Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #266
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Sunday, September 29 1996      Volume 01 : Number 266

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 22:00:39 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financier

I may have missed it, but did the financier or assistant to the financier 
record the transaction between myself and mohammed, wherein Ihe traded 25 
pfsnowgod for 25 pfmohammed?

snowgod
waiting for the amchine to go *ping*

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 02:54:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financier

Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
> 
> I may have missed it, but did the financier or assistant to the financier
> record the transaction between myself and mohammed, wherein Ihe traded 25
> pfsnowgod for 25 pfmohammed?

I did not see it posted in the public forum.  Forward me both e-mail, 
with headers, and it will be credited.  I'm too lazy to check the
ftp archive.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 02:57:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 300 (Uncle Sam)

tinan declined.
Malenkai was chosen and declined, citing coi.

Uncle Sam has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 300
  Subject: Going to Gaol
Initiator: Brinjal
    Judge: this is not a name (declined)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (declined)
3rd Judge: Uncle Sam (selected Sep 28, 1996, 03:01h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

IdiotBoy went to Gaol on Thursday September 26th.

Brinjal's Reasoning:

There is a three day grace period from time of sentence to actual
Gaoling of offenders. IdiotBoy was in the Cow Town Hotel at the
moment his three days elapsed. Shortly after this he left the Cow Town
Hotel and I, as Gaoler, attempted to put IdiotBoy behind bars.
Rule 710 "Criminal Justice", describes the process of Gaoling
criminals, and it is the interpretation of this rule which the judge
must consider.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 03:01:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 296 (Robin Hood)

snowgod failed to deliver a verdict in time.

Sep 28 03:03 EDT: -10 snowgod: Failed to deliver verdict on CFJ 296

Robin Hood has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 296
  Subject: Game Effect of a FALSE CFJ
Initiator: IdiotBoy
    Judge: snowgod (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: snowgod (selected Sep 28, 1996, 03:05h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The game effect of returning a verdict of FALSE on a Call for Justice can
not be determined with finality.

IdiotBoy's Reasoning:

Rule 214 lays out four possible Judgements which a Judge may return on a
CFJ.  These are (1) True, (2) False, (3) Undecided, or (4) Invalid.  Any
accompanying reasoning or discussion of effects is NOT part of the
Judgement.

Rule 216 gives us a description of the game effect of returning a verdict of
TRUE on a CFJ.  That decision does not become part of the Ruleset, but
serves to explicitly define game custom.  No such consideration is made of
the return of a FALSE verdict on a CFJ, therefore the effect of such a
verdict can not be known.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 03:06:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (snowgod)

snowgod has been fortunate enough to find Phoebe's matchbox.

Perhaps Phoebe can offer up some timely wisdom.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 03:07:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 296 (Robin Hood)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> snowgod failed to deliver a verdict in time.
> 
> Sep 28 03:03 EDT: -10 snowgod: Failed to deliver verdict on CFJ 296
> 
> Robin Hood has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 296
>   Subject: Game Effect of a FALSE CFJ
> Initiator: IdiotBoy
>     Judge: snowgod (failed to deliver verdict)
> 2nd Judge: snowgod (selected Sep 28, 1996, 03:05h EDT)

Yeah, its late.  Should say Robin Hood.

> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The game effect of returning a verdict of FALSE on a Call for Justice can
> not be determined with finality.
> 
> IdiotBoy's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 214 lays out four possible Judgements which a Judge may return on a
> CFJ.  These are (1) True, (2) False, (3) Undecided, or (4) Invalid.  Any
> accompanying reasoning or discussion of effects is NOT part of the
> Judgement.
> 
> Rule 216 gives us a description of the game effect of returning a verdict of
> TRUE on a CFJ.  That decision does not become part of the Ruleset, but
> serves to explicitly define game custom.  No such consideration is made of
> the return of a FALSE verdict on a CFJ, therefore the effect of such a
> verdict can not be known.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 23:45:20 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financier

Will do.

snowgod

On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
> > 
> > I may have missed it, but did the financier or assistant to the financier
> > record the transaction between myself and mohammed, wherein Ihe traded 25
> > pfsnowgod for 25 pfmohammed?
> 
> I did not see it posted in the public forum.  Forward me both e-mail, 
> with headers, and it will be credited.  I'm too lazy to check the
> ftp archive.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 02:51:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Saturday, the 28th day of September, in the Year of Our Lord 
1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I 
have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 2 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 11:15:02 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka :Official -GamesMaster resignation

I am officialy resigning from the Office of GamesMaster

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 01:54:03 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: acka: registrar (financier) 

Mohammed spoke thusly:

>> Yes!
>>
>> Welcome Back mohammed.  There will be great merriment and mirth in ackanomic!
>>
>> snowgod
>> president
>        Thank you!
>
>> perhaps we need a holiday?
>        Nooooo.  I've got all this great homework to ignore!  If you
>declare a holiday, it might all be gone by the time the holiday ends.  :o(
>
>> I offer A$100 for 50 PFmohammed
>        My plan this time around is to -buy- bonds, not sell 'em.  But
>I'd be willing to trade 20 of mine for 20 of yours.

I accept and acknowledge this transaction.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 02:54:40 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 296 (Robin Hood) 

>Malenkai wrote:
>>
>> snowgod failed to deliver a verdict in time.
>>
>> Sep 28 03:03 EDT: -10 snowgod: Failed to deliver verdict on CFJ 296
>>
>> Robin Hood has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.
>>
>> Clerk of the Courts

I wish to apologize to the people of Ackanomic for failing to deliver
judgement on the CFJ.  My life has been a little jectic this week, what
with changing shifts, going back to school,and tons of other fun stuff that
I won't bore you with that this CFJ must have slipped through the cracks.

Once again, I'm sorry.

snowgod
humbled

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 05:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Ambassador

> The following internomic proposal has been distributed:
> 
> Proposal 307
> Proposed by Thring.
> 
> Amend Rule 205, so that it reads:
> 
> For any proposals whose voting period has not ended, their voting
> period shall end one week after this rule is enacted.
> 
> One week after this rule is enacted, it shall amend itself to read:
> 
> "The voting period for a proposal shall be one week, beginning at the
> time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics."

Ambassador, can you tell what the sentiment is on this one? Do you or
any of the other Nomics have strong feelings about it? Do the players
all feel that one week is enough time for everyone to respond
intelligently?

If this proposal fails, then I would like to submit for your
consideration the following as an Internomic proposal:

Amend Rule 205, so that it reads:

The voting period for a proposal shall be two weeks, beginning at the
time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics. If at any
time during the second week all nomics have cast a vote, then the
moderator may choose to call an end to the voting period.

b

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 11:33:36 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: Re: CFJ 293

I must concur with JudgeMohammed (and welcome back).  Proposal 1211 was
an invalid Proposal and therefore had NO game effect.

Rule 491 clearly states that to be a valid Rule Change that it must
“...repeal an existing Rule”;  and Rule 432 was not,  at the time of
P1211 in existance.Rule 104 states that “invalid” Proposals are removed
from consideration and considered neither Accepted nor Rejected.

/dev/joe’s argument hinges on the intent of the Proposal and the
attachment of a Title to the Rule it was repealing.  Unfortunately for
em,  the Rules give no weight to a Rule’s Title,  only its number.

As for the Spelling Bee,  whether it can or cannot correct typographical
errors containing numerals,  that is beside the point here.  The Spelling
Bee has no power to correct Proposals,  only Rules and CFJ’s (and by
default of Rule 710,  CFCJ’s). If IdiotBoy had not provided a Rule number
in eir Proposal,  then  /dev/joe  would have been right in eir assessment
that there was no ambiguity and the Proposal would have had the desired
effect.  However,  ambiguity is not really an issue.  The Rule referred
to by number did not exist,  Q.E.D.  Proposal 1211 did not exist.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:39:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
> 
> I may have missed it, but did the financier or assistant to the financier
> record the transaction between myself and mohammed, wherein Ihe traded 25
> pfsnowgod for 25 pfmohammed?

It looks like a transfer of 20 for 20.  Please make these transactions
clear and public, it reduces the work of sifting through e-mail.

Malenkai
assistant financier

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:44:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: CFJ 293

Ed Graham wrote:

> Proposal 1211 was an invalid Proposal and therefore had NO game effect.

> Proposal 1211 did not exist.

I just want to clear up some potential confusion from these comments.
P 1211 *was* valid and did exist, the *rule change* it described, however,
was judged to be invalid.

This is a fine, but potentially important distinction.  Compare that
to the "scoll of money" proposal, which was judged to be an invalid
*proposal*.  Had it not been so judged, it would have been a valid
rule change.

Malenkai
hoping to clarify

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:46:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 296 Verdict

CFJ 296 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 296
  Subject: Game Effect of a FALSE CFJ
Initiator: IdiotBoy
    Judge: snowgod (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: Robin Hood (selected Sep 28, 1996, 03:05h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The game effect of returning a verdict of FALSE on a Call for Justice can
not be determined with finality.

IdiotBoy's Reasoning:

Rule 214 lays out four possible Judgements which a Judge may return on a
CFJ.  These are (1) True, (2) False, (3) Undecided, or (4) Invalid.  Any
accompanying reasoning or discussion of effects is NOT part of the
Judgement.

Rule 216 gives us a description of the game effect of returning a verdict of
TRUE on a CFJ.  That decision does not become part of the Ruleset, but
serves to explicitly define game custom.  No such consideration is made of
the return of a FALSE verdict on a CFJ, therefore the effect of such a
verdict can not be known.

Robin Hood's Reasoning:

 Since the rules do not explicitly specify the effects of a false verdict
the final sentence of 215 applies.
 The custom is that all judical reasoning are game custom following
the precedent set by 216.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 12:49:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 298 Verdict

CFJ 298 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 298
  Subject: Holy Rule-Breakers
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: breadbox (selected Sep 22, 1996, 21:41h EDT)

Statement:

A member of a Church may, indeed must, ignore any provision of that
Church's policy which would require him or her to break the Rules.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

R 775, Mutable, section 3, c:

> c. All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as they
> are members of the Church.

R 101, Immutable:

> All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the
> form in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in accordance
> with currently existing game custom. [...]

R 101 requires players always follow the rules.  It certainly has
precedence, if it doesn't outright neuter R 775 entirely via R 108.

If there is a R 108 style neutering of R 775, and I'm to tired to explore
that side of it now, then clearly Churches and Church Policy would fall
under the auspices of R 115, thus it is obvious that such policies,
regardless of what they required a player to do, would hold no sway
whatsoever over the player's actions, thus, by R 101, that player would
be mandated to ignore any which required rule-breaking behaviour.

Even if R 775 is not wholly void and without effect, it seems to me that
R 775, 3c is too weak to require a player to break R 101, even if the
Church Policy mandates such.  Therefore the player can ignore such
illegal-behaviour-forcing provisions, and a verdict of TRUE is indicated.

A verdict of TRUE here should also indicate a verdict of FALSE on CFJ
288.  I will attempt to demonstrate how later.  I wish I had the time to
do this when CFJ 288 was filed, alas, I did not, but I cannot let it
pass now.

breadbox's Reasoning:

I see two ways of interpreting the sentence from Rule 775 under
scrutiny: "All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as
they are members of the Church."

One reading is that abiding by Church Policy is simply a necessary
condition to being a member of the church. To not abide by church
policy is to implicitly renounce one's membership.

Under such a reading, the truth of the CFJ's statement is trivially
true.

The second interpretation is that Rule 775 actually gives a church
policy the force of Rules, as far as the church's members are
concerned. Church policy would then, while not actually being rules,
would have essentially the same force and importance. A player who did
not abide by church policy could then be liable for a CFCJ, for not
obeying Rule 775.

If we were to prefer this interpretation, and give church policy equal
standing with the official rule set, then a policy that required an
action forbidden by the rules would in effect be requiring the church
member(s) to not obey the rules. As such, it would certainly be in
conflict with Rule 101. Whether Rule 108 or Rule 210 would come into
play first is immaterial; the precedence of Rule 101, as it stands,
affords no escape. If church policy is seen as equivalent to rules,
then it must also abide by the rules as well, and the statement of
this CFJ is still clearly True. Indeed, it seems that no matter how
much hand-waving is applied, Rule 101 demands that this statement be
considered True, no matter what sort of extenuating circumstances are
applied.

But not so fast. There is an obvious counterargument here. Rule 101
demands that the rules be obeyed, but which rules? Given this latter
interpretation, would not the entire church policy of every church
have a precedence equivalent to Rule 775, 3c? Therefore, would not
rules which would defer to Rule 775 also have to defer to church
policy, as far as its members were concerned? For that matter, could
not a church create a policy which explicity claimed precedence over
other mutable rules?

If we wished to take our interpretation this far, then consider the
following. The *only* restriction on the scope of church policy is
that it cannot prevent a member from leaving. If the church policy
were a living document, subject to change without notice, members
could find themselves effectively breaking a "rule" that they had
never voted for. Indeed, they could be made to violate church policy
before such policy was knowable by them, much less before they could
respond by leaving the church. Furthermore, if a CFCJ was brought
forth upon a player (for violating church policy, and therefore not
obeying Rule 775), a judge could potentially find eirself in an
uncomfortable situation. Since the church would be under no compulsion
whatsoever to disclose church policy, in whole or in part, it is quite
likely that it would be impossible to return a judgement.

There is none of the necessary structure, and little even in the way
of precedence, for Ackanomic to uphold rules that exist outside of the
Rule Set. I must maintain that any such document must necessarily give
all precedence to the actual Rules themselves. To be otherwise, a Rule
would have to explicitly state that the external material should be
considered to be the text of the Rule, and (for good measure)
explicity state that the Rule was whatever the external material read
as At Any Given Moment.

With anything less, I cannot find that an independent document such as
church policy can bestow freedom from the rules, even from a small
subset of the rules to a small subset of the population. The statement
of this CFJ is, therefore, under all interpretations, True.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 96 13:18:43 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1286

Proposal 1286 - Sat Sep 28 13:18:43 EDT 1996
TMBG
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

	This is a Modest proposal.

	Create a new rule which reads:

	They Might Be Giants is the official band of Ackanomic.  It
is a duty of the Web-Harfer to make this fact known on the main 
Ackanomic web page, and to provide a link to a TMBG site elsewhere on
the 'Net.

	The Web-Harfer, should, but is not required to, investigate 
getting a TMBG site to a provide a link to the Ackanomic page.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 96 13:19:06 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1287

Proposal 1287 - Sat Sep 28 13:19:06 EDT 1996
Similarity
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

This is a modest proposal.

Ammend R721 "Organizations" in the following ways:
I. The entire text of R721 becomes section 1 of R721
II. Append the following text as section 2 of R721:
"
For any two given Organizations A and B the following quantities can be
deteremined:
a) S(A->B) is defined as the percentage of the members of Organization A
   who are also members of Organization B

b) S(B->A) is defined as the percentage of the members of Organization B
   who are also members of Organization A

c) Organization H Similarity is defined as the greater of S(A->B), S(B->A)
  
d) Orgnization L Similarity is defined as the smaller of S(A->B), S(B->A)

e) Orgnaization M Similarity is defined as the average between 
  S(A->B), S(B->A).

{{[The three different kinds of Similarity definitions may be useful for
different kinds of restrictions. Note that there is no requirement to keep
records of those numbers, it is only necessary to calculate them on a need
to know basis. ]}}

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 96 13:19:31 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1288

Proposal 1288 - Sat Sep 28 13:19:31 EDT 1996
Making Parties a Part of it all
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

This is a Modest proposal.

Ammend the first sentence of R542 to read in full:
"There exists a type of Organization known as a Political Party."

{{[the current text still refers to itself as a proposal, and should have
been fixed anyway. In many respects we have been treating Parties as
Organizations, we might as well define them as Organizations. This
definition does change anything about Parties, but would be very useful,
and simplify other rules]}}

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 13:28:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador's reques

Phillip R. Ackley wrote:
> 
> Could COunt Tabula please initiate a vote on the matter of internomic
> proposal P307?  

I am initiating a vote on internomic proposal 307, which shall end 
three days from the date of this post.  Its text can be found on
my web pages and elsewhere.

I am recommenting a vote of NO.

Malenkai
Asisstant Tabulator

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 96 14:17:38 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1289

Proposal 1289 - Sat Sep 28 14:17:38 EDT 1996
Strike Concessions
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

{{ Each member of Underworld shall be paid A$300 from the Treasury. }}

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:47:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Politeness Moon

On the matter of the Politeness Moon called on Techno, Techno was
found impolite 8 votes to 3.

Sep 28 14:50 EDT: -3 Techno: Politeness Moon

Impolite
	ThinMan
	Malenkai
	Techno
	Guy Fawkes
	Brinjal
	Habeous Corpus
	snowgod
	mr cwm

Polite
	Uncle Sam
	Wayne
	Mohammed

Assistant Tabulator

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 96 14:54:31 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1289

I have officially ended the Underworld Strike.  First I would like to
apologize for voting down some really good proposals.  Labor disputes
are always ugly.  Maybe you can resubmit them and have them pass.

There may still be some proposals in the queue that will still get
voted down but I can't help that.

> Proposal 1289 - Sat Sep 28 14:17:38 EDT 1996
> Strike Concessions
> Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

> {{ Each member of Underworld shall be paid A$300 from the Treasury. }}

Now I ask all players to vote for this proposal.  This is the settlement
that I am asking for.  Remember, if this fails, we may have to call for
another strike.  And if you vote against it, we may have to call for
a strike against your proposals.

Wayne

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 96 14:56:08 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1290

Proposal 1290 - Sat Sep 28 14:56:08 EDT 1996
Even Less Double Jeopardy
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend Rule 710 in the manner described by Proposal 1255.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 96 14:56:19 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1291

Proposal 1291 - Sat Sep 28 14:56:19 EDT 1996
Creative Cranium Copyright Renewal
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

Amend Rule 818 in the manner described by Proposal 1251.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 17:28:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: CFJ 293

Habeous Corpus wrote:
> /dev/joe’s argument hinges on the intent of the Proposal and the
> attachment of a Title to the Rule it was repealing.  Unfortunately for
> em,  the Rules give no weight to a Rule’s Title,  only its number.

The only way my argument depends on the title is that the proposal
referred to a rule by its title.  Rule 452 requires that rules
*have* titles, and Rule 703 requires (in part) that no two rules
have the same title, so it seems that the rules do give sufficient
weight to rule titles to allow proposals and other rules to refer
to rules by their titles.

> As for the Spelling Bee,  whether it can or cannot correct typographical
> errors containing numerals,  that is beside the point here.  The Spelling
> Bee has no power to correct Proposals,  only Rules and CFJ’s (and by
> default of Rule 710,  CFCJ’s).

My argument did not concern the spelling *bee*, but rather, Rule 451,
entitled "Spelling Errors", which states:

  If there are spelling errors in any Ackanomic document, including Rules,
  Proposals, and Call for Judgements, and the spelling error is unambiguous,
  then the mispelled word shall be treated as if it were spelled correctly.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:58:19 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Ambassador 

>> The following internomic proposal has been distributed:
>>
>> Proposal 307
>> Proposed by Thring.
>>
>> Amend Rule 205, so that it reads:
>>
>> For any proposals whose voting period has not ended, their voting
>> period shall end one week after this rule is enacted.
>>
>> One week after this rule is enacted, it shall amend itself to read:
>>
>> "The voting period for a proposal shall be one week, beginning at the
>> time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics."
>
>Ambassador, can you tell what the sentiment is on this one? Do you or
>any of the other Nomics have strong feelings about it? Do the players
>all feel that one week is enough time for everyone to respond
>intelligently?

Agora has strong feeling on thisnd will likely vote NO, sinking the
proposal.  It seems that if this were passed, agora would be forced to
shorten it's voting period (currently 10 days, I believe) in ordder to keep
up.

I like your proposal, and with you permission will submit it now, as 307 is
doomed to fai a couple of proposals  other players to re-submit.  They must
have been lost in the shuffle somewhere, as I have never seen Andre
distribute them.

>If this proposal fails, then I would like to submit for your
>consideration the following as an Internomic proposal:
>
>Amend Rule 205, so that it reads:
>
>The voting period for a proposal shall be two weeks, beginning at the
>time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics. If at any
>time during the second week all nomics have cast a vote, then the
>moderator may choose to call an end to the voting period.
>
>b

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
Amazing things happen when great minds work together.

That's why IdiotBoy is working closely with the underworld party to insure
that your investments will provide you with maximum cash flow and minimum
risk.  Only IdiotBoy actively promotes Waynenomics as part of his
investment package!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:58:26 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Malenkai and Mohammed 

I am transfering 2 PFsnowgod to Malenkai for services rendered.

I am also offering (just to make it official) a trade with mohammed... 20
PFsnowgod for 20 PFmohammed.

Would the financier pleaser note these two transactions (assuming they are
accepted).

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:22:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malenkai and Mohammed

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I am transfering 2 PFsnowgod to Malenkai for services rendered.
> 
> I am also offering (just to make it official) a trade with mohammed... 20
> PFsnowgod for 20 PFmohammed.
> 
> Would the financier pleaser note these two transactions (assuming they are
> accepted).
> 
> snowgod

I accept.

Is this the *first* transfer of 20 bonds between you two?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:49:18 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malenkai and Mohammed

> 
> Is this the *first* transfer of 20 bonds between you two?
> 
> Malenkai

Yes, I was just trying to do it all publically, to avoid any confusion I 
may have caused earlier.  I guess I failed :)

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 20:34:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: financial

I am transferring 15 A$ to IdiotBoy, assuming his acceptance.

Would the Financier please take note.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 21:16:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: RFC: New Bribing World Order

Strikes aren't broken by force.  The use of escalating force will only
result in the collapse of the game, or alienation of some group of
players from the game, or a split of the game into two separate games.

Below is my first concession to Underworld.  It is possible (and, given
the way Modesty and snowgod's brief strike worked, likely) that allowing
such proposals will result in their use.  More work should be done in
this area to set up a proper structure for such bribes, including a
way to resolve the consequences when a bribe cannot be paid.  (I would
like bribes to not be limited to A$, and if a bribe cannot be paid when
a proposal's voting period ends, then the proposal should fail, although
perhaps the scoring on such a proposal should be altered in some way.)

RFC: New Bribing World Order

{{[ This is an attempt to rewrite Rule 793 in a way that works better,
while changing the effect when a proposal changes the proposal-triggered
rules to a 1089.2-like form in all cases, including those which do not
involve points.

As an attempt to make Underworld's demands more compatible with the
game structure regarding trades of currency and other assets, which
would cause a massive deluge of messages to the mailing list if people
really were paying Underworld bribes on every proposal they submit, I
have also made bribes made out of the author's own tradeable assets
allowable. ]}}

Amend rule 793 by changing its name to "Proposal Bribery", and changing
its text to read, in full:

A proposal is invalid if it contains one or more rule changes that
discriminate in any way between players based on the way they vote
on that proposal, or any other specific proposal or proposals
identified in the proposal.  Effects that depend on the way players
vote are allowed if they apply to all proposals, or to all proposals
in one or more classes previously defined by the rules. [This would
be modest proposals, harfy proposals, etc.]

{{[ Help me make sure the above doesn't become too limiting. ]}}

If a proposal adds, changes, or repeals rules that generate effects
or cause some entity to generate effects (including but not limited
to score changes) based on the way players vote, then those rules
generate no effects based on the way players vote on that particular
proposal.  This takes precedence over all mutable rules which 
generate effects based on the way players vote on proposals.

An exception to all of the above is that a proposal may include a
provision which transfers tradeable entities from the author of
the proposal to players who voted YES on the proposal.  These need
not be equal for all such players. [I.e., extra bribes can be given
to players who buy extra votes or whose parties generate unity
votes.]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 18:57:30 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Steel Flea Gazette Vol. 1 Issue 4 

Steel Flea Gazette - Special Report
Volume 1 - Issue 4

Much Delayed and often Duplicated
Ackanomic's Original Newspaper - Since 1996!

In this issue:

* Exclusive Poll Results (!!!!)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This issue of the Steel Flee Gazette is brought to you without support from
advertisers or ne'er do wells.  However, if you would like future editions
of SFG to contain advertisments for your ventures or proposals, contact me
for pricing and placement.  If you would like to submit an article to SFG,
send email to [email-masked].  Accepted submissions are paid with
either A$1 per line, or 2 PFsnowgod (editor's choice). SFG retains the
right to edit submissions for grammer, spelling, or content.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

!!!
EXCLUSIVE POLL RESULTS
A special to the Steel Flea Gazette by Malenkai

We got a near complete response to the poll question, which was, basically,
"How did you find out about Ackanomic?". Most people found out about it on
newsgroups, and alot of people credit the Publicists of the early days for
their "spam".

Niccolo Flychuck:

>I saw an anouncement on comp.ai.games - I was familiar with nomic before,
>though I hadn't played it by e-mail before.

>I don't remember who posted it, but when I e-mailed him he gave the
>address of the Registrar, and I joined directly as a player. That was back
>in March, right at the start of the Quorum Crisis. The player who made the
>anouncement could very well have been pTang, since he frequents that
>newsgroup.

this is not a name:

>I think I saw the spam on usenet.

breadbox:

>Of course, I first learned of the existence of Nomic from Metamagical Themas.

>A few months ago, I subscribed to rec.games.abstract, and when the FAQ
>came around, it mentioned Nomic on the net, something I've always thought
>would be ideal. It either listed the URL for Doug Chatham's Nomic bulletin
>board directly, or it gave the URL for the Nomic FAQ, from where I found
>the board. In any case, snowgod had just posted a requst for more players
>the day before. Taking that as a good sign, I hit the Ackanomic web page.
>Over the next hour or so, I skimmed the entire ruleset. (I was in creative
>procrastination mode.) I remember the first new rule that stuck out was
>the Voting Gnome: I thought that was a great idea. (That little
>association made it very enjoyable for me when I became the Gnome Buddy so
>quickly after joining; it definitely made up for having such a
>consistently lousy score.) When I found out that I could become an
>observer, and get the feel of the game before diving in, I knew I would
>join in. I became an observer that night, and a couple of weeks later,
>when a cycle ended and everyone's scores were reset to zero, I became a
>player.

/dev/joe:

>I found out about the game from the publicist's message in a local newsgroup.

Wayne:

>The Founder of Acka, Sean Ackers, posted a message on rec.games.abstract.
>I sent him some email and joined up. After a couple of days we had enough
>players to start. And the rest is history.....

ThinMan:

>I found out about Ackanomic through a post on rec.games.pbm. I was then an
>observer for some time before I decided to join the game.

Habeous Corpus:

>I found Ackanomic through a Web search on PBEM's that led me to Michael's
>Nomic Page, and Acka was the first name on the list. I checked out others,
>too.

fnord:

>I found out about the game on the newsgroup rec.games.abstract when
>someone posted about it. I thinkthat was during the time when there was a
>position called the 'Publicist'.

snowgod:

>I found out about the game from a posting on rec.music.blues.bluenote (or
>something like that) by Robert Sevin when he was publicist. I didn't
>follow it up, though, until I saw a post on alt.fan.tmbg. Then i figured I
>had to try it...

mr cwm:

>I joined right after the publicist rule passed, in response to their post
>to rec.games.abstract (I think).

IdiotBoy:

>Working on a contract at a large electronic information publishing company
>(as I would say if I was a game show). Got bored in a meeting. Jacked into
>the net. Looking at some GEB stuff. Links into Metamagical Themas stuff.
>Links to Nomic stuff. (It's so Web-like out there). Spent alot of time
>looking at the Imperial (Fascist) version. Nothing really caught my fancy
>til I saw the Acka pages. Plenty of controversy, and plenty of fun. Or so
>the Germans would have us believe!

Bash:

>Connection from the Nomic Page or something like that.

Bascule:

>Through a newsgroup. cpf had placed a message there. I can't remember
>which one I'm afraid, I was surfing at the time

Brinjal:

>I discovered Acka via some newsgroup or other (I forget which), where
>ChessPieceFace posted some info about the game. At the time he was the
>officer responsible for spreading the word about the game to get new
>players (the name of which office also escapes me).

Uncle Sam:

>I was looking on the Yahoo Page's about different internet games and saw a
>link to your web site.

>I've never played this before. It sounds extremely interesting.
>Wanted to see what it was like.

skinny:

>My name is Shlomi and I've just joined the game as skinny. I found out
>about the game by seeing a connection from the "Nomic Page" on the
>Internet. Looking forward for playing with you.

Malenkai:

>Always wanted to play Nomic since Metamagical Themas, but could never
>muster people willing to commit the time. (Had played 2 player nomic like
>games before, the result of one being the card game on my web page)

>Figured the Internet was the perfect medium, and did an Alta Vista search
>for "nomic" and "Suber". Found the Nomic page and Nomic faq. Wanted to
>join a traditional nomic. Joined Acka because of its young rule set, harfy
>proposal archive, and well-organized web pages (traits it still has,
>fortunately). I joined during the R 416 wars, and tried to start a
>political party second or third day (anyone remember the Markovian
>Party?). Back then we had the FOOZBALL, NOAZBALL, and Independent parties.

>Actually wanted to check out Thring, because of their evolving story
>thing, but the link to their web site was broken. Glad I ended up here. I
>guess thats more than anyone needed or cared to know.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #266
*******************************