Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #211
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, September 6 1996       Volume 01 : Number 211

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 01:02:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1186

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> >The one
> >exception is that a player who has been on vacation less than 2 days may
> >not take themselves off vacation.
> 
> I don't like this. There are times when it is legitimate to come back
> from vacation sooner than that.

Yeah, mabye, but short vacations are a hassle for the functional officers.
Generally you can be absent from the game for 2 days or less with no
ill effects, therefore a vacation in that case is inappropriate anyway.

Another goal is to reduce the use of vacation as a tool, something I
never really liked, and something that is becoming more prevelant.

The benefits of this proposal, at least in terms of work saved for the
Registrar, Chess-Umpire, CotC, and Tabulator, outweigh the negatives.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 01:09:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 275 (ThinMan)

The Gaolbird failed to respond and is a deadbeat judge.

Sep 06 01:10 EDT: -10 snowgod: Failed to respond to CFJ 275

ThinMan has been selected and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 275
  Subject: Acting Swingers
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: snowgod (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (selected Sep 06, 1996, 01:10h New York Time)

Statement:

Choosing Party Chess Pieces, and making moves in the game of Party Chess,
are privileges, and not duties, of the Office of Swinger.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The rules are silent on the issue, as least as far as I can tell. To me,
choosing the pieces and playing the game seem more like a privilege than
a duty, that is why I am uncomfortable proceeding in an acting capacity
without a CFJ.

I note that the CFJ can be judged FALSE with one part of the and clause
in the statement being TRUE.  I ask the judge to at least clarify that,
if it is the case; I did not feel like submitting two CFJs.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:12:32 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> Of course, if forgivenss doesn't work in Ackanomia, preserve what little 
> free speech we have left after the Witchunts, and vote "Yes, he was 
> polite," anyway.
> 
>
Usually so very few people vote on a Politeness Moon, that it's
reallyquite insignificant. 
I still remember an instance where I was flamed for declaring that I would
NOT call a Politeness Moon.  The  Good Ole' Days.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:04:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > However, I don't think this warrants a Politeness Moon. This calls for
> > interpretation of the law. Currently, appointment of acting Swingers is
> > flawed, for several reasons. I have RFCd a fix.
> 
> The fact that the rules are flawed does not obviate me from the
> responsibility of following them.  If an entire party goes on vacation,
> it seems to me that the acting swinger shall be from another party,
> until such times as the rules are changed.  

No argument here.
> 
> The rule "Speed" does not permit me to wait until the rules are changed,
> regardless of how well intentioned such rule changes are.  That rule also
> has a clause which says "Officers shall make a good faith attempt to
> keep the game moving along".  

Might I remind acting Swingers at this point, that in FALSE CFJ27 thread,
they should be choosing their pieces.

> 
> As I personally do not have the time to commit to Party Chess (I'm holding
> out for Eleusis :)), and would simply pass as an acting swinger. Appointing
> a player who has shown an interest in the game to take my place seemed
> "a good faith effort to keep the game moving along".
I'm working on a new draft now. I can tell you already that I do not
intend to create any office for this. Anyone who owns enough Decks could
start a game. - How many are enough? since Decks are of different sizes,
the number of Decks can't be used. I thought of using a measure such as -
the numbers of players should such that no more than 80% of all the cards,
should be dealt out at the begining - this is a measur that should work
equally which ever Deck one uses. As I mentioned I intend to propose both
versions - since they both have their merits.

 > 
> The Chess-Umpire has stated his intent to run the game in the CFJ 275
> FALSE thread; I cannot see any reason whatsoever why my appointment of
> Techno was inappropriate, nor has anyone else offered one, and I challenge
> anyone to do so, as we can all learn.

For the time being, this is an appropriate solution.

> 
> Malenkai
> trying to follow the rules
>
Niccolo Flychuck 
Finding himself supporting Malenkai's Logical Choice

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:33:58 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC Games & Contests

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:

> I would suggest the following:
> 1.  Establish a maximum number of games or contests that could exist at any 
> one time.  This will prevent the Games and Contest page from being 
> flooded with games that few players play yet not the required number of 
> players really want to get rid of yet.
> 
> Perhaps more importantly, it will avoid diluting the players interested
> in the Games and Contests page across too many activities.  Imaging
> being able to muster only one or two players each for hearts, super
> babel, or haggle when one good game could be played if everyone pooled
> their interest.
The point of this page is to allow players to create lost of subgames,
with little effect on Ackanomic- without littering the ruleset with stuff
which is completely unenecessary for Ackanomic.

 > 
> 
> 2.  Specifically limit the powers of game or contest rules to create 
> entities that affect the outside reality of AckaNomic.  The "other 
> than..." clause of 5b is simply too large of a loophole to take a risk 
Yes. This could be rephrased.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:49:07 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: VRML

I don't mind the ccasional, as long as it's not the only way to view
something. IMO, VRML is one of the worst graphic fomats ever conecived.
Thesame amount of information can be trasferred in files 10 times smaller.

Niccolo Flychuck

 On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> I hacve completed work on a VRML model of my ackahouse, which I will link
> to the map (I'll post the URL when I determine where I want it servbed
> from).  When it is posted, how many other players would be interested in
> having VRML representations of their ackahouses made?  How many will even
> visit mine :)
> 
> In other VRML news, I am working on a VRML gallery.  I was hoping more
> players would subit portraits, or have one created (for a small fee :)) but
> that hasn't happened, so the VRML gallery will be mostly empty.  What I
> would like to know, though, is whether Ackanomic would prefer to have a
> tradition square roomed shape gallery, or something more exotic?
> 
> I am currently leaning towards making the gallery a sphere, with portraits
> floating in mid air on "Blocks" but I am willing to change it to whatever
> sounds good to other people.
> 
> Having fun with VRML,
> snowgod
> in gaol
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 22:53:00 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 (ThinMan) 

>The Gaolbird failed to respond and is a deadbeat judge.
>
>Sep 06 01:10 EDT: -10 snowgod: Failed to respond to CFJ 275

Just for the record, The rules did not allow me to respond :)

I would never be a deadbeat judge on purpose

snowgod
almost out of gaol

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

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:03:15 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: VRML 

>I don't mind the ccasional, as long as it's not the only way to view
>something. IMO, VRML is one of the worst graphic fomats ever conecived.
>Thesame amount of information can be trasferred in files 10 times smaller.
>
>Niccolo Flychuck

I tend to disagree with you.

My VRML house is only 110k.

Yet it contains 4 rooms (made of hundreds of polygons) and links to
different interesting sites (nomic related and otherwise) as while as
having a portrait of me hanging on one of the walls.  With VRML you can
present much more informationthan an equivilantly sized 2d web page (For
instance a small VRML model of the party chess board which can be examined
from the point of view of any swinger) and navigation through the
information is more logical.

Of course, it should never become the only medium for the presentation of
information (HTML should remain that).  Instead VRML should be used to
supplement HTML in creating a virtual representation of the City-State (?)
we have created, and the objects within in.  Objects in this model
(actually many linked models) can be linked to HTML pages, etc.

Future plans for VRML include the abilty of multi-user domains (sort of
like a graphical moo) where players can manipluate objects in real time.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:48:10 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: VRML

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >I don't mind the ccasional, as long as it's not the only way to view
> >something. IMO, VRML is one of the worst graphic fomats ever conecived.
> >Thesame amount of information can be trasferred in files 10 times smaller.
> >
> >Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> I tend todisagree with you.
> 
> My VRML house is only 110k.
> 
Using a binary format would decrease that number by a large factor

Primitives in VRML take several bytes each. In a binary format each
primitive would be represented as a token, two bytes would be sufficient
for that.

Let's take a look at the number ranger one can represent in the same
number
of byte in VRML and in an equivlent(i.e. a format which transferrs exactly
the information), the number of parnthese is the number of significant
digits.

No. of bytes       VRML              Binary              
1                  0-9  (1)          0-255  (2)
2                  0-99 (2)          0-65535  (4)
3                  0-999  (3)	     0-16777215 (7)
3                  0-9999 (4)        0-42834329xxx..         
					(my calculator just gave out, but
					it's 9-10 significant digits.

It can be clearly seen from this that the same information that takes 110K
would probably take much less in an equivalent binary format.

This is even before we take into account the fact that VRML does not
consider geometric conext. A format which considers that would shrink the
file size even more.

QED
 
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 06:55:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Guy's house

The location previously known as Guy Fawkes's house shall henceforth be 
called Xanadu.  Xanadu is mostly empty, except for several tesla coils of 
various sizes, extension cords (lots of them), and a Big Red Button.

Don't touch the Big Red Button.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 08:51:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 276 Verdict

CFJ 276 has been judged TRUE.  Thus CFJ 269 and CFCJ 112 have been 
appealed by Wayne.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 276
  Subject: Acting Justices
Initiator: Wayne
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 04, 1996, 21:38h New York Time)

Statement:

An Acting Justice is not a Justice, but is a player who performs
the duties of a Justice.

Wayne's Reasoning:

Rule 507 states that the Supreme Court "will be composed of two players
(called Justices)..."

It would be a violation of R507 if we had three Justices.  Unless one of
the Regular Justices was removed from office, the Acting Justice could not
be considered a Justice.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

For the case of players appointed to perform vacationing officers' jobs
by Rule 457, that rule specifies that the appointments must be made in
accordance with rule 609, section (i), which states, in part:

  "A Seat is either held by one Player or it is vacant."

Therefore, an acting justice by rule 457 does not hold a seat in the
supreme court, and is therefore not a justice.  The case of appointing
one justice to be acting justice for the other seat is also disallowed,
by another part of rule 609, section (i):

  "No player may hold more than one seat for a given Office, including
   any seat held in an acting capacity"

I note that rule 609, section (iv) states that there can only be an
Acting Officer for a seat when that seat is vacant; however, rule 457,
which allows for the appointment of acting officers for officers on
vacation, has precedence over this part of rule 609.

All other cases where the rules allow for an acting justice (as far as
I can see, this occurs only when a justice is being impeached) agree
with the definition in rule 609, section (iv).  Again it is made clear
that the acting officer does not hold a seat in the office.

Thus the first part of the statement is true.

The second part of the statement says that an acting justice is a player
who performs the duties of a justice.  Rules 457 and 609 agree on this
issue; this part of the statement is also true.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 08:57:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 278 Verdict

CFJ 278 has been judged FALSE.

Thus I will assume the registrar cannot be bothered, unless the registrar 
indicates otherwise.  In general, I will assume the sway of the last
public indication of the registrar's willingness to be bothered in this
issue.

Clerk of the Courts
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Call For Judgement 278
  Subject: Bothered by bugs
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 05, 1996, 22:58h New York Time)

Statement:

Each and every time Phoebe's matchbox is missing, and there is no officer
in charge of random things, the Registrar must indicate that he or she
cannot be bothered to determine who found it for the Registrar to be
relieved of the duty.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The other reading of R 730 is that once the Registrar indicates that
he or she cannot be bothered, such is assumed without action required
on the part of the Registrar each time.

I believe the reading in the statement of this CFJ is more accurate than
the above, but don't really care (my 30 sided die has been working
pretty well lately).  I do want to follow the rules though.

breadbox's Reasoning:

The key word in the sentence is "must." Nothing in the rules
proscribes how the Registrar indicates that e can't be bothered. That
is the business of the Registar and the Speaker alone. Either of the
"readings" given by Malenkai above are within the rules.

If the Registrar tells the Speaker that e can't be bothered to deal
with deciding random things except on 20th and 22nd of months ending
in "ember," and the Speaker understands this and acts accordingly,
then they have followed the rules.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:04:29 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: VRML

Cool!  Can we get a proof of the Continuum Hypothesis, next?

Never, ever, take me seriously-
IdiotBoy

- ----------
> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: VRML
> Date: Friday, September 06, 1996 3:48 AM
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> > >I don't mind the ccasional, as long as it's not the only way to view
> > >something. IMO, VRML is one of the worst graphic fomats ever
conecived.
> > >Thesame amount of information can be trasferred in files 10 times
smaller.
> > >
> > >Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> > I tend todisagree with you.
> > 
> > My VRML house is only 110k.
> > 
> Using a binary format would decrease that number by a large factor
> 
> Primitives in VRML take several bytes each. In a binary format each
> primitive would be represented as a token, two bytes would be sufficient
> for that.
> 
> Let's take a look at the number ranger one can represent in the same
> number
> of byte in VRML and in an equivlent(i.e. a format which transferrs
exactly
> the information), the number of parnthese is the number of significant
> digits.
> 
> 
> No. of bytes       VRML              Binary              
> 1                  0-9  (1)          0-255  (2)
> 2                  0-99 (2)          0-65535  (4)
> 3                  0-999  (3)	     0-16777215 (7)
> 3                  0-9999 (4)        0-42834329xxx..         
> 					(my calculator just gave out, but
> 					it's 9-10 significant digits.
> 
> It can be clearly seen from this that the same information that takes
110K
> would probably take much less in an equivalent binary format.
> 
> 
> This is even before we take into account the fact that VRML does not
> consider geometric conext. A format which considers that would shrink the
> file size even more.
> 
> QED
>  
> Niccolo Flychuck
>  

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 08:06:12 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds 

Wayne wrote:
>I've been thinking about the PFBonds.  As Malenkai stated, it allows
>a player to speculate on the change in score of another player.  But
>there is no speculation if everyone keeps thier own bonds.
>
>If Player A thought that his score was about to rise, I don't think
>he would want to sell his bonds.  If the player thought his score was
>going down, who else would want to buy them?  I thought about a rule
>that would not allow a player to own thier own bonds.  This might cause
>a little more action.  But I don't know if I am sure that this would be a
>good idea.

How about a variation on that theme: the gains realized by holding a
different Player's bonds are greater than those realized by holding your
own bonds, all else being equal.  Change the payoffs to +2%/bond for
increases in other player's bonds, and change the penalty to -1%/bond for
reductions in your own bonds.  For instance.

I am much more in favor of creating incentives than of creating injunctions.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:30:11 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Official 

>3. Unperformed jobs
>
>The financier needs to calculate the appropriate amount of money to be
>given to Guy Fawkes, and in order to do so he needs to calculate the bond
>yields at the end of the bond cycle this past Monday.  I sent him a
>set of scores for the end of the bond cycle (identical to the scores I
>posted Sunday after the results of proposals through 1159, except that
>Habeous Corpus scored 15 points from the Whamiol another time when
>IdiotBoy joined the game).

I will perform my duties presently.  I apologize for the delay, but I am
busy at work, not to mention that I will be closing on a house this
afternoon and moving this weekend.  I don't want to dump my duties on
anyone else.  Guy Fawkes initial stake will be somewhere between A$ 500
and A$ 600, so he can get started buying stuff if he likes.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:21:46 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proof of the Continuum Hypothesis

No. Not really, and I didn't. But only because you didn't specify whether
the long version or the short version.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> Cool!  Can we get a proof of the Continuum Hypothesis, next?
> 
> Never, ever, take me seriously-
> IdiotBoy

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:32:14 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds 

Wayne wrote:
>I agree that there should be an incentive for increasing your score, other
>that winning the game.  But I feel the process of the PFBonds is way more
>complicated than it should be.

It _is_ rather a pain-in-the-butt for the Financier, and probably for the
Scorekeeper as well.  There is essentially no market for PFBonds, and the
only purpose they currently serve is to keep money flowing into Player's
pockets.

>I suggest the following alternative.  Scrap the PFBonds.  Then weekly or
>bi-weekly, give everyone money based on thier current score.  Maybe the
>amount should be score/10.  This way players with a negative score would
>owe money and those with higher scores would be rewarded more.  Maybe
>the financeer would like to comment on this?

This would be okay with me, and would simplify things a bit.  It would
differ from the current situation in that players would be making money
for current and past performance every time.  If the money were distributed
every two weeks, then I would vote for it, if only to save myself some work.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:34:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

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

> Malenkai spoke:
> ][email-masked] wrote:
> ]> 
> ]> I've been thinking about the PFBonds.  As Malenkai stated, it allows
> ]> a player to speculate on the change in score of another player.  But
> ]> there is no speculation if everyone keeps thier own bonds.
> ]
> ]That is true.  The thing I like about PFBonds are that they offer 
> ]incentive for score improvement.  Not much else in the game does.  If
> ]you change PFBonds, I would still like to retain something that offers
> ]incentive for personal score improvement.
> ]
> ]Malenkai
> ]
> 
> I agree that there should be an incentive for increasing your score, other
> that winning the game.  But I feel the process of the PFBonds is way more
> complicated than it should be.
> 
> I suggest the following alternative.  Scrap the PFBonds.  Then weekly or
> bi-weekly, give everyone money based on thier current score.  Maybe the
> amount should be score/10.  This way players with a negative score would
> owe money and those with higher scores would be rewarded more.  Maybe
> the financeer would like to comment on this?
> 
> Wayne
> 
> 
Wayne's suggested system is indeed simpler, but instead of rewarding 
improving one's score, it rewards merely having a high score.  Having a 
score of 200 points and letting it sit there for weeks on end racks in 
quite a profit, but having a negative score that improves by 5-10 points 
per week is still a losing proposition.  The "change in score" feature of 
the PF's is their saving grace, although if the system could be 
simplified and still retain income based on change in score, I would be 
for it.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:34:57 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proof of the Continuum Hypothesis

I want the one that fits in the margin, naturally.

I knew that math degree was going to fun someday-
IdiotBoy
- ----------
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>:
> No. Not really, and I didn't. But only because you didn't specify whether
> the long version or the short version.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
>  
> 
> 
> On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:
> 
> > Cool!  Can we get a proof of the Continuum Hypothesis, next?
> > 
> > Never, ever, take me seriously-
> > IdiotBoy

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:53:33 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: While I'm Being Mathematical

I'd like to see the PFBonds based on the second derivative of the function
defining one's score.

Vote for the change in the change in scores!

IdiotBoy
(starting to be clear where the name came from, huh?)
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:12:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC -- make CotC's life simpler

Judging from Malenkai's recent proposals, this might be in order.  
Comment is welcome, especially from the CotC -- would this even have the 
intended effect?

RFC -- The Praetor
(Guy Fawkes)

The Office of the Praetor is a Functional Office.  It has one seat.  If 
the seat is vacant, it shall be filled by Nomination and Election for 
Office.  Should either of these terms be nonexistant, the Clerk of the 
Court may appoint any eligible player to the seat.  To be eligible for 
Nomination and Election or appointment by the Clerk of the Court, a player 
must
	a)  Have returned at least three CFJ's with a verdict of TRUE or FALSE
	b)  Not have declined an appointment as Judge, failed to deliver
	    Judment within the allotted time, or returned a verdict of UNDECIDED
	    within the last 6 weeks.
	c)  Be an active player who is not in Gaol.

If the seat is vacant and there are no eligible players, the seat remains 
vacant.

The duties of the Praetor are to return a verdict of TRUE, FALSE, or 
INVALID on CFJ's submitted to em under the rules.  E may also send a CFJ 
to the Supreme Court, though e may do this only if he has not submitted a 
CJF to the Supreme Court within the last 14 days.  E must take one of 
these actions within seven days of receiving the CFJ.  This rule takes 
precedence over any rule which claims the Praetor may take other actions 
in regard to a CFJ.

The CotC must notify the Praetor when e is to judge CFJ.  The seven day 
period begins at that time.  After receiving the CotC's notification and 
before returning a verdict, the Praetor must wear the Purple Toga of 
Justice.  If no such entity exists, the Praetor must wear nothing at all.

If the Praetor does not return a Judgment of TRUE, FALSE, or INVALID, or 
legally submit the CJF to the Supreme Court within 7 days of having 
received it, then e shall be immediately removed from office, fined 50 A$ 
being negligent is eir duties, and suffer the loss of 15 points.  E may 
also have criminal charges brought against him for breaking the last 
sentence of the previous clause, though in this case, the only sentence 
e may receive is time in Gaol, and e may not be sentenced to more than 10 
days therein.  This rule takes precedence over any other rule which 
claims other sentences are possible for a negligent Praetor.  If the 
Praetor is removed from office in this manner, the CFJ which caused the 
removal, as well as any other CFJ's e may have been considering at the 
time, will be resubmitted to Judges in the usual manner established by 
the rules for CFJ's

The Praetor receives no salary, though e does receive cash for eir services
as follows:
	a) If a player declines Judgment, that player loses 2 A$ to the
	   Treasury, and the Treasury pays the Praetor  2 A$
	b) If a player accepts Judgment, but returns a verdict of 
	   UNDECIDED, that player loses 5 A$ to the Treasruy, and the Treasury 
	   pays the Praetor 5 A$.
	c) If a player accepts Judgment and fails to return a verdict 
	   within the allotted time, that player loses 15 A$ to the Treasuy,
	   and the Treasury pays the Praetor 15 A$.

The Praetor shall receive only CFJ's, not CFCJ's, though the player who 
is the Praetor can receive both CJF's and CFCJ's like any other eligible 
player -- e is simply not acting as the Praetor when e does so.

Like Judges, a Praetor's judgment must be in accordance with the rules 
then in effect, or if the rules are unclear, e must consider the spirit 
of the game and game custom.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Add the following sentence to the end of R213

"If the Judge was judging a CFJ and not a CFCJ, the CotC must submit the CFJ 
on which the Judge did not return judgment to the Praetor."

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

Add the following sentence to the end of R214

"If the Judge returns a Judgment of UNDECIDED, the CotC must submit the 
case, if a CFJ, for which the UNDECIDED Judgment was given to the Praetor.

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

Amend R569 in the following ways:

Insert the following paragraph between the existing second and third 
paragraphs.

A case may also reach the Supreme Court if the Praetor submits any CFJ to 
that body.  The Praetor may submit with the CFJ an explanation of why e 
is not deciding it himself, although the Supreme Court is under no 
obligation to read it."

Insert the following paragraph between the existing fourth and fifth 
paragraphs.  "If the case reached the Supreme Court through submission by 
the Praetor, the Supreme Court may fine the Praetor from 1 to 10 points 
for bothering them.  If, however, the justices feel the Praetor was 
justified in submitting the case, they are not required to impose any 
fine.  A player may appeal the Court's decision in such an instance, but 
the case shall be treated as if it had already been appealed once."

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

Replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of R588 (If a selected 
player refuses appointment, then a further random selection is made from 
the remaining pool.) with "If a selected player refuses appointment to 
Judge a CFJ, the CotC must submit the case to the Praetor.  If e refuses 
to Judge a CFCJ, then a further random selection is made from the 
remaining pool."

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

[COMMENTS: This should be effective in imposing stiff penalties on 
bothering the Clerk of the Court more than twice with the same case.  It
may also speed the Ackanomian justice system by limiting the number of 
times the buck can be passed on a CJF]

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:00:20 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Underworld - but where is the Swinger.

Dear members of the Underworld Party. There is an Office waiting for you
at Party-Hall. Please name your Swinger so that I can add him to the list,
and we can get the game going.

Niccolo Flychuck

Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 12:59:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC -- make CotC's life simpler

robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> Judging from Malenkai's recent proposals, this might be in order.
> Comment is welcome, especially from the CotC -- would this even have the
> intended effect?

The thing that bothers me is when judge designates ignore CFJs, not when
judge designates decline judgement actively.  That is why I wrote R 691
in the first place.  Unfortunately, R 691 was a turkey and did not work;
it only created more work.

I like this proposal in concept, but would only want to apply it in the
case of a deadbeat judge, not an active decline.  A deadbeat judge would
be defined as someone who fails to deliver a verdict or respond in the
alloted time.

One concern that nags me about this, however, and I don't know if it is
justified, is people intentionally deadbeating so it goes to the Praetor.

I have some other comments within the RFC itself, and it probably needs
some work.  I also think it can be simplified greatly, I will think about
that as well, as time permits.

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts
ex-Justice
Acting Justice
Still hates R 691
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> RFC -- The Praetor
> (Guy Fawkes)
> 
> The Office of the Praetor is a Functional Office.  It has one seat.  If
> the seat is vacant, it shall be filled by Nomination and Election for
> Office.  Should either of these terms be nonexistant, the Clerk of the
> Court may appoint any eligible player to the seat.  To be eligible for

Don't make it a functional office.  Generally things with privs and powers
and for which there is an election are just offices, or political offices.
FOs are just for work, and rarely have priveledges.

> Nomination and Election or appointment by the Clerk of the Court, a player
> must
>         a)  Have returned at least three CFJ's with a verdict of TRUE or FALSE
>         b)  Not have declined an appointment as Judge, failed to deliver
>             Judment within the allotted time, or returned a verdict of UNDECIDED
>             within the last 6 weeks.
>         c)  Be an active player who is not in Gaol.

I would get rid of c), because it is a temporary condition.  I would 
exclude supreme court justices (amend R 507).  a) and b) require someone
to do some bookeeping (probably me).  I would like to see eligibility
restricted to Bronze Torch holders, athough that strikes me as a little
restrictive now, ThinMan will be eligible shortly, as will a couple of
other players in a little while.  I would also like to see a term limit.
 
> If the seat is vacant and there are no eligible players, the seat remains
> vacant.

OK.
 
> The duties of the Praetor are to return a verdict of TRUE, FALSE, or
> INVALID on CFJ's submitted to em under the rules.  E may also send a CFJ
> to the Supreme Court, though e may do this only if he has not submitted a
> CJF to the Supreme Court within the last 14 days.  E must take one of
> these actions within seven days of receiving the CFJ.  This rule takes
> precedence over any rule which claims the Praetor may take other actions
> in regard to a CFJ.

I would simplify this whole business, and say that if a judge is declared
a deadbeat (as defined above), the next judge selected is the Praetor.
Then handle the case of no extant Preator, and impeach the Praetor 
automatically if the Preator is ever a deadbeat.  I would also not restrict
UNDECIDED.  We need it for statements like "this statement is false", 
unless you want to fold that into INVALID.  I still think UNDECIDED has
value.  Its rare enough anyway.

> The CotC must notify the Praetor when e is to judge CFJ.  The seven day
> period begins at that time.  After receiving the CotC's notification and
> before returning a verdict, the Praetor must wear the Purple Toga of
> Justice.  If no such entity exists, the Praetor must wear nothing at all.

This is cool, except the first couple of sentences are redundant if you
simplify the whole thing as I have suggested.
 
> If the Praetor does not return a Judgment of TRUE, FALSE, or INVALID, or
> legally submit the CJF to the Supreme Court within 7 days of having
> received it, then e shall be immediately removed from office, fined 50 A$
> being negligent is eir duties, and suffer the loss of 15 points.  E may
> also have criminal charges brought against him for breaking the last
> sentence of the previous clause, though in this case, the only sentence
> e may receive is time in Gaol, and e may not be sentenced to more than 10
> days therein.  This rule takes precedence over any other rule which
> claims other sentences are possible for a negligent Praetor.  If the
> Praetor is removed from office in this manner, the CFJ which caused the
> removal, as well as any other CFJ's e may have been considering at the
> time, will be resubmitted to Judges in the usual manner established by
> the rules for CFJ's

I would simplify this, and just impeach him or her.  Bringing criminal
charges will not work unless you claim precedence, because in no way would
these actions be actually breaking the rules.  I would not restrict the
Gaol sentence if you want to add the criminal stuff.
 
> The Praetor receives no salary, though e does receive cash for eir services
> as follows:
>         a) If a player declines Judgment, that player loses 2 A$ to the
>            Treasury, and the Treasury pays the Praetor  2 A$
>         b) If a player accepts Judgment, but returns a verdict of
>            UNDECIDED, that player loses 5 A$ to the Treasruy, and the Treasury
>            pays the Praetor 5 A$.
>         c) If a player accepts Judgment and fails to return a verdict
>            within the allotted time, that player loses 15 A$ to the Treasuy,
>            and the Treasury pays the Praetor 15 A$.

I'm not so sure about this.  I definitely disagree with the UNDECIDED.

> The Praetor shall receive only CFJ's, not CFCJ's, though the player who
> is the Praetor can receive both CJF's and CFCJ's like any other eligible
> player -- e is simply not acting as the Praetor when e does so.

I'm not sure why the restriction.
 
> Like Judges, a Praetor's judgment must be in accordance with the rules
> then in effect, or if the rules are unclear, e must consider the spirit
> of the game and game custom.

This is unnecessary.  R 215 applies to all judgements, regardless of who
makes them.  I would keep it that way, in case we rewrite 215.  Wasn't
there some rumblings about that once, eliminating custom and spirit?
That is the way Internomic's R 215 equiv is written.
 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Add the following sentence to the end of R213
> 
> "If the Judge was judging a CFJ and not a CFCJ, the CotC must submit the CFJ
> on which the Judge did not return judgment to the Praetor."
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Add the following sentence to the end of R214
> 
> "If the Judge returns a Judgment of UNDECIDED, the CotC must submit the
> case, if a CFJ, for which the UNDECIDED Judgment was given to the Praetor.

Eliminate.

I don't have any more time to look at what follows.  I shall later.
Malenkai
 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Amend R569 in the following ways:
> 
> Insert the following paragraph between the existing second and third
> paragraphs.
> 
> A case may also reach the Supreme Court if the Praetor submits any CFJ to
> that body.  The Praetor may submit with the CFJ an explanation of why e
> is not deciding it himself, although the Supreme Court is under no
> obligation to read it."
> 
> Insert the following paragraph between the existing fourth and fifth
> paragraphs.  "If the case reached the Supreme Court through submission by
> the Praetor, the Supreme Court may fine the Praetor from 1 to 10 points
> for bothering them.  If, however, the justices feel the Praetor was
> justified in submitting the case, they are not required to impose any
> fine.  A player may appeal the Court's decision in such an instance, but
> the case shall be treated as if it had already been appealed once."
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of R588 (If a selected
> player refuses appointment, then a further random selection is made from
> the remaining pool.) with "If a selected player refuses appointment to
> Judge a CFJ, the CotC must submit the case to the Praetor.  If e refuses
> to Judge a CFCJ, then a further random selection is made from the
> remaining pool."
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [COMMENTS: This should be effective in imposing stiff penalties on
> bothering the Clerk of the Court more than twice with the same case.  It
> may also speed the Ackanomian justice system by limiting the number of
> times the buck can be passed on a CJF]
> 
> Guy Fawkes

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #211
*******************************