Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #212
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, September 7 1996      Volume 01 : Number 212

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 12:35:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 275 Verdict

CFJ 275 has been judged TRUE.

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.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The rules are indeed unclear on the issue.  The Party Chess rules state
that Swingers "may" choose pieces and "may" make moves.  That does not,
however, establish conclusively that these are not duties.

Rule 609 defines the terms in question:

            The Duties of an Office are the tasks that the
            Officer(s) are expected to carry out to facilitate
            the conduct of Ackanomic business.  Duties tend to
            be typified by the compilation, maintenance, and
            distribution of information.

            the Officer(s) receive according to the Rules
            regulating the Office.  Examples can include the
            receipt of Ackanomic currency, the ability to cast
            extra votes in certain circumstance, or special
            consideration with regards to making appointments
            or issuing CFJ decisions.

Choosing pieces and making moves in Party Chess do not fit well with the
examples of either duties or privileges.  If we interpret "Ackanomic
business" to include Party Chess, then the actions in question must be
interpreted to be duties.  Otherwise, I can only interpret them to be
privileges.

What, then, is the business of Ackanomic?  By reference to the rules, the
only recourse I have is to consider the duties assigned to various offices.
Just as Rule 609 says, they all relate to the compilation, maintenance,
and distribution of information, especially information relating to 
proposals,
voting, Judgements, and Ackanomic entities.

I conclude that selecting Party Chess pieces and playing Party Chess are
not duties of the Office of Swinger.  The Rules do not establish that all
actions allowed or required of Offices are either duties or privileges,
but in my opinion it is game custom that that is so.  It is therefore the
case that selecting Party Chess pieces and making moves in Party Chess are
privileges of the Office of Swinger.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:04:51 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Mentor.

IdiotBoy,
Do you still require my services as a mentor?
Currently out of the pool of volunteers two are on Vacation, one was
supposed to be, but is going to be hard to reach anyway, and I am left. If
you still need a mentor, I can appoint a non-volunteer, the rules allow
this.  If you don't, let me know. Check out the rule to see if you need to
post a reply or if private e-mail is enough.

Niccolo Flychuck

In case you've forgotten, your mentor.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 19:55:32 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:

> 
> 
> > 
> > I agree that there should be an incentive for increasing your score, other
> > that winning the game.  But I feelthe 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
> 
I agree with Guy Fawkes, it is the difference in score that should be
taken into account.  Leaving it linear would leave it simple, since for
most of the time we have been holding all or our PFBonds, I'm not sure
this simplifies anything forthe Financier.
Now let me throw another idea at everyone.  PartyChess, which is finally
going to be fixes up completely  should my just-submitted proposal pass,
has the potential to make the game slightly more Party-oriented.
Suppoe every player gets A$ relative to his dScore, shall we say dScore/x,
over the last two weeks, plus dScore/y, for each of eir Party members,
where y>>x,  IMO y>5x at least, so the reward would depend mostly on the
Player's performane, and to some degree on the performance of eir Party
members.  
This might actually provide incentive for more Party unified votes. This
is not my goal, just speculation. I'd really like to hear the Financier's
opinion on the amount of work this could generate though. However, unlike
Law of Party Gravity, I feel that there should not be anlogous rewards for
non-aligned players. The non-aligned should enjoy eir Individuality, and
reap the rewards of eir own work, and not be pulled by others. PartyChess
creates the mechanism by which the non-aligned can hold their own against
the Parties, and other Organizations that may soon join them.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 13:34:28 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Oh Mentor, my Mentor!

Dear Niccolo Flychuck has served me well, but I no longer require his
services as my mentor.

IdiotBoy
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:58:06 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds 

>I agree with Guy Fawkes, it is the difference in score that should be
>taken into account.  Leaving it linear would leave it simple, since for
>most of the time we have been holding all or our PFBonds, I'm not sure
>this simplifies anything forthe Financier.
>Now let me throw another idea at everyone.  PartyChess, which is finally
>going to be fixes up completely  should my just-submitted proposal pass,
>has the potential to make the game slightly more Party-oriented.
>Suppoe every player gets A$ relative to his dScore, shall we say dScore/x,
>over the last two weeks, plus dScore/y, for each of eir Party members,
>where y>>x,  IMO y>5x at least, so the reward would depend mostly on the
>Player's performane, and to some degree on the performance of eir Party
>members.  
>This might actually provide incentive for more Party unified votes. This
>is not my goal, just speculation. I'd really like to hear the Financier's
>opinion on the amount of work this could generate though. However, unlike
>Law of Party Gravity, I feel that there should not be anlogous rewards for
>non-aligned players. The non-aligned should enjoy eir Individuality, and
>reap the rewards of eir own work, and not be pulled by others. PartyChess
>creates the mechanism by which the non-aligned can hold their own against
>the Parties, and other Organizations that may soon join them.

That would GREATLY increase the Financier's workload.  Calculating bond
yields is already the most time-consuming thing I do as Financier.  The
above suggestion would double or treble the amount of work involved in
that task, without, IMO, adding much to the game.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 23:20:58 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 Verdict

I pretty much expected this, and had I judged this one I would have
probably judged the same. So, for now, acting Swingers cannot take part in
Party Chess, they cannot choose their pieces, and the game is delayed
until, hopefully, my fix is accepted (I submitted it, should hit the queue
any time. I integrated Malenkai's comments, and further provided, in the
same spirit, for a multi-check situation)
I must further address a point raised by tinan.

tinan repeatedly asks - why should Parties be required to play Party
Chess. Well, they have been ever since the Party Chess rules were
accepted, my proposal does not change that, it merely allows the game to
playable within the existing structure in a consistent way.

So I ask a counter question - tinan, why bring this up now all of a
sudden?

On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 275 has been judged TRUE.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 23:32:40 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 Verdict

On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> ThinMan's Reasoning:
> 
> The rules are indeed unclear on the issue.  The Party Chessrules state
> that Swingers "may" choose pieces and "may" make moves.  That does not,
> however, establish conclusively that these are not duties.
> 
> Rule 609 defines the terms in question:
> 
>           The Duties of an Office are the tasks that the
>         Officer(s) are expected to carry out to facilitate
>           the conduct of Ackanomic business.  Duties tend to
>           be typified by the compilation, maintenance, and
>           distribution of information.
> 
>           the Officer(s) receive according to the Rules
>           regulating the Office.  Examples can include the
>           receipt of Ackanomic currency, the ability to cast
>           extra votes in certain circumstance, or special
>           consideration with regards to making appointments
>           or issuing CFJ decisions.
> 
> Choosing pieces and making moves in Party Chess do not fit well with the
> examples of either duties or privileges.  If we interpret "Ackanomic
> business" to include Party Chess, then the actions in question must be
> interpreted to be duties.  Otherwise, I can only interpret them to be
> privileges.
> 
> What, then, is the business of Ackanomic?  By reference to the rules, the
> only recourse I have is to consider the duties assigned to various offices.
> Just as Rule 609 says, they all relate to the compilation, maintenance,
> and distribution of information, especially information relating to 
> proposals,
> voting, Judgements, and Ackanomic entities.
>
I disagree on a minor point here. Not all duties relate to the compilation
maintenance and distribution of information etc.
It specifically says that duties are _typically_  compilation maintenance
etc..
however the rule also allows for other actions which are not listed to be
explicitly defined as duties.  Said rule also explicitly defers to other
rules, which means it is expected that other rules may define duties which
are not part of the list - thus, explicitly defining an activity not
listed above as a duty, makes it a duty.
This does not the result of this CFJ at the present time - but it is a
significant difference.

> I conclude that selecting Party Chess pieces and playing Party Chess are
> not duties of the Office of Swinger.  The Rules do not establish that all
> actions allowed or required of Offices are either duties or privileges,
> but in my opinion it is game custom that that is so.  It is therefore the
> case that selecting Party Chess pieces and making moves in Party Chess are
> privileges of the Office of Swinger.
Following this conclusion, I conclude that it is not necessary for me to
wait for all Swingers to choose pieces in order to anounce the begining
of play, or more precisely, to notify the NAP Swinger, acting or
otherwise, that it is eir turn. Swingers may choose pieces. Two Swingers
chose 0 pieces, which is less than and the material value is less than 30.
This is quite legal and the game is playable. The only thing is that only
two players can play now. So the acting Swingers will both default to a
Pass, which will give (None Yet) and Vulcan a possible advantage.

Considering the situation, I will be willing to Pass as well on this
first turn , for the sake of fairness in this game. 

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 23:34:15 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar - mentor for Guy Fawkes (Niccolo Flychuck)

Niccolo Flychuck has been appointed mentor for Guy Fawkes

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 23:37:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> That would GREATLY increase the Financier's workload.  Calculating bond
> yields is already the most time-consuming thing I do as Financier.  The
> above suggestion would double or treble the amount of work involved in
> that task, without, IMO, adding much to the game.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> Financier
> 
Ok, forget it then.

There are rules that already give enough Party rewards.
Thinman is right, this is more work than it's worth.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 23:39:19 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Registrar - mentor for Guy Fawkes (Niccolo Flychuck)

On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> Niccolo Flychuck has been appointed mentor for Guy Fawkes
> 
> 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> Registrar
> 
> 
>

I accept the appointment

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 00:09:39 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official - PartyChess

As Thinman pointed out in his reasoning for CFJ275, Swingers are not
required to pick PartyChess pieces. The call for Swingers to pick their
initial set has gone out two weeks ago. I can only assume that those
Swingers who have not picked such a set, have picke zero pieces, and
own no other piece but the King. 
Zero is smaller than or equal to 5
the total material value of 0 pieces is 0 which less than 30, therefore
their selection is legal.

I am anouncing the begining of the first Round of PartyChess.

Swingers  - 

The Game is Afoot.

Niccolo Flychuck

Chess- Umpire

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

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 00:12:55 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Party Chess - Vulcan Swinger

The Vulcan Swinger recognizes the problem of playing Chess at the moment.
It would be illogical to attempt to play such a game, when some of the
opponents are unable to make any moves.
Therefore the Vulcan Swinger has decided that until such a time as it is
possible for all Swinger, acting or otherwise, to fully participate in the
game of Party Chess, e will Pass on eir turns.

Niccolo Flychuck

Vulcan Swinger

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:36:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: chess loophole present; please help close it

On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Guy Fawkes submitted Proposal (number unassigned at 
this writing)

> Proposal [fill in appropriate number]
> Power to the pieces!
> Robert Shimmin (Guy Fawkes)
> 
> Amend Rule 990, section 4 to include this after clause B:
> 
> "C. There may be pieces whose capturing moves differ from their non-capturing 
> moves.  This rule defers to all PartyChessPieceDef rules which provide moves 
> for such pieces.  Such captures otherwise proceed as defined above."
> 
> 

This is necessary to correct a (hopefully) unintentional flaw in the 
language of the PartyChess rules.  R990, 4A currently reads:

"A Capture may be performed by PartyChessPiece (1) if another piece (2) 
occupies a square on the board to which (1) could otherwise legally 
move..."  [The rest of this clause concerns itself with the actual mechanics 
and effects of the Capture].

This sentence seems to preclude the capture moves assigned by the 
PartyChessPieceDef rules for the CopyCat and the Pawn, as well as allowing 
il-Nubi far greater power to capture than intended by its 
PartyChessPieceDef rule.  To me, it states that a Capture may be 
carried out if only if the capturing piece could move to the square on which 
the piece to be captured lies were the piece to be captured not there.
Since R990 does not defer in this respect to the PartyChessPieceDef rules, 
nor do the appropriate PartyChessPieceDef rules claim precedence over 
R990, numerical precedence must apply, with the following results.

The Pawn and CopyCat capture in the same way as they move (their special 
capture moves could not be carried out if they were not capturing.)

Il-Nabi is allowed to capture according to the b) and c) provisions of 
its rule.  The sentence in its rule which forbids this is in conflict 
with R990, 4A, which takes precedence.

Please vote YES on this proposal and correct this loophole. 

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:00:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Guy Fawkes to mentor

Niccolo--
	What exactly is the game effect of an UNDECIDED verdict?  Does 
Judgment continue with another Judge, or does the statement remain 
unresolved?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 20:30:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PF Bonds

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Now let me throw another idea at everyone.  PartyChess, which is finally
> going to be fixes up completely  should my just-submitted proposal pass,
> has the potential to make the game slightly more Party-oriented.
> Suppoe every player gets A$ relative to his dScore, shall we say dScore/x,
> over the last two weeks, plus dScore/y, for each of eir Party members,
> where y>>x,  IMO y>5x at least, so the reward would depend mostly on the
> Player's performane, and to some degree on the performance of eir Party
> members.

I objected to party gravity, and object to any more rewards based on
skill at Party Chess or being in a party.  Score improvement is a
simple, generic, measure of game skill, and should be the basis for this,
IMHO.  Party Chess is a very specific skill, and should not be used as a
generic basis.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 20:58:29 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 Verdict

Uri Bruck wrote:

> tinan repeatedly asks - why should Parties be required to play Party
> Chess. Well, they have been ever since the Party Chess rules were
> accepted, my proposal does not change that, it merely allows the game to
> playable within the existing structure in a consistent way.
> 
> So I ask a counter question - tinan, why bring this up now all of a
> sudden?

I actually brought it up, perhaps independently of, or after tinan, and I
brought it up because I believe it, just like I believe every one of my
proposals should be accepted, otherwise I would not submit them.  Why does
anyone believe anything: "They just [like] it better that way".

As for specific reasons, being in a political party has very little to
do with playing chess.  There is nothing wrong with that, its just MHO
that the primary purpose of political parties is for like minded people
to join together an promote an adjenda they believe in, and to enjoy
private discussions about their adjenda, the game, etc.  If they also
*want* to play chess, thats fine, but such a group should not be forced
to.  Imagine a political party forming with an adjenda to eliminate party
chess.  That would be ironic :)

I guess it comes down to the fact that I believe in free action and
voluntary action, rather than forced action.  As it stands now, when you
join Acka, you *must* be represented by someone who plays chess, and the
performance of your representative, and thus to some extent, your entire
group, at a very *specialized* game, dictates your standings in a *generic*
way (party gravity).  I personally dislike that.

I am obviously in the minority, as this situation was voted in by 2/3
of Acka.  I must point out, however, that this does not justify its 
existance, contrary to what has been previously pointed out.  For example,
Acka also voted in the contract rules, which gave a paradox win and almost
gave absoulute power to a couple of Loophole Surfers.  There are other
examples, as you know from my Loophole Surfing.  In other words, don't
justify the value of a situation by the fact that Acka voted it in.

I do agree with you on one point, and that is that the issue of forced
party chess participation should be decoupled from the fixes for party
chess.

Malenkai
wasting bandwidth galore (more on that later)

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 21:20:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Bandwidth

This is an ironic message.

How are we doing on e-mail usage?  I lose touch because I am on-line
so much, but I just wanted to make sure we are not overdoing it again,
especially when alot of it is me, and we have solutions.

If the volume of e-mail is too high, I can make the following suggestions:

1) move all discussions of party chess to acka-chess
2) move all discussions of the bonds and judicial system to acka-research
(I do not believe we need acka-financial and acka-judicial).

If it is not too high, cool.  Hit that little trashcan button.  I just
don't want players to be overloaded when we can mitigate it.

I also have another suggestion, which may be bad.  Have two main lists:
acka-official (now called ackanomic) and
acka-discussion 

and keep the specialized lists we already have.

All official correspondance, such as proposals and voting results, CFJs,
and any other official announcement players need to play the game go to 
acka-official, with a default reply-to of acka-discussion.

Players are signed up on both by default, but can sign off and on of
acka-discussion as their interests and time allow.  Perhaps both could
be archived/digested in one archive.

Any comments from the postmaster or anyone else who may feel overloaded?

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 21:44:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Party Hall

Remember, tomorrow is the day of party hall party.  Perhaps the
acting gaoler will have to compose the poem this time.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:48:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Bandwidth

> This is an ironic message.
> 
> How are we doing on e-mail usage?  I lose touch because I am on-line
> so much, but I just wanted to make sure we are not overdoing it again,
> especially when alot of it is me, and we have solutions.

In August, 53 digests were generated for a total of 1605 kB of mail on
the ackanomic list (in digest form -- with full mail headers this is
increased somewhat).  That's about 50kB a day.

In the 6 days so far this month, 10 digests have been sent (plus at least
one more tonight) adding up to 338 kB of mail (a little over 50 kB a day).

One way to look at this is that you get mail equal to the entire rule set
in 5 days, or mail equal to the (uncompressed) official dictionary over a
period of a month and a half.

I don't know if this is good or bad, but for comparison, we had 2283 kB
in July and 1728 kB in June -- June is the first full month archived.

> I also have another suggestion, which may be bad.  Have two main lists:
> acka-official (now called ackanomic) and
> acka-discussion 
> 
> and keep the specialized lists we already have.

I have thought of this idea before, and decided not to pursue it.

/dev/joe
Postmaster

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 22:20:35 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1188

Proposal 1188 - Fri Sep 06 22:20:35 EDT 1996
Cutting the Cheesy Duplicate Paradox Wins
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Amend Rule 589, by adding this new paragraph to the end:

Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE
(hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ) whose statement is substantially
similar, in the judgement of the judge, to the statement of a Paradox
Win CFJ submitted by any player and not yet resolved, shall be judged
Invalid.  Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox,
in the judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ ever judged TRUE,
shall be judged Invalid.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 22:20:47 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1189

Proposal 1189 - Fri Sep 06 22:20:47 EDT 1996
Amending the rules about scoring for amendments to the scoring rules
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

1. Amend rule 793, by deleting the following sentence wherever it appears:
   "If a proposal adds, changes, or repeals rules
    that generate effects (including but not limited to score changes)
    based on the way players vote, then the additions, changes, or
    repeals in that proposal shall not apply to that proposal."

2. Amend Rule 1089.2, by deleting the following sentence wherever it appears:
   "This rule defers precedence to R 793 where there is a conflict."

{{[ Rule 1089.2 section 5 is a better version of the text I'm deleting
    from rule 793 -- it just turns off the scoring rules being amended
    for the proposal that amends them, if the proposal passes. ]}}

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 22:21:14 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1190

Proposal 1190 - Fri Sep 06 22:21:14 EDT 1996
Fix Swingers
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

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.
If all the members of a Party are on Vacation then no acting Swinger is
appointed for that Party and eir Office remains Vacant. If all non-aligned
players are on Vacation then no acting NAP-Swinger is appointed and eir
Office remains vacant.

This rule takes precedence over R457."
{{[The RFC handled implicitly a situation such as the (None Yet)
situation, but did not handle implicitly the case where all non-aligned
players are on vacation. Statement to handle both cases have been added. 
- -  I claiming precedence explicitly]}}

II.Append to R991 section 2 H the following text:
"with the following exceptions:
(i) 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.
(ii) 
  (a)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. 
 (b)If a Swinger Office's King is checked while it is Warm, then that
 Swinger's turn is not skipped. 
 The Chess-Umpire must notify all members of the Party whose
 King has been checked, of the check situations, including members who are
 on Vacation. 
 In the case of a Special D-turn, if four days after the
 Chess-Umpire's message the Swinger's Office is still Warm, then he is
 considered to have surrendred.
 In the case of a Special DD-turn, if the chekced Swinger's Office is
 still Warm the second time a conflict is declared, then he is considered
 to have surrendered, however, he is still counted for the purpose of
 determining the number of repetitions of the procedure described in R991 
 section D (iv)  (b)-(d).

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."

{{[I've implemented Malenkai's suggsetion wih a slight addition. Some
players unsubscribe when they go on Vacation, even if they are within
reach of the net. I've made a provision for that case as well. Also for
Spcial DD-turns, and I've made the numbering consistent with with the rst
of the Party Chess rules. I believe this version is sound and will solve
the problems of Party Chess]}}

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 22:21:30 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1191

Proposal 1191 - Fri Sep 06 22:21:30 EDT 1996
Power to the pieces!
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

Amend Rule 990, section 4 to include this after clause B:

"C. There may be pieces whose capturing moves differ from their non-capturing 
moves.  This rule defers to all PartyChessPieceDef rules which provide moves 
for such pieces.  Such captures otherwise proceed as defined above."

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 22:43:45 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1192

Proposal 1192 - Fri Sep 06 22:43:44 EDT 1996
Bringing the Rules into accordance with Game Custom
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

This is a modest proposal.

Amend R 939, "Party Hall Party", to replace the section header  
"Otherwise:" with the following:

"If Party Hall is not in session, or at least 1 Swinger fails to comply
with the above:"

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 22:58:55 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1193

Proposal 1193 - Fri Sep 06 22:58:55 EDT 1996
Fixing Malenkai's Loophole for Gadgets
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 594, Blueprints, to add the following section after section (iii):

(iv) Entites with the same name as a Gadget proposed or introduced by a
Blueprint may only be created in accordance with procedures explicitly
delineated in the Rules.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 23:56:46 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Underworld - but where is the Swinger.

I am still the Swinger for the party, and my chess pieces were 
destroyed in the brief time that our party was defunct.  I would like 
to fall back on my previous selections for pieces.  Let the games 
begin.

Techno
Swinger for Underworld

> 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
> 
> 
> 
"Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #212
*******************************