Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #337
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, November 8 1996       Volume 01 : Number 337

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 17:16:01 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Report

Changes since the last score report:
Nov 03 10:08 EST: -1 snowgod: anxious Whamiol
Nov 03 11:59 EST: -3 Brinjal: did not report what Phoebe said
  Prop results for 1378-1380 (1378 & 1380 modest, 1378 short)
Nov 03 22:33 EST: -1 Habeous Corpus: anxious Whamiol
Nov 05 10:08 EST: -1 snowgod: anxious Whamiol
Nov 05 16:57 EST: -2 Mohammed: retracted P1414
Nov 05 17:02 EST: -2 Niccolo Flychuck: retracted P1417
Nov 05 22:33 EST: -1 Habeous Corpus: anxious Whamiol
Nov 06 19:06 EST: -2 Guy Fawkes: retract 1413
Nov 06 22:37 EST: -2 Malenkai: retract P 1415
Nov 06 23:26 EST: -25 snowgod: friviously bother the judges on CFJ 312
Nov 07 00:24 EST: +6 Guy Fawkes: wins Grab-a-Donkey
  Prop results for 1381 (the second time snowgod posted it, while
  not in Gaol) through 1387. (1383 & 1387 modest, 1387 short)

Guy Fawkes's 20th proposal was accepted (1384), so in my capacity as
Senator, I am awarding him a Blue Cross.

Current Scores:

Score	Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----	--------------      ---  -------------
85	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
69	Guy Fawkes           Ag  (Robert Shimmin)
60	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
21	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
19	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
16	breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
13	Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
13	mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
9	fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
8	Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff)
4	IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
4	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
1	Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
- -14	Bascule              Vv  (Matt Black) 
- -14	Robert Sevin         Nv  (Mitchell Harding) 
- -25	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 

Status: 
A=Active, N=Nonactive, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice,
D=Dead, v=Victory Eggplant, g=Chartreuse Goose

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:43:10 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1422

I am retracting P1422... I'll make the appropriate fix and resubmit.

snowgod
who would never make a good editor

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> Um ... if we replace getting points with winning the cycle, shouldn't we
> replace keeping the title "Sage o' Doe Gas" until someone else gets points
> with keeping it until someone else gets a palindrome win?
> 
> -mr cwm
> 
> On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> >
> >Proposal 1422 -- Thu 7 November 7:45 CST 1996
> >He's Dead, Jim (Huh?)
> >snowgod (Phil Ackley)
> >
> >This is a modest proposal
> >
> >Amend R798 to Read in full:
> >
> >Upon each creation of a Rule fulfilling all three of the following conditions:
> >
> >(1) the Rule has a game effect in addition to its own addition to the
> >Ackanomic Rule Set and any effect claimed under this Rule
> >
> >(2) each word in the Rule exists either in the Ackanomic Rule Set previous
> >to the creation of the Rule, or in the Official Dictionary, provided that
> >such dictionary exists and is not under the control of any Player.
> >
> >(3) the text of the Rule is palindromic, that is, the text of the Rule
> >would be the same, character by character, forward and backward if all
> >alphabetic characters were lower-case, and anything other than alphabetic
> >characters and numeric digits was removed.
> >
> >the Player who submitted the Proposal that created the Rule shall:
> >
> >(1) win the current cycle of the game
> >
> >(2) receive the honorific title "Sage o' Doe Gas" to hold until such time
> >as another Player receives points under this Rule.
> >
> >{{[ The payoff for creating a palindromic rule does not provide sufficient
> >incentive for the work and research involved.  Instead, lets give anyone
> >creative enough to fulfill the conditions of this rule a win.  After all,
> >Palindrom wins will be few and far between]}}
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:24:13 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: AckaPhysicist Request (CnH) 

I am begging the AckaPhysicist to dig deep into the Codex of Kra and find a
passage to translate concerning infinite suction cup and emergency tether
recursion.  We know, because the rules tell us, that everything in
ackanomic is held on with a suction cup.  This means that every suction cup
would be held on with a suction cup too.  And of course every suction cup
holding on a suction cup would itself be dependent on yet another suction
cup (which is in turn held on by an infinite number of suction cups) to
secure it to the earth.  We have a similar problem with Emergency Tethers:
It appears that they are helf on by suction cups, and then when those
suction cups fail, an emergency tehter would be held on by it's own
emergency tether, which is in turn held on by an infinite number of suction
cups.

This of course could create a significant problem when trying to conduct a
suction cup census for taxation and production purposes.  In addition, it
would make suction cup producers (should such a thing exist) rich beyond
the wild dreams of oil companies and electric utilities.  That is why I ask
our estemed AckaPhysicist to enlighten us on how the ancients dealth with
this problem, if it is indeed a problem, and to tell us just how many
suction cups there really are in acka?

Suction Cup Fractals anyone?

snowgod
thinking too much in gaol

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 18:35:25 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: AckaPhysicist Request (CnH) 

Snowgod

>I am begging the AckaPhysicist to dig deep into the Codex of Kra and find a
>passage to translate concerning infinite suction cup and emergency tether
>recursion.

I will begin working on this immediately. The tome is lengthy and it might
take me some time. But have no fear, the answer will be found.

CnH

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:29:40 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ackaphysicist: Report #2 

This is a per request translation to better understand the workings of our
universe. Snowgod, having time to be contemplative while in goal, asked
about the suction pumps and emergency tethers.

Having studied the tome for almost two weeks now, I have gathered that the
tome is ordered in an almost chronological way (I will write more on this
some other time). Anyway, I found an interesting passage just past the middle.

"Solving The Sucker Problem."
By profs pumpitin, glueitall et al. Of 5BI

"We investigate the Sucker 2000, manufactured by Weightless Corp, explain
the results obtain in its labs and simulations. We then propose a solution,
providing early experimentation results and show the superiority of a new
device.

The LiCnUoC had put the Fifth Blue Institute in charge of modeling and
solving one of the fundamental problems in the colonization of U2: it's lack
of gravity at certain points in it, most notably a planet code named
ear-th'. This planet is of interest because of it's good location and potential.

The Weightless Corp was created by a group of enthusiastic young Scientists
who had studied the obvious problem the lack of gravity on ear-th' caused
and had come up with a solution they wanted to market. The Sucker 2000,
basically just a suction pump, was to be used in keeping everything attached
to the surface. Unfortunately, the few robots sent on exploration simply
fell off since the S2000s were themselves not attached to the surface
properly, limiting the exploration work to the early mechanized flying insects.

After many simulations, we have come up with a solution. First, we had
considered the fact that the suction pumps were placed in the ground and
sucked _it_, we considered making this a two way thing. By sticking two
suction pumps together, the top one could attach to the object's underside,
while the one below attached itself to the ground. Upon sending another
robot in, one of our assistants (who has since been promoted to 3BI) noted
that the mobility was very restricted and the suction to the underside of
objects was fine, but people would not like it.

So we refined the design with a breakthrough. Attach only one suction pump
_to the underside of the object_. We can weld or glue (see later) the S2000s
to shoes or objects, and it is done. Also, with a bit of electronics, we can
detect when a person wants to lift their feet. Thus we can de-attach the
suction pump, allow the person to move, and when the S2000 touches the
ground again, it reactivates. This process can be done at very high speeds,
and the principle can be applied to other objects. For example, detect an
object is being grabbed and pulled to be moved.

We have sent the prototypes to 2BI for miniaturization, and we are told
these suckers could be reduced in height to about 1 millimeter and not
compromise their suction power. Weightless Corp is planning to market the
design under the name ThinkSuction II, with royalties shared with the BIs.

Initial testing in U2 are very promising. Robot mobility is up 17695%, as is
motor control. However, we have also found a problem. It seems that the
suckers do not work on water. While we do not expect people to try walking
on water, rain and various household accidents could bring up interesting
side effects.

A colleague of mine then came up with an interesting solution. Prof
glueitall, who had briefly worked with us when we had done the gluing of two
suction pumps together, had continued his work on glues and made some new
discoveries. Among these was a new, extra strength, extra fast glue that
could be created by exposing a chemical to air.

Basically, he proposed that we have a small chemical pack in the suction
devices. Whenever the device is detached accidently, there is a very sudden
rush of air into the micro pockets which propel the chemical content in one
tiny stream toward the ground. Very quickly, the stream reaches the ground,
solidifies, holding the ground and suction device together (and thus
whatever is attached to that sucker).

This tethering process ensures that whatever loses its ThinkSuction II grip
is kept near the ground. The average tether can withstand roughly the
equivalent of 10 tons of pressure before breaking. It's average length is 5
meters. The tether, on the other hand, can easily be cut by a sharp edge. By
increasing the number and size of chemical pockets, both length and diameter
can be increased. Huge masses could be kept at very long distances without
requiring too many pockets.

The only problem with this device is the fact that over time, the glue will
begin to decompose. Within 7 days, the chemical desolidifies and has lost
most of its stability, suddenly returning to its liquid-gel state. At that
time, it can be stored back into its container for use later on. We
postulate this is due to competing reactions with nitrogen and oxygen.
Reaction with nitrogen results in the glue, while the more favored one with
oxygen removes the nitrogen. When exposed, the chemical finds 80% nitrogen
in the air and solidifies. Then over time, the 20% oxygen slowly remove the
nitrogen. Once saturated with oxygen, the oxygen migrates to the outer
surface and escapes, making the gel again nitrogen-active. This process
loses effectiveness with time, but each pockets has an estimated 100'000
times worth of use each. More experimentation may lead to better, longer
lasting glues.

We also note that when the diameter of the tether is increased, it decays
exponentially slower. A one meter diameter tether would take so long to
decompose that it is meaningless to even talk about it (assuming time flow
is that of ear-th').

We recommend more testing and more research of the ThinkSuction II. As we
have seen once again, research in one area leads to more discoveries in many
fields."

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

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 22:24:03 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting

RFC
Institutionalized Voting
Malenkai
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend R 478 so that its title is "Senate" and so that its text is:

"
The Office of Senator has four Seats.  The Speaker is not eligible to
hold this office.  The Senators are collectively an Institution known
as the Senate. The Speaker or Acting Speaker is the titular head of
the Senate, with the title of ProConsul.  When a Senate vote is tied,
the ProConsul may cast a tiebreaking vote on the matter in question.

{{[senators, under the current wording of R 478, should actually be
called Senate (plural Senates), e.g., "I hold the Office of Senate, seat
Melvin"]}}
"

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

Amend R 507 so that its text is:

"
The Office of Justice has two Seats. The President, Speaker, Praetor,
and Senators are not eligible to hold this office.  The Justices are
collectively known as the Supreme Court.

Justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by Senate vote.
Should the Senate reject a candidate, then the President must propose
another candidate until either the Senate confirms a candidate, or until
the Senate rejects three candidates for the particular vacancy.  In the
case where the Senate rejects three candidates, the Office is then filled
by election.

{{[we don't need Confirmation Procedure and Institutional voting, and
I always wondered what would happen if three candidates were rejected.
I always assumed the next president would get to appoint candidates.]}}
"
 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal R 648, "Confirmation Procedure"

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

Amend R 720, "Institutions", so that its text is:

"
1. There exists a class of entities called Institutions.  Institutions
may only be created, abolished, given rights, privileges, duties, and
roles as specified by the rules.

2a. This section (2a thru c) defers to rules governing decision making
in Institutions. An Institution supports an action (or votes "in favor")
when a simple majority of its members support the action (or vote "in
favor"). An Institution opposes an action when a simple majority of its
members opposes an action (or vote "against"). 

2b. If however, a vote or action has more than two possible outcomes
(excluding abstaining), then a simple plurality of its members determines
which of the options the Institution supports.

2c. If the members of an Institution are tied with respect to a specific
action or vote, and there is no provision for breaking ties in that
Institution (or the application of such provisions does not result in
the tie being broken), then that Instiution neither supports, nor
opposes that action, nor votes in any way on the matter. 

3. When an Institution is called on to vote, it has 7 days conduct and
publically report the results of the vote, and how each member voted,
unless the rules call for a different amount of time.  Results may
be announced before the alloted time ends, in which case the voting
period is over when those results are announced.  Any member who did not
vote, and was an active player at any time during the alloted time, is
placed in Contempt.  If the Institution fails to report a vote in
accordance with the above, all its members who are players are placed
in Contempt. 

4.  For the purposes of this rule, the composition of a Institution is
taken to be its composition at the end of any voting or decision period.
Acting members are considered to be members in place of the members they
are acting for, except that acting members may never be placed in Contempt
under any provision of this rule.

{{[this acting thing is generally sort of messy, but the above should
work.  If a player goes on vacation before the end of the voting
period, and no one becomes acting in their stead, they are considered
the member and are liable to vote.  On the other hand, if they are
replaced by acting member, the acting member's vote counts instead of
the original member, the original member is no longer liable, but the
acting member will not be liable either (this closes a small loophole)]}}
"

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

Amend R 721, "Organizations", to append the following to the end of
the rule:

"
4.
No Player may be forced to become a member of an Organization against
their will.  This section takes precedence over any other rule pertaining
to membership in Organizations.
"

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeal R 723, "Individuality". 

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend R 841, "Towers", to remove the following text from section 2):

" within 3 days of its submission"

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

Amend R 970, "Ackanomic/Internomic Interface", to remove the fifth
paragraph.

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

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

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:55:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting

> 2a. This section (2a thru c) defers to rules governing decision making
> in Institutions. An Institution supports an action (or votes "in favor")
> when a simple majority of its members support the action (or vote "in
> favor"). An Institution opposes an action when a simple majority of its
> members opposes an action (or vote "against"). 
	Mmmmmmrrrmmm... this is informal the way it's written, and the 
language gets a lot more specific later on.  I dunno.  I might feel 
better about it if it were rehashed a little but I'd vote Yes as is.

> 2c. If the members of an Institution are tied with respect to a specific
> action or vote, and there is no provision for breaking ties in that
> Institution (or the application of such provisions does not result in
> the tie being broken), then that Instiution neither supports, nor
> opposes that action, nor votes in any way on the matter. 
> 
> 3. When an Institution is called on to vote, it has 7 days conduct and
> publically report the results of the vote, and how each member voted,
> unless the rules call for a different amount of time.  Results may
> be announced before the alloted time ends, in which case the voting
> period is over when those results are announced.  Any member who did not
> vote, and was an active player at any time during the alloted time, is
> placed in Contempt.  If the Institution fails to report a vote in
> accordance with the above, all its members who are players are placed
> in Contempt. 
	This means that if the vote is a tie, the Inst members are in 
Contempt-- right?  (2c combined with 3)
	You'll need to change "Officers" in the Contempt rule (R1298) to
"Players".

- --Mohammed 

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #337
*******************************