Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #339
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, November 9 1996      Volume 01 : Number 339

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:03:37 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting

On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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 

The quote you refer to should construed as written, and by any other
guesswork. It does not mean that any political office that has more than
one seat is an Institution. It means that the wording :"The Hoobla is an
Institution" is a shorter formof saying" The Hoobla is a political Office
with more than seat." The wording above, and the wording in the rule
work only one way, and not the other. That is both the intention, and the
effect.

> may lie in the fact that I intrinsically believe that all multi-seat
> political offices should not be Institutions.  
They're not. It's the other way around.
And for another point. What's not office about the Synod? Sure, it's
optional. It defines duties, it defines acting Delegates. it defines
things that need to be defined to distinguish a specific kind of office
from the default.
 > 
> > 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,

Actually this was a response to Mohammed who commented on the cumbersome
language, which was meant to point out that some of this language already
exists.

 > 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.

I agree.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:36:26 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

I'd like to clarify a couple of things about this wording, and why it
already has exactly the effect Malenkai wants.

A cat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
Aristo is a cat.
Plato has four legs.
It follows that Aristo necessarily has four legs.
It does not follow that Plato is a cat.

Similarly, an Institution is defined as a Political Office with more than
seat.
Hoobla is an Institution.
Foobar is an Political Office with three seats.
It follows that Hoobla is a Political Office with more than one Seat.
It does not follow that Foobar is an Institution.

QED

Defining Institutions in the first place has a good reason, similar to
defining Organizations.
It is basic rule which allows to control the behavior of many other
related entities from a single place.
Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote in two seperate posts:
> 
> 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

Whether or not one should make those Institutions is a different issue
entirely.  I can make a good pro or con case for either of the above
examples.  

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:23:13 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Trinket

I am creating a Trinket.

The Trinket is the Chalice from the Palace. It is a tal Chalice which
produces a rainbow effect when light shines through it. It's value is
A$180.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:28:56 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Buried Treasure

I am creating a Treasure and burying it.
The Treasure consists of the following item
1. The Chalice from the Palace.
2. A Prosthetic Forehead given to me by snowgod during the last
presidential campaign. (it's description -  This forehead bears a
    remarkable resemblance to Chess Piece Face, entire, except for the
Vulcan Eyebrows that cover it's owners real eyebrows. Spinning around the
forehead etherealy are the words "Hi, I'm Niccolo Flychuck, and I'm
running for President. Please vote for snowgod!")
This commemorative election forehead has become a collector's item.

The map for his treasure is as follows:....

[I've got this wonderful idea for a map, unfortunately there is not enough
room in the margins of this message to write the details of the map]

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 06:36:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bond Option

I am creating the following bond option:

The right to buy 10 PFMalenkai @ A$17 apiece.  The expiration
date is Dec 21, 1996.

The option is named/labelled as:  

OPFMalenkai-10-A$17-961221-Malenkai

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 06:55:15 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinkets

I am creating the following Trinkets:

1) 57 Trinkets: Malenkai's Gold Coins.  Each has a value of A$1.  The
actual name of each is "Malenkai's Gold Coins" with a unique number 0
thru 56 appended to that string.

Each weighs 100g, is pure gold, is hexagonal in shape, and has a portrait
of Malenkai on the front, and a depiction of Malenkai's Castle on the
back.

2) Onyx Vase (Value A$98)

The Onyx Vase is pure black onxy with 2 brass monkeys sculpted into it,
to be used as handles.  The Onyx Vase makes an excellent vessel for
frinking, and it is rumored that Right-Handed Grapefruit juice tastes
especially good when quaffed from the container.  It is sometimes called
"Malenkai's Vase".

3) Map of Jara (Value A$1)

The Map of Jara is tattered and difficult to read.  Suffice it to say
that there are words, pictures, glyphs, and runes on it, and it should
be kept away from fire.

4) Shades of Chorg (Value A$51)

Not only do these sunglasses protect the wearer from bright lights
such as those from bonfires, Bronze Torches and flame wars, they also
allow their wearer to see the true curvature of the earth.  In fact,
when tilted properly, their wearer can see clear around the earth.

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 07:02:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Treasure

I am composing and burying the following Treasures:

1) This Treasure consists of the Map of Jara.  I hereby bury it. I am 
revealing the following clues and/or portion of the Treasure Map: 

[this space intentionally left blank]

2) This Treasure consists of the following stuff:

Fine Wooden Chest [containing:]
57 Malenkai's Gold Coins
Onyx Vase
Shades of Chorg
2 PFsnowgod
Bond Option: OPFMalenkai-10-A$17-961221-Malenkai

I am burying this Treasure as well, somewhere very safe.

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

I will update the Trinkets and Treasures web pages with these and
Niccolo's stuff later today.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 07:05:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Parade (P 1376)

The following describes the Parade resulting from P 1376, and said
description is interesting:

The Parade, it began when it was getting closer to Midwinter's, a dark
cold eve, and not before long and some time ago, people marched to and
fro; Trombone music I heard.  The troupe wandered on, and I lost track
of time in my intoxicating euphoria the mushroom of the wilds gave me.

Then, of course, all of Ackanomia was really just trying to march along
to Jara's rhythm, to follow behind /dev/joe with an upbeat tempo, along
old roads, beside the tattered buildings, those the map has forgotten
'cause of thieves of time unknown before even Acka's origin.

So we followed after the Great Trombone, crawling on our knees, through
the Gaol district, some time after sunset, rather late is was, thick
in night's blackness and starkness.  Then a gnarly Gnome from the
underbrush, a Gnome that I seem to remember, happened to jump out upon
us.  I asked a bug, a Flea hidden in a grassy clearing, from whence
did obviously this Gnome come?  Untouched by repeals?  Survived for
voting, for uncounted millenia?

That was when I ran!  So rattled was I, scared and overcome by dread,
shocked by something unthinkable.  From the otherside, some ominous power
had come here and conjured some bizzare magic, resurrecting the Gnome
of Voting, bringing back that horror to this place.

The Parade did in fact, continue towards the Senate, near town center,
just somewhat north of Xanadu.  Then back the other direction, just
clearing the southern area bracketed by two Towers.  By about this time,
two monkeys, hidden in oak barrels behind some trees, joined the Parade.
Older, were these monkeys, than dirt.  I had the feeling that the
universe (or its edge), was some sort of an extension of these ancient
monkeys' conscienceness.  A statue of a monkey, made exquisitely and
beautifully of some sort of onyx, came into view.  Such monkeys are
brass statues usually, but others have just very recently been discovered
(and were rumored always to exist).

About three hours later, in the middle of the night, a dusty Codex
was found.  Codex of the Wisdom of Kra?  I opened it, but its
language being heretofore undecipherable, it really never should have
been seen here.

The Parade, it continued.  A monkey said:  "Tell me who you are.
Why then, are you here?  Is the great universe really worthy of your
presence?"  One should look at who is questioning, and shall understand
and really know to adamantly ignore the monkeys!  Quest for Tao then,
instead.

Look to the otherside, to the place whence the Ancient Ones bringing the
treasure came from.  Overlords of the Dominion of Jara they were, having
locked all scientific knowledge away from our Priests, for all the
countless millenia.  You must think only pure thoughts, for those
thoughts will come with a subtle clue, a fleeting glimpse into prime
reality...

Then a number of large frogs of gold with bronze heads joined the Parade.
Shall we consider letting even these pathetic creatures have their day?
Have a slim and none chance to accompany us to the Statue, to gaze at its
beauty?  Upon reflection, it seems, those were tough questions.

Riches are easy answers, and those Paraders with even the slightest clue
then, shall come upon such riches that they must spend them, or be
utterly and completely adorned with such, and with garish, tacky,
ostentatious headwear that they'd need constructed a 230m Tower, not
of wool or of cheese, or of ones private and very own carefully
thought out design, to store them.

One last Parade question:  Who thus goes and seeks across Acka for this
most excellent valuable treasure?   Tell me who shall do so and not then
come to be called Gheezy the Greedy?  Don't look now, but you don't
really have that much time.  At the absolute, very least, you shall
have one minute.  Not a big window, so you'll head east *fast*.

After they follow you, you should really begin to know how and why the
road winds the ways it does.  Unless, of course, you have buried
your useless brain.

Treasure, it's like Parades, in many ways.  The fact of it is they both
really, truly should lead you to know the whereabouts and the easiest
to find location of wealth.  Wealth, of course, is really such a burden,
its worth giving it away!  At the absolute very least, give all but A$50
to the Speaker.
  
As Parades wind down, they often circle and are very rowdy.  As such
frink for yourself a coke, and be proud of every last individual
Proposal you've written, they make Acka great.  Should you come to have
any doubt in their very grandeur and greatness, check what is recorded
Elsewhere in song, in prose, and in verse.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 08:50:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

Another reason why we should have kept the use of iff in the ruleset legal.

Guy Fawkes

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> I'd like to clarify a couple of things about this wording, and why it
> already has exactly the effect Malenkai wants.
> 
> A cat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
> Aristo is a cat.
> Plato has four legs.
> It follows that Aristo necessarily has four legs.
> It does not follow that Plato is a cat.
> 
> Similarly, an Institution is defined as a Political Office with more than
> seat.
> Hoobla is an Institution.
> Foobar is an Political Office with three seats.
> It follows that Hoobla is a Political Office with more than one Seat.
> It does not follow that Foobar is an Institution.
> 
> QED

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 09:11:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: inventor

> Mohammed becomes the Inventor without need for election.
	*blink* That was sudden.
	Okay, I'll get started downloading the necessary materials. 
*lopsgrin*
	Those interested:  I will be making Gadgets that are not exactly
harfy, but rather dangerous to the balance of the game.  I find that 
enjoyable.
	The Pyraic Frobnotzer will be making a return (it is not noted on 
the Web page and supposedly was wiped out when I left the Office for the 
summer anyway.)  (Does anyone have a copy of the original Blueprint for 
that thing, or the Plunky Monkey Wrench?)

- --Mohammed (striving to become the first Officer ever to be Impeached)

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 09:13:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Praetor

> Malenkai (5)
> ThinMan (4)
	Did anyone happen to catch the article in Discover magazine, 
"Math Against Electoral Tyrrany"?  It's very interesting (I don't what 
Disney's done with Discover, but this was a neat article.)
	Voter power!  Har!

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 09:18:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1429

Proposal 1429 -- Sat 9 Nov 9:13 CST 1996
Cupro-nickel Pheremone Emitter
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Create a new rule reading:
{{
The following text is a new Blueprint:

Blueprint: Cupro-nickel Magnetic Pheremone Emitter

The Cupro-nickel Magnetic Pheremone Emitter is a small metal box, with an 
even smaller red button on it.  If its owner presses that small red button, it 
emits a faint magnetic field undetectable by most means, but a powerful 
sex attractant to steel fleas.  This results in the owner's odds of 
finding Phoebe's Matchbox being trebled the next time it is missing.  
Since it must recharge after each use, it can only be used once during 
any calendar month.  Attempting to use the Cupro-nickel Magnetic 
Pheremone Emitter more than once in a given calendar month will cause it 
to overheat, spit blue fire, and then destroy itself without emitting the 
magnetic field.
}}

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 09:18:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1430

Proposal 1430 -- Sat 9 Nov 9:14 CST 1996
The Crystal Chalice
Haboeus Corpus(Ed Graham)

Create a Rule entitled:  The Crystal Chalice

{{All extant Keys that open the vault containing the Crystal Chalice and
all extant Golden Goblets are destroyed, except those defined elsewhere
in this Rule.  The Crystal Chalice and the Vault containing the Crystal
Chalice are initially located Somewhere Else.}}

The Acka-Entities known as the Crystal Chalice,  the Vault Containing the
Crystal Chalice,  Golden Goblets,  and the Keys That Unlock the Vault
Containing the Crystal Chalice exist.  The Keys That Unlock the Vault
Containing the Crystal Chalice and th Golden Goblets are Tradable,  all
other Entities defined by this Rule are non-Tradable.

The Vault Containing the Crystal Chalice (hereafter in this Rule known as
the Chalice Vault or CV)  The CV is a plain metal chest with five (5)
colored locks,  each lock corresponds to one of the Keys That Unlock the
Vault Containing the Crystal Chalice.  They are colored Gold,  Silver, 
Bronze,  Chartruese,  and Purple.  Whenever the CV is Somewhwere Else, 
and there is an owner of the Chartruese Goose (Goose),  any Player may
submit a Proposal divining the conditions for finding the CV.  The
conditions for finding the CV may never be such that only one Player
meets the conditions.  The owner of the Goose may Propose to divine the
conditions for finding the CV,  but may never,  while the owner of the
Goose,  become eligable to find the CV,  or claim the Crystal Chalice. 
No other restriction on conditions for finding the CV are permissible. 
If the conditions for finding the CV are such that no Player can meet
them,  or require actions taken outside of Acka,  other Players are
allowed (and encouraged) to vote against the Proposal,  and sneer and
throw small objects (preferrably eddible ones) at the Player authoring
the Proposal.  If the Proposal is accepted and the conditions for finding
the CV are divined,  the Chalice Vault is no longer considered to be
Somewhere Else,  and those conditions may not be changed until after such
time as it goes Somewhere Else,  as defined by Rules.  This takes
Precedence over all mutable Rules which would allow a Player to Propose
changes to the conditions under which the CV is found.

After the conditions for finding the Chalice Vault are established,  the
five (5) Keys that Unlock the Vault Containing the Crystal Chalice (Keys)
are created and placed around the neck of the Chartruese Goose. The owner
of the Goose must dispose of the Keys as outlined in this Rule. However, 
if disposal of any or all Keys is not possible because there are no
eligable Players,  the Key(s) shall remain with the Goose until such time
as it does become possible,  or the current Cycle ends,  and the owner of
the Chartreuse Goose shall suffer no penalty.  If the Goose goes
Somewhere Else before all Keys are distributed,  or if any Keys are
returned to the Goose after she has gone Somewhere Else,  those Keys
shall remain with the Goose,  even after she is once again owned by a
Player,  and no penalties shall be assessed by any Player for failure to
distribute the Key(s).  If at any time after being received by the Goose
the Keys become destroyed,  the Chalice Vault shall immediately go
Somewhere Else.  No new Keys are created until after the CV is no longer
Somewhere Else. Players may possess Keys only as allowed by Rules.

No Player may possess any Key more than once as long as there are
eligable Players who have not yet possessed that Key since the conditions
for finding the CV have been divined. All Keys must be initially
distributed to an eligable Player within seven (7) days after their
creation or their return to the Goose,  or the return of the Goose from
Somewhere Else.  After initial distribution,  each Player shall either
redistribute eir Key(s) to another eligable Player as outlined in this
Rule,   or the Key(s) shall be responsible for the respective actions
taken against that Player as outlined below.  Any Player possesing one or
more Keys may attempt to give a Key to a non-eligable Player,  but that
Key shall be immediately returned to the Goose,  and that Player shall no
longer be eligable to receive any Keys for the duration of the Cycle.  If
a Player goes on Vacation or leaves the Game,  all Keys possessed by that
Player are immediately transferred to the Chartruese Goose.  The owner of
the Goose must then distribute the Key(s) as an initial distribution in
accordance with distribution Rules.  If any Player possessing any Key(s)
becomes the owner of the Chartruese Goose,  e must immediately distribute
the Key(s) in accordance with distribution Rules. The owner of the
Chartruese Goose shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the
transfer of the Keys between Players.

 The Gold Key may be given to any Player whose monetary account has a
positive number of A$.  Immediately,  the Key will consume 1A$ for every
day that the Key remains in eir possession.  If at any time,  the
possessor of the Gold Key should have an account balance that is not
positive,  the Key shall be immediately transferred back to the
Chartreuse Goose.  The owner of the Goose must then distribute the Key as
an initial distribution in accordance with distribution Rules.  Any A$
consumed by the Gold Key are returned to the Treasury at the end of each
Cycle.

The Silver Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
Gadgets.  After seven (7) days the Key shall destroy one (1) randomly
chosen Gadget owned by the Player possessing the Silver Key and will
destroy an additional Gadget every week until it is transferred,  or all
Gadgets owned by the Player are destroyed.  If at any time the Player
possessing the Silver Key should have no Gadgets, ,  the Key shall be
immediately transferred back to the Chartreuse Goose. The owner of the
Goose must then distribute the Key as an initial distribution in
accordance with distribution Rules.

The Bronze Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
Processing Chips.  After seven (7) days  the Key shall destroy one
Processing Chip owned by the Player possessing the Bronze Key and will
destroy an additional Processing Chip each week until it is transferred
or all Processing Chips  owned by the Player are destroyed.  If at any
time the Player possessing the Bronze Key should have no Processing Chips
,  the Key shall be immediately transferred back to the Chartreuse Goose.
The owner of the Goose must then distribute the Key as an initial
distribution in accordance with distribution Rules.

The Chartreuse Key may only be given to a Player possessing one or more
of the following Acka Entities: Amber Bananas,  the Great Trombone,  the
little Lamb,  and/or the Gumball.  The Player may hold onto the
Chartreuse Key for any length of time,  as long as e continues to hold at
least one of the above Entities.  If at any time the Player possessing
the Chartreuse Key should have none of the qualifying entities,  the Key
shall be immediately  transferred back to the Chartreuse Goose. The owner
of the Goose must then distribute the Key as an initial distribution in
accordance with distribution Rules.

The Purple Key may be initially given to any Player.  Once initially
distributed,  the Purple Key may not be given away,  but may be traded
for any tradable Acka-Entity.  The Purple Key may remain in the
possession of any Player for any length of time,  subject to the
following conditions:
1.  The current Cycle has not ended.
2.  The Player possessing the Purple Key has no other Keys.  If at any
time the Player possessing the Purple Key is given another Key,  that Key
must be transferred to another Player within seven (7) days or else the
Purple Key is transferred back to the Chartreuse Goose. The owner of the
Goose must then distribute the Key as an initial distribution in
accordance with distribution Rules.

At any time the Player possessing the Purple Key may use the Key to
unlock a Gaol Cell and release emself or any other Player currently in
Gaol.  However,   if the Player Possessing the Purple Keys has any other
Keys in eir possession at the time e used the Key to open a Gaol Cell, 
all existing Keys are immediately destroyed.  Any Players possessing Keys
at this time are permitted to sneer and throw small objects at the Player
using eir Purple Key in this fashion.

Only a single Player possessing all five (5) Keys may attempt to find the
Chalice Vault.  If that Player satisfies all conditions for finding the
CV,  e shall find the CV and use eir Keys to unlock the CV and take
possession of the Crystal Chalice.  Immediately after a Player opens the
vault and takes possession of the Crystal Chalice,  the following actions
will occur,  in order:

1.  The Crystal Chalice is transformed into a Golden Goblet,  with the
name of the winning Player and the number of the current Cycle engraved
on the base of the Goblet.
2.  Another Crystal Chalice is created and placed in the vault.
3.  All extant Keys That Unlock the Vault Containing the Crystal Chalice
are destroyed.
4.  The vault closes automatically and locks.
5.  The vault is transported to Somewhere Else.
6.  The Player possessing the most recent Golden Goblet is declared the
Winner of the Cycle.

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 09:18:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1431

Proposal 1431 -- Sat 9 Nov 9:14 CST 1996
Guarded Proposals
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Amend Rule 1386 as follows:

1st  Renumber section 7 as section 8.
2nd  Insert the following text immediately following section 6:
	
7.  A player may pay $A150 to the Treasury to declare any one proposal in 
the voting queue to be a Guarded Proposal.  Bonus Votes may not used on a 
Guarded Proposal.  Bonus Votes already cast on that proposal are not 
counted, and any player who cast a Bonus Vonus that was nullified in this 
manner is given one Bonus Vote as compensation.

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 09:19:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1432

Proposal 1432 -- Sat 9 Nov 9:14 CST 1996
Closing Malenkai's Loophole for Gadgets again
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend R 594 to replace the second of the two sections labelled as (iv)
with:

        (v) Entites with the same name as a Gadget proposed or
        introduced by a Blueprint may not exist or be created unless
        they are an instance of the Gadget described by said Blueprint.

{{[there were better ways to do this, with "ghost" or "prototype"
entity gadgets, and the like, but that complicated the "lonely" thing,
and opened up more work than I was ready for]}}

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 09:29:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Propoisal 1416

> This is actually in R 594, not R 786, and I do not believe R 451 will
> apply.
	Bummer.  I'll repropose the parts that won't apply as a separate, 
modest Proposal.

> Now, because of R 703, a Gadget named the "Yellow Doomsday Device" cannot
> be created, as a Trinket with that name already exists.
	I disagree.  Gadgets will be nameless under the new scheme.  
(That doesn't mean they're indistinguishable from one another; they still 
come in various types just as before-- but no entity is "named" under the 
P1416 scheme unless the rules say it is.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 09:54:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

> I'd like to clarify a couple of things about this wording, and why it
> already has exactly the effect Malenkai wants.
	I can't say how much I disagree with you.

> A cat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
> Aristo is a cat.
> Plato has four legs.
> It follows that Aristo necessarily has four legs.
> It does not follow that Plato is a cat.
	It does follow that Plato is a cat, if you accept the axiom that 
a cat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
	A cat most certainly is -not- defined as an animal that has four
legs; such a reading is a gross insult to dogs, rats, cows, antelope, and
zebraic bison.  If I were to ask a zoologist what the defining 
characteristics of a cat are, would he reply "They're animals with four 
legs"?
	If someone were to ask me whether a magnetic compass is a tool, I 
might look in a dictionary under tool.  If the compass fits the 
definition, then it is a tool, even if the definition of "compass" in the 
same dictionary doesn't mention the word "tool".  (This is how I interpret 
the words "define" and "definition".)

	We've demonstrated exactly the problem Malenkai pointed out:  it 
is unclear whether X implies Y or vice versa (this is a common problem 
among programmers, who are used to unambiguous languages for structured 
abstract thought).
	There is a third way this could be read:

> An Institution is defined as a Political Office with more than seat.
	It could be interpreted as creating a Political Office called the
Institution, which has more than one seat!  (From the context and language
structure, it is clear that this is not what was meant.  I'm just playing
with the words.)

> Defining Institutions in the first place has a good reason, similar to
> defining Organizations.
> It is basic rule which allows to control the behavior of many other
> related entities from a single place.
	I agree.  That's definitely a good (flexible) arrangement.  
Malenkai's proposal won't undo it, just define some currently ill-defined 
procedures and so on.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 18:13:46 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > I'd like to clarify a couple of things about this wording, and why it
> > already has exactly the effect Malenkai wants.
> 	I can't say how much I disagree with you.
> 
> > A cat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
> > Aristo is a cat.
> > Plato has four legs.
> > It follows that Aristo necessarily has four legs.
> > It does not follow that Plato is a cat.
> 	It does follow that Plato is a cat, if you accept the axiom that 
> a cat is defined as an animal that has four legs.

Which is precisely the axion I presented I presented above. And such an
axiom does not preclude the existence of other things that have four legs
which are not cats.
Zoology has nothing to do with it. Terms which are not defined in the
ackanomic rules accept their real world interpretations. If we were to
accept such a definition for Institution, one might well interpret it as a
mental one.

I shall modify my example then:
> > A zat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
> > Aristo is a zat.
> > Plato has four legs.
> > It follows that Aristo necessarily has four legs.
> > It does not follow that Plato is a zat.

Will you now argue that a zat is not defined as an animal with four legs?

How about this:
Socrates is a dog.
A dog has four legs.
A dog is an animal.
It follows that Socrates is an animal and has four legs.

Does it follow that Socrates is also a zat?
Not necessarily. 

Dogs have wagging tails.

We don't know the zat wagging tail situatin, so we can't make any
conclusions about wagging tails.

Now that I've divorced the definitions from real world irrelevancies,
surely you can see that the only thing that statement claims is when
and entity is defined as an Institution, then it is a political office
with more than one Seat.

Niccolo  Flychuck

ps-
_My_ dog is named Kfir. He is an animal, he has four legs and a wagging
tail. This has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 18:34:18 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Senate - Office?

Sorry, but I couldn't find the rule which defines Senators to be officers.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:38:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Senate - Office?

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> Sorry, but I couldn't find the rule which defines Senators to be officers.
	Easy to miss.  It's rule 478 ("Creation of a Senate").  (I'd 
quote it here but I'm at a terminal, believe it or not, with no 
greater-than key; so I can't pipe the output of my findrule script to a file.
	By the way, I have written a python script to search through the 
ruleset for pattern matches.  It helps me immeasurably in rule-writing, 
judgement, and so on.  If anyone wants it, drop me a line (I know python 
is a relatively rare language, but perl is too error-permissive for 
someone as typo-prone as me.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:57:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

This whole discussion is unresolvable.  From what I've read, it cannot be 
determined to the satisfaction of all parties whether "a member of set 
A is defined as belonging to set B" logically means that set A is a 
subset of set B or that sets A and B are congruent.  I can see both sides 
and no way to resolve it -- logicians generally avoid words like 
"defined" without defining them first :).  Personally, I don't think the 
matter is worthy of a proposal, and the CSRR should change it to "a 
Political Office with more than one seat is an Institution."  I am aware 
this leaves open the possibile existence of other types of Institutions 
being later defined in the rule, and I support this possibility.

Niccolo's argument may be valid -- it depends whether "is defined as" is 
logically equivalent to "is," of which I'm not sure I could be convinced, 
but for the time being, I present this alternative reasoning as an 
attempt to temporarily resolve the issue

P1:  An Institution is defined as a Political Office with more than one Seat.
P2:  The Senate is a Political Office with more than one Seat.

C1:  The Senate meets all requirements in the rules for being an Institution.
C2:  The Senate is not necissarily an Institution.

Were this CFJ'd, the Judge would now be correct to say that the rules, as 
written, are unclear on the subject, and then be within his rights to say 
that the Senate is an Institution because it is game custom that it is.  
The hypothetical Judge may even be within his rights to say that it is game 
custom that a Political Office with more than one seat is an Institution, 
although this is a slightly less tenable argument than the previous one.

Guy Fawkes

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > > I'd like to clarify a couple of things about this wording, and why it
> > > already has exactly the effect Malenkai wants.
> > 	I can't say how much I disagree with you.
> > 
> > > A cat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
> > > Aristo is a cat.
> > > Plato has four legs.
> > > It follows that Aristo necessarily has four legs.
> > > It does not follow that Plato is a cat.
> > 	It does follow that Plato is a cat, if you accept the axiom that 
> > a cat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
> 
> Which is precisely the axion I presented I presented above. And such an
> axiom does not preclude the existence of other things that have four legs
> which are not cats.
> Zoology has nothing to do with it. Terms which are not defined in the
> ackanomic rules accept their real world interpretations. If we were to
> accept such a definition for Institution, one might well interpret it as a
> mental one.
> 
> I shall modify my example then:
> > > A zat is defined as an animal that has four legs.
> > > Aristo is a zat.
> > > Plato has four legs.
> > > It follows that Aristo necessarily has four legs.
> > > It does not follow that Plato is a zat.
> 
> 
> Will you now argue that a zat is not defined as an animal with four legs?
> 
> How about this:
> Socrates is a dog.
> A dog has four legs.
> A dog is an animal.
> It follows that Socrates is an animal and has four legs.
> 
> Does it follow that Socrates is also a zat?
> Not necessarily. 
> 
> Dogs have wagging tails.
> 
> We don't know the zat wagging tail situatin, so we can't make any
> conclusions about wagging tails.
> 
> Now that I've divorced the definitions from real world irrelevancies,
> surely you can see that the only thing that statement claims is when
> and entity is defined as an Institution, then it is a political office
> with more than one Seat.
> 
> Niccolo  Flychuck
> 
> ps-
> _My_ dog is named Kfir. He is an animal, he has four legs and a wagging
> tail. This has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:01:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Senate - Office?

Does your script allow the use of wildcards?  Otherwise, I'll just stick 
with loading the rules up on my web browser and using the find string 
command.

Guy Fawkes

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> > Sorry, but I couldn't find the rule which defines Senators to be officers.
> 	Easy to miss.  It's rule 478 ("Creation of a Senate").  (I'd 
> quote it here but I'm at a terminal, believe it or not, with no 
> greater-than key; so I can't pipe the output of my findrule script to a file.
> 	By the way, I have written a python script to search through the 
> ruleset for pattern matches.  It helps me immeasurably in rule-writing, 
> judgement, and so on.  If anyone wants it, drop me a line (I know python 
> is a relatively rare language, but perl is too error-permissive for 
> someone as typo-prone as me.)
> 
> --Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 13:24:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> This whole discussion is unresolvable.  From what I've read, it cannot be
> determined to the satisfaction of all parties whether "a member of set
> A is defined as belonging to set B" logically means that set A is a
> subset of set B or that sets A and B are congruent.  I can see both sides
> and no way to resolve it

There is a way to resolve it.  My proposal, that is the point of it.

My proposal resolves it so that the language is unambigious, and you need
not be a logician to play the game, and you need not argue over something
this this that is obviously ambigious, yet need not be, and whose ambiguity
adds no value.

Remember, we are writing a plain-text legal document, not a logical document.

BTW, 'iff' is legal, use 'if and only if'.  Also, my proposal to make
'iff' legal was voted down.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #339
*******************************