Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #234
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Saturday, September 14 1996     Volume 01 : Number 234

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 07:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1188 Passes

> 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.

Rather ironic then, isn't it, that I was the slowpoke judge in
question?

I do apologize for the delays. My job kept me busy and it was all I
could do just to keep up with the three-day-old e-mail (much less
prepare an official document). This place has been a little weird
lately, you know.

breadbox
(maybe now I'll get that snickerdoodle recipe ...)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:51:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 280 Verdict

CFJ 280 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 280
  Subject: Paradox Wins
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 09, 1996, 21:17h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

After a CFJ of the type described in rule 219 is judged true, the player
who submitted it does not win until the 4 day appeal period passes and
the CFJ is not appealed in that time.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Rule 219 says, in part:

  If the statement is judged true, and the judgement is not overruled, then
  the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the game.

Since it cannot be known whether or not the judgement will be overruled
until its appeal period passes and the CFJ is not appealed, the "then"
clause in the excerpt of rule 219 above cannot be followed until after
the appeal period ends.

I believe we have done this incorrectly with the 3 previous paradox wins,
and that we also now have the machinery in place to legally ignore the
resulting scoring errors, given the time since they occurred.

breadbox' Reasoning:

What can I say? Rule 219, which has not changed since the beginning of
the game, is quite explicit on the subject. It does not defer to other
rules, and no other rules claim precedence over it, or indeed even
mention the subject. Case closed.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Party Hall Party Poem

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

It's not his fault if SMTP can't preserve his handwriting.

b

PS: Although I must admit, I also thought it was a little too well-written.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:02:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC General

Until the enevitable bear market in bonds sets in, and the e-mail
volume subsides, I shall be posting all my RFCs to acka-research,
and all replies to other people's RFCs to acka reasearch, regardless
of the reply-to field or list it was posted to.

My upcoming RFCs, if anyone cares:
Rule suites
Office rewrite
a few more things, mabye

So if you are interested in these stunning topics, or have a great
e-mail client like netscape, sign up for acka-research at a postmaster
near you :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:12:29 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prop 1188 (supreme court) -- Financier

> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> Malenkai
> Selling PFMalenkai (10 @ A$140)

SOLD!

IdiotBoy

Advertisement:
No nonMalenkai player holds more PF Malenkai than IdiotBoy

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:19:09 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PFBond market

My current risk rating for PFbreadbox is B+.  This has been a truly volitile (no
IDEA how to spell that) stock.  Always ask for the IdiotBoy rating before buying
or selling any PFbonds.

IdiotBoy

Advertisement:
See above.
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:15:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1236

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1236 - Fri Sep 13 17:19:11 EDT 1996
> Scam deterrance
> Robin Hood  (R Shaw)
> 

This proposal moves in the direction of fixing one known
party chess scam, I believe, the throw pieces, disband
get free pieces scam.

It has some specific deficiencies, however, IMO:

>    If within 60 days of any organisation becoming defunct,

30 days seems reasonable, but no big deal.

> there should be formed a new organisation of the same type

I think this should be "should there", not "their should".  
Given a strict-constructionalist judge, this rule would not
have the entended effect.

> 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 potential for the scam still seems to exist, but it requires more
work.  Imagine UW1 and UW2.  Both disband.  All ex-UW1 members become
UW2 members and vice-versa.

The rule would go a long way towards fixing the problem for extant
conditions, however, and pushes the problem farther back to senerios
like the above.

I would vote for this with the above fixed.  I believe we are treading
on that territory were "judgement" and "good faith" are required here.
Codifying this is going to be challenging, but we can push it back into
extremes.  Trying to codify this stuff is part of the fun, IMO, however.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:42:13 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Some incentive to play PartyChess after all

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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.
[snip]
I thought you were opposed to any form of rewards associated with Party
Chess.
> 
> 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
They work for me too, thought I'd like to get Otzma Cards off the ground
before actually attempting to associate it with Party Chess.

Classes of entities, regulated by internal checks and balances, would be
my cup of of tea. Individual Entities, such as the gnome the lamb, or
whatever, I consider to be hacks. I would preffer to do with less such
Individual entities.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:38:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Prop 1188 (supreme court) -- Financier

Matt Miller wrote:
> 
> > From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> > Malenkai
> > Selling PFMalenkai (10 @ A$140)
> 
> SOLD!

> No nonMalenkai player holds more PF Malenkai than IdiotBoy

Not yet, my friend.  I still must ack the transaction.  I ack the
transaction.

Would the financier please note this transfer.

Malenkai
selling at the top of a speculative bull market

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:54:27 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ra: Acka: proto RFC about institutions

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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.

In that I case I misunderstood. I believe that my language implied that
your lack of commentary forced lack of commentray on my side.
> 
> 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 deny nothing. In the text you read, which is not even structured as an
RFC, nor was it presented as such, there is certainly scam potential, and
I have indicated as much myself in a seperate message, although I don't
remember whether it was private or public.

 > 
> > 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.

It's just as modular as creating a Church of Functional Officers - and
just as unnecessary.  See my next sentence.

> 
> > I don't think that's necessary either, but Functional...

The above example just demonstrates the redundancy of such an action.
What is it that you hope to achieve by grouping Functional Officers in an
Organization?

(I hope to achieve nothing by proposing another Asefa. It was a thought to
bounce around. Currently I see no role for it in Ackanomic, and I am
dropping that idea.  - now you can reply to my question without throwing
it back at me)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBond market

> My current risk rating for PFbreadbox is B+.  This has been a truly
> volitile (no IDEA how to spell that) stock.  Always ask for the
> IdiotBoy rating before buying or selling any PFbonds.

A truly volatile stock, eh? Wow; my PF bonds are more active than I am.

So, out of curiosity, what's the IdiotBoy rating for PFIdiotBoy? If
mine are volatile, yours must be actively exothermic.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:06:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Some incentive to play PartyChess after all

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Individual Entities, such as the gnome the lamb, or
> whatever, I consider to be hacks. I would preffer to do with less such
> Individual entities.

Please, Acka, don't go down an anti-entity road.  Entites are fun,
and give tangibility to rules.

They are just fancy ways to write rules.  Assuming you supported the
gnome, would you perfer the rather bland:

The player with the lowest score may vote twice on all proposals.  This
takes precedence over all rules dealing with player voting limits.  If
there is no such individual player, the individual player with the next
lowest score receives this privilege.

The fact that the gnome is an entity poses no problem whatsoever.

How about the Lamb:  Any player may pay A$10 to treble his or her odds
of receiving the magic potato, until another player has done so, but
another player may not do so until one week has passed after the
previous player has done so.

Unless you are against all such harfy rules in general, in which case
being an entity means nothing, and it is a DIFFERENT debate.

No one is complaining on these grounds about the Tools rule, buying the
extra vote, just because it is not an entity.

How, about, conversely:

There exists an acka-entity known as the  Noble Ninja from Mars.  The
Ninja is protected.  The Ninja is wise on the ways of voting, and has an
inside agreement with the Tabulator.  The Ninja is willing to assert his
influence, and vote an extra time in behalf of any player who is able
to summon him.

The Ninja can only be summoned by a player blowing the Horn of Tootaloo.
The Horn is also a protected acka-entity.  The Horn can be bought from
the Treasury by any player announcing to the tabulator that they are doing
so, and by paying A$100, and the Tabulator publically posting the
transaction.  Once this is done, the player blowing the horn instructs how
he or she wants the Ninja to vote on a particular proposal.

Entities are fun, creative, and keep the game enjoyable.  We could all
write the same rules without them, but who would have FUN doing so.

I'm certainly not saying the above is a work of art, but it is FUN to
write.  Don't discourage the fun writing of rules.

Malenkai
pro-creativity and harfy and FUN and pro-entity
entities == rules

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:06:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Some incentive to play PartyChess after all

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Individual Entities, such as the gnome the lamb, or
> whatever, I consider to be hacks. I would preffer to do with less such
> Individual entities.

Please, Acka, don't go down an anti-entity road.  Entites are fun,
and give tangibility to rules.

They are just fancy ways to write rules.  Assuming you supported the
gnome, would you perfer the rather bland:

The player with the lowest score may vote twice on all proposals.  This
takes precedence over all rules dealing with player voting limits.  If
there is no such individual player, the individual player with the next
lowest score receives this privilege.

The fact that the gnome is an entity poses no problem whatsoever.

How about the Lamb:  Any player may pay A$10 to treble his or her odds
of receiving the magic potato, until another player has done so, but
another player may not do so until one week has passed after the
previous player has done so.

Unless you are against all such harfy rules in general, in which case
being an entity means nothing, and it is a DIFFERENT debate.

No one is complaining on these grounds about the Tools rule, buying the
extra vote, just because it is not an entity.

How, about, conversely:

There exists an acka-entity known as the  Noble Ninja from Mars.  The
Ninja is protected.  The Ninja is wise on the ways of voting, and has an
inside agreement with the Tabulator.  The Ninja is willing to assert his
influence, and vote an extra time in behalf of any player who is able
to summon him.

The Ninja can only be summoned by a player blowing the Horn of Tootaloo.
The Horn is also a protected acka-entity.  The Horn can be bought from
the Treasury by any player announcing to the tabulator that they are doing
so, and by paying A$100, and the Tabulator publically posting the
transaction.  Once this is done, the player blowing the horn instructs how
he or she wants the Ninja to vote on a particular proposal.

Entities are fun, creative, and keep the game enjoyable.  We could all
write the same rules without them, but who would have FUN doing so.

I'm certainly not saying the above is a work of art, but it is FUN to
write.  Don't discourage the fun writing of rules.

Malenkai
pro-creativity and harfy and FUN and pro-entity
entities == rules

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:17:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ra: Acka: proto RFC about institutions

Uri Bruck wrote:

> What is it that you hope to achieve by grouping Functional Officers in an
> Organization?

That is up to the organization.  What has the Church of the Markovian
Dream achieved?  The same could have been done with a mailing list
that a few people decided to join.

You may answer that the church has achieved something, or nothing.  In
doing so, you either invalidate the church concept by validating your
argument here, or validate the church concept and validate my idea of
functional officers forming a church.  Its your choice, as "achievement"
is subjective, in many ways.

As for a specific adjenda for an F.O church, how about:
1) repeal "Speed"
2) increase salaries
3) initiate general strikes unless players pay "protection money", or
vote for our proposals
4) get protection from witchhunts

Markovian Dream church = players with similar thoughts and goals
F.O. Church = players with similar functions and goals

I'm missing Niccolo's arguments *completly*, unless it is that churches
are for the M.D. purpose only.  Do we need the "Labor Union" institution
or organization, if we want to do this?

Malenkai
slow-witted

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:28:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: SVH

Malenkai wrote:
> 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.

I looked back at the e-mail, and Habeous Corpus's email is stamped
12:01 cst -- this should be CDT, judging by the other headers.
ThinMan's message was stamped 12:47 -0500, a time zone equivalent to CDT,
although it's actually EST because ThinMan lives in that part of Indiana
which doesn't observe daylight savings time.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:31:25 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Some incentive to play PartyChess after all

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Individual Entities, such as the gnome the lamb, or
> > whatever, I consider to be hacks. I would preffer to do with less such
> > Individual entities.
> 
> Please, Acka, don't go down an anti-entity road.  Entites are fun,
> and give tangibility to rules.
> 
> 
> Unless you are against all such harfy rules in general, in which case
> being an entity means nothing, and it is a DIFFERENT debate.

I'm not crazy about them as rules either.
> 
> No one is complaining on these grounds about the Tools rule, buying the
> extra vote, just because it is not an entity.

I don't like the extra-vote. It was introduced as a kludge to spend money
on when there was nothing else to spend money on, and has outlived its
usefulness
 > 
> How, about, conversely:
[Due to my above reply - snipped]

> 
> I'm certainly not saying the above is a work of art, but it is FUN to
> write.  Don't discourage the fun writing of rules.
> 
> Malenkai
> pro-creativity and harfy and FUN and pro-entity
> entities == rules

If it's fun for some, let them have their fun. I enjoy a different kind of
fun.  
But you just gave me an idea for an Otzma card - nullify an entity for,
shall we say, four days. The effect is that for a period of four days the
entity will not perform its intended function,with an option for extension
of up to 4 days, for a payment of A$100 a day.

 My prefferences go for classes of entities.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:39:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: pre-RFC on cleanup limitations

Malenkai wrote:
> 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.

Idiotboy wasn't around in June and July.  Through May, so many "bugs"
had worked their way into the rules that when The Great Old One started
us off by attempting to crash the game with the "Resolutions" loophole,
we went through two solid months of loophole surfing before the game
settled down again.  I agree with Malenkai that it is becoming more
difficult to pass buggy rules, but especially with the more complex
rules, some bugs are inevitable.  The Nobs party was started as a
reaction to the state of the rules; while we accepted that loophole
surfing was part of the game, and even participated in some of it
ourselves, we wanted to reduce the problem by fixing bugs in the rules,
and clear up potential bugs by making the rules easier to read, and
more consistent.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:52:14 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ra: Acka: proto RFC about institutions

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > What is it that you hope to achieve by grouping Functional Officers in an
> > Organization?
> 
> That is up to the organization.  What has the Church of the Markovian
> Dream achieved?  The same could have been done with a mailing list
> that a few people decided to join.
> 
> You may answer that the church has achieved something, or nothing.  In
> doing so, you either invalidate the church concept by validating your
> argument here, or validate the church concept and validate my idea of
> functional officers forming a church.  Its your choice, as "achievement"
> is subjective, in many ways.
> 
> As for a specific adjenda for an F.O church, how about:
> 1) repeal "Speed"
> 2) increase salaries
> 3) initiate general strikes unless players pay "protection money", or
> vote for our proposals
> 4) get protection from witchhunts
The formation of a Church is only necessary for the last one.

> 
> Markovian Dream church = players with similar thoughts and goals
> F.O. Church = players with similar functions and goals

The difference is that you want to legislate a membership in a Church. The
Markovian Church, like all Parties, is a voluntary organization. This is a
violation of Individuality.

You may argue that no one is forced into being a functional officer. But
that is  a re-iteration of my argument that PartyChess is already a
voluntary participation game, because nobody can be forced to be a Party
member, and no Party member can be forced to be a Swinger.
(or as someone who shall remain anonymous communicated to me, if he
didn't wanna play, he would resign eir position as Swinger - my commentary
- - it does nothing else anyway, you might be interested to read some
further commentary I wrote about introducing some changes into Party-Hall)

You may counter that by asking if my argument that legislating Church
membership is not analogous then to your argument about the obligatory
nature of PartyChess. And my reply would be - No, since Ackanomic can
function without any political Parties at all, however, in order to
function, there needs to be at least one Functional Officer, preferabaly
more - which would the creation of a rule that would make all Functional
Officers Church members, a violation of  Individuality

 > 
> I'm missing Niccolo's arguments *completly*, unless it is that churches
> are for the M.D. purpose only.  Do we need the "Labor Union" institution
> or organization, if we want to do this?

The formation of any other Organization would suffer from the same
problem.
Creating an Institution would create an even bigger problem, because that
would make all Functional Officers Political Officers as well   -  a
recipe for trouble.

You're trying to fix something that ain't broken.

 > 
> Malenkai
>

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 96 12:51:46 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1241

Proposal 1241 - Sat Sep 14 12:51:46 EDT 1996
Modestely ammending what needs mending
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

{{[ It has the same effects as P1177 and P1190 combined, and is Modest. So
all those players who concerned that I might get any points, can stop
worrying now.]}}

 This is a Modest proposal.

A proposal that has the following effect:

I. Append the following text to R990 section 3 A v. :
"For the purpose of this rule, a lower case Latin letter is considered
identical to its corresponding upper case Latin letter."

II. Append the following text to R990 section A:
"Playing PartyChess is part of a Swinger's duty."

III.Append the following text to R726
"When any Swinger except for the NAP Swinger goes on Vacation, it is the 
duty of the Swinger's Party to appoint another member of the Party as 
acting Swinger. When the NAP Swinger goes on Vacation it is the duty of 
the Speaker to appoint a non-aligned player to be acting Swinger.
If the Speaker is non-aligned, and no other player appointed the role 
of acting Swinger, then the Speaker is the acting Swinger.
If the Speaker is a Party member, and no player has been assigned the 
role of acting NAP Swinger, and there is at least one volunteer from 
among the non-aligned players for that position, then the Speaker must 
appoint one of the volunteers as acting NAP Swinger.
If a Swinger's Office remains vacant for more than 6 days then 
the Chess-Umpire declares the Office to be a Warm Office, until such time 
as it is no longer vacant.
If all the members of a Party are on Vacation then no acting Swinger is
appointed for that Party and eir Office remains Vacant. If all non-aligned
players are on Vacation then no acting NAP-Swinger is appointed and eir
Office remains vacant.

This rule takes precedence over R457."

IV.Append to R991 section 2 H the following text:
"with the following exceptions:
(i) With the exception that if a Swinger goes on Vacation during eir turn, 
then eir turn is extended by two additional days. There may be no more 
than two such extensions per turn, and no more than 4 such extensions for 
any given six consecutive rounds.
(ii) 
  (a)If a Swinger's office is Warm, then their turn is skipped entirely
and considered to be a Pass. If a a Swinger's Office is Warm for two whole 
Rounds, then he is considered to have Surrendered. 
 (b)If a Swinger Office's King is checked while it is Warm, then that
 Swinger's turn is not skipped. 
 The Chess-Umpire must notify all members of the Party whose
 King has been checked, of the check situations, including members who are
 on Vacation. 
 In the case of a Special D-turn, if four days after the
 Chess-Umpire's message the Swinger's Office is still Warm, then he is
 considered to have surrendred.
 In the case of a Special DD-turn, if the chekced Swinger's Office is
 still Warm the second time a conflict is declared, then he is considered
 to have surrendered, however, he is still counted for the purpose of
 determining the number of repetitions of the procedure described in R991 
 section D (iv)  (b)-(d).

It is permissible for a Party with a Warm Office to notify the
Chess-Umpire 
of a Surrender at any time by sending a public message to that effect. 
The Surrender becomes effectively immediately. This section of this rule 
takes precedence over all other sections of this rule."

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:50:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Some incentive to play PartyChess after all

Uri Bruck wrote:

> If it's fun for some, let them have their fun. I enjoy a different kind of
> fun.

And that is the idealology we should all have, even if we have no common
idealogoly.  Thus I generally vote YES on propsals I don't consider
fun, but have no real effect in terms of structure of the game (ie,
could be done under R 115 as well), as long as they are reasonable, and
the author is having fun and put alot of time into it.

The NO voting for points is starting to grate on me, especially on the
fix of "Malnekai's Loophole for Gadegts".  Can anyone who voted no
tell me why they did so, if it was not for points?  I have already
demonstrated how the loophole can be surfed using the Vending Machine.
I believe it was a Modest proposal.

> But you just gave me an idea for an Otzma card

Be careful with Oztma cards.  You may end up creating a class of pseudo-
rules like contracts and blueprints.  There may be problems there.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:58:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ra: Acka: proto RFC about institutions

Uri Bruck wrote:

> The difference is that you want to legislate a membership in a Church. The
> Markovian Church, like all Parties, is a voluntary organization. This is a
> violation of Individuality.

That statement is FALSE; I don't ever remember saying that.  I am
advocating the F.O.s forming a church, but I cannot join, as I am already
in one.

Originally I had wanted an organization legislated for functional
officers, for greed, corruption, power, all that fun stuff, but changed
my mind to a church.
 
Malenkai
suffering from, and aiding, the second great e-mail blizzard

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:10:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1236

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

What does it mean exactly, if the old org and the new one are the same?  
Let's say, for instance, that Honor Among Theives passes, and the Underworld 
disbands and reorganizes as the Brotherhood of the River Styx.  It's 
rather ambiguous whether being "identical" as per this proposal would 
mean that the old rule applies to the new org.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:09:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1188 Passes

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Here are the voting results for : 1188
>   Proposal 1188 - Fri Sep 06 22:20:35 EDT 1996
>   Cutting the Cheesy Duplicate Paradox Wins
>   /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

> Proposal PASSES

In any thread where this actually did pass, due to gnome buddies,
etc, I am giving /dev/joe a gold stripe.

Due do the blizzard, the customary parade and praise have been
postponed.

Malenkai
ProConsul

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:23:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Some incentive to play PartyChess after all

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

>  My prefferences go for classes of entities.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

	OK, so Niccolo is anti-loophole, yet pro-entity class.  The 
various precedence rules have made contradictions and loopholes less 
powerful in the ruleset, and individual entities almost always take the 
form of rules.  Entity classes, however, are defined in the rules, 
yet the classed entities themselves exist outside the rules, and 
therefore immune from many of the precedence clauses.  They are in a 
sense an intermediate state between rules and the recent rash of R115 
instantiations.  Look at the potential for loopholes in the gadgets and 
blueprints, and then those by creating a new rule entity  -- honestly, 
which is the more feared hazard -- a doomsday gadget, or a proposal 
coup?

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:32:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1225

Once again, I am saying, "I take that back."
P1225 is hereby retracted.

Wayne, unless I'm overestimating you, please tell the crowd why.

Guy Fawkes

> Proposal 1225 - Thu Sep 12 11:49:49 EDT 1996
> Honor Among Theives
> Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Create a new rule reading:
> 
> All members of the Underworld party must always have the same score.  If at any 
> time they do not, all their scores shall be immediately and simultaneously 
> adjusted to the number given by the sum of their scores divided by the 
> the number of players in the party, with any remainder destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:29:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Latest Bond Quotes

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I am currently in the market to buy the following...
> 
> PFMalenkai (25 @ A$200) [risk rated AAA by IdiotBoy]

Um, the latest trade was A$14 apiece.  My sources also 
tell me that Agoran investors have been eyeing this market,
in particular, for blue chip issues such as this, so
supply may continue to decrease further, putting more
upward pressure on this volitale issue.

Selling: 10 PFMalenka @ A$190

Malenkai
Bond trader

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:50:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Official: Scores

Since CFJ 280 came back true, and CFJ 269 was appealed within the time limit,
Malenkai did not win the game with CFJ 269.  Thus the scores have not
been reset.  breadbox was the gnome buddy for all of the recent proposals,
though he is drawing near to passing Geezer in score.

Sadly I must report that this matters for proposal 1189, which fails 13-7
with the gnome's vote.  It also matters for proposal 1193, where the
extra YES vote by the gnome allows the proposal to pass 14-7, despite
the 5 NO votes from Underworld (do they need Malenkai's loophole for
Gadgets for their scam?  Did Mellon or Habeous buy them off?)

Proposal 1193 was short.  Proposals 1192 and 1183 were modest.

In any case, through proposal 1193, I believe these are the current scores:

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
179     /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
163     Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall)
88      Mellon               A   (Niklas Mellin)
79      Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
43      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
36      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
29      this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein)
23      Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
19      IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
17      Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw)
15      Bascule              V   (Matt Black)
12      Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard)
10      Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke)
9       Bash                 A   (Erez Bashan)
8       ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
6       fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
5       snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
3       mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
0       Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
0       fon                  I   (Adrian Smith)
0       Robert Sevin         I   (Mitchell Harding)
0       "Tim"                N   (Tim Carter)
0       "Sam"                N   (Sam Peterson)
- -5      Pascal               V   (Jason Reed)
- -10     Geezer               I   (David Chapman)
- -13     breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)

Status:
A=Active, N=New, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice, D=Dead

Both Mellon and Habeous Corpus hit 76 points exactly during the two
recent batches of scoring due to proposals.

Tim and Sam still need to choose their Ackanomic Names.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:57:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1225

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> Once again, I am saying, "I take that back."
> P1225 is hereby retracted.

> > Create a new rule reading:
> > 
> > All members of the Underworld party must always have the same score.  If at any 
> > time they do not, all their scores shall be immediately and simultaneously 
> > adjusted to the number given by the sum of their scores divided by the 
> > the number of players in the party, with any remainder destroyed.

Darn, I liked that rule. :-)

/dev/joe
Wanted to see Wayne struggle to be Gnome Buddy with R1225 messing up his score.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 14:03:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official CotC

If anyone cares, the CotC page has been updated.  Tornadoes and Blizzards
prevented the clerk from getting to the courthouse.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 14:10:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1225

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: 

[all members of the underworld shall have the same score]

> Darn, I liked that rule. :-)
> 
> /dev/joe
> Wanted to see Wayne struggle to be Gnome Buddy with R1225 messing up his 
> score.

That was the intent, but Guy astutely discovered a problematic loophole.
Can anyone else? (a little off-line R 115 game/contest :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:31:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC -- Praetor (final draft)

Although Malenkai has stopped commenting about deadbeat judges for the 
time being, I still have this RFC on file.  It has changed considerably 
since first posted.  If anyone, especially the CotC has comments, they 
are welcome.

RFC
The Praetor
(Guy Fawkes)  Robert Shimmin

The Office of the Praetor is a Political Office.  It has one seat.  If 
the seat is vacant, it shall be filled by Nomination and Election for 
Office.  Should either of these terms be nonexistant, the Clerk of the 
Court may appoint any eligible player to the seat.  To be eligible for 
Nomination and Election or appointment by the Clerk of the Court, a player 
must be active and one or more of the following
	
	a) a Bronze Torch holder
	b) eligible to receive a Bronze Torch
	c) the owner of a Gold Stripe
	d) a former Supreme Court Justice
	e) enshrined in the Hall of Elders

Regardless of any other eligibility, a current Justice or Acting Justice 
is never eligible.

If the seat is vacant and there are no eligible players, the seat remains 
vacant.

If appointed (not elected) to the Office of Praetor, a player has three 
days to accept the Office.  I he does not do so within that time, the 
appointment is declared void.

If a judge should ever fail to accept or decline Judgment within 
the allotted time, or should he ever fail to return a legal verdict 
within the allotted time, he is consiered a deadbeat for the purposes 
of this rule.  When a player becomes a deadbeat, he loses 10 points and is 
fined 25 A$, and the CotC shall select the Praetor as the next Judge for the 
deadbeat's CFJ.  If the seat is occupied, this rule takes precedence over 
all rules concerning the selection of Judges.  If the seat is vacant, 
this rule defers to all other such rules.

The Praetor may not decline Judgment.  When a CFJ is submitted to him, he 
is assumed to have immediately accepted it.  He may send a CFJ to the 
Supreme Court, though he may do this only if he has not submitted a 
CFJ to the Supreme Court within the last 14 days.  If e does this, he is 
not required to deliver a verdict.

While considering a CFJ, the Praetor must wear the Purple Toga of 
Justice.  If no such entity exists, the Praetor must wear nothing at all.
This takes precedence over R818, except in those cases where the 
Prosthetic Forehead is purple.

The Praetor is forbidden to take any action or inaction which would cause 
him to be a deadbeat.  If he is ever a deadbeat, he is immediately removed 
from office, and the seat is vacant.

The player who holds the Office of Praetor may be selected to judge CFJ's 
by the methods described in other rules.  Should this occur, he is not 
acting as the Praetor on this CFJ, and he is neither bound by the rules of 
the Office nor able to use the Praetor's powers on this CFJ.

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

Amend R569 in the following ways, in the order specified:

Insert the following paragraph between the existing fourth and fifth 
paragraphs.

"If a case reached the Supreme Court through submission by the Praetor, a 
player may still appeal the Court's decision, but the case shall be 
treated as if it had already been appealed once."

Insert the following paragraph between the existing second and third 
paragraphs.

"A case may also reach the Supreme Court if the Praetor submits any CFJ to 
that body.  The Praetor may submit with the CFJ an explanation of why he 
is not deciding it himself, although the Supreme Court is under no 
obligation to read it."

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #234
*******************************