Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #343
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, November 10 1996       Volume 01 : Number 343

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:00:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RuneMaker

Acting Tabulator wrote:

> Proposal 1391 - Thu 31 Oct 9:28 CST 1996
> Is Something Missing?

>      Amend the rule entitled ""Definition of Otzma Cards" to add the
>      following at the end of section I:
> 
>      "3. The optional office of RuneMaker exists."

I am conducting a nomination for the office of RuneMaker.  If you wish
to run for this office, e-mail me.

Malenkai
speaker

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:48:14 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Institut Voting (v2)

RFC - v2
Institutionalized Voting
Malenkai

I have rewritten the amendment to R 720 based on Mohammed's feedback
about the language of supporting actions, and the in contempt on a
tie.  Bascially, for an institution to make a decision on any matter,
it must conduct and report a vote.  This seemed to be the intent of
the old language (saying a majority was needed, etc).

As for Niccolo's comments about Institutions/Political offices thing,
I believe that is a seperate issue from what I am doing here.  I am
removing a troublesome passage, but am making no statement one way
or the other on Niccolo's goals.  If this passes, he can propose the
amendment independently.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend R 478 so that its title is "Senate" and so that its text is:

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

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

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

Amend R 507 so that its text is:

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

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

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

Repeal R 648, "Confirmation Procedure"

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

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

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

2a. This section (2a thru c) defers to rules governing decision making
in Institutions.  An Institution votes "in favor" of something, or
"in support of an action" when a simple majority of its members 
vote "in favor" or "in support".  An Institution votes against
something, or opposes an action when a simple majority of its members
vote "against", or "in opposition" to the action.  The voting and
reporting processes under which these votes occur are detailed in
sections 3 and 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend Rule 839, "Buildings", to replace the second to the last paragraph
with:

"
      All other land, with or without buildings on them, that is not
owned by players is called common lands.  All deals to sell or buy
common land must be approved by Senate vote.
" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend R 841, "Towers", to remove the following text from section 2):

" within 3 days of its submission"

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

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

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

Amend Rule 1298, "in Contempt" to read:

"
      A player who is held in Contempt shall be required to either pay
a fine of A$100 to the treasury, or be placed in the Gaol for three days.
The player who is in Contempt is allowed to choose which of the two
options he would like.  If the player does not make a choice within
three days of being held in Contempt it will be assumed that he has
chosen the Gaol sentence. 

      A player shall cease to be held in Contempt once a choice as been
made per above.
"

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:01:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Consecutive Proposal Scoring

14 consecutive proposals, numbers 1383-1392 and 1394-1397, have been accepted.
What does the Consecutive Passages rule do now?  It looks to me like it's
still broken, possibly worse than before.  It says:

       If 10 or more consecutive proposals are accepted, the Brass
       Monkey shall climb the tallest building in Acka Land and proclaim --

       "The authors of the consecutive proposals that were accepted shall
       be awarded 5 bonus points."

       After this proclamation, the Scorekeeper shall increment the scores
       of each author of a proposal in the consecutive streak by 5 points
       for each of their proposals accepted in that streak, with a maximum of
       15 points per distinct author.

At least we know for certain now that Guy Fawkes' tower is the tallest
building.

This was amended after the last time more than 10 consecutive proposals
passed, with the intent to prevent the brass monkey from climbing the
building multiple times for overlapping streaks of 10 consecutive
proposals.  I don't think this does it, though.  There are at least 3
possible interpretations:

1. The monkey only climbs the building after a proposal is not accepted,
and each author in the streak (however long it is) gets 5 points per
proposal he authored in the streak, subject to the 15 point limit.
(This is how we want it to work, but I don't think the above does it.
In this case, the monkey hasn't climbed yet because the streak is current.)

2. The monkey climbs after the 10th proposal, and each of the 10 authors
score 5 points, then the monkey climbs after the 11th proposal, and
each of the 11 authors score points, then the monkey climbs after the
12th proposal, and each of the 12 authors score points, etc. (subject to
the limit of 15 points per author per proclamation).

3. The monkey climbs after the 10th proposal, and each of the 10 authors
score 5 points, then the monkey climbs *twice* after the 11th proposal,
and each of the 11 authors score points and each of the last 10 authors
score points, then the monkey climbs *three times* after the 12th proposal,
and once 12 authors score, once 11 authors score, and once 10 authors score,
etc. (subject to 15 point limit per proclamation)

Suggested rewording to make the rule work correctly:
  The Brass Monkey exists.  When a proposal is rejected, then the next
  10 or more consecutive proposals are accepted and then the next proposal
  is rejected, the Brass Monkey shall climb
  ... [rest of existing rule unchanged, but add at end, for clarity...]
  Retracted proposals, invalid proposals, and any other proposals that
  somehow do not complete their voting period are ignored for the purpose
  of determining what proposals are consecutive or "next" in this rule.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:04:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Consecutive Proposal Scoring

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> 14 consecutive proposals, numbers 1383-1392 and 1394-1397, have been
> accepted.

>   Retracted proposals, invalid proposals, and any other proposals that
>   somehow do not complete their voting period are ignored for the purpose
>   of determining what proposals are consecutive or "next" in this rule.

I was thinking about this as well.  Does game custom allow that a
retracted proposal does not break the streak?  I actually thought that
since P 1393 was not accepted, 14 consecutive proposals were not 
accepted, and the streak broke at that point.

Has this come up before?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 09:12:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institut Voting (v2)

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> RFC - v2
> Institutionalized Voting
> Malenkai
> 
> I have rewritten the amendment to R 720 based on Mohammed's feedback
> about the language of supporting actions, and the in contempt on a
> tie.  Bascially, for an institution to make a decision on any matter,
> it must conduct and report a vote.  This seemed to be the intent of
> the old language (saying a majority was needed, etc).
> 
> As for Niccolo's comments about Institutions/Political offices thing,
> I believe that is a seperate issue from what I am doing here.  I am
> removing a troublesome passage, but am making no statement one way
> or the other on Niccolo's goals.  If this passes, he can propose the
> amendment independently.

I agree that this is a seperate issue, and should have no bearing on this
RFC.  The ammendments in this RFC reflect, in a way, the game custom that
has evolved around those concepts, and rubs out some inconsistencies.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:41:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Consecutive Proposal Scoring

Malenkai wrote:
> Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > 
> > 14 consecutive proposals, numbers 1383-1392 and 1394-1397, have been
> > accepted.
> 
> >   Retracted proposals, invalid proposals, and any other proposals that
> >   somehow do not complete their voting period are ignored for the purpose
> >   of determining what proposals are consecutive or "next" in this rule.
> 
> I was thinking about this as well.  Does game custom allow that a
> retracted proposal does not break the streak?  I actually thought that
> since P 1393 was not accepted, 14 consecutive proposals were not 
> accepted, and the streak broke at that point.
> 
> Has this come up before?

Here are all the past applications of the Consecutive Passages rule:

P962-971 passed.
P1120-1129 and P1121-1130 passed.
(this was the "last time more than 10 consecutive proposals passed"
I referred to -- there was a proposal in the queue to fix the bug and
add the 15-points-per-player limit, but the consecutive proposals were
before that one.)

I guess that's it.  I thought there was another occurrence, but I
don't see it.  I also thought this had come up before, and it had
been decided that retracted proposals didn't break a streak, but I
don't see that either.

If it's agreed that retracted proposals break consecutive streaks, then
I'll just add the scores for 1383-1392 (exactly 10) proposals passing,
but I still want to fix the rule (and add the quoted section above).

BTW, (** snowgod note **) we don't actually have the results for P1397,
because the message posted with the subject of "1397 Passed" has a
repeat of the P1396 results.

Another point that needs to be hammered out is whether modesty halves
the points given for a proposal as part of a consecutive streak.
In addition to the obvious answers of yes and no, it is possible that
it only reduces the points for the last proposal in the streak, if that
one is modest, because the modesty rule says this halving happens "when
a modest proposal is accepted." (this is equivalent to "no" for this
streak, since 1392 was not modest)

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 03:28:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC remove game vs cycle

RFC - v1
Removing "Game vs Cycle and fixing the CFJ 283 Goose loophole"
Malenkai

{{[the first paragraph of R 110 is lifted from P915, and was substantially
written by Kelly Martin]}}

This is a Modest proposal.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Transmute R 110 to Mutable

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

Amend R 110 so that its title is "The Game and Winning" and so that
its text is:

"
      Ackanomic is a game without end. The Game shall consist of a
sequence of "Cycles", played in sequence according to the Rules. Cycles
end when specified by the Rules. At most one Cycle is in progress at
any one time. 

      A player may only win a Cycle by procedures defined by the Rules, or
by achieving a winning condition that is defined by the Rules.  A player
may not win the Game of Ackanomic.
"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Transmute R 110 to Immutable

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

Amend R 218 to replace all occurrances of "or win the game" with
"or win a cycle".

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

Amend R 425 to replace "the game" with "a cycle" in section (c).

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

Amend R 666 as follows:

1) replace the first sentence with:

"Upon a Cycle winning condition being achieved, the following steps
occur, in order:".

2) replace "winner is declared winner" with "winner is given the title
of winner" in section c)

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

Amend R 790, "Fat Lady" so that its text is:

{{
[I had to get that "when a winner is declared" out of here, it
is impossible to follow that rule forever, although I got it last
time]}}

      The unique, unownable, entity known as the Fat Lady exists.

      The Fat Lady shall sing only if a player wins a Cycle.  The
Speaker is required to announce that the Fat Lady is singing within a
reasonable time of a winner being declared, and the Fat Lady will not
sing until the Speaker announces that she is doing so. 

      [Furthermore, the Cycle of the game cannot be over until the Fat Lady 
sings. {{what to do about this.  I really want to leave it
in, and I like the idea of a referee declaring the cycle officially over,
but don't like holding up the game, and don't see how to work it.
Right now, I just sort of announce what happens under R 666}}] 

      The Fat Lady's singing will endure for exactly three hours, or until
any player publicly posts an original limerick politely asking her to
stop, whichever comes first. 

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

Repeal R 904, "Game vs Cycle"

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

Amend R 1243, "Chartreuse Goose", as follows:

1) replace "cycle or game" with "Cycle" in the second paragraph.

2) replace the section which reads:

"
All of the following actions must be announced publically if they are
performed, and the time of such post establishes the time when these
actions occur:
" 

with:

"
All of the following actions must be announced publically if they are
performed, and the time of such post establishes the time when these
actions occur.  These transfers are impermissible between the time
a Paradox Win CFJ submitted by the Goose owner is publically knowable
to have been judged TRUE, and the last instant that CFJ may legally be
appealed: 
"

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:15:24 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Institutionalized Voting - Cats & Greeks

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> > Is the intent of the language of the statement in dispute from R720, as
> > I've interpreted it, undesirable to you?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I am confused by Synod, for example, being a political office with more
> than one seat.  Synod, to me, is a group of Churches.  A political office,
> to me, is something for which there is a nomination, and election to
> fill, after which the candidate who wins gets some privileges.  These
> seem like different things.

The Synod is an Organizational Institution. Its consruction addresses much
of the criticism that was brought up against Party-Hall.  An
Organizational Institution is a special case of a sectorial Institution,
where sectors are defined by Organization membership. So in a sense,
elections are held,
inside the Church. But they are held according to the rules of the Church,
which are in the Church Policy. (It would be perfectly acceptable for a
Church to play its own internal game of nomic in order to change and
evolve Church Policy, although he default is really more akin to fascist,
the bulk of the Church rule is about default procedures in the absence of
Policy)
The Offices rules allow for different procedures to be allowed for filling
offices, and that's one of the things Synod does.

 > 
> The mainproblem is that political offices are filled by election.  I
> simply do not parse filling a church by election.  That is the problem,
> the difficult construction of the language aside.  I believe my amendment
> preserves Synod and all other institutions, yet clarifies this
> troublesome issue for me.

There is no problem for Party-Hall. Swinger are explicitly defined to be
Political Officers, this was done before the statmenet in dispute was
added to Institutions, and was added to make some aspects of PartyChess
possible. Senate is something your ammendment takes care of completely. 

As far as Synod is concerned, much of uses Office terminology. I'm not
sure what the effect would be. It seems detailed enough to work even
witout being defined as an Office.

Even if it is ammended to be explicitly defined as an Office with
multiple seats, it does not necessarily need to be a Political Office.
Which would require a couple of other ammendments.
I'm gonna to meditate over this one for a while.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> That is all it is really.  I admit to not really comprehending making
> Synod a political office with more than one seat.  As speaker, I have
> never announced the openings and solicited nominations.  ShouldI?
As the rule stands this is not necessary, for reasons I have outlined
above.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:20:56 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1407 Fails 

Quorum achieved on P1407: 16 Eligible voters - 13 Players cast votes
7 YES votes - 4 NO votes - 2 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS

Proposal 1407 - Sat 2 Nov 8:11 CST 1996
Donkeys can't be *that* attractive
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

Malenkai loses 7 points:                          76 -> 69

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
fnord                                            = 9
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 38
Malenkai                     FUN                 = 69
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 26
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24

NO Votes:
- --------
Mohammed                                         = 30
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 101
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 92
Habeous Corpus                                   = 15

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 4
breadbox                                         = 19

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

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

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------
NONE

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:21:00 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1406 Passes 

Quorum achieved on P1406: 16 Eligible voters - 13 Players cast votes
8 YES votes - 1 NO votes - 5 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1406 - Sat 2 Nov 8:11 CST 1996
More Otzma Tweaking
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

Guy Fawkes 5 points:                             89 -> 92

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
fnord                                            = 9
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 101
Habeous Corpus                                   = 15
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 92
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 38
Vulcan Unity Vote

NO Votes:
- --------
Mohammed                                         = 30

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 4
breadbox                                         = 19
Malenkai                     FUN                 = 76
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 26
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24

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

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

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------
This is a Modest Proposal

Modify the rule entitled "Definition of Otzma Cards" as follows.
- ----
Change III, 4, d to read

d. CrIndex -- creation index for a given type of Otzma Card. CrIndex is
defined as MaxCard-LiveCard. If MaxCard is not defined for a specific
type of Otzma Card, then CrIndex is defined as the average of the
CrIndexes of all the other types of Otzma Cards. If MaxCard is not
defined for any type of Otzma card, then CrIndex for each type is 15.

- ----
Change III, 4, f, (v) to read

(v) After all changes have been applied the following adjustments are
made: Any negative CrIndex is changed to zero. A CrIndex which is
greater than MaxCard for that type is changed to MaxCard. (For this
purpose only, the MaxCard value for a type that has no MaxCard defined
shall be the highest MaxCard for any type. If no values of Maxcard are
defined, then for this purpose only, MaxCard for all types will be 100.)

- ----
Change III, 6, a, fifth sentence to read

Each Probablility point can be used by the RuneMaker to increase or
decrease CrIndex of any Otzma Card type by one, as long as decreasing a
CrIndex doesn't bring it down to zero.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:21:05 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1404 Passes 

[Once again I show that ThinMan abstained]

Quorum achieved on P1404: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
10 YES votes - 1 NO votes - 2 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1404 - Sat 2 Nov 8:11 CST 1996
The FM Revisited
ThinMan (John Bollinger)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

ThinMan gains 5 points:                    33 -> 38

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
fnord                                            = 9
Malenkai                     FUN                 = 76
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 101
Habeous Corpus                                   = 15
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 26
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 89
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24
(None Yet) Unity Vote

NO Votes:
- --------
Mohammed                                         = 30

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 4
breadbox                                         = 19

Abstentions:
- -----------
Robert Sevin                                     = -14
Calvin N Hobbes                                  = 1
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 38

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

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

This is a modest proposal.

Amend R 482, part II, section (2) to read:

2) An entity is Tradeable if and only if the rules specify that it is,
otherwise it is non-Tradeable. No entity may be transferred or exchanged
except by methods specified in the rules.

{{[ This fixes a problem that non-Tradeable entities might have been
possible to exchange under the auspices of R 115. It also simplifies the
language and clarifies the situation: Tradability really only qualifies
an entity for exchange on the Free Market, and serves as a general class
of entities for conceptual purposes. Neither Tradeable nor non-Tradeable
entities are supposed to be exchangeable except as described by the
Rules anyway. I've been wanting to do this for some time. ]}}

Amend R 482, part II, section (3) to read:

3) The FM is a conceptual tool, physically realized in the public fora
and the Financier's log of transactions. There is also an AckaNomic
building named the Free Market.

Amend R 482, part II, section (5) by renumbering it as "i)".

Amend R 482, part II, section (6) by renumbering it as "ii)".

Amend R 482, part II, section (7) by renumbering it as "5)", striking
the first sentence, and adding the following sentences to the end: "The
Financier should keep a record of each transaction, preferrably in his
log. Failure to keep a record of a legal transaction is a Crime."

{{[ The above changes make the FM definition match what we're actually
doing. It's always nice to do that. ]}}

Amend R 482, part II by deleting section (8).
{{[ section (8) is superfluous. ]}}

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:21:10 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1403 Passes 

Quorum achieved on P1403: 16 Eligible voters - 13 Players cast votes
9 YES votes - 3 NO votes - 2 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1403 - Sat 2 Nov 8:10 CST 1996
Happy Trails, to You
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

Guy Fawkes gains 10 points:                    79 -> 89

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
fnord                                            = 9
Mohammed                                         = 30
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 26
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 89
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24
(None Yet) Unity Vote
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 33

NO Votes:
- --------
Malenkai                     FUN                 73 -> 76
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              98 -> 101
Habeous Corpus                                   12 -> 15

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 4
breadbox                                         = 19

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

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

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

Insert the following paragraph into Rule 1276, immediately after section
G.

H. During the course of a game of Grab-a-Donkey, the Wrangler may
voluntarily give the transfer the title of Wrangler to any willing
player not on the GAL. The transfer must occur between two rounds,
immediatly after the old wrangler releases the results for a round. If
the Wrangler goes on Vacation or quits the game of Ackanomic, the first
player not on the GAL to name himself Wrangler shall become the
Wrangler, and the game of Grab-a-Donkey shall continue from its last
publically knowable state. If no player not on the GAL does so within
three days, and the old Wrangler has not yet returned from Vacation or
rejoined the game, then the current game of Grab-a-Donkey will end, and
there shall be no Wrangler.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:20:51 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1408 Passes 

[I show Mohammed Abstaining on this one.  Every once in a while while I am
collecting votes I notice a case where a player skips over a proposal in
the list.  When this happens would you guys prefer to be notified?]

Quorum achieved on P1407: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
5 YES votes - 2 NO votes - 5 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS

Proposal 1408 - Sat 2 Nov 8:12 CST 1996
More Swinger Tweaking
Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

Niccolo Flychuck gains 10 points:                          101 -> 111

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 38
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 92
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 111

NO Votes:
- --------
Malenkai                     FUN                 69  -> 72
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          26  -> 29

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 4
breadbox                                         = 19
fnord                                            = 9
Habeous Corpus                                   = 15
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24

Abstentions:
- -----------
Robert Sevin                                     = -14
Calvin N Hobbes                                  = 1
Mohammed                                         = 30

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

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

Ammend R1269 "Newton, Apples, and Parites" to read in full:
"

1. Let NoS be the the number of Swingers, excludings Swinger on
Vacation, including Acting Swingers.
2. Every two weeks on Tuesday, the following things happen:
a. All existing Swingpoints are converted to points and are added to the
scores of the players who own them.
b. The Chess-Umpire awards Swingpoints to Swingers who have positive
Weights according to the following scheme:
(i) The Swinger or Swingers with the highest Absolute Weight receives
NoS-1 SwingPoints.
(ii) The Swinger or Swingers with the second highest Absolute Weight
receives NoS-2 SwingPoints.
(iii) The Swinger or Swingers with the third highest Absolute Weight
receives NoS-3 SwingPoints.
(iv) If NoS>4 then the Swinger or Swingers with the fourth highest
Absolute Weight receives NoS-4 SwingPoints.
(v) If NoS>5 the Swinger or Swingers with the fifth highest Absolute
Weight receives NoS-5 SwingPoints.
(vi) If NoS>6 then the Swinger or Swingers with the sixth highest
Absolute Weight receives Nos-6 SwingPoints.
c. If it is not possible to find a Swinger that answers the description
in any of the above sections, then that section is ignored. A Swinger
who received Swinger points by one section cannot receive Swingerpoint
by section which follows it.

3. Swingpoints are Tradable.
4. Swingpoints can converted to the following items:
a. Any set of Swingpoints can be converted to an equal number of points
which are added to the player's score.
b. A set of four Swingpoints can be converted to a single Bonus-Vote.
c. Any set of Swingpoints can be converted into an equal number of
probability points which are added to the CrIndex of an Otzma Card type
chosen by the player.

5. The process of conversion.
a. A player can only convert Swingpoints that e owns, if a player
attempts to vonvert more Swingpoints than e owns, the conversion does
not take place.
b. A player makes a conversion by publically anouncing the fact the e is
doing so.
c. A player can only make a single conversion at a time.
d. A player can only make a conversion if e has not made any conversion
of any type in the preceding 7 days. A player cannot make a conversion
if e has made a conversion of the same type in the preceding 14 days.
The default conversion described in 2a, is not subject to these
restrictions.

6. It is the duty of the Chess-Umpire to track all aspects of
Swingpoints. If there is no Chess-Umpire, then it is the duty of the
newest Swinger to keep track of Swingpoints.
"

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:21:14 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1402 Passes 

Quorum achieved on P1402: 16 Eligible voters - 13 Players cast votes
13 YES votes - 0 NO votes - 2 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1402 - Sat 2 Nov 8:10 CST 1996
Duck, duck, goose
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

ThinMan gains 5 points:                        28 -> 33

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
fnord                                            = 9
Mohammed                                         = 30
breadbox                                         = 19
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 26
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 79
Malenkai                     FUN                 = 73
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 98
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24
(None Yet) Unity Vote
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 28
Vulcan Unity Vote

NO Votes:
- --------
NONE

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 4
Habeous Corpus                                   = 12

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

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

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

This is a Modest proposal.

Replace the phrase "A player who has possessed the Goose..." in sections
3 and 4 of Rule 1243 with "A player who possesses the Goose and has done
so..."

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

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 02:21:18 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1401 Passes 

[Note: It appears that ThinMan abstained on this proposal.  I'll double
check my voting records... Could ThinMan please doublecheck his reciepts?]

Quorum achieved on P1401: 16 Eligible voters - 12 Players cast votes
12 YES votes - 0 NO votes - 1 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1401 - Sat 2 Nov 8:10 CST 1996
New Pay Scale
ThinMan (John Bollinger)

[Note: All scoring changes are approximations.}

ThinMan gains 5 points:                        23 -> 28

YES Votes:
- ---------
Brinjal                                          = 19
Habeous Corpus                                   = 12
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 31
fnord                                            = 9
Mohammed                                         = 30
breadbox                                         = 19
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 26
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 79
Malenkai                     FUN                 = 73
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 98
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = -24
(None Yet) Unity Vote

NO Votes:
- --------
NONE

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

Abstentions:
- -----------
Robert Sevin                                     = -14
Calvin N Hobbes                                  = 1
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 28

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

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

This is a modest proposal.

Amend R 609, section (v) to read:

(v) Salaries:

If the Rules specify that a particular Officer is to receive a specified
salary in A$s, then that number of A$ is transferred from the Treasury
to that Officer at noon on the first Monday of each month.

{{[ This will make things easier on the Financier, whether it is
Malenkai, me, or someone else. ]}}

Amend R 612, section (ii) to read:

(ii) As a Privilege of Office, each Player shall receive a monthly
salary of A$25 for every Functional Office held.

{{[ A modification here is necessary with the change applied to R 609.
This amendment actually constitutes a pay raise for functional officers,
which I think very appropriate. ]}}

Amend R 615, section (iii) to read:

(iii) As an additional Privilege of Office, the Speaker shall receive a
monthly salary of A$35.

{{[ Again, necessary with the conversion to monthly salaries, plus a pay
raise. ]}}

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #343
*******************************