -1 De'ghew for overturned CFJ
- -20 Malenkai, ThinMan and /dev/joe (twice) for frivolous appeals
+1 a bunch of players, parade on 976
- -10 malenkai, 1 week after 976 passed.
Magic Potato: no new changes.  NF's many passed proposals came too late,
and Robin Hood didn't have any proposals pass.  NF got potato bonuses on
953 and 954 which were reported earlier.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 19:06:02 -0400
From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Unsubscribe

unsubscribe

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 20:47:21 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeal 228 ruling

>There is a difference between *believing* something is True, and 
>being able to *demonstrate* that it is True. That was the point of 228,
>and its appeal. For example, I *believe* the earth is ROUND, but cannot
>*demonstrate* that it is :)
>
>Malenkai

I call for a witchhunt on Malenkai. Damn all heretics to hell!

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

- --
       Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"This election is about who's going to be the next President of the
 United States!"                    --Dan Quayle, 1988
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/       Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 19:50:12 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed)
Subject: Acka: Pascal lost the d*** manual... 

Where's the listserver program so I can unsubscribe from
acka-more-digests-than-you-can-shake-a-stick(-or-silly-vacation-hat-for-that
- -matter)-at temporarily?

- ---Pascal, vacationing in foreign parts of NomicLand (exotic Fascist and
other Nomic Variants... ;)

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 19:58:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pascal lost the d*** manual...

> Where's the listserver program so I can unsubscribe from
> acka-more-digests-than-you-can-shake-a-stick(-or-silly-vacation-hat-for-that
> -matter)-at temporarily?

Send a message with 

 help

in the body to [email-masked]

or see the Postmaster's web page at

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 00:55:06 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Misc: What Phoebe Says

While perusing my Ackanomic mail this evening, a strange icon appeared
on my screen. It was in the form of a brightly coloured matchbox. At 
first I was doubtful about activating it, having no idea how it got
onto my computer, but eventually curiosity got the better of me
and I clicked on the icon. The screen went blank for a moment. 

Then I heard a strange whirring sound and a tiny metallic creature
appeared. Here is what she said:

"Call yourself an Ackanomian? You sit in Aubergine Hall all day reading
your mail and responding to very little of it. If you didn't get 
selected to judge something from time to time you would do even less.
Still, I suppose you do as much as you can, seeing that you seem to
be addicted to that fantasy life of yours, you know, the one you
laughingly call "real".

"My advice to you is to take a vacation, get away from it all for a few
days, then come back refreshed and ready to take part in the vital 
affairs of state which have up to now been passing you by."

And with that the screen went blank again.

I rebooted my computer, opened my mail program, and wrote this message.
Just before sending it, I had the presence of mind to add the following
sentence.

I hereby put myself on vacation until next Monday (29th July).

Brinjal.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:39:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: RFC scoring rule changes

RFC: New proposal scoring method
[Here's an idea for encouraging "riskier" proposals.  It also discourages
really, really bad proposals, or lets a player submit fewer of them to get
control of the gnome.]

Amend Rule 207, "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Period Ends", to read,
in full:

"When a proposal is accepted, the player who proposed it receives 2
points, plus 2 points for every NO vote cast on the proposal, and every
player who voted NO on it receives 4 points.

When a proposal is rejected, but meets quorum, the player who proposed
it loses 15 points and gains one point for every YES vote on the proposal
and every player who voted YES on it receives 2 points.

When a proposal does not meet quorum, each active player who 
was not on vacation and abstained on the proposal shall lose
5 points and be placed on vacation."

[Thus, a proposal that passes 14-1 is only worth 4 points to the proposer,
while one that passes 12-6 is worth 14 points.  A proposal that fails
11-6 costs its proposer only 4 points (two of which he generally gains
back from his YES vote), while one that fails 1-15 costs its proposer
14 points (less 2 for his YES vote).

Another thing this does is make people think twice about strategic
voting for gaining points -- although this is more possible with this
version than the current rules, it helps the proposal's author half as
much as it helps the voter.

Remember that the old 10/5/3 rules put too much emphasis on voting --
Bascule scored over 250 points in 4 weeks, during which time he made only
6 proposals he didn't retract, and 2 of them failed.

These numbers are flexible; if anybody has some other ideas you think
are better, or just wants to tweak the numbers here, say so.]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:44:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: witchhunt

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> >There is a difference between *believing* something is True, and
> >being able to *demonstrate* that it is True. That was the point of 228,
> >and its appeal. For example, I *believe* the earth is ROUND, but cannot
> >*demonstrate* that it is :)
> >
> >Malenkai
> 
> I call for a witchhunt on Malenkai. Damn all heretics to hell!

It seems like our Acting Chess-Umpire has found time to start a witchhunt,
yet has not found the time to set up that game of Party Chess. At least
I have not seen the URL yet. :)

In any case the particulars of the witchhunt are:

Votes will be accepted until Fri Jul 26, 21:44 New York Time.

Send votes to [email-masked]

Witchhunts are governed by R 729:
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/rule700.html#R729

Witchfinder General

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:52:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Bascule)

Brinjal has given us a short but wise speech from Phoebe.
Apparently he hid the matchbox before going on vacation, because
Phoebe didn't leave the UK.  Bascule has found the matchbox.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:07:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC scoring rule changes

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

I think its a great idea, with the following caveats:

1) Put floors and ceilings on the maximum/minimum the author can gain.
We may have 50 players some day, who knows. What they should be would
have to be figured into the number tweaking. Min of 5 on a pass, max
of -13 on a failure?

2) First glance looks like it will encourage no voting. I'm not sure
that is true, or bad.

3) Overall, I would like to see scoring and rule changes take effect when
they are delivered, not when they occur. Ie, with the latest batch of
proposals. For example, "Speed" passed a while ago, meaning the Acting
Chess-Umpire and the Appointer unavoidably broke the rules. It would also
clean up the confusion about retroactively applying scores. Also, CFJs,
witchhunts, etc, would be scored when the officer delivered the event, not
when it "would have occured". 

It seems like I'm going off one subject into another, but mabye these
types of scoring events should be batched at midnight, and a new gnome
buddy be determined only then, or after each proposal is scored.
Wayne's script could handle that. During batching, each event would
have to be checked against the magic number, in the order it occurred.

It could work, if 1) the batching was always done at a time 
Wayne was not tallying proposals, and 2) scoring for proposals occurred
when they are tallied, and 3) the scorekeeper has a private way to update
the gnome buddy in Wayne's script. 

Any comments here? I should have stuck to the subject, but I figured if
we were going to rewrite scoring, lets get the whole thing out in the
open, and my idea above would require a R 207 change as well.

4) Would it be possible to run the old 50 or so voting results through
a Perl script to see what the results would be under this new scheme,
and compare them to the old? Alot of work for someone, I admit, just
throwing it out.
   
> 
> RFC: New proposal scoring method
> [Here's an idea for encouraging "riskier" proposals.  It also discourages
> really, really bad proposals, or lets a player submit fewer of them to get
> control of the gnome.]
> 
> Amend Rule 207, "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Period Ends", to read,
> in full:
> 
> "When a proposal is accepted, the player who proposed it receives 2
> points, plus 2 points for every NO vote cast on the proposal, and every
> player who voted NO on it receives 4 points.
> 
> When a proposal is rejected, but meets quorum, the player who proposed
> it loses 15 points and gains one point for every YES vote on the proposal
> and every player who voted YES on it receives 2 points.
> 
> When a proposal does not meet quorum, each active player who
> was not on vacation and abstained on the proposal shall lose
> 5 points and be placed on vacation."
> 
> [Thus, a proposal that passes 14-1 is only worth 4 points to the proposer,
> while one that passes 12-6 is worth 14 points.  A proposal that fails
> 11-6 costs its proposer only 4 points (two of which he generally gains
> back from his YES vote), while one that fails 1-15 costs its proposer
> 14 points (less 2 for his YES vote).
> 
> Another thing this does is make people think twice about strategic
> voting for gaining points -- although this is more possible with this
> version than the current rules, it helps the proposal's author half as
> much as it helps the voter.
> 
> Remember that the old 10/5/3 rules put too much emphasis on voting --
> Bascule scored over 250 points in 4 weeks, during which time he made only
> 6 proposals he didn't retract, and 2 of them failed.
> 
> These numbers are flexible; if anybody has some other ideas you think
> are better, or just wants to tweak the numbers here, say so.]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 22:34:46 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Party Chess

As Acting Chess-Umpire, I declare that the game of Party Chess is not 
playable at this time. No pieces have been defined except for the King, 
and therefore the game cannot begin.

Part of rule 991:
>A. At the begining of the game of Party Chess there are no Party Chess
>Pieces on the Party Board
>B. Each Office of Swinger receives one King, and five playing pieces. Each 
>  Swinger may choose any five pieces which are defined be a 
>  PartyChessPieceDef rule, as long as their total material value does not 
>  exceed 30. These pieces are freely given.   Initially all pieces are 
>off-board

As such, I declare that I can take no action regarding Party Chess until 
one or more PartyChessPieceDef proposals have passed.

In addition, I am not sure that the game can begin for another reason, 
because I am not legally able to act as Chess-Umpire. Rule 991 again:
>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.

By the way, nominations are still being accepted for Scorekeeper and 
Chess-Umpire. No one has volunteered for Chess-Umpire.

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

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so long
 and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones
 which open for us."                   --Alexander Graham Bell
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:41:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 238 (Bascule)

Bascule has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 238
Subject: Undoing illegal effects of R 446
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Bascule (selected Jul 23, 1996, 22:40h New York Time)

Statement:

Rules 510 and 793 are Mutable.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Rules 510 and 793 were alledgedly transmuted to Immutable by the
now defunct R 446. But rule 446 was wholly void and without affect since
it became a rule change, therefore it could not have transmuted the
rules to Immutable, as it claimed to.

I must demonstrate that R 446 was wholly void and without effect. This is
unfortunate that I do it now, because the previous CotC lost my original
CFJ on the issue, but I do want to get this correct. 

The argument goes as follows, cut from my previous CFJ from 7 May, 1996:

I Call for Judgement on the following statement:

Rule 446/1 is wholly void and without effect, and previous
applications of it were unlawful, and future applications of
it will be unlawful.

Reasoning:

1) Second part first: If the rule can be shown, by the rules,
to be "wholly void and without effect", then the past and future
applications of the rule would be unlawful.

2) Showing R446 is "wholly void and without effect":

I quote from R108: "Mutable rules that are inconsistent in some way
with some immutable rule (except by proposing to transmute it) are
wholly void and without effect".

I quote from R446 (Mutable): "Any proposal that is voted AGAINST [my
emphasis] unamiously creats a new rule [...]".

I quote from R104 (Immutable): [...] conditions must be satisfied for a
proposal to be adopted [...] (2) The required number of votes must have
been cast IN FAVOR [my emphasis] of the proposal [...]

Clearly these two statements are "inconsistent in some way". In fact,
they are totally contradictory. As R104 is Immutable, and R446 is
Mutable, R446 must be deemed "wholly void and without effect" by R108.

[The text of R 446/1 is not on the web page, unfortunately. The Judge 
will have to trust my quotes of it. It was the rule that said if all
the votes are yes, or all the votes are no, on a proposal, it creates an
immutable rule. The gist of my argument was that having all votes of no
pass a proposal conflicts with immutable rule 104.

Note that R 104 has changed since then as well, but the version in effect
at the time can be found in the initial ruleset on the web page]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 23:08:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 239 (/dev/joe)

/dev/joe has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 239
Subject: Stalemated Party Chess
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jul 23, 1996, 23:05h New York Time)

Statement:

The legality of continuing the game of Party Chess past the beginning
stage cannot be determined with finality.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

I quote from R 911:

      "2. Managing the Game
      A. At the begining of the game of Party Chess there are no Party
Chess Pieces on the Party Board
      
      B. Each Office of Swinger receives one King, and five playing
pieces. Each Swinger may choose any five pieces which are defined be a
PartyChessPieceDef rule, as long as their total material value does not
exceed 30."

      This is the beginning phase. Each swinger receives on King, and
chooses 5 other pieces under the constraints of R 911, section 2B, above.
Those constraints are: piece must be defined by a PartyChessPieceDef
rule, and the sum total of all pieces "material value" must not exceed
30.

       R 990 defines what a PartyChessPieceDef rule is. There is only one
such rule, that is Rule 994/0 "Creation of a PartyChessPiece King".
Therefore each Swinger is required to choose 5 Kings, as that is the
only piece available, IF AND ONLY IF the material value of the Kings
sums to 30 or less. This is where the game gets hung:

       From 994 D:  "The material value of the King is undefined"

       It cannot be determined with finality whether choosing the 5 Kings
is legal, because it cannot be determined whether their material value 
sums to 30, less than 30, or greater than 30, as it is undefined. Thus
we cannot determine the legally of the game past this stage (the 
"beginning"), thus showing the Truth of the CFJ statement.

       This constitutes a win by R 219 for the initiator.

       I note that there is an argument that there is no Chess-Umpire,
or Acting Chess-Umpire. This argument is spurious and should be 
disregared by the Judge. The rule that makes the appointer the Acting
Chess-Umpire takes precedence over the rule that prohibits a Swinger
from being a Chess-Umpire.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 0:15:09 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: witchhunt

I call for all open minds to vote against this witchhunt.  Lets pull Acka
out of the middleages.  If we stand (and vote) together, we will not
be branded heritics for our beliefs.

Wayne

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 0:29:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC scoring rule changes

| It could work, if 1) the batching was always done at a time 
| Wayne was not tallying proposals, and 2) scoring for proposals occurred
| when they are tallied, and 3) the scorekeeper has a private way to update
| the gnome buddy in Wayne's script. 

Since I have the nomicbot and scores change mostly thru the results of
proposals, I should be the one to keep the official score.  But I cannot
keep up with the multitude of scoring changes that happen in the game.
The idea of a batching system might work.  But I am thinking about something
else.  How about a nomcbot command to change a score?  If the CotC posts
a result that penalizes someone 20 points, he could send a command like:

#scorechange /dev/joe -20 for frivolous appeal of CFJ666

Then the nomicbot could periodically post all scorechanges to the list.
Each officer would be responsible for posting any scorechanges under
thier control.  

I do agree that scorechanges should only take place when it is posted.

| 
| 
| 
| 4) Would it be possible to run the old 50 or so voting results through
| a Perl script to see what the results would be under this new scheme,
| and compare them to the old? Alot of work for someone, I admit, jus| t
|  throwing it out.

What do you have in mind?  I've kept alot of the old votes on proposals.
I could probably set up the new scoring conditions and run some results.
Email me with details.

Wayne

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 0:33:25 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1035

Proposal 1035 - Wed Jul 24 00:33:25 EDT 1996
Parades and such
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Amend rule 761, "Parades", as follows:

Change the beginning of the first sentence from:
 "Whenever a proposal whose number ends with the digits "76" is accepted,
  an Ackanomic Parade shall be held"
to:
 "When the Tabulator distributes the voting results for a proposal whose
  number ends with the digits "76", and the proposal was accepted, an
  Ackanomic Parade shall be held"

Change the second sentence from:
 "The Guest of Honour has seven days from the acceptance of the proposal
  to publish an interesting description of the parade." 
to:
 "The Guest of Honour has seven days from the distribution of the proposal's
  voting results to publish an interesting description of the parade." 

Add to the end of the rule:
  "{{ Malenkai shall be awarded 10 points.  [This is to make up for the
   points he lost without ever having a chance to describe the parade.]}}"

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 00:39:43 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: witchhunt

>I call for all open minds to vote against this witchhunt.  Lets pull Acka
>out of the middleages.  If we stand (and vote) together, we will not
>be branded heritics for our beliefs.
>
>Wayne

Do not allow yourselves to be misled by the seeming rationality of Wayne. 
As we all know, the earth is flat, and it is a profound miscarriage of 
our duty to Ackanomia to vote against the witchhunt. No amount of new-age 
pseudo-scientific jargon can possibly change that.

Vote BURN THE WITCH!!! to the Heretic (and Witchfinder General, hmmm) 
[email-masked].

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

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance."
                       --Robert R. Coveyou, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #130
*******************************