Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #216
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Monday, September 9 1996       Volume 01 : Number 216

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:39:56 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: chess loophole present; please help close it

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> 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.

Sorry Thinman , but that is not a quote from me. In fact, originally I
objected to the ammendment. Guy Fawkes  pointed out the possible problem
in the existing, and I should have pointed out that ammending it would be
better than adding a redundant clause.

If Guy Fawkes were to submit an ammendment to that clause, which would not
compromise it, I would support it.

 > 
> >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 thepiece 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.
Once again, this is not my quote.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> ThinMan
> 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:48:38 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 275 Verdict

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 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 bypassage 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

I did, and the content of your reply appears extremely close to the
content of mine.
 
I claim that p1190 will ammend the PartyChess rules in such a way that
will break that trend.

Otherwise, as far as the existing rules are concerned, no argument.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:03:41 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: P1194 problems 

P 1194 has received much praise and acclaim, and some seem to believe
that its passage is assured.  It may indeed pass, but I oppose it, and I
have several specific problems with it.

1) It is too damned long.

2) In section I, it states that only one Machine exists at any time, but
   then provides for a situation in which more than one exists.  Only the
   condition for eliminating excess Machines is necessary.

3) In section I, it is not clear to me that the clause intended to destroy
   excess Machines actually works.  It says "the most recently created
   [Machine] is destroyed until only one exists."  If there are three
   Machines, then I can destroy the third one forever and there will still
   be two.

4) Section II says that the Machine "may exist only in the Home of one
   active player."  It then specifies that the Machine starts in Xanadu.
   With that wording, I claim that the Machine may not exist in any other
   place than Xanadu.

5) In section III the proposal says that the Scholar _must_ announce the
   Machine's truth, and then provides a consequence if the Scholar does
   not.  With that wording, the Quack (erstwhile Scholar) would be liable
   for CFCJ proceedings in addition to the penalty described in P1194.  I
   assume that this is not the intention.

6) Section V requires that the Machine go *ping* _whenever_ the "today
   {if clause}" is true, which would have the Machine pinging continuously
   on Wednesdays and Thursdays with the example Truth.  The section later
   says that the Machine will ping at most once every day.  This does not
   constitute a paradox under the recent fix for this sort of thing, but
   it is still sloppy.

7) Section V requires that the Machine go *ping* at least once every seven
   days, regardless of the Machine's Truth.  This is not paradoxical, because
   the proposal does not prevent the Machine from going *ping* on days other
   than the ones specified by its Truth, which is a problem of its own.

8) I am very much against the Machine producing a "random gadget" from the
   existing blueprints.  There are good checks on the inventor's ability
   to produce gadgets, which are useful for several reasons.  The Machine
   would bypass that entirely.  I would think that the Inventor would object,
   too, seeing as how he stands to lose most, if not all, of his invening-
   derived income.  In addition, what if no Blueprints exist?

9) Again in section V, the proposal specifies actions that the Scholar is
   required to take, and then assigns penalties if he should fail to take
   such action.  This provides for prosecution of the Scholar in addition
   to the specified penalties.

10) The precedence problem with Rule 709 will be a big one for the Scholar
    if he does actually end up in Gaol before it is fixed.

I like the general idea, but not in its current form.  I wonder whether
Niccolo feels that his toes have been stepped on re Eleusis.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:09:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: 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)
> Proposal PASSES

Upon the passage of this proposal, Malenkai's Blue Cross Rank reached 80.

At a vast assembly in the presence of all the citizens of Ackanomia, I
present Malenkai with another Silver Stripe.

/dev/joe
Senator, /dev/senate3

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:18:04 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: chess loophole present; please help close it 

My apologies to Niccolo Flychuck for attributing to him material 
regarding the proposed Party Chess fix that he did not, in fact, author.
I don't recall anymore who actually wrote that material, although my
response to it still stands.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:19:34 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
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. 

I know!  Let's play 20-player Diplomacy!

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:38:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Scorekeeperness

With the addition of a lot more Whamiol points for Habeous Corpus, snowgod's
penalty for not responding to CFJ 275 while in Gaol, snowgod's bonus for
posting what Phoebe said, Wayne's penalty for appealing CFCJ 112, the
politeness moon on tinan, scoring for proposals 1172-1175, and Guy Fawkes's
retraction of P1191, the current scores are:

Score	Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----	--------------      ---  -------------
154	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
84	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
58	Mellon               A   (Niklas Mellin)
41	Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
35	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
15	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
14	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
13	IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
7	Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
5	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
3	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
2	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
0	Bash                 A   (Erez Bashan)
0	Calvin N Hobbes      I   (Thierry Joffrain)
0	fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
0	fon                  I   (Adrian Smith) 
0	mr cwm               V   (Eric Murray) 
0	Robert Sevin         I   (Mitchell Harding) 
- -1	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
- -4	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
- -5	Pascal               V   (Jason Reed) 
- -9	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
- -10	Geezer               V   (David Chapman)
- -22	breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)

I believe fon, Robert Sevin, and Calvin N Hobbes are On Ice, though the
registrar has not announced it yet.

breadbox was the Gnome Buddy for proposals 1172-1175, and I note that the
gnome votes were not shown, but they should be YES on 1172, 1174, 1175,
and NO on 1173 -- none of these affects the acceptance or rejection of the
proposals. 

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:42:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: scores oops

Those scores I sent out are slightly wrong, because I forgot to add
Malenkai's 5 points for proposal 1174 being short.

In any case, Malenkai never reached 76 points exactly.  He was at 71 before
P1174, scored 15 for it and 3 on P1175.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:55:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: scores again

Oops, again.
IdiotBoy has 5 points less than I showed, because P1175 was modest.

I also note that the "Reasoning" section in P1175 either became a new rule,
or was also added in to rule 629, depending on the interpretation.  I will
need to clean this up (along with all the little rules we probably also have,
which say "This is a Modest Proposal") when I fix rule 491.

/dev/joe
Overworked (in real life, not because of Acka)

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 22:08:30 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >
> >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?
We only need some method to break the tie, not necessarily a third vote.
It is
possible for Party-Hall to vote neither yes nor no. In that case a third
vote could deadlock with the Senate. Anyway, a third Institution might be
created, in which case there might or might not be a tied vote.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> I'll RFC both.
ps
Go ahead, I was thinking of one vote per Institution, btw.

And thinking aloud, with one more non-organizational Institution and one
more Organizational Institution, it would be really fascinating to figure
out just how much each single player has on internomic :)

 > 
> 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 15:30:53 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

 From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> 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
> 

I guess that depends on how you define small returns.  I think it would
cause alot of interesting side effects.  For example, the Underworld party
would have, under this system, 2 extra votes, the other partys would have 1.
 This causes the partys to become more active in the community at large.  If
the Underworld would recruit 1 more member, it would have a total of 4 extra
votes.  That would give the Underworld a total of 9 votes for/against if it
could achieve party unity.  Assuming the other parties are unable to gain
"mindshare" and thus members, they could muster at most 4 votes.

This might be a small return, but I think it could change the dynamics of
Party membership and leadership.  Ok, I started this as a joke, but the more
I talk about it, the more I am able to conviince myself.

What do I know about big Parties?  I'm a Libertarian-
IdiotBoy

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:18:12 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

From: Matt Blackler <[email-masked]>
>
> 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

YES!  Finally someone who see potential for graft and abuse and doesn't shy
away.  I now have impetus to work on this with gusto!

IdiotBoy

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 16:47:49 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: scores again

> I also note that the "Reasoning" section in P1175 either became a new
rule,
> or was also added in to rule 629, depending on the interpretation.  I
will
> need to clean this up (along with all the little rules we probably also
have,
> which say "This is a Modest Proposal") when I fix rule 491.
> 
> /dev/joe
> Overworked (in real life, not because of Acka)

I don't think this is so.  The sections which were to change were clearly
delineated in the proposal.. I don't see how this could be, but hey, I'd
like more of my prose in the rules.

IdiotBoy

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 16:54:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: scores again

> > I also note that the "Reasoning" section in P1175 either became a new
> > rule, or was also added in to rule 629, depending on the interpretation. 
> > I will need to clean this up (along with all the little rules we probably
> > also have, which say "This is a Modest Proposal") when I fix rule 491.
> 
> I don't think this is so.  The sections which were to change were clearly
> delineated in the proposal.. I don't see how this could be, but hey, I'd
> like more of my prose in the rules.

There is game custom that pieces of a proposal which don't say they are
amending rules, creating rules, etc. are creating rules.  CFJ 196 established
the simple case of this game custom explicitly.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 00:24:45 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> > 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
> > 
> 
> I guess that depends on how you define small returns.  I think it would
> cause alot of interesting side effects.  For example, the Underworld party
> would have, under this system, 2 extra votes, the other partys would have 1.
> This causes the partys to become more active in the community at large.  If
> the Underworld would recruit 1 more member, it would have a total of 4 extra
> votes.  That would give the Underworld a total of 9 votes for/against if it
> could achieve party unity.  Assuming the other parties are unable to gain
> "mindshare" and thus members, they could muster at most 4 votes.

That is reason enough for me to oppose this. The Party Unity Vote, is
useful, and my Party has been getting quite a few of them. In fact ,I
started compiling some Ackanomic statistics and will publish some curious
facts soon. 
Allow me to demonstrate, under the current system, when Party members all
vote the same way they have the following number of votes

Party size     Party Votes
3		4
4		5
5		6
6		7

So bigger Parties do have more Votes, but by a smaller ratio. I like this,
there incentive to create Parties, but there also sufficient incentive for
pluralism, and still not enough invcentive for Individuality, other than
the curious effect SwingVotes restrictions on Parties have. Such
structures should have a part in the game, but should certainly not be a
dominating factor. 
A scheme such as yours would completely unbalance Ackanomic

I'm all for creating the framework for interesting interactions and
dynamics, but this proposal does nothing of the kind, it's a brute force
proposal.
If this has a chance of passing, that would give me great incentive to
change entirely the Party Law of Gravity.

 > 
> This might be a small return, but I think it could change the dynamics of
> Party membership and leadership.  Ok, I started thisas a joke, but the more
> I talk about it, the more I am able to conviince myself.
>
Too forceful a change, too few elements at play, no real dynamics, just
brute force

> What do I know about big Parties?  I'm a Libertarian-
> IdiotBoy
> 
>
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 18:41:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposals

Uri Bruck wrote:
Uri Bruck wrote:

> We only need some method to break the tie, not necessarily a third vote.
> It is possible for Party-Hall to vote neither yes nor no. In that case a third
> vote could deadlock with the Senate. Anyway, a third Institution might be
> created, in which case there might or might not be a tied vote.

The senate idea was simple, clean, and fun.  On the other hand,
given the sparse interest in Internomic as it is, this is getting way out
of bounds in terms of complexity.  Lets just keep what we have and spend
this energy elsewhere.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:46:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

This is glaringly asking to be refuted.  Here goes...

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> P 1194 has received much praise and acclaim, and some seem to believe
> that its passage is assured.  It may indeed pass, but I oppose it, and I
> have several specific problems with it.
> 
> 1) It is too damned long.
> 
That's a matter of personal opinion.  At any rate, I'm calling a 
Politeness Moon on Thinman's calling anything associated with me "damned" 
anything.  Send your votes to Malenki.

> 2) In section I, it states that only one Machine exists at any time, but
>    then provides for a situation in which more than one exists.  Only the
>    condition for eliminating excess Machines is necessary.
> 
If it passes, I'm more than willing to let it be cleaned up.  The whole 
concept came to me after a little bit too much late-night chemistry lab 
write-up combined with Monty Python, and I was forced to write it all 
down before I awoke from my trance.  I'm already taking suggestions on 
how to polish the machine.  Beside's, the CSRR can clean up any 
redundancies e likes.

> 3) In section I, it is not clear to me that the clause intended to destroy
>    excess Machines actually works.  It says "the most recently created
>    [Machine] is destroyed until only one exists."  If there are three
>    Machines, then I can destroy the third one forever and there will still
>    be two.
> 
The redundancy is to guard against potential loopholes.  If three ever 
should exist, the rule does destroy the third.  Then there are only two, 
one of which was created more recently than the other.  It, then, is toast.

> 4) Section II says that the Machine "may exist only in the Home of one
>    active player."  It then specifies that the Machine starts in Xanadu.
>    With that wording, I claim that the Machine may not exist in any other
>    place than Xanadu.
> 
The Xanadu clause is in self-deletion brackets, which means it will begin 
in Xanadu but after that, not be bound there.  There are several 
conditions under which the Machine can, and indeed will be transferred 
from home to home.

> 5) In section III the proposal says that the Scholar _must_ announce the
>    Machine's truth, and then provides a consequence if the Scholar does
>    not.  With that wording, the Quack (erstwhile Scholar) would be liable
>    for CFCJ proceedings in addition to the penalty described in P1194.  I
>    assume that this is not the intention.
> 
It very much is the intention.  The admitted dependence of this rule on 
this rule on the Scholar' good will must be countered in some way, 
and that way is to hit a Scholar who does screw up everything possible.

> 6) Section V requires that the Machine go *ping* _whenever_ the "today
>    {if clause}" is true, which would have the Machine pinging continuously
>    on Wednesdays and Thursdays with the example Truth.  The section later
>    says that the Machine will ping at most once every day.  This does not
>    constitute a paradox under the recent fix for this sort of thing, but
>    it is still sloppy.
> 
Yes, it is sloppy (see chem lab and Monty Python above.)  If you want to 
help fix it, requests are being taken.

> 7) Section V requires that the Machine go *ping* at least once every seven
>    days, regardless of the Machine's Truth.  This is not paradoxical, because
>    the proposal does not prevent the Machine from going *ping* on days other
>    than the ones specified by its Truth, which is a problem of its own.

No -- section V requires the Machine go *ping* at least once every seven 
days, which requires that the Truth allow it to.  The Scholar is not 
permitted to lie concerning *ping*'s, and I believe lying is a violation 
of the Truth. 

> 8) I am very much against the Machine producing a "random gadget" from the
>    existing blueprints.  There are good checks on the inventor's ability
>    to produce gadgets, which are useful for several reasons.  The Machine
>    would bypass that entirely.  I would think that the Inventor would object,
>    too, seeing as how he stands to lose most, if not all, of his invening-
>    derived income.  In addition, what if no Blueprints exist?
 
snowgod is the Inventor, and P1194 has received his praise.  If you felt 
the Financier was compromised, I might understand your objections.  Also, 
a random selection from a null set must come up with nothing.

> 9) Again in section V, the proposal specifies actions that the Scholar is
>    required to take, and then assigns penalties if he should fail to take
>    such action.  This provides for prosecution of the Scholar in addition
>    to the specified penalties.
> 
See my comments on your previous similar objection.

> 10) The precedence problem with Rule 709 will be a big one for the Scholar
>     if he does actually end up in Gaol before it is fixed.

A big problem for the Scholar alone, and I will be the first one.  I accept 
the challenge to stay out of jail. 
 
> I like the general idea, but not in its current form.  I wonder whether
> Niccolo feels that his toes have been stepped on re Eleusis.

A cheap shot, and Niccolo has made no such objections, and he has been 
far more vocal about many things lately than you have.  Despite my short 
stay here, I have noted that Niccolo is not one to remain silent when he 
feels strongly about something.  Let him speak for himself, if he will.
I like the Eleusis idea as much as the next man, and see no reason not to 
play both sub-games.  Nothing requires anyone to guess at the Machine's 
truth, really.

> ThinMan > 
> 

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 19:05:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

robert gene shimmin wrote:

[responses to ThinMan's criticism]

I am reiterating my support for P 1194.  It is clever, well written, and a
shot in the arm of FUN.  The FUN Party unamimously endoses it (at least
hopefully when CnH comes back to vote on it).

In response to some of ThinMan's critical comments:

Party Chess was much longer and much buggier the *second* time it came out
than this proposal is.  Acka was willing to accept that, and make the necessary
amendments.  It seems foolish to think something moderately interesting or
complex can be written bug-free the first time around.

As for its length, the gist is quite simple.  The "length" accounts for alot
of loophole protection that we forced ourselves into when we abandoned common
sense a couple of months ago.

As for its similarity to Eleusis,  Niccolo did not invent Eleusis, nor did he
invent chess.  There is nothing wrong with that, and no slap against Niccolo.
Creative adaptions of either system seem perfectly reasonable, and I agree that
Eleusis, the Machine, and Party Chess can all exist as subgames.  For that
matter, we didn't invent Nomic.  Should we not play it or adapt it?

As for the precedence claim with Gaol, I agree this should be fixed, but it certainly
doesn't hurt.  The rules are clear as to how to handle it.  I was going to clean
that part of the rule up anyway, as it compromised what I was planning to do
with locations development, but I can live with it for a couple of weeks.

Vote YES on P 1194.  Legalize FUN.

Malenkai
FUN Party

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 18:10:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

The idea of electoral districts on the AckaMap is one I'm neither for nor 
agianst, but I do have one question.  The Map-Harfer places 
buildings on the map, but does anything make his choice of placement 
legally binding?  If no, the idea of a district is pointless.  If yes, 
sooner or later, the Map is going to have to be expanded, hopefully, and 
that could screw EVERYTHING up.  And if we can accommodate more players 
by adding territory along the border, legislating a larger Senate 
building would still require massive internal rearrangement.

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.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 19:18:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

robert gene shimmin wrote:
 
> The idea of electoral districts on the AckaMap is one I'm neither for nor
> agianst.

I am against simulating a represenative government in Acka.  The country
in which I live is attempting that, with marginal success, and keeping
up with those goings on is quite enough.

Voting is part of the fun.  Just because a particular body is called a senate,
does not mean that its function has to mirror the traditional Roman
or American definition.

Malenkai
P 1199 was supposed to fix exactly 2 bugs.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 96 19:28:30 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1201

Proposal 1201 - Mon Sep 09 19:28:30 EDT 1996
Power to the Pieces (again)
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend the first sentence of Rule 990, section 3C to read:

"A PartyChessPieceDef rule may define means different from those defined 
in this rule by which the defined piece may capture or not capture 
opponent's pieces."

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 19:33:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Allow me to demonstrate, under the current system, when Party members all
> vote the same way they have the following number of votes

[statistics, and the obvious fact that a party with 6 members who votes
unanimously means more votes than a party of 3 voting unanimously, cut.]

Its nice to see one of my proposals getting so much discussion.  Its been
awhile.  I should like to *seperate* the baby from the bathwater in this case,
however, as most of the discussion has nothing to do with what P 1199 attempts
to accomplish.

1) It fixes a bug when a player switches parties.  Assume proposal X is up for
vote, and player W is a member of party Y.  Player W switches to party Z while
X is up for vote.  Party Y (ex-W) all votes YES.  Party Z (ex-W) all votes NO.
Player W votes YES.  Who, if anyone, gets the Unity vote?  It seems that you
have to detemine the exact time player W voted, and account for changed votes, etc.
What if party U is involved as well.  Forget it! :)

2) The n/3 does not change power in any way.  Under the current system, the 6
player party splits, and still gets 8 votes in the unanimous direction.  What 
party wouldn't?  Hence the title, to give less incentive to split.

P 1199 really doesn't do all that much.  Vote YES to fix the bugs (the baby), then
worry about party power later (the bathwater).

Malenkai
FUN Party may be dead soon :(

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:39:34 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Old CFJs

Wow, I didn't go that far back.  I did think the {},[] commenting was way
outta hand. In any case, should I be working to get that stuff outta there?

Duly chastised-
IdiotBoy

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:47:29 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

The Map is pretty well unlegislated right now, which actually makes this
easier.  I'm not exactly pushing this yet.  But I think we need a way to get
to know our Ackanomic neighbors, and do some propogandizing.

I could use a good spell-checker, too-
IdiotBoy

- ----------
> From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199
> Date: Monday, September 09, 1996 7:10 PM
> 
> 
> The idea of electoral districts on the AckaMap is one I'm neither for nor

> agianst, but I do have one question.  The Map-Harfer places 
> buildings on the map, but does anything make his choice of placement 
> legally binding?  If no, the idea of a district is pointless.  If yes, 
> sooner or later, the Map is going to have to be expanded, hopefully, and 
> that could screw EVERYTHING up.  And if we can accommodate more players 
> by adding territory along the border, legislating a larger Senate 
> building would still require "districts" from the Ackanomic Map.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 19:47:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 269 Appeal Verdict

The Supreme Court has overturned CFJ 269 to TRUE.  

The Court has neglected to penalize the original judge, so the
end of cycle bookeeping will have to wait on that.

The irony in this thing is more interesting than anything
else.  To bad I didn't have time to write it all down.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 269
  Subject: Harfy Paradox
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Pascal (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Breadbox (failed to respond)
3rd Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Aug 29, 1996, 19:45h New York Time)

Statement:

It cannot be determined with finality whether the Harfmeister is permitted
to declare a proposal under consideration Harfy, if three other such
proposals are currently designated as Harfy.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The reasoning is identical to that of CFJ 256, and CFJ 256's result
establishes game custom that these types of self-inconsistent rules are
paradoxes, and should be interpreted thusly.

The self-inconsistent sections from R 1112.1:

> The Harfmeister may designate proposals currently under consideration
> (in the voting queue) as Harfy, by publically announcing that he or
> she is doing so.

> No more than three proposals may be designated as Harfy at the same
> time.

The first sentence *allows* all proposals to be designated as Harfy,
provided the Harfmeister follows a prescribed procedure.

The second sentence, however, *prohibits* the Harfmeister from designating
certain proposals as Harfy.

Thus it is indeterminate.  We cannot tell which sentence is to have
precedence, just as we couldn't tell whether section (ii) or (iii) had
precedence in the old R 514, leaving the only possible rendering a
paradox, as was rendered in CFJ 256 (qv).

The parallels to CFJ 256 are stunning.  Section (ii) of R 514 *appeared*
to introduce a broad class of contracts which were enforceable, where
section (iii) *appeared* to introduce a qualifier to restrict the pool
of which contracts in (ii) were actually enforceable.  Beacause the
apparantly qualifiying section was not joined by "unless", "except if",
"and", or "otherwise", the paradox rendering was found "to be more
reasonable than the non-paradox reading".

R 1112.1 *appears*, in a sentence, to introduce broad conditions under
which a proposal may be declared Harfy, where the following sentence
*appears* to introduce a qualifier to restrict the pool of which proposals
may be declared Harfy.  Beacause the apparantly qualifiying sentence is
not joined by "unless", "except if", "and", or "otherwise", the paradox
rendering must be found "to be more reasonable than the non-paradox
reading".

CFJ 256 only showed the paradox for a subclass of contracts (Blue Cross
contracts), as this only shows the paradox for a subclass of proposals
(those in excess of three, or those by the Harfmeister (see below; I
didn't want to submit a second CFJ for that case, just as ThinMan
did not submit a second CFJ 256 for Silver Stripes)).

The fact that one is couched in prosiac sentences and the other in
sections should hold no sway whatsoever.  If it does, we've got bigger
problems.  All the section designations in the old R 514 do is add
whitespace.

I also point out another self-inconsistent section of the rule (proposals
submitted by the Harfmeister, alluded to above), which will arrive at the
same paradox:

> The Harfmeister may not designate his or her own proposals as Harfy

Upon a verdict of TRUE, the initiator will win in accordance with R 219.

Pascal's Comments:

Hrm. Although I really think the answer to this is FALSE, I'll have to
decline judgement; I'm not sure I know precedent and the rules well enough
to decide this one completely accurately.

To me, the first paragraph simply says _who_ can make proposals harfy and
_how_ e does; It is not a generalization, but two restrictions, and the next
paragraph is simply another, as well as the one disallowing
auto-harfydesignation.

That's just my reading of the rules, tho'...

Habeous Corpus' Reasoning:

I almost let Malenkai get away with this one.  If e had not added that
last qualifier - "if three other such proposals are currently designated
as Harfy".

Malenkai attempts to parallel Rule 1112 with Rule 514.  I find this
reasoning faulty;  R1112 only states "proposals currently under
consideration" without specifying the number or any other conditions.  I
take this to mean that previously resolved proposals and RFC's and
non-proposal statements,  etc. are excluded from being considered Harfy.
If R1112 had stated something like "all rules in the current voting que"
or an equivalent,  then I could have agreed with eir reasoning.  R514 was
specific about what was a "valid Contract" then contradicted itself
outright in the next section.
  
I have no problem with Malenkai's reasoning that there is no semantic or
systemic difference between a "numbered section",  paragraph,  or
successive sentence.  But since the earlier sentence did nothing to
specifically include "all" proposals in the voting que,  I must assume
that a direct modifier following immediately afterward is valid without
the necessity of a qualifying term such as "except" or "but".

Malenkai's second point was very relevant,  in that  it does establish a
exclusionary condition not previously establish or qualified.  This could
indeed be interpreted to result in a paradox.  Unfortunately,  Malenkai's
Statement was specific in detailing the condition for determining the
paradox;  one which does not hold up in this judge's opinion.  If eir
Statement had included the exclusionary language as explicitly as it
spelled out the other,  I might have seen it eir way.

Based on the content of the Statement and the argument supporting that
Statement only,  this CFJ is Judged FALSE.

Wayne's Appeal Reasoning:

	[none - CotC]

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Although the relevant section of R 1112.1 is not perfectly logically
equivalent to that of former rule 514, the Court concurs with the initiator
that R 1112.1 does contain a paradox of the same kind that 514 contained.
The verdict of CFJ 269 is therefore overturned to TRUE.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #216
*******************************