Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #334
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, November 6 1996      Volume 01 : Number 334

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:58:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1417

Proposal 1417 -- Tue 5 Nov 12:52 CST 1996
Synod maintenance
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest proposal.

In R1356 "Synod" section 8 second paragraph repalce the text:
"
(A$ currently owned by the Church minus (A$ owned by the Church after the
     previous profit distribution, or on the most recent date the Synod
was not in Session, which was more
     recent))
"

With the text:
(A$ currently owned by the Synod minus (A$ owned by the Synod after the
     previous profit distribution, or on the most recent date the Synod
was not in Session, which was more
     recent))

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:21:34 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1415

>
>Proposal 1415 -- Tue 5 Nov 12:51 CST 1996
>Freeing up some disk space
>Malenkai (Randy Hall)
>
>{{[R 629, Constitutional Convention, always seemed useless to me
>and needlessly long unless there was a crisis which prevented normal
>rule changes (since the effect of a CC can be done with a multi-rule
>change proposal without all the clutter of delagates and the 7/8
>supermajority).  Rather than repeal it outright, I attempt to replace
>it with something more straightforward.  If we think the game is
>crash-proof, perhaps we should just repeal the thing.  Of course,
>this doesn't make it crash-proof, obviously]}}

I concur with these comments, enough so that I very nearly wrote a R629
revision among my recent string of proposals.  I like Malenkai's
revision,
but I have one problem with it that is sufficiently large that I must
vote
no on this in its present form.
>
[...]

>2) When, and only when, the game is in a State of Crisis the following
>officers have the following powers:
>
>	a) The Speaker may declare the State of Crisis lifted.
>        b) The President may publically issue a State of Crisis
>Resolution Document detailing a list of rule changes to be made to the
>ruleset.  The valid rule changes detailed in that document will be
>applied three days after the issuance of that document, or at the end
>of a failed challenge (whichever is later) unless it has been challenged
>and defeated.  

The problem is that (2)(b) specifies that only valid rule changes be
applied.  This is a substantial change from the current form of R 629,
which essentially says that the CC can make any changes whatsoever, so
long as it can get 7/8ths of the players to approve them.  This becomes
particularly significant if a
game crash involves some or all rule changes becoming invalid.  Indeed,
that
is one of the few kinds of situations that I can imagine requiring
invocation
of R629 in the first place.  As the proposed revision does not handle
such circumstances, I cannot vote for it.  I do, however, urge Malenkai
to retract the proposal and submit a replacement that addresses these
concerns, as I do
like the general idea.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 16:01:56 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 314 Verdict

>
>[Note:  This decision was strongly influenced by the comments ThinMan
>posted in a Public Message, and I suggest that, as a Bronze Torch holder,
>he may wish to add his insightful comments to this decision in accord with
>R563. Any flaws that may be present in this reasoning, however, are, of
>course, my own.]

I am gratified that mr cwm, a Bronze Torch holder himself, found my
argument
so convincing.  Indeed, his CFJ 314 reasoning does follow mine rather
closely.  I am fully in accord with his comments, and commend him for
wise
commentary regarding player actions which may be affected by entity
actions,
an area that I did not consider in my remarks.  As his note will be
entered
in the CFJ archive along with the rest of his reasoning, I feel it
important
to invoke my rights under R 563 to have the following comments added to
the
official record of the CFJ 314 decision:

mr cwm's comments are fully in accord with my views on the matter.  It
is
important that we distinguish between "definitive" rule provisions and
"regulatory" ones.  Provisions specifying entity behavior are only one
class of the former, and it is my opinion that the concept of legality
is inapplicable any provision of the definitive type.  A real-world
example is the Law of Gravitation: it is a physical principle that
defines
certain aspects of how everything with mass behaves -- it is impossible
for
us violate it.

I think that the legal precedent set by mr cwm's decision is wholly
appropriate, and I believe that it is likely to help reduce the number
of
paradox-win attempts.  It is also important to remember, as mr cwm
alluded,
that even though apparently contradictory entity behavior does not
constitute an eligible paradox in itself, it is possible that such
behavior
will cause an eligible paradox to exist where the legality of player
actions
depends on entity actions.

ThinMan
Bronze Torch holder
no longer wearing the Purple Robe of Justice (I think)

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 15:57:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1414

> Proposal 1414 -- Tue 5 Nov 12:51 CST 1996
> Entities
> Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)

I retract this.

Tue Nov  5 15:56:34 CST 1996  Mohammed -2 (retracted P1414)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 00:12:51 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1417  - retracting

Due to an unforseen typo I'm retracting this to resubmit.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1417 -- Tue 5 Nov 12:52 CST 1996
> Synod maintenance
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> In R1356 "Synod" section 8 second paragraph repalce the text:
> "
> (A$ currently owned by the Church minus (A$ owned by the Church after the
>    previous profit distribution, or on the most recent date the Synod
> was not in Session, which was more
>    recent))
> "
> 
> With the text:
> (A$ currently owned by the Synod minus (A$ owned by the Synod after the
>    previous profit distribution, oron the most recent date the Synod
> was not in Session, which was more
>    recent))
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 16:15:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1404

> Proposal 1404 -- Sat 2 Nov 8:11 CST 1996
> The FM Revisited
> ThinMan (John Bollinger)
	If Entities passes, that it'll steamroll over all the changes this
proposal makes.  I guess that doesn't make much of a difference; you 
might as well pick up the points.  Also:

>    3) The FM is a conceptual tool, physically realized in the public fora
>    and the Financier's log of transactions.  There is also an AckaNomic
>    building named the Free Market.
	Does this run afoul of R703 (" ")?  Earlier in that rule the 
words "Free Market (FM)" appear, strongly suggesting that Free Market and 
FM are the same thing and thus that the Free Market is "a conceptual 
tool"... That would give these two things (the tool & the building) the 
same Name.
	Also I think the Free Market should be open to the air (a 
- -market-) rather than a building, if it's going to be a location.

> first sentence, and adding the following sentences to the end: "The
> Financier should keep a record of each transaction, preferrably in his
> log.  Failure to keep a record of a legal transaction is a Crime."
	Failure to do your Duty as an Officer is already a Crime
(R1365, "Crime").

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 00:21:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1416

This proposal is too vast to comment on it all at once, however.

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1416 -- Tue 5 Nov 12:52 CST 1996
> Entities
> Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)

> 
> 15.  Rule 609 ("Offices, Commonalities") is amended by adding
> ---
> 	Offices are named, unownable entities.
> ---
> at the beginning, and by adding
> ---
> 	A Seat of an Office is an unownable entity.  [Seats are held,
> 	not owned.]

No. This should the default behavior, however, allowances should be made
for other rules to explicitly make Offices ownable and tradable.

> 
> 18a.  Rule 721 ("Organizations") is amended by changing
> ---
> 	1. Let a new class of entities be created called
> 	Organizations.  Organizations may only be established or
> 	disbanded according to the rules.
> ---
> to
> ---
> 	1.  Organizations are unownable, named entities.
> ---
I don't see what purpose this serves.

> 28a.  Rule 1206 ("Games & Contests") is amended by removing the word
> "Protected" wherever it appears [in section 9, near the middle of that
> paragraph].
??
> 

I can't vote for this. I have other comments which I may post tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I vote no.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 19:37:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1415

Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> >
> >Proposal 1415 -- Tue 5 Nov 12:51 CST 1996
> >Freeing up some disk space
> >Malenkai (Randy Hall)

> The problem is that (2)(b) specifies that only valid rule changes be
> applied.

> I do, however, urge Malenkai
> to retract the proposal and submit a replacement that addresses these
> concerns, as I do
> like the general idea.

Is removing the word "valid" sufficient.  What other "concerns" are you
referring to?

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 19:46:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 314 Verdict

Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> I feel it important
> to invoke my rights under R 563 to have the following comments added to
> the official record of the CFJ 314 decision:

[...]

It seems a bit pedantic to point this out, but R 563 says:

> *Before* [my emphasis] the result of a CFJ is made public, a Justice
> or Bronze Torch owner can add their own reasoning to the official
> publication of the result by sending it either to the person in
> charge of CFJs, or to the public forum

Now, one could possibly argue that this is not a protected action, but
I would argue that it is, inasmuch as it is game custom that CFJ reasoning
is implicit game custom, thus adding such is an effect on the game
state.

Malenkai
Bronze Torch Holder
ex-Justice
Clerk of the Courts
Wearing the Purple Robe of Justice
Praetor Candidate

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

Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 20:25:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Praetor

The Praetor nomination is over.  An election for the office will be
held among the following candidates:

	Malenkai
	ThinMan

Send me your votes.

Count Tabula

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:15:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Carter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Getting off the listserv

Can someone explain to me how to remove myself from the mailing list?

PLEASE!!!!

thanks

Tim Carter
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:32:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Praetor

I vote for... Malenkai as Praetor.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:41:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1416

> > 	A Seat of an Office is an unownable entity.  [Seats are held,
> > 	not owned.]
> No. This should the default behavior, however, allowances should be made
> for other rules to explicitly make Offices ownable and tradable.
	Now that you mention it, I think allowances should be made.  But 
it's not like this proposal will be set in stone once it passes.  There 
are currently no ownable or tradeable Offices.  But the rule is still 
mutable.  Changing it is as simple as making a modest proposal.
	If it'll sway your vote, I'll make the proposal right now.

> > 18a.  Rule 721 ("Organizations") is amended by changing
> > ---
> > 	1. Let a new class of entities be created called
> > 	Organizations.  Organizations may only be established or
> > 	disbanded according to the rules.
> > ---
> > to
> > ---
> > 	1.  Organizations are unownable, named entities.
> > ---
> I don't see what purpose this serves.
	The new rules make entities nontradeable by default, so it made
sense to specify that Organizations are unownable.  (They're also named,
so it made sense to put that in the same place.) I know you spent a lot of
time writing that rule and don't want to see it needlessly hacked.

	If you see anything in there that is potentially troublesome,
great.  I'll retract it and try to correct the problem.  But I think the
benefits of imported objects from other nomics, rules to cover unique
objects, a better, easier-to-track trade setup, generic gift rules, the
closure of 50 tiny loopholes and bugs I fixed and then forgot about, and
most of all *simplified language* for entity-based proposals to use in the
future *vastly* outweighs the objections I've seen so far.
	I really, -really- don't want to have to submit this a third time. 
Pleeeeease vote yes on P1416.  If there are minor problems with it (there
may well be; there were before) it makes much more sense to pass it anyway
and then go back and correct them later than to reject the entire 31Kb of
changes on the basis of a handful of truly tiny flaws.
	If I sound frazzled, it's because of what else is going on around 
here, not Ack.  You can vote against 1416 if you want to.  I'll be 
unhappy, though.

	*laugh*  If R1416 fails, I'm going to hit my sister in the 
head!  You had better vote for it!  I'm kidding, of course (for all you 
FBI agents out there.)

> > 28a.  Rule 1206 ("Games & Contests") is amended by removing the word
> > "Protected" wherever it appears [in section 9, near the middle of that
> > paragraph].
> ??

Rule 1206 reads (in part):

     9. Games, or entities in the General Equipment Section, are added to
     the Games & Contests web-page via either of the following
     procedures. It is possible that application of these procedures will
     result in the item being rejected, in which case its definition will
>>>  have no legal authority to manipulate Protected entities whatsoever.
     The preceeding clause has precedence over all others in this rule.
     Rejected items may be added or not added to the Games and Contests
     web-page at the discretion of the GamesMaster, but all such must be
     clearly labelled as rejected.

Don't say you can't vote for it.  You can.  It's easy.  :o.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 23:10:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Wednesday, the 6th day of November, 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* 19 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 23:25:56 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Magic Letter

I name L as the magic letter.

/dev/joe

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #334
*******************************