Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #215
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Monday, September 9 1996       Volume 01 : Number 215

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

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:33:52 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposals 

Just in case anyone is wondering, I havn't forgotten about my proposal for
internomic/senate voting.  I'm gonna RFC it in a day or two.  Problem is I
just switched from working nights (which I've been doing for five years) to
working days (and going to school at nights) so my schedual is more than a
little screwy.

Anyhow, I've got the internomic proposal, a couple of ther serious
proposals, and a couple of harfy type proposals all sitting around waiting
to be finished.  And, oh yeah, I also have a couple blue-prints waiting to
be finished too!

snowgod
president
inventor
and so much more

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
CONTACT SNOWGOD FOR ADVERTISING RATES
MALENKAI, THIS MEANS YOU
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - President
Inventor - Former Senator (seat a)  - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 14:05:39 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals

On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Just in case anyone is wondering, I havn't forgotten about my proposal for
> internomic/senate voting.  I'm gonna RFC it in a day or two.  Problem is I
> just switched from working nights (which I've been doing for five years) to
> working days (and going toschool at nights) so my schedual is more than a
> little screwy.
 
I haven'e forgotten. I'd like to re-iterate the point that I won't support
a Senate only vote, but might support it if it includes all Institutions.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Anyhow, I've got the internomic proposal, a couple of ther serious
> proposals, and a couple of harfy type proposals all sitting around waiting
> to be finished.  And, oh yeah, I also have a couple blue-prints waiting to
> be finished too!
> 
> snowgod
> president
> inventor
> and so much more
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> THIS SPACE FOR RENT
> CONTACT SNOWGOD FOR ADVERTISING RATES
> MALENKAI, THIS MEANS YOU
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> snowgod
> 
> Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - President
> Inventor - Former Senator (seat a)  - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
> Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
> Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination
> 
> "Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 96 9:12:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: Underworld Member List

Members of Underworld:

Wayne, Techno, Bash, and now IdiotBoy.  IdiotBoy has met all of the conditions
of our charter and is now an official member.  

We are now open for business.  Please contact me for any underhanded business
that you want.  We can make any proposal pass or fail if the price is right.

Wayne

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:28:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 Verdict 

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
[From CFJ 275:]
>> 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'm not sure whether you understood my argument or not.  I do not deny that
the rules provide for other duties than those involving compiling,
maintenance, and dissemination of information.  What I did was to look at all
the duties defined in the rules, and I found that they _all_ fit in that
category.  The rules do not require that that be so, so I interpret it as
game custom that duties meet those criteria.  That custom could easilly be
changed by passage of a rule which breaks the trend, but in my opinion the
Party Chess rules are not worded in such a way as to do so.  I think that
we are actually in agreement on that.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 96 9:32:47 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1172 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1172
  Proposal 1172 - Sun Sep 01 00:27:42 EDT 1996
  I've Always Wondered What to Do if this Came Up
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 15 players cast votes

15 YES votes   2 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Malenkai gains 10 points.  58 -> 68

15 YES votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  =  68               
  Robin Hood                                  =   2               
  Mellon                                      =  49               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  -4               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  35               
  Bash                   Underworld           =   0               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  11               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  35               
  Vulcan Unity vote                           =   0               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 151               
  Techno                 Underworld           =  12               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =   0               
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  breadbox                                    = -22               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  -9               

2 NO votes:  3 points each
  snowgod                (None Yet)            -6 -> -3           
  Guy Fawkes                                    0 -> 3            

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Bascule                FUN                  
  fnord                                       

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Robert Sevin                                
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           
  Pascal                                      
  Geezer                                      

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 1172 - Sun Sep 01 00:27:42 EDT 1996
I've Always Wondered What to Do if this Came Up
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 588, "Selecting a Judge", to add the following paragraph
after the first paragraph:

If the "remaining pool" is ever reduced to 0 eligible active players,
and a judge needs to be selected, then all those currently active players
who have previously declined judgement on the CFJ in question are added
back to the the remaining pool.  If doing this still leaves 0 eligible
judges, then the CFJ is deemed Invalid, and removed from consideration,
and no judge is selected.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 96 9:34:45 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1173 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 1173
  Proposal 1173 - Sun Sep 01 00:28:50 EDT 1996
  Silly Nomic
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 16 players cast votes

10 YES votes   8 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

snowgod loses 7 points.  -3 -> -10

10 YES votes:  3 point each
  Malenkai               FUN                   68 -> 71           
  Mellon                                       49 -> 52           
  Bascule                FUN                    0 -> 3            
  snowgod                (None Yet)           -10 -> -7           
  this is not a name     (None Yet)            11 -> 14           
  Habeous Corpus                               35 -> 38           
  Guy Fawkes                                    3 -> 6            
  Techno                 Underworld            12 -> 15           
  IdiotBoy               Underworld             0 -> 3            
  Tammany                                     =   0               

8 NO votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   2               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  -4               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  35               
  Bash                   Underworld           =   0               
  Vulcan Unity vote                           =   0               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 151               
  breadbox                                    = -22               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  -9               

0 PRESENT votes:

2 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  fnord                                       

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Robert Sevin                                
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           
  Pascal                                      
  Geezer                                      
==========================================
this is not a name spent A$20 bribing the Tammany.

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 96 9:35:54 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1174 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1174
  Proposal 1174 - Sun Sep 01 00:29:02 EDT 1996
  Market Research Feedback
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 16 players cast votes

13 YES votes   3 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Malenkai gains 10 points.  71 -> 81

13 YES votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  =  81               
  Robin Hood                                  =   2               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  35               
  Bascule                FUN                  =   3               
  Bash                   Underworld           =   0               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  14               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  38               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 151               
  Techno                 Underworld           =  15               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =   3               
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  breadbox                                    = -22               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  -9               

3 NO votes:  3 points each
  Mellon                                       52 -> 55           
  snowgod                (None Yet)            -7 -> -4           
  Guy Fawkes                                    6 -> 9            

1 PRESENT votes:
  ThinMan                Vulcan                =  -4

2 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  fnord                                       

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Robert Sevin                                
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           
  Pascal                                      
  Geezer                                      

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 1174 - Sun Sep 01 00:29:02 EDT 1996
Market Research Feedback
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 424, "Office of Registrar", to append the following text after
what is currently section (d):

(e) asking new players how they found out about the game, and making
this information public.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 96 9:37:21 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1175 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1175
  Proposal 1175 - Sun Sep 01 00:30:30 EDT 1996
  Amending 629
  IdiotBoy  (Matt Miller)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 16 players cast votes

12 YES votes   5 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

IdiotBoy gains 10 points.  3 -> 13

12 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   2               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  -4               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  35               
  Bascule                FUN                  =   3               
  Bash                   Underworld           =   0               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  14               
  Guy Fawkes                                  =   9               
  Techno                 Underworld           =  15               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =  13               
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  breadbox                                    = -22               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  -9               

5 NO votes:  3 points each
  Malenkai               FUN                   81 -> 84           
  Mellon                                       55 -> 58           
  snowgod                (None Yet)            -4 -> -1           
  Habeous Corpus                               38 -> 41           
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               151 -> 154          

0 PRESENT votes:

2 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  fnord                                       

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Robert Sevin                                
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           
  Pascal                                      
  Geezer                                      

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 1175 - Sun Sep 01 00:30:30 EDT 1996
Amending 629
IdiotBoy  (Matt Miller)

This is a Modest Proposal.

Amend Rule 629, section (f), subsection (2), which currently reads:

If, at the end of the Prescribed Voting Period, 7/8 of the votes received,
exclusive of votes of "PRESENT", are "YES", then the Report of the
Convention shall be Accepted. 

To read as follows:

If, at the end of the Prescribed Voting Period, at least 7/8 of the votes
received, exclusive of votes of "PRESENT", are "YES", then the Report of
the Convention shall be Accepted.

Reasoning:

The framers of rule 629 intended to allow the Report of the Convention to
be accepted under circumstances other than an EXACT 7/8 to 1/8 vote.  This
Rule Change would allow unanimous, and >7/8, acceptance to permit the
Report of the Convention to be accepted.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:37:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: chess loophole present; please help close it 

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
>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."

Contrary to Niccolo Flychuck's assertion below, this rule change is
absolutely unnecessary.  In fact, the language is very similary to that
of Rule 990, Section 3C.  The situation is already handled.

>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. 

I ask Niccolo and everyone else to _please_ read R990, section 3C before
deciding on your vote on Guy Fawke's proposal.  Indeed, I urge Guy to
retract his proposal once it is distributed.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 16:44:25 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1194

uunet!future.atlcom.net!future!wsheppar (uunet!future.atlcom.net!future!wsheppar) writes:
> Proposal 1194 - Sat Sep 07 15:18:03 EDT 1996
> The Machine That Goes *ping*
> Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

In general this is a nice game. However, the game being fun is totally
dependent upon the good will of the Scholar. If e wants too, e can
create something which is totally unguessable. We can try and fix some
of those, but I think eventually this (creating something which is
totally unguessable) is always possible.

Examples:

"X is/equal X"
[[X can be anything here]]

"the man who sits next to me drinks coffee before nine o'clock"

"divided by his Guesian function is a singular polynomial matrix"
[[or something else which only the Scholar knows something about]]

My suggestion, make it clear in the rule that the if clause must be
guessable. From here on Paragraph VIII takes care of the Scholar.

> IV.  Under no circumstances may the Scholar announce the Machine's truth 
> in any method other than a public message, nor in any form other than the 
> disguised one described above.

Yeh, but e can easily hint it to his friends, if e really wants
too. Maybe we should change "announce" to something more restricting.

Anyway, I'll still vote YES, counting of the good will of people here.

Bash

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:05:13 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1191 

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>Niccolo's objection does take care of the difficulties I forsaw in using 
>the CopyCat and Pawn.  Il-Nabi, however is another matter.

>R 990, 3C currently reads, "A PartyChessPieceDef rule may define means 
>different from those defined in this rule by which the defined piece may 
>capture opponents' pieces.  If it does, then this rule defers to that 
>PartyChessPieceDef rule with regard to capturing."

The solution, then, is a slight rewording of section 3C.  That would surely
be a modest proposal.  In fact, I feel it coming on me now.  An entire new
section that is for the most part redundant is not the way I prefer to
handle this.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:20:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Bronze Torch 

Proconsul Malenkai wrote:
>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.

Thank you, Malenkai.  I will carry this torch with honor and respect, and
will endeavor to use it wisely.

ThinMan
Bronze Torch newbie

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:39:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1191

I hereby accede to ThinMan's request, and retract P 1191.
Within five minutes, I will send a modest proposal to the Promoter as he 
suggested.  Thank you for your suggestion.

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> >Niccolo's objection does take care of the difficulties I forsaw in using 
> >the CopyCat and Pawn.  Il-Nabi, however is another matter.
> 
> >R 990, 3C currently reads, "A PartyChessPieceDef rule may define means 
> >different from those defined in this rule by which the defined piece may 
> >capture opponents' pieces.  If it does, then this rule defers to that 
> >PartyChessPieceDef rule with regard to capturing."
> 
> The solution, then, is a slight rewording of section 3C.  That would surely
> be a modest proposal.  In fact, I feel it coming on me now.  An entire new
> section that is for the most part redundant is not the way I prefer to
> handle this.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:53:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1194

Self-deleting text in P1194 initially places the Machine in Xanadu, my 
Home, meaning I will be the first Scholar.  I assure everyone that I will 
pick a truth that is guessable (maybe not easy, possibly even obscure, 
but certainly guessable).  The comment that the game in its present form 
depends entirely on the Scholar's good will is true, and although it is 
difficult to legislate "guessablility" without going into long and 
convoluted definitions that are still imperfect, I hope to submit a 
proposal to correct these problems as soon as P1194 passes.  I may RFC it 
this afternoon or maybe tomorrow.

Guy Fawkes

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> uunet!future.atlcom.net!future!wsheppar (uunet!future.atlcom.net!future!wsheppar) writes:
> > Proposal 1194 - Sat Sep 07 15:18:03 EDT 1996
> > The Machine That Goes *ping*
> > Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> In general this is a nice game. However, the game being fun is totally
> dependent upon the good will of the Scholar. If e wants too, e can
> create something which is totally unguessable. We can try and fix some
> of those, but I think eventually this (creating something which is
> totally unguessable) is always possible.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> "X is/equal X"
> [[X can be anything here]]
> 
> "the man who sits next to me drinks coffee before nine o'clock"
> 
> "divided by his Guesian function is a singular polynomial matrix"
> [[or something else which only the Scholar knows something about]]
> 
> My suggestion, make it clear in the rule that the if clause must be
> guessable. From here on Paragraph VIII takes care of the Scholar.
> 
> > IV.  Under no circumstances may the Scholar announce the Machine's truth 
> > in any method other than a public message, nor in any form other than the 
> > disguised one described above.
> 
> Yeh, but e can easily hint it to his friends, if e really wants
> too. Maybe we should change "announce" to something more restricting.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll still vote YES, counting of the good will of people here.
> 
> Bash
> 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 07:53:24 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals 

>
>I haven'e forgotten. I'd like to re-iterate the point that I won't support
>a Senate only vote, but might support it if it includes all Institutions.
>
>Niccolo Flychuck

I'm not really partial either way...

If people will accept an institution vote, in addition to the senate, I'll
do that too.  I do not plan on giving a vote to the ambassador though, at
least if it is only the senate, because then the senate and the ambassador
could deadlock.

I don't know...  Would you guys rather have each institution cast a vote,
(we'd need to give a third vote to someone (ambassador or president) in
order to avoid deadlock)) or would you rather have just the senate vote on
internomic matters?

I'll RFC both.

snowgod
Ambassador
President
And So Much More

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
THIS SPACE AVAILABLE FOR RENT
CONTACT SNOWGOD FOR RATES
MALENKAI THIS MEANS YOU
* * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 18:54:18 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

On Sun, 8 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

>      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.]}}

Perhaps because there only 20 odd players in Ackanomic. The size and
numbers of organizations naturally tends to be limited by the size of the
population.

Niccolo Flychuck
 > 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 18:58:44 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Back from vacation

On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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
>
Not if I get them first :)

Niccolo Flychuck

Vulcan Swinger

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 12:02:22 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1194

From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
[snip] [..it is ]
> difficult to legislate "guessablility" without going into long and 
> convoluted definitions that are still imperfect, I hope to submit a 

Grrr, that Godel is REALLY starting to get on my nerves.

Yes, I DO like to send content-free one-liners-
IdiotBoy

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 12:12:24 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> Perhaps because there only 20 odd players in Ackanomic. The size and
> numbers of organizations naturally tends to be limited by the size of the
> population.

Another reason to use the exponential growth function (reminder:  I
suggested 2^(n-3) votes, where n is the number of members in a party)  Sure,
this has potential to limit the value of individual player votes, but so
does the electoral college used for selecting Presidents in the United
States.

Another thought, we have a senate, but I've kinda grown accoustomed to a
bicameral legislature.  How about a Congress which selects representatives
based on "districts" from the Ackanomic Map.

Dont make me RFC this stuff.

One of the odd players-
IdiotBoy

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:30:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> 
> Another thought, we have a senate, but I've kinda grown accoustomed to a
> bicameral legislature.  How about a Congress which selects representatives
> based on "districts" from the Ackanomic Map.

I've lobbied for sometime to create the atmosphere for another
Institution, however using the Ackanomic map never occured to me. Other
divisions are also possible. Divide players by alphabetical order, number
of letter in the Ackanomic. Length of time they have been in the game. 
I think it would be good to have another Institution. I considered RFCing
a Synod, though I doubt such an Institution would be pratical with only a
single Church in Acknomic, OTOH, the creation of such an Institution migh
encourage the formation of Churches. 
Naturally, a non-organizational Institution is necessary as well.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Dont make me RFC this stuff.
> 
> One of the odd players-
> IdiotBoy
> 

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 12:28:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1194

robert gene shimmin wrote:

[bash wrote]

> > Yeh, but e can easily hint it to his friends, if e really wants
> > too. Maybe we should change "announce" to something more restricting.
> >
> > Anyway, I'll still vote YES, counting of the good will of people here.

> it is  difficult to legislate "guessablility" without going into long and
> convoluted definitions that are still imperfect, I hope to submit a
> proposal to correct these problems as soon as P1194 passes.  I may RFC it
> this afternoon or maybe tomorrow.

You cannot codify spirit and good will of people, no matter how hard you
try,
so I wouldn't break your back on it.

One suggestion I do have, re my previous comments, is strike the clause
about the
Gaol, and require that the scholar be in the same location as the
machine in
order to study it.  I am going to be trying to develop the location
stuff more,
time willing, so that one's current location becomes more significant.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 12:33:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals

Phil Ackley wrote:

> If people will accept an institution vote, in addition to the senate, I'll
> do that too.  I do not plan on giving a vote to the ambassador though, at
> least if it is only the senate, because then the senate and the ambassador
> could deadlock.

I like the senate vote only.  Give the senate more to do.  It can evolve
into an
internomic legislative institution.  Players can petition *their*
senator.

Having all institutions vote seems a bit cumbersome.  What *are* the
current
institutions?

One problem I forsaw, and was dismayed to see "As the World Sees Us"
fail, is to
do something embarrasing like Agora did and submit a proposal, only to
be voted
down by the same nomic that proposed it.

This fix should go hand in hand with my (unseccessful) attempt to
develop the
internomic interface so this cannot happen, and would appreciate if
snowgod could
work that in.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 12:37:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

Matt Miller wrote:

> Another thought, we have a senate, but I've kinda grown accoustomed to a
> bicameral legislature.  How about a Congress which selects representatives
> based on "districts" from the Ackanomic Map.

Lets not model real life *too* closely.  I think P 1141 solved all of
our voting
problems.  What is the Underworld Party's fee for getting this passed?

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 12:47:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 276 Appeal

CFJ 276 has been appealed by Wayne, without comment.

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

BTW, sorry about those garbled looking mail messages by me.  I upgraded
to netscape 3.0 last night, and this started happening.  Does anyone
else
use netscape's mail client, have upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0, and  seen
these
line breaks thrown in?

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:07:23 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 276 Appeal

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> BTW, sorry about those garbled looking mail messages by me.  I upgraded
> to netscape 3.0 last night, and this started happening.  Does anyone
> else
> use netscape's mail client, have upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0, and  seen
> these
> line breaks thrown in?
> 
> Malenkai
> 
First, I'm not sure I would call that upgrading.
Second, it seems very masochistic to use Netscape's mail client :)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:20:59 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> > If people will accept an institution vote, in addition to the senate, I'll
> > do that too.  I do not plan on giving a vote to the ambassador though, at
> > least if it is only the senate, because then the senate and the ambassador
> > could deadlock.
> 
> I like the senate vote only.  Give the senate more to do.  It can evolve
> into an
> internomic legislative institution.  Players can petition *their*
> senator.
> 
> Having all institutions vote seems a bit cumbersome.  What *are* the
> current
> institutions?

Party-Hall and the Senate. 
I don't believe there are any other Institutios.
Financier is  (or was) multi seat, but is functional and not political.

Anyway, I can RFC a couple.  I think another Institution would be a good
idea.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 18:13:29 +0000
From: Matt Blackler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

> Another thought, we have a senate, but I've kinda grown accoustomed to a
> bicameral legislature.  How about a Congress which selects representatives
> based on "districts" from the Ackanomic Map.
> 
> Dont make me RFC this stuff.
> 
> One of the odd players-
> IdiotBoy

That would be cool. It would create a less representative executive
and open up the possibility of gerrymandering. 

To really put the icing on the cake, if we made it so that new
proposals had to be ratified by some body before entering the
ruleset, we'd give these representatives real power, unlike the
pretend power that the Senate has at the moment. Then we'd get
behind-the-scenes deals, corruption and the government becoming more
remote from the electorate. Every couple of months we'd have
elections with negative campaigning, spin doctors, the works. I'd
like this very much. 

Bascule

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:24:42 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[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
> 
I oppose both your proposal and /dev/joe's suggestion, the Party Unity
vote is quite sufficient.  
When a larger Party gets a Unity Vote it already has a more votes than a
smaller Party which gets Unity Votes - this exrta votes are unnecessary.

They might encourage fewer bigger Parties, something which is I do not as
desirable. There should some incentives for Individuality as well.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:26:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> 
> 
> > 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
> 
There was a time when I tried to introduce some weird function for
scoring. Anything that's looks like that would get voted down. 
Personally I like that stuff, but it's a lot of work for a very small
return.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:32:56 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, 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.  I mean, if you have swing votes AND party unity votes, the 
> importance of the individual player begins to fade away.  With multiple 
SwingVotes actually give non-aligned players a slight advantage. Parties
are limited on the number of SwingVotes per proposal that can come from a
single Party, non-aligned players are only limited individualy. 
If Pary members don't coordinate their SwingVotes they could easily lose
some.
On any single proposal, there can potentially be one SwingVote per
non-aligned player, but only two per Party.

> 	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.
the non-aligned players are not a party by default, and there
definitely should not be a NAP Unity Vote.
Individuality is a sacred concept.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #215
*******************************