Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #218
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, September 10 1996      Volume 01 : Number 218

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:51:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

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.
It is rather nice.
> 
> 1) It is too damned long.
arguable, but some rules need to be long.
> 

> 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.

Not really, but it does hamper my other plan to introduce The Wheel of
Fortune :)  -  Like, with the all the cash we got flowing around.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:58:55 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:

> 
> > 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.

Guy Fawkes may have been for a short time, but he already makes astute
observations.
Thinman's comment, which probably made partly in jest, is certainly no
reason for me to object. There other problems with this rule, and I think
that such long rules should be RFCd first. It's a good way to get rid of
many problems. Just look at all the problems we had starting PartyChess.

A point I feel I must agree on wth Thinman is the ability to create
random Gadgets. This point alone will is reason enoug for me to doubt
whether to support this rule. Not because I don't like the Machine, the
Machine seems like a great idea to spend our hard earned A$ on, but
becasue I'm not crazy about too many Gadgets - a fact which the single
Gadget I own demonstrates rather well.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> > ThinMan > 
> > 
> 
> Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:08:07 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar - Ice & Potatoes and do you want fries with that?

Bascule got back from Vacation, which means that there are no more
Swingers on Vacation.

The following players are on-ice
Calvin N Hobbes
fon
Robert Sevin

The bearer of the Magic Potato (this still being Monday in large parts of
Ackanomia) is ....

.... this is not a name

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:55:10 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1194

Malenkai uunet!itw.com!malenkai  (Malenkai uunet!itw.com!malenkai ) writes:
> robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Actually, when thinking about it, the whole AckaNomic is based on the
good will of its participants. After all, if you really want, you can
always judge against the rules on a CFJ etc.

The point is that in this specific game a bad will on the part of
*one* individual can ruin the game (in other cases it would take bad
will of several people). Hence, what I suggest is to state something
general about "guessablility", leaving it for a simple majority
decision to decide about it.

Bash

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:11:45 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> 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?

Well said. Those are both adaptations (although Party Chess includes a lot
of original and creative material) and the Machine also contains some
elements of existing games, although I would say that the Machine is far
close to a new game than eiter of my adaptations. May I reffer all who
qulams with Guy Fawkes's originality to Hofstadter's "Variation's on a
Theme as the Crux of Creativity"

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:16:22 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> 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).

I'm all for fixing said bugs. But I find the n/3 objectionable and can't
support it. 
I say fix the bug, then try to push those other things seperately.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Malenkai
> FUN Party may be dead soon :(
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:21:38 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official - Registrar

Calvin N Hobbes is back from Vacation, and no longer
On-ice
Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, T Joffrain wrote:

> To the person(s) it may concern.
> 
> I'd like to come back from vacation.
> 
> Thanks
> CnH
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:24:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> 
> For instance:
> Each player chooses a number between one and 4 (and sends their choice
> privately to the speaker) - This becomes thier group number.  Then each
> senator announces (publically) his choice of a number between one and 4
> (this is his seat number).  The speaker then announces which people are
> represented by which senator.
> 
> Or
> 
> Tying it to a players name, number of proposals, age, wealth or anything
> else (especially things that are dynamic so that the number ofplayers a
> senator represents will change over time)

I like this but -
There is no reason to tie these things to the Senate. I'd rather see the
Senate remain as it is, and these ideas fleshed out in a new  Institution.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:29:26 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PFBonds

A few days ago IdiotBoy offered to buy all of my PFBonds.

I'd like to make a counter offer. 
I'm offering IdiotBoy 30 PFBonds for A$1.5 each 
a total of A$45

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:11:42 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1201

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

> 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."
> 
> 
> 
No.
The way this is worded it will not create the correct
precedence.  The different capture moves of PartyChessPieceDef will no
longer take precedence over R990.
The last sentence of R990 3C is necessary.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 07:12:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1194

Bash's suggestion of majority acceptance/objection of the Machine's 
Truth is sort of what I'd already had in mind.  Any other ideas for 
fixing the machine would be welcome.  I'm already making a list.

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Malenkai uunet!itw.com!malenkai  (Malenkai uunet!itw.com!malenkai ) writes:
> > robert gene shimmin wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Actually, when thinking about it, the whole AckaNomic is based on the
> good will of its participants. After all, if you really want, you can
> always judge against the rules on a CFJ etc.
> 
> The point is that in this specific game a bad will on the part of
> *one* individual can ruin the game (in other cases it would take bad
> will of several people). Hence, what I suggest is to state something
> general about "guessablility", leaving it for a simple majority
> decision to decide about it.
> 
> Bash
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 07:15:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

Niccolo--

Have you read R. Wayne Schmidtberger's "New Rules for Classic Games"?  
Party Chess seems to show its influence.

Guy Fawkes

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> Well said. Those are both adaptations (although Party Chess includes a lot
> of original and creative material) and the Machine also contains some
> elements of existing games, although I would say that the Machine is far
> close to a new game than eiter of my adaptations. May I reffer all who
> qulams with Guy Fawkes's originality to Hofstadter's "Variation's on a
> Theme as the Crux of Creativity"
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 07:21:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

> A point I feel I must agree on wth Thinman is the ability to create
> random Gadgets. This point alone will is reason enoug for me to doubt
> whether to support this rule. Not because I don't like the Machine, the
> Machine seems like a great idea to spend our hard earned A$ on, but
> becasue I'm not crazy about too many Gadgets - a fact which the single
> Gadget I own demonstrates rather well.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

The creation of Gadgets can be debated as well as everything else.  
Unless someone guesses the Truth immediately (I really doubt they will), 
there is more than enough time to polish the Machine before its flaws 
really manifest.  I will note that only one gagdet can be created per 
Scholar's administration, and then only if the Truth is guessed.  
Meanwhile, a scholar's studies can last up to thirty pings, so the 
creation of gadgets by the machine will be a very slow process, and don't 
worry, Scrolls of Crumble are just as likely as anything else to be 
created :)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 07:25:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1201

Niccolo--

Read the proposal again.  Look at the words "Amend the first sentence of 
R990, section 3C."  Note that the proposal does not touch the last sentence.

Guy Fawkes

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > 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."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> No.
> The way this is worded it will not create the correct
> precedence.  The different capture moves of PartyChessPieceDef will no
> longer take precedence over R990.
> The last sentence of R990 3C is necessary.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:47:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> becasue I'm not crazy about too many Gadgets - a fact which the single
> Gadget I own demonstrates rather well.

What gadgets are you threatened by.  The Swing Vote situation is much
more threatening than the extant gadgets or potential gadgets.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:51:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 269 Appeal

CFJ 269 has been appealed by breadbox.  

I reiterate, in case it was lost in the shuffle, that the original judge of 
269 needs to be penalized 1-10 points by the Court, irrespective of this
appeal

Clerk of the Courts
Vote YES to repeal R 691 :)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
breadbox' Reasoning:

This CFJ claims that Rule 1112.1 is inconsistent, and the original
reasoning for this CFJ attempts to draw a parallel with CFJ 256,
which found Rule 514, or what was then Rule 514, to be internally
inconsistent. The two situations are NOT the same.

Consider the inconsistent rule that was 514. I quote the relevant
parts:

>    (ii) A Contract is Enforceable iff the behaviours it regulates are
>    among the following list:
>
>    a) The transfer of currency from Player to Player
>    b) A vote of YES or NO on one or more Proposals by Player
>    c) The transfer of an Ackanomic entity   [...]
>    (iii) A Contract is not Enforceable if any behaviour it regulates
>    violates any of the rules.

These two passages do contradict each other, but only by the usage, in
section (ii), of "iff", the logician's abbreviation for "if and only
if". The statement "X iff Y" indicates "X if Y" AND "X only if Y". It
says that Y is the only condition necessary or possible to determine
the truth of X. Thus the sentence in section (iii), which adds a
further conditional, contradicts section (ii).

[Now if section (ii) has stated "A Contract is Enforceable ONLY IF the
behaviours it regulates are on the following list ...", then it would
have prevented any other situations from making a contract
enforceable, but would have left open the possibility that a contract
that met the stated requirements might still be not enforceable, and
there would be no inconsistency with (iii).]

This is not the situation in Rule 1112.1. I quote the allegedly
contradictory statements:

> 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 rule does not state that the Harfmeister may do so if and only if
the proposal is in the voting queue, or if and only if a public
announcement is made. It does not even use an umbrella term, such as
"any or all proposals." The phrase "The Harfmeister may designate
proposals" cannot be construed as claiming that all restrictions on
this ability are to be found within that sentence. Nothing about its
phrasing indicates that it is the last word on how the ability can be
used. Is it not more reasonable to read it as merely identifying an
ability which belongs to the Harfmeister, to be used upon proposals?

As an analogy, consider the statement: "A heart attack may kill its
victim." That statement is not contradicted by the fact that heart
attacks often do not kill their victims. And it is certainly not in
the same class as the statement "A person is killed if and only if he
or she is the victim of a heart attack!"

Furthermore: I claim that the above reading is not only more
reasonable, but is also upheld by game custom. As proof I offer the
following selections from the current rule set.

* From Rule 818/3: "A player may wear a Prosthetic Forehead that they
  own ... After a player removes a Prosthetic Forehead, his real head
  is sore for 48 hours and she may not wear a Prosthetic Forehead
  during this time." Does the second sentence impose limits on the
  first sentence? Yes. Do they contradict each other? No.
* From Rule 891/1: "Any player may start a newspaper, by publically
  declaring that they are doing so.... A small fee of A$20 must be
  paid to the treasury to cover start-up costs." Does the fact that a
  player with less than A$20 cannot start a newspaper make the first
  sentence invalid? No.
* More in the style of the subject under debate are these examples
  from Rule 423/1: "A player may retract their own proposal by making
  a request to the public forum. The proposal may be retracted only if
  the results have not been publicly announced," and Rule 578/10: "A
  player may retract their own Call For Judgement (CFJ) by making a
  request to the public forum. The proposal may be retracted only if
  the judge has not decided on the outcome or the judge chosen has not
  accepted judgement on the CFJ."
* Wait, it gets better. Rule 508/3 begins by stating: "The players
  that are also Justices ... have the following powers.... They may
  nullify a Presidential decision.... They may nullify a Senatorial
  decision.... They may nullify a previous Supreme Court decision."
  It continues by stating that such powers are exercised via AOJs. The
  next paragraph states: "The following types of AOJs are explicitly
  prohibited ... An AOJ to nullify a Presidential Decision to appoint
  a particular player to the Supreme Court.... An AOJ to nullify a
  Senatorial Decision to confirm a particular player to the Supreme
  Court.... An AOJ that nullifies a decision made 7 days or more prior
  to the time of the (attempted) AOJ.
* Finally, consider the following, from Rule 569/10: "After any
  Judgement is returned, a player may appeal the case to the Supreme
  Court for consideration.... A player may not make more than 3 appeals
  of the same CFJ."

There are undoubtedly more examples of a similar nature. If the
Supreme Court allows their decision on CFJ 269 to stand, then all of
these rules, and more, will have to be rewritten.

[By contrast, there is not a single place in the current ruleset where
"if and only if" gives a contradictory reading by the definition I
have used here.]

I humbly beg the court to carefully examine all of these observations,
and reconsider their previous decision.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:55:22 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

With the seemingly outrageous inflation in Ackanomia, I guess those prices
aren't too bad.  However, I want to buy a minimum of 50PFBonds.  I am
willing to pay the 2 for A$3 prices.  (I am stating it that way, to avoid
trouble with the Fractional A$).

To summarize, I offer A$75 for 50 PFNiccolo.

IdiotBoy 
- ----------
> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: PFBonds
> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 4:29 AM
> 
> 
> A few days ago IdiotBoy offered to buy all of my PFBonds.
> 
> I'd like to make a counter offer. 
> I'm offering IdiotBoy 30 PFBonds for A$1.5 each 
> a total of A$45
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:57:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 269 Appeal

breadbox wrote, in his appeal of CFJ 269:

> These two passages do contradict each other, but only by the usage, in
> section (ii), of "iff", the logician's abbreviation for "if and only
> if". The statement "X iff Y" indicates "X if Y" AND "X only if Y". It
> says that Y is the only condition necessary or possible to determine
> the truth of X. Thus the sentence in section (iii), which adds a
> further conditional, contradicts section (ii).

Iff it matters, and it may not (its tough playing this game over 
breakfast before work), I must point out that "iff" must be rendered
as the English word "if", not as discussed above, per R 451, as "iff"
is not in the official disctionary, and is a misspelling of "if".

Malenkai
spelling god :)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:00:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: FUN Party

Guy Fawkes has joined the FUN Party.  The membership is now:

Bascule
Calvin N Hobbes
Guy Fawkes
Malenkai

Would the appropriate officers please make note of this.

FUN Party

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 9:59:22 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1199

>> 
>> 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).
>
>I'm all for fixing said bugs. But I find the n/3 objectionable and can't
>support it. 

I think n/3 is a good idea.  If Underworld was to grow to 6 members,
we would split into two parties, UW 1 and UW 2.  We would still vote
and discuss issues as a 6 member party, but we would get 2 unity votes.

Also I think we should allow parties to have less than 3 members.  They
would not get a unity vote until they hade three members though.

>I say fix the bug, then try to push those other things seperately.
>
>Niccolo Flychuck
>
>> 
>> Malenkai
>> FUN Party may be dead soon :(
>> 

Wayne

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:03:19 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1201

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:

> 
> 
> Niccolo--
> 
> Read the proposal again.  Look at the words "Amend the first sentence of 
> R990, section 3C."  Note that the proposal does not touch the last sentence.
> 
> Guy Fawkes

Missed that. In that case the proposal does have the intended effect, and 
no ill effects on the rule as it stands.

It's a go.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > > 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."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > No.
> > The way this is worded itwill not create the correct
> > precedence.  The different capture moves of PartyChessPieceDef will no
> > longer take precedence over R990.
> > The last sentence of R990 3C is necessary.
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 10:06:45 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1204

Proposal 1204 - Tue Sep 10 10:06:45 EDT 1996
Phoebe Fixup
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest Proposal.

Amend R 730 as follows:

1) add the following at the end of the 4th paragraph:

"Such challenges must be made within 3 days of the wisdom being posted, 
and may only be made once per report."

2) replace all occurrance of the phrase "the tabulator" with "the 
assistant tabulator".

{{[the first section is implicit game custom, I suppose, but I need it
to be explicit for something I am considering.  I do not want to tie
a needed fix to a potentially risky proposal, hence the modesty]}}

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 10:06:57 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1205

Proposal 1205 - Tue Sep 10 10:06:57 EDT 1996
ammend R1116
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

A proposal to ammend R1116 in the following ways:

I. In section 1 sub-section b, replace all occurences of the text 
"Swinger" with the text "Swingers"

II. In section 1 sub-section, replace all occurences of the text "highest
Absolute Weight" with the text "highest non-zero Absolute Weight"

III. Append to section 1, after the end of sub-section b, the following
text:
"c. Whenever two or more or more Swingers with non-zero Absolute Weights
have the same Absolute Weights, a condition of a Tie-Fighter is declared
by the Chess-Umpire. The condition of Tie-Fighter ceases to exist when all
non-zero Absolute Weights are different from one another."

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:07:53 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> With the seemingly outrageous inflation in Ackanomia, I guess those prices
> aren't too bad.  However, I want to buy a minimum of 50PFBonds.  I am
> willing to pay the 2 for A$3 prices.  (I am stating it that way, to avoid
> trouble with the Fractional A$).
> 
> To summarize, I offer A$75 for 50 PFNiccolo.
> 
> IdiotBoy 
> ----------

For 50 PFNiccolo I'd need a little more incentive than that.
I speculate that PFNiccolo will not be dropping anytime soon. 
All things considered I think a price of A$3 per bond would be fair.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 10:07:15 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1206

Proposal 1206 - Tue Sep 10 10:07:14 EDT 1996
Creation of  Games & Contests
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

1. There exists a class of entities known as Games & Contests (singular - 
Game or Contest)
2. Games & Contest are listed on the Games & Contest web page which is 
maitained by the GamesMaster
3. The GamesMaster is a Functional Officer.
4. A listing for a Game or Contest consists of the name of the Game or 
Contest, the name of its author or authors, and a link to a full 
description which may be maintained on a seperate page.
5. 
a.The Games & Contest web-page has a General Equipment Section, which 
specifies entities that may be used with any of the Games & Contest on 
the list. 
b. Entities from the General Equipment section have no influence 
on any Ackanomic entities other that than what is specified by this rule.

c. Equipment for a Game or Contest is implicitly created when the Game 
start, and destroyed when the game is over.
d. It is permissible for a Game or Contest to create legal Decks,
according to R1155. 
6. Each Game or Contest  has a legal ackanomic name.
7. The description for each Game or Contest may specify the following things:
a. Entities from the Genral Equipment section which are used in the 
specific Game or Contest
b. A list of entities specific to the Game or Contest, that can be used 
as part of the Game or Contest. Section 5, subsections b-d are applicable 
to the Game or Contest specific entities described in this section.
c. Upper and lower limits on the number of participants in the specific 
Game or Contest
d. Rules for the Game or Contest.
e. Conditions for winning the Game or Contest
f. any additional information necessary to play that specific Game or 
Contest.
8. Games & Contest have no direct influence on Ackanomic. They may not 
manipulate any Ackanomic entity, with the following exceptions:
a. Games & Contest may specify transfer of currency between participants, 
in the specific Game or Contest, as entry fees, rewards or penalties.
b. Games & Contests may specify a transfer of currency from the Treasury 
to the Game or Contest, with an upper of limit of A$50 per instance of a 
Game or a Contest.
c. Games may add or subtract points from the score of a participating 
player. The maximum number of points added or subtracted in any specific 
instance of a Game or a Context is 12.

9. Adding a listing to the Games & Contests web-page
There two ways to add a listing to the Games & Contests home page

 a.By sending a  description of Games & Contests, or Entities for the 
general equipment section are sent to the GamesMaster, who distirbutes 
the description publically. If at least 5 Active Players, or 10% of the 
Active Players, whicever is greater, endorse the description, then it is
added to the Games & Contest web-page, to the appropriate section.
10. Removing a listing of a Game or Context, or an entity from the 
General Equipment section from the Games & Contests web-page.
- - A Game, a Context or a an entity from the General Equipment section can 
be removed by a proposal whichi has been submitted and accepted according 
to the rules.
11. Participation in Games and Contests is voluntary. No player may be 
forced to take part in a Game or a Contest.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:10:09 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> 
> > becasue I'm not crazy about too many Gadgets - a fact which the single
> > Gadget I own demonstrates rather well.
> 
> What gadgets are you threatened by.  The Swing Vote situation is much
> more threatening than the extant gadgets or potential gadgets.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
I don't feel threatened by any specific Gadget. The Gadget rules don't
have enough internal checks and balances. SwingVotes do. So did the Otzma
Card proposals - the kind of self checks that existed there are the kind
I'd like to see in Gadgets.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:26:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PF BONDS

I offer 50 A$ for 30 PFHabeus

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:40:40 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Time

I'm sure this has been covered in a CFJ at some point in Ackanomic's storied
history, but what is the official "time" of Ackanomia?  If the proposed
Machine is to go *ping* based on a day of the week (as in the example), does
that mean the wilma timestamp day?  This doesn't apply to most things
(because within 3 days means within 72 hours, irrespective of timezones).

Well free to tell me to RTFM (but I'd like a page number)-
IdiotBoy

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:46:41 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds

I have decided to accept the below offer.

IdiotBoy

- ----------
> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: PFBonds
> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 4:29 AM
> 
> 
> A few days ago IdiotBoy offered to buy all of my PFBonds.
> 
> I'd like to make a counter offer. 
> I'm offering IdiotBoy 30 PFBonds for A$1.5 each 
> a total of A$45
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:29:35 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> I'm sure this has been covered in a CFJ at some point in Ackanomic's storied
> history, but what is the official "time" of Ackanomia?  If the proposed
> Machine is to go *ping* based on a day of the week (as in the example), does
> that mean the wilma timestamp day?  This doesn't apply to most things
> (because within 3 days means within 72 hours, irrespective of timezones).
> 
> Well free to tell me to RTFM (but I'd like a page number)-
> IdiotBoy

On most rules it is the time difference that is important. When a date or
a day of the week is insignificat, then AFAICR, the rule for which it is
significant defines the refference time zone.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:02:57 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds - Financier Please note

Financier,
 please Trnasfer 30 PFNiccolo to IdiotBoy, and A$45 from
IdiotBoy's account to mine.
(The total amount is an integer avalue, so the transaction is quite legal)

Thanks
 Niccolo Flychuck

The qoute below will confim that IdiotBoy is a willing participant in this
transaction.

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> I have decided to accept the below offer.
> 
> IdiotBoy
> 
> ----------
> > From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Acka: PFBonds
> > Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 4:29 AM
> > 
> > 
> > A few days ago IdiotBoy offered to buy all of my PFBonds.
> > 
> > I'd like to make a counter offer. 
> > I'm offering IdiotBoy 30 PFBonds for A$1.5 each 
> > a total of A$45
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:02:49 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems 

Guy Fawkes wrote:

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

In the spirit of goodwill, I refrain from calling a Politeness Moon on that
comment.

>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.

I think you need calm down a bit.  Then, if you are really offended by
my word usage then please accept my apology.

As for the length itself, of course that's my opinion.  The fact that it
is opinion has nothing to do with anything.  Some reduction in length could
be achieved in the process of cleaning up the proposal.  Please note, also,
that I am really objecting to the length of the proposed rule, not to the
length of the proposal -- if it were possible to break the rule up into
distinct, modular rules then I would be happier about it.  Party Chess is
an example of this approach.

>> 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.

"It can be cleaned up later" is no excuse for submitting problematic
proposals.  There is a thing called an editor, one of which you probably
used to compose your proposal in the first place.  These programs are
also useful for saving documents for later checking, revision, and
- -- as the name implies -- editing.

>> 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.

You miss the point.  With the current wording, it is possible, perhaps
even reasonable, to say that the third machine would be continuously
destroyed forever and the second never touched.  Better wording would be:
"If at any time more than one Machine exists, then the most recently created
one is immediately destroyed."  That's shorter, cleaner, and not open to
misinterpretation.  Also, you can then eliminate the language that requires
that only one exist at any time.

>> 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.

Again, you miss the point.  I am well aware of the function of the
self-deletion brackets.  The point is that I can readilly interpret the
rule to say that there is only one player in whose Home the Machine may
exist.  It is reasonable to assume that that home would be yours, based
on the game custom argument that that is where it starts.

>> 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.

Then I must continue to oppose it on those grounds.  If you want to
dissuade the Scholar from screwing up then increase the penalties
specified in your proposal.  There are distinct problems with rules that
say a Player "must" anything.  You may find Steve Gardner's treatise
an interesting read -- check the bottom of the main web page for a link.

>> 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.

This is a good reason for RFCing before submitting proposals, particularly
when your proposals are so complex.  Also a good reason for going over
your proposals carefully yourself before submission.  If this proposal
passes in its current form then you can be sure that I will produce some
proposed revisions.

>> 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. 

I believe you are mistaken.  The proposal says that the Machine must go
*ping* whenever the Truth says it should.  It does not say that the Machine
cannot go *ping* at other times.

The Scholar lying is actually a seperate issue, for the proposal only
requires the Scholar to announce a *ping* when it occurs according to the
Truth.  However, he must also announce the number of times that it has
gone *ping*.  And then we must consider whether a lie by omission can
be considered a lie under the provisions of the proposed rule.

>>    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.

Again, you miss the point.  The Gadget and Inventor rules are carefully
written so as to prevent the Inventor from creating any Gadgets that
Ackanomians at large think are too powerful, too unbalancing, or for
some other reason bad for Ackanomic.  The Machine would short-circuit
part of that system of checks.

In fact, snowgod could be sitting back hoping with all his might that this
proposal passes, because as Inventor he could almost assure that a
particular gadget was created.  He would just have to flood the blueprint
collection with a few hundred blueprints of the gadget he wanted to have
created, just before the Truth was guessed.  Consider this blueprint:

- --
The Black Hole

As soon as any Player other than snowgod comes into possession of the
Black Hole, the Black Hole will transfer all of its owner's A$ to snowgod.
If, at any time, the Black Hole is owned by a Player who has no A$,
then it will transfer itself to another randomly selected player other
than snowgod.  The Black Hole is indestructible.
- --

If snowgod tried to create one of these then he would be impeached, but
if he created a bunch of these blueprints just before he thought the
Truth would be guessed, then he could be almost assured that one would
be created anyway.

Also, you dismiss too quickly the problem of no blueprints.  The rule you
propose would require that a blueprint be randomly selected.  If there
were no blueprints, then this would be impossible.  I think I could
wring a paradox win out of this situation.

>> 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. 

That you are willing to shoulder the burden (first) is no reason to
accept the proposal in a flawed form.  It is likely, but not guaranteed,
that the rule would be fixed up once adopted, but there is nothing so
important about it that it needs to be pushed through quickly.

>> 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.

1) It was not a cheap shot, it was a sincere concern.  Niccolo has been
working on Eleusis for some time, and the Machine is a game along very
similar lines.  No, there is no reason why both cannot be played, but
it seems to me a matter of common courtesy to at least check with Niccolo
first.  Niccolo is apparently not bothered, so I will let it go at that.

2) As far as my being less vocal, it turns out that I, unlike many here,
actually work for a living.  I am married and have an 11.5 month old
daughter, so much of my home time is taken up by my family.  I also just
purchased a new home and moved.  At your option you may feel either
honored or persecuted that I have devoted so much of my limited time to
your proposal.  Indeed, I would not have done so if anyone else had pointed
out even some of the problems I have noted.

ThinMan

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #218
*******************************