Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #233
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Saturday, September 14 1996     Volume 01 : Number 233

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 96 1:00:11 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1240

Proposal 1240 - Sat Sep 14 01:00:11 EDT 1996
The Machine That Goes *ping* (revisited)
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

Create a new rule reading:

I. There exists the Ackanomic entity called The Machine That Goes 
*ping*, henceforth known as the Machine. {{All Machines other than the 
one created by this rule are hereby destroyed.  This rule creates 
exactly one Machine.}}  Should a Machine ever be created by means other 
than this rule, it instantly ceases to exist.  The Machine is protected.

The Machine is a product of advanced technology, covered in buttons, 
lights, and switches.  It may be from the same culture that produced 
Phoebe, and so it is of great importance that The Machine That Goes 
*ping* be studied by all of Acka.

II.  The Machine That Goes *ping* may exist in the Home of any 
active player, but nowhere else.  Its location may change only as 
specified in this rule.  {{When this rule passes, the Machine shall exist 
in Xanadu.}}

The player in whose home the Machine resides has the duty of assisting Acka 
in its study of the Machine and is given the title "Scholar of *ping*" 
(hereafter, Scholar) for as long as the Machine shares his abode.  For 
the purposes of this rule, "the current Scholar's term" refers to the 
period of time since the Machine last changed locations.  It specifically 
does not refer to any periods of time before the Machine's most recent 
change in location during which the current Scholar was also Scholar.

III.  Within seven days of a player receiving this title, the Machine 
shall manifest in the Scholar's dreams and utter one truth.  This truth 
shall take the form, "IF AND ONLY IF today {if clause}, THEN the Machine 
That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*."  It must be a truth the Machine has 
never uttered before.

In the Machine's truth, {if clause} will be replaced by no more than 
twelve words.  Each of these words must be in the official dictionary or 
exist in the Rules.  {if clause} shall not contain anything that is not a 
word, except punctuation properly used by the rules of standard English.  
The truth must be such that the Machine shall not fail to go *ping* for 
any seven consecutive calendar days during the current Scholar's term.

Upon waking from this dream, the Scholar must announce the Machine's 
truth in a public message to all Acka, but disguise each letter of each 
word in the {if clause}, but not space characters, with *'s in order to 
preserve the sacred truth from the eyes of heretics.  E.g., the truth "IF 
AND ONLY IF today is Wednesday or Thursday, THEN the Machine That Goes 
*ping* shall go *ping*," must be announced, "IF AND ONLY IF today **
********* ** ********, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*."
Punctuation shall be placed in its proper place in an undisguised 
fashion.  If the Scholar does not announce the Machine's truth in this fashion 
within seven days of receiving his title, he is deemed to be a quack and 
the Machine randomly teleports itself to another active player's Home.

IV. It is strictly against this rule for the Scholar to use any means 
whatsoever, other than those described in this rule, to communicate any 
information regarding the Truth to any player, so long as the Truth remains 
unknown to all players but him.

V.  Beginning on the calendar day after the Scholar announces the Machine's 
truth, the Machine shall go *ping* exactly once on any calendar day the 
statement described by "today {if clause}" is at any time true. The 
Machine shall not otherwise go *ping*.  It is the duty of the Scholar to 
inform the rest of Acka of this occurrence.  He must do so by posting a public 
message with the form, "Today is Someday, the xth day of Month, in the 
Year of Our Lord YYYY, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  
Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* n times."  In the 
actual message, Someday will replaced by the actual day of the week, xth will 
be replaced by the ordinal number of that day of the month, Month will be 
replaced by the name of the current month, YYYY will be replaced by the digits 
of the current year, and n will be the number of times which the Machine has 
gone *ping* during the current Scholar's term.

The scholar may and must make this announcement if and only if the Machine 
has gone *ping* that day, and he must post exactly one announcement per 
*ping* during the day in which that *ping* occurred.  The time zone used for 
the purposes of this rule is that from which the announcement was sent, 
unless Acka should ever have an official time zone, in which case this 
rule defers to that of the official time zone.

VI. If any player other than the Scholar believes he knows the Machine's 
truth, he shall announce what he believes its undisguised form to be in a 
public message.  If he is correct, the Scholar shall congratulate him, 
and the Machine shall produce one Gadget from a Blueprint randomly selected 
from the set of Blueprints which both existed at the beginning of the 
current Scholar's term and currently exist; this Gadget shall be awarded to 
the player who correctly guessed the Machine's truth.  The Machine shall then 
transport itself to that player's Home.

If he guesses incorrectly, the Scholar shall ridicule him in a public 
message, immune from the Politness Moon in doing so.  This takes 
precedence over Rule 400.  The ridiculed player must pay a fine of 5 A$ 
to the treasury for mocking the sacred truth, and he may not again guess 
the Machine's truth while the current Scholar's term lasts.  The Scholar 
must either congratulate or ridicule the player who guessed within three 
days of the guess being posted.  In the time after the guess is made, but 
before the Scholar either responds or loses his title for not responding, 
no one may post another guess at the Machine's truth.

VII.  If the Machine has gone *ping* at least six times since a Magic 
Letter was named, and at least six times during the current Scholar's term, 
any active player other than the Scholar may name any letter of the alphabet 
not already named as the Magic Letter during the current scholar's term to be 
the Magic Letter by so posting to the public forum.  Each time a Magic 
Letter may be name, the Scholar shall consider for that purpose only 
the first post he receives naming a Magic Letter.  The Scholar must 
respond within three days by naming the player whose post was 
considered, and by publically reposting the Machine's truth in 
its disguised form, except that any * representing the Magic Letter or any 
letter previously named the Magic Letter during the current Scholar's term 
shall be replaced with the actual letter or letters represented.  The 
player whose post was considered then forfeits 10 A$ to the Treasury.  

VIII.  If the Machine has gone *ping* thirty times during the current 
Scholar's term, the Scholar must, within three days of the 30th *ping*, 
publically post the Machine's truth in its undisguised form.

When the Scholar posts the undisguised truth, any active player may, 
within the next three days, submit a CFCJ that the Scholar violated the 
rules of his duties during the current Scholar's term.  If no player does 
so in that time, or if the returned verdict is FALSE, the Scholar 
receives 50 A$ for his services, and the Machine randomly teleports 
itself to another active player's Home.

IX.  If the Scholar is placed in Gaol or goes on vacation, the Machine 
randomly teleports itself to another active player's Home.  

Should a CFCJ ever find that the current Scholar has violated any part of 
this rule during the current Scholar's term, the Machine immediately 
randomly teleports itself to another active player's Home.

If the Scholar loses his title for any reason other than going on 
vacation, he must post the truth most recently revealed to him in its 
undisguised form within three days of the loss of his title, unless he 
has already done so.  If he loses his title by going on vacation, he must 
post the undisguised form of the truth most recently revealed to him 
within three days of returning from vacation.

Whenever the Machine changes locations, it shall cease to go *ping*, and 
it shall not resume this function until a new truth is announced.  During 
the time after the Machine changes locations but before a new truth is 
announced, no one may post a guess at the Machine's truth or name the 
Magic Letter.

Whenever the Machine randomly teleports itself, it is the duty of the 
Assistant Tabulator to report its new location.  If no such office 
exists, this duty falls to the Tabulator.  If neither office exists, this 
duty falls to the Speaker.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 00:46:43 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Latest Bond Quotes

I am currently in the market to buy the following...

PFMalenkai (25 @ A$200) [risk rated AAA by IdiotBoy]
PFGuy  (25 @ A$50) [risk rated B by IdiotBoy]
PFBascule (25 @ A$100) [risk rated AA by IdiotBoy]
PFNiccolo (10 @ A$65) [risk rated A by IdiotBoy]
PFHabeous  (25 @ A$75)  [risk rated A by IdiotBoy]
PFbread (25 @ A$50) [not currently rated by IdiotBoy]

Please note that I am making my offers using IdiotBoy's ratings.  My 
prices offerings are slightly higher in most cases.

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 00:46:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1188 Passes

> Here are the voting results for : 1188
> Proposal PASSES

> Proposal 1188 - Fri Sep 06 22:20:35 EDT 1996
> Cutting the Cheesy Duplicate Paradox Wins
> /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> Amend Rule 589, by adding this new paragraph to the end:
> 
> Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE
> (hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ) whose statement is substantially
> similar, in the judgement of the judge, to the statement of a Paradox
> Win CFJ submitted by any player and not yet resolved, shall be judged
> Invalid.  Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox,
> in the judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ ever judged TRUE,
> shall be judged Invalid.

By the above addition to rule 589, if the supreme court sticks to the same
reasoning on CFJ 269, it must be judged Invalid.

BTW, we really need to get CFJ 280 resolved so that we can properly
determine whether proposals 1189 and 1193 passed; both are a single
vote from changing, and if (as I believe) CFJ 280 is true, I think
breadbox is still the gnome buddy, which will cause *both* of those
proposals to flip.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 23:08:26 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Guy Fawkes 

I am interested in trading 25 PFguy for 25frozenwaterdiety...

you interested?

frozenwaterdiety
recovering froma horrible typo
not changing his name again

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:12:34 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: current players typo

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

> 
> I looked on the current players list and found my name as Roger Shimmin.  
> It's actually Robert Shimmin.  While it's not a big deal and I don't want 
> the Resistrar to make a special journey into the chasm of html on my 
> behalf, could it please be corrected the next time the page is updated?
> 
> Thank you
> Goy Fawkes
>

Sorry about that - I'll correct it.
Niccolo Flychuckle

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:54:06 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: not even an RFC yet

This is in very raw form, I moved my (lengthy) reply to acka-research.

copies available on request from the author

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:56:05 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: current players typo - fixed

Guy Fawkes,
You name be Robert

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:06:35 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: New player

We have another new player in Ackanomic
his real name is Sam Peterson, he has not yet chosen an Ackanomic name
his e-mail is 
[email-masked]

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

ps- the reason I did not publish any poll results for the previous new
player who joined, is because he did not reply to my queries.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 14:18:58 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Some Modest fixes for Swingers and Chess

With the failure of P1190, there are still some bugs that remain unfixed,
for which P1190 was an excellent solution.

I combined P1177 and P1190 into a single Modest proposal. I'm not bucking
for points here, just trying to set some things straight.

The proposal still does not address the issue of voluntary/obligatory
participation in PartyChess, because the proposal deals with implmentation
and not with ideology. However, if this proposal passes, it will be very
simple to propose an ammendment to that will achieve the effect desired by
at least two players, namely Malenkai and tinan.

Such an ammendment would only need a single statement to Party-Hall to the
effect that a Party may declare its Office of Swinger to be Warm at any
time. (and before you ask, "what about all their pieces?" I'd say that it
would be advisable for them to Surrender first, and they would keep all of
their pieces, so they can get back into the game anyway.
Essentially, the effect of such an ammendment would be that Parties would
no longer be obliged to have Swingers, however Swingers will still have
the duty of playing PartyChess (or Passing a lot).

If acka so wills and such an ammendment passes, then I intend to propose
some further enhancements to Party-Hall.
I do not intend to change the current method of appointing Swingers. Each
Party will continue to have a Swinger, and the definition of NAP Swinger
will not change, however, a more voluntary based PartyChess should be
opened up to the larger population. I intend to allow the rules to offer
Swinger Offices for sale - for very high prices, up to a maximum number of
non-Warm seats.
The high prices are intended both to keep the numbers down, and so that
the Capitalist- Swingers will actually represent groups of players, not-
necessarily Parties. Players will be able to form such groups, almost
regardless of Party affiliation (one might put a limit on members of
Parties that already have a Swinger)

This will require an ammendment to R990, that will require who purchase
pieces to state which Office of Swinger they are buying the pieces for.

Such an ammendment would really give Acknomic players a chance to own a
politician :)

Party-Hall will still be aassociated with the Party structure, although
more loosely.

rfc

Niccolo  Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:04:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - Duels

John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> >RFC
> >Duels
> >Niccolo Flychuck

Perhaps I missed it, because a tornado hit our neighborhood last night,
leaving even the voluminous pile of e-mail to read in disarray, but, this
RFC seems to have the same potential for abuse that it did the first 
time:

No limit on the number of times player X can challenge player Y, or
player Y can be challenged.

I think the following limits, or those similar, should be imposed:
1) only 2 duels may be occurring at once
2) player X may only make 1 challenge per period Y
3) player Z may only be challenged a times per period B

once per week seems to work for 2 and 3.

Malenkai
tornadoes in pennsylvania ?

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:13:06 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - Duels

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> John Bollinger wrote:
> > 
> > >RFC
> > >Duels
> > >Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> Perhaps I missed it, because a tornado hit our neighborhood last night,
> leaving even the voluminous pile of e-mail to read in disarray, but, this
> RFC seems to have the same potential for abuse that it did the first 
> time:

There was a later message, titled An additional clause for Duels, or
something similar these points, and additional ones.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> No limit on the number of times player X can challenge player Y, or
> player Y can be challenged.
> 
> I think the following limits, or those similar, should be imposed:
> 1) only 2 duels may be occurring at once
> 2) player X may only make 1 challenge per period Y
> 3) player Z may only be challenged a times per period B
> 
> once per week seems to work for 2 and 3.
> 
> Malenkai
> tornadoes in pennsylvania ?
> 

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:17:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: SVH

John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> Habeous Corpus wrote:
> 
> >Silly Vacation Hat for Geezer.

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

Its bad form to praise the hat before it is publically posted :)  I agree
its an excellent design.

The problem is that I saw ThinMan's praise before I saw HC's post, which
was timestamped about a half hour later.  I don't think tornaodes can do
that to e-mail, so either HC or ThinMan has their mailer misconfigured
in terms of time or timzone.

Could anyone who has not done so please give /dev/joe location/timezone
intformation, and make sure their mailer is configured in accordance
with R 901, and the information given?

Thanks alot :)
Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:20:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fesitival

I am requesting the president to declare a Festival of 2 days.

If one player publically objects, consider this request retracted.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:26:55 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Some incentive to play PartyChess after all

I would like to suggest a very mild form of Party Gravity - no votes
involved, no SwingScores.

Instead of awareding Votes to Swingers, giving them points based on their
performance. 

I thought of giving the points either every certain number of turns
(either n-1 or n+1, where n is the number of Swingers)
 or every set period of time, like once a week, or every two weeks.

The idea is simple, the Swinger(s) with the highest absolute weight, will
receive 3 points, the Swinger(s) with the second highest absolute weight
will receive 2 points, the Swinger(s) with the third highest absolute
weight will receive 1 point.
They only get points if they have non-zero Weight

I think this is not too much for the time periods mentioned above. One
could perhaps give points to 4 Swingers, or perhaps reserve to a case
where  there are 6 Swingers or more.

Swingers could rack up points this way, a score scam, similar to what
Malenkai described, may be possible. However, scores are only given to
Swingers, not their Party members, they are given as rewards for their
direct actions (some people vote against the trend to get points), and the
potential effect is hardly as devestating as the SwingVotes effect.

In any case I am going to vote for repealing Party Gravity

and I urge all Players to do the same.

In its current form, with or without "Malenkai's Gambit", it only serves
to undermine the game of Party Chess

Niccolo Flychuck

Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:19:09 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Party Hall Party Poem

Here we go again with another poem to comply with the Party Hall
Party rules. Cover your ears...

As I came home from Party Hall, as frunk as frunk could be,
I fell into a kind of trance, an Acka-reverie.
I saw a swarm of steel fleas, a flight of Chartreuse Geese,
a flock of acka-jailbirds all screaming for release.
A whamiol whammed, a Machine went Ping, potatoes hummed and whirred,
a host of other entities made noises most absurd.
And as I stared, my mouth agape, I made a big decision:
to frink each day in case I may see such a harfy vision.

Brinjal.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:47:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ra: Acka: proto RFC about institutions

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> Just a concept
> I'm thinking of RFCing a couple of more Institutions.
> 
> There was some discussion of creating an Institution where Officers would
> represent segments of the population. I think Ackanomic is rather small
> for complete segmentation so I thought up something like this.
> We choose two different criteria for dividing up the population.
> Let us call them a, b [...]

The actual result, benefit, or purpose to be gained from such [seemingly
artificial] division being?

I would prefer that divisions occur naturally, such as did in the Nobs/
Markovians idealology battle, to some extent.  This seemed to culminate
in the dormancy crisis, and then different 'soft divisions' began to
evolve.  I prefer the natural, unfettered, fluid approach, unless value
can be demonstrated for proposing the atrificial institutions and
divisions which [i believe] you have.

> The second Institution I'd like to RFC is an Organizational Institution
>  I call it Synod

This looks like the same type of abuse that is available in party chess
is available here.  I have just barely skimmed it, but it looks like
Robin Hood has a proposal in the queue to fix the problem.

I would prefer to just keep churches, but allow a player to be a member
of more than one church.  If we could get rid of the 'churchiness' of
the term church, it would work, and be consideribly simpler.

For example, I had proposed an idea of an institution comprising all of
the functional officers.  It seems like a church would be more appropriate
for now, but I don't believe I would be able to join it.

More layers of institutions, organizations, and divisions, for a
population our size, as has been pointed out, seems a bit silly.

Malenkai
silly with a small 's'

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:08:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1189 Passes

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> My records indicate that Idiotboy is the gnome buddy.  I cannot
> be sure about this though.  If one of the players that voted no
> on this proposal is actually the gnome buddy, this proposal then
> fails.

I'm not sure about this, but don't the current scores assume that CFJ 269
was judged true, and the cycle ended at that point.  If the cycle never
ended at that time, or the cycle ended at all, then all bets about the
gnome buddy may be off.

Malenkai
has never been the gnome buddy

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:14:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: pre-RFC on cleanup limitations

robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> There seems to have been some disgruntlement lately about those who ram a
> buggy rule through then make a fortune of points by correcting said rule,
> even by Modest proposals.

If you are referring to my comments, it was not disgruntlement, but
observational only.
 
> What about a limit on the number of proposals the author of a rule (and
> perhaps his political associates, too) can score for by amending it.

More work for someone to track, or adjust :(

I am going to propose another infamous Malenkai band-aid shortly to
adjust the scoring system a little more.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:17:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: pre-RFC on cleanup limitations

Matt Miller wrote:

> It's not really very easy to "ram through" a buggy rule [...]

Um, this statement is FALSE, but is becoming "less FALSE" as we evolve.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:35:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prop 1188 (supreme court)

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Here are the voting results for : 1188
> > Proposal PASSES
> 
> > Proposal 1188 - Fri Sep 06 22:20:35 EDT 1996
> > Cutting the Cheesy Duplicate Paradox Wins
> > /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> >
> > Amend Rule 589, by adding this new paragraph to the end:
> >
> > Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE
> > (hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ) whose statement is substantially
> > similar, in the judgement of the judge, to the statement of a Paradox
> > Win CFJ submitted by any player and not yet resolved, shall be judged
> > Invalid.  Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox,
> > in the judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ ever judged TRUE,
> > shall be judged Invalid.
> 
> By the above addition to rule 589, if the supreme court sticks to the same
> reasoning on CFJ 269, it must be judged Invalid.

I don't think so.  At least if judgements must be made in accordance
with the rules "then in effect".  There is a CFJ questioning this right now,
I believe, but game custom indicates that "then in effect" should be
rendered to mean "the time the CFJ was originally called".

For example, CFJ 256 was judged TRUE *after* the paradoxical contract rule
suite was repealed, thus eliminating the paradox.

CFJ 269 was judged TRUE *after* /dev/joe's fix to internal rule precedence
neutered the alleged paradox.

This is the same thing.  The rules "then in effect", would not have required
the verdict of Invalid as /dev/joe indicates, and I will appeal such
a verdict, if it is delivered on these grounds.

I don't care all that much about winning on this, as I sort of backed into
it in the first place, but I do insist that the Court be consistent on
this issue. 

I sat on the Court in an acting capacity for both 256 and 269 deliberations,
and we kicked this around a bit, quite a bit (right Bascule ?).

I urge the Court to read this post before delivering a verdict.  Although 
there is an implicit claim that CFJ 269 was an attempt at a "cheesy paradox
win", that was not its intent at all.

There is a basic loophole here, as pointed out by another player.  Keep
appealing a CFJ until a rule comes in to fix it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 16:48:27 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ra: Acka: proto RFC about institutions

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > The second Institution I'd like to RFC is an Organizational Institution
> >  I call it Synod
> 
> This looks like the same type of abuse that is available in party chess
> is available here.  I have just barely skimmed it, but it looks like
> Robin Hood has a proposal in the queue to fix the problem.

I'm going to refrain from replying to this comment. Malenkai did say that
he has just skimmed it, and perhaps if he chooses to do more than skim,
although there is little more to do currently, he could demonstate the
abuse.  The Synod is not Party-Hall II

 > 
> I would prefer to just keep churches, but allow a player to be a member
> of more than one church.  If we could get rid of the 'churchiness' of
> the term church, it would work, and be consideribly simpler.

I like the way Church looks now.

> 
> For example, I had proposed an idea of an institution comprising all of
> the functional officers. It seems like a church would be more appropriate
> for now, but I don't believe I would be able to join it.

I think neither one would be appropriate, or necessary. There are
sufficient rules for functional officers, grouping them would just be
adding one more label. Anything that can be done with organizing
functional officers can be done with either a rule that concerns
functional officers, or a single definition like "All functional officers
shall be known collectively as the Foobar" and then have other rules refer
to the Foobar.  I don't think that's necessary either, but Functional
Officers have nothing to do with either Institutions or Churches, they're
simply functional officers.
 > 
> More layers of institutions, organizations, and divisions, for a
> population our size, as has been pointed out, seems a bit silly.
It was also pointed out in the post you are replying to. Specifically in
the sentence that says that a higher population threshold should be
achieved before  such an Institution is actually established.

As for the purpose of such Institutions. I have no intention of proposing
such an Institution without introducing a role for it to play.
I've done that before when the concept of Institution was new. 

As for the actual divisions, the idea of a representational has been
bouncing around here, I offered one more version, no worse than any other.

The Synod is an idea I rather like. 
I may post a longer, more detailed RFC in a few days, so everyone will
have something to nit-pick at :)
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Malenkai
> silly with a small 's'
> 

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:45:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: POLL

Uri Bruck wrote:

> ps- the reason I did not publish any poll results for the previous new
> player who joined, is because he did not reply to my queries.

It looks like I missed something, because you're still liable to get
the information :).  How about a CFCJ?  I think the CSRR could tack
on an "if the player provides the infromation" to that registrar 
amendment.

BTW, I'm interested to know how everyone, including the old-timers,
found out about the game (ie, search engines, which links, etc).

You can reply to me in private, if you wish.  Consider this an official
poll on behalf of snowgod's newspaper.

I will offer an A$50 reward to a random active player, if all active
players make a bona-fide response to this poll.  Please indicate if
you do not want your response published in snowgod's newspaper.

Please put POLL (or poll), in your subject line.  I will take responses
for a fortnight.

(and I can get my 2 PFsnow for providing content for his paper :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 16:54:09 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Additional clause to Duels RFC

I think an additional section is in order here ( I know I'm replying
to myself:)

i. It is impermissible for players who are running for the same political
office to challenge one another for Duels

{{[Elections and campaigns should be kept free of such devices. I wouldn't
want to have the results of Duels affect the way people vote]}}

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> (Section number)
> a. It is impermissible to Challenge an Untouchable Player to a Duel.
> 
> b. A Player who Challenged another Player to a Duel or a Player who has
> been Challenged by another Player to a Duel is Untouchable until the Duel
> procedures are over, for whatever reason.
> 
> c. A Player who was a Chalengee in a Duel, that is, was Challenged to a
> Duel and accepted, continues to be Untouchable until 20 days after the
> end of the Duel procedures.
> 
> d. Players on Vacation are Untouchable {{[Is this necessary?]}}
> 
> e. Players in Gaol are Untouchable.
> 
> f. A Player who anounces that e will be going on Vacation on a specific
> future date is Untouchable starting on the date of the anouncement or four
> days before the anounced date of the Vacation, whichever is later, until
> the date he actually goes on Vacation or four days after the anounced
> date of the Vacation, whichever is earlier.  If by that latter date the
> Player still has not gone on Vacation, then he cannot be Untouchable for a
> period of 14 days, this sentence is an exception only to this sub-section,
> and not to the other sub-section of this rule.
> 
> g. If a player who is currently engaged in Duel proceduresgoes on
> Vacation that lasts more than 7 days e foreits the Duel.
> 
> h. If a Player who is currently engaged in Duel procedures goes on
> Vacation that lasts 7 days or less, all Duel procedures are delayed by a
> number of days equal to the number of dayse was on Vacation. If a player
> goes on a second Vacation during the same Duel he forfeits the Duel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> I think that should cover it. I believe it protects both players and the
> Duel procedures fromabuse. Note that it mostly protects the Challenged
> Player, and rightly so. The best protection for the Challenging PLayer is
> not to issue the Challenge
> 
> rfc
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:59:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Some incentive to play PartyChess after all

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> I would like to suggest a very mild form of Party Gravity - no votes
> involved, no SwingScores.
> 
> Instead of awareding Votes to Swingers, giving them points based on their
> performance.

I realise that Niccolo and I may disagree on this point, but I favor
entities (gadgets, Otzma Cards, whatever), as rewards for contests such
as party chess.

Points, A$s, and votes lead to more incentive for abuse, and lead to
greater risk to the stability of the game if such abuse is successful.

Despite all the rhetoric, this has been, and continues to be, my objection
to the party gravity scheme.

Look at the blue cross, bronze torch, etc.  Entities to be sure, but
the incentive for abuse is mostly absent, as is the threat.  If blue
cross rank were a swing vote instead, a loophole surf might "appear"
in my mind's eye.

I'm not advocating those sorts of entities as rewards per-se, but you
get the gist.  Gadgets and Otzma cards work for me (with universal
limits, but not distributional forcing limits)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:04:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Party Hall Party Poem

Simon Clarke wrote:
> 
> Here we go again with another poem to comply with the Party Hall
> Party rules. Cover your ears...
> 
> As I came home from Party Hall, as frunk as frunk could be,
> I fell into a kind of trance, an Acka-reverie.
> I saw a swarm of steel fleas, a flight of Chartreuse Geese,
> a flock of acka-jailbirds all screaming for release.
> A whamiol whammed, a Machine went Ping, potatoes hummed and whirred,
> a host of other entities made noises most absurd.
> And as I stared, my mouth agape, I made a big decision:
> to frink each day in case I may see such a harfy vision.
> 
> Brinjal.

I am calling a CFCJ on this.  The rule explicitly states "awfully"
written :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:16:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Guy Fawkes

does PFfrozenwaterdiety exist, or it still PFsnowgod?  If 
PFfrozenwaterdiety is indeed a valid PF, I am interested.  If it is not, 
I am much more interested in trading 25PFGuy for 25PFsnowgod.

Guy Fawkes
doesn't want to get caught in name-change loophole

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> I am interested in trading 25 PFguy for 25frozenwaterdiety...
> 
> you interested?
> 
> frozenwaterdiety
> recovering froma horrible typo
> not changing his name again
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:12:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prop 1188 (supreme court)

Malenkai wrote:
 
> I urge the Court to read this post before delivering a verdict.

> Malenkai

This is probably one of the stupidest sentences I've ever publically
posted.

Malenkai
Selling PFMalenkai (10 @ A$140)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:21:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Party Hall Party Poem

Things like this point out to me the need to preserve the Ackan literary 
tradition, if not to enrich our posterity, at least to confuse them.  I 
should be RFCing an idea over the weekend.

Guy Fawkes

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Simon Clarke wrote:

> Here we go again with another poem to comply with the Party Hall
> Party rules. Cover your ears...
> 
> As I came home from Party Hall, as frunk as frunk could be,
> I fell into a kind of trance, an Acka-reverie.
> I saw a swarm of steel fleas, a flight of Chartreuse Geese,
> a flock of acka-jailbirds all screaming for release.
> A whamiol whammed, a Machine went Ping, potatoes hummed and whirred,
> a host of other entities made noises most absurd.
> And as I stared, my mouth agape, I made a big decision:
> to frink each day in case I may see such a harfy vision.
> 
> Brinjal.
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:29:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ra: Acka: proto RFC about institutions

Uri Bruck wrote:

> > This looks like the same type of abuse that is available in party chess
> > is available here.  I have just barely skimmed it, but it looks like
> > Robin Hood has a proposal in the queue to fix the problem.
> 
> I'm going to refrain from replying to this comment. Malenkai did say that
> he has just skimmed it, and perhaps if he chooses to do more than skim,
> although there is little more to do currently, he could demonstate the
> abuse.  The Synod is not Party-Hall II

Actually, I said I skimmed Robin Hood's *fix* to the scam, not your post,
at least that was the intent of the above passage.  Perhaps you could
construe the language to a form that indicates I *didn't* do something
wrong, or construe to to what makes sense.  I never reply directly to
material I skim only.

As for Robin Hood's fix, I will reply to that seperately, after I have
read it more.

In the future, I shall surf the scams, rather than point them out to you,
if you wish to continue to deny their existance, as you seem prone to do,
until someone else, such as ThinMan, or Guy Fawkes, indicates concurrance
that the scam exists.
 
> I think neither one would be appropriate, or necessary. There are
> sufficient rules for functional officers, grouping them would just be
> adding one more label.

As your proto-RFC attemps to define artifical labels, with artifical
groupings.

> Anything that can be done with organizing
> functional officers can be done with either a rule that concerns
> functional officers, or a single definition like "All functional officers
> shall be known collectively as the Foobar"

That is not modular, nor does it take advantage of existing modular
structure, as you are so prone to advocate elsewhere.  I was attempting
to use the excess of these structures we have now, rather than a rule
such as you advocate.

> I don't think that's necessary either, but Functional
> Officers have nothing to do with either Institutions or Churches, they're
> simply functional officers.

Nor do swingers or senators by that logic, there just swingers and senators.
We actually have the analagous institution in real life, a "labor union".

> > population our size, as has been pointed out, seems a bit silly.
> It was also pointed out in the post you are replying to. 

I said, "as has been pointed out".

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #233
*******************************