Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #361
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, November 24 1996       Volume 01 : Number 361

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:02:51 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: self perpetuating Otzma

An interesting effect of the Otzma Cards propsal being consecutive, is
that their fate may determine the number of Otzma Cards than can be creaed
next Otzma-Day

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:34:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: self perpetuating Otzma

Maybe...  I know I like a few but by no means will I vote for all of them.

Guy Fawkes

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> An interesting effect of the Otzma Cards propsal being consecutive, is
> that their fate may determine the number of Otzma Cards than can be creaed
> next Otzma-Day
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:11:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: self perpetuating Otzma

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Maybe...  I know I like a few but by no means will I vote for all of them.
> 
> Guy Fawkes

I'd like to see at least a couple pass, this way we'll have variety, and
perhaps whet other players' appetites to propose some more.

I voted for all of them. I voted for mine because I tend to vote for my
own proposals. and for Malenkai's because I like them, the fact that it
will put him one step closer to a Treasur he did not burry had nothing to
do with it.  (and that's an interesting instance of a semi-self-refference
itself)

Niccolo Flychuck
 
> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > An interesting effect of the Otzma Cards propsal being consecutive, is
> > that their fate may determine the number of Otzma Cards than can be creaed
> > next Otzma-Day
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:54:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  otzma cards and gadgets

> 1. All the instances you site  have gadgets affecting gadgets, or Oztma
> Cards affecting Otzma Cards. There is no interaction between them
	Good point.  There are interesting possibilities; I think it's 
much better for the game to have Gadgets and Otzma Cards augment each 
other (to the point of ridiculum) than to allow them to oppose one 
another so strongly.  :o(

> 2. How about the following hypothetical Card (which I might even propose,
> once language has been cleaned up a bit:
> -- 
> An Otzma Card of type Go Go Gadget can be played only in the public forum.
> A Player who plays this Card anounces the name of an existing blue-print. 
> A Gadget is immediately created from this blue print and transferred to
> that player for a period of 7 days, at the end of which it is desroyed, if
> it can't be destroyed then it is transferred to the Treasury.
> (loads of precedence here)
> --

This looks great.  The other one's pretty good, too.  I'd vote for this...

[ If the Otzma Card text is in a Rule, the Gadget can be destroyed no
matter what.  One of the unfortunate, unforseen quirks about the Gadget
Rule is that it defines "indestructible" to mean something other than
"able to be destroyed".  (Sorry, guys.) An indestructible Gadget can be
destroyed, just not by Players at will.  (Other Gadgets can be junked by
their owners!  You could use an Orbital Mind Control Laser to siphon
someone's money and then junking the Laser... if Lasers weren't
indestructible.) ]

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:59:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1474

> I'm old-fashioned and believe objects should be possesed by one
> person.  Its alot simpler on the mind for me.  (I also thought common
> sense and common english usage should have rendered a FALSE verdict,
	-Really?-  I'm surprised.  The rule said, "whichever is longer", 
which has to be what you take it to mean....

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:12:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

> > As for using it on itself, I don't believe that's possible since a Card is
> > destroyed as soon as it is used, so, unless you are arguing for
> > simultaenity, which I don't believe applies here, there would nothing to
> > act on.
> 
> Yes, I could make this argument very easily.  You are claiming it is
> destroyed before its power is applied.  I have trouble with that, 
> especially as I remember wording in the Otzma card rules that says its
> power occurs immediately upon it being played if a counteraction is
> defined for the particular card (as is the case here).  I think I
> could worm a paradox out of this in front of the right judge ;)
	I'm not the right judge.  Fie on the thought of something being
destroyed and -then- having some effect on the game (I haven't checked the
rule though; if that's what it says, that's what it says).  But even so,
our game tradition says that when an entity legally takes an action, the
action goes off even if, as an instantaneous result, the action itself
results in the entity's no longer having the ability to perform it.  For
example, Players are allowed to resign.  Rules are allowed to repeal
themselves. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:18:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  timing

> I default to non-simultanaeity (sp?). I seem to reacll that some actions
> in Acka are explicitly defined to be simultaneous, I just don't remember
> which. I do agree that whether or not such a thing would be judeged a s
> paradox depends a great deal on the judge.
	I have several times thought of proposing lengthy rules to govern
events, with axioms like:  no two events have the same start time or end
time; all events take some positive amount of time to happen.  It would
also extend the retroactivity ban to say that no event could cause another
event to happen at that same exact moment (there would be a built-in,
imperceptibly short delay) or before; and it would formalize "event
triggering" and "procedures".  Never got past draft stages, though,
because I didn't think it would contribute anything much... timing
paradoxen are *fun*. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:46:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1474

If possession and ownership are exclusive by common English usage, then 
who exclusively owns the Ford Motor Company?

Anyway, the common English principle fails here; the rule explicitly 
defines when someone possesses the Lamb.

Guy Fawkes

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > I'm old-fashioned and believe objects should be possesed by one
> > person.  Its alot simpler on the mind for me.  (I also thought common
> > sense and common english usage should have rendered a FALSE verdict,
> 	-Really?-  I'm surprised.  The rule said, "whichever is longer", 
> which has to be what you take it to mean....
> 
> --Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:48:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

This concept isn't so hard to grasp.  There's plenty of precedent for 
similar things in RL.  For example, exactly when does a bomb take effect 
- -- it can't until it ceases to be a bomb.

Guy Fawkes

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> destroyed and -then- having some effect on the game (I haven't checked the
> rule though; if that's what it says, that's what it says).  But even so,
> our game tradition says that when an entity legally takes an action, the
> action goes off even if, as an instantaneous result, the action itself
> results in the entity's no longer having the ability to perform it.  For
> example, Players are allowed to resign.  Rules are allowed to repeal
> themselves. 
> 
> --Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:49:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  otzma cards and gadgets

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > 1. All the instances you site  have gadgets affecting gadgets, or Oztma
> > Cards affecting Otzma Cards. There is no interaction between them
> 	Good point.  There are interesting possibilities; I think it's 
> much better for the game to have Gadgets and Otzma Cards augment each 
> other (to the point of ridiculum) than to allow them to oppose one 
> another so strongly.  :o(

In the presence of an orbital mind control laser, I might want to have a
Card that specifically protects me from its action, temporarily ,
of-course. Posession of the card is insufficient to have any effect.
Or perhaps better, have the laser reflected and hit someone else
instead...

I'd like to have Cards that modify a Gadget's, or an Entity's power in
some way (again, temporarily).

 > 
> > 2. How about the following hypothetical Card (which I might even propose,
> > once language has been cleaned up a bit:
> > -- 
> > An Otzma Card of type Go Go Gadget can be played only in the public forum.
> > A Player who plays this Card anounces the name of an existing blue-print. 
> > A Gadget is immediately created from this blue print and transferred to
> > that player for a periodof 7 days, at the end of which it is desroyed, if
> > it can't be destroyed then it is transferred to the Treasury.
> > (loads of precedence here)
> > --
> 
> This looks great.  The other one's pretty good, too.  I'd vote for this...
> 
> [ If the Otzma Card text is in a Rule, the Gadget can be destroyed no
> matter what.  One of the unfortunate, unforseen quirks about the Gadget
> Rule is that it defines "indestructible" to mean something other than
> "able to be destroyed".  (Sorry, guys.) An indestructible Gadget can be
> destroyed, just not by Players at will.  (Other Gadgets can be junked by
> their owners!  You could use an Orbital Mind Control Laser to siphon
> someone's money and then junking the Laser... if Lasers weren't
> indestructible.) ]
> 
> --Mohammed

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not really well-versed in all the
intricacies of Gadgets, I do try to stay up to date on Chess and Otzma,
though. 
>

I've got an idea I want to bounce-off.
I've considered for a long time that an addition of tiers to the ruleset
might be interesting to the game.

Nothing as comprehensive as Power, but that could easily encompassed by
it, should Ackanomic ever choose to go that path. One might say, a
potential stone to Power.

If there is any interest I'll post some of it.

Niccolo Flychcuk

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:52:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  timing

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > I default to non-simultanaeity (sp?). I seem to reacll that some actions
> > in Acka are explicitly defined to be simultaneous, I just don't remember
> > which. I do agree that whether or not such a thing would be judeged a s
> > paradox depends a great deal on the judge.
> 	I have several times thought of proposing lengthy rules to govern
> events, with axioms like:  no two events have the same start time or end
> time; all events take some positive amount of time to happen.  It would
> also extend the retroactivity ban to say that no event could cause another
> event to happen at that same exact moment (there would be a built-in,
> imperceptibly short delay) or before; and it would formalize "event
> triggering" and "procedures".  Never got past draft stages, though,
> because I didn't think it would contribute anything much... timing
> paradoxen are *fun*. 
> 
> --Mohammed
> 
I suppose you would need to define everyone to be in the same frame of
refference (the Wilma frame of refference?)

Otherwise the order of events could appear differently to differnet
players. I suppose one could refer to ancients texts to figure out how
that relates to Ackanomic. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:10:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1474

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > I'm old-fashioned and believe objects should be possesed by one
> > person.  Its alot simpler on the mind for me.  (I also thought common
> > sense and common english usage should have rendered a FALSE verdict,
>         -Really?-  I'm surprised.  The rule said, "whichever is longer",
> which has to be what you take it to mean....

	You're probably right.  I take a different attitute when
judging than when making passing comments in the forum.  Its actually
nenver clear how I would judge things until I really stop to actually
judge them, which I admit I did not do here.  I still like the *idea*
of no more than one person possessing a unique entity though, so in 
that sense am old fashioned.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:21:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  timing

I tried to do the below with proposals when I wrote "Publically Knowable".

I also believe rule changes occur in the order specified, but that there
is not necessarily any time between their application ;).  Also what 
about the case of a single rule change that is worded as:

amend r xxx in the following ways:

1) ...
2) ...
3) ...

I believe, since this is a single rule change, that they occur 
simultaneously.  I often put "in the order specified" in these sort of
things, but I could see one of these being fun someday.

A little off the track is the following rule change mistake that I will
probably make accidently someday:

Amend R xxx to replace all occurrrances of "Tabulator" with 
"Assistant Tabulator".  I've been good up to now of guarding against it,
but it is an accident waiting to happen.  I guess you could argue
that the recursion does not happen, but if you say *each* replacement
is not silmultaneous, then I believe the recursion *must* happen in
that case.

Malenkai

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > I default to non-simultanaeity (sp?). I seem to reacll that some actions
> > in Acka are explicitly defined to be simultaneous, I just don't remember
> > which. I do agree that whether or not such a thing would be judeged a s
> > paradox depends a great deal on the judge.
>         I have several times thought of proposing lengthy rules to govern
> events, with axioms like:  no two events have the same start time or end
> time; all events take some positive amount of time to happen.  It would
> also extend the retroactivity ban to say that no event could cause another
> event to happen at that same exact moment (there would be a built-in,
> imperceptibly short delay) or before; and it would formalize "event
> triggering" and "procedures".  Never got past draft stages, though,
> because I didn't think it would contribute anything much... timing
> paradoxen are *fun*.
> 
> --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:49:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  otzma cards and gadgets

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I've got an idea I want to bounce-off.
> I've considered for a long time that an addition of tiers to the ruleset
> might be interesting to the game.
> 
> Nothing as comprehensive as Power, but that could easily encompassed by
> it, should Ackanomic ever choose to go that path. One might say, a
> potential stone to Power.

I would like 1 tier, and that is that proposals are acceped if a simple
majority votes for them.

We've had 3 attempts at changing the 2/3s fail though (2 @ 60%, one at
50%), so I've given up on this for now.

Its interesting.  I was corresponding with the speaker of Nomic Central,
which was just starting at the time; I commented on how they had a 
"no proposal bribery" style proposal fail as one of their first proposals.
He said to the effect 'we're still having political squabbles, we haven't
even gotten our voting to simple majority yet'.  I found that amusing for
a couple of reasons. 

Agora, on the other hand, has a tiered system, I believe.  I'm sort of
neutral here now.  My preference would be for a convoluted system where
a simple majority is needed to *add* to the ruleset, but a super-majority
is needed to *remove* from the ruleset. :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 03:54:37 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Go Fish Card Auction

The Auction is over
The following players have the highest bids

Malenkai A$11
Guy Fawkes A$10
Habues Corpus A$5

Each one has purchased a Go Fish Card
Nov. 23  Malenkai -11	   OCID 101
Nov. 23  Guy Fawkes -10	   OCID 102
Nov. 23  Habeus Corpus 	-5 OCID 103

I've gotta go packing, so I'm gonna have to apologize to the financier for
possibly misformatting these. I have no idea whether I should get a
comission for any of this, if I do, it may differ depending whether it's
calculated individually or collectively, in either case, it will be
trivial.

I believe Acka is ready for Otzma.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 03:55:25 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : vacation

I am going on vacation as of now, I'll be returning in approx. six days.
Try not the breadk the PartyBoard while I'm gone :)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:14:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  otzma cards and gadgets

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > I've got an idea I want to bounce-off.
> > I've considered for a long time that an addition of tiers to the ruleset
> > might be interesting to the game.
> > 
> > Nothing as comprehensive as Power, but that could easily encompassed by
> >it, should Ackanomic ever choose to go that path. One might say, a
> > potential stone to Power.
That was supposed to be stepping stone. 
(yeah. I know I'm on vacation,but I can resist replying to Malenkai's
reply to me)

> 
> I would like 1 tier, and that is that proposals are acceped if a simple
> majority votes for them.

A single tier?

I think some rules should be more considered more fundamental than others.

> 
> We've had 3 attempts at changing the 2/3s fail though (2 @ 60%, one at
> 50%), so I've given up on this for now.

I was thinking adding a third tier below mutable, which would need a
simple majority to add a rule, repeal a rule of change a rule of that
tier.
The precedence issue between that tier and  mutable would be anlogous to
the mutable-immutable situation.
With the added provision that the lower tier can't claim precedence over
immutables.  I'd even add a provision that the lowest tier could claim
predence over mutable but not over all of them.

Rules of such a tier would be somwhat weaker than rules of Power .5001,
under Power, for which it was permissible to explicitly claim predence
over rules of higher Power, even 0.9900, one feature I found somewhat
disturbing, but not devestatingly so.

Introducing such a system could lead down one of several roads. 
1. A subsequent change of all currently mutables and immutable to that
lower tier - Malenkai's Tier Convergence Effect
2. A gradual introduction of some version of the Power system.
3. Both kind of proposals will continue to be proposed

If a player wants to gets his proposal passed more easily, e might choose
to propose it for the lower tier. If e wants it to be more difficult to
ammend, then e might propose it as a mutable.

 > 
> Its interesting.  I was corresponding with the speaker of Nomic Central,
> which was just starting at the time; I commented on how they had a 
> "no proposal bribery" style proposal fail as one oftheir first proposals.
> He said to the effect 'we're still having political squabbles, we haven't
> even gotten our voting to simple majority yet'.  I found that amusing for
> a couple of reasons. 
> 
> Agora, on the other hand, has a tiered system, I believe.  I'm sort of
> neutral here now.  My preference would be for a convoluted system where
> a simple majority is needed to *add* to the ruleset, but a super-majority
> is needed to *remove* from the ruleset. :)

I don't think this effect is desirable in Ackanomic right now. at least
not for me. because it means the ruleset will grow even faster, as if we
don't have enough rules as it is.

But then, you did say convoluted.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:42:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  otzma cards and gadgets

Uri Bruck wrote:

> A single tier?
> 
> I think some rules should be more considered more fundamental than others.

If this were the case, then it should be more difficult to get a
majority or super-majority to repeal them.  For example, the voting
rule seems more fundamental than the magic potato rule (at least to
me), therefore it will be harder to repeal or destructively amend.  
There lies your tier: In the mind of the electorate.

Once you start adding tiers, it seems to me you are saying that people
cannot think for themselves what is more important.  This may be true
in a very complex set of law with a huge population (such as in america
where our constitution is more difficult to amend than our treaty
laws which are more difficult to amend than our traffic laws...), but
it is not true in acka, IMO.

I RFCed nuking the immutables awhile back and just going with one class.
In my mind, the only effect being immutable has is the powerful 2-edged
sword of R 108, which is 1 for 2 (caused one crisis, bailed us out of
one).  If that were folded into the 200 series precedence
rule instead, I believe some of the immutable fluff could be vaporized,
then all immutables could be transmuted to mutable, all occurrances of
the word mutable could be removed from the ruleset, some self-deleting
clause could say all rules have mutability of type "Rule", and there
would be no change in the way the game is played, except it would appear
more straightforward to a newbie.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:00:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Go Fish Card Auction

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> The Auction is over
> The following players have the highest bids
> 
> Malenkai A$11
> Guy Fawkes A$10
> Habues Corpus A$5
> 
> Each one has purchased a Go Fish Card
> Nov. 23  Malenkai -11      OCID 101
> Nov. 23  Guy Fawkes -10    OCID 102
> Nov. 23  Habeus Corpus  -5 OCID 103

All right, I'll admit I'm a bit mystified by that language added to
section 5b) of R 1023 that there was so much discussion about.  It
seems that the results are as follows:

Malenkai receives one for A$10.
Guy Fawkes receives one for A$5.
Habeous Corpus receives one for the next lower bid, which is not listed.

I know for a fact that snowgod bid A$2.  Had no one bid, it seems that
HC would receive one for free!

In any case, I need the next lower bid reported, and need to know if
I'm reading this rule right.

Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:04:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (CnH)

snowgod did not report what Phoebe said.  She has been found by 
Calvin N Hobbes.

Nov 23 22:05 EST: -3 snowgod: did not report what Phoebe said

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:53:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: otzma cards and gadgets

On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> I was thinking adding a third tier below mutable, which would need a
> simple majority to add a rule, repeal a rule of change a rule of that
> tier.
> The precedence issue between that tier and  mutable would be anlogous to
> the mutable-immutable situation.
> With the added provision that the lower tier can't claim precedence over
> immutables.  I'd even add a provision that the lowest tier could claim
> predence over mutable but not over all of them.

Idea-- (light bulb .gif)

We have these rules that passed as majority or whatever--

BUT
either they are automatically repealed at the end of cycle
OR
we have some sort of "stability" for these rules.  Each Monday, for 
instance, there is a n% chance that all these rules will "go critical" 
and repeal themselves.  n could be the number of such unstable rules 
there are.

Guy Fawkes
too much time in the lab

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:56:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (CnH)

Also, isn't it about time for my turn in ghost to begin?  I lost track of 
the days?

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> snowgod did not report what Phoebe said.  She has been found by 
> Calvin N Hobbes.
> 

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

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:13:19 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Ghost (Guy Fawkes)

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> Also, isn't it about time for my turn in ghost to begin?  I lost track of 
> the days?

Yes, snowgod's time to play ran out more than a full day ago.
By the rules of Ghost, snowgod is considered to have resigned.
Just Guy Fawkes and ThinMan remain in the game.
It is Guy Fawkes's turn.

The current ghost word is: amnem

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #361
*******************************