Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #189
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, August 23 1996        Volume 01 : Number 189

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:58:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 267 (Brinjal)

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Malenkai is right that this was my tactic.  I'm using what I called
> "Malenkai's Loophole" against him, although this was an aspect of it
> I didn't realize until today.  Loophole Surfers should expect to
> have other loopholes used against them, as happened with me and the
> Contract mess.

I wouldn't want it any other way :)

> Malenkai's actions with the Bronze Torch established the game custom
> that Malenkai's Loophole works.

The problem also manifests itself with that vending machine business
(qv, CFJ 263).  Its *really* serious with gadgets and blueprints.
 
> There is no compelling reason to select 1141 over any other proposal
> that is named "Coup I" if and when any of proposals 1142-1150 are
> accepted.  Note that proposals are not rules, so what P1142-1150 mean
> now does not matter.  Only what the proposals mean at the time their
> rule changes are applied matters.

But the judge has to decide *which* one is Coup I.  I don't think we
can stomach another "indeteminate" claim.  It looks like it comes down
to "spirit of the game" again, although I claim that there is extant
game custom that says P 1141 is "Coup I".  I don't see any other, do
you?
 
> There's one possible reason to choose a later proposal named "Coup I"
> over P1141: there is some amount of game custom that proposals cease
> to exist once their voting periods have completed and the effects from
> their acceptance or rejection have been handled.  P1141's effects
> will be handled before P1142-1150's effects, so by this custom the only
> proposals named "Coup I" when P1142-1150 are accepted (if any of them
> are accepted) will be those submitted after P1150.

This was not at all my intent with the "Coup I" wording; I shall discuss 
that after this is over, if anyone cares (and it wasn't saving bandwidth
either).  I glad its working out this way though, this is interesting.
It was starting to drag a little, waiting for a Chess-Umpire and rewriting
rules...
 
> Incidentally, I've been working on a proposal to close Malenkai's
> Loophole, but it's not easy.  When it looks a little better I'll
> put it up for an RFC.

Its nasty, really nasty.  I can't find it, perhaps you can.  Mabye we
need *super protection*.  Yuck!  

> /dev/joe
> Loophole Anti-Surfing

I've been the one fighting the Loophole Surfing.  First there was pTang
and that evil ballot stuffer, and supreme court justice business, and
the one vote thing and the vacationing player business.

Then that dormancy business by Wayne and /dev/joe and then that contract
business by /dev/joe, and way before that the Prosthetic Forehead
surfing and ThinMan's n win thing.  

Everything I've done has been "mostly harmless" since that AOJ business.

The Bronze Torch and Vending Machine are simple variations on a theme which
mask a pretty huge problem IHMO.  The Golden Frog spoke of this a long
time ago.

Malenkai
You're true Anti-Loophole Surfer
Saving the game from rogues :)

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 10:58:34 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I hereby place myself on vacation (which is not really a
vacation, but a business trip). I will be back Monday
the 2 September at the latest, perhaps some days earlier.

Mellon
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:35:54 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: P1141-1148 (actually 1140-1151) 

/dev/joe wrote:
>Actually, you don't have to vote yes on any of those proposals if you
>vote PRESENT sometimes.  It's time for me to reveal one of the loopholes
>in R431.  Although it says abstentions don't make a series of NO votes
>non-consecutive, it doesn't say the same about PRESENT votes.  So do
>as ThinMan suggests, pick 2 to 4 proposals from 1140-1151 to not vote
>NO on, but instead of voting YES, vote PRESENT on them.

I considered the possibility of PRESENT votes, and that is what I was
alluding to when I said that Malenkai might have a case for players
being forced to vote for one or another of these.  An exerpt from R431/2:

     No player may cast a vote of no more than 7 times consecutively.
     Abstention from a vote does not count as making a series of votes
     nonconsecutive. In other words, no one can vote No for more than 7
     proposals before having to vote Yes for one. The "ordering" of the

Be very careful: if you cast seven consecutive NO votes, then your next
vote _will_ be a YES.  You can, however, cast _six_ consecutive NO votes,
then PRESENT, then six more NO, etc.

So /dev/joe is right, but the counting details are important.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 13:15:52 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1154

Proposal 1154 - Thu Aug 22 13:15:52 EDT 1996
Something to vote YES for
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Repeal R 431

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 13:15:29 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1152

Proposal 1152 - Thu Aug 22 13:15:29 EDT 1996
"Coup I"
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

1. Amend Rule 431 by adding the following to the end of the first paragraph:

An exception to the above is if one player makes 6 or more consecutive
proposals.  Players may vote NO on all the proposals in such a sequence.
A player who votes NO on 6 or more consecutive proposals by the same
player may also vote NO on up to 2 more proposals immediately before and
up to 2 more proposals immediately after those proposals.

2. Amend Rule 396 by adding the following new paragraph at the end:

No player may submit more than 4 proposals in any 24-hour period or
more than 12 proposals in a week.  The promoter can and should ignore
any proposals which violate this limit.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 13:15:41 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1153

Proposal 1153 - Thu Aug 22 13:15:41 EDT 1996
Everything in Moderation
ThinMan  (John Bollinger)

A new rule shall be created with the following text:

No player may submit more than four proposals during any contiguous
twenty-four hour period.  Any proposals submitted in excess of this
limit shall be immediately retracted, but shall not otherwise be
counted towards the four-proposal limit.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 13:11:14 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: P1141-1148

I've had a scam floating around in the back of my head for a while.  Submit
12 proposals that would grant me power and one innocent proposal right in the
middle.  Everyone would vote NO on the 6 before and after the innocent prop.
Then just before the voting deadline ends, retract the innocent prop.

But I've never bothered to try it.

Wayne

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 19:14:23 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1141-1148

> I've had a scam floating around in the back of my head for a while.  Submit
> 12 proposals that would grant me power and one innocent proposal right in the
> middle.  Everyone would vote NO on the 6 before and after the innocent prop.
> Then just before the voting deadline ends, retract the innocent prop.
> 
> 
> But I've never bothered to try it.
> 
> Wayne

You could have done this to get the Gnome repealed :)

 

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:47:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1153

On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 1153 - Thu Aug 22 13:15:41 EDT 1996
> Everything in Moderation
> ThinMan  (John Bollinger)
> 
> A new rule shall be created with the following text:
> 
> No player may submit more than four proposals during any contiguous
> twenty-four hour period.  Anyproposals submitted in excess of this
> limit shall be immediately retracted, but shall not otherwise be
> counted towards the four-proposal limit.

I actually support this. Such suggestions often appear when we appear to
be flooded with proposals. The only thing this would (slightly) affect,
are rule suites, which would have to be submitted over a couple of days.
This is not really a problem.

The main thing is to prevent Coup like sets, but these are rather rare.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 16:04:24 -0500
From: "9:00 A.M." <[email-masked]>
Subject: leaving the game. 

i simon marty harriman, am now officially leaving the game of ackanomic.
it's been fun guys...

SMH

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 16:06:51 -0500
From: paul swan <[email-masked]> 
Subject: [none]

bye guys, i'm jumping off after my super extended vacation, and leaving the
game.  have fun....

chess piece face

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 19:25:34 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Registrar

The office of Registrar is now vacant. Anyone wishing to volunteer for 
the office should send me mail.

this is not a name

- --      Mike Epstein            "Anyone who has never made a mistake
      [email-masked]           has never tried anything new."
  *                      *                         --Albert Einstein
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:27:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1141-1148

Bascule wrote:
> 
> > I've had a scam floating around in the back of my head for a while.  Submit
> > 12 proposals that would grant me power and one innocent proposal right in the
> > middle.  Everyone would vote NO on the 6 before and after the innocent prop.
> > Then just before the voting deadline ends, retract the innocent prop.
> >
> >
> > But I've never bothered to try it.
> >
> > Wayne
> 
> You could have done this to get the Gnome repealed :)
> 
> 

That was the scam I was thinking of as well.  Putting the innocent
sixth or seventh proposal in as something I really wanted to pass,
and it was the recent gnome proposal that got me thinking of this
7 no scam again.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:28:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1153

Uri Bruck wrote:

> The main thing is to prevent Coup like sets, but these are rather rare.

And they will be even rarer if R 431 is repealed.  R 431 is a *bad* 
idea.  Perhaps we should fix the problem, rather than attempt to treat
the symptoms.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:30:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1152

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1152 - Thu Aug 22 13:15:29 EDT 1996
> "Coup I"
> /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

I note the title of this proposal is ""Coup I"", not "Coup I".  CFJ 267
must be judged TRUE.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:36:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Power

I agree with Bascule.  Time to dust Power off.  I still have 
trepidation about anything at 90%, that is probably why I was always
spooked by it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:43:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 266 Verdict

CFJ 266 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 266
  Subject: Scoring question
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Mellon (selected Aug 20, 1996, 11:26h New York Time)

Statement:

If a short, harfy, modest proposal containing the words "cows eat grass"
is accepted, then the points for the proposal being short, harfy, and
containing "cows eat grass" are halved, by rule 1109.

/dev/joe's reasoning:

        [none - Cotc]

Mellon's reasoning:

The issue here is a conflict between some rules (R207 scoring,
R1112.2 - harfy, R728 - silly) stating how much an author of a
proposal is going to score, and another rule (R1109 - modest) that
states only e shall only score half as much if the proposal is modest.

The conflict is solved by R210:
R1109 states that it takes precedence over the other rules in the
conflict.

R207 does not state anything about precedence, so R1109 wins over
this one.

Same for R728.

R1112.2 states it takes precedence over rules that "would deny
such a bonus" which includes R1109, but since R1109 has a lower
number, so it wins over R1112.2 according to R210.

The verdict of this CFJ is True.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:17:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Chess-Umpire Situations

this is not a name wrote:

>Is anyone willing to volunteer to be Chess-Umpire? Please, someone,
>please.... :)

The nomination period for Chess-Umpire has come and gone.

It seems apparent that no one is volunteering for the job of 
Chess-Umpire.

I disagree with the notion that Party Chess is currently unplayable, but
in any case, there will be no doubt that it is playable after P 1124
passes.

If no volunteer emerges, the Appointer will be breaking the rules by
not either running Party Chess or resigning.  In the latter case, either
the Speaker or the new appointer will also be breaking the rules by
not doing so.  If tinan resigns, then whoever volunteers for Appointer
is implicitly accepting the responsibility of Party Chess then.  It seems
like if such a person is willing to do so then, then they should just
step forward and volunteer now (unless they are specifically holding
out for that Appointer job, which seems like an unlikely ploy).

The point of this discussion is not to pick a fight with tinan for not
running Party Chess, but look at this problem of acting officers who,
for paratical reasons, are unable or unwilling to perform the duties
of the office in acting capacity.  Web-Harfer and Financier are other
examples.  It was a hassle to be Financier for those days ThinMan was
out.

To not find a fix for the problem would allow the rules to be continiously
broken, a situation many nomic players, including myself, find distasteful.  
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, I'm just kicking it around.  The
options seem to be as follows:

1) Just look the other way and allow the rules to be broken in these cases
of acting officers.  A good argument can be made for this.  This is the
default action if no one takes interest in this discussion, or proposes
a better fix.

2) At least for new functional officers, create a rule that says if no
one volunteers for the office, the person who created the office is
automatically appointed to it.  This will provide a deterrrant for people
creating offices with lots of work that the creator, nor anyone else, is
willing to do.  The concept makes sense, the problems are obvious.

3) Specify certain offices as non-functioning in an acting capacity.
The Historian is already like this, I believe.  The Web-Harfer and 
Chess-Umpire would also be candidates (athough I have an archive of the
web site which I update periodically, just in case).

3 seems like the obvious choice, but I prefer 2.  Perhaps there is a better
idea.  Any comments?

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 23:23:46 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Chess-Umpire Situations

>
>>Is anyone willing to volunteer to be Chess-Umpire? Please, someone,
>>please.... :)
>
>The nomination period for Chess-Umpire has come and gone.
>
>It seems apparent that no one is volunteering for the job of 
>Chess-Umpire.
>
>[options deleted]
>
>3 seems like the obvious choice, but I prefer 2.  Perhaps there is a better
>idea.  Any comments?
>
>Malenkai
>

4. Repeal all Chess-related Rules

Since no one wants to be the Umpire, we can't have a game.  Since we
can't have a game, there is no use in having the Rules.

I would like to say that the game itself would have been interesting.  The
combination of pieces would have been fun to play with.  But I have felt
that they didn't belong in the Ruleset from the beginning.

Could all of the Chess Rules be farmed out into a seperate document, sorta
like a Charter for a Political Party?  It just seems weird to read over the
rules and come across definitions for Chess Pieces.

Wayne

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:46:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1152

> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal 1152 - Thu Aug 22 13:15:29 EDT 1996
> > "Coup I"
> > /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> I note the title of this proposal is ""Coup I"", not "Coup I".  CFJ 267
> must be judged TRUE.

Ah, but the title of this proposal is "Coup I" and the title of
proposal 1141 is Coup I.  [Both sentences are valid statements; there
are many proposals and rules on record which specify something by name
as in P1142-1150 in which the name is enclosed in "quotes" or 'quotes'
as well as many where the name is not quoted.]  Another argument I
had in favor of my proposal over 1141 is that it doesn't require that
the quotation marks in P1142-1150 by interpreted at all.  Also weak,
just like my other one, but I'm hoping that one of my two weak arguments
is good enough.  Malenkai has yet to give an argument that favors 1141
over 1152 which can't be turned around to favor 1152 over 1141 equally
validly.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #189
*******************************