Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #340
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, November 9 1996      Volume 01 : Number 340

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:32:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Senate - Office?

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 

For some reason I was looking at an earlier version.

> 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.)

I'd be interested to have a look.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> --Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:45:33 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> This whole discussion is unresolvable.  From what I've read, it cannot be 

Granted. 

> 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 andB 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 

We have game custom on that.

> 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 
Which would change the meaning into something desirable to nither side of
this dicsussion.

Whatever the logic of the situation is (and I'm merely using it the same
way I use it when I do my math). Perhaps a more fruitful discussion would
be what the desirable result should be.

I believe I've made it clear what result would be desirable for me. I also
believe that it would make for simpler rules to place this in
"Institutions" rather than have the cumbersome language "Foobar is an a
political office with 7 seats. It is also an Institution." 
I'll support any ammendment which carries out this effect in a way which
is agreeably unambigous to Ackanomic.

I support all the other ammendment in Malenkai's RFC. Making the Senate a
proper Institution, and clearing out some other stuff about that rule are
more than welcome.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 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 definedas 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 theaxiom 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,
> > surelyyou 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 13:07:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[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.
	The script uses regular expressions.  A search for 
"Chartr.*se"  would match "Chartreuse", "Chartreuse Goose", and 
"Chartr1001001sose".
	To run it you need python v1.3 or higher, and (preferably) a 
command prompt.  Usage is:

findrule #320		//find a specific rule
findrule Bronze Torch	//find rules containing lines containaing a phrase
findrule		//get a prompt for multiple commands

Normally I do things like:

findrule Chartreuse Goose ] goose.txt

(you can pretend that was a greater-than sign, right?)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 14:12:48 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

Uri Bruck wrote:

> "Institutions" rather than have the cumbersome language "Foobar is an a
> political office with 7 seats. It is also an Institution."

We are splitting hairs here.  The alternative is "Foobar is a political
office with 7 seats.  Foobar is not an Institution, this takes 
precedecce over R 720" in the case where you *don't* want it. 

Moreover, from my RFC:

"The Senators are collectively an Institution known as the Senate"

I still needed

"The Senators are collectively known as the Senate"

anyway, so the positive case of adding "institution" was unintrusive.
Also, your positive case could have been written as:

"The Foobar Institution is a political office with 7 seats."

Furthermore, I claim there will be more political offices that you
do *not* want to be Institutions, such as multiple Inventors and the
Supreme Court.

So I shall have to put it to an Acka vote, and see if I add more value
than I take away.

Summarizing above:

1) The language to make something an institution when institution is
not the default is cleaner, IMO (at least in our specific examples).

2) More of our mulit-seat political offices will work better without
being institutions.

3) There are things like Synod and Party Hall which are institutions,
but are confusing to possibly think of as political offices, at least
to me.  I personally do not know if they are.  Sorry, but I can be thick
with difficult language.

I really believe my proposal cleans this up in many ways, and had it been
there already, the Tower confusion would not have resulted, no matter how
you slice it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 13:50:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

> 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?
	I now argue that Plato -is- a zat, by definition.  If you looked 
up zat in the dictionary and the definition were "An animal that has four 
legs.", would you not then be convinced that Plato is a zat?

> 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.

I disagree; I would say that all dogs are zats, given these definitions. 

> 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.
	I see your point, but the rule is ambiguous.  I -never- imagined
that your sentence defining "Institution" meant anything other than "Each
Political Offices having more than one Seat is an Institution.".  To me,
that's still what it means because that's how I interpret the word
"defined".
	Perhaps we should invoke judgement on the matter of whose 
definition of "defined" is at work here.  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 15:43:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: OotF Appointment

Acting Tabulator wrote:

> 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.

I am transferring what I have on Financial matters to IdiotBoy.  This
log starts on Nov 01.  The bond and cash and entity holdings on my page
should be accurate.

I shall still be attempting to keep that accurate.  ThinMan and I
reconciled our logs every bond cycle.  We should do the same.

Some notes:

1) My records never tracked undead hauntings, get that from ThinMan
2) salaries occur on monday (unless Pxxx passes), a bond cycle is this
 monday (get the basis from ThinMan)
3) Remember the electronic potato and frinking, they are the hardest.
4) Good luck

Malenkai
Assistant to the Financier
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
New log started Nov 01, is up to the minute:

Financier: Guy Fawkes -435, tower construction

ThinMan -10 lamb

malenkai -122 purple robe
 
malenkai -5, Tammany bribe 1373

malenkai +4 ep P 1272-1276
guy +2 ep p1274

snowgod -9 frinking

niccolo -20 misc transfer
guy +20 misc transfer

snowgod -15 frinking
guy +2 ep P p 1380
snowgod -15 rental
habeous +15 rental

snowgod -3 frinking
malenkai -40 poem
fnord +40 poem

snowgod -19 CFCJ 118

snowgod +120 tower backout (questionable)
mr cwm -4 tardy appeal verdict CFJ 312
Bascule -4 tardy appeal verdict CFJ 312

guy -50 CFCJ 117 [3 days from 11/6 23:59]
guy +50 Machine [3 days from 11/6 23:59]

snowgod -10 tammany lightbulb proposal

snowgod -120 tower backout backout (questionable)

malenkai -207 trinkets
niccolo -180 trinkets

malenkai -2 PFsnowgod buried in a treasure (bad investment)

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

Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 15:45:36 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Treasure

I have updated trinkets and treasue pages on my web pages.

If anyone had buried, or wants to bury treasure also wants to put
additional clues on the web page after the initial burying of the
treasure, let me know, and I will do that for you.

I will be doing that for some of the clues I have posted eventually,
if you know where they are :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:09:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: 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.
	*blink blink*  Obviously I'm going to have to rethink parts of 
this bot...

> 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.
	Can't wait.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 23:20:20 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > "Institutions" rather than have the cumbersome language "Foobar is an a
> > political office with 7 seats. It is also an Institution."
> 
> We are splitting hairs here.  The alternative is "Foobar is a political
> office with 7 seats.  Foobar is not an Institution, this takes 
> precedecce over R 720" in the case where you *don't* want it. 

Which brings us to the point of the only real disagreement here, and that
is the meaning of the current language of R720.

Since I support everything else in your RFC, and have already hashed out
the issue you discuss in the rest of you message, which is based entirely
on the the interpretation which I don't believe is correct. 
Much of it hinges on  the assumption that I want all multi-seat offices
to be Institution. That assumption is incorrect, so I can hardly reply to
most of those points.
I hope you will not be offended if I take this to the next practical step.

Is the intent of the language of the statement in dispute from R720, as
I've interpreted it, undesirable to you?

The intent being - if an entity is an Institution, then it is a political
office with more than one Seat.
Reasoning - that's just what Institutions happen to be, at the moment.

> 
> 3) There are things like Synod and Party Hall which are institutions,
> but are confusing to possibly think of as political offices, at least
> to me.  I personally do not know if they are.  Sorry, but I can be thick
> with difficult language.

To me they very obviously are, Party-Hall has (or had, before the diputed
statement existed in Institutions), a statement which explicitly defined
Swinger to be political officers. 
I rather like expressive language.
What is the difficulty in thinking of them as political offices? Is it in
the language of the rule, or in their function.

I don't mind going over again over the history of Party-Hall and why it is
the way it is, but I'd prefer to do this privately. 
This is no way meant to say that it is the best way to implement it.
I want to get all Institutions more involved, which is probably why I'll
support your ammendment anyway, it would make that simpler.

My  concept of an Institution in Ackanomic, is some sort of a
representative body.

Party-Hall and Synod are Organizational Institutions. PartyHall less so
since now  it is possible to have Capital-Swinger as well.  The Senate is
a general (non-sectorial) representational Institutional. If we ever want
to establish another Institution, I'd opt for a non-Organizational
sectorial Institution. But not until we've got more players and a function
for it.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:43:21 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: Internomic Proposal Idea 

Pascal, liasion for Fascist 14 has posted the following:

>
>If anyone would bother proposing whatever rule change necessary to remove
>Fascist 14 from internomic, I would vote FOR, seeing as how said game, which
>I am sort-of-liason for, is basically moribund.
>
>Thanx much, and mebbe I'll see you folks in an interinternomic somwheres in
>the future... ;)
>
>---Pascal

If anyone can think of a good way to solve this "player list' proplem for
good perhaps ackanomic can pick up another two points.  My suggestion was
that Pascal propose the amendment removing himself, but he demurred on the
grounds that it could create a scoring paradox.

snowgod
Liason

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:43:48 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: More Treasures! 

I am burying my Whamiol and creating the following treasure map:

For to see his Whamiol again,
and hold it near his score,
Habeous Corpus must transfer some cash,
A$500 to be exact,
to snowgod, the would be extortionist.

Do this and the Whamiols is buried no more.

snowgod
outlaw

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 17:10:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Treasures!

You do of course realize that if HC doesn't pay, you can't dig it up for 
yourself -- the treasure map explicitly says that only HC can fulfill its 
conditions.

Guy Fawkes
don't blame me; treasures wasn't around when I wrote rental

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Acting Tabulator wrote:

> I am burying my Whamiol and creating the following treasure map:
> 
> For to see his Whamiol again,
> and hold it near his score,
> Habeous Corpus must transfer some cash,
> A$500 to be exact,
> to snowgod, the would be extortionist.
> 
> Do this and the Whamiols is buried no more.
> 
> snowgod
> outlaw
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 14:15:02 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Treasures!

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> You do of course realize that if HC doesn't pay, you can't dig it up for 
> yourself -- the treasure map explicitly says that only HC can fulfill its 
> conditions.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> don't blame me; treasures wasn't around when I wrote rental

Oh certainly.  I was goping to include a clause in the treasure map that
would allow me to dig it up for myslef, but that looked like horribly bad
for :), and besides, where's the incentive for HC to pay me if I can
always back down :)

snowgod
outlawing it

Anyone want to rent me a Blue Thing?

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 17:29:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Treasures!

> Anyone want to rent me a Blue Thing?
	*think*  Unless I'm wrong, you'd need *three* Blue Things.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 17:51:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Inventor:  new blueprint

I'm announcing a new (old) Blueprint (to follow).  I hope to build one of 
these asap, since I don't know what its effect on the game is.  If there 
are bugs, pls let me know.

Blueprint
Pyraic Frobnotzer
- ---
A Pyraic Frobnotzer is a mechanical gadget.  It is large and golden
and has two nodes, positive and negative.  The nodes are made of
titanium (+) and green jumblium (-), and they never wear out.
 
When created, a Pyraic Frobnotzer is not broken, and its nodes are not 
attached to anything.
 
The owner of a non-gyrating Pyraic Frobnotzer may attach either of its 
nodes to a noun phrase in a Rule by announcing the action publicly,
unconditionally, and unambiguously.  This can be done repeatedly, and a 
node can be moved from one noun phrase to another in this way.  When a 
Rule is amended, and a node of a Pyraic Frobnotzer is attached to a 
phrase in that Rule, the node becomes unattached.
 
The owner of an unbroken Pyraic Frobnotzer may set it off, if both 
nodes are attached to noun phrases, by announcing the action publicly.
When set off, the Pyraic Frobnotzer starts to gyrate.  It foams.  It
steams.  It continues to gyrate, with increasing angular momentum and
wobble, until it is broken or destroyed.
 
When a Pyraic Frobnotzer has been gyrating continuously for one week,
the following happens:  If the Pyraic Frobnotzer's two nodes are attached 
to two noun phrases which are both plural or both singular, then those 
two noun phrases trade location within the Rule set, and the Pyraic 
Frobnotzer is destroyed in a magnificent gout of golden flame.  
Otherwise, the Pyraic Frobnotzer chokes, sputters, whines, and dies; it 
is then broken.
- ---

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:32:39 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1397 Passes 

     The symbol --- and quote marks are used as delimiters in this
     proposal. The symbols themselves are not part of any body of text
     the proposal describes, but merely mark the beginning and end of
     such texts.

     [ The current structure for this type of thing is redundant and a
     little sloppy. Standardize! ]

     1. A new Rule titled "Hearings" is created, reading:
     ---
     A Rule may specify circumstances under which a Hearing is called.
     When this happens, Count Tabula shall announce in a public message
     that a Hearing has been called, citing the rule that requires it
     and the circumstances that brought it about, and telling the valid
     responses [and other pertinent details]. As of this announcement,
     the Hearing is in session.

     While the Hearing is in session, each Player may send his or her
     response to that Hearing to Count Tabula privately. Count Tabula
     shall record each response that matches one of the valid responses
     for the Hearing. If a Player who has already responded sends
     another valid response, the Assistant Tabulator shall discard the
     previous response and record the new one. {{[ This last sentence
     is probably taken for granted, but it isn't in any of the
     "Hearing" rules as they exist now. ]}}

     The Hearing shall end when it has been in session for three days.
     When it ends, it ceases to be in session.

     Once a Hearing has ended, it has a verdict. The verdict of the
     Hearing is whichever valid response was given by the most Players
     in response to the Hearing, if exactly one valid response holds
     this distinction. Otherwise, if there is a tie among two or more
     responses, the verdict shall be whichever of the tied responses
     appears first in the Rule defining them. If no responses were
     received while the Hearing was in session, the verdict shall be
     "Never mind." The Assistant Tabulator has the Duty of announcing
     the verdicts of Hearings with all due haste.
     ---

     2. Amend Rule 400/2 ("Politeness Moon") to read, in full:
     ---
     Any Player sending a public message should be as polite as
     possible. Any Player may call a Hearing on the matter of whether a
     certain public message from another Player was polite.

     The valid responses to a Politeness Moon Hearing are "Yes, it was
     polite." and "No, it was not polite.". If the verdict of the
     Hearing shows that the message was not polite, the Player who sent
     it loses 3 points. If it shows that it was polite, its author gets
     the nickname Jazz JackRabbit for the next 3 days.
     ---

     3. Amend Rule 414/7 ("The Office of the Tabulator") by
     substituting "Hearings" for "Politeness Moons" wherever the latter
     appears.

     4. Rule 729 shall be amended to read, in full:
     ---
     The Earth is flat. Contradiction of this fact is Heresy.

     If, in a public message, a Player refers to the Earth being round,
     or implies that this may be the case, any other Player may start a
     Witchhunt by sending a public message that names the alleged
     witch, quotes his or her allegedly heretical message, and calls
     for a Witchhunt.

     A Witchhunt is a Hearing. It is also a Very Grave Matter. The
     valid responses to a Witchhunt are "No! E said the Earth is flat"
     and "BURN THE WITCH!" The Player who tabulates the responses to a
     Witchhunt shall be called Witchfinder General while it is in
     session.

     If the verdict is "BURN THE WITCH!" the alleged witch shall be
     branded a witch and heretic. E shall then be incinerated atop a
     bonfire large enough that it not only reduces the witch to eir
     component atoms but also inspires righteous terror in all who see
     it. When a witch is burned, e shall enter the Ackanomic Afterlife,
     and shall lose 10 points.

     Any Player who has been burned as a heretic exactly once is
     considered Enlightened. Any Player burned more than once, however,
     is beyond hope and may never become Enlightened. Any Player who is
     Enlightened is free to say what they wish, and may never have a
     Witchhunt called against them, or be burned as a heretic. This
     paragraph has precedence over all others in this rule.
     ---

     5. Rule 730 ("Steel Flea") shall be amended by replacing the
     paragraph that begins "If any other player believes" with:
     ---
     If any other Player believes that this message is obviously fake
     and not clever or witty enough for the nanotech Phoebe, he or she
     may challenge the authenticity of the message by posting to that
     effect publically. A Hearing is then called, with valid responses
     of "Phoebe would not say anything so crass" and "Phoebe said much
     the same thing to me once". If the verdict is the former, then
     obviously the Player did not accurately report what Phoebe said,
     and e will lose the 6 points awarded previously, and will be fined
     another 6 points for selfishly keeping Phoebe's wisdom to emself.
     Such challenges must be made within 3 days of the wisdom being
     posted, and may only be made once per report.
     ---

     6. Rule 1112.3 ("Let those who are without Harf cast the first
     stone.") shall be amended to read, in full:
     ---
     If any Player feels the Harfmeister is hogging the Harf [that is,
     sitting on the title of Harfmeister with no intent to designate
     any proposals as Harfy], they may start an Inquistition by
     publically calling for one.

     An Inquisition is a Hearing. It is also Strange. The valid
     responses to an Inquisition are "No! He's going to share the
     Harf!", or "Yes! He is Hogging the Harf!" If the verdict is the
     latter, the Harfmeister is guilty of hogging the Harf and must
     immediately go to his or her home if he or she may legally do so.
     The person who called for the Inquisition then becomes the
     Harfmeister.
     ---

     7. Rule 1268 ("Commission d'Arts") is amended by changing
     ---
     5) Upon the issuance of the report, Count Tabula will take votes
     for 3 days, during which each player may vote once on which
     Nominee they prefer, after which the voting results and winning
     Nominee are released. If the voting is tied at the end of the 3
     day voting period, Count Tabula shall break the tie by random
     determination.
     ---
     to
     ---
     5) Upon the issuance of the report, a Hearing is called. The valid
     responses are the names of the Nominees, as listed in the
     Commission's report. The winning Nominee is the Nominee indicated
     by the verdict of the Hearing (if any).
     ---

     8. Rule 1335 ("Codex of Kra") is amended by changing
     ---
     In this case, there will then be a three day voting period, during
     which players may send one vote each to Count Tabula saying either
     "the Ancients weren't that clueless", or "my own experiments have
     produced similar results". No quorum is required; a simple
     majority of votes challenging the translation's accuracy will
     prove that the AckaPhysicist is a quack in the case of this
     particular translation.
     ---
     to
     ---
     In this case, there will then be a Hearing, with valid responses
     of "the Ancients weren't that clueless" and "my own experiments
     have produced similar results". A verdict of "the Ancients weren't
     that clueless" will prove that the AckaPhysicist is a quack in the
     case of this particular translation.
     ---

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:32:45 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1396 Passes 

Quorum achieved on P1395: 16 Eligible voters - 13 Players cast votes
13 YES votes - 1 NO votes - 1 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1396 - Sat 2 Nov 8:08 CST 1996
In Which We Are Definitely Hearing Things
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

Mohammed gains 10 points:                        20 -> 30

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
Habeous Corpus                                   = 12
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 79
fnord                                            = 9
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 15
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 98
Vulcan Unity Vote
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24
Mohammed                                         = 30
breadbox                                         = 19
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 26
(None Yet) Unity Vote

NO Votes:
- --------
Malenkai                     FUN                 70 -> 73

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 4

Abstentions:
- -----------
Robert Sevin                                     = -14
Calvin N Hobbes                                  = 1

Players On Vacation Who Didn't Vote:
- -----------------------------------
Bascule                                          = -14

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------

     The symbol --- and quote marks are used as delimiters in this
     proposal. The symbols themselves are not part of any body of text
     the proposal describes, but merely mark the beginning and end of
     such texts.

     [ The current structure for this type of thing is redundant and a
     little sloppy. Standardize! ]

     1. A new Rule titled "Hearings" is created, reading:
     ---
     A Rule may specify circumstances under which a Hearing is called.
     When this happens, Count Tabula shall announce in a public message
     that a Hearing has been called, citing the rule that requires it
     and the circumstances that brought it about, and telling the valid
     responses [and other pertinent details]. As of this announcement,
     the Hearing is in session.

     While the Hearing is in session, each Player may send his or her
     response to that Hearing to Count Tabula privately. Count Tabula
     shall record each response that matches one of the valid responses
     for the Hearing. If a Player who has already responded sends
     another valid response, the Assistant Tabulator shall discard the
     previous response and record the new one. {{[ This last sentence
     is probably taken for granted, but it isn't in any of the
     "Hearing" rules as they exist now. ]}}

     The Hearing shall end when it has been in session for three days.
     When it ends, it ceases to be in session.

     Once a Hearing has ended, it has a verdict. The verdict of the
     Hearing is whichever valid response was given by the most Players
     in response to the Hearing, if exactly one valid response holds
     this distinction. Otherwise, if there is a tie among two or more
     responses, the verdict shall be whichever of the tied responses
     appears first in the Rule defining them. If no responses were
     received while the Hearing was in session, the verdict shall be
     "Never mind." The Assistant Tabulator has the Duty of announcing
     the verdicts of Hearings with all due haste.
     ---

     2. Amend Rule 400/2 ("Politeness Moon") to read, in full:
     ---
     Any Player sending a public message should be as polite as
     possible. Any Player may call a Hearing on the matter of whether a
     certain public message from another Player was polite.

     The valid responses to a Politeness Moon Hearing are "Yes, it was
     polite." and "No, it was not polite.". If the verdict of the
     Hearing shows that the message was not polite, the Player who sent
     it loses 3 points. If it shows that it was polite, its author gets
     the nickname Jazz JackRabbit for the next 3 days.
     ---

     3. Amend Rule 414/7 ("The Office of the Tabulator") by
     substituting "Hearings" for "Politeness Moons" wherever the latter
     appears.

     4. Rule 729 shall be amended to read, in full:
     ---
     The Earth is flat. Contradiction of this fact is Heresy.

     If, in a public message, a Player refers to the Earth being round,
     or implies that this may be the case, any other Player may start a
     Witchhunt by sending a public message that names the alleged
     witch, quotes his or her allegedly heretical message, and calls
     for a Witchhunt.

     A Witchhunt is a Hearing. It is also a Very Grave Matter. The
     valid responses to a Witchhunt are "No! E said the Earth is flat"
     and "BURN THE WITCH!" The Player who tabulates the responses to a
     Witchhunt shall be called Witchfinder General while it is in
     session.

     If the verdict is "BURN THE WITCH!" the alleged witch shall be
     branded a witch and heretic. E shall then be incinerated atop a
     bonfire large enough that it not only reduces the witch to eir
     component atoms but also inspires righteous terror in all who see
     it. When a witch is burned, e shall enter the Ackanomic Afterlife,
     and shall lose 10 points.

     Any Player who has been burned as a heretic exactly once is
     considered Enlightened. Any Player burned more than once, however,
     is beyond hope and may never become Enlightened. Any Player who is
     Enlightened is free to say what they wish, and may never have a
     Witchhunt called against them, or be burned as a heretic. This
     paragraph has precedence over all others in this rule.
     ---

     5. Rule 730 ("Steel Flea") shall be amended by replacing the
     paragraph that begins "If any other player believes" with:
     ---
     If any other Player believes that this message is obviously fake
     and not clever or witty enough for the nanotech Phoebe, he or she
     may challenge the authenticity of the message by posting to that
     effect publically. A Hearing is then called, with valid responses
     of "Phoebe would not say anything so crass" and "Phoebe said much
     the same thing to me once". If the verdict is the former, then
     obviously the Player did not accurately report what Phoebe said,
     and e will lose the 6 points awarded previously, and will be fined
     another 6 points for selfishly keeping Phoebe's wisdom to emself.
     Such challenges must be made within 3 days of the wisdom being
     posted, and may only be made once per report.
     ---

     6. Rule 1112.3 ("Let those who are without Harf cast the first
     stone.") shall be amended to read, in full:
     ---
     If any Player feels the Harfmeister is hogging the Harf [that is,
     sitting on the title of Harfmeister with no intent to designate
     any proposals as Harfy], they may start an Inquistition by
     publically calling for one.

     An Inquisition is a Hearing. It is also Strange. The valid
     responses to an Inquisition are "No! He's going to share the
     Harf!", or "Yes! He is Hogging the Harf!" If the verdict is the
     latter, the Harfmeister is guilty of hogging the Harf and must
     immediately go to his or her home if he or she may legally do so.
     The person who called for the Inquisition then becomes the
     Harfmeister.
     ---

     7. Rule 1268 ("Commission d'Arts") is amended by changing
     ---
     5) Upon the issuance of the report, Count Tabula will take votes
     for 3 days, during which each player may vote once on which
     Nominee they prefer, after which the voting results and winning
     Nominee are released. If the voting is tied at the end of the 3
     day voting period, Count Tabula shall break the tie by random
     determination.
     ---
     to
     ---
     5) Upon the issuance of the report, a Hearing is called. The valid
     responses are the names of the Nominees, as listed in the
     Commission's report. The winning Nominee is the Nominee indicated
     by the verdict of the Hearing (if any).
     ---

     8. Rule 1335 ("Codex of Kra") is amended by changing
     ---
     In this case, there will then be a three day voting period, during
     which players may send one vote each to Count Tabula saying either
     "the Ancients weren't that clueless", or "my own experiments have
     produced similar results". No quorum is required; a simple
     majority of votes challenging the translation's accuracy will
     prove that the AckaPhysicist is a quack in the case of this
     particular translation.
     ---
     to
     ---
     In this case, there will then be a Hearing, with valid responses
     of "the Ancients weren't that clueless" and "my own experiments
     have produced similar results". A verdict of "the Ancients weren't
     that clueless" will prove that the AckaPhysicist is a quack in the
     case of this particular translation.
     ---

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

Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:32:52 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1395 Passes 

Quorum achieved on P1395: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
11 YES votes - 1 NO votes - 1 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1395 - Fri 1 Nov 9:36 CST 1996
Hoping to stop the repeal R 219 movement before its too late
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

Malenkai gains 5 points:                        65 -> 70

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
Malenkai                     FUN                 = 70
Habeous Corpus                                   = 12
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 79
fnord                                            = 9
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 15
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 98
Vulcan Unity Vote
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24
Mohammed                                         = 20

NO Votes:
- --------
breadbox                                         16 -> 19

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 4

Abstentions:
- -----------
Robert Sevin                                     = -14
Calvin N Hobbes                                  = 1
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 26

Players On Vacation Who Didn't Vote:
- -----------------------------------
Bascule                                          = -14

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------

       This is a Modest proposal.

     Amend the first paragraph of R 219 to read:

     "
     If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, rule
     changes are impossible, or a player action which would affect the
     game state appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may
     call for judgement on a statement to that effect.
     "

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

     Transmute R 112 to mutable.

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

     Repeal R 112 {{[folded into R 219, I've always wanted to do
     that]}}

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

     Amend R 1243 as follows:

     1) Amend condition 1) in the "Conditions upon which the Goose is
     transferred" section, to read:

     "1) Upon a verdict of other than TRUE on a Paradox Win CFJ, the
     initiator of the CFJ receives the Goose from wherever it is. If
     the initiator already has the Goose, however, they shall transfer
     an A$60 court fee to the Clerk of the Court."

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #340
*******************************