Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #228
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Friday, September 13 1996      Volume 01 : Number 228

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 00:10:35 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1230

> Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > 
> > Techno and Malenkai wrote:
> > > > > Proposal 1230 - Thu Sep 12 13:42:01 EDT 1996
> > > > > Actually *reducing* the incentive to vote "No"
> > > > > /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> > Any particular reason you two dislike this proposal?  It provides a
> > dis-incentive for the chronic NO voters, much as the amendment to the
> > consecutive passages rule puts a limit on the score that one player can
> > get over a short period by that method.
> 
> 1) If it were clearer cut, ie, just NO instead of YES/NO, I would probably
> support it (more on this below).
> 
> 2) It compromises my previous rewrite of R 207, by shifting more of the
> burden back to proposal writing, it also takes away the 10/4 payoff, in
> alot of the YES cases, which I put in to encourage more creative, and
> risky content.  I have no problem with the no-brainer proposals, when
> they actually do something, but, as you know, I wanted a rewrite that
> encourges more FUN proposals.
> 
> 3) It may be too complex for another scorekeeper.  I have confidence in
> your ability as scorekeeper to track it, but I have made fallacious
> assumptions in the past that the duty of a particular officer would always
> be performed by that officer, and have been burned.  Right now I am
> swamped with work, so I guess I'm an anti more work mood, even if it
> is not my work.  I guess, too some extent, we are making assumptions on
> the underlying technology of this game anyway.
> 
> 4) I dislike the cronic NO voting by a handful of players as much as anyone
> else, and surely wish to see it fixed (hence 1 above), but I admit I 
> sometimes vote based on scoring strategy (but under very stringit
> criteria), and this system would be too complex, for me personally, to
> think about, especially in this current high-bandwidth usage, increased
> work era.  
> 
> So, if you don't penalize the YES vote, I would vote YES.
> 
> I was also thinking about the fact that Modest proposals are almost always
> short.  I don't know.  The whole payoff thing seems unfair, in many ways.
> For example, I spent about 4 hours on "Publically Knowable", "Locations",
> "Financier Rewrite", etc, and each is worth less than P 1177 would have
> been.  Its almost like there is incentive to write buggy rules, then
> clean up on the no-brainer amendments.  I accuse no one of this, its just
> the way it works out, and I admit to cleaning up buggy rules myself,
> but the buggier the first rule, the more no-brainer amendments.  I
> was thinking of a bonus for a proposal that creates a new rule, the 
> obvious loophole:
> 
> Create a new rule reading:
> {{replace all X with Y in rule Z.}}
> 
> Mabye we should take the short bonus out of Modesty.  I love the game
> so much that it really  doesn't bother me that much, so I don't know,
> I have no solution here. I don't know if I have a problem here.
> 
> Malenkai
> wordy
> 
>

I agree with everything that Malenkai has stated with the following 
additional reason.

I am personally following the voting patterns of some players that 
seem to vote for points rather than prop content.  With this study in 
mind, I am active in the bond market.  Players that vote for points 
rather than content will provide better return on PF bonds.

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:48:09 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Welcome to the Welfare State.

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Matt Miller wrote:
> > 
> > It's unpopular, but it has to be done.  Taxes come to Ackanomia.
> > RFC on the text between the ---.
> > 
> > ---
> > I.  There exists an Institution known as the Council of Elders.
> > 
> 
> We already have a Hall of Elders, this may run afoul of R 703, and
> be possibly confusing, if it does not.
 I like the concept of the RFC myself, will have to take some time later
to nitpick

> 
> While your kicking this around, I had an idea that would create an
> Institution composed of all the functional officers that run the
> game (ie, not the Chess-Umpire, Historian, GameMaster, and those
> 'non-essential' F.O.s (no offense intented to anyone, hopefully
> the gist is gotten)), but I did not know where to take the idea,
> except to the trashcan.  Anyone is free to develop it.

That is an interesting idea, but that would make those functional officers
political officers as well.

As for Elder - I once proposed giving anyone who wins a cycle a title of
Elder, of something similar, thus defining eligibility in terms of wins. 

Which would make me ineligible, while IdiotBoy's definition would probably
make me eligible.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:50:27 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mentor Madness + other work for other people

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> 2) Silly Vacation Hats.
> 
> I checked the rule, and it is a duty of the Registrar to assign Mad
> Hatters for the following players:
> 
> mr cwm (as of a while ago)
> Geezer (as of 6 Sep)
> 
> 3) Geezer went on-ice Sep 10.
> 
> Malenkai
> Speaker
> 
Thanks, will take care of this.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 00:44:55 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: Flamingo

On Thursday,  12 Sep 96, /dev/joe wrote:

PW-CFJ #1: "Whether or not 10 people can fit in the Flamingo Hotel cannot
be determined with finality."  Reasoning: It says right in the rule that
the
number of people that can fit into the hotel is indeterminate.

I think that this reasoning is faulty.  The wording was nbot a mistake, 
but a chance to try something new.  Previoous CFJ's claiming
"intdeterminancy" were in the form of paradoxes,  hence the oft-used term
"paradox win".  Merely because something can not be determined with
finality does not make it invalid on that basius. Since the Rule itself
says that it is indeterminate,  there should be no problem.

 This middle part looks ok, though I worry this mention of the Gumball.

Merely mentioning the Gumball has not yet become a criome,  and I never
said I _would_ use it in the roulette wheel,  merely that my partners and
I were considering it.  Before roulette would ever be played,  mention of
the Gumball would be removed.  See below.

There is a problem using such things as collateral without any way to
define the A$ value associated with them.  Who decides?

This would have to be mutually aggreed on at the time.  Pawnborokers R
Us.

This whole paragraph has no effect, due to rule 545.  When I first read
this
I thought the precedence claim was over 545, which might be another
paradox
of a type we have been smart enough to not write into the rules yet.  Now
I see that it is not, but this is still broken.

Unless there were changes to R545 since my download of the ruleset
(immanently possible,  even likely) my use of single square brackets []
and single curved brackets {} is not prohibited in the manner in which I
used them.  The rule discusses Notation text and self deleting text in
the manner of immediately deleted text.  It also does nothing to claim
precedence over my rule except for it lower ordinal number,  which may
defer to my rule if mine explicitly claims so.  Unless they also changed
Precedence when i wasn't looking.  (Also possible and likely.)  This is
the one area I will grant MAY cause problems,  but I couyld find no other
rule that regulated deleting text upon meeting a certain condition,  so I
made one up.  I hope this may establish additional,  not changed,  game
custom.

Sorry to be so long winded,  but I like this hotel,  and I don't want to
see it end up like Jeremiah did..., BTW what didn't you like about HIM??

HC

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:28:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar - hatters, ice & drinks

Mad Hatters

Bash has been chosen Mad Hatter for mr cwm
Habeus Corpus has been chosen as Mad Hatter for Geezer

Geezer is on-ice

Niccolo Flychuck

Oh, yes, the drinks are on me.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:16:25 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Mentor Madness + other work for other people 

>d) I'd like to compliment snowgod on this rule, from my experience as a
>mentor.  Its a good rule.  As for the work, I really think P 1198 will
>help.

Thank you.  My original reasoning in having a player payed at the end of
his mentorship was to encourage a non-volunteer to accept the office (and
not go on vacation).  There was originally no compensation to volunteers,
but I decided that was unfair and would discourage volunteering.  Anyhow,
the bit about payment in the end just sort of got stuck as aI revised the
rule...

>e) I also recall snowgod being a mentor recently, but could not find it.
>Perhaps someone should check my math here.

No, tim is my first mentorship.  Kinda Ironic really.  I invent mentors,
but am last to be selected.

>2) Silly Vacation Hats.
>
>I checked the rule, and it is a duty of the Registrar to assign Mad
>Hatters for the following players:
>
>mr cwm (as of a while ago)
>Geezer (as of 6 Sep)
>
>3) Geezer went on-ice Sep 10.
>

Just on a personal note here... I've gotta say that out of all the rules
I've written, SVH has got to be my favorite.

frozenwaterdiety

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
The rave reviews of IdiotBoy's financial prowess continue to pour in even
as IdiotBoy's financial network spreads into other arenas.  Coming soon to
a public forum near you, all the day's news in one easy to read newsletter.

Bill Gates Watch out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:16:31 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Auction Update 

The Current High Bid for the Vending Machine is A$75, bid by IdiotBoy

Once again, Guy Fawkes came in just below him, as did Habeous Corpus.

I have a feeling the bids are gonna skyrocket now.  Do I hear A$125?

Chief Cheese

frozenwaterdiety

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
The rave reviews of IdiotBoy's financial prowess continue to pour in even
as IdiotBoy's financial network spreads into other arenas.  Coming soon to
a public forum near you, all the day's news in one easy to read newsletter.

Bill Gates Watch out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:16:44 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: A Note From Chief Cheese 

A few people of asked (it must not be on the current events page), so I
will publically announce the ending date for the auction...

The auction for the Vending Machine will end at 14 Sep 1996 23:54:27 -0900

frozenwaterdiety

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
The rave reviews of IdiotBoy's financial prowess continue to pour in even
as IdiotBoy's financial network spreads into other arenas.  Coming soon to
a public forum near you, all the day's news in one easy to read newsletter.

Bill Gates Watch out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 02:02:22 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: RFC - Internomic Voting 

Here is the RFC that moves the poswer for internomic voting to the senate.
I have decided not to RFC a whole-institution vversion.  This is simpler,
and at present, there is only one institution.  I have decided that
institutions should be added on a case by case basis (who'd want the hall
of dingleberries voting on internomic, anyway?).  Anyhow, let me know of
any changes that should be made before I submit it.

A little info for the new-players.  Voter turnout on internomic proposals
has been consistantly Low.;  The same 3 players were voting, and only them.
I prosed several methods of fixing the problem, and this one had the most
support.  It is simple, and gives the senate an actual job to do.

_______

Amend R970 to read in whole:

The Ambassador (or, in the absence of an Ambassador, the Speaker) shall be
Ackanomic's Liaison to InterNomic.

Ackanomic's Liaison shall keep the Players of Ackanomic apprised in
a timely fashion of events in InterNomic of interest to Ackanomic.

Any Ackanomic Player may request the Liaison to make an InterNomic
Proposal by sending the Proposal to the Liaison.

Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in
Internomic, the Liaison shall initiate a vote in the senate to
determine how he should cast Ackanomic's vote in Internomic. Each senator
shall, within one week, cast his vote (in the event of a tie, the proconsul
may cast his vote), and the Ambassador shall cast his vote in internomic in
accordance with the decision of the senate. Any senator who does cast a
vote shall be held In Contempt.

In the event that the senate does can not reach a decision (for whatever
reason), the ambassador shall cast his vote in Internomic in accordance
with the decision of the President.

Whenever Ackanomic is required to serve as a judge in Internomic,
the Liaison shall render that judgement, and shall do so in the best
interests of Ackanomic.

- ----

Create a new rule entitled "In Contempt" with the following text:

{{any senator who is currently in contempt shall no longer be}}

A senator who is held In Contempt shall pay a fine of A$100 to the
treasury, or be placed in the Gaol for three days.

frozenwaterdiety

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
The rave reviews of IdiotBoy's financial prowess continue to pour in even
as IdiotBoy's financial network spreads into other arenas.  Coming soon to
a public forum near you, all the day's news in one easy to read newsletter.

Bill Gates Watch out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 13:47:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC - Internomic Voting

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Here is the RFC that moves the poswer for internomic voting to the senate.
> I have decided not to RFC a whole-institution vversion.  This is simpler,
> and at present, there is only one institution.  I have decided that

I'd argue that the Senate is an Institution as well. 
The Senate is an office with four seats. An Institution is a political
office with multiple seats. My interpretation is that the Senate is an
Institution.
Together with Party-Hall, that makes two.
Institutions defines a default procedure for decisions making in
Institutions. So the whole description of what each Senator must do is
redundant. It is sufficient to require that each Institution will make a
decision within a week. Or in the case of this RFC, that the Senate will
make a decision within a week. OTOH, it doesn't do any harm either.

Niccolo Flychuck

I have nothing new to add, I'd rather this included all Instiutions.
I don't think it would make it any more complicated. For now, I don't know
which way I'll vote yet - and it would be a good idea to try it out this
wasy first.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:07:09 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Latest PFBond Quotes- Financie

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> I must say, these are the ones I really want.  My bid is all 20 for 
> A$100.
> 
> Techno 
> "Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."
> 
Sold.
Financier - please update the trasaction.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:25:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: RFC - Duels

RFC
Duels
Niccolo Flychuck

1. Any player who feels offended by another player, or is engaged in a 
heated discussion with another player, may challenge that player to a duel

2. The procedure for challenging is as follows:
 The Challenging player requests another player, who is not the 
challenged player, to be his Second. If the player refuses, the 
Challenger asks another player, until someone agrees to be his Second. 
The Challenger tells his Second which player he wants to challenge, and 
the reason for the Challenge. The Challenger's Second informs the 
Challenged player of this fact. The message must clearly indicate who is 
challenging and for what reason.  
The Challenged player acknowledges receiving the message. 
Once the Challenged player has received the message has four days to  
either accept or decline. If he declines, of fails to respond within the
four day period, then the Challenger's Second may post to the 
public forum that the Challenger has challenged the Challanged, and the 
latter has declined. The Challenged player then loses 6 points,and the 
Challenging player gains 6 points.
If the Challenged player accepts the Challenge, then he must choose a 
Second, and also has the privilege of choosing the Game or Contest.
The Game or  Contest must be one listed on the Games & Contest web-page,
or a Contest described by this rule.
It must a Game or a Contest playable by two players, and have clear rules for 
determining a winner.
If the challenged player waives the privilege of choosing the Contest, 
then the Challenging player picks the Contest.

After the Challenged player has received the Challenge message, no more 
than four days must pass before his Second replies to the Challenger's 
Second, with his choice of Contest. Once the reply has been made, the two 
Seconds will make a public anouncement that a Duel will take place 
between the Challenger and Challenged. 

The Seconds will also discuss further details concerning the Duel, such 
as the time and place, and specific limitations. No direct communications 
will take place between the Challenger and Challenged concerning the Duel 
itself. All such communications will be mediated by the Seconds.

All communications that have been described in this rule may be carried
out by private e-mail, unless otherwise specified.

When the Duel is over, the winner of the Duel receives 6 points in 
addition to any rewards or penalties he may have received as part of the 
Contest itself. The loser of the Duel loses 6 points in addition to any 
rewards or penalties he may have received as part of the Contest itself.
The winner's Second receives 3 points, the loser's Second loses 3 points.

The results of the Duel have no other direct influence over Ackanomic. 
However if either the Challenger or the Challenged have committed 
themselves in a public message to a certain action depending on the 
results of the Duel, then they must perform that action. Should they fail 
to perform that action, it is the duty of the Second of the other player 
taking part in the Duel to call CFCJ against that player. Any other 
player may do so as well.

3. Contests:
A. Limerick Contest:
  Each of the participants in the duel writes a limerick about the other
participant. The limerick may be silly, funny, and even ridicule the other
participant in a good-humored manner, as long as it is not offensive. The
limericks no more than five days after the Challenge has been publically
anounced. If one of the participants fails to post a limerick, then the
other wins by default. Once both limericks have been posted, there is a
four-day voting period. During the voting period all Players may send
their votes to their tabulator, indicating which limerick is the better
one. The participant whose limerick got the most votes, wins the duel. In
case of a tie, the participant whose limerick was posted first wins the
duel.

B. Boolean tic-tac-toe: {{[I did not invent this one, so save your
praises]}}
(i) The game of Boolean tic-tac-toe, heretofore known as Bttt is played on
a 3x3 grid labeled in the following manner

a  b  c
d  e  f
g  h  i

(ii) At the begining of the game on participant is randomly chosen to
play the role of T, the other participant plays the role of F. The former
is known as the T-players, the latter is known as the F-player.
(iii)
  (a) The symbol ! is the NOT symbol.
  (b) The follwoing comma-delimited symbols are equivalent to T
       !F,!3F,!2T,!4T
  (c) The following comma-delimited symbols are equivalent to F
       !T,!3T,!2F,!4F
   (d) every symbol is equivalent to itself
(iv)Participants alternate turns. The T-player always goes first. The
first turn must be played no more than three days after the game has been
anounced. Every subsequent play must take place within 3 days of the most
recent play. A participant who misses this deadline loses by default.
(v) There are two possible plays Play and Anti-Play.
   Play - Participant places eir symbol, in an unoccupied square.
   A Particiapnt may not any of the equivalents of the symbol. The
T-player may only play T, the F-Player may only play F
 
  Anti-Play - An Anti-Play consists of adding the NOT symbol next to a
symbol already on the grid. If there is already a NOT symbol next to that
location, then the number next to the NOT symbol is incremented. If there
is no number then a 2 is inserted between the NOT symbol and T or F symbol
If the number next to a NOT symbol is 4 then it is illegal to Anti-Play in
that square. 
 It is illegal for a participant to Anti-Play on eir own Symbol or any of
its equivalents. Anti-Play is only permissible if the other Participant
has a winning move in eir next turn.

(vi) Winning - A player wins when three symbols in a single column,row or
diagonal are all equivalent to eir symbol.   

{{[ This an updated RFC for Duels. When I posted the previous RFC,
Malenkai pointed out that there could be a problem if the Games & Contests
web-page is empty - so I provided two default contests.  The reasons for a
duel appear to be pretty subjective, and they are, much like a Politeness
Moon. As far as I'm concerned, if someone feels like challenging someone
to a duel, go ahead.  I'd rather someone dueld me than flamed me. 
Naturally, a real honorable duel would be where would commit oneself to
some significant game action before the Duel starts. Otherwise, the Duels
can be just plain fun - depending on what games are put on the (yet to be
created) Games & Contests web-page - the maintenance of which I'll gladly
volunteer for, if nobody else wants it, should the rule pass]}}

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 04:04:07 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - Duels 

>>RFC
>>Duels
>>Niccolo Flychuck

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

I LOVE this RFC.  I will certainly vote for it.  I can't wait to challeng
/dev/joe to a duel.  Possible we can resolve any disputes with a game of
Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon :)

snowgod

frozenwaterdiety

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
The rave reviews of IdiotBoy's financial prowess continue to pour in even
as IdiotBoy's financial network spreads into other arenas.  Coming soon to
a public forum near you, all the day's news in one easy to read newsletter.

Bill Gates Watch out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 04:11:04 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Death And Taxes 

I have opposed tax proposals in the past, and I will continue to do so now,
in my capacity as president.   Currently, ackanomic treasury is full, and
there is no need for a tax.  Besides that, acknomic is full of potential
already for spending money, but there is hardly any established method of
gaining significant amounts of money.  Salaries are outrageously low
compared to prices.  The average A$ balance in any players account has been
divided nearly in half since 3 or 4 months ago.

There is no reason to pass a tax proposal now.

Come election time, let no-one say that this candidate wanted to take your
hard earned money from you.  To the contrary, I am working on several
proposals that will enable players to earn money, and enliven our economy.

Of course, should taxes pass, I can almost garuntee an Invention that would
sheild players from the council of dingleberries, and their attempts to
grab your  money.  Perhaps a propeller beanie that will reach out and slice
the tax man up when he comes to your door.  In any event, whatever form it
takes it will make you exempt from paying taxes. And of course, I'll invent
a machine which will distribute one of these devices for free to every
player who voted against the tax proposals.

snowgod

frozenwaterdiety

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
The rave reviews of IdiotBoy's financial prowess continue to pour in even
as IdiotBoy's financial network spreads into other arenas.  Coming soon to
a public forum near you, all the day's news in one easy to read newsletter.

Bill Gates Watch out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:32:32 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - Duels

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >>RFC
> >>Duels
> >>Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
> 
> I LOVE this RFC.  I will certainly vote for it.  I can't wait to challeng
> /dev/joe to a duel.  Possible we can resolve any disputes with a game of
> Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon :)
> 
> snowgod
> 
> frozenwaterdiety
I recall the support back then. The reason I did not submit it before was
that it had some bugs to work out, and there were more urgent things, like
PartyChess, to take care off.   Right now, I mainly want to know if anyone
sees any bugs in it. There are a couple of sentences which may raise
question. I'm here to address those questions, comments, constructive
criticisms, etc.  
It would help this RFC, if Games & Contests passed, but it could live
without it. With Games & Contests it would be much more interesting, since
there would be more variety to choose from.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 07:34:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC

Section V, I believe has a bit of loophole potential.

B. This could mean just about anything.  For example, only one ...Blue 
Thing... exists, and only its owner may manipulate it.  Yet a tax that says, 
"Every Friday, any player who has failed to manipulate a ...Blue Thing... 
during that week must pay a tax of 15 A$ to the Council of Elderberries," 
is perfectly legitimate under your rule.

D. 20% -- isn't that degree of legal embezzling a bit excessive?

I might also ask what we need taxes to support in Acka?  Our roads do not 
decay, even our poorest citizens have enough to eat, and our functional 
officers' salaries are paid directly from the Treasury, and if those 
funds should ever become low, we can amend the rules to increase the 
amount of currency in the game without any fear of being called 
couterfeiters.

> V.  The Council of Elderberries has the priviledge to collect any Taxes which
> meet the following criteria: 
> 
> 	A. Taxes may only be collected in A$.
> 
> 	B. Taxes may only be charged based on a Player's manipulation of Protected
> Entities.
> 
> 	C. A Tax must clearly state where the generated revenue will go.
> 
> 	D. Not more than 20% of the revenue from any Tax shall go to the accounts of
> the Elder Statesmen.
> 
> 	E. A Tax must not take effect before three days following its posting.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 07:49:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - Duels

I like the dueling concept; I do have two concerns.  First, the language 
needs to be modified to allow the default contests provided -- I think it 
still says that the contest must be on the games and contests page.  
Second, there should be a maximum frequency of dueling -- perhaps no 
single player may be challenged to a duel more than once per cycle?  As 
it is, an unscrupulous player (and don't we have some of those :) could 
use repeated duels to clean out another player unskilled at games.

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> {{[ This an updated RFC for Duels. When I posted the previous RFC,
> Malenkai pointed out that there could be a problem if the Games & Contests
> web-page is empty - so I provided two default contests.  The reasons for a
> duel appear to be pretty subjective, and they are, much like a Politeness
> Moon. As far as I'm concerned, if someone feels like challenging someone
> to a duel, go ahead.  I'd rather someone dueld me than flamed me. 
> Naturally, a real honorable duel would be where would commit oneself to
> some significant game action before the Duel starts. Otherwise, the Duels
> can be just plain fun - depending on what games are put on the (yet to be
> created) Games & Contests web-page - the maintenance of which I'll gladly
> volunteer for, if nobody else wants it, should the rule pass]}}
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:51:27 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC - entities and Treasury

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> I might also ask what we need taxesto support in Acka?  Our roads do not 
> decay, even our poorest citizens have enough to eat, and our functional 
> officers' salaries are paid directly from the Treasury, and if those 
> funds should ever become low, we can amend the rules to increase the 
> amount of currency in the game without any fear of being called 
> couterfeiters.

 While I agree that taxation under this rule is too excessive -
legislating more money is exactly the kind of trap that we wanted to
avoid by creating the Treasury.

Before the Treasury, salaries were paid out of nowhere, money just
appeared, and it wasfeared that it would soon devalue to nothing. 
I still think that we have a problem here, since we keep creating entities
out of thin air. 
If we ever start legislating money into existence, then that is the end of
ecknonomy as we know it - and we don't really know it that well - now I'm
no economic expert, but I know a bad idea when I see one, and legislating
a bigger Treasury is a bad idea.

If fact here's a concept for an RFC, that might put a check on the current
entitytis we are suffering from.

When a proposal that creates a new entity passes. The author of that rule
pays (A$X) to the Treasury.

The amount here could be fixed, or depend on the number of functions the
entity can perform - or some simple formula. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:50:20 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC

 From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
> D. 20% -- isn't that degree of legal embezzling a bit excessive?
> 
Hey, this started out at 50%!  20% is not unreasonable, IMO, simply because of
the size of the player pool.  Clearly stating where the revenue is going does
not mean defining specific players to receive the revenue.  So the burden of
proof on where the money ends up is on the Council.  They won't necessarily end
up with 20%, but they must show that they can't potentially make more than 20%. 
Of course, I want your opinions, that's why I submitted this in RFC form.

> I might also ask what we need taxes to support in Acka?  Our roads do not 
> decay, even our poorest citizens have enough to eat, and our functional 
> officers' salaries are paid directly from the Treasury, and if those 
> funds should ever become low, we can amend the rules to increase the 
> amount of currency in the game without any fear of being called 
> couterfeiters.
> 
Have you no compassion?  There are Players among us who are unable join inin the
joy of the PFBond Market  because the structure of the system prevents them
having their piece of the pie.  You would begrudge them equal opportunity to
suceed as you have suceeeded?  Shame on you!

IdiotBoy

Advertisement:
Not just rich people use IdiotBoy's Financial Services, IdiotBoy has special
plans for the less priviledged in Ackanomia.  Write today for your free
consultation.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 07:57:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1212

After rereading P1212, it's quite so bad as the player formerly known as 
snowgod feared

>snowgod shall be replaced as president by IdiotBoy

It's not self-deleting, but it might as well be.  After all, it doesn't 
touch the 600 series (I think) rules that define the presidency, so 
IdiotBoy will still have to run for election when his time in office 
expires if he wants to remain president.
	Now, if someone other than snowgod possesses the presidency, the 
rule has no effect -- and there is no longer a player known as snowgod.  
So, even if it passes, it's harmless.  snowgod is not president, and 
cannot therefore by replaced by IdiotBoy under this rule.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:01:09 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - Duels

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:

> 
> I like the dueling concept; I do have two concerns.  First, the language 
> needs to be modified to allow the default contests provided -- I think it 
> still says that the contest must be on the games and contests page.  
It specifically says :" or a Contest described in this rule."

> Second, there should be a maximum frequency of dueling -- perhaps no 
> single player may be challenged to a duel more than once per cycle?  As 
> it is, an unscrupulous player (and don't we have some of those :) could 
> use repeated duels to clean out another player unskilled at games.

That's a good idea.  I think someone may have raised this point the first
time I RFCd this, but I forgot about it. I'd prefer a limit that's defined
in number of days, or weeks, and not by cycle, some cycles can be
extremely short, and some tend to be very long, Back in July the Fat Lady
just kept singing and singing. 
Three different kinds of limits can be defined:
1. Time limit a player can be challenged after e has been challenged
2. Time limit a player can challenged can be challenged after e has
challenged
3. Time limit a player an challenge again after he has challenged

The first one is necessary.
The second can be defined seperately or meshed with the first.
I don't know if the third one is necessary, if someone likes to go around
picking fights...
Also it should be illegal to challenge someone to a duel if e is already
engaged in one - while this would implicit in the time limit, I'd prefer
it to be made explicit.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> 
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > {{[ This an updated RFC for Duels. When I posted the previous RFC,
> > Malenkai pointed out that there could be a problem if the Games & Contests
> > web-page is empty - so I provided two default contests.  The reasons for a
> > duel appear to be pretty subjective, and they are, much like a Politeness
> > Moon. As far as I'm concerned, if someone feels like challenging someone
> > to a duel, go ahead.  I'd rather someone dueld me than flamed me. 
> > Naturally, a real honorable duel would be where would commit oneself to
> > some significant game action before the Duel starts. Otherwise, the Duels
> > can be just plain fun - depending on what games are put on the (yet to be
> > created) Games & Contests web-page - the maintenance of which I'll gladly
> > volunteer for, if nobody else wants it, should the rule pass]}}
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:01:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC - entities and Treasury

Not a bad idea, but why make its author suffer the entire burden when the 
entire game can benefit from its existence?  And what about entities that 
come into existence through means other than the rules?  Even if 
instatiation becomes a thing a the past, we still have the Inventor.  And 
a "simple" formula to determine the power of an entity would either be 
gargantuan, loophole ridden, or both (If you have something, show us, I 
might be suprised.)

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, robert gene shimmin wrote:
> > 
> > I might also ask what we need taxesto support in Acka?  Our roads do not 
> > decay, even our poorest citizens have enough to eat, and our functional 
> > officers' salaries are paid directly from the Treasury, and if those 
> > funds should ever become low, we can amend the rules to increase the 
> > amount of currency in the game without any fear of being called 
> > couterfeiters.
> 
>  While I agree that taxation under this rule is too excessive -
> legislating more money is exactly the kind of trap that we wanted to
> avoid by creating the Treasury.
> 
> Before the Treasury, salaries were paid out of nowhere, money just
> appeared, and it wasfeared that it would soon devalue to nothing. 
> I still think that we have a problem here, since we keep creating entities
> out of thin air. 
> If we ever start legislating money into existence, then that is the end of
> ecknonomy as we know it - and we don't really know it that well - now I'm
> no economic expert, but I know a bad idea when I see one, and legislating
> a bigger Treasury is a bad idea.
> 
> If fact here's a concept for an RFC, that might put a check on the current
> entitytis we are suffering from.
> 
> When a proposal that creates a new entity passes. The author of that rule
> pays (A$X) to the Treasury.
> 
> The amount here could be fixed, or depend on the number of functions the
> entity can perform - or some simple formula. 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #228
*******************************