Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #169
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Saturday, August 10 1996       Volume 01 : Number 169

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 08:00:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC 1. Games & Contests 2. Duels

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > RFC
> > Duels
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> What if there are no contests on the game page?  It looks like the
> way your rule is worded, it will break.
Some provisions should be made for this case. 

> 
> You have to limit the conditions and number of times such a duel may
> be called.  As we have seen with the witchhunts, any statement can be
> construed as "implication" that the earth is flat, similarly, any
> statement could be construed as "heated debate", its too subjective
> in this medium.
> 
> The possibility exists, therefore, that duelscan be called one after
> the other to hammer someone's score.
> 
> Malenkai

The latter possibility is not realistic. The Challenger cannot guarantee
that he will win every time. Note that it is not necessarily the
Challenger who gets the point, but the winner. Only if the Challenged
continously declines, will the Challenger continue receive points. HAving
said that, I agree that some time limit should be set.
At to the reasons for the Duel. It's supposed to be subjective, the
results of a Duel have very little effect. I don't suppose too many
players will start spending their time dueling all the time. 
Setting two kinds of time limits, one for the number ofDuels any single
can call, and one for a number of Duels any single player can call on a
specific player, would solve both these problems.

Niccolo Flychuck
 > 

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 08:03:00 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Retracting Proposal 1102

I'm retracting proposal 1102 (fixing 1014).

Resubmitting the relevant part
Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal 1102 - Fri Aug 09 17:42:21 EDT 1996
> > fixing 1014
> > Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)
> > 
> > If R729 exists then append the following text to the end of R1014
> > "This rule takes precedence over any rule which contains either of the words
> > 'witch', 'round', or 'flat'. "
> > 
> > If R729 does not exist then repeal R1014
> 
> As much as I'd love to have these types of conditional rule changes,
> it seems almost certain that this will produce an invalid rule change
> if adopted (qv CFJ 259).  I have had to sit on proposals such as this,
> that is why I called CFJ 259.  If there is any disagreement, we should
> iron it out.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 1:43:36 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1105

Proposal 1105 - Sat Aug 10 01:43:36 EDT 1996
Song of the Jailbird
snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

A player who has been sentenced to the Gaol must sing at least three
stanzas of a sad little Gaol Song before going to Gaol.  The lyrics to this
song must be posted to the public forum, so that all players can feel the
pain of the convicted criminal.

This song may be sung at any time during the grace period of the convicted
criminal, but doing so during the hour imediatly before the player is to be
placed in the Gaol is prefered.

A player may, if it is allowed by the gaoler, sing additional stanzas to a
sad little Gaol Song while in Gaol, but is not required to.

If a player does not sing (and post lyrics) to at least three stanzas of a
sad little Gaol Song before entering the Gaol his sentence shall be
increased by two days.

No player may sing a song which has been previously sung by another player.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 1:46:16 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1106

Proposal 1106 - Sat Aug 10 01:46:16 EDT 1996
The Law of Party Gravity
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

  a proposal to create a rule entitled "The Law of Party Gravity" which
contains the
     following text: 
"
     1. 
     a.There are four levels of Swingers, named Primo, Secondo, Tertio, and
Populi.
     b. Primo is the highest, Secondo is one level below Primo, Tertio is
two levels below
     Primo and Populi is three levels below Primo.
     c. The levels Primo, Secondo and Tertio can be occupied by no more than
one Swinger.
     The Populi level can be occupied by any number of Swingers. 

     2. a. Whenever Weight is recalculated, and there are no ties, Swingers
are reassigned
     to levels. The Swinger with the highest Weight is assigned to Primo,
the Swinger with
     the second highest weight is assigned to Secondo, the Swinger with the
third highest
     weight is assigned to Tertio, the rest of the Swingers are assigned to
Populi
     b. If there is a tie between two or more Swingers, neither one of the
Swingers
     involved in the tie is reassigned, and the Tie-Fighter section of this
rule is
     invoked.
     c. Whenever a Swinger is reassigned to a higher level than the level e
currently
     occupies, e is said to have moved up, by 1,2, or 3 levels, depending
upon the
     difference between eir source and destination levels. Similarly,
whenever a Swinger
     is reassigned to a lower level, e is said to move down 1,2 or 3 levels, 

     3. SwingVotes
   a. When ever the Round Count is incremented to a number that, when
divided by    RoundFreq, results in an integer, SwingVotes are distributed
according to the following scheme 
     (i) Primo receives 3 SwingVotes
     (ii) Secondo receives 2 SwingVotes
     (iii) Tertio receives 1 SwingVotes
 b.     SwingVotes may only be created of destroyed as 
       described in this rule. 

     c. Whenever a Swinger moves up one or more levels, e recieves one
SwingVote for every
     level e moves. Whenever a Swinger moves down one or more levels, e
loses one
     SwingVotes for every level e moves down, or if e does not have this
many SwingVotes,
     e loses all SwingVotes e owns 

     d. SwingVotes may be sold, traded, or given away. Parties may regulate
the way in
     which the SwingVotes owned by their Swinger are sold, traded or given
away. 
     e. The NAP Swinger may only sell, trade, or give away SwingVotes to
non-aligned
     players. 

     f.(i) A player who owns a SwingVote may cast it for or against a
proposal, in
     addition to any other vote they may cast according to other rules. a
SwingVote can
     only be used once. After a SwingVote has been counted it is destroyed
     (ii). For any single proposal, a given player may cast at most one
SwingVote
     (iii). For any single proposal, a given party may cast at most two
SwingVotes.
     (iv). The total number of SwingVotes used by non-aligned players is
limited only by
     section 3.f.(ii) of this rule, and is not limited by section 3.f(iii)
of this rule
     (v) This rule takes precedence over R390 
     (vi) If more than two SwingVotes are cast by a single party on a given
proposal, then only the first two are counted. The SwingVotes which have
been cast but not counted, are destroyed, as if they have been used.
   
4.RoundFreq can only be changed in one of the following ways:
a. When a proposal to change RoundFreq is accepted.
b. Exactly one week after at least a third of all Institutions currently in
session agree 
on a change. If , during that week, at least 50% of the Institutions in
session decide 
against the change, the change does not take place.

  5. Tie-Fighter
As long  as a Tie-Fighter condition exists, the following things happen:
a. SwingVotes are not counted. However, any SwingVotes cast on proposals
whose voting period during the Tie-Fighter are destroyed
b. Any player who receives points for eir proposal being accepted, or for
voting 
against an accepted proposal, or for voting for a rejected proposal receives
a bonus, 
which depends on the Swinger e is associated with
Players associated with Primo receive a 5 point bonus.
Players associated with Secondo receive a 3 point bonus.
Players associated with Tertio receive a 2 point bonus.
c. Plaers who are party members are associated with the Swinger who of eir
party. 
Non aligned players are associated with the NAP Swinger

     6. It is the duty of the Tabulator to keep track of all aspects of
SwingVotes. 
"

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 1:46:32 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1107

Proposal 1107 - Sat Aug 10 01:46:32 EDT 1996
ammend R990
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

Add to section 3, the following text, right after subsection F:
" G.When a PartyChessPieceDef rule is repealed, all PartyChessPieces defined
by that rule are immediately destroyed. PartyChessPieces defined by rules
which depend on the repealed rule, immediately become off-board pieces. They
do not change ownership. and they are not destroyed. 
H.A PartyChessPieceDef rule can depend on other PartyChessPieceDef rule, by
defining the moves in terms of a PartyChessPiece defined by another rule. A
rule is not a PartyChessPieceDef rule if it defines the behavior of a
PartyChessPiece in terms of a non-existent PartyChessPiece.
"

[[As the rule stands now, with Thinman's ammendments, if a PCPD is repealed,
we suddenly get all those pieces on the board with undefined behavior. At
best, nothing at all can be done with them, and they just sit there, until
the Swinger surrenders, or someone captures them. At worst, they screw up
the game completely.
Repealing such a rule a game tactic, is not very likely to succeed, becaue
the Party, or Parties who will be most affected by this will vote against
it. It will probably take at least two Parties to affect something like this.
Subsection H is also necessary - read the proposal to define the Queen. It
would a legitimate rule, as long as both Bishop and Rook are defined.
Some would argue :" better rewrite Queen then", but the purpose of
subsection H, is to provide for similarly written rules in the future, and
not just for this isolated case.
]]

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 1:46:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1108

Proposal 1108 - Sat Aug 10 01:46:59 EDT 1996
Locations
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Create a new rule entitled "Locations", reading:,

{{[Final final version of Locations. 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, and 
added /dev/joe's suggestion of closing the appeal CFCJ loophole.  I 
actually liked that loophole, it seemed a little warped, but I made up
my mind that if anyone pointed it out to me, I would fix it]}}  

{{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].  In this
case they actually do not enter the destination Location; they remain
where they are.  This section has precedence over any mutable rule which
specifies that a player be moved to another location.
 
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.

      7c) If the penalty specifies a TRANSFERENCE of any entity which it
is not permissable to transfer, that part of the penalty shall be void,
but such shall not necessarily void other parts of the penalty.
  
      8a) All other verdicts shall work as they would for a CFJ.  Any
verdict may be appealed as with a CFJ.

      8b) If a TRUE verdict is not upheld on an appeal, any penalties,
except SENTENCE, are reversed, effective the time of the appeal verdict.
The amount of any penalty of SENTENCE is subtracted from player X's
current sentence (if any, assume 0 if none), and the player is released 
from Gaol if their resultant sentence is non-positive.

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

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, providing said
player has agreed to the bribe.
            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, 10 Aug 96 1:49:54 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1109

Proposal 1109 - Sat Aug 10 01:49:54 EDT 1996
Modesty
Brinjal  (Simon Clarke)

[Some proposals merely tidy existing rules, or perform some mundane
purpose for which other players might be reluctant to award 9 points.
To assuage such scruples of the voters,  I therefore propose the 
following new rule, which would allow players to acknowledge the
modest aims of such proposals, and claim less points than would 
otherwise be awarded.]

Create a new rule as follows:

Modesty

A proposal is considered to be Modest if and only if the author of
the proposal prefaces the proposal with the words "This is a Modest
proposal". 
Whenever a Modest Proposal is adopted, the number of points scored
by its author as a direct result of authoring an adopted proposal
shall be half the number of points they would otherwise have scored
(rounded down).
This rule take precedence over whatever other rule or rules specify
the points to be scored upon the adoption of a proposal.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 1:50:18 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1110

Proposal 1110 - Sat Aug 10 01:50:18 EDT 1996
fixing 1014
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)
 
 Append the following text to the end of R1014
 "This rule takes precedence over any rule which contains either of the words
 'witch', 'round', or 'flat'. "

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 2:01:27 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1106

Proposal 1106 - Sat Aug 10 01:46:16 EDT 1996
The Law of Party Gravity
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

....skipping to the most important part

     6. It is the duty of the Tabulator to keep track of all aspects of
SwingVotes. 
=========
Are you going to make a CFCJ against me when I don't do this? Or does
someone else wish to be the Tabulator?   

ayne

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 01:43:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1109

> Proposal 1109 - Sat Aug 10 01:49:54 EDT 1996
> Modesty
> Brinjal  (Simon Clarke)

> Whenever a Modest Proposal is adopted, the number of points scored
> by its author as a direct result of authoring an adopted proposal
> shall be half the number of points they would otherwise have scored
> (rounded down).

Hmm, this gets interesting if we have a Modest, Harfy proposal.
Do you halve the points and round down first, and then double it,
or double it and then halve it?  Due to rounding there could be a
one-point difference.  I suppose that it comes down to precedence,
as this is undeniably a conflict when there is a difference, so if
this rule has precedence (which it would, by the numerical method,
since both claim precedence and snowgod retracted P1100 to make
corrections and it hasn't re-appeared yet), then by the above, you
halve the number of points given if the proposal was just harfy
and not modest, which of course is double the normal number.

This proposal specifies "points scored by its author as a direct result
of authoring an adopted proposal"; I like this, and it was one thing
I disliked in snowgod's proposal (though I didn't yet have a chance to
express this dislike).  Snowgod's proposal would double all the points
the author got, including points for voting against the proposal and
points for a parade.  However, I'm wondering about the word "direct" in
the statement above.  Does it cover points from the magic potato or
brass monkey?  Does it cover points for short and palindromic proposals?

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 09:49:21 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1106

On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 1106 - Sat Aug 10 01:46:16 EDT 1996
> The Law of Party Gravity
> Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)
> 
> ....skipping to the most important part
> 
>    6. It is the duty of the Tabulator to keep track of all aspects of
> SwingVotes. 
> =========
> Are you going to make a CFCJ against me when I don't do this? Or does
> someone else wish to be the Tabulator?   
> 
> 
> Wayne

Since such most directly effects the results of proposals, I doubt there
would by any officer better suited for the job. How can the Tabulator
determine how to count a SwingVote unless he has all the information about
who has how many of them. If the Tabulaotr keeps track of that
information, then it will always be readily available for him.

Is it the entire concept of the rule that you oppose, of just this last
clause?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 10:04:38 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: retracting 1078

I'm officially retracting proposal 1078

( and in the Nick of time, too)

Niccolo Flychuck

Running for President

Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

Vote for
Niccolo Flychuck - 
The Logical Choice.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 02:14:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1105

> Proposal 1105 - Sat Aug 10 01:43:36 EDT 1996
> Song of the Jailbird
> snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

 [stuff deleted]

> No player may sing a song which has been previously sung by another player.

Hmm, so if I have sung The Star Spangled Banner previously, no other
player may sing it, ever?

I think this sentence needs to be re-worded so that it more specifically
applies to that rule.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 10:18:47 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1105

On Sat, 10 Aug 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > Proposal 1105 - Sat Aug 10 01:43:36 EDT 1996
> > Song of the Jailbird
> > snowgod  (Phil Ackley)
> 
> [stuff deleted]
> 
> > No player may sing a song which has been previously sung by another player.
> 
> Hmm, so if I have sung The Star Spangled Banner previously, no other
> player may sing it, ever?
> 
> I think this sentence needs to be re-worded so that it more specifically
> applies to that rule.
> 
>
The whole concept of singing isn't very well defined here. Would I be
allowed to post MIDI files to the list, so everyone could follow the tune?
Or perhaps WAV files would be better - I could actually record my singing
voice, and share the experience, although in some cases, that alone might
be considered a Gaolable offence.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 23:20:49 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1105

At 2:14 AM 8/10/96, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>> Proposal 1105 - Sat Aug 10 01:43:36 EDT 1996
>> Song of the Jailbird
>> snowgod  (Phil Ackley)
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>> No player may sing a song which has been previously sung by another player.
>
>Hmm, so if I have sung The Star Spangled Banner previously, no other
>player may sing it, ever?
>
>I think this sentence needs to be re-worded so that it more specifically
>applies to that rule.

I suppoe you are right.  It should say "No player may sing a sad little
Gaol Song, whose lyrics are identical to those of a song which has been
previously sung."

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Running for President!
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: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 23:24:41 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1105

At 10:18 AM 8/10/96, Uri Bruck wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Aug 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>
>> > Proposal 1105 - Sat Aug 10 01:43:36 EDT 1996
>> > Song of the Jailbird
>> > snowgod  (Phil Ackley)
>>
>> [stuff deleted]
>>
>> > No player may sing a song which has been previously sung by another player.
>>
>> Hmm, so if I have sung The Star Spangled Banner previously, no other
>> player may sing it, ever?
>>
>> I think this sentence needs to be re-worded so that it more specifically
>> applies to that rule.
>>
>>
>The whole concept of singing isn't very well defined here. Would I be
>allowed to post MIDI files to the list, so everyone could follow the tune?
>Or perhaps WAV files would be better - I could actually record my singing
>voice, and share the experience, although in some cases, that alone might
>be considered a Gaolable offence.
>
>Niccolo Flychuck
>

I imiagine the ackanomic act of singing can be acomplished simply by
announcing that you have done so.  Perhaps the rules would require you to
actually sing (in private), though this is unenforcable.  We will have to
take a player at his word.  That's why I put in the bit about posting the
lyrics... sort of like built in proof :)

As for MIDI and .wavs, nothing would prevent you from posting them, and it
might actually be pretty nifty.  However, I would reccomend running them
off a web page or FTP site, so as not to bring down the mailing lists.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Running for President!
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: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 23:29:10 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Modesty and Harfyness

>Hmm, this gets interesting if we have a Modest, Harfy proposal.

Had I known about this proposal, I would have added a clause discouraging
(but not prohibiting) the Harfmeister to make a modest proposal harfy.  I
may do this in the new version, Which I am planning to post as an RFC after
reading /dev/joe's message.

>This proposal specifies "points scored by its author as a direct result
>of authoring an adopted proposal"; I like this, and it was one thing
>I disliked in snowgod's proposal (though I didn't yet have a chance to
>express this dislike).  Snowgod's proposal would double all the points
>the author got, including points for voting against the proposal and
>points for a parade.  However, I'm wondering about the word "direct" in
>the statement above.  Does it cover points from the magic potato or
>brass monkey?  Does it cover points for short and palindromic proposals?

Point taken.  I will work this into the new version of the proposal too.  I
would like for the "harfy bonus" to include points from the magic potato,
or the brass monkey, and any other rules related to scoring effects based
on proposals.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Running for President!
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, 10 Aug 1996 02:49:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: RFC: CFCJ penalty stuff

In Malenkai's "Locations" proposal, he made the fix for the penalty when
a TRUE CFCJ is overturned be to let the player out of Gaol (if he shouldn't
still be in Gaol for other reasons) and undo the other penalties at the
time of the appeal verdict.  I was actually thinking of just adding
"if the verdict is not appealed" to the end of the sentence which actually
imposes the penalty -- thus making the penalty not even start until
after the appeal has been decided.  Malenkai's method has problems
such as: if a gadget is transferred as a penalty, what if the new owner
breaks it before the appeal is decided?  We might just leave it this way,
and say that life isn't always fair.  

However, in the last couple days, I have been considering my own rewrite
of section 7 of Criminal Justice.  In addition to fixing the hole snowgod
fell into, I wanted to explicitly allow the supreme court to impose
a penalty (in the case when a CFCJ is initially ruled FALSE and changed
to TRUE), and I wanted to add a "convicted criminals pay court costs by
default" clause.  All these changes are to this one section of rule 710,
and I was thinking of a change like this:

If a section labeled 7 or 7a exists in the rule, replace the entire
text of that section with the following:

  Upon a verdict of TRUE, the judge or supreme court may retain or
  alter the recommended penalty.  The result, plus a transference of
  an amount of currency equal to the court fee from Player X to the
  initiator of the CFCJ, will become the actual penalty. This will be
  imposed following a 3 day grace period if the verdict is not appealed
  during this time.  This takes precedence over all mutable rules
  and game custom which establish or dis-establish a "grace period".

With Malenkai's new version of Locations, I will need to drop
"if the verdict is not appealed" but otherwise it should work whether
or not Locations passes.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 03:08:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Registrar's Vacationer Report

Now that Malenkai's fix for the "On Ice" fix of Vacationing has passed,
all the vacationers have expected return times.  The proposal's
voting period ended August 8 at 02:23 EDT so the vacationers' vacation
periods which wer not previously specified are set to September 7, 02:23 EDT.

These players are now on vacation:

Calvin N Hobbes (expected return September 7 02:23 EDT)
chess piece face (expected return September 7 02:23 EDT)
De'ghew (expected return September)
fon (expected return September 7 02:23 EDT)
Mellon (expected return September 7 02:23 EDT)
Pascal (expected return August 21 14:35 CDT)
   (from when he temporarily returned and tried to vote)
Robert Sevin (expected return September 7 02:23 EDT)
ThinMan (expected return August 15 23:24 CDT)
this is not a name (expected return August 10 23:01 EDT)

De'ghew didn't specify his return time very well (he said "until September").
I'm going to interpret this as "until September 1, 00:00" in his local time
zone, which is EDT.  In any case, the limit of 30 days on vacation time
limits his expected vacation time to September 4, 09:25 EDT at the latest.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 03:42:22 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Presidential Debate Cancelled 

Bascule, I was hoping, was going to moderate a presidential debate between
Niccolo Flychuck and myself, this afternoon.  It appears though, that this
won't be happening.  I have recieved a few "Mail Delayed" messages from his
SMTP server.

In light of this, I have an alternate plan.  I (and I'm sure Niccolo also)
would be more than happy to answer your questions publically.  If you have
a pressing concern, or where like to know where a candidate stands on the
issue, just ask.

Come on, put us in the hotseat!

Special thanks to Malenkai, and his shape of the earth question.

snowgod
running for President!

>From: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 11:46:48 +0100
>Subject: WARNING: message delayed at "bham.ac.uk"
>
>This email message has been generated automatically by the
>Central Mail Server at The University of Birmingham, England.
>
>Your message,
>	ID <v02130500ae3054c04a09@[206.149.
>	UA-ID Re: Acka: Ele...
>has not yet been delivered to the following recipients:
>
>[email-masked]
>
>The message is queued for processing on bham.ac.uk.
>
>The delay is probably because the destination system, or some
>intermediate system is down.  It is also possible that there is a
>problem with the network which is causing the delay, although this is
>less likely.
>
>If the message cannot be delivered in the next 95 hours it
>will be returned to you.  Delivery attempts will continue
>automatically and no action on your part is required.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #169
*******************************