Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #141
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, July 29 1996         Volume 01 : Number 141

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 00:58:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 244 (Mellon)

this is not a name retracted CFJ 243, for a one point penalty

to /dev/joe: Do you want these imbedded in the message like so, or
a seperate message to you or a bot on wilma?

Jul 28 01:00 EDT: -1 this is not a name: retracted CFJ 243

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

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 244
Subject: That Funky Monkey
Initiator: this is not a name
Judge: Mellon (selected Jul 28, 1996, 01:00h New York Time)

Statement:

When Rule 824 is invoked, each particular player's score only changes by
5 points, no matter how many of the 10 proposals were written by that
player.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

Rule 824 reads:

>     If 10 consecutive proposals are accepted, the Brass Monkey shall
>     climb the tallest building in Acka Land and proclaim --
>     "The authors of the 10 consecutive proposals that were accepted
>     shall be awarded 5 bonus points."
>     After this proclamation, the score keeper shall increment the
>     appropriate scores by 5 points.

The rule does not state specifically whether my position is correct or
not. But it implies that it is correct. If player X wrote several of the
proposals, e is still only an author of them once and should only receive
5 points once.

In addition, relevant to the part of the rule beginning "After this
proclamation," the Scorekeeper is required to increment the appropriate
scores by 5 points. If player X wrote 3 proposals, e would be entitled to
15 points if my reasoning were incorrect. But it is stated in the rule
that the Scorekeeper is to increment that player's score by 5 points and
5 points only.

If this CFJ is judged true, the following score changes must be made as a
correction:
- -5  pTang1001001sos
- -5  /dev/joe
- -15 Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 00:58:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 244 (Mellon)

this is not a name retracted CFJ 243, for a one point penalty

to /dev/joe: Do you want these imbedded in the message like so, or
a seperate message to you or a bot on wilma?

Jul 28 01:00 EDT: -1 this is not a name: retracted CFJ 243

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

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 244
Subject: That Funky Monkey
Initiator: this is not a name
Judge: Mellon (selected Jul 28, 1996, 01:00h New York Time)

Statement:

When Rule 824 is invoked, each particular player's score only changes by
5 points, no matter how many of the 10 proposals were written by that
player.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

Rule 824 reads:

>     If 10 consecutive proposals are accepted, the Brass Monkey shall
>     climb the tallest building in Acka Land and proclaim --
>     "The authors of the 10 consecutive proposals that were accepted
>     shall be awarded 5 bonus points."
>     After this proclamation, the score keeper shall increment the
>     appropriate scores by 5 points.

The rule does not state specifically whether my position is correct or
not. But it implies that it is correct. If player X wrote several of the
proposals, e is still only an author of them once and should only receive
5 points once.

In addition, relevant to the part of the rule beginning "After this
proclamation," the Scorekeeper is required to increment the appropriate
scores by 5 points. If player X wrote 3 proposals, e would be entitled to
15 points if my reasoning were incorrect. But it is stated in the rule
that the Scorekeeper is to increment that player's score by 5 points and
5 points only.

If this CFJ is judged true, the following score changes must be made as a
correction:
- -5  pTang1001001sos
- -5  /dev/joe
- -15 Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 22:25:57 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Criminal Justice 

I sent my appeal only to you Malenkai..  I was acting under the assumption
that stuff like that is supposed to be sent to the clerk of the court for
dustribution.  However, I will send it publically now too.

At 12:33 AM 7/28/96, Malenkai wrote:
>It seems that snowgod must still go to the Gaol after the grace period
>is over, even though he appealed CFCJ 107.
>
>Furthermore, it seems that snowgod will remain in Gaol even if the
>verdict is overturned, unless it is returned *before* he enters Gaol.
>The rules certainly don't dictate the he be removed in such case.
>
>This is kinda sloppy, perhaps we should fix it someday.
>
>Malenkai

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: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 22:26:07 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 107 Appeal 

>CFCJ 107 has been judged TRUE with the following penalty:
>
>Penalty:
>7 days in Gaol, and transferrence of A$20 to /dev/joe.

I am appealing CFCJ 107 to the Supreme Court.  My additional reasoning follows:

ThinMans reasoning hinges on the idea that a vote of YES on P 974 does not
imply a belief in the roundness of the earth.  This idea is clearly false.
Wayne has a witchhunt called against him for saying:

        "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."  - (A statement which I note does
not even contain the words earth or round)

A statement that makes no reference to the earth or it's shape, and this
witch hunt appears to be perfectly legal.  This establishes that precedent
that it is the duty of the voters and not a judge to determine what does
and what does not qualify as heresy by implication.

By casting a vote of YES on P974 there is the possibility (if not the
probablity) that said voters agree with the concepts expressed in P974 and
thus are implying their truthfulness.  Failing that, said voters still give
the impression of agreement to the the expresed concepts, regardless of
their actual intent when casting the vote (which is suffiecient grounds for
the calling of a with hunt).

If the above is not true, than Wayne's witchhunt is also illegal as are all
witchunts that are called on implication rather than outright statement of
fact.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 03:09:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 Appeal

snowgod wrote:
> I am appealing CFCJ 107 to the Supreme Court.  My additional reasoning
> follows:
> 
> ThinMans reasoning hinges on the idea that a vote of YES on P 974 does not
> imply a belief in the roundness of the earth.  This idea is clearly false.
> Wayne has a witchhunt called against him for saying:
> 
>         "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."  - (A statement which I note does
> not even contain the words earth or round)
> 
> A statement that makes no reference to the earth or it's shape, and this
> witch hunt appears to be perfectly legal.  This establishes that precedent
> that it is the duty of the voters and not a judge to determine what does
> and what does not qualify as heresy by implication.

Perhaps a CFJ or CFCJ should be called against that witchhunt too.

I submitted my two CFCJ's on technical grounds (because I believed that
the conditions specified in the witchhunt rule for calling witchhunts
were violated, as described in my reasoning, and I wanted to put a stop
to the witchhunts which at that time seemed to be being called willy-nilly
by various players against everyone) rather than on whether the messages
involved actually constituted an implication of the earth's shape.  Also,
those two calls were more obvious than the others, due to them calling for
multiple witchhunts.  Clearing them will relieve Malenkai of a lot of work.

This reminds me of the "Republic of Texas" thing going on in the past year or
so in Texas.  This is a real-life example of an attempted "rollback" in law
bigger than all those that have ever occurred in all Nomic games combined. :-)
Several people contend that the annexation of Texas to the United States
was illegal under Republic of Texas law.  Anyway, they've acted on this
issue in seemingly weird ways; one of the things they have done is filed a
massive number of liens on all sorts of property all over the state.
This is apparently a loophole in the law; it's much easier to file even
clearly invalid liens than to clear them.  The liens can make it difficult
for property owners to sell their property; I am under the impression,
from what I've read on the issue, that they don't have much other effect.
The problem is apparently bad enough that the Texas legislature is looking
at doing something to fix up the loophole and/or clear invalid liens more
easily.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 08:52:31 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed)
Subject: wait a minute! 

>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 23:53:29 -0400
>From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Acka: CFJ 243 (Pascal)
>
>Pascal has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days
>to respond.

I went on vacation to avoid getting called for CFJs! What's going on?

If I can, I decline Judgement for this and any other CFJs I might have missed..

- ---Pascal

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 10:49:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Criminal Justice

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I sent my appeal only to you Malenkai..  I was acting under the assumption
> that stuff like that is supposed to be sent to the clerk of the court for
> dustribution.  However, I will send it publically now too.

Game custom is unclear on supreme court appeals.  In reality, I simply
missed the fact that your appeal was just to me.  It matters very
little, inasmuch as the justices did not seem to be on-line this weekend.
I will update the CotC page with a new verdict due date.  Sorry for the
confusion.

This brings to 3 cases that are currently on appeal.

Delinquent Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 14:51:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, snowgod wrote:

> 
> Let's look at what we know from the rules...
> 
> Ackanomic Middle Ages tell us:
> 
> >> >If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round,
> >> >>  or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for
> >> >>  a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so.
> 
> R622/6 tells us what a public message is:
> 
> > A message is a public message if, and only if, it is distributed to
> >     all registered Players and the subject line contains either
> >     "Ackanomic:" or "Acka:".
> 
> Clearly then, the voting results entitled "Ackanomic: Prop 974 Fails" were
> a public message.  Furthermore, in that public message players x, y, and z
> stated an implication that the earth was not flat.  It is clear to me that
> the implication was from said players rather than Wayne because he did not
> originate the votes.

I certainly agree that the vote distribution was a public messsage.  I
disagree that players x, y, and z stated anything at all, never mind an
implication that the Earth was not round, in that public message.  They
are not the authors of that message, and have no control over its
contents.  If, perhaps, the public message had quoted their private
message, I might agree with you.  If I post a public message saying
"Player w has implied to me privately that the earth is not round," who
has implied the earth is not round in a public message?  I think it would
be me.

> 
> I believe players x, y, and z fulfilled all the criteria required to have a
> witch hunt called on them:
> 
> 1) an implication of the earth roundness by them appeared in a public message.
> 
> 2) another player called the witch hunt
> 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 15:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> Synopsis: The beliefs may have been: I want my score to go up, so I will
> vote a certain way on P 974, because my score going up is good.
> 
> I was going to call this CFCJ on snowgod, but /dev/joe beat me to it (and
> we all know why, tallying witchhunt votes all night, plus and OS crash,
> plus tyring to decipher those dang Party Chess rules :)).
> 
> Anyway, snowgod is making a leap of faith in his arguments. He assumes 
> that because players x, y and z voted a particular way on P 974, they are
> implying certain beliefs. This is a false leap of faith, and I believe 
> that the burden of proof is on snowgod to show otherwise. For example, I
> voted the way I did on P 974 to attempt to affect scoring changes that
> I thought would benefit my position in the game. It had nothing to do 
> with beliefs implied the the proposal's statement. Nor do the rules require
> that you believe the proposal's statement, or even desire that it pass to
> vote a certain way.
> 
> Until snowgod can show objective evidence that the way certain players
> voted on P 974 imply certain beliefs they hold, the argument about
> whether the message is public is irrelavent, and I ask the Judge to
> consider the above reasoning while reaching a verdict.
> 

I don't have the rules in front of me (and I haven't finished reading my
mail) but I don't think any objective evidence of particular beliefs is
necessary. It is only necessary that the accused witches have implied that
it *may* be the case that the earth isn't round.  What ever their actual
motivations, their actions might be interpreted to have that implication
(that's what votes on witchhunts are for, I guess) regardless of their
beliefs. 

(Although it is my position that the implication is, in fact, Waynes.)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 14:36:25 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFCJ 107 Appeal 

snowgod wrote:
>I am appealing CFCJ 107 to the Supreme Court.  My additional reasoning follows:

>ThinMans reasoning hinges on the idea that a vote of YES on P 974 does not
>imply a belief in the roundness of the earth.  This idea is clearly false.
>Wayne has a witchhunt called against him for saying:

>        "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."  - (A statement which I note does
>not even contain the words earth or round)

>A statement that makes no reference to the earth or it's shape, and this
>witch hunt appears to be perfectly legal.  This establishes that precedent
>that it is the duty of the voters and not a judge to determine what does
>and what does not qualify as heresy by implication.

It is possible that Wayne's statement constitutes sufficient implication of
the Earth being round to merit a witchhunt.  In fact, I will not dispute
that.  Nevertheless, his statement has no bearing on whether or not the
votes other than Wayne's on P974 are in any way heretical.  Moreover,
snowgod's claim of legal precedent (or even of game custom) based on that
case is without merit.  The fact that the witchhunt against Wayne was not
subjected to CFJ in no way establishes that other witchhunts may not be
contested by CFJ.

>By casting a vote of YES on P974 there is the possibility (if not the
>probablity) that said voters agree with the concepts expressed in P974 and
>thus are implying their truthfulness.  Failing that, said voters still give
>the impression of agreement to the the expresed concepts, regardless of
>their actual intent when casting the vote (which is suffiecient grounds for
>the calling of a with hunt).

I don't see how snowgod has any leg to stand on.  P974 proposed that players
be required, under certain circumstances, to make heretical statements.  A
vote in favor of such a proposal is a vote in favor of forced heresy, not
a statement of heretical belief.  I can think of several reasons why any
individual player may have voted in favor of P974, all more plausible than
that they are suggesting that the Earth may be round.

>If the above is not true, than Wayne's witchhunt is also illegal as are all
>witchunts that are called on implication rather than outright statement of
>fact.

snowgod's argument simply does not hold together.  He is comparing
disanalogous situations.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 17:04:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: some RFCs

Here are some ideas I've been working on.

RFC: Death to Dormancy

{{[ I was planning on repealing the dormancy rule anyway, before all
  the recent trouble happened with it. ]}}

1. Repeal rule 558, "Definition of Dormant".

2. Amend rule 507, "The Supreme Court of Ackanomia" as follows:
   Delete:
    "Once a justice, a player can never be voted out or kicked of office by
     any other entity, except by a petition of at least two thirds the number
     of players. A justice can resign.

    "Should there not exist either/all of the above mentioned position
     (president, speaker, senator) then this rule becomes dormant until
     there are."

3. Amend rule 508, "Justices Rock", by deleting the sentence:
   "This rule stays dormant if Justices do not exists, until they do."

4. Amend rule 510, "Tools I" by deleting the sentence:
   "If there is no currency then this rule stays dormant until there are."

5. Amend rule 511, "Tools II" by deleting the sentence:
   "If no currency or good exist, then this rule is dormant until there are."

6. Amend rule 712, "Gaoler, Creation of" by deleting the sentence:
   "If there is no Ackanomic entity known as the Gaol, this rule shall
    lie dormant until there is."

7. Amend rule 895, "Map-Harfer, Creation of" by deleting the sentence:
   "If there are no such rules, this rule shall lie dormant until there are."

{{[ Is there any reason to replace any of these statements with something
else, instead of just deleting them all? ]}}

====================================
RFC: Voting stuff

1. Amend Rule 201, to read in full:
   "In a vote on a proposal, the quorum required is that at least 50% of
    the active players cast their one vote allowed by rule 390.  Vacationing
    players who do not vote are not considered active for the purpose of
    determining quorum."

2. Amend Rule 390 to read, in full:
   "Each player may cast one vote on each proposal.
    Other entities may vote only as specified by other rules."

3. Amend Rule 566 to read, in full:
   "A player may pay A$100 to the Treasury to buy an extra vote on a proposal
    of his choice.  When a player does this, the Treasury will cast a vote
    on the proposal in the same way that player voted on that proposal.
    This vote shall be marked with that player's name when the voting
    results are released, but it does not count as having been cast by
    that player.  Each player may buy only one vote per proposal in this
    manner."

{{[ I want to clear up any possibility of "extra votes", gnome votes, etc.
    triggering the rules that have effects based on voting, in addition to
    cleaning up the poor wording addressed by CFJ 220. ]}}

4. Amend Rule 797 by changing "3rd failure" in part 5c to "3rd rejection".
   {{[ leftover terminology-check fix ]}}

====================================
RFC: Official Duties

1. Amend Rule 457 by changing:
    "The duties of any offices held by the player shall be performed by
     the Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker."
   to:
    "The duties of any offices held by the player shall be performed by
     the Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker, unless some other
     rule provides for an Acting Officer or some other assignment of these
     duties."

 {{[ This ensures that the above won't be used to try to fill functional
     offices, since R612 provides for a different way to handle them. ]}}

2. Amend section (iv) of rule 609 by changing:
    "In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the
     Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office."
   to:
    "In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the
     Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office, except
     for Privileges which are also explicitly defined to be Duties by the
     rules, or Privileges required to perform explicitly defined Duties."

3. Amend rule 648 by adding to the end, as a separate section:
    "Voting on confirmations is a duty of the office of Senator."

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 18:14:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: some RFCs

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> Here are some ideas I've been working on.
> 
> RFC: Death to Dormancy
> 
> {{[ I was planning on repealing the dormancy rule anyway, before all
>   the recent trouble happened with it. ]}}
> 
> 1. Repeal rule 558, "Definition of Dormant".
>

I already have a proposal in the queue to kill 558. I forget the number,
but it is called "Unnecessary?".
 
> 2. Amend rule 507, "The Supreme Court of Ackanomia" as follows:
>    Delete:
>     "Once a justice, a player can never be voted out or kicked of office by
>      any other entity, except by a petition of at least two thirds the number
>      of players. A justice can resign.

And replace it with what?  How about "A justice may resign, or be impeached
by the rules for doing so", or some such.  I'm a real reactionary about
tinkering with R 507 and R 508. They are my 2 favorite mutable rules. 
I guess all traditions must die under the sword of progress. :)
 
>     "Should there not exist either/all of the above mentioned position
>      (president, speaker, senator) then this rule becomes dormant until
>      there are."
>

OK
 
> 3. Amend rule 508, "Justices Rock", by deleting the sentence:
>    "This rule stays dormant if Justices do not exists, until they do."
>

OK
 
> 4. Amend rule 510, "Tools I" by deleting the sentence:
>    "If there is no currency then this rule stays dormant until there are."
> 
> 5. Amend rule 511, "Tools II" by deleting the sentence:
>    "If no currency or good exist, then this rule is dormant until there are."
>

Consolidate these 2 rules into one.
 
> 6. Amend rule 712, "Gaoler, Creation of" by deleting the sentence:
>    "If there is no Ackanomic entity known as the Gaol, this rule shall
>     lie dormant until there is."
>

OK
 
> 7. Amend rule 895, "Map-Harfer, Creation of" by deleting the sentence:
>    "If there are no such rules, this rule shall lie dormant until there are."
>

OK
 
> {{[ Is there any reason to replace any of these statements with something
> else, instead of just deleting them all? ]}}
>

NO
 
> ====================================
> RFC: Voting stuff
> 
> 1. Amend Rule 201, to read in full:
>    "In a vote on a proposal, the quorum required is that at least 50% of
>     the active players cast their one vote allowed by rule 390.  Vacationing
>     players who do not vote are not considered active for the purpose of
>     determining quorum."
>

OK, but this would be redundant with 457, once it gets back on-line
 
> 2. Amend Rule 390 to read, in full:
>    "Each player may cast one vote on each proposal.
>     Other entities may vote only as specified by other rules."
>

"each proposal or other matter". Make the rule cover elections as well.
I note that this is pretty much the way the rule was worded in the IRS,
and CFJ 220 removed the ambiguity, so no change is needed IMHO, but I
guess it will not hurt.
 
> 3. Amend Rule 566 to read, in full:
>    "A player may pay A$100 to the Treasury to buy an extra vote on a proposal
>     of his choice.  When a player does this, the Treasury will cast a vote
>     on the proposal in the same way that player voted on that proposal.
>     This vote shall be marked with that player's name when the voting
>     results are released, but it does not count as having been cast by
>     that player.  Each player may buy only one vote per proposal in this
>     manner."
>

OK
 
> {{[ I want to clear up any possibility of "extra votes", gnome votes, etc.
>     triggering the rules that have effects based on voting, in addition to
>     cleaning up the poor wording addressed by CFJ 220. ]}}
> 
> 4. Amend Rule 797 by changing "3rd failure" in part 5c to "3rd rejection".
>    {{[ leftover terminology-check fix ]}}
>

OK
 
> ====================================
> RFC: Official Duties
> 
> 1. Amend Rule 457 by changing:
>     "The duties of any offices held by the player shall be performed by
>      the Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker."
>    to:
>     "The duties of any offices held by the player shall be performed by
>      the Speaker or someone appointed by the Speaker, unless some other
>      rule provides for an Acting Officer or some other assignment of these
>      duties."
>

There are 2 changes to R 457 in the queue. I don't think this conflicts
with any of them.
 
>  {{[ This ensures that the above won't be used to try to fill functional
>      offices, since R612 provides for a different way to handle them. ]}}
> 
> 2. Amend section (iv) of rule 609 by changing:
>     "In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the
>      Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office."
>    to:
>     "In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the
>      Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office, except
>      for Privileges which are also explicitly defined to be Duties by the
>      rules, or Privileges required to perform explicitly defined Duties."
>

OK
 
> 3. Amend rule 648 by adding to the end, as a separate section:
>     "Voting on confirmations is a duty of the office of Senator."

OK

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 18:18:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic?

I just read on the Nomic FAQ that Internomic play *had begun*. Can the
Ambassador comment on this before he goes to Gaol?

Also, may anyone subscribe to the mailing list, which I assume is the
one on poverty?  Is there a web page?

Also, rules question:  Would the Speaker perform the duties of the
Ambassador while the Ambassador is in Gaol?  I am trying to find out
now, so I do not become a roadblock, just in case.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 17:41:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: some RFCs

> > 2. Amend rule 507, "The Supreme Court of Ackanomia" as follows:
> >    Delete:
> >     "Once a justice, a player can never be voted out or kicked of office by
> >      any other entity, except by a petition of at least two thirds the number
> >      of players. A justice can resign.
> 
> And replace it with what?  How about "A justice may resign, or be impeached
> by the rules for doing so", or some such.  I'm a real reactionary about
> tinkering with R 507 and R 508. They are my 2 favorite mutable rules. 
> I guess all traditions must die under the sword of progress. :)

Replace it with the impeachment process in Rule 613, and "Stepping Down" in
section (vii) of Rule 609.

> > 4. Amend rule 510, "Tools I" by deleting the sentence:
> >    "If there is no currency then this rule stays dormant until there are."
> > 
> > 5. Amend rule 511, "Tools II" by deleting the sentence:
> >    "If no currency or good exist, then this rule is dormant until there are."

> Consolidate these 2 rules into one.

Good idea.  We'll have to change the title to "Tools I & II" if we don't
want to break the sequence of "Tools" proposals, though. :-)

> > ====================================
> > RFC: Voting stuff
> > 
> > 1. Amend Rule 201, to read in full:
> >    "In a vote on a proposal, the quorum required is that at least 50% of
> >     the active players cast their one vote allowed by rule 390.  Vacationing
> >     players who do not vote are not considered active for the purpose of
> >     determining quorum."
> >
> 
> OK, but this would be redundant with 457, once it gets back on-line

A little bit of redundancy may be warranted to help prevent "quorum crises".

> > 2. Amend Rule 390 to read, in full:
> >    "Each player may cast one vote on each proposal.
> >     Other entities may vote only as specified by other rules."
> >
> 
> "each proposal or other matter". Make the rule cover elections as well.
> I note that this is pretty much the way the rule was worded in the IRS,
> and CFJ 220 removed the ambiguity, so no change is needed IMHO, but I
> guess it will not hurt.

What is there to prevent all the players (under the existing 390, or your
version) from voting in what are supposed to be "restricted" votes, like
confirmation votes?  I suppose such limited votes are infrequent enough
that they can claim precedence over this.  I was amending 648 somewhere
among this batch of RFCs anyway; I suppose I should add "Only senators
may cast confirmation votes; this takes precedence over rule 390."

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 00:05:45 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

mr cwm wrote

> I certainly agree that the vote distribution was a public messsage.  I
> disagree that players x, y, and z stated anything at all, never mind an
> implication that the Earth was not round, in that public message.  They
> are not the authors of that message, and have no control over its
> contents.  If, perhaps, the public message had quoted their private
> message, I might agree with you.  If I post a public message saying
> "Player w has implied to me privately that the earth is not round," who
> has implied the earth is not round in a public message?  I think it would
> be me.

From 729:
If, in a public message, a player ... implies that [the Earth may be
round] any other player may call for a Witchhunt ...

Does that public message have to have been written by that person?
The rule doesn't say so. Certainly, any original implication was
written in a private message to the nomicbot. If voting in favour of
P974 was an implication that the Earth is flat, then surely those
players who voted in favour implied that the earth is flat in a
public message, even though they did not instigate the sending of
that message, nor have any control over it's contents.

I think that stating how a player voted on a proposal is tantamount 
to quoting the message to the nomicbot.

Bascule 

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 19:24:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 107 (snowgod)

Bascule wrote:
> 
> mr cwm wrote
> 
> > I certainly agree that the vote distribution was a public messsage.  I
> > disagree that players x, y, and z stated anything at all, never mind an
> > implication that the Earth was not round, in that public message.  They
> > are not the authors of that message, and have no control over its
> > contents.  If, perhaps, the public message had quoted their private
> > message, I might agree with you.  If I post a public message saying
> > "Player w has implied to me privately that the earth is not round," who
> > has implied the earth is not round in a public message?  I think it would
> > be me.
> 
> >From 729:
> If, in a public message, a player ... implies that [the Earth may be
> round] any other player may call for a Witchhunt ...
> 
> Does that public message have to have been written by that person?
> The rule doesn't say so....

Then you and mr cwm can hash this out in the supreme court. Its been
appealed. (BTW, an RFC is going around that will make it easier to
remove Justices :-))

Malenkai
Causing trouble

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 15:32:35 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic?

At 6:18 PM 7/28/96, Malenkai wrote:
>I just read on the Nomic FAQ that Internomic play *had begun*. Can the
>Ambassador comment on this before he goes to Gaol?

I believe internomic play has *officialy* begun though nothing has happened
yet.  I have sent a message to the internomic list (a couple of dayus ago
actually asking for a status report) but as yet have recieved no response.

>
>Also, may anyone subscribe to the mailing list, which I assume is the
>one on poverty?  Is there a web page?

Yes, anyone may subscribe to the list.  The list adress is
[email-masked]  You may want to contact Kelly Martin
for details on subscribing.  I believe it is a custom programmed list, and
I don't remember the details.

One of the first thing I am going to propose, however, is to move the game
to a different list.  The internomic list (and also the pnomic list) are
just too slow and finicky to get any thing done correctly.  Often times a
message I send won't come across the list for 8-12 hours.

>Also, rules question:  Would the Speaker perform the duties of the
>Ambassador while the Ambassador is in Gaol?  I am trying to find out
>now, so I do not become a roadblock, just in case.
>
I don't believe so, unless I was to vacation during by Gaol sentence.
However, even though I am in the Gaol, my liason actions may still be legal
because they are occuring in another game.  So far no protocols have been
created for such a situation, though they are one of the things internomic
hopes to cover.

I don't think it will be a problem though, unless the game suddenly springs
to life.  We'll see.

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: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 00:15:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC scoring

Recently I posted an RFC on acka-research to rewrite the adoption/
scoring system.  I got some cool comments, and its now going through
its second revision, to be distributed shortly.

As part of that, I may want to change the payoffs in R 207 at the
same time.  I'm not sure though. In any case, I wanted to RFC the
following changes to the payoffs in R 207:

+3 for voting no on an adopted proposal (was +2)
+2 for voting yes on a failed proposal (was +1)
+10 for an adopted proposal (was +9)
- -6 for a failed proposal (was -9)

The last one on the list is the one I really want.  I think the current
payoff system encourages no-brainer proposals over risky ones.  The 
proposed payoff system above would not really change the expected payoff
for no-brainers (those with little chance of failing), but would create
a more favorable payoff matrix for risky proposals, and may encourage
people who do not write many proposals to do so.

I also like /dev/joe's proposed changes which would change the payoff 
matrix.

Any comments?

Malenkai
Two paradox wins in the CFJ queue, hoping for the best

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #141
*******************************