Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #268
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Sunday, September 29 1996      Volume 01 : Number 268

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:31:15 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

I have been studying the machine closely for the last two days, and I 
have formulated a hypothesis as to the nature of the truth, to wit:

IF AND ONLY IF today has a date which is prime or evenly divisible by
four, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*. 

Am I the new scholar, or am I to be publicly ridiculed?

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:35:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: UW Strikes.

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > I'm glad someone agrees with me.
> > 
> You used that argument to argue that UW has demonstrated a legal means by
> which a minority could force its will upon the game. By the same token,
> P1281 was a counter demonstration that the oppressed majority can abd will
> fight back.  Had that rule not been retracted, it had a very good chance
> of passing, and your demonstration would have failed.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
Agreed, but the P1281 was bad policy from the get go.  It didn't attempt to
solve anything except a instant problem.  The Strike pointed out a major
flaw in which the system as a whole "works.."  I still contend that P1281 had
no chance at passage.

I never disputed the right of any party to propose P1281.  I merely wished
to point out that it was far more extreme and unwarranted than the Strike.  

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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:38:16 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: New Bribing World Order 

>On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>I'm glad someone agrees with me.

What /dev/joe says may be true fro strikes, but certainly doesn't apply to
extortion rackets.  Vote NO on P1289.

As for /dev/joe's RFC it seems fair.

snowgod
president

Can you CFCJ someone for violating the spirit of the game?

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:39:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: the HTN

> Copies of vol 1 issue 4 have been mailed to all subscribers.  Talk to
> IdiotBoy about buying this weeks issue for only A$8.  (20% off the cover
> price)
	Hey, subscribers:  I'll pay whoever accepts first A$4 for a copy.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:46:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: the HTN

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Mohammed wrote:

> > Copies of vol 1 issue 4 have been mailed to all subscribers.  Talk to
> > IdiotBoy about buying this weeks issue for only A$8.  (20% off the cover
> > price)
> 	Hey, subscribers:  I'll pay whoever accepts first A$4 for a copy.
> 
> --Mohammed
> 
Oh man!  I'm going to go write some copyright proposals, right now.

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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 14:52:53 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: the HTN

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Mohammed wrote:
> 
> > > Copies of vol 1 issue 4 have been mailed to all subscribers.  Talk to
> > > IdiotBoy about buying this weeks issue for only A$8.  (20% off the cover
> > > price)
> > 	Hey, subscribers:  I'll pay whoever accepts first A$4 for a copy.
> > 
> > --Mohammed
> > 
> Oh man!  I'm going to go write some copyright proposals, right now.
> 
> IB

I believe newspapers are tradeable.  Whether that applies to the "press" 
or individual issues should probably be decided by a judge.  I would tend 
to believe that if newspapers are tradeable, issues of said papers are 
too (otherwise it would be illegal for IB to sell subscriptions).

snowgod
glad to talk about something other than the strike.

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The UW strike and its consequences

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> snowgod did a commendable job in his recent message attempting to guide
> Acka away from what is currently threatening it.  While I endorse that
> post 100%, I should like to add some thoughts of my own, in general,
> and in response to comments surrounding proposal 1281, as at least
> one player seemed threatened, or offended, by it.  That was never its
> intent.
> 
I happen to have like snowgod's response myself, and I don't feel
particularly threatened or offended by P1281.  I am not one to go off the
deep end in playing a game.  I'm sure snowgod would be happy to vouch for my
happy-go-luckiness. 

> While I personally find IdiotBoy's latest response bordering on the
> beginning of a flame war, I do not wish to go down that road.  I will
> attempt to stick to the facts, and ask any so inclined to do the same,
> because I dislike flame wars, and really want to make the game fun again.
> 
I didn't intend to begin a flame war.  I wanted to state my case in strong
terms, as you have done.  I appreciate the time you took to formulate your
response.

> IdiotBoy wrote:
>  
> > It certainly was MY intent to provide greater fun in the game, playing
> > within rules (all of which existed before I joined).
> 
> I think it is clear that this was a miscalulation.  I made a similar
> miscalculation when I issued AOJ 101.  AOJ 101 was issued in accordance
> 
It is absolutely clear that this was a miscalculation.  But that doesn't
lessen the fact that I entered our strike in good faith, hoping to (yes)
create some controversy, but not destroy this game.  I haven't even had a
chance to win yet, for crying out loud. ;)

> In this case, at least 9 people have definitively stated, or strongly
> indicated, either privately, or in other forums, that the UW strike
> was "in poor taste", or "a violation of the social contract we implictly
> agree to when we join a game" or language with a similar gist.  This
> cannot be legislated, no matter how hard you try.  That is why we
> politely asked you to stop, without getting into a flame war.  While
> we appreciate that you did stop, some people do not feel P 1289 was a
> good faith attempt to clean this matter up.
> 
The first mistake:  not posting such thoughts to the public forum.  I have
no way to gauge public opinion or even outrage without some sort of
indication in THIS forum.  Furthermore, I can not recall being politely
asked to stop.  Ok, maybe snowgod did, but it was always with a veiled
threat, which I took to mean that he was participating in the FUN portion of
this experiment.

> > Don't blame ME because YOU wrote a ruleset which allows for abuse.
> 
> I do not believe anyone is blaming you, Matt.  The fact of the matter is
> that you cannot write a ruleset which will be free from abuse.
> 
I'm not suggesting that I am blamed personally.  I am saying that these
rules were written to be abused.  With voting blocs and supermajority
requirements, you have made it possible to completely stop the game with the
acts of a few misguided (WOOOOOO!) players.

> The point is, I believe you cannot legislate spirit of the game.  I think
> the attitude of Acka has been to constructively develop the game in a
> fun direction, rather than thicken the ruleset and spend time writing
> the above legislation.  Remember, many of the players here are either
> full-time students, or have full-time jobs, and play nomic as a hobby,
> a *game*.  Given limited time, many people would prefer to develop and
> have fun than attempt the above legislation.
> 
I have already stated that I intended to take the game in a fun direction
when i joined the UW and when I supported the strike.  We certainly helped
avoid thickening the ruleset.  I also have a full-time job and somewhat
limited time, and am a proponent of "loose constructionalism" which is not a
part of this game. (But that is for another post, I suppose.)   Again, let
me reiterate that it was not my intention to grind the game to a halt, or
reduce the amount of fun players were having.

> Again, I do not believe you can legislate good taste.  I will share with
> you my attempt to do so, however, which has been a good faith attempt
> to acknowledge this issue, without spending alot of valuable time on 
> it.
> 
I agree with the good taste judgement.  I had no idea that people would
simply "not play ball", and then threaten to "take their ball and go home".
I guess you cover this later, and I'll respond more fully later.

> > Capitalism has succeeded becuase it depends on the inherent greed of
> > man.  Socialism has failed because it depends on the inherent
> > goodness of man.
> 
> First of all, you have made this statement without associating objective,
> or subjective, measurement criteria with the terms "succeeded" or
> "failed".  I will let that pass, but will discuss the capitalism of this
> situation.  (If you are interested in capitalism, BTW, I recommend the
> non-fiction of Ayn Rand, I can give you some references if you wish).
> 
You hardly let it pass, but I'll let that pass. ;)  I didn't want to go into
a great deal of boring Real World detail, I assumed (incorrectly) that this
statement would fade.  I'm having a good discussion with Niccolo privately
about this now, so I will save my comments.  Thanks for the offer, but I'm
pretty well read in Ayn Rand (did I mention I'm a Libertarian? <g>)

> First, the messgae calling the strike, in full:
<snip of promised material>

> What this says is that the Underworld will vote against every proposal
> for which there is no bribe.  It does not specify a time limit.  The
> rate I bribed Underworld for on Proposal 1253 was A$48.  I have authored
> 170 proposals since this game began.  At even *half* that rate, it would
> cost over A$4000, or 10 times the average player balance.  Over the life
> of those 170 proposals, I have accumulated about A$1500.  Since all new
> revenue from proposal writing would go to the UW, it seems that after 
> about 62 proposals, I would be broke and not able to afford the bribes
> (that assumes 1/2 the going rate, or A$24).  The math is also degenerative
> at 1/4 the going rate, but not quite as bad.  At 1/8 the going rate, or
> A$6 per proposal, UW members are only making A$1 per proposal!  The
> economics works against *them* in that case, they are better off attempting
> to scoreboard vote, and make A$3 per proposal!
> 
Exactly, this clearly wasn't going to work as a long term situation.  I
thought that was clear, just from the posting.  As to a discussion of
actual amounts.  Here is what I literally thought would happen:  you
would come to the UW and ask for our protection on all of your proposals for
the next <time-period>.  We take your money and vote our conscience.  This
doesn't work against the hardest working players in the game, in fact they
are getting a discount rate.  You over paid for our services on 1 proposal.
I didn't actually see this as a big cash cow for UW memebers, merely
codifying our "outlaw"/badboy status.

As the paragraph I snipped below points out, this was NOT sustainable.  I
had told snowgod before this started that it was NOT our intention to
continue it for very long.  I am sorry that the original message was worded
in such a way as to make things impossible.

> I was playing ball and going along with the bribery.  It *could have been
> fun*, and good for the game, and if done right, can be.  Given the
> above, however, you were not promoting the best interest of the game,
> or you made analyitical errors.
> 
Agreed, if you analyze the message in the way you have it was detremental.
Perhaps my understand was swayed by our UW discussions, and I couldn't see
the fear this would generate in the game.

> Now, a more important aspect of capitalism, and if you call yourself a
> capitalist, you should see this situation you have created as abhorrant,
> and it is this that I most strongly object to:
> 
<snip of taxing effort>
> 
> Do not tax effort.  Do not discourage development of the game.  What 
> I will be forced to do is put all my rule changes in one gigantic proposal
> of 20 sub-proposals.  Legal by the rules, but out of the spirit.  qv
> previous argument.
>      
My above scenario (which is how I had understood we would work) I believe
addresses this.  As a true capitalist, I agree with your analysis on the
whole.  

I have done other things which harmed me financially, but I believe brought
more fun to the game.  My whole ploy with the PFBonds was to create fun.  I
even used some of my supposed profits to bribe Malenkai to keep him from
striking on me.  All in good fun, it's a game, and I'm playing it like one.

> This is what offended me most about the strike.  Slapping the people who
> work the hardest for the game, the hardest.
>  
> > Suppose we had not announced our strike.  This would have been much more
> > detremental to the game.
> 
> The fact that an action is "less detrimental" does not do your argument
> justice.  I am willing to accept that it was an error of judgement, and
> drop it.
> 
The strikes has had obvious detrimental effect on the game.  This does NOT
mean however that it was designed as such.  The thrust of the argument you
began quoting was that if we had intended to damage the game, we could have
done it much better by simply voting NO and not telling you what were were
doing.  The detriment to the game is THIS.  The game halting discussions of
whether we broke the social contract. 

> > We gave you fair warning.  There was NO discussion
> > to the public forum of how to resolve this, until AFTER the first set of
> > results had been played out.
> 
> First of all, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and even bribed
> you on one proposal.  It was only after the results that it was clear
> how tasteless it was, and how poor the economics were.  I honestly
> expected that if you played ball on one or 2, the others would not be
> struck.  I'm not sure why I thought that, I just did.  Also, do you want
> us to judge something and start a flame war before it is played out?
> 
Absolutely,  I wanted to see people RESPOND although not in flame war
fashion.  Your reasoning as to the "playing ball" was my original
misunderstanding, as well.

> > As far as I have been able to determine, we
> > never intended to carry on our strike for more than a few proposals.
> 
> Please read the memo, posted above, that announced the strike.  It said
> "EVERY" proposal.  It did not specify any temporal information.  And you
> struck more than a few proposals before a word was said.
> 
No, we didn't strike any proposals before our announcement.  Unless all
Unity votes count as a strike.  In which case I have a bone to pick. ;)

> > BUT,  will say that I was sincerely peeved with the singling out of the
> > UW.
> 
> You singled out the non-UW.  You did not strike your own proposals.  A
> better way to put it would have been to single out all those who struck.
> Harder to word.  Your action disenfranchised the rest of the players.
> That was all the point of P 1281 was.  I apologize if P 1281 personally
> threatened or offended you, but as you like to point out, it was well
> within the rules to submit, and even pass, such a proposal.  Doesn't feel
> the same when the shoe is on the other foot, does it?  
> 
We may have de facto disenfranchised the rest of the players, but we did not
use theforce of law to make their votes not count.  Again, I was neither
offended nor threatened.  I made the choice to respond to bad policy, before
it was played out.  It's the only way my thoughts could be known.  I think
you have EVERY right to submit such a proposal, and use every method in your
arsenal to get it passed.  I think it is bad legislation, and I reserve my
right to criticize it as such.

> > No one made any attempt to fix the ruleset, rather they decided to
> > attack one group.   I had expected more, frankly.  I am disappointed.
> 
> Like I said, you actually attacked the non-UW group first, criticizing
> non-UW written rules without a single constructive suggestion of
> your own.  Lets look at "attempts to fix the ruleset", since you seem 
> to be on that horse, and stated UW demands, again, keeping with the
> facts:
> 
We made a show of force, not singling out players by force of law.  There is
quite a distinction. 

> The current Underworld Party was formed on September 5.  Since that 
> time, its members have authored the following proposals:
> 
> 1207, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1231, 1234, 1235, 1244,
> 1247, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1262, 1275, 1282, 1289, and 1292.
> 
> Of those, only 1211 and 1244 were were remotely concerned with the
> voting rules, or their effects, 1244 was a built in scam, whether 
> intentional or not.  Virtually everyone supported 1211, which had
> the same intent as P 1154, which was rejected.
> 
Unintentional, I assure you.  It didn't scam very well, in any case.  I'm
not sure how the relationship between 1211 and 1154 fortifies your argument.

> On the other hand, /dev/joe, Guy Fawkes, and  Malenkai have submitted
> 4 proposals which improve the voting system or its effects:
> 
> 1220, 1230, 1232, and 1243
> 
> 1220 and 1230 received unanimous Underworld opposition.  Your statement
> "No one made any attempt to fix the ruleset" is a dishonest one, Matt,
> and I have shown the facts that demonstrate that.  Moreover, I have
> shown that the Underworld unanimously opposed two of these initiatives.
> Check the ftp archive if you dispute my facts.
>  
It is NOT dishonest in the context of this discussion.  We are discussing
the effect of this strike.  The only response to our strike was an
escalation of the violence.  The fact that we have voted down previous
(pre-strike) attempts to reform voting, doesn't mean we are against the
concept, only the methodlogy, perhaps.

> Lets dig further into attempts to clean up the voting rules.  On 
> Sept 27, the following RFC was posted by /dev/joe:
> 
<snip of promised material>
> 
> No one from the Underworld responded to the RFC.  The only responses
> were demands for more money.  Matt seems to think that our rules have
> problems.  Perhaps he, or the rest of the Underworld, could help us
> improve them.  I'm finding it a little bit of a stretch that the
> UW is sincere in cleaning up the voting rules in light of this evidence,
> despite the rhetoric.  We've obviously been unsuccessful in writing
> acceptable voting rules.  Work with us to improve them, then.  The fact
> of the matter is that we have worked our butts off to clean up the rules,
> do a grep for /dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, Mohammed, and others.
> 
You are welcome to believe as you wish concerning our intent.  It is my
intent to see the voting rules cleaned up.  Frankly, I don't like wasting
bandwidth with "Me, too" posts.

> On September 28, I sent the following message to a member of the 
> Underworld:
> 
> > Thanks.  If I can help rewrite some of the voting rules, please let
> > me know.
> 
> This was not responded to.  Underworld proposals which followed were
> P 1289, etc, more demands for money, nothing to do with voting.
> 
I never recieved this message.

> Lets look at what else the Underworld has said during this crisis:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> First thing that strikes me: "The rules are open enough to let us damage
> the game, if not by voting no, then by other ways".  Look at the way
> that sentence is worded.  A clear acknowledgement that "if not by voting
> no" is known intent to damage the game.  At least in this member's
> view, and perhaps others, there is some knowledge of the damaging 
> effects.  P 1281 *would* be an appropriate response if this attitude
> where known to be prevelant.  Perhaps this message is a mistake.
>    
I thought this message a mistake.  In light of the need for party unity at
that time I let it slide, myself.

> What power do you want?  You are again offering threats at more out-
> of-the-spirit play.  I personally do not like to respond to terrorist
> tactics such as "threats to damage the game" if we are not given "the
> power we want".  The fact that there are player(s) who would make such
> a threat is already damage to the game, and we are seeing its effects,
> sadly.  The above is the most disheartening message I have seen since
> joining this great game.
> 
I was a bit shocked at this message myself.  It was not my intent to harm
the game.  Rather I intended to add fun.  (I didn't even expect to see much
profit)

> In summary, many players have discussed this issue amongst themselves.
> This is not an attempt to summarise those views, in fact, these opinions
> and facts are all my own, except where noted.  In any case, we debated
> ramming P 1281 through, a tact of non-escalation, and other options.  I
> have chosen to go with non-escalation, and have made a good faith effort
> at detente by retracting P 1281.  I ask that the UW do the same by
> retracting  P 1289, and the strong-arm threats accompaning it.
> 
The discussion amongst yourself is what brought this to a boil, rather than
talking WITH the UW.  The UW can't retract the proposal, only Wayne can.

> Then I, and I'm sure others, will work with you to improve the rules 
> you dislike.  Perhaps we can make this game enjoyable again.  I am
> attempting to improve the situation.  Will you?
> 
> Malenkai
> Speaker
> 
I am also attempting to improve the situation.  Again, I apologize for
working outside of the spirit of the game, this was never my intention.

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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:14:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: the HTN

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Phillip R. Ackley wrote:

> 
> I believe newspapers are tradeable.  Whether that applies to the "press" 
> or individual issues should probably be decided by a judge.  I would tend 
> to believe that if newspapers are tradeable, issues of said papers are 
> too (otherwise it would be illegal for IB to sell subscriptions).
> 
> snowgod
> glad to talk about something other than the strike.
> 
Rock and a hard place! Rock and a hard place!

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 01:17:12 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: the HTN

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Phillip R. Ackley wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Mohammed wrote:
> > 
> > > > Copies of vol 1 issue 4 have been mailed to all subscribers.  Talk to
> > > > IdiotBoy about buying this weeks issue for only A$8.  (20% off the cover
> > > > price)
> > > 	Hey, subscribers:  I'll pay whoever accepts first A$4 for a copy.
> > > 
> > > --Mohammed
> > > 
> > Oh man!  I'm going to go write some copyright proposals, right now.
> > 
> > IB
> 
> I believe newspapers are tradeable.  Whether that applies to the "press" 
> or individual issues should probably be decided by a judge.  I would tend 
> to believe that if newspapers are tradeable, issues of said papers are 
> too (otherwise it would be illegal for IB to sell subscriptions).
> 
> snowgod
> glad to talk about something other than the strike.

First, I'm glad to see IdiotBoy coming up with a constructive suggestion
to remedy a situation he dislikes. 
Second, Mohammed's suggestion is economically sound. But then so is
IdiotBoy's objection.
I like the idea of copyright laws, and I'm looking forward for a n RFC.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:45:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: New Bribing World Order

In response to my R793 rewrite RFC, IdiotBoy wrote:
> My only concern with this is as follows:
> 
> Player A makes a proposal which indicates a Payoff to all the members of
> (None Yet) if they vote YES on the proposal.  The players of (None Yet) in
> good faith cast their votes of YES on the proposal, expecting such payment.
> If the proposal FAILS, they have no recourse to recieve their bribe.  

This is actually part of the intent of my RFC.  The kind of bribes Underworld
wants, on every proposal, are *expensive*.  Malenkai has posted an excellent
economic analysis.  Besides, if the proposal fails, the members of (None Yet)
will get 3 points each, instead.  When the proposal passes, the author gets
some points, which will help to compensate for having to pay bribes to
voters.  It may be necessary to increase the rewards given to those players
who *do* manage to have proposals accepted, so that they can afford the
bribes.

> Is it possible to write Proposals which have effects upon their failure?
> That'd make for some wackiness, eh, kids?

The scam potential for this just seemed too large.  It's bad enough that
you guys can score 3 pts each (except for the author of the proposal)
on something lame like {{A$300 will be transferred from the Treasury to
each member of Underworld.}}

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 01:28:57 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacationing (again)

As of this message I put myself on Vacation. Expected duration is
8 days. I really am going away for a week`s R & R, cruising the
waterways of England. I wonder what sort of Nomic I will return to.

Once we start to seriously disagree about the *spirit* of the game we 
are playing then the waters get murky indeed. As Malenkai and others
have pointed out, there are things which either cannot be legislated,
or which it would be no fun to legislate, but which are central to
our common interest in the game.

I think the underworld party seriously underestimated the threat
they posed to other players enjoyment of the game when they started
their strike. The Overworlders could, I am sure, defeat the strike
or any other such strategy adopted by a minority. However, if defeating 
such a strategy becomes work rather than fun, the collective will may
not be there to see it through. This would be a great shame because
it would effectively be out-of-game forces which decided the outcome.

I just hope some sort of raprochement can be found before I return.

Forgive me for rambling so, but I felt the need to say something
about the current game predicament before going away. 

Brinjal.

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:48:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

To Bascule the Wise:

I was afraid I'd made it too easy, but your speed and mastery of the most 
arcane of Eratosthenian mysteries surpasses all earthly knowledge.  
Indeed, in my opinion all Acka should stand before thee and bow down to 
thy skills, but alas, this is not provided for by the rules.  Instead, 
for your wisdom, you shall soon the proud owner of a shiny new Gadget.

I believe Malenkai should now determine which of the following Bascule 
receives:  Electronic Potato; Scroll of Crumble; The Really Big Blue 
Thing That Doesn't Do Much, Really; Whamiol (!!!); Vending Machine; EP 
Vending Machine Add-On; Propeller Beanie.  If this list is incorrect (The 
Blueprint page is slightly OoD), I apologize.

Guy Fawkes
soon-to-be ex-Scholar of *ping*

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Bascule wrote:

> I have been studying the machine closely for the last two days, and I 
> have formulated a hypothesis as to the nature of the truth, to wit:
> 
> IF AND ONLY IF today has a date which is prime or evenly divisible by
> four, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*. 
> 
> Am I the new scholar, or am I to be publicly ridiculed?
> 
> Bascule
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 20:00:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: gadgets

The Gadget distribution by the Machine That Goes *ping* was meant to occur 
at a deliberately slow pace.  However, (I did make the first truth 
deliberately easy) this might not always be the case.  And as interesting 
as gadgets do make the game, I do recognize the possibility for an 
eventual gadget flood.

If Niccolo's OC proposal gets through this time, a gadget destruction 
card might be in order.  (We already have the Scroll of Crumble, I know, 
and an increase in Scroll production, which I see the inventor may be 
doing, is another possible answer.)  If anyone has any ideas, or feels 
that we can control any potential problem already under the existing 
system, let me know.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 02:54:44 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Exhausted from long hours of studying the Machine That Goes *ping*,
I was overjoyed to find that my hard work was not to go unrewarded,
for upon my return to the Den of Iniquity, I was to discover a marvel
beyond compare: the Machine That Goes *ping* awaited me! 

Fatigued as I was, I was powerless to prevent myself from falling
into a deep yet troubled sleep, during which I dreamed that the
Machine was attempting to communicate to me some idea, some concept, 
that was simply too vast for my limited human brain to grasp. 

When I awoke, my worst fears were to be confirmed. My transcription
of the Machine's Truth proved to be sadly inadequate; however for
the benefit of students of the Machine, I reproduce it below:

IF AND ONLY IF today *** * **** **** ******** ** ** *** ****** ** 
*******, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.

Bascule
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:59:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> To Bascule the Wise:

> I believe Malenkai should now determine which of the following Bascule
> receives:  Electronic Potato; Scroll of Crumble; The Really Big Blue
> Thing That Doesn't Do Much, Really; Whamiol (!!!); Vending Machine; EP
> Vending Machine Add-On; Propeller Beanie.  If this list is incorrect (The
> Blueprint page is slightly OoD), I apologize.

A Vending Machine was randomly chosen for Bascule to receive.

Malenkai
officer in charge of random things

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:18:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: CFJ293

On Sunday 29 Sep 96,  /dev/joe wrote:

>Rule 104 says no such thing, and I don't believe it ever has.  In the
early
>days of the game, proposed rule change was a synonym for proposal, but
>this was removed back when multiple-rule-change proposals were first
>allowed.

While e was technically correct in the wording of R104,  I was only
trying to sum up the relationship between R104,  R491 and others dealing
with proposals and Rule Changes.  I grant that much of my reasoning was
implicit rather than explicit,  but still valid IMO.

I would like to acknowledge one area that I missed.  Rule 451 would, 
indeed seem to be applicable in this circumstance.  After rereading P1211
with this in mind I find I must reverse my earlier stand in support of
the judgement.  Ambiguity is indeed the issue,  as is the wording of
R215.  Thank you /dev/joe for pointing out an area I had entirely
overlooked.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:18:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Strike

Malenkai's dissertation on the recent Underworld strike was elequent, 
thourough,  exciting reading,  
and accurate.

However,  I would like to make a very loosely related observation.  Since
joining Ackanomic in July,  I 
have witnessed or seen reference to at least three seperate "crises" to
hit Acka.  At the time of my 
joining,  there were actually multiple threads that would have "crashed"
the game if they were judged 
valid.  While this situation made me hesitant to jump in with Proposals, 
it did make for interesting 
reading.  I am of half a mind (some say less) to believe that the
attempts to crash Acka and the rallying 
to save it are in fact part of the game itself and take enjoyment from
them.  I know that different players 
find different aspects of the game "fun" and others drudgery,  but that
is why I like nomic so well.  
There as many facets to the play of the game as there are players.  Most
games have a set win state or 
can only be played in a certain fashion.  Nomic allows you make of the
game what you want.

I am truly sorry to see players disenheartened by this latest trial,  and
leave the game.  I feel that in a 
couple of short months I've made some real freinds,  even those who do
not always agree with me or 
support _my_ agenda.  If they truly grow tired of the direction this game
is going,  then I will miss them.  
One day,  I too may grow weary and resign,  or the game may disintegrate
under its own weight.  Until 
then,  I will look for the fun where I find it.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 96 22:14:26 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: New Bribing World Order

] The scam potential for this just seemed too large.  It's bad enough that
] you guys can score 3 pts each (except for the author of the proposal)
] on something lame like {{A$300 will be transferred from the Treasury to
] each member of Underworld.}}
] 
] /dev/joe

I agree with /dev/joe on this one.  In fact, I have suggested in the past
that we do away with all point awards based on the way you vote.  Should
I be rewarded because I voted against a proposal that 2/3's of the players
are in favor of?  Should I be rewarded for voting for a proposal that
doesn't have enough support to pass?

On Malenkai's economic analysis, I agree that we cannot work for A$'s alone.
But some people are willing to pay A$100 for ONE extra vote.  We are offering
SIX votes for less than half of that.

I envision us trading votes.  We will support your proposals if you vote
for the proposals we want you to vote for.  I'd have to admit that we
don't currently have a positive agenda.  But if we ever come up with one,
we could trade Unity votes for your votes on our proposals.

I retract Proposal 1289.

Wayne

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

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:51:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: New Bribing World Order

[email-masked] wrote:

> I agree with /dev/joe on this one.  In fact, I have suggested in the past
> that we do away with all point awards based on the way you vote.  Should
> I be rewarded because I voted against a proposal that 2/3's of the players
> are in favor of?  Should I be rewarded for voting for a proposal that
> doesn't have enough support to pass?

And I regret that I have not been able to work with Wayne on this yet.
He has sent me mail trying to initiate a rewrite of the scoring system,
to which I replied that I didn't have the time.  I've been trying to
get that speaker page useable, and more gifs and links, do assistant
financier work, etc.  Perhaps a rewrite of the scoring system would be
an area for acka to focus on next.

I agree that scoring should not be based on voting alone, but what should
it be based on?  The original Suber (??) system seems based losely
on prisoner's dilemma.  The first rewrite seemed to put too much 
emphasis on proposal writing, giving only those players like myself
who had alot of time to write proposals a realistic chance of getting
into the 200s.

The second rewrite, which was my handiwork, I confess, was an attempt
to open up the scoring to people who didn't have the time write, but
had the time to read and vote.  It also encouraged riskier content,
which I thought was healthy for the game, because garbage can still be
voted down.  I thought these were good goals.  It also shortened the
scam time, however. 

I believe the other two systems also allowed for the same sorts of scams,
they just would take longer to develop.

I would like to see some risk/reward for proposal writing, and perhaps
a voting payoff scheme similar to what Wayne has proposed privately.
I am still much pressed for time; I will try to look at Wayne's system
as soon as possible.  Perhaps someone else can start working on a system,
I mean, I'm certainly no scoring system guru.

I would like to see some scoring come out of games and contests, and
from party chess, etc, but the fact that only swingers can score in the
latter is a negative, IMO.

I am hopeful that my games and contests rewrite will mitigate scam
potential there.

> On Malenkai's economic analysis, I agree that we cannot work for A$'s
> alone. But some people are willing to pay A$100 for ONE extra vote.
> We are offering SIX votes for less than half of that.

And that is the way I'd like to see it work, an informal bribery scheme.
I have bribed Underworld on a couple of occasions.  The thing that put
me off so much was that I was willing to, and did bribe Underworld, but
*all* other proposals were struck.  I don't think that can work, as I
have stated at length.  I personally would perfer dealing with the
pre-strike Underworld than paying the A$100.  I would hate to see no
voting on proposals which have merit, just because there is no bribe.  
For example, the gadget precedence rewrite isn't "my baby", its just
something in the rules that needs to be patched.  That is why I like
my no points for voting no on modest proposals idea.  It takes alot of
toil to write these proposals sometimes.  

As for the financial transfers, /dev/joe has raised the valid concern
of all the public email.  Rather than that solution, how about the
current system where financial transactions need not be posted
publically, but only need to be posted to the financier or AF?  Yes,
the financier will have  priveleged information, but big deal.
Compensation for the work of the office.  Information that can be sold :)
 
> I envision us trading votes.  We will support your proposals if you vote
> for the proposals we want you to vote for.  I'd have to admit that we
> don't currently have a positive agenda.  But if we ever come up with one,
> we could trade Unity votes for your votes on our proposals.

Yes, I envision that as well, but I was unwilling to trade votes for
the Underworld's current slate of proposals :).  If the Underworld, or
or any other party, has a positive adjenda, and would like to trade
votes with me, I'll do that.
 
> I retract Proposal 1289.

I personally appreciate that, and I apologize for the rather harsh nature
of P 1281.  I never actually expected P 1281 to come to a vote, but 
thought some statement needed to be made.  To the extent that that 
statement was too strong, or inappropriate, I am sorry.

Malenkai
hoping to do business with UW in the future, but not on cleanup proposals

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #268
*******************************