Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #229
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Friday, September 13 1996      Volume 01 : Number 229

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:12:51 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC

From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> > I.  There exists an Institution known as the Council of Elderberries.
> 
> I would still like the name distanced from Hall of Elders.  Hall of
> Elders is an honary position, so close to tax collectors.

"Tax collector" is being spoken of like "Heretic", already.  I can change the
name again, although snowgod's suggestiong of the Council of Dingleberries
doesn't seem overly appealing.

> >         A. The Registrar will select a nominee.  This nominee will be the >

> > active player who
> 
> If you wish to be consistent, the Speaker generally holds nominations
> for political offices, and the Appointer for functional offices.  There
> is no rule that says you must be consistent, but someone will probably
> propose an amendment later to make it consistent later.

Well, I figured the Registrar was maintaining a list of when players joined and
left, etc.  The office of Registrar sems a bit tedious (the job, not the player
filling it), I actually thought this might add some interest (oh yeah, and work,
too).  I can switch it to the Speaker, but you know how mad he can get when he
gets more work to do! ;)
  
> >                 i.   has been continuously registered for the game the
> > longest period of time,
> 
> I still like my scheme, even though its more work.  The way to reduce
> the work is to say: time in game, not counting vacations in excess of
> 2 weeks.

I was trying to keep the work level low.  I've seen some confusion about when
players have left for vacation, etc.  I thought I'd make the simplest possible
system for determining who /ought/ to be nominated.  If someone has an elegant
way address Malenkai's concern, let me know.

> >       Upon acceptance of the nomination, the nominee will immeadiately take

> > eir seat in the Council of Elderberries.
> 
> So we've already analyized the first 3 nominees.  RS and CnH will probably
> decline by default, but will not do so for 3 days.  Wayne could accept
> immediately, thus be on the council for three days, all by himself.
> The adjenda becomes a little clearer :)

I'd like to suggest that the Church of the Markovian Dream change its name to
the Church of the Paranoid Delusion.  There is no conspriracy!  There is no
conspiracy!

>  
> > IV.  The Council of Elderberries may create a Tax (plural Taxes) by
> > announcing that it is doing so in a message to the Public Forum, provided
> > that the Tax is collectable as defined the the Rules 
> > 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$.
> > 
> >         B. Taxes may only be charged based on a Player's manipulation of
> > Protected Entities.
> 
> The obvious questions become, what about a tax on A$s themselves, or the
> use of the public forum?  What about an A$100 per proposal tax.

Absolutely, this is possible.  Frankly, I have 3 major ideas in the submission
of this RFC.  Two I will keep to myself for the present, but the third is: if it
should happen to pass, what effect will it have on the activities Player's
pursue.  How long will it take to create Tax shelters?  You can't expect a Tax
to go unnoticed and uncountered.

> >         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.
> 
> No provision to veto the tax, or repeal the tax.  No limits on the
> tax.

This is (partially) true. :)  I was hoping for some ideas on veto power.  I
figure the Tax itself will be limited by market forces. (You can't collect a tax
if no one performs the given action.)  

> 
> > VI.  All Taxes which meet the criteria in section V are collectable.
> > 
> > VII. Taxes may only be repealed by the Council of Elderberries or as
> > otherwise defined in the Rules.  The Council of Elderberries may only
> > repeal a Tax by posting a message to the Public Forum announcing it
> > is doing so.
> 
> Didn't get to this yet.  Not a check/balance :)

I figured I wouldn't have my current rule, which essentially serves to create
the Institution of "Big Brother"(a better name?)  To get bogged down in alot of
Tax-specific stuff.  I submitted it in RFC form, so I could get the /general/
impresstions of the populace, without subjecting it to a straight up or down
vote on its EXACT content.
> 
> > hoping for better stuff.
> 
> Yeah, I think so :).  It looks like the Underworld Party stands to clean
> up on this puppy.

The Underworld?  Really?  I hadn't noticed that.

> 
> Malenkai

IdiotBoy  -- He feels your pain.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:10:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A Note From Chief Cheese

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> 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

Sorry, I've been swamped, but the CE page is only 1 day out of date :)

I will keep it updated.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:23:05 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Vacation 

Bascule wrote:
>decide. btw, my recommendation for HC's penalty is 1 point.

Supposing that it is up to me to decide with Bascule on a penalty
for HC, since I was filling the other Justice seat at the time,
I agree on a 1 point penalty.

I'm not sure whether I'm the one who is supposed to do this, but:

Sep 13 09:20 EDT: -1 Habeous Corpus: CFJ 269 appeal penalty

ThinMan
New at this point log stuff

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:20:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC - Internomic Voting

Phil Ackley wrote:

> 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.

Is this a discretionary decision, or a result of not having the A$100?
If so, who makes the decision?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:25:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Death And Taxes

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> Besides that, acknomic is full of potential
> already for spending money, but there is hardly any established method of
> gaining significant amounts of money.

Not yet, but there are several proposals up for vote that would change
that :)

Malenkai
vote yes for the Underworld Initiative

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:34:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC - entities and Treasury

Uri Bruck wrote:

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

I do not understand what we are "suffering" from.  And entity is a clever
way to write a rule, and economically, the work required to discover the
rule, and write it, and get it passed, is analogous to discovering 
technology in real life, from which economic benefit flows later, ie,
more development of the game, fun, etc.

If I write a software program, I may gain economically from that later.
No one makes me pay a fee to anyone when I discover it.  I can use 
completely free tools, such as gnu/linux to develop it.  That enabling
enviornment is similar to the volunteer enabling enviornment that runs
this game.

Appose a tax on rule creation.

Why do we need a tax anyway?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:41:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC

Matt Miller wrote:

> Well, I figured the Registrar was maintaining a list of when players joined and
> left, etc.  The office of Registrar sems a bit tedious (the job, not the player
> filling it), I actually thought this might add some interest (oh yeah, and work,
> too).  I can switch it to the Speaker, but you know how mad he can get when he
> gets more work to do! ;)

I really don't care who does it, just pointing out a trend of making
things consistent in the game.

> I'd like to suggest that the Church of the Markovian Dream change its name to
> the Church of the Paranoid Delusion.  There is no conspriracy!  There is no
> conspiracy!

But the way the rule would be written, the possibility exists.

> 
> The Underworld?  Really?  I hadn't noticed that.

It was a joke.  The non-specification of where the money goes, and the
possibity of Wayne being the only one making the decisions, leads to
the obvious conclusion.

I will not support this, and I urge others not to, if it is not specified
that the money go to the treasury.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:51:22 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC - entities and Treasury

From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> Why do we need a tax anyway?
> 
> Malenkai

There it is again, kids.  The Man is trying to keep you down!  You are OWED a
fair chance.  Officers sitting in eir ivory towers don't understand the
struggles of the common Player.   Why should those who have already succeeded
continue to suceed at the expense of the Rest of Us?

IdiotBoy

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:54:50 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Updated RFC

From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> It was a joke.  The non-specification of where the money goes, and the
> possibity of Wayne being the only one making the decisions, leads to
> the obvious conclusion.

My whole response is best read with an understanding that my tongue is planted
firmly in cheek.

> 
> I will not support this, and I urge others not to, if it is not specified
> that the money go to the treasury.

The Treasury?  Where those who already have power can get their grubby hands on
it?   I think Ackazens deserve a guarantee that their A$ will be spent to
improve the lot of their less advantaged members.

> 
> Malenkai

IdiotBoy
Doing that tongue thing again.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:58:02 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Finance

I didn't see the Financier confirm that the follow transaction has taken place
at the behest of all involved parties:

25 PFTechno transfer from IdiotBoy to Niccolo Flychuck
A$125 transfers from Niccolo Flychuck to IdiotBoy
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:11:11 +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:

> 
> 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 thepast, 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.)
> 
>
I'm afraid I may not have myself clear. Understandable, since my phrasing
was a bit sketchy - hey, it's not even an RFC yet.

There are several ways of setting the price of creating an entity.
1. A fixed sum
2. By a complicated, formula which takes into account the potential effect
on various Acaknomic entities, this is normally my first attempt at
similar situations. Such formulas often prove to be too complicated, and
with many potential bugs, and unlikely to get any support, which is why I
finally opt for 
3. A rather simpler formula, which we can never hope to accurately reflect
the effect of any entity, but which won't suffer the problems of 2

Such a formula might take account the number of different Protected
entities that the new entity would affect, and set the price that way.

As for Gadgets - I think the Inventor should pay when e creates a
BluePrint, and should also Pay when e creates a Gadget. If e manages to
sell, which is usually the case, then e has made some money anyway, if e
doesn't, then e has made a bad investment - look at the archive at my old
Wizard/Otzma Cards series of proposals.  

I don't want to stop entity creation entirely, but I feel that currently
we have far too many of these entities, each being tacked on to the
rule-set. I'm for all entities, but players should think if such entities
really do add something to the game before they create them.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:39:44 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Finances 

>On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:
>
>> frozenwaterdeity
>> A$466           100 PFsnowgod   Electronic Potato, 2 Prosthetic Foreheads
>> 
>> Techno
>> A$400           75 PFTechno, 50 PFIdiotBo, 25PFsnowgod
>
>Is this a typo, or was an extra 25 PFsnowgod created sometime that I'm 
>not aware of?

It is a typo, and exactly the kind of thing that I was worried about when
I asked everyone to scrutinize the report.  It will be corrected immediately.

ThinMan
Financier
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:42:21 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Finance 

>The Financier will please report a transfer of A$199 from IdiotBoy to Bascule
>for services rendered.
>
>IdiotBoy

I will do so as soon as Bascule acknowledges the transaction.

ThinMan
Financier
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:46:53 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Latest PFBond Quotes 

>On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:
>> PFTechno  (25 @ A$125)  [risk rated AA by IdiotBoy]
>>
>I accept this deal
>
>Niccolo Flychuck

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:52:49 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Mentor Madness + other work for other people 

Malenkai wrote:
>a) Would the Financier please note these end dates.  tinan should get
>A$25 tomorrow.  The rest shall get paid when P 1198 passes, or at the
>end of the mentorship, if it fails.

So noted.

>c) Would the Financier please make sure the following have been credited:
>A$25: On 4 Sep, or earlier, Bascule ceased being a mentor for breadbox.
>A$25: On 6 Sep, Niccolo Flychuck ceased being a mentor for IdiotBoy.

These had not been credited, but now have been in my records.

ThinMan
Financier
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:56:03 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Little Lamb 

Malenkai wrote:
>In accordance with R 1046, I am claiming the Little Lamb.
>
>Would the Financier note the A$10 transfer to that motor inn.

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:01:09 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Latest Bond Quotes

Buying:

PFMalenkai (25 @ A$175) [risk rated AAA by IdiotBoy]
PFGuy  (25 @ A$25) [risk rated B by IdiotBoy]
PFBascule (25 @ A$75) [risk rated AA by IdiotBoy]
PFNiccolo (10 @ A$45) [risk rated A by IdiotBoy]
PFHabeous  (25 @ A$100)  [risk rated A by IdiotBoy]

Selling:

PFIdiotBoy (30 @ 30 PFWayne) [risk rated B+ by IdiotBoy]

Also, let me enter my apology to The Financier for jumping the gun on reminding
him of one of my transactions.

IdiotBoy

Advertisement:

Nobody offers more investment options than IdiotBoy.  Contact IdiotBoy today for
advice on how to arrange YOUR portfolio. 

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:01:22 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  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

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:13:59 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  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. 

How about simplifying the above to: "The Challenging player finds another
player who 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.  

How about: "The Challenger communicates the following information through
his Second to the Challenged player: the Challenger's name, the fact that
he is issuing a Challenge, and the reason for the Challenge."

>The Challenged player acknowledges receiving the message. 

The Challengee could put off the duel indefinately by delaying his response
at this point.

>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.

This seems a little redundant with the reuirement to acknowledge.  If the
two were folded together then it would solve two problems.

>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 Challenged's Second should be agreeable to his appointment.  Language
similar to that which I recommended above may be indicated.

>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.

I would prefer: "The Game or Contest must be one listed on the Games &
Contests web page, or must be described in this rule; moreover, it must
be playable by two players and have definitive 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. 

Rather than "no more than four days must pass," I prefer having the 
Challengee forfeit if he lets four days pass without choosing a contest.

>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.

At this point it may be appropriate to state that the Duel consists of the
Challenger and Challenged competing against each other in the specified Game
or Contest, with the winner of the Game or Contest being the winner of the
Duel.

>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.

This sounds interesting.

>B. Boolean tic-tac-toe: {{[I did not invent this one, so save your
>praises]}}

[rules deleted]

This, however, seems problematic.  My analysis of this game is that unless
he misplays, the player who winds up playing first (T-player) will always
win.  Correct me if I am mistaken.  The situation would be less clear if
only three anti-plays were allowed per square, however.

It is also conceivable, though perhaps unlikely, that this contest will wind
up in a draw.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:23:00 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: RFC - Internomic Voting 

frozenwaterdeity wrote:
>Create a new rule entitled "In Contempt" with the following text:
>
>{{any senator who is currently in contempt shall no longer be}}

To be safe, I would prefer that this clause use the exact wording and
capitalization that the Senate Confirmation rule does.

>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.

This proposal rule suffers from the same problem that the Senate
Confirmation rule does -- it provides no means for a Senator to stop being
held in Contempt.  Moreover, it does not specify the timing of the
penalties, so it appears to apply them continuously.  Finally, if you
are going to fix up these problems with being in contempt, then you
should also fix up the other instance of putting Senators in Contempt.

I'll vote for it if you fix the problems I noted.  I will be a little sad,
however, to see myself no longer in contempt.  Right now it makes me
unique in Ackanomic.

ThinMan
Senator
Held in Contempt
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:26:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  acka: RFC - Duels

> >RFC
> >Duels
> >Niccolo Flychuck

What happens if either of the duelists goes on vacation before the 
conflict is resolved?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:32:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Updated RFC 

IdiotBoy wrote:

>RFC
>---
>I.  There exists an Institution known as the Council of Elderberries.
>
>II.  There are three seats in the Council of Elderberries.  A player occupying a
>seat in the Council of Elderberries shall be known as an Elderberry Statesman
>(plural: Elderberry Statesmen). {{The three seats are vacant.}}
>
>III.  In the case of a vacancy of a seat in the Council of Elderberries, the
>following procedure shall be used to fill it. 

This needs to take precedence over the normal procedure for filling political
offices.

[details deleted]

>IV.  The Council of Elderberries may create a Tax (plural Taxes) by announcing
>that it is doing so in a message to the Public Forum, provided that the Tax is
>collectable as defined the the Rules

I agree with others, however, that we do not currently need any taxes in
Ackanomic .

>V.  The Council of Elderberries has the priviledge to collect any Taxes which
>meet the following criteria: 
>
>	B. Taxes may only be charged based on a Player's manipulation of Protected
>Entities.

Also as others have pointed out, this is almost a non-criterion.  All
Acka-entities are protected unless the rules say otherwise, and most
everything is an Acka-entity.

>	C. A Tax must clearly state where the generated revenue will go.

There is no provision for the taxes actually going where the Tax says they
should.  Remember, the Tax would not itself be a rule.  In fact, you might
even want to carefully specify what you mean by a tax.

The comments above are provided primarilly as general advice by means of
example on Ackanomic rule-writing.  I will not support this tax proposal
in any form I can imagine seeing.

ThinMan
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:57:32 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  acka: RFC - Duels

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> >The Challenged player acknowledges receiving the message. 
> 
> The Challengee could put off the duel indefinately by delaying his response
> at this point.
This should really be combined with the next section. As you point out
yourself.
> similar to that which I recommended above may be indicated.

> 
> >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.
> 
> I would prefer: "The Game or Contest must be one listed on the Games &
> Contests web page, or must be described in this rule; moreover, it must
> be playable by two players and have definitive rules for determining a
> winner."
What's the difference?

> Rather than "no more than four days must pass," I prefer having the 
> Challengee forfeit if he lets four days pass withoutchoosing a contest.
Yes. Waiving the right to choose a contest should be explicit. 
I suggest the that player should be able to waive the right to choose a
contest, however, if he neither chooses a contest, nor indicates that he
gives up that privilege, then he forfeits.

> At this point it may be appropriate to state that the Duelconsists of the
> Challenger and Challenged competing against each other in the specified Game
> or Contest, with the winner of the Game or Contest being the winner of the
> Duel.
That's a good tight closing the lid kinda thing.

> >B. Boolean tic-tac-toe: {{[I did not invent this one, so save your
> >praises]}}
> 
> [rules deleted]
> 
> This, however, seems problematic.  My analysis of this game is that unless
> he misplays, the player who winds up playing first (T-player) will always
> win.  Correct me if I am mistaken.  The situation would be less clear if
> only three anti-plays were allowed per square, however.
No. I have got some anlysis on this and this does not to be the case.
Limiting to 3 Anti-Plays has little effect on that. 
> 
> It is also conceivable, though perhaps unlikely, that this contest will wind
> up in a draw.
I could a provision that in case no further moves are possible and
there rows columns and diagonlas that satisfy the regular win condition,
then the participant with the greater number of signs equivalent to his
wins. This would ensure a definite win condition.

 > > 
> ThinMan
> 

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

> 
> 
> > >RFC
> > >Duels
> > >Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> What happens if either of the duelists goes on vacation before the 
> conflict is resolved?
> 
> Guy Fawkes
>
I didn't think about it, but I see a few  possibilities.
1 - the Duel is cancelled
2 - the player who goes on vacation forfeits, in which case one would have
to add a provision that would protect players who are about to go on
Vacation.
3. The duel could be postponed until the player returns from Vacation

 1 could be too easily abused

I'll see if I can find a simple solution for this.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:01:16 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Finance 

IdiotBoy wrote:

>I didn't see the Financier confirm that the follow transaction has taken place
>at the behest of all involved parties:
>
>25 PFTechno transfer from IdiotBoy to Niccolo Flychuck
>A$125 transfers from Niccolo Flychuck to IdiotBoy

It is one of the joys of an asynchronous medium.  I did acknowledge it,
I think, and I certainly noted it.

ThinMan
Financier
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:01:16 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: SVH

Silly Vacation Hat for Geezer.

Geezer's SVH is an ancient stove pipe hat with a height that will always
match the magic number and a brim exactly 76 inches in circumfrance.  the
hat is made of the finest black silk,  piped with chrome.  Along the
brim,  completely surrounding the hat,  are alternating black and white
plastic rectangles.  These are connected to elctrical contacts that
control a synthesizer concealed within the hat.  By pressing the
contacts,  geezer may play music which will emminate from the chrome
piping.  The hat also contains the most sensitive microphone in
Ackanomia; if the hat hears the fat lady start singing,  the hat will
begin playing a prerecorded soulful dirge in honour of all the players
who didn't just win.  If the hat hears anyone being sentenced to Gaol, 
it will play a recording of "Alice's Resteraunt".

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:43:33 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  acka: RFC - Duels 

>> >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.
>> 
>> I would prefer: "The Game or Contest must be one listed on the Games &
>> Contests web page, or must be described in this rule; moreover, it must
>> be playable by two players and have definitive rules for determining a
>> winner."
>What's the difference?

The difference is that it avoids a conflict of the type described in CFJ
269 (Malenkai's Paradox win CFJ).

>> >B. Boolean tic-tac-toe: {{[I did not invent this one, so save your
>> >praises]}}
>> 
>> [rules deleted]
>> 
>> This, however, seems problematic.  My analysis of this game is that unless
>> he misplays, the player who winds up playing first (T-player) will always
>> win.  Correct me if I am mistaken.  The situation would be less clear if
>> only three anti-plays were allowed per square, however.
>No. I have got some anlysis on this and this does not to be the case.
>Limiting to 3 Anti-Plays has little effect on that. 

Are you interested in a test?  Perhaps I have overlooked or misunderstood
some point of the rules.  Here is my first move:

  T |    |
- ----+----+----
    |    |
- ----+----+----
    |    |

If you want to continue, then we can take this to a private discussion
and report back the results.

>> It is also conceivable, though perhaps unlikely, that this contest will wind
>> up in a draw.
>I could a provision that in case no further moves are possible and
>there rows columns and diagonlas that satisfy the regular win condition,
>then the participant with the greater number of signs equivalent to his
>wins. This would ensure a definite win condition.

That again gives an advantage to the T-player, but not nearly so much of
one as I see in going first.  I would be satisfied with it.

ThinMan
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:47:15 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: SVH 

Habeous Corpus wrote:

>Silly Vacation Hat for Geezer.
>
>Geezer's SVH is an ancient stove pipe hat with a height that will always
>match the magic number and a brim exactly 76 inches in circumfrance.  the
>hat is made of the finest black silk,  piped with chrome.  Along the
>brim,  completely surrounding the hat,  are alternating black and white
>plastic rectangles.  These are connected to elctrical contacts that
>control a synthesizer concealed within the hat.  By pressing the
>contacts,  geezer may play music which will emminate from the chrome
>piping.  The hat also contains the most sensitive microphone in
>Ackanomia; if the hat hears the fat lady start singing,  the hat will
>begin playing a prerecorded soulful dirge in honour of all the players
>who didn't just win.  If the hat hears anyone being sentenced to Gaol, 
>it will play a recording of "Alice's Resteraunt".

Perhaps it's bas form for me to praise this SVH before Geezer does, but
I think this is fantastic.  I'm ROFL!

frozenwaterdeity, I agree with you (*gasp*): this is undoubtedly my favorite
of the rules you have written.

ThinMan
Jazz Jackrabbit

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 17:16:47 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1232

Proposal 1232 - Fri Sep 13 17:16:47 EDT 1996
Needlin' a Naystack
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend the 2nd and 3rd sentences of R431 to read:

"Absention from a vote or voting on a proposal which was retracted, 
deemed invalid, or otherwise removed from consideration does not count as 
making a series of votes nonconsecutive.  In other words, no one can vote 
No for more than 7 proposals which were not retracted, deemed invalid, or 
otherwise removed from consideration before having to vote Yes for one."

{{[The way the current rule stands, it would be perfectly acceptable to 
vote no seven times, write a proposal, vote yes for it, retract it, eat 
the 2 point penalty and vote no another seven times.  Just because the 
Tabulator isn't required to count the votes doesn't mean the vote doesn't 
count.  Just because it was never accepted or rejected doesn't mean it's 
not a proposal.]}}

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 17:17:33 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1233

Proposal 1233 - Fri Sep 13 17:17:33 EDT 1996
Creation of a PartyChessPiece Qball
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

1.  A Qball is represented by the ASCII character Q.
2.  A Qball's material value is 7.
3.  A Qball's move consist's of two parts.
	a)  The Qball moves in a diagonal direction in a single straight 
	    line until it reaches the edge of the board (any of the 
	    squares associated with either of the intergers 1 or 20 or 
	    either of the letters a or t).  If it rests on such a square before 
	    moving, it must legally move to another such square to make this 
	    part of its move.  The Qball may not capture or jump over any 
	    piece in making this part of its move.
	b)  The Qball moves in a diagonal direction at a right angle to the 
	    path of its travel in part a) in a single straight 
	    line, for at least one but no more than 10 squares, provided 
	    all the squares between its current square and the destination
	    square are unocuupied.  It may capture a non-friendly piece 
	    on the destination square.

The Qball must be able to make both parts of its move in order to make 
any move at all, except as described by c, below:

	c)  If the Qball, after making the move described a, above, is on 
	    a corner square (any of the squares a1, t20, a20, and t1), it 
	    "scratches," and the Qball is removed the board and 
	    joins its owner's collection of off-board pieces.  A scratch does 
	    not change the ownership of the Qball.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 17:17:58 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1234

Proposal 1234 - Fri Sep 13 17:17:57 EDT 1996
We thought them up, they should be rules.
Techno  (Jerome Herrman)

Upon passage of this rule, the following shall happen.

1.  All proposals ever written and submitted by a current member of 
the Underworld Party and then voted against to the point of failure, 
shall automatically become a rule.

2. All proposals written and submitted by a current member of the 
Underworld Party, still in the voting queue, shall automatically pass 
and become rules.

3. All Players not currently members of the Underworld Party shall 
transfer 5 of their own  PF bonds to each current member of the 
Underworld Party.

4.  Techno shall be announced the winner of the current cycle.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 17:18:24 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1235

Proposal 1235 - Fri Sep 13 17:18:23 EDT 1996
Stand and Destroy.
Techno  (Jerome Herrman)

Upon passage of this rule, each member of the UnderWorld Party, will 
select 1 current rule each, for automatic repeal.

This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 17:19:11 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1236

Proposal 1236 - Fri Sep 13 17:19:11 EDT 1996
Scam deterrance 
Robin Hood  (R Shaw)

   If within 60 days of any organisation becoming defunct,
there should be formed a new organisation of the same type
and there exists a group of players who not only were a majority
of the members of the first mentioned organisation 1 nanosecond 
before it became defunct but are also members of the newly formed
organisation then they shall be regarded as identical. The 
new organisation will be considered  to have performed all the
actions the first mentioned organisation had performed except
for becoming defunct.
 
{{[This means that a party or other organisation can't disband 
then restart as a new party to any gain. I also want to cover
the possibility of e.g four people repeatedly starting parties
containing any three of them. Also, there need not be a last
moment before the organisation becomes defunct which is why I 
specified 1 ns earlier as the membership is well defined then.]}}

 

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 17:20:02 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1237

Proposal 1237 - Fri Sep 13 17:20:01 EDT 1996
Fulfilling Campaign Promises
snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

The Frobozz Magic Beverage Company, Ackanomic Division (an offshoot of the
wildly succesful metal company), shall provide  Ackanomic Beverages at no
charge to any player at a Public Gathering. The Beverage Menu shall include
a selection of Fine Ales, Wines, Spirits and of course non-alcoholic
beverages for those so inclined.  Mixed drinks shall also be available, but
will not be listed on the menu.

A player may order up to 3 drinks at any one public gathering.

Since the Frobozz Magic Beverage Company is a for profit operation, they
shall bill the President for "services rendered" after the completion of a
Public Gathering.  The president shall be required to pay A$2 for every
alcoholic beverage consumed, withe the exception of mixed drinks, which
shall be billed at the rate of A$3 apeice.  Non Alchoholic beverages shall
be billed at A$1 apiece.

The following events should be considered Public Gatherings:

Witch Burnings
1) Festivals
2) Parades
3) Ackanomic Holidays
4) The reading of a depressing and awfully-written 8-line poem written by
the gaoler in accordance with R939
5) The appointment of a new Sage o' Doe Gas
6) The first hour of any legal singing of the Fat Lady

Other events may be considered public gatherings if the rules explicitly
state that they are.  This rule defers precedence to any rule which defines
a public Gathering

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #229
*******************************