Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #208
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, September 5 1996      Volume 01 : Number 208

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:29:45 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Making the changes you suggest will nullify any role Parties might have
> > had in Ackanomic and return them to their previous "what do with this
> > thing now?" state.
> 
> The changes I suggest to this proposal fix bugs, no matter how you slice
> it.  The fact that I believe swingers should be optional does not 
> compromise the Party Hall structures in any way, although I personally do
> not like the Law of Party Gravity.  
> 
> To reiterate what I believe are serious problems with swingers,
> and why I recommended retraction or a NO vote on P 1176:
> 
> 1) If P 1176 passes, a swinger can increase his or her turn by 2 days
> by going on vacation.  There is no limit to the number of times this 
> may be done.  Thus a swinger could stalemate the game by going on 
> vacation once every other day, for example.  I do not believe this is
> good for the game, or what was intended.

This is the one comment I agree with an it will be fixed in a new version.

> 
> 2) I also do not like the fact that the following ploy is possible, as
> I discussed earlier:  Check a swinger, wait a day, author an IP against
> the swinger, take him or her out on the next move because he or she cannot
> move.  This assumes true on CFJ 275, and I believe 275 *should* be TRUE.
> Although not a flaw with P 1176, I thought P 1176 flawed enough that any
> rework should fix the above as well.

Malenkai, you're not concentratin Malenkai. Impeaching a Swinger is not
like Impeaching any other officer. it takes at least one vote from his own
Party, in addition to the regular requirements. Increasin the NAP Swinger
also require a majority of the non-aligned players. The ploy is not
possible it has been fixed  along time ago.

 > 
> 3) As for swingers being optional, its possible for a party to form
> where none of its members are interested in playing Party Chess.  Why
> force them to send a swinger who is simply going to pass by default,
> and slow thegame down by 4 days for everyone else, and have everyone
> else fight over their idle pieces?  This is not my idea of chess, although
> it could potentially be fun, I suppose.
If such a Swinger would pass from the start then he would never evenbegin
to place his pieces on the board. The only idle pieces would be 5
off-board pieces. I'd rather have a different solution for this. There
should be a fixed procedure that dictates when a Party joins the game. and
the current procedure is a reasonable one. P1176 also intoroduced the
concept of a Warm office, where plays default to a Pass after a single
move. I do not wish to extend the Warm condition to that be declared by a
Party any time  - Swinging in and out of a game at one's convenience is
also not my idea of Chess. 

 > 
> I do not remember the other things I disliked about P 1176; they are in
> the ftp archive.  I do, however, believe the game will be improved if 
> these things are fixed.  My opinion only, and only worth one vote.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
in conclusions
1. I agree
2. read the rules
3. wrong conclusions

and 1 will indeed be fixed.

Niccolo Flychuck

Chess-Umpire
Vulcan Swinger

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:35:53 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 272 Verdict

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Consequently, the NAP Swinger has no pieces at this time, since Brinjal
> > failed to select playing pieces before going on vacation.
> 
> Did Bascule?  I signed up as a spectator for Party Chess, but have no
> idea what is going on.  I got e-mail from the majordomo server saying
> that I was put on the chess list, but I have seen no details of the 
> game or piece selection there; I don't even know what pieces my party
> has.
> 
> In any case, could someone:
> 	a) put me on the spectator list
> 	b) tell me what pieces people have
a) I believe /dev/joe did
b) I'll post this information on the chess list, you can also look up 
http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/PartyChess/
and follow the 'more information about Swingers' link.
I have posted this URL numerous times, and there is a link to from the
ackanomic home page.
> 
> Note that CFJ 275 will indicate whether or not the acting swingers can
> select pieces.  I guess you can wait on that, or play the FALSE thread.
I'm considering that. 
btw- Bascule did not pick pieces and is late back from vacation. Brinjal
should be back sometime today or tomorrow. One one of the is back, I'll
consider this. 
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Malenkai
> clueless as usual
> vote YES for P 1184
> 

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:54:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar - new observer

We have a new observer in Ackanomic

Robert Shimmin, his e-mail is [email-masked]

He has chosen an Ackanomic name ( I guess he plans on joining the game
soon) -   Guy Fawkes.

We welcome him to Ackanomic

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 96 10:44:46 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Party Chess 

I hereby purchase 1 il-Nabi, 1 Echo, 1 CopyCat and 5 Pawns. 
If it should ever be subsequently found that at this moment I can not 
afford all of them, they are purchased in the named order, not simultaneously.

 Robin Hood  

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 15:41:51 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Registrar - Bascule "on-ice"

unless I am mistaken,
Bascule's expected return from vacation has come and gone and I am forced
to place him 'on-ice'.

Niccolo Flychuck 
Registrar

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 08:56:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 272 Verdict

Uri Bruck wrote:

> a) I believe /dev/joe did
> b) I'll post this information on the chess list, you can also look up
> http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/PartyChess/
> and follow the 'more information about Swingers' link.
> I have posted this URL numerous times, and there is a link to from the
> ackanomic home page.

I understood that Party Chess could be observed by being on a mailing
list.  So many URLs went by, many of them with unresolved DNS or 404 
errors, that I gave up.  Furthermore, the last time I checked the URL
from the main Acka page, which I was not sure if it was correct anyway,
it did not have this information.

Anyway, I do not wish to poll the URL once a day to see if things have
changed,  An interrupt driven mechanism, such as email, is preferrable.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 09:10:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176

Uri Bruck wrote:

> > 2) I also do not like the fact that the following ploy is possible, as
> > I discussed earlier:  Check a swinger, wait a day, author an IP against
> > the swinger, take him or her out on the next move because he or she
> > cannot move.  This assumes true on CFJ 275, and I believe 275 *should*
> > be TRUE. Although not a flaw with P 1176, I thought P 1176 flawed
> > enough that any rework should fix the above as well.
> 
> Malenkai, you're not concentratin Malenkai. Impeaching a Swinger is not
> like Impeaching any other officer. it takes at least one vote from his own
> Party, in addition to the regular requirements. Increasin the NAP Swinger
> also require a majority of the non-aligned players. The ploy is not
> possible it has been fixed  along time ago.

> in conclusions
> 1. I agree
> 2. read the rules
> 3. wrong conclusions

From R 726:

> Swingers are Political Officers 

> A Swinger can impeached, according to the regular procedure for
> impeachment as described in R613 Offices , Impeachment, if that rule
> exists, with the additional requirements 

From R 613:

      (iii) Upon submission of the IP, the Player in question
            shall no longer be considered to hold the Seat,
            instead filling an "Acting" role for the Office.
            There shall be no action taken to fill that Seat
            until the IP is resolved.

From R 609:

      (iv)  Acting Officers:

             The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player
             serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity.  In such
             a case, the Player is responsible for performing all
             of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges
             of the Office, 

Thus the senerio I have pointed out is possible if CFJ 275 is judged 
TRUE.  I have always qualified my discussion of this senerio with that
statement.  The "additional requirements" of R 726 do not alter this
in any way.

Are there any other rules I should read?

Malenkai
only trying to help, burnt out on this discussion.  Do it your way.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 09:17:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 277 (tinan)

tinan has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 277
  Subject: Suspending the Suspended Sentence
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: this is not a name (selected Sep 05, 1996, 09:16h New York Time)

Statement:

The "sentence" part of the penalty assigned to this is not a name
by IdiotBoy in CFCJ 113 is not one of the allowed classes of penalties
for a CFCJ, so this part of the penalty should be ignored.

Reasoning:

That penalty was:

  A SENTENCE of 2 days in the Gaol for this is not a name, suspended until
  such time as another CFCJ judgement or TRUE is returned against this is
  not a name.
 
Rule 710 allows for a sentence in Gaol to be given as a penalty on a
CFCJ judged TRUE, but it specifically defines when the sentence should be
carried out.  No rule allows for a "suspended sentence" to be given.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:41:25 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 277 (tinan)

Bah!  This was intended as a test of the appeals process, given that the
appeals are not able to overturn sentences without overturning the verdict. 

/dev/joe has outflanked me!  I'd give him money, if it was allowed!

IdiotBoy
- ----------
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: CFJ 277 (tinan)
> Date: Thursday, September 05, 1996 9:17 AM
[snip]
> Statement:
> 
> The "sentence" part of the penalty assigned to this is not a name
> by IdiotBoy in CFCJ 113 is not one of the allowed classes of penalties
> for a CFCJ, so this part of the penalty should be ignored.
> 

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:50:30 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176 

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:
>
>> Uri Bruck wrote:
>> 
>> > Making the changes you suggest will nullify any role Parties might have
>> > had in Ackanomic and return them to their previous "what do with this
>> > thing now?" state.
>> 
>> 2) I also do not like the fact that the following ploy is possible, as
>> I discussed earlier:  Check a swinger, wait a day, author an IP against
>> the swinger, take him or her out on the next move because he or she cannot
>> move.  This assumes true on CFJ 275, and I believe 275 *should* be TRUE.
>> Although not a flaw with P 1176, I thought P 1176 flawed enough that any
>> rework should fix the above as well.
>
>Malenkai, you're not concentratin Malenkai. Impeaching a Swinger is not
>like Impeaching any other officer. it takes at least one vote from his own
>Party, in addition to the regular requirements. Increasin the NAP Swinger
>also require a majority of the non-aligned players. The ploy is not
>possible it has been fixed  along time ago.

Um, Niccolo -- I think you're missing the point.  The Swinger does not have
to actually _be_ impeached for Malenkai's scheme to work; there just needs
to be an IP filed against him.  As soon as that happens, he ceases to be
Swinger and starts being acting Swinger until the IP vote is resolved.  As
such, he cannot receive any of the priveleges of the office.  I think there
is an excellent case for playing Party Chess being a privilege, rather than
a duty, of the office of Swinger, and in that case "Malenkai's Gambit" would
work just as he says.  The verdict of CFJ 275 will settle the privilege/duty
question.

I think it is entirely appropriate to make Swingers stop being official
Offices, with all the baggage that that brings with it.  Require that each
Party appoint a representative to Party Hall, by the method of their own
choosing, and call the representatives Swingers.  The NAP swinger would
still need to be elected, but that doesn't mean he has to be an Officer.
We can keep patching the Swinger rules, but the end result will be
similar -- Swingers will end up having very little in common with other
officers besides the "officer" designation itself.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:08:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1164 Passes

> Here are the voting results for : 1164
> Proposal PASSES

> Proposal 1164 - Mon Aug 26 09:55:36 EDT 1996
> I'm Not Allowed to Think
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> Amend Rules 554, 775, 990, and 991 as follows:
> 
> Replace all occurrance of the word "iff" with the
> phrase "if and only if".
> 
> {{[it occurs to me that R 451 forces a rendering of 'iff' to be
> 'if', not what was intended (at least according to my
> Websters; I'll admit I didn't ftp and uncompress the official
> dictionary).  It also occurs to me that the 'iff' construct may
> not be vocationally or linguistly neutral (I guess thats a fancy
> way of saying its 'jargon'); I'm also in a ridiculous mood after
> writing CFJ 271, and have never found a use for this loophole,
> so I'll write comments that are longer than the rule change.]}}

I note that 'iff' is not in the official dictionary, although it does
appear in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, 10th ed., with the intended meaning.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:04:24 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> Thus the senerio I have pointed out is possible if CFJ 275 is judged 
> TRUE.  I have always qualified my discussion of this senerio with that
> statement.  The "additional requirements" of R 726 do not alter this
> in any way.
> 
> Are there any other rules I should read?

Only psychically. 
my draft for fixing the retracted p1176 which would the entire acting
Swinger thing satisfactorily.

> 
> Malenkai
> only trying to help, burnt out on this discussion.  Do it your way.
>
Didn't mean to burn you out. Help appreciated. It's justone of my modes of
discussions. No offense intended.
However - taking all this into account, including your valuable anlysis,
can and will lead to a workable fix.

Niccolo Flychuck

He is.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:46:39 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1176 - RFC fix Swingers

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> Um, Niccolo -- I think you're missing the point.  The Swinger does not have
> to actually _be_ impeached for Malenkai's scheme to work; there just needs
> to be an IP filed against him.  As soon as that happens, he ceases to be
> Swinger and starts being acting Swinger until the IP vote is resolved.  As
> such, he cannot receive any of the priveleges of the office.  I think there
> is an excellent case for playing Party Chess being a privilege, rather than
> a duty, of the office of Swinger, and in that case "Malenkai's Gambit" would
> work just as he says.  The verdict of CFJ 275 will settle the privilege/duty
> question.

It would be sufficient to fix acting Swingers for that, however, in light
of your next paragraph.

> 
> I think it is entirely appropriate to make Swingers stop being official
> Offices, with all the baggage that that brings with it.  Require that each
> Party appoint a representative to Party Hall, by the method of their own
> choosing, and call the representatives Swingers.  The NAP swinger would
> still need to be elected, but that doesn't mean he has to be an Officer.
> We can keep patching the Swinger rules, but the end result will be
> similar -- Swingers will end up having very little in common with other
> officers besides the "officer" designation itself.

Yeah. I guess they are moving away from the designation of political
officers. This is something left over from the evolution of PartyChess.

Fine. Let's see what we would need in order this to happen.
( I intend to consider both sides here)

Let's consider this an RFC listing the fixes that need be made. I hope
that by tomorrow morning (local- that's in approx. 12 hours) I'll be able
to flesh it out completely.

1. Party-Hall will no longer be an Institution but just an entity -
Institution has recently been fixed, so it is now defined a multi-seat
political office - I think this is useful, and I intend to propose another
Institution - at the time it seemed reasonable for the place that where
interParty things occur to be an Institution. 

2. The Party Chess rules will have to be fixed. They constantly refer to
the Office of Swinger. Pieces are owned by the Office, and controlled by
the Swinger - this distinction is too significant to let go off - one
might say instead that the pieces belong to the Party, and controlled by
the Swinger. How does one define this for the NAP Swinger? If the NAP
Swinger is still an officer, then we would left with the problems we have,
and need to fix them anyway.  Who will own the pieces - the pieces whould
be owned by office (position) not by the individual , that is also an
important concept- it defines the role.

Now here a second possible solution - which will allow Swingers to work
within the  existing system -
Ammend either Party-Hall, or PartyChess to make playing PartyChess a
Swinger's duty.

This solves the acting Swingers problem, which in turn will nullify
"Malenkai's Gambit".
Furthermore - I'll change the definition of a Warm Office. A Swinger's
Office which remains unoccupied for a period of, f'rinstance, 7 days,
becomes Warm.
A Warm Office means that the Swinger's move defualts to a Pass immediately
when it becomes eir turn. After two rounds e is forced to surrender (this
limits the carnage of eir pieces), and if e is checked e is also forced to
surrender.

The number of two day extension, when a swinger goes on Vacation during
eir turn will be limited to two per turn, and 1 per two round over any
period of six consecutive rounds (I like these numbers)

I feel those provisions are sufficient. Making PartyChess a duty will let
acting Swinger, and Swingers against whom an IP has been issued, continue
play.  Parties will also be responsible for appointing acting Swingers. 
The rules for defining Offices explicitly defer to other rules for the
procedure for appointing acting Officers. I take this to mean that the
both the letter and the spirit of the rule provide for there being
different kinds of Political Officers, for whom different procedures than
the default ones would be necessary. Because that is what they are -
default procedures, nothing more, a safety net.  Institution - such as the
Senate, and Party-Hall, and any future Institutions - representing
different cross-sections of the ackanomic population, and the ways they
interact, (read Institutions and the Law of Party Gravity) allow us to
experiment with structure. The existing structure can support Party-Hall
as an Institution with all the implications. 

I like the second solution I presented here (making PartyChess a duty),
better than making Party-Hall an independent entity with no relation to an
evolving - I view this as going in the wrong direction again.

I'd like some comments on this. Actually I'd like lots of comments on
this.

Concerning the forced Surrender - currently there is very little freedom
of choice in Acka. Currently, most of the choices we can make are whether
or not to break the rules, and choose names. I want to see more choices. 
My suggestion will allow Parties to make choices, with full knowloedge of
the consequences. 
People who have responsilities can exercise judgement as to the priorities
they place on those responsibilities.  Freedom of choice - within the
context of the rules - with the chance of making an erroneous judgement.
Is that so bad, or are we forever condemned to play of acolytes of some
religion, who spend their carrying out the most minute clauses of obscure
rules.

 (Perhaps allow a Party to Surrender even out of turn when eir seat
is Warm - just a thought)

Niccolo Flychuck

A Free Man

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 96 12:57:26 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: PFBonds

Does anyone else feel that PFBonds are useless?  I wish to sell all of my
PFBonds to the highest bidder.  Please send me a bid.

Send a quantity amount and bid value.

Wayne

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 20:16:43 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> Does anyone else feel that PFBonds are useless?  I wish to sell all of my
> PFBonds to the highest bidder.  Please send me a bid.
> 
> Send a quantity amount and bid value.
> 
> Wayne
>
I've been trying to sell mine a couple of times, and it was real good time
to buy them too, usually just after submitting a lot of proposals with
good chance for passing, which would generate dividends for anyone who
might have wished to speculate. 
I'd gladly make you an offer, but I'd preffer trading them.

I'd like to sell some PFBonds - willing to trade for PFBonds
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 20:18:29 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds - a bid

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> Does anyone else feel that PFBonds are useless?  I wish to sell all of my
> PFBonds to the highest bidder.  Please send me a bid.
> 
> Send a quantity amount and bid value.
> 
> Wayne
>
I'll make a bid anyway - I'm offering a total of A$20 for 20 PFBonds
(that's A$1 each PFBonds)

and more to the point, yes they are useless.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:46:10 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PFBond bids.

Apparently, I did this inappropriately by sending my bid to Wayne
personally.

I bid A$100 for 100PFWayne.

In addition, I offer A$100 for all 100 of PFNiccolo.

IdiotBoy
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:55:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Farewell..

De'ghew wrote:
> 	As I have no time anymore to devote to Acka, I feel it is in the 
> best interest of the game if I step out.  I hereby leave the game of 
> Ackanomic, if it is even still called Ackanomic.  Please remove me 
> from the mailing lists.  Hopefully I'll be able to return at some point.  
> I'll try and check in at the Acka Web every once in a while and see 
> what's going on in Acka.
> 	Thanks guys, it's been a pleasure and an honor playing with you.  
> 
> 	SuDo'jaj
> 	De'ghew

Since De'ghew quit, the Underworld party no longer exists.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:45:29 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Farewell..

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> De'ghew wrote:
> > 	As I have no time anymore to devote to Acka, I feel it is in the 
> > best interest of the game if I step out.  I hereby leave the game of 
> > Ackanomic, if it is even still called Ackanomic.  Please remove me 
> > from the mailing lists.Hopefully I'll be able to return at some point.  
> > I'll try and check in at the Acka Web every once in a while and see 
> > what's going on in Acka.
> > 	Thanks guys, it's been a pleasure and an honor playing with you.  
> > 
> > 	SuDo'jaj
> > 	De'ghew
> 
> Since De'ghew quit, the Underworld party no longer exists.
> 
> 
Since the Underworld Party no longer exists, Techno is no longer a
Swinger, and all eir PartyChessPieces are destroyed.

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar 
Chess-Umpire 
Vulcan Swinger

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:37:04 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: RFC - fix the whole Swinger thing

RFC
Fix Swingers
Niccolo flychuck

A proposal that has the following effect:

I. Append the following text to R990 section A:
"Playing PartyChess is part of a Swinger's duty."

I.Append the following text to R726
"When any Swinger except for the NAP Swinger goes on Vacation, it is the 
duty of the Swinger's Party to appoint another member of the Party as 
acting Swinger. When the NAP Swinger goes on Vacation it is the duty of 
the Speaker to appoint a non-aligned player to be acting Swinger.
If the Speaker is non-aligned, and no other player appointed the role 
of acting Swinger, then the Speaker is the acting Swinger.
If the Speaker is a Party member, and no player has been assigned the 
role of acting NAP Swinger, and there is at least one volunteer from 
among the non-aligned players for that position, then the Speaker must 
appoint one of the volunteers as acting NAP Swinger.
If a Swinger's Office remains vacant for more than 6 days then 
the Chess-Umpire declares the Office to be a Warm Office, until such time 
as it is no longer vacant.

This rule takes precedence over R457."

II.Append to R991 section 2 H the following text:
"with the following exceptions:
a. With the exception that if a Swinger goes on Vacation during eir turn, 
then eir turn is extended by two additional days. There may be no more 
than two such extensions per turn, and no more than 4 such extensions for 
any given six consecutive rounds.
b. If a Swinger's office is Warm, then their turn is skipped entirely and 
considered to be a Pass. If a a Swinger's Office is Warm for two whole 
Rounds, then he is considered to have Surrendered. If a Swinger Office is 
checked while it is Warm, then he is considered to have Surrendered. IT 
is permissible for a Party with a Warm Office to notify the Chess-Umpire 
of a Surrender at any time by sending a public message to that effect. 
The Surrender becomes effectively immediately. This section of this rule 
takes precedence over all other sections of this rule."

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 96 16:40:10 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - fix the whole Swinger thing

I oppose this, because I think swingers should be redefined to be 
something other than an office, and that parties should have the option 
of not playing party chess.

tinan

- --      Mike Epstein            "Early morning cheerfulness
    [email-masked]         can be extremely obnoxious."
  *                      *                --William Feather
http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/   

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:49:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - fix the whole Swinger thing

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, this is not a name wrote:

> I oppose this, because I think swingers should be redefined to be 
> something other than an office, and that parties should have the option 
> of not playing party chess.
> 
> tinan

Is there any reasoning to with that oppsition, or is it just a fad?
 I gave extensive reasoning, in a message prior to the RFC. I also
explained why this is the simpler fix.
The question right now is not what Swinger's should or should not be, the
question is about making PartyChess playable.  This is the most reasonable
way to make it playable. Whether or not Swingers are Officers, is a matter
of semantics. 

This RFC solves the problem of playability of PartyChess. If you want to
give parties the option of not playing, I suggest you propose an
ammendment to Party-Hall that will not require a Party to have a Swinger.
I will oppose it. But it is the most reasonable change to make that will
have the effect you wish for, and will be completely unrelated to the fix
this RFC makes, which happens a very good fix, that does not introduce any
new problems.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 00:10:18 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 272 Verdict

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> I understood that Party Chess could be observed by being on a mailing
> list.  So many URLs went by, many of them with unresolved DNS or 404 
> errors, that I gave up.  Furthermore, the last time I checked the URL
> from the main Acka page, which I was not sure if it was correct anyway,
> it did not have this information.
> 
> Anyway, I do not wish to poll the URL once a day to see if things have
> changed,  An interrupt driven mechanism, such as email, is preferrable.
> 
> Malenkai
>
Once  the game starts, it will be continously observable through the
mailing list. Currently, Swingers have not finished their pieces yet, and
no event has occured which requires a public anouncement. 

However, as a service to Ackanomia I have decided to start posting status
reports. I have posted one,which almost immediatley was out of date, and I
just posted a fix. I intend to anounce that I follow the thread where
CFJ275 (that's the one you invoked, right?) is FALSE. 
Moves will be updated on that thread alone. Purchases of pieces will be
updated on both. Shou it come back TRUE, the game will be reset to its
present position (i.e. no on-board pieces). With the addition of any
pieces purchased and we'll have had a nice practice session. Anyway, I
intend to submit my recently posted RFC. Should it pass, it would provide
a consistent solution.

Let us worry later as to whether participation in PartyChess should be
voluntary. 

Should anyone wish to make it so. The best place to fix would the
Party-Hall rule. (as I pointed out to tinan)
I'll re-iterate this here, and present a second possibility:
1. remove the requirement that every party has a swinger
2. allow parties to declare their Swinger Offices as Warm.

either of these ammendments will achieve this effect - 
The reason I am pointing this out, even though I oppose this, is because I
don't want people to start ripping out parts of such a complex construct,
which could easily lead to new problems. My RFC fixes the current
problems.

There are two different issues here:
1. Making PartyChess playable within the existing structure of Ackanomic
2. Whether or not playing PartyChess should be voluntary.

My RFC addresses only the first issue

If you agree with tinan on the second issue, then let this proposal pass,
and propose the above fix for Party-Hall.

That is one of the reasons I created the modular structure in the first
place. So that such changes could be made.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 96 17:36:55 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - fix the whole Swinger thing

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
>This RFC solves the problem of playability of PartyChess. If you want to
>give parties the option of not playing, I suggest you propose an
>ammendment to Party-Hall that will not require a Party to have a Swinger.
>I will oppose it.

Why should having a delegate in Party Hall obligate a party to play party 
chess? Party chess is just an activity for the swingers.

- --      Mike Epstein            "There are only two ways to live your
    [email-masked]         life. One is as though nothing is a
  *                      *       miracle. The other is as though 
http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/    everything is a miracle."
                                                    --Albert Einstein

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 18:04:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBond bids.

Matt Miller wrote:
> 
> Apparently, I did this inappropriately by sending my bid to Wayne
> personally.
> 
> I bid A$100 for 100PFWayne.
> 
> In addition, I offer A$100 for all 100 of PFNiccolo.

R 1023 is sufficiently structured to allow anyone who wants to unload
any tradeable asset (such as PFbonds) to have them formally auctioned.

Of course, you can do it yourself, as is being done.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 17:56:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1164 Passes

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: 

> I note that 'iff' is not in the official dictionary, although it does
> appear in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, 10th ed., with the intended
> meaning.

I have Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, 9th ed., and it does not.
Interesting.  I had never known the usage outside of formal mathematics,
I guess things have changed since the 9th edition, published 1984.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 18:01:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Does anyone else feel that PFBonds are useless?  I wish to sell all of my
> PFBonds to the highest bidder.  Please send me a bid.

The never had the intended effect, which I believe was to allow players
to speculate on the score improvement (skill) of other players.  
However, they are the only real source of positive cash flow for players;
without them, we'd go broke eventually.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 17:56:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1164 Passes

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: 

> I note that 'iff' is not in the official dictionary, although it does
> appear in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, 10th ed., with the intended
> meaning.

I have Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, 9th ed., and it does not.
Interesting.  I had never known the usage outside of formal mathematics,
I guess things have changed since the 9th edition, published 1984.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 01:11:59 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: RFC Games & Contests

RFC
Creation of  Games & Contests
Niccolo Flychuck

1. There exists a class of entities known as Games & Contests (singular - 
Game or Contest)
2. Games & Contest are listed on the Games & Contest web page which is 
maitained by the GamesMaster
3. The GamesMaster is a Functional Officer.
4. A listing for a Game or Contest consists of the name of the Game or 
Contest, the name of its author or authors, and a link to a full 
description which may be maintained on a seperate page.
5. 
a.The Games & Contest web-page has a General Equipment Section, which 
specifies entities that may be used with any of the Games & Contest on 
the list. 
b. Entities from the General Equipment section have no influence 
on any Ackanomic entities other that than what is specified by this rule 
and by the specific game in which they are being used.
c. Equipment for a Game or Contest is implicitly created when the Game 
start, and destroyed when the game is over.
d. It is permissible to create legal Decks, according to R1155. 
6. Each Game or Contest  has a legal ackanomic name.
7. The description for each Game or Contest may specify the following things:
a. Entities from the Genral Equipment section which are used in the 
specific Game or Contest
b. A list of entities specific to the Game or Contest, that can be used 
as part of the Game or Contest. Section 5, subsections b-d are applicable 
to the Game or Contest specific entities described in this section.
c. Upper and lower limits on the number of participants in the specific 
Game or Contest
d. Rules for the Game or Contest.
e. Conditions for winning the Game or Contest
f. any additional information necessary to play that specific Game or 
Contest.
8. Games & Contest have no direct influence on Ackanomic. They may not 
manipulate any Ackanomic entity, with the following exceptions:
a. Games & Contest may specify transfer of currency between participants 
in the specific Game or Contest, as entry fees, rewards or penalties.
b. Games & Contests may specify a transfer of currency from the Treasury 
to the Game or Contest, with an upper of limit of A$50 per instance of a 
Game or a Contest
c. Games may add or subtract points from the score of a participating 
player. The maximum number of points added or subtracted in any specific 
instance of a Game or a Context is 12.

9. Adding a listing to the Games & Contests web-page
There two ways to add a listing to the Games & Contests home page

 a.By sending a  description of Games & Contests, or Entities for the 
general equipment section are sent to the GamesMaster, who distirbutes 
the description publically. If at least 5 Active Players, or 10% or the 
Active Players endorse the description, then it is added to the Games & 
Contest web-page, to the appropriate section.
10. Removing a listing of a Game or Context, or an entity from the 
General Equipment section from the Games & Contests web-page.
- - A Game, a Context or a an entity from the General Equipment section can 
be removed by a proposal whichi has been submitted and accepted according 
to the rules.
11. Participation in Games and Contests is voluntary. No player may be 
forced to take part in a Game or a Contest.

{{[These games and contests things should be fun, sort of diversions. 
Since they have such little effect on Ackanomic, except for some small 
effect on the actual participants, I see no reason to require the regular 
majority for adding a listing to the Games & Contests home page. This has 
several advantages:
1. The descriptions will not 'litter' the rule set.
2. If you don't want to play something, nobody is forcing you. You can 
ignore the whole thing if you like. 
3. If people are really opposed to some game, they can remove using a 
normal proposal.

btw- this will not the tool for proposing Eleusis - which I will do in the
next few days, because Eleusis can potentially involve more than A$50, I
intend to propose both Eleusis versions. One is closer to the original and
time consuming, the other is adapted to e-mail, but might prove to be more
complex ]}}

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 18:01:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Does anyone else feel that PFBonds are useless?  I wish to sell all of my
> PFBonds to the highest bidder.  Please send me a bid.

The never had the intended effect, which I believe was to allow players
to speculate on the score improvement (skill) of other players.  
However, they are the only real source of positive cash flow for players;
without them, we'd go broke eventually.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #208
*******************************