Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #214
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Monday, September 9 1996       Volume 01 : Number 214

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 01:03:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1196

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1196 - Sun Sep 08 00:25:27 EDT 1996
> Leash the Hounds of Hell!
> Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)
> I briefly considered using this truth as grounds for a
> mass-impeachment since it almost certainly means most of the officials
> required to send public messages have been violating the "Speed" rule for
> the better part of the summer.  However, I then started to look at all
> the mentions of public messages in the rules, and I realized sticking
> this loophole to it could very well unleash the hounds of hell and crash
> the game, so I'm just trying to quietly fix it.]}}

Interesting, although consider the following counter argument (not to
say that the proposal shouldn't be accepted):

R 832 allows for the existance of "other public forums".  It does not
regulate in any way how such forums are to be instantiated.  It seems,
therefore, that R 115 could be used to designate the ftp archive on 
wilma as a public forum.  Furthermore, it could be argued that the
ftp archive *already is* a public forum, and has been since before
"Speed" was accepted, as it is publically available to all registered
players, and all public messages are posted there.

Remember what game custom says about public messages.  Anything is 
possible.

Malenkai
cannot think of a cool tag line

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 00:16:16 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Misc: What Phoebe Says 

So there I was, cramped up in my Gaol cell (which looked remarkably like
Phoebe's Matchbox), when I found an item (which was remarkably the size of
my gaol cell) which was Phoebe's Matchbox.

She poped out of her box, and though I'm not exactly sure how this was
possible, out of the cell too and spoke to me (and I assume she spoke
through the cardboard walls of my gaol cell since she wasn't inside it).

"snowgod," she said, "be careful of the advice you take from ancient
nano-tech devices.  The odd's of receiving correct advice from a steel
flea, or even the rumoured machine that goes ping,  are about the same as
those of a human being hit directly by an asteroid fallen from space (1 in
150 trillion).

"Of course," she added, "I'm not talking about me here.  Phoebe the steel
flea is wise beyond her (millions of) years and all the advice I'll ever
give is correct.  The rules garauntee it!"

With that she vanished out of my life for a second time.  I can only hope I
can once again find her so I may learn what other nano-tech devices may
still be floating around, undiscovered!

snowgod
not in gaol

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 10:21:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Mellon)

Phoebe's matchbox has been found by Mellon.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 96 17:41:55 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 277 (Robin Hood) 

I decline on CFJ 277
  Robin Hood

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 13:23:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 277 (Brinjal)

Robin Hood declined.

Brinjal 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 (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Robin Hood (declined to judge)
3rd Judge: Brinjal (selected Sep 08, 1996, 13:26h 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: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 14:02:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bronze Torch

In accordance with R 1033, I am awarding ThinMan a Bronze Torch.  He
can now add his wisdom to any CFJ via R 563, or hit Supreme Court 
Justices over the head with it, as Bascule has been known to do (out
of sight of the Protection Police, of course).

ThinMan achieved eligibility with CFJ 274.  His first verdict was on
CFJ 139, back in March or early April.  The subject back then was when
Mohammed tried to force is way into the FOOZBALL Party.

ThinMan has been through a lot of interesting rules questions, and has
done a great job.  The crowd goes wild.

Would the Registrar please uodate the player page.

Malenkai
ProConsul

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:01:48 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1194

> Proposal 1194 - Sat Sep 07 15:18:03 EDT 1996
> The Machine That Goes *ping*
> Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

This is a truly great proposal. This is fantastic stuff.

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:13:28 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Back from vacation

I'm back from vacation (or out of the ice-box)

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 96 17:20:48 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1197

Proposal 1197 - Sun Sep 08 17:20:48 EDT 1996
What can Cows Eat?
snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

This rule, which contains gratuitious use of the phrase "Cows eat grass"
(and/or "cows eat grass" or "Cows Eat Grass"), attempts, dismally to be
self referential but then fails.  However, the failure of this rule to be
self referential is not all that important since what this rule actually
does is prohibit the use of the phrase "Cows eat grass" or any alternate
version of that phrase (including alternate spellings of the words "cows"
"eat" or "grass" or alternate capitaliazation or punctuations of said
phrase, from appearing in any future proposal.

Any player submitting a proposal that contains the phrase "cows eat grass"
or any variation on the theme (including alternate spellings and/or
capitalization or puntuation of said phrase) shall transfer A$500 to the
player who has
the lowest balance of A$ in his account within one day, or be eligable for
prosecution un the procedures for Criminal Justice.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 96 17:21:03 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1198

Proposal 1198 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:03 EDT 1996
Working to Reduce Work
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 1051, "Mentors (Take II)", as follows:

1) replace all occurrance of

"It is the privilege of a mentor to receive A$25 from the treasury at
the completion of his mentorship."

with:

"The mentor receives A$25 from the Treasury at the start of his or her
mentorship.

{{[the intent is to give the mentor pay when the mentor is selected, so
that no one need remember to do any work at the end of the mentorship]}}"

2) add the following section at the end of the rule:

{{all extant mentors who became mentors via application of this rule 
receive A$25 from the Treasury.}}

3) add the following text at the end of the first paragraph:

"No one may become a mentor except as specified by the Rules." 

4) Change the title of the rule to "Mentors".

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 96 17:21:20 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

Proposal 1199 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:20 EDT 1996
Discouraging Party Splits
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 391, "Rewarding Party Unity", to read:

      If on any proposal every member of a political party votes in the
same way (either Yes or No) then one extra vote is cast on the proposal
for every three distinct members of that party.  These vote(s) will be
Yes vote(s) if the party voted Yes unanimously. The vote(s) will be No
vote(s) if the party voted No unanimously.  The extra vote(s) are not
considered to have been cast by any players.

       Party membership and how players voted are determinded based on
the facts in force at the end of the prescribed voting period for each
proposal.

       {{[yeah, it will still make some sense for parties of 6 to split,
but it will be less of a disadvantage if they don't.  If I were in a
party of 6, I would not *want* to split because it would be less FUN.
Under the current system, it really makes no sense for them to not split.
Why now, when no party is close to 6?  I don't know, I've been wanting to
do this since March.]}}

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 96 17:21:37 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1200

Proposal 1200 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:37 EDT 1996
Random Things
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend Rule 615, "Speaker", to read:

      {{[this comes about from P 1194 specifying gadgets to be randomly
         distributed when certain conditions are met, but not specifying
         who is to do so.  Thus it falls to R 490 and the Speaker.  I
         figured I'd bring 490 into this rule, and while I was here, 
         define the "Officer in Charge of Random Things" as used
         elsewhere in the rules.  Thus writers can use that phrase without
         the extra clutter, and we can move it, or create a new office
         later.  I also brought keeping track of unspecified stuff, such
         as locations and thread splits (along pTang's ref idea) in.
	 I actually only added sections (v) on, and changed the precedence
         claim, (i) thru (iii) are unchanged, (iv) has a quasi-paradox
         thats been there for a while removed.]}} 

      This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules, except that it
      defers to R 779.

      (i)   The Office of Speaker is declared to have one Seat.

      (ii)  Whenever this Office is vacant, it shall be filled by
            an Election for Office. The specifications for the
            Election for Office are:
               a) Nomination Period: 3 days.
               b) Voting Period:     3 days.
               c) Tie Resolution:    New Election.

      (iii) As an additional Privilege of Office, the Speaker shall
            receive a weekly salary of A$10.

      (iv)  Whenever the Speaker goes on vacation, he is considered
            to be temporarily vacating the Office until he returns
            from vacation.  No action shall be taken to fill the office.
            The Speaker shall appoint a volunteer to be Acting Speaker
            for the vacation period immediately prior to going on vacation.
            If there are no volunteers, then the Clerk of the Court shall
            be Acting Speaker for the duration.  This section takes
            precedence over section (ii) of this Rule.

      (v)   Performance of tasks required by Sections (vi) thru (viii) are
            duties of the Office of Speaker.

      (vi)  The Speaker is the Officer in charge of random things,
            and shall make random determinations when the rules require
            such, and those rules do not specify another officer or
            procedure for making the random determination, or it is not
            possible for the specified officer to do so.

      (vii) If, in any rule, an action is required to be carried out, and
            the rule does not either specify who is to carry it out or
            define a mechanism for choosing someone to do so, the Speaker
            is required to carry out the task.

      (viii) If any game state information or data needs to be tracked, and
            the rules do not specify who is to track it, the Speaker is
            required to do so, and is required to make it available to
            any player on request or as needed [e.g. player locations and
            thread splits].

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

Repeal R 490.

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

Amend R 779 to replace all occurrances of "490" with "615".

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 17:42:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Back from vacation

Bascule wrote:
> 
> I'm back from vacation (or out of the ice-box)
> 
> Bascule

Which means you must deliberate with me on the appeal of CFJ 269 and
CFCJ 112.

And you should win some Party Chess games so the FUN party can get a
pile of swing votes so we can finally begin rolling out our adjenda.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 16:46:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

> Proposal 1199 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:20 EDT 1996
> Discouraging Party Splits
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
> Amend R 391, "Rewarding Party Unity", to read:
> 
>       If on any proposal every member of a political party votes in the
> same way (either Yes or No) then one extra vote is cast on the proposal
> for every three distinct members of that party.
 [...]
>        {{[yeah, it will still make some sense for parties of 6 to split,
> but it will be less of a disadvantage if they don't.  If I were in a
> party of 6, I would not *want* to split because it would be less FUN.
> Under the current system, it really makes no sense for them to not split.
> Why now, when no party is close to 6?  I don't know, I've been wanting to
> do this since March.]}}

This is nice, although I'll note that Nobs would probably have split anyway
if we managed to have 6 members, even with this rule change; getting party
unity with 6 members is difficult, and there were some things the party
didn't agree on.  If you *really* wanted to discourage party splits, 
recognize the difficulty in getting a unanimous vote with so many members
by giving one unity vote to a party of 3 or 4 members, 2 votes to a party
of 5 or 6, 3 votes to a party of 7 or 8, etc.

>        Party membership and how players voted are determinded based on
> the facts in force at the end of the prescribed voting period for each
> proposal.

Good job cleaning up the later part of the rule.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 17:56:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 1199 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:20 EDT 1996
> > Discouraging Party Splits
> > Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

> If you *really* wanted to discourage party splits,
> recognize the difficulty in getting a unanimous vote with so many members
> by giving one unity vote to a party of 3 or 4 members, 2 votes to a party
> of 5 or 6, 3 votes to a party of 7 or 8, etc.

I realise the incentive to split is still there, but *some* improvement
is better than nothing.  The FUN Party probably would not split with my
current rewrite at 6 members, but the old way was unfair.  I actually like
the above schedule better than n/3, but to some, it may seem like too much.

How does anyone else feel about /dev/joe's above schedule?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:53:44 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 112 Appeal? 

Could someone please post the reasoning of the appeal on CFCJ 112? I can't find it anywhere.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:58:07 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 112 Appeal 

Could someone please post the appeal reasoning for CFCJ 112?  I cannot find
it on the web page, and to tell the truth I don't remember it being
appealed.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:59:19 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

> How does anyone else feel about /dev/joe's above schedule?
> 
> Malenkai

I think it should be be an expontential increase,  
maybe 2^(n-3) extra votes for a party unanimous n votes.  After all, this
represents the relative ease of getting n people to agree on anything.

Plus, it'd make for screwy-scewy votes-
IdiotBoy

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 96 19:15:42 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: connected

I just wanted to let everyone know that I'm connected to the net, so my 
non-vacation vacation is over.

:) tinan
Fight hegemony: walk on stilts

- --      Mike Epstein            
    [email-masked]        Look not to the windmill's turning
  *                      *      while the ant still burrows.
http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/   

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:34:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > 
> > > Proposal 1199 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:20 EDT 1996
> > > Discouraging Party Splits
> > > Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
> > If you *really* wanted to discourage party splits,
> > recognize the difficulty in getting a unanimous vote with so many members
> > by giving one unity vote to a party of 3 or 4 members, 2 votes to a party
> > of 5 or 6, 3 votes to a party of 7 or 8, etc.
> 
> I realise the incentive to split is still there, but *some* improvement
> is better than nothing.  The FUN Party probably would not split with my
> current rewrite at 6 members, but the old way was unfair.  I actually like
> the above schedule better than n/3, but to some, it may seem like too much.
> 
> How does anyone else feel about /dev/joe's above schedule?
> 
> Malenkai
> 

While n/3 does not take into account the difficulty of getting larger 
parties to vote unanimously (doesn't Underworld require itself to vote 
unanimously?), I feel the progressive schedule gives too much power to 
the parties.  I mean, if you have swing votes AND party unity votes, the 
importance of the individual player begins to fade away.  With multiple 
party unity votes, a single party can crash a proposal by voting no, even 
with widespread popular support elsewhere -- each no requires two yesses 
to make up for it.  Personally, I don't like the party unity vote to 
begin with; multiplying it truly diminishes the importance of the players, 
and aren't the players what makes this game work?
	Soon, someone might suggest we make up for this by giving the 
NAP's a unity vote, too, as if NAP isn't already enough of a 
party-by-default, anyway.  Fight oligarchy.  Vote no on increased party 
power.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:00:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Festival

Just a reminder that since rule 1200 has been distributed, and Wayne, as 
Promoter, is eligible to declare a Festival of Torkola.

I have my lighter ready.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 20:05:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 112 Appeal

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> Could someone please post the appeal reasoning for CFCJ 112?  I cannot find
> it on the web page, and to tell the truth I don't remember it being
> appealed.
> 
> snowgod

Wayne appealed CFJ 269 and CFCJ 112 without comment.  This was
publically announed twice with CFJ 27? something or the other.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:12:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 112

> Could someone please post the appeal reasoning for CFCJ 112?  I cannot find
> it on the web page, and to tell the truth I don't remember it being
> appealed.

I looked through my saved mail, and I don't see any record of it having
been appealed.

/dev/joe
Web-Harfer

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 16:24:23 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Festival 

I was considering invoking Presidential Decisions to call for a festival
with a period of 7 days so that we may all enjoy the existing rules and
wait for The Machine to pass :)

But I wont.

snowgod
president

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 20:53:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

robert gene shimmin wrote:

> While n/3 does not take into account the difficulty of getting larger
> parties to vote unanimously (doesn't Underworld require itself to vote
> unanimously?), I feel the progressive schedule gives too much power to
> the parties.  

This is a good point, and you know how I feel about swing votes :). 
This proposal, however, really doesn't increase party power, as any 
party under the old system would, of course, split to get the linear
increase in power.  This proposal also cleans up a problem when a
player changes parties midstream during a proposal vote.

The progressive schedule can be debated as a seperate amendment if this
passes.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:04:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: 2 RFC's

Here are two bits of game custom I'd like to codify into the rules.
I started thinking about the first when Bash e-mailed me privately
to re-name his house -- I did it, but the procedure for naming one's
house isn't given in the rules, and the commonly accepted ability to
rename a previously-named house isn't stated in the rules at all.
The second change here is something that I've been thinking about for
a long time and the Jeremiah the bullfrog proposal convinced me that
it needed to be done.

#RFC Renaming Houses

Amend rule 839 by adding the following to the end of the first paragraph
after the list of building sizes:

  Players may name or rename a building they own which was created by this
  section of this rule by announcing the new name and unambiguously
  identifying the building to be renamed in a public message.

#end

#RFC Preambling

{{[ Due to the possible confusion that "preambles" in proposals can cause,
especially if they are not bracketed like this one, I want to add to the
rules what is now game custom, that a proposal to create a new rule does
not need to state this, and limit this effect to proposals which only
create one new rule, so that in a proposal like "Jeremiah, the rather
average looking bullfrog", the preamble doesn't get written into a rule. 

I think this is a reasonable limitation; there's another limit implicit
in what I've written below, which I think is required, to ensure that a
whole proposal which has other effects can't be interpreted as creation
of a new rule which has those effects.  Due to this limit, a proposal
to create one new rule which somehow deals with amending (etc.) rules
will have to explicitly state that it is creating a new rule. ]}}

Amend Rule 491, "What Is A Rule Change?", change

 "Otherwise, the rule change is invalid."

to:

 "If a proposal does not refer to amending, repealing, transmuting, or
  creating rules, then it is treated a valid rule change to create a new
  mutable rule with the entire body of the proposal as its text; this
  treatment is only applied in the case defined in this sentence.
  Rule changes not defined as valid by this rule are invalid."
#end

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 21:07:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 112

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Could someone please post the appeal reasoning for CFCJ 112?  I cannot 
> > find
> > it on the web page, and to tell the truth I don't remember it being
> > appealed.
> 
> I looked through my saved mail, and I don't see any record of it having
> been appealed.

Sorry about the non-visibility of these appeals.  Wayne appealed both
of these (269, C112) in private e-mail to the CotC.  This prompted
CFJ 275, as Wayne was a Acting Justice at the time.

Notice of the appeals was included in both the original release of
CFJ 275, and with the delivery of the verdict.  In the future, I shall
mark such in a seperate message with "Appeal" in the subject line.

Clerk of the Courts
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

X-POP3-Rcpt: 
               malenkai@mail 
    Return-Path: 
               [email-masked] 
       Received: 
               from future.atlcom.net (future.atlcom.net [205.230.107.3]) by 
mail.itw.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with
               SMTP id PAA27922 for <[email-masked]>; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 
15:54:21 -0400 
       Received: 
               by future.atlcom.net (5.65/1.2-eef) id AA23373; Tue, 3 Sep 96 
15:53:09 -0400 
     Message-Id: 
               <[email-masked]>
          From: 
               [email-masked] ()
       X-Mailer: 
               SCO System V Mail (version 3.2) 
            To: 
               [email-masked]
        Subject: 
               acka: appeals 
          Date: 
               Tue, 3 Sep 96 15:53:09 EDT 
X-Mozilla-Status: 
               0001 

I appeal the verdict on CFJ 269

I appeal the verdict on CFCJ 112

Wayne

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 21:09:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Festival

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I was considering invoking Presidential Decisions to call for a festival
> with a period of 7 days so that we may all enjoy the existing rules and
> wait for The Machine to pass :)

I personally don't think we need a festival.  What is "public opinion" ?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 21:29:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: 2 RFC's

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Amend Rule 491, "What Is A Rule Change?", change
> 
>  "Otherwise, the rule change is invalid."
> 
> to:
> 
>  "If a proposal does not refer to amending, repealing, transmuting, or
>   creating rules, then it is treated a valid rule change to create a new
>   mutable rule with the entire body of the proposal as its text; this
>   treatment is only applied in the case defined in this sentence.
>   Rule changes not defined as valid by this rule are invalid."

Bringing the rules into accordance with game custom.  Always a good idea :)

This is fine.  I had a major rewrite of R 491 on my project slate, but
never got to it due to R 691 work :).  The following is what I wanted to
accomplish.  Feel free to add these amendments, if you wish.

I wanted to make changing the number of a rule a permissable type of rule
change.  This would allow all of the party chess stuff, for example, to
be renumbered to be next to each other, especially if someone writes a
rule to add a new piece, with rule #1648.  Of course, you can write a
self-deleting rule to make the number change, but I wanted it as a R 491
rule change.

I also wanted to add an optional "preamble section" to proposals, which
would be where you place the following: 
	1) things like "This is a Modest proposal".
	2) your synopsis and explanations, and begging for votes, which
right now I put in self-deleting text as part of the actual amendment,
because putting it before "Amend R xxx as follows" would create a new
rule with the self-deleting comment, but its nicer to put it in a preamble.
	3) self-deleting rules such as joint authorship point adjustments
(which hopefully I'll get if you work my ideas in :)).  

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 02:35:42 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: 2 RFC's

I'm in favour of both these RFCs, particularly the preamble one.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 21:54:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 112 Appeal Verdict

CFCJ 112 was appealed on Sep 3, 1996, at approximately 15:50 EDT,
by Wayne, without reasoning.

The Supreme Court upholds the original verdict of TRUE, without
comment.

Sep 08 21:55 EDT: -25 Wayne: Frivilous appeal CFCJ 112

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 112
  Subject:  Gumball
Initiator:  this is not a name
    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected Tue, Aug 27, 1996, 19:40 EDT)

Statement:

snowgod has broken the rules.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

On 27 Aug 1996, snowgod posted a message reading in part:

>I am placing the gumball in my armpit, hoping to soften it up
>so that I may chew it more easily when the proper time comes.

This constitutes illegal manipulation of the gumball, which is a
Protected entity.

Suggested Penalty:

I recommend a penalty of A$20.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

I judge CFCJ 112 to be TRUE. Snowgod has indeed broken the law by
manipulating a protected entity in an illegal manner.

Actual Penalty:

Snowgod will go to Gaol for 6 days or until the end of the cycle,
whichever comes first.

Wayne's Appeal Reasoning:

	[none CotC]

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

	[none CotC]

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 22:11:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official (ThinMan)

I am appointing ThinMan as Acting Justice for mr cwm.  The appeal of 
CFJ 269 is still pending.  Bascule is the other justice, back from 
vacation.  mr cwm is expected back Sep 12th.

Although I belive CFJ 269 should be overturned to TRUE, I would win the
game if this occurred.  Additionally, I initiated CFJ 269, so it is not
appropriate that I sit on the appellate court on this case in an acting
capacity.

There are about 3 or 4 levels of twisted irony in all of this.  If I
have time, perhaps I will write about it privately under R 563.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 22:19:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vending Machine

I am destroying the vending machine I instantiated via R 115.  Business
was slower than our market research gurus indicated it would be, and
by R 115, I am firing said gurus.

Although this was intended to play with a rather interesting loophole
in R 1036 and the gadget stuff, it seems like it was more a thorn in
the Inventor's side than I wished it to be, and it is half fixed by P 1193.

The loophole will still exist in R 1036 until the inventor builds one.

Malenkai
Out of business

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 22:37:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harfmeister

I am declaring P 1197 harfy.  The following proposals are currently
harfy:

P 1173
P 1194
P 1197

Malenkai
Harfmeister

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

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 22:55:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Politeness Moon

The votes received on the politeness moon called on this is not a name
were:

"Yes, he was polite",
	this is not a name
	snowgod
	Guy Fawkes

"No, he was not polite", 
	Malenkai
	IdiotBoy
	Wayne
	ThinMan

abstain
	/dev/joe

the voting shows this is not a name was not polite, as "simple majority"
is qualified from its normal meaning with the 50% or more clause if you
count in the strictest sense (although nothing seems "simple" in this
game).

Sep 08 22:55 EDT: -3 this is not a name: politeness moon

Assistant Tabulator

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:52:23 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Festival 

>Phil Ackley wrote:
>>
>> I was considering invoking Presidential Decisions to call for a festival
>> with a period of 7 days so that we may all enjoy the existing rules and
>> wait for The Machine to pass :)
>
>I personally don't think we need a festival.  What is "public opinion" ?
>
>Malenkai

I don't think we need a festival right now...

If we did I would have used the above reasoning to call for one :)

snowgod
president

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:58:51 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Inventor: Official 

I had planned to wait for a later date to build the fabled vending machine,
but since the situation is at least (temporarily clear) I have now selected
the blueprint from the vending machine from the list of currently existing
blueprints, and am building it.

Also, I would like to note, as inventor, the amazing use that Habeous
Corpus has recieved from the Whamiol (which he purchased for a measly
A$75).  I hope new players continue to join the game, and his score
continues to rise.  Wouldn't it be funny if no-one could reach the magic
number becuase HC's score went over it each time a new player joined the
game?

snowgod
inventor

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #214
*******************************