Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #174
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, August 14 1996      Volume 01 : Number 174

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:07:42 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 265 (SMH) 

>
>Given the first rendering, it falls to the Assistant Tabulator, as that
>is the officer which handles "tabulation, and reporting of votes on
>all Ackanomic matters, excluding Proposals and Resolutions".  Determining
>how Ackanomic should vote in Internomic matters is not a "Proposal"
>or "Resolution".
>
>The second rendering indicates that it falls to the Liaison, but R 414
>explicity claims precedence: "...or would define an alternate procedure
>or officer".  See the quote above.
>
>Having the Assistant Tabulator tabulate and report on these votes is
>"a reasonable procedure".  Furthermore, it is what our rules require.
>A verdict of TRUE is necessary.

This CFJ is truly absurd.  A vote on an internomic proposal is not a formal
vote.  It's outcome has absolutly no effect within the game of internomic.
The sole effect of voting on an internomic proposal is to inform the liason
how he should cast his vote _in the game of internomic!._

Giving it to the assistant tabulator just adds another step.  One that
would waste bandwith.  For me to distribute internomic proposals, and then
have the Assistant Tabulator hold a vote every time, of which he would
inform me of the results seems alot more complicated (and less reasonable)
than simply publishing the proposals and allowing players to send me their
opinions on each one.

However, let me give you my interpretaion of R970:

> Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic,
> the Liaison shall initiate a vote in Ackanomic to determine how he
> should cast Ackanomic's vote in Internomic. The Liaison shall establish
> reasonable procedures for such voting, and shall cast Ackanomic's vote
> in accordance to the results of the vote.

R970 clearly gives me express permission to establish whatever reasonable
procedure I deem nescassery for voting.  I consider it a reasonable
procedure that votes are send directly to me (often as a reply to the
ambassador's result).  I consider it reasonable that after one week (or if
people are still sending me votes aftter one week, I'd give it another) I
will cast my vote in internomic in accordance with the will of the people
of ackanomic.

What I consider to be completly unreasonable is malenkai's taking a private
disagreement public by trying to undermine my authority, rather than
sitting down and talking to me about that one stupid vote.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:07:34 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 264 (SMH) 

>Simon Marty Harriman has been selected, and has 3 days to
>accept/decline.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 264
>  Subject: InterNomic Proposal Submissions
>Initiator: Malenkai
>    Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (selected Aug 12, 1996, 21:57h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>All players, including the Liaison, may make only one InterNomic Proposal
>per week.
>
>Malenkai's reasoning:
>
>From R 970:
>
>> Any Ackanomic Player may request the Liaison to make an InterNomic
>> Proposal by sending the Proposal to the Liaison, but may only do so
>> once per week.
>
>Certainly the Liaison is a player (either Ambassador or Speaker).  I see
>no rule giving the Liaison the priviledge of submitting more than one
>per week themself.  InterNomic proposal submission is protected, of
>course.
>
>The Liaison is a collator, similar to the Witchfinder General or the
>Tabulator, or the Clerk of the Courts.  Those offices do not get extra
>votes (or whatnot) just because they are the collator and distributor
>of such.  Why is the Liaison any different?  Are we saying the Liaison
>would get more votes, also, when tabulating the "will of Ackanomic"?
>
>I bring this up because the entity AckaNomic is the player in InterNomic,
>not the Liaison.  The InterNomic world sees our proposal submissions as
>the work and will of AckaNomic, not as the work and will of a single player
>of AckaNomic, hence the once per week clause.
>
>I have nothing against allowing a single player to submit multiple
>proposals to InterNomic per week.  If that is the will of AckaNomic,
>the rules  should be changed to reflect that will, however, and the
>priviledge should be available to all players, not just one.

Malenkai's reasoning is false, for the following reason:

R970 says that a Player may _request_ the Liason to make an Internomic
proposal, but he may only do so once per week.  It says nothing about how
many proposals the liason may submit to internomic weekly.

By submitting three proposals (which serve to add a new player to the
game), I did not violate R970 becuase I did not request of myself (even
once) that I submit proposals.  R970 regulates reqyuests to submit
proposals.  Not submission itself.

The proposals in question will be released in the next ambassador's report
(any minute now).

Also, if it really matters, one proposal was submitted last week.  Two were
submitted this week, when i decided it would be good to change the way
players may be admitted into internomic (currently only by amending the
rule that contains the list of players).

Andre does not distribute proposals as soon as he recieves them.

One more thing...

I think it is pretty petty to carry on a nitpicking fued over something as
silly as one vote.  I'm willing to forigve and forget, and I won't say
another word about.  I hope Malenkai will be willing to do the same thing.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:07:50 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ambassador: Internomic proposals 

The following proposals have been announced by the moderator of Internomic,
Andre.  Until a CFJ comes down telling me to do otherwise, I will accept
your votes on these proposals and cast my vote in accordance.

Please note that Imperial Nomic 18 may not join intenomic currently unless
the rules are ammended to allow add their name to the list.  The first
proposal does this.  The second two proposals change the way that players
may join the game.

I have not added these to the ambassador's page yet.  I had a rough day at
work and don't really feel up to it, but i shall do so in the morning.

****************************

Proposal 303
Proposed by Ackanomic

- --------

Amend Rule 215 to read:

The voting members in this Nomic are: AckaNomic, Agora, Thring and Imperial
Nomic 14 and Imperial Nomic 18.  There are no nonvoting members.

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

Proposal 304
Proposed by Ackanomic

- --------

A nomic game may become a member of internomic by submitting a request to
the moderator.

A valid request must include the name of the nomic game, the name of it's
liason, an email adress for the liason, and whether the nomic game wishes
to enter as a voting or nonvoting member.

The moderator may deny entry to any nomic game he does not feel is qualified.

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

Proposal 305
Proposed by Ackanomic

- --------

Amend the rule intially numbered as Rule 215 to read:

It is the duty of the moderator to maintain a list of all voting and
nonvoting member nomics.

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

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - President
Inventor - Former 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: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 01:07:55 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Auction Results 

The Whamiol was sold to Habeous Corpus for his high bid of A$75.

Would the financier please note this.  If a thread exists were HC does not
have the money to buy the Whamiol do to the two contracts, I will figure
out the high bidder in that thread.

Chief Cheese

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:51:10 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Law of Party Gravity

I have resubmitted the a proposal for the Law of Party Gravity, with some
changes I consider siginificant. The current version is closer to my
original intention or reflecting the long term standing of each Swinger in
the game.
SwingVotes are still distibuted in semi-regular intervals (regular
intervals that can be changed by prescribed methods), however their
distribution no longer depends merely on Swingers' levels at the moment of
distribution. The second method for 'adjusting' the number of SwingVotes,
can potentialy create nearly a vote per day, although this not very likely
to happen, that method was removed entirely. 
I believe is simpler and more manageable this way.
I also changed the last clause (previously clasue 6, now clause 5),
tracking SwingVotes is no longer the duty of the tabulator but the duty of
the Chess-Umpire.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 08:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1065 Fails

On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> I'm curious if people want RFCs to continue, especially the long
> ones, or should I stop wasting the bandwidth.
> 

Might they go to Acka-research, or a new Acka-RFC?  Or perhaps an
announcement of the topics could be made publicly and players could
request copies from the authors.  The current bandwidth wasting isn't so
bad, actually, except it gives authors the illusion their proposals will
pass. I must admit that the level of attention I give RFC's varies from
some to none, depending on the current demands of Real Life and my
interest in the particular topic. 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 07:32:00 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: CFJ 261

This Statement is Judged FALSE.

Malenkai is right in eir reasoning,  Rule 594 _is_ unclear in it's
wording of paragraph (ii).  However,  from that wording,  it can be
reasonably implied that the purpose of the paragraph is to cover
Blueprints that ,  as their main purpose or unavoidable side effect, 
WILL violate a Rule or set of Rules.  

Unfortunately there is currently no protection against any Player using
Gadgets to viloate the Rules if,  as a byproduct of the Blueprint's
design,  the designed behavior of the Gadget allows for such a use.  This
has the potential to lead to more than a few Paradoxes.

It is therefore _my_ interpretation that while the implicit meaning of R
594 (ii) is to cover the _designed_ behavior of a Blueprint,  *potential*
behavior may be used to invoke R 594 (ii) and destroy the Blueprint. 
Therefore Malenkai's Statement is TRUE.

I note,  however,  for the record that merely because a Blueprint is
destroyed as a result of judgement on this issue,  any Gadgets previously
created based on the Blueprint are not destroyed at the same time. 
Gadgets themselves are Protected and governed by other Rules and do not
even necessarily require a Blueprint to be created.

Habeous Corpus
<Any child can tell you that the sole purpose of a middle name is so that
he can tell when he's really in trouble.  Dennis Fakes>

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 17:05:14 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1065 Fails

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I'm curious if people want RFCs to continue, especially the long
> > ones, or should I stop wasting the bandwidth.
> > 
> 
> Might they go to Acka-research, or a new Acka-RFC?  Or perhaps an
> announcement of the topics could be made publicly and players could
> request copies from the authors.  The current bandwidth wasting isn't so
> bad, actually, except it gives authors the illusion their proposals will
> pass. I must admit that the level of attention I give RFC'svaries from
> some to none, depending on the current demands of Real Life and my
> interest in the particular topic. 
> 
> -mr cwm

I believe that was what acka-research was originally for, and there is no
reason RFCs shouldn't be posted there, along with a posting to the main
list about their existence.  
Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:17:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Blue Cross Automation

I, with /dev/joe's permission, or /dev/joe, is going to resubmit
Blue Cross Automation shortly.

To summarize, it is analagous to finding a bug in the rules that says
all points scored on Tuesday and Friday don't count, and fixing that
bug. Its common sense.

I (we), would appreciate any comments from people who otherwise would
vote no this time, on how it can be improved to get your support, while
retaining all of the benefits the rewrite delivers.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:21:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 262 (Malenkai)

Bascule failed to respond and is a deadbeat judge, presumably due to
e-mail problems.

Aug 13 09:08 EDT: -10 Bascule: failed to respond to CFJ 262

It has been reassinged to Malenkai, who has 3 days.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 262
  Subject: Absentee legislation
Initiator: Wayne
    Judge: Bascule (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (selected Aug 13, 1996, 09:22h New York Time)

Statement:

A player on vacation cannot submit proposals to be distributed.

Wayne's reasoning:

[none provided - CotC]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:12:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 265 (SMH)

Phil Ackley wrote: 

[CFJ 265 about assistant tabulator's duties]
 
> This CFJ is truly absurd.

In my opinion, it is rare that a CFJ is truly absurd.  A CFCJ would have
been absurd.  If attempting to make sure the rules are followed, one
way or the other, is absurd, I'm not sure what to say.

I created the assistant tabulator job in reponse to low voter turnout
in non-proposal matters.  The idea was to standardize voting and reporting.
I see no value added by breaking from this standard in certain votes.  I,
for one, would like to know who and how people vote in all matters; this
is something that is lost by making some votes non-standard.

As for snowgod's insinuation that the CFJ is part of a feud, that is FALSE.
The CFJ was conceived when R 970 was written.  It was only after writing
CFJ 264 that I remembered this one, and I had time time, so I wrote
it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:43:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC (was P 1065)

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 

> I believe that was what acka-research was originally for, and there is no
> reason RFCs shouldn't be posted there, along with a posting to the main
> list about their existence.
> Niccolo Flychuck

I have thought of that, but it seems posting of its existance on 
acka-reasearch on the main forum is worse for the following reasons:

1) It wastes more *human* bandwidth (see #2), inasmuch as in both cases you
get a message on the public forum discussing the topic.  When you get
the actual RFC, you can just delete it before reading, similar to 
getting a one liner mentioning its existance on acka-research.  As for
actual bandwidth, the longer content seems negligible.

2) If you are not on acka-research, and get a post saying RFC X has been
posted there, you must make the author do more work by forwarding you
a copy, because you did not receive it in the first place.

I do not presume that just because and RFC receives no comments, that it
will pass.  The fact of the matter is that about 80% of my RFCs receive
no comments.  It was a simple question to see if people actually want them
to continue.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 13:46:24 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Vacation

I take myself off vacation. My ISP is mostly back to normal. If anyone's 
interested, their new tech guy seems to be more of a saboteur. It's 
unclear whether he's actually malicious or just incompetent. :)

this is not a name

- --      Mike Epstein            "I was under medication when I made
      [email-masked]           the decision not to burn the tapes."
  *                      *                          --Richard Nixon
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:52:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 261

Ed Graham wrote:
> 
> This Statement is Judged FALSE.

This CFJ was actually judged TRUE.  I will have official publication
later tonite.  The CotC and the Judge apologise.

Clerk of the Courts.

> 
> Malenkai is right in eir reasoning,  Rule 594 _is_ unclear in it's
> wording of paragraph (ii).  However,  from that wording,  it can be
> reasonably implied that the purpose of the paragraph is to cover
> Blueprints that ,  as their main purpose or unavoidable side effect,
> WILL violate a Rule or set of Rules.
> 
> Unfortunately there is currently no protection against any Player using
> Gadgets to viloate the Rules if,  as a byproduct of the Blueprint's
> design,  the designed behavior of the Gadget allows for such a use.  This
> has the potential to lead to more than a few Paradoxes.
> 
> It is therefore _my_ interpretation that while the implicit meaning of R
> 594 (ii) is to cover the _designed_ behavior of a Blueprint,  *potential*
> behavior may be used to invoke R 594 (ii) and destroy the Blueprint.
> Therefore Malenkai's Statement is TRUE.
> 
> I note,  however,  for the record that merely because a Blueprint is
> destroyed as a result of judgement on this issue,  any Gadgets previously
> created based on the Blueprint are not destroyed at the same time.
> Gadgets themselves are Protected and governed by other Rules and do not
> even necessarily require a Blueprint to be created.
> 
> Habeous Corpus
> <Any child can tell you that the sole purpose of a middle name is so that
> he can tell when he's really in trouble.  Dennis Fakes>

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:54:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial

Due to the rewrite of R 457 by /dev/joe, tinan is now the
acting Financier.  If possible, I suggest he appoint me to the
post in an acting capacity, so I can prepare everything for ThinMan.

Otherwise more confusion may result.  I do not know the appointer rule
that well, so I do not know if this is possible.

Malenkai
ex-Acting Financier

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:59:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Using Rule 901 on Bascule

A whole big batch of bounce mail came in from Bascule's mail server this
morning; it seems even the bounces were a little delayed.  This completes
the 3-day period of bounced mail necessary for me to use Rule 901 to put
Bascule on vacation, so I am doing so, which will prevent him from losing
any more points like he did with the CFJ.  This also allows Malenkai to
appoint an acting Justice to handle the appeals, I think.

/dev/joe
Postmaster

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #174
*******************************