Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #264
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Friday, September 27 1996      Volume 01 : Number 264

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:42:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial

I am transferring A$48 to Wayne, assuming he acks the
transaction.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:57:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1281

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1281 - Thu Sep 26 23:22:11 EDT 1996
> Section 6 Voting Restrictions
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Obviously, a surge of YES voting on the next batch of proposals by the
UW will cause an immediate retraction of this proposal, expecially if
the initiator's proposals are voted for and passed, and P 1276 is voted
for (I want a parade).

On the other hand, with a few tools votes, we can get this puppy passed.

In other news, did anyone catch Seinfeld tonite?  It was a pretty good
one.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 2:02:31 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

> I am transferring A$48 to Wayne, assuming he acks the
> transaction.

> Malenkai

I ack.

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 02:01:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 293 Verdict

CFJ 293 has been judged FALSE.

I think there was a proposal that went through that actually amended
R 431, I don't remember if it passed, but if it did, we should make sure
the rule change was applied.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 293
  Subject: P 1211
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Sep 18, 1996, 20:00h EDT)
2nd Judge: Mohammed
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Proposal 1211 was accepted, and had exactly one valid rule change, whose
effect was to repeal R 431, thus that rule change shall be applied, to
repeal R 431.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The fact that I worded the CFJ in the positive does not mean I feel
that way.  I saw an interpretation posted by /dev/joe that would
indicate true, and what appeared to be an opposing point of view.
My attitude is to ignore, and accept, "questionable" interpretations,
unless they are "questioned", or obviously bogus.  As the effects of
P 1211 have been debated somewhat, a CFJ seems in order, as I can see
the case for TRUE or FALSE (how about "it cannot be determined with
finality" ? :-)).

I have taken the liberty of quoting the /dev/joe and Guy Fawkes.

/dev/joe:

> Somebody asked what the effect of such a proposal would be, if it passed.
> Now it has passed.
>
> Rule 451, the spelling rule, applies to proposals.
> I believe this spelling error (that "R432" should be "R431") is
> unambiguous, because there is no R432, and the rule is identified by
> its name.  It's a little bit of a stretch to apply this to the "spelling"
> of numbers, but IMHO it is a reasonable application of the rule.

Guy Fawkes:

> This proposal does exactly what it says it does -- which can't be
> done.  I, for one, voted for the proposal because it had no game
> effect whatsoever.

Mohammed's reasoning:

The effect described by the proposal is not a valid rule change because
the rule it proposes to repeal doesn't exist.  Applying the spelling rule
here would be nice (getting rid of 431 would be nice, imho, for that
matter), but that's too much of a stretch.  The spelling rule applies
specifically to words.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 18:26:19 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: registrar

> also: all bonds I hold @ 1 Cow Town Hotel

If I sold you the Cow Town Hotel everyone would sneer at me.
Its a tempting offer though. I will have to check out what bonds
you actually hold before making a decision.

Brinjal.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 14:33:01 PDT
From: Erez Bashan <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Ackanomic: Proposal 1281 

- --- On Thu, 26 Sep 96 23:22:12 EDT  [email-masked] 
wrote:

>Proposal 1281 - Thu Sep 26 23:22:11 EDT 1996
>Section 6 Voting Restrictions
>Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
>
>{{All Section 6 Voting Restrictions (S6VRs) are removed from all 
players,
>except for those Section 6 Voting Restrictions explicitly bestowed
>upon players as specified in the rules.}}
>
>Any player who was a member of the Underworld Party on September 25,
>1996, 11:02 EDT shall have "Section 6 Voting Restrictions" placed
>on them (hereafter known as S6VRs).  S6VRs may only be bestowed and
>removed as specified in the rules.
>
>All players with S6VRs must vote Present on all proposals.  If a player
>with S6VRs fails to vote Present on a proposal, their vote is 
immediately
>changed to Present (or recorded as such in the case of an abstention),
>and the vote is retabulated to determine the results of the proposal
>where the voting error occurred.  Furthermore, the player with S6VRs who
>failed to vote Present is placed on vacation with an expected duration
>of 2 days.
>
>This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules.
>
>
>

- -----------------End of Original Message-----------------

Hey, guys, why go through all this complex statements ? Why not simply 
pass a rule which says that any member of the UW is hereby excluded from 
the game ? The effect will be the same.

In any case, you seem to miss the point. You can overcome our current 
strategy, but we will come with others (e.g. we can flood you with 
proposals). The rules are open enough to let us damage the game, if not 
by voting no, then by other ways. Instead of going to war with us, you 
better off simply give us the power we want.

Bash The Underworlder

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 09:40:43 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: What Phoebe Said

The other day I was dusting my scroll-shelves, including my never-worn
Prosthetic Forehead when I something caught my eye. 'Hey, I was looking
for that', I exclaimed excitedly as I picked up the matchbox, so often
described before on this forum. Slowly the matchbox opened, and an
intricate piece of what could only be described as a most sophisiticated
form of a-life emerged. I knew this one, I nearly found once before, and
carelessly lost it, and I was not going to let it happen again.
Nano-mechanisms, undiscernible even to my sharp semi-Vulcan senses, worked
in the background as the Steel-Wings of the Flea spread open.
And then I heard a voice, it was undoutedly the voice of the Flea:

"
Fret not the dark times that come to Ackanomia. 
Though things may get worse before they get better,
and many paradoci may still abound 
through dialogue and goodwill
one may reach the goal of a dynamic yet stable nomic
"

Thus spake the Flea on day three and two dozens on the month of September
on year 1 of Ackanomic.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 11:12:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Ackanomic: Proposal 1281 

On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Erez Bashan wrote:
> Hey, guys, why go through all this complex statements ? Why not simply 
> pass a rule which says that any member of the UW is hereby excluded from 
> the game ? The effect will be the same.
> 
> In any case, you seem to miss the point. You can overcome our current 
> strategy, but we will come with others (e.g. we can flood you with 
> proposals). The rules are open enough to let us damage the game, if not 
> by voting no, then by other ways. Instead of going to war with us, you 
> better off simply give us the power we want.

That's exactly the point. Some of us want to play the game. Thge behavior
of the Underworld Party is detrimental to the game, and , as you say
yourself, demaging. I suppose it's much easier to break and destroy than
it is to build something, but for most of us, it is less fun. 
OTOH,  I don't want to see peope getting too xenophobic. I'd rather see
you reformed.

Peace
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Bash The Underworlder
> 
That's pretty much what I feel like doing right now, metaphorically
speaking.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 09:24:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  CSR 7 Accepted

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm, CSRR Officer, wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

Somewhat belatedly and redundantly, but in accord with R695, I hereby
announce that CSR 7 was accepted, and that the Rule Set has been changed
as follows: 

- --------

Amend R695 by appending the following text:

{{All CSR's, past and present, shall have 100 added to their number if
their number is less than 101.}}

- --------

Amend R424 by appending the following text to the sentance in item (e):

"if the player provides the information"

- --------

Amend R1112.1 by appending the following text:

{{P1194 hereby loses its Harfy status.}}

- --------

Amend R1237 by increasing all numbers in the enumerated list by one, and
numbering "Witch Burnings" as 1).

- --------

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 08:25:08 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>> ThinMan's Appeal Reasoning:
>> 
>> That being the case, it is appropriate that I ask the Court to
>> scrutinize the language of R 682.  Section (c) says that in some 
>> circumstances the _requirements_ of section (c) do not have to apply.
>> Although Sections (a) and (b) both place requirements on the text of
>> the official copy of the rules, section (c) makes no requirements
>> whatsoever -- rather, it makes allowances.  As only the requirements
>> of section (c) "do not have to apply," and there are no such
>> requirements, there is also, therefore, no paradox.
>
>Normally, I have come to associate ThinMan with sound reasoning, and not 
>semantic flibbertyjibbet.  This is an exception.  In the absense of semantic 
>rules to guide this, it could just as easily be argued that (c) *requires*
>that 
>allowances be made.  In fact, it could be argued that it *must* require 
>them to be available if they are to be available at all. If anyone wants to 
>appeal this on logical rather than philosophical grounds, I'd love to hear
>it.

Thanks for your high opinion of my usual reasoning.  In response to your
objection, I point out the claim from your own resoning that section (c)
makes sections (a) and (c) optional.  I find a reading that (c)
_requires_
sections (a) and (c) to be optional to be more of a semantic game than
the
reading that I suggested.  In other words, I distinguish the usage of
"is" in
the rules from the usages of "should" and "must."  The latter two are
requirements, but the former is a statement of fact -- a statement of
establishment, if you will.

In a paradox-win CFJ that depends on a typo, I think it just and fair to
be
as nit-picky as possible about the language of the relevant rule or
rules.

ThinMan
Who carefully planned his first paradox-win attempt for months, just to
see
it fail.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 08:38:00 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal

CnH wrote:

>As I said in my reasoning, R219/1 specifies that a paradox occurs when "the
>legality of some action cannot be determined with finality". Amazingly
>enough, ThinMan does not attempt to say there is finality. He simply tries
>to argue that even though there isn't, some judge could give it some. This
>is a poor argument. The job of the judge is to obey the rules and R219
>claims precendence against any CFJ or later rule that might be brought up.
>
>The statement of the CFJ brings to light something which is not definitive.
>It is unclear. More: it is a paradox win.

I'm not sure what to say except look at it again.  I claim that R 682,
section (c) does not make itself optional, and therefore that it always 
is in effect.  That being the case, there is no question about the
legality
of the situation described in the CFJ statement -- it is legal.  I admit
that
I brushed over that entire point when I wrote "The question of the
existence of a paradox in R682 depends upon whether or not section (c)
claims to abridge its own authority."  However, I thought that the point
would be relatively apparent.  Indeed, Guy Fawkes acknowledges in his
original reasoning that section (a) alone being optional does not
constitute a paradox.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 09:59:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal

On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> In a paradox-win CFJ that depends on a typo, I think it just and fair to
> be
> as nit-picky as possible about the language of the relevant rule or
> rules.

This much I agree with.  As for the validity of your other reasoning, I 
leave it to the courts.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:47:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: UW Strike

Fascinating as the proposal to quash the UW strike is, I don't see any way
it will pass.  The net effect will probably be to irritate us, not
disenfranchise us.  We're playing within the rules, making us of our unity.
I think a more reasonable proposal (assuming you don't INTEND to just annoy
us) would be to change the requirements for a proposal to pass.

The proposal WILL fail, retract now and try a different tack.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:45:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> > In a paradox-win CFJ that depends on a typo, I think it just and fair to
> > be
> > as nit-picky as possible about the language of the relevant rule or
> > rules.
> 
> This much I agree with.  As for the validity of your other reasoning, I
> leave it to the courts.

I point out that the game custom established by CFJ 281 is that paradox
wins based on typos should be judged INVALID, as that is what CFJ 281 was.

Although CFJ 281 should have been judged TRUE, I did not appeal it to
be a good sport, but should have, it seems, not to win, but to examine that
game custom.  

CFJ 299 and CFJ 281 have alot in common:

	1) both are alledgedly hypothetical, except in the case of 281,
it was possible, in fact likely, that the actual condition of the RoundCount
triggering the paradox would occur if I just shut up until that moment
in time; i.e. wait up until the Chess-Umpire announces the condition but
before he realises the problem, and be the first to file the CFJ.  That
kind of timing and pounce seems out of the spirit of the game.

	In the case of 299, it turns out that the authors of all the
rules before 682 *are* known, or from the Initial Ruleset (Suber),
therefore the statement is *truly* hypothetical with a virtually nil
chance of becoming actual.

        2) CFJ 281 was judged INVALID, in part, because it would result
in a win for the initiator (qv its reasoning).  I do not believe the
consequences of a verdict should influence the verdict in any way, but
in this case, it seems that is game custom we have to deal with here.

	3) Both claim paradox because of a typo.  CFJ 281 was reasoned
invalid because basing a win on a typo would be "pedantic".  I quote
the judge:

> Since I feel that a verdict of True would be to pedantically ignore the
> spirit of the game [...]

         Same situation here.

         What do we do?  The rules require this game custom to be 
considered.  I personally do not feel CFJ 299 should be judged Invalid,
except for the possible fact that all of the authors of the rules *are*
known with finality in this case, but would say that a judgement of
True vs Invalid would be breaking the game custom, unless the paradox
would be found without relying on a typo.

         In any case, I will feel a grave inconsistency here, possibly.
I am not lobbying for any particular verdict, really, but feel it is
a matter of ethics to point this out, as Invalid seems to be the most
lawful verdict, but the wrong one.  It is at least a chance for the court
to examine it.

Malenkai
hoping to nip the Invalid verdict game custom in the bud

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:27:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: UW Strike

IdiotBoy wrote:
> I think a more reasonable proposal (assuming you don't INTEND to just annoy
> us) would be to change the requirements for a proposal to pass.

This is one of the most reasonable things anybody has publicly suggested
in this whole strike debate.  

The next question to be asked is where to set the 2/3 requirement we have
now, if we want to change it.

Let's look at some possible voting schemes.  Would you want proposals that
get these votes to pass?:

       ????                 4/7 = 57.1%         3/5 = 60.0%
- -------------------   --------------------  -------------------
 6 YES, 5 NO: 54.5%                          7 YES, 4 NO: 63.6%
                       7 YES, 5 NO: 58.3%
 7 YES, 6 NO: 53.8%                          8 YES, 5 NO: 61.5%
                       8 YES, 6 NO: 57.1%    9 YES, 5 NO: 64.3%
 8 YES, 7 NO: 53.3%                          9 YES, 6 NO: 60.0%   
 9 YES, 7 NO: 56.3%                         10 YES, 6 NO: 62.5%
 9 YES, 8 NO: 52.9%   10 YES, 7 NO: 58.8%   11 YES, 6 NO: 64.7%
10 YES, 8 NO: 55.6%                         11 YES, 7 NO: 61.1%
10 YES, 9 NO: 52.6%   11 YES, 8 NO: 57.9%   12 YES, 7 NO: 63.1%
11 YES, 9 NO: 55.0%                         12 YES, 8 NO: 60.0%  13,7=65.0%
11 YES, 10 NO: 52.4%  12 YES, 9 NO: 57.1%   13 YES, 8 NO: 61.9%
12 YES, 10 NO: 54.5%  13 YES, 9 NO: 59.1%   14 YES, 8 NO: 63.6%
13 YES, 10 NO: 56.5%                        14 YES, 9 NO: 60.9%  15,8=65.2%
13 YES, 11 NO: 54.2%  14 YES, 10 NO: 58.3%  15 YES, 9 NO: 62.5%

Consider the possibility of also repealing or changing the Tools rule that
allows extra votes to be bought.  These issues must be considered together.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 10:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal

> I point out that the game custom established by CFJ 281 is that paradox
> wins based on typos should be judged INVALID, as that is what CFJ 281 was.
> 
> Although CFJ 281 should have been judged TRUE, I did not appeal it to
> be a good sport, but should have, it seems, not to win, but to examine that
> game custom.  
> 
> [...]
> 
> Malenkai
> hoping to nip the Invalid verdict game custom in the bud

Allow me, the judge in question, to second that.

I did not intend to set a game custom with CFJ 281. I returned what I
felt was the best judgement that was available to me. I would rather
not see the use of Invalid to negate a paradox win become common
practice, although there doesn't seem to be a better alternative at
the moment.

I would support a Rule change that would allow the judge to return
True while disagreeing with a CFJ's claim to be a Paradox Win. Though
I would prefer it if such machinery were not becoming so necessary.

The English language is necessarily ambiguous, and any Rule Set with
the size and scope of Ackanomic's is always going to have its little
paradoxes and situations that cannot be determined with finality.
A Paradox Win should be reserved for situations where a *reasonable*
reading of the rules gives a contradiction. There is a reason that the
discoverer of a paradox automatically wins the game; it is supposed to
be an unusual situation. It is a recognition that the system is "hung."

b

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 14:11:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: UW Strike

On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:

>Fascinating as the proposal to quash the UW strike is, I don't see any way
>it will pass.  The net effect will probably be to irritate us, not
>disenfranchise us.  We're playing within the rules, making us of our unity.
>I think a more reasonable proposal (assuming you don't INTEND to just annoy
>us) would be to change the requirements for a proposal to pass.
>
>The proposal WILL fail, retract now and try a different tack.
>

I was hoping for something a little more subtle and universal myself, but
intend to vote for it out of OverWorld solidarity.  If it fails, I'll take
my three points and consider it a good first try.  As a matter of
interest, what do *you* intend, since annoyance seems to have been the
primary product of the UW Strike so far?

- -mr cwm
 wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:27:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score & Vote adjustment

mr cwm claims he voted NO on P1243, and that Wayne lost his vote.
If Wayne confirms this I will adjust his score.  I note that together
with the gnome's vote, this makes the voting on P1243 be 14 YES and 7 NO.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 15:01:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal

On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:
>
>Allow me, the judge in question, to second that.
>
>I did not intend to set a game custom with CFJ 281. I returned what I
>felt was the best judgement that was available to me. I would rather
>not see the use of Invalid to negate a paradox win become common
>practice, although there doesn't seem to be a better alternative at
>the moment.
>
>I would support a Rule change that would allow the judge to return
>True while disagreeing with a CFJ's claim to be a Paradox Win. Though
>I would prefer it if such machinery were not becoming so necessary.
>

I think that if it's a Paradox, a Paradox Win must be awarded.  I note
that judges can (and have, I think) returned TRUE on other kinds of CFJ's
while completely rejecting the reasoning (which is where the claim to a
Paradox Win appears).  After the amendment of R219 I briefly considered
submitting a CFJ on a plainly TRUE statement ("the rules must be obeyed," 
for example), and claiming a Paradox Win in my reasoning. But the
reasoning is irrelevant.  It is the truth a statement claiming there to be
a paradox within the rules that is the basis of a Paradox Win,
irrespective of the author's reasoning.  (I think.) 

>The English language is necessarily ambiguous, and any Rule Set with
>the size and scope of Ackanomic's is always going to have its little
>paradoxes and situations that cannot be determined with finality.
>A Paradox Win should be reserved for situations where a *reasonable*
>reading of the rules gives a contradiction. There is a reason that the
>discoverer of a paradox automatically wins the game; it is supposed to
>be an unusual situation. It is a recognition that the system is "hung."

You seem to object to "little" paradoxes ... I don't think there is any
such thing.  Any paradox can leave players unsure of how to preceed.  I
agree that the Paradox Win *should* be an unusual situation, but our Rule
Set did not get its size and scope all on its own ... *we* have created a
game in which Paradox Wins can be "relatively" commmon (not that I've been
able to come up with one yet, of course).

I worry about situations in which a "reasonable" reading of the rules set
is not a reading of the rule set at all, but an addition to the rules to
avoid a paradox that no one wants to deal with, either because of its
consequences or its seeming triviality, despite its presence in the plain
language of the rules, strictly (rather than reasonably) read.  There is,
after all, no requirement that our rules be reasonable, only that we
follow them in the form in which they were accepted. 

- -mr cwm
 wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 21:01:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: UW Strike

On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> IdiotBoy wrote:
> > I think a more reasonable proposal (assuming you don't INTEND to just annoy
> > us) would be to change the requirements for a proposal to pass.
> 
> This is one of the most reasonable things anybody has publicly suggested
> in this whole strike debate.  
> 
> The next question to be asked is where to set the 2/3 requirement we have
> now, if we want to change it.
> 
> Let's look at some possible voting schemes.  Would you want proposals that
> get these votes to pass?:
> 
>      ????               4/7 = 57.1%         3/5 = 60.0%
> -------------------   --------------------  -------------------
         NO                    NO                I wouldn't
						oppose this.

> 
> Consider the possibility of also repealing or changing the Tools rule that
> allows extra votes to be bought.  These issues must be considered together.
>
My first choice would to repeal it completely. Failing that. I think
further restrictions should be made on it. Such as an upper limit for the
number of extra votes on a proposal - a first come first serve basis could
be appropriate, either an absolute limit, or on a ratio basis. For a given
player, an upper limit of the number of proposals per
time-period/proposals that they can use extra votes on. 

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 15:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: UW Strike

On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> I was hoping for something a little more subtle and universal myself, but
> intend to vote for it out of OverWorld solidarity.  If it fails, I'll take
> my three points and consider it a good first try.  As a matter of
> interest, what do *you* intend, since annoyance seems to have been the
> primary product of the UW Strike so far?
> 
I have no suggestions to try to break the srike, for obvious reasons.  If we
are being annoying, it is not like you were not all warned?  Why be
surprised, when we do EXACTLY what we said we would do?  If you want to
break our strike, negotiate with us, don't try strong arm tactics.  You will
also noted that our strike did not target any particular indidviduals.
Those who chose to work with us on specific proposals saw those pass.  I, as
a member of the Underworld, am amenable to "blanket coverage for all of
someone's proposals over a given time period.

> -mr cwm
>  wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
> 
We didn't start the fire-
IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 16:49:47 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: Score & Vote adjustment

] mr cwm claims he voted NO on P1243, and that Wayne lost his vote.
] If Wayne confirms this I will adjust his score.  I note that together
] with the gnome's vote, this makes the voting on P1243 be 14 YES and 7 NO.
] 
] /dev/joe
] Scorekeeper

I can confirm this.  I've checked my records and found this to be true.

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 16:16:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: UW Strike

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > Consider the possibility of also repealing or changing the Tools rule that
> > allows extra votes to be bought.  These issues must be considered together.

> My first choice would to repeal it completely. Failing that. I think
> further restrictions should be made on it. Such as an upper limit for the
> number of extra votes on a proposal - a first come first serve basis could
> be appropriate, either an absolute limit, or on a ratio basis. For a given
> player, an upper limit of the number of proposals per
> time-period/proposals that they can use extra votes on. 

My first thought, besdies simply repealing the rule, was to just allow
one extra vote to be cast, either YES or NO, and if multiple players pay
for extra votes then it goes in favor of whichever side more players
favor, but this is too much like an expensive Tammany.

My second idea is to limit it to one YES and one NO vote per proposal.

Yet another idea is to limit it to one vote, YES or NO, and if at least
one player tries to cast an extra YES vote and at least one player tries
to cast an extra NO vote on a proposal, no extra votes are cast on that
proposal.

There are multiple options within each of the above to determine how
players are charged; in particular, if you don't charge players when no
extra vote is actually cast, the last option is little different than
repealing the rule, because two players could agree to buy an extra vote
for and an extra vote against every proposal, so that no extra votes
would ever be cast.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 23:46:06 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: UW Strike

On Fri, 27 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> My first thought, besdies simply repealing the rule, was to just allow
> one extra vote to be cast, either YES or NO, and if multiple players pay
> for extra votes then it goes in favor of whichever side more players
> favor, but this is too much like an expensive Tammany.
> 
> My second idea is to limit it to one YES and one NO vote per proposal.
> 
> Yet another idea is to limit it to one vote, YES or NO, and if at least
> one player tries to cast an extra YES vote and at least one player tries
> to cast an extra NO vote on a proposal, no extra votes are cast on that
> proposal.

I've got another idea, a variation on a previous one. Limit the number of
Extra Votes on a proposal, upper limit being anywhere between 1-3.  But
count on a last come / first served   basis.   And no charge for the votes
not accepted. This would keep players from jumping to casting those extra
votes.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 18:09:11 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1261 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 1261
  Proposal 1261 - Thu Sep 19 18:05:06 EDT 1996
  Patent Infringement
  mr cwm  (Eric Murray)

Quorum met : 22 eligible voters -- 15 players cast votes

9 YES votes   8 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

mr cwm loses 7 points.  16 -> 9

9 YES votes:  3 point each
  Malenkai               FUN                   39 -> 42           
  Brinjal                                      30 -> 33           
  ThinMan                Vulcan                27 -> 30           
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan                31 -> 34           
  Habeous Corpus                               29 -> 32           
  Vulcan Unity vote                           =   0               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan                20 -> 23           
  fnord                                        24 -> 27           
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             9 -> 12           

8 NO votes:  
  Bash                   Underworld           =  27               
  Techno                 Underworld           =  18               
  Guy Fawkes             (None Yet)           =  34               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =   5               
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  breadbox                                    =  18               
  Uncle Sam              Underworld           =  33               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  29               

0 PRESENT votes:

7 ABSTENTIONS:
  Robin Hood                                  
  Bascule                FUN                  
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           
  snowgod                (None Yet)           
  skinny                                      
  Mohammed                                    

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Robert Sevin                                
  Pascal                                      

New players who are not active:
  Dagny                                       
  Tim                                         

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 18:09:38 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1262 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 1262
  Proposal 1262 - Thu Sep 19 18:05:33 EDT 1996
  Free Forehead Money
  IdiotBoy  (Matt Miller)

Quorum met : 22 eligible voters -- 15 players cast votes

7 YES votes   10 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

IdiotBoy loses 7 points.  5 -> -2

7 YES votes:  3 point each
  Bash                   Underworld            27 -> 30           
  Techno                 Underworld            18 -> 21           
  Guy Fawkes             (None Yet)            34 -> 37           
  IdiotBoy               Underworld            -2 -> 1            
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  Uncle Sam              Underworld            33 -> 36           
  Wayne                  Underworld            29 -> 32           

10 NO votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  =  42               
  Brinjal                                     =  33               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  30               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  34               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  32               
  Vulcan Unity vote                           =   0               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               =  23               
  fnord                                       =  27               
  breadbox                                    =  18               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =  12               

0 PRESENT votes:

7 ABSTENTIONS:
  Robin Hood                                  
  Bascule                FUN                  
  snowgod                (None Yet)           
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  skinny                                      
  Mohammed                                    

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Robert Sevin                                
  Pascal                                      

New players who are not active:
  Tim                                         
  Dagny                                       

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 18:10:19 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1263 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 1263
  Proposal 1263 - Fri Sep 20 11:15:06 EDT 1996
  Duels
  Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

Quorum met : 22 eligible voters -- 15 players cast votes

10 YES votes   7 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Niccolo Flychuck loses 7 points.  34 -> 27

10 YES votes:  3 point each
  Malenkai               FUN                   42 -> 45           
  Brinjal                                      33 -> 36           
  ThinMan                Vulcan                30 -> 33           
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan                27 -> 30           
  Habeous Corpus                               32 -> 35           
  Vulcan Unity vote                           =   0               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan                23 -> 26           
  Guy Fawkes             (None Yet)            37 -> 40           
  fnord                                        27 -> 30           
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)            12 -> 15           

7 NO votes:  
  Bash                   Underworld           =  30               
  Techno                 Underworld           =  21               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =   1               
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  breadbox                                    =  18               
  Uncle Sam              Underworld           =  36               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  32               

0 PRESENT votes:

7 ABSTENTIONS:
  Robin Hood                                  
  Bascule                FUN                  
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           
  snowgod                (None Yet)           
  skinny                                      
  Mohammed                                    

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Robert Sevin                                
  Pascal                                      

New players who are not active:
  Dagny                                       
  Tim                                         

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 18:10:51 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1264 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 1264
  Proposal 1264 - Fri Sep 20 11:15:36 EDT 1996
  ammend 970
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 22 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

5 YES votes   9 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

snowgod loses 7 points.  52 -> 45

5 YES votes:  3 point each
  Brinjal                                      36 -> 39           
  ThinMan                Vulcan                33 -> 36           
  /dev/joe               Vulcan                26 -> 29           
  fnord                                        30 -> 33           
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)            15 -> 18           

9 NO votes:  
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  30               
  Bash                   Underworld           =  30               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  35               
  Techno                 Underworld           =  21               
  Guy Fawkes             (None Yet)           =  40               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =   1               
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  Uncle Sam              Underworld           =  36               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  32               

1 PRESENT votes:
  breadbox                                     =  18

8 ABSTENTIONS:
  Robin Hood                                  
  Malenkai               FUN                  
  Bascule                FUN                  
  snowgod                (None Yet)           
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  skinny                                      
  Mohammed                                    

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Robert Sevin                                
  Pascal                                      

New players who are not active:
  Tim                                         
  Dagny                                       

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #264
*******************************