Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #338
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, November 9 1996      Volume 01 : Number 338

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:47:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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

The current text of Institutions defines an institution as a political
Office with more than one Seat.
I think it would be better to keep this definition in the proposed
revision (in this RFC) in Institutions, and simply define the Senate as an
Institution with four Seats. 
This has no bearing on what Senators are called, which can be defined in
the Senate rule.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:52:25 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > 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.

This is simply a rephrasin of a section which already exists. It's
supposed to be a default procedure.
> 
> > 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 notresult 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)
Not necessarily. If the Institution reports that it has not reached a
decision then it would not be in contempt, only the individual Officers
would be.

 > 	You'll need to change "Officers" in the Contempt rule
(R1298) to > "Players".

The current text of Institution defiens an Instiutions to be a political
Office with multiple  Seats. If this definition is kept, then the above
is taken care off.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> --Mohammed 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 11:09:41 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Bascule's Office is Warm

According to my records, Bascule has been on vacation for over 6 days, and
no acting Swinger has been apointed by the FUN Party, therefore eir
Swinger's Office is Warm.

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 00:43:13 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: OotF Appointment 

The nomination period for the Office of the Financier is over.

The nominees were:
- -----------------
IdiotBoy
Malenkai

After careful deliberation and a little bit of research, I am hereby
appointing IdiotBoy to the Office of the Financier.  May God have mercy on
his soul.

snowgod
President

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:23:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1425

Proposal 1425 -- Fri 8 November 8:18 CST
Jun-ken-pow
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Amend Rule 1276 as follows:

1) Reletter section G as section H.

2) Insert the following text after section F:

G) If and when there are exactly two players left on the GAL, the 
permissible moves become (a) rock, (b) scissors, (c) paper.  Any player 
not making such a move in this case is removed from the GAL at the 
end of the round.  If at the end of a round, any of the following are true:
	Player A chose rock while Player B chose scissors
	Player A chose scissors while Player B chose paper
	Player A chose paper while Player B chose rock
Player A is said to have successfully grabbed Player B's donkey, and 
Player B loses his donkey and is removed from the GAL. 

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:23:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1426

Proposal 1426 -- Fri 8 November 8:19 CST 1996
He's Still Dead, Jim
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 wins a cycle of the game 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: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:24:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1427

Proposal 1427 -- Fri 8 November 8:19 CST 1996
Really Synchronizing Whamming
/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)

This is a modest proposal.  

Create a new rule reading:
{{ Change the second sentence of the Whamiol's Blueprint to read:
   "Whenever the time since the last new player became active is an
    even integral number of days greater than or equal to 30, the Whamiol
    becomes anxious and subtracts one point from its owner's score." }}

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:24:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1428

Proposal 1428 -- Fri 8 Novemer *;19 CST 1996
Processing Chips
Habeous Corpus (Ed Graham)

{{All extant Processing Chips are destroyed}}

Create a Rule entitled:  Processing Chips,  with text:

The Acka-Entities known as Processing Chips Exist.  They are Protected
and non-Tradable.  Processing Chips (PC's) may only be created,  
possessed or destroyed in accordance with Rules.  A Processing Chip (PC)
is an eight (8) pin dual-in-line package (DIP) with the first two pins
bent up at 180 degrees.  The back of the DIP is covered with scortching. 
It resembles a rather large,  distinctly ugly bug.

Whenever a Proposal is accepted,  a PC is created and and presented to
the author of the accepted Proposal,  under the following conditions:
1.  If the Proposal was Modest,  no PC is created.
2.  All other Proposals shall result in 1 PC created and presented to the
author of the Proposal.  
3.  If the Proposal is Grandiose,  1additional PC is created and
presented to the author of the proposal.
4.  If the Proposal creates a new rule,  2 additional PC's are created
and presented to the author of the Proposal.
5.  If the Proposal creates a new Acka-Entity,  1 additional PC is
created and presented to the author of the Proposal.

Respectfully Submitted
Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:33:19 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I hereby return from vacation.

I must have left the heating on; my office is warm (why do I bother? 
What a pathetic joke)

Bascule

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 10:24:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: inventor

snowgod resigned as inventor last Sunday.  I don't remember anything 
about a nomination or election for office to refil the office.  Did I 
miss it, or did it never happen?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:10:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Misc:  What Phoebe Says

In real life, I keep a candle next to my bed, and the matchbox that
sits next to the candle is a small, slightly time-worn, red and blue
matchbox.

I returned from school (where I was, as we Americans refer to the
condition, "burned out") one night, tired, and opened the matchbox so I
could light a candle.  Out leapt Phoebe.  I had never seen the steel flea
before, and in the dim light I could only see the tiny reflection of the
donut on my computer screen in each of the miniscule metal plates that
form her body.  I knew in an instant, though, that it was she. 

She was beautiful.

She said...

"For you, prophet, I have a prophecy.

"A time of Strangeness approaches.  Its nature is yet uncertain, but it
will bring about paranoia, and fierce accusations among the Players. 

"The solution lies in technology, and research now may bring relief later. 
The next Inventor shall bear the onus of saving Ackanomic from Strangeness
and the horrors that accompany it." 

I wanted to ask Phoebe what she meant, where this Strangeness would come
from, but I dared not interrupt her, and, motionless, I listened to her
high, soft voice as it sang on: 

"The rewriters of rules must take pause, for the time approaches when the
threat of Strangeness shall be greater than the threat of the loophole or
paradox.  You, child, are one of these.  It is essential that you set
aside the distraction of toying with semantics, when the time comes to set
such mundane matters aside. 

"A man in a tornado does not stop to wipe the mud from his face." 

...and with that cryptic expression, Phoebe leapt back into the matchbox,
and I, surprised at the sudden motion, dropped it to the floor.  I
scrambled around my room on hands and knees, searching for it, and finally
found the matchbox. --At least, it looked just like Phoebe's matchbox. 

But alas, when I pulled it open, there were only matches inside. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 20:45:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: inventor

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> snowgod resigned as inventor last Sunday.  I don't remember anything
> about a nomination or election for office to refil the office.  Did I
> miss it, or did it never happen?

The nomination for Inventor was announced 11/03 21:01 EST.

Mohammed was the only volunteer.  I really thought about
volunteering myself as well, but I did not (I want to try for my
mulit-seat Inventor proposal; that could be fun).

In any case, the nomination ended Wed, 21:01 EST, and I was negligent
in releasing the results.  Sorry :(.

Mohammed becomes the Inventor without need for election.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 20:49:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Malenkai)

Malenkai has found Phoebe's matchbox.

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 20:55:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Praetor

The Praetor election is over:

Malenkai (5)
- -----------
Malenkai
snowgod
Calvin N Hobbes
Guy Fawkes
Mohammed

ThinMan (4)
- ----------
ThinMan
IdiotBoy
fnord
Habeous Corpus

Count Tabula

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 20:58:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 319 Verdict

CFJ 319 has been judged TRUE.  I shall have to debit snowgod again
for constructions costs, unless this bounces up to the Supreme
Court.

In any case, I shall clean up all the finances tonight and hand 
everything over to IdiotBoy, and assume the Tower was constucted,
for now :).

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 319
  Subject: Tower of Confusion
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: IdiotBoy (selected Nov 07, 1996, 09:00h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

snowgod's Tower of Bandwidth was built.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

As of the time CFJ 312's statement was filed, and hence the time the
verdict retroactively applies to, the Tower of Bandwidth had not been
approved by the senate.  That does not necessarily mean that the Tower
was never approved.  In fact, a Senator did announce the Tower was
approved after CFJ 312 was filed.  The point of this rambling is that
it is possible for CFJ 312 to have been judged FALSE, and the Tower to
have been approved.

The preceeding two sentences, obviously, do not assure that the Tower
was actually approved.  There is still considerable doubt about this
in the public forum, and thus a CFJ is indicated, even if the verdict
is obvious.  The truth be known, I simply enjoy CFJs and reading people's
judgements of them.
  
If the Tower was ever approved, it was built by snowgod.  Otherwise, its
off to the Gaol again :)

IdiotBoy's Reasoning:

The is a great deal of confusion as to whether the Senate has actually
approved this Tower, breadbox's message notwithstanding. there is no easy
way for the average player to have insight into the workings of the Senate.
Going on the information currently on hand and a simple reading of the
rules, it would appear that the Senate has approved the construction of
snowgod's Tower of Bandwidth, and snowgod did, in fact, build said Tower.

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 21:13:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting

Uri Bruck wrote in two seperate posts:
> 
> On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> The current text of Institutions defines an institution as a political
> Office with more than one Seat.

Rule 720 says:

> An Institution is defined as a Political Office with more than one
> seat. 

If I were not a loose-constructionalist, I would see plenty of problem
with that wording, especially in terms of non-office things such as
Synod.  I would prefer something like "A Political Office with more than
one seat is an Institution".  But I don't really like either of those,
and that is part of the motivation for this rewrite.

If the quote above is construed as intended, that makes the Supreme
Court an Institution, and will make Inventor an Institution if I am
successful in adding some seats to that office.  Neither of those 
things is desirable, IMHO.  I prefer that the office itself explicitly
declare itself an Institution, rather than combersome precedence 
exception language when it *doesn't* want to be one.  Moreover, its
easier if the attribute is with the object; in this case when looking
up senate, you know its an Institution.  The difference of opinion here
may lie in the fact that I intrinsically believe that all multi-seat
political offices should not be Institutions.  

> This is simply a rephrasin of a section which already exists. It's
> supposed to be a default procedure.

This "rephrasing" explicitly mentions the action of voting, something
that seemed to cause confusion in terms of the Tower vote.  Furthermore,
I cover contingincies that your rule does not, such as change in
composition during a voting period, acting institution members,
and a specific duration on the approval or rejection of the action.
My amendment adds value beyond "rephrasing", IMHO.

If someone can add better wording, but keep the intended functionality,
by all means let me know, as the contingincies I attempt to account
for are rather sticky.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 22:21:35 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Propoisal 1416

P 1416 wrote:

> 20.  Rule 786 ("Gadgets") is amended by changing

> [...]
> by removing
>
> ---
>        (iv) Entites with the same name as a Gadget proposed or
>        introduced by a Blueprint may only be created in accordance with
>        procedures explicitly delineated in the Rules.
> ---

This is actually in R 594, not R 786, and I do not believe R 451 will
apply.

> [ Gadgets are protected; just because something has the same name
> doesn't make it a Gadget.  Also, you can't make a Trinket with the
> same name as anything else under the new rules anyway, and there will
> be no more R115 entities.]

This seems to reintroduce the Vending Machine Malenkai's loophole surf,
except Trinkets are used in place of R 115 entities.  The more I think
about it, Trinkets can be used to surf it the way it is written now, so
a variant is needed (which I have submitted), regardless of whether or
not P 1416 passes.  Due to the invalid rule change, I do not need to
write it conditionally.

Malenkai
who wrote an explanation too, and put in the sig file :)
An entity named "Blueprint for the Yellow Doomsday Device is published".

A player uses R 1348.1 to create a Trinket called the "Yellow Doomsday
Device", and may or may not describe it to have the same properities
as the Blueprint gives the future gadget of the same name. (It really
doesn't matter, when I did the R 115 Vending Machine, the point was that
any extant vending machine could surf the "Rock" rule, not that it had
the same description as the Blueprint).  

Now, because of R 703, a Gadget named the "Yellow Doomsday Device" cannot
be created, as a Trinket with that name already exists.

The inherit problem comes from the fact that the blueprint has a different
name than the Gadget it creates, and the name of a *future* entity is
known, whose creation can be blocked by creating a *current* entity
of that name.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 22:27:33 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1425

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1425 -- Fri 8 November 8:18 CST
> Jun-ken-pow
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> Amend Rule 1276 as follows:
> 
> 1) Reletter section G as section H.
> 
> 2) Insert the following text after section F:
> 
> G) 

There are already two proposals in the queue which muck with the section
letters of Grab-a-Donkey, and I believe they clash.  Could be fun if any
or all of these pass.

Malenkai
wasting more bandwidth

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #338
*******************************