Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #154
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Sunday, August 4 1996        Volume 01 : Number 154

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 02:12:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 259 (Wayne)

Call For Judgement 259
  Subject: Conditional Rule Changes
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Wayne (selected Aug 03, 1996, 02:12h New York Time)

Statement:

Rule changes similar to those described in the section below labelled 
"Example:" are valid, and have the stated effect, if adopted.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

 Example:

 if R 729 exists, amend it to read, in full: "Malenkai's score doubles 
 once every Tuesday".

 Next section labelled something else:

 I remember pTang sending things like this through the proposal queue, 
 and remember thinking they were invalid, and remember lots of 
 discussion.

 The problem is, I can't remember the resolution.  Perhaps the Judge
 will.

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

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 03:01:38 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Ambassador: Misc Stuff 

My Ambassador's page has finaly been updated.  All links are current, and
several new items have been added.  In addition, the aesthetics of the page
have been changed.  I welcom all comments.

The Ambassador's Page can be viewed at
http://www.alaska.net/~snowgod/acka/ambas.html

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

Remember that Ackanomic players are eligible to submit proposals for
Internomic.  If you wish to do so, please send your proposal to me, and I
will submit it for you.  Remember, the rules only allow each player to
submit one proposal to me per week.

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

Malenkai has volunteered to maintain a web page for the game of Internomic.
He currently has the intial ruleset (in HTML) online as while as a
framework for a web page which will contain archives of proposals and calls
for judgement when they become available.

This page can be visited at http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/zhome.htm

For the rules only, visit http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/zrall.htm

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

I have submitted a proposal to Andre (Internomic Moderator) which will, if
passed, change official voting period from four weeks to four weeks or
until all liasons have returned votes.  This should speed up game play a
little.

Please note, this proposal has not been distributed yet.  When it is, I
will officialy distribute it, and add it to my Ambassador's Page.   It will
then be up to you all to tell me how to vote on it.

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

That's about it.  If you have any questions, let me know.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Stuck in the Gaol for a Week
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - 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, 03 Aug 1996 14:31:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 259 Verdict

CFJ 259 has been judged FALSE.

I must compliment Wayne it the way he delivered this CFJ. It was packaged
with the header, et al, unquoted, all intact, so I could simply add this
and send it out.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 259
  Subject: Conditional Rule Changes
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Wayne (selected Aug 03, 1996, 02:12h New York Time)

Statement:

Rule changes similar to those described in the section below labelled
"Example:" are valid, and have the stated effect, if adopted.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

 Example:

 if R 729 exists, amend it to read, in full: "Malenkai's score doubles
 once every Tuesday".

 Next section labelled something else:

 I remember pTang sending things like this through the proposal queue,
 and remember thinking they were invalid, and remember lots of
 discussion.

 The problem is, I can't remember the resolution.  Perhaps the Judge
 will.

Wayne's Reasoning:

For a moment I thought that there may be a paradox here, but after careful
interpretation of the statement I have made my judgement of False.

Conditional rule changes may be valid or invalid.  It can only be determined
at the time the rule change is evaluated.  From R491/3:

"...A rule change is valid if it describes the creation of a new mutable 
rule,
the amendment of an existing mutable rule, the repeal of an existing mutable
rule, or a change of the mutability of any rule.  Otherwise, the rule change
is invalid."

In the Example:
 if R 729 exists, amend it to read, in full: "Malenkai's score doubles
 once every Tuesday".

if R729 exists, then 729 is amended.  This is a valid rule change.
If R729 does not exist then nothing happens.  This, according to R491,
is not a valid rule change.

The Example is a valid PROPOSAL.  It's validity as a rule change can only
be determined once it becomes a rule change.

While such rule changes may be valid or invalid, I must rule that the
statement given by Malenkai is FALSE.  I have shown that they are not
always valid.

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 14:37:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC v2 Locations

RFC v2 - Locations - Malenkai

{{[Final version of Locations.  I received alot of comments on the
first version, thanks.  This version intergrates buildings and makes
the Gaol and Hotels buildings as well as locations. I also tweaked some
of the criminal justice stuff while I was there.  This has to wait until
P 1056 (which hopefully will be voted NO, and P 1063, which hopefully
will be retracted). This RFC/proposal is longer than Party Chess :(]}}

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

{{0)  All instances of the Wilds of Ackanomia are hereby destroyed,
except the one created and defined by this rule.}}

1) A Rule that defines an entity or class of entity may specify that the
entity is a Location.  Unless otherwise specified, a Location may contain
any number of players.  Instances of Locations are entities, and are unique,
unless otherwise specified.  A Location may only have properties, or
be given properties, as specified by the Rules.

2) A player must be in exactly one Location at any one time.  A player may
only leave, or be removed from, a Location as specified by the Rules.
A player may only enter, or be placed in, a Location as specified by
the Rules.  Locations are unowned unless conditions for ownership, as
specified by the Rules, have been met and are maintained.

3) If a Rule specifies that a player enters a Location, they leave their
current Location, unless there is some other restriction which would
prevent them from leaving the current Location [e.g. Gaol].
 
4) A Location may be specified as a Common Location.  Players may leave
and enter such Locations freely, provided they meet any specific conditions
that may be defined for the Common Location.

5) If a player leaves or is removed from, any Location, and it is
unspecified to which Location that they go, they go to their Home, if
it exists.

6) Wilds of Ackanomia
	
   6a) Let the Common Location known as the Wilds of Ackanomia
exist.  If a player leaves any Location, and it is otherwise unclear or
undefined which Location they go to, or the specified destination does
not exist, or they cannot go to their Home, they go to the Wilds of
Ackanomia.

   6b) If it is ever otherwise unclear for any reason what Location a
player should go to [e.g., an old player rejoining the game], they go to 
the Wilds of Ackanomia. 

7) Any player rejoining the game goes to the Location they were in when
they left the game. Any player joining the game for the first time goes
to their Home.

{{8) All players who are not currently in the Gaol or a Hotel are moved to
their Home.  This clause takes precedence over all other mutable rules.}}

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

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

      1) replace the first paragraph, which currently reads:

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

      with:

      "The Location known as the Gaol is hereby created. It is a cramped
building. A player may not leave the Gaol except by the application of
a Rule which explicitly defines a procedure or condition for the player
to be released or removed from the Gaol."

      2) Replace section 6, to replace the sentence which reads:
         
         "A player in the Gaol may return from Vacation, or alter their 
"vacation period""

          with: "A player in the Gaol may return from Vacation"

      3) Add the following text at the end of the rule:

      "A player is released from the Gaol if and when their sentence
expires. Other rules may specify other conditions under which a player is
released.

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

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

Amend R 710, "Criminal Justice", to read in full:

      This rule defines the Call for Criminal Judgement (CFCJ) procedure.
Except as detailed in this rule, it shall be like the Call for Judgement
in all ways, including how it is submitted, how judges are selected, how
it is appealed, etc. Any changes to the CFJ procedure will automatically
be "inherited" by the CFCJ procedure when they do not contradict the
exceptions detailed in this rule. 

      1) A "court fee" of 20 units of currency will be paid by the player
making the CFCJ, to the Treasury. 

      2) A CFCJ will be clearly labelled as such, to distinguish it from
an ordinary CFJ. 

      3) Its "statement" shall be "X has broken the Rules", where X is
replaced with the name of a registered player. 

      4) Its "reasoning" section shall show how Player X broke the Rules. 

      5) It shall include a "suggested penalty" section, which is a
recommended penalty to be imposed on Player X, should a verdict of TRUE be
reached. More than one class of penalty may be recommended. The valid
classes of penalties are:
      a) a DEDUCTION of 0 or more points from Player X's score.
      b) a FINE of 1 or more units of currency payable by Player X to the
Treasury.
      c) a SENTENCE in the Gaol of 1 or more days for Player X.
      d) the TRANSFERENCE of one or more artifacts, gadgets, or units of
currency in the possession of Player X to the initiator of the CFCJ.
      e) the EXPULSION of Player X from the game.

      6) Upon a verdict of FALSE on the CFCJ, no penalty shall be imposed
upon Player X.

      7a) Upon a verdict of TRUE, the judge may retain or alter the
recommended penalty. The result will become the actual penalty. This will
be imposed following a 3 day "grace period". This takes precedence over all
other mutable rules which establish or dis-establish a grace period. 

      7b) If the penalty was a SENTENCE in the Gaol, player X shall be moved
from their current Location to the Gaol at the end of the grace period,
at which time their sentence will start. If, however, player X was already
in the Gaol at the end of the grace period, the sentence they are currently
serving shall be increased by the length of the new sentence.
  
      8) All other verdicts shall work as they would for a CFJ.  Any 
verdict may be appealed as with a CFJ. 

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

Amend R 712, "Gaoler", to read in full:

      (i) The Office of Gaoler is hereby created. 

      (ii) There shall be one seat for this office. This seat is filled
by election.

      (iii) The duties are
            a) To maintain a list of all players currently in the Gaol,
and their remaining sentence.
            b) To publically post a description of the cell of any player
in the Gaol.

      (iv) The Privileges are:
            a) To be able to accept bribes of currency from a player in the
Gaol, by publically announcing that they are doing so. 
            b) To release a player from the Gaol before their sentence is
up, by publically announcing that they are doing so. 

      Upon announcing a bribe, the currency is transferred from the player
making the bribe to the Gaoler, if and only if the player has sufficient
currency.  This clause takes precedence over any other mutable rule
regulating currency transfers.

      The Gaoler is not obligated to release a player from which they have
received a bribe. 

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

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

       with:

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

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

Amend R 767, "Nothing Important", to read in full:

      The Location known as the Ackanomic Afterlife hereby exists.

      It is a luxurious palace near the Senate building.  The palace
is a classy building. This palace magically heals all burns of players
here, and the ashes of players have been known to spontaneously "decombust"
back into the player when put there. 

      A player may leave this palace whenever he or she wants, by publically
announcing that they are doing so. 

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

Amend Rule 839, "Buildings", to read in full:

{{[I've shrunk the size of a couple of these buildings to make it easier
on the Map-Harfer, because I've added a couple, the Gaol (in R 709 rewrite)
and Courthouse. I've also moved the afterlife to Nothing Important."]}}
 
{{All instances of the Courthouse are hereby destroyed, except the one 
created and defined by this rule.}}
 
      A building is a class of entity in Ackanomic which can be of six
 sizes: 

            small (aka cramped or puny) (1 land unit)
            cosy (2 land units)
            classy (4 land units)
            lavish (6 land units)
            sumptuous (9 land units)
            extravagant (12 land units) 

      Each player who has not previously been granted land by application
of this rule shall be granted 1 kaa of urban land and a building of small
size as their legal residence. All players should give a name to their 
residence. It is called "<player's name>'s house" until they do, and is
also known as their "Home".  

      Each instance of a player Home is a Common Location, with the
restriction that no player may enter a Home they don't own without
permission of the owner. 

      The Senate Building is lavish. The FM building is a classy place. 
The Courthouse is a cosy building. These buildings may never be smaller
that as defined originally but can be greater.  All of these buildings
are Common Locations.

      All other land, with or without buildings on them, that are not
defined in the rules or owned by players will be called common lands and
under the control of the Financier. All deals to sell or buy common land
must be done with the approval of at least two senators. 

      The size of the buildings cannot be changed except as allowed by the 
rules.
 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amend Rule 840, "The Library" to read in full:

      The Library is a classy building where a copy of all legal
documents are kept. It is a Common Location. The Historian (or by default
the Speaker) is in charge of the Library. It may not be destroyed or
reduced in size to less than what it is originally (classy).

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

Amend Rule 894, "Map" to insert the following paragraph before the 
paragraph which is currently the last one in the rule:

"The officer in charge of the Map should add, change, or remove buildings
and  other Locations as the Rules specifying these are enacted, amended,
or repealed."
  
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amend Rule 1018, "Hotels", to read in full:

A class of Locations called the Hotel (plural Hotels) is hereby created.
Each particular Hotel may only be created by the passage of a Rule. If the
Rule that creates a particular Hotel ceases to exist, that Hotel vanishes
in a cloud of dust. The Rule that creates a hotel should specify the size
building it is. If it does not, it is puny by default.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 14:45:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 250 Verdict

CFJ 250 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 250
Subject: Contracts I
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Aug 02, 1996, 18:44h New York Time)

Statement:

The rules do not require players to abide by the provisions of contracts.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

A contract is not a rule, therefore the provisions of a contract can only be
legally binding if the rules say that they are.  No rule explicitly makes the
provisions of a contract be legally binding.  Rule 551, on the other hand,
makes specific provision for cases in which the provisions of a Rule are not
or cannot be adhered to by those to whom the provisions apply.  This implies
that it is possible for Players to not abide by the provisions of a contract,
and hence that not abiding by contract provisions is within the rules
(although it may carry consequences).

There is also the question of "Enforceability."  To my knowledge, this
concept appears only in rules 514, 551, and 607 among all the rules.
R 514 section (ii) seems to comprise a definition of "Enforceable" for
use in that and other rules.  If we accept R 514, section (ii) as a
definition, then any other interpretation of the word, including the
conventional English-language one, is inapplicable to contracts.  If we
must look elsewhere for a relevant definition of "enforceable" then
English-language convention is the obvious choice, but it is not clear
to me how that interpretation of the word applies to Ackanomic.

Habeous Corpus' reasoning:

Rule 514(v) states, in part:
"A Player may call for the enforcement of a behavior regulated by an
Enforcable Contract.  In such a case it is the duty of the appropriate
Officers to see to it that the Contract is enforced."

This ensures that if a party to the contract attempts to "not abide" by,
or violate ,  a provision of the contract,  the behavior required by the
contract will be carried out anyway. [note: this seems to obviate a CFCJ
in that since the required action(s) took place despite a Players attempt
to do otherwise.  No violation of Rule 101 will have actually occured]

Since the Player's behavior is modifiable to ensure compliance,  the
Player can be made to abide by the provisions of a valid contract even if
e attempts to do otherwise;  therefore,  this statement is judged to be
FALSE.

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

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 15:50:43 -0500
From: Suzy Aziewicz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 257 (SMH) 

At 10:57 PM 8/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Techno was illegally chosen by the Clerk of the Courts.  Good help is
>so hard to find :(. 
>
>Simon Marty Harriman has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days
>to respond.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call For Judgement 257
>Subject: Contracts IV
>Initiator: ThinMan
>Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (selected Aug 02, 1996, 23:00h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>Rule 607 cannot cause a contract to be non-Enforceable.
>
I must rule true on this question as the rules do clearly state that the
numerical value gives 514 precedence. However I believe that the original
intent of 607 was to override 514 and this is a shameless abuse of a
loophole. Needs fixin.

Simon Marty Harriman
(sorry if this went the wrong place, I'm a little behind.)

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 17:17:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 257 Verdict

CFJ 257 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 257
Subject: Contracts IV
Initiator: ThinMan
Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (selected Aug 02, 1996, 23:00h New York Time)

Statement:

Rule 607 cannot cause a contract to be non-Enforceable.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

R 514, section (ii), says:
>     (ii) A Contract is Enforceable iff the behaviours it regulates are
>     among the following list:
>
>     a) The transfer of currency from Player to Player
>     b) A vote of YES or NO on one or more Proposals by Player
>     c) The transfer of an Ackanomic entity

This section in no uncertain terms makes certain contracts Enforceable and
others non-Enforceable.

this is not a name has invoked R 607 to demand a filing fee for the contract
between Malenkai and me.  Neither of us has paid it.  R 607, section (iv),
says that in such a case the relevant contract becomes non-Enforceable.
However, that section of R 607 does not claim precedence over R 514.  R 514
has precedence over R 607 by the numerical method, and therefore the
conditions established in R 514 hold sway despite R 607.

this is not a name argued that by assigning an attribute (Enforceability) to
contracts, R 514 implicitly defers to rules of lower precedence with regard
to manipulation of that attribute.  I see no merit whatsoever in that
argument, but I include it for the sake of completeness.  There is no basis
in the rules for implicit precedence or deference, but there is a clear
procedure for handling conflicts between rules.

this is not a name has also argued that the precedence claim in R 607,
section (v) also applies to section (iv).  Here is the relevant part of R
607:

>     (iv)  The Privileges are:
>
>           a) To receive the usual salary for a Functional Officer.
>
>           b) The right to demand receipt of a filing fee of 2 units
>              from each Player involved in an Enforceable Contract when
>              that Contract is submitted.  This transaction shall be
>              accomplished in the proper fashion.  If one or more
>              Players involved in the Contract cannot or will not
>              pay the fee, the Contract is deemed to be non-Enforceable.
>
>     (v)   An Acting File Clerk has the right to demand payment of the
>           filing fee.  This section takes precedence over all mutable
>           rules.

I see no reason to believe that the phrase "This section" in section (v)
should apply to section (iv) as well.  tinan's argument was based on
both sections dealing with the filing fee, and hence actually being one
"section."  I reject that argument.  The rule is clearly divided into
seperate sections, each denoted with its own Roman numeral.  "This section"
means the section denoted by Roman numeral (v).

Simon Marty Harriman's Reasoning:

I must rule true on this question as the rules do clearly state that the
numerical value gives 514 precedence. However I believe that the original
intent of 607 was to override 514 and this is a shameless abuse of a
loophole. Needs fixin.

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 21:15:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mike Epstein <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Vacation

Ackazens,

As my ISP has been down all day (hard disk crash), I hereby place myself 
on vacation. The expected duration of this vacation is one day. If 
there's anything urgent I have to do, let me know at this address. (I 
don't know what's happened since last night, the last time I got my 
mail.) Please don't remove me from the lists, as all the mail should be 
on a backup server waiting for my ISP to come back up.

Thanks,
this is not a name

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 21:17:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC score/adoption rewrite v3

RFC v3 - Publically Knowable - Malenkai

{{[Final version.  The idea here is that proposals are applied and score
changes are effective the time of the post announcing them.  So there is
none of this pseudo thread splitting where we have to wonder if P 1043
passed.  It has no effect until Wayne distributes it, and no pseudo-
retrocative effect.  Also score changes basically happen in the order
of the email that announces the effect that generated the change.

The idea is simple, but the implementation is complex.  I, along with
input from /dev/joe, spent alot of time on it, so if you're going to
vote no, please indicate why from the RFC and I'll try to fix it. 

To /dev/joe, I made it work like R 793 does, or at least tried :)]}}

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Create a new rule entitled "I'd never be able to sort it out", which reads
in full:

No player shall receive any points based on the way they voted for
the proposal which created this rule as specified by R 207. The author
of the proposal that created this rule shall gain no points by the
application of R 207.

If, however, any score changes happened as a result of the proposal
which created this rule before the rule first takes effect, then
equal but opposite score changes to all such score changes are applied
to all players who received such changes.

This rule has precedence over all other mutable rules. This rule shall
repeal itself 1 week after it is adopted.

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

Transmute R 106 to Mutable.

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

Amend R 106, "When Proposals Can Take Effect" to read, in full:

      An accepted rule change is applied, or accepted new rules take
effect, at the time their tabulated voting results are officially
reported. This is considered the "when a rule change is applied", or
"time of application".

      No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
before the generation of the effect. A rule change may not have any
effects retroactive to before the time of its application.

      A statement verified by judgement, however, applies retroactively to
any past game situation it may concern.

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

Transmute R 106 to Immutable.

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

Amend Rule 491 "What Is A Rule Change?, to replace the second and
third paragraphs with the following text"

      "When a valid rule change is takes effect, at its time of
application, the effect described by the rule change happens. The
adoption of an invalid rule change has no effect.

      A proposal is any collection of text designated as a proposal,
submitted in the proper manner. If a proposal is accepted, any rule
changes in the proposal are applied, one at a time, in the order in which
they appear."

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

Amend Rule 207 "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Period Ends" to make
the following changes numbered 1 thru 4:

1) Change its title to "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are
Reported"

2) Add the following text before the current text:

"All the following scoring changes are applied at the time the Proposal's
tabulated voting results are officially reported, unless the new rule or
rule change calls for an instantaneous change to 1 or more players' score,
in which case the score changes detailed in this rule are applied an
infintesimal amount of time after those effects are applied."

If more than one Proposal's tabulated voting results are officially
reported at the same time, the scoring changes are applied in numerical
order of the Proposals, with an infintesimal amount of time separating
each application."

3) Replace all occurrences of the word "When" with the word "If".

4) Add the following sections at the end of the current text:

"If a proposal is accepted which contains less than five lines of text
 in the body of the proposal (excluding whitespace and furniture), the
 player who submitted it is awarded 5 extra points."

{{[this is moving R 379 in, it will be easier]}}

"All of these score changes are deemed to occur simultaneously per
proposal with respect to each player."
 
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal Rule 379, "Short is Good".

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

Create a new rule entitled "When Score Changes Take Effect", reading
in full:

Score changes take effect as specified below, depending on the category
of the score change.  If the category cannot be determined for some
reason, the score change is deemed to take effect when it is publically
knowable.

1) Score Changes Managed by Officers

  a) All score changes take effect when the officer in charge of managing or
reporting on an activity which could produce a score change, announces the
effect which results in the score change. 

  b) [For example, if a player fails to deliver judgement in a certain
time, the penalty for that failure is not scored until the officer
responsible for managing and reporting CFJs announces this fact. 
Another example is polls taken where the result of the poll dictates
a scoring change. That change occurs when the results of the poll are
publically released.]

  c) Players, acting in their capacity as officers, must announce all score
changes they are responsible for notification of in the order which they
are made aware the occurrance. They must do so in a timely manner.

  d) The Scorekeeper is not considered an office for the purpose of this
section (1). This section (1), defers precedence to R 207.

  e) [Examples of current rules in this category are: 213, 400, 588,
593 (-20), 613, 729 (-10), 730 (-12, -3), 761 (-10 only), 937.]

2) Score Changes Triggered by Player Actions and Public Announcements
 
  a) If a score change is due to some other effect, such as the result of a
public posting, proposal retraction, or CFCJ penalty, etc, the score
change is said to occur at the time of the public post.

  b) [Examples of current rules in this category are: 423, 569, 578,
593 (-5 only), 730 (+6 only).]

3) Rule Based Triggered or Mandated Score Changes

  a) If the score change is due to an event occurring (such as a player
reaching a certain score, or the adoption of a proposal), this score
change is said to occur an infintesimal amount of time after it is
possible for the public to be aware of the event occurring.

  b) [For example, if there exists a trigger whereby a player has 80
points added to their score if they reach -60 points, and they have -58
points, and make a public proposal retraction which causes a loss of 2
points, they gain 80 points an infintesimal amount of time after that post.
The public may not actually know this at the time, but it is possible for
them to know it].
  
  e) [Examples of current rules in this category are: 207, 306, 339,
761 (except the -10), 824, 866, 962.2]

4) Scoring Changes Based on the Content of an Adopted Proposal

  a) If a Score change is called for based on the content of a Proposal, or
a rule change created by that proposal, it is deemed to have occurred
simultaneaouly with any score changes mandated by R 207. It is the duty
of the Scorekeeper to announce such score changes.

  b) [Examples of current rules in this category are: 728, 798]
 
5) Scoring on Changes to Rules Which Cause Score Changes
  
If a score change is due to a rule or entity (e.g. Magic Potato), and
a rule change is adopted that affects how that rule or entity causes
score changes (including, but not limited to, destroying the entity),
then no score changes are generated by that rule or entity for the
adoption of the specific rule change in question. This paragraph
has precedence over sections 2), 3) and 4) where there is a conflict.
This rule defers precedence to R 793 where there is a conflict.
[This is to handle the "Potato Paradox" when a Proposal passes to repeal
the Magic Potato, or the 10th proposal passes that repeals the Brass
Monkey, no scoring is generated by those entities for the proposal
which passed.]

6) Exceptions, Errors, and Omissions

  a) No score changes can occur simultaneously for a given player, except
where the rules explicitly say they can. If it appears that they do, they
shall be categorizied into the above categories, and occur in the order
the above categories occur in this rule. If that still leaves any apparant
simultaneous score changes, the score changes will occur in the order of
largest absolute value first. If that still leaves a tie, however, the
tied score changes shall occur at the same time.

  b) Score changes can occur retroactively if an event in the past which
caused a score change is altered or nullified due to a Judgement verdict.

  c) Score changes can occur retroactively if an error or omission in
scoring is discovered, and that error or ommission occurred within the
14 days preceding the public announcement of the error or ommission.
This clause defers to R 106 where there is a conflict.

  d) Except as specified in b) or c), retroactive score changes are not
possible or permitted, except as permitted by R 106.

  e) This section (6) has precedence over sections 1 thru 5, where there
is a conflict

7) Rule Precedence

This rule has precedence over all other Mutable rules dealing with
scoring, except that it defers precedence to R 207, and except where
specific clauses above defer precedence.

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

Amend Rule 422 "Required Number Of Points To Win" to
replace all occurrances of the word "privilege" with the word "duty".

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

Amend Rule 762 "The Great Trombone of Ackanomia" to replace the
second paragraph with the following text:

        "Whenever the Great Trombone is Somewhere Else, the first player
to make a valid public claim will take possession of it. A claim is only
valid if the player concerned has had a publically knowable score of
exactly 76 points at any time within the past 2 days."

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

Amend Rule 901 "No E-mail, No Game" to append the following at the
end of the current text:

"If possible, all players must configure their e-mail software to
correctly report the current time for the time zone specified. Otherwise,
they must make public notification of what corrections need to be applied
to compensate for erroreneous time stamps indicated on their posts. All
posts are deemed to have occurred at the corrected time, if the time stamp
of a post is erroreneous."

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

Amend Rule 1022, "Spelling Bee", to replace section 3) with the following:

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

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 22:50:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

As Acting Appointer, I feel abliged to point out that the nomination for
Chess-Umpire is still in progress, and will remain so until the office
is filled. If you wish to volunteer for this office, let me know.

As Acting File Clerk, I note that we are open for business if you wish
to file a Contract.

Malenkai
Acting Appointer
Acting File Clerk

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

Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 23:29:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Chess-Umpire

Simon Marty Harriman has volunteered for the Functional office of
Chess-Umpire.  The nomination is over, I appoint SMH to this office.

Would the Financier please make a note of this change for salary
computations.

Malenkai
Acting Appointer

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #154
*******************************