Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #373
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Tuesday, December 3 1996       Volume 01 : Number 373

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 00:40:20 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cow Towen Hotel

> Brinjals death leaves the fate of the Cow town hotel uncertain.  I suppose
> it is currently haunted by his undead.... what happens if someone wants to
> go down to cow town?  A possible paradox?  does the money tranfer to his
> undead?

By rule 1018, the hotel belongs to the treasury, and fees paid for staying
there get added to the treasury.

I'm sure the Senate would be willing to consider a deal to sell the Cow Town
to the next Gaoler, when we have one.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 09:12:15 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1499

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1499 -- Sun 1 Dec 20:30 CST 1996
> Otzma Card Type Tactical Retreat
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

I like this one. It doesn't get Guy Fawkes any closer to the Chalice from
the Palace, though.
Also, I believe the last sentence of section 3 is not necessary. Otherwise
the rule looks really good.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Create a new rule, a member of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite; its title is 
> "Otzma Card Type Tactical Retreat"; its text is as follows:
> 
> 1.  Thisrule defines an Otzma Card type called "Tactical Retreat"
> 2.  Once an Otzma card of type "Tactical Retreat" is played, Swingers 
> have another type of Party Chess move available.  They may, in their turn 
> (but not on a special D-turn or special DD-turn) remove any single 
> friendly Party Chess piece from the Party Board and add it to their 
> collection of off-board pieces.  Swingers may exercise this option using 
> the syntax for a Move, with the phrase "off-board" replacing the 
> destination square.  This option will remain available until it is either 
> exercised or the Tactical Retreat card which made it available is countered.
> 3. Counter-action:  When a Tactical Retreat card is Countered, the Party 
> Chess option made available by the Tactical Retreat Card is no longer 
> available.  If the option was not available when the Countering took 
> place, the Counter-action has no further effect.
> 4. There may be at most 10 Otzma Cards of type "Tactical Retreat" 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:38:54 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Pyraic Auction 

>I bid 45 A$ for the Pyraic Frobnotzer.
>
>Guy Fawkes

I bid A$67

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:39:01 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: Prayer 

antidisestablismentarianism is the order of the day
confrontationaly I plead with the gods

Orgh spoken nekops ni tounges segnuot
Don't let it flood my house,
nor those of those i hold most dear
my friends in Ackanomic

alas, we may rejoice that we are not also the subjects of electromagnetism
Amen

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

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:42:08 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: National Identity 

I working on a series of proposals in which we establish a national
identity.  A "theme song" (who needs an anthem?), a falg, coats of arms,
tourism beaureas (wow, I can't spell tonight) and such.  I would like to
see Ackanomic become a micro-nation instead of a city state.  After all, we
have spent almmost a year establishing a cultural identity (and a damn fine
one, i think), and this would truly enhance that.

I'll RFC the proposals in a day or so.

snowgod
rambling

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:43:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: On Simple Majority rule

Malenkai has suggested proposing a major rewrite that would eliminate the
so-called immutable tier, and change the voting rule to a simple majority
rule.

I'd like to address the latter of the two.
I thing we all have slight unconciuos misconception when to the current
requirements for accepting proposals. We all know the rule, but we still
think of it as a 2/3 majority requirement, while the requirement only
pertains to yes and no vote only. Even with a 2/3 majority
requirement, some rules passed with only 6, or 5 yes votes.  Admittedly,
even under the current system it is possible to pass a proposal with a
single yes vote, and a sufficient number of present votes to make Quorum.
However, I suggest, that if we adopt a Simple Majority rule to accpet
proposals, we should also raise Quorum. I also believe a minimum number
(or rather percentage) of players who voted yes should be added as a
requirement for accepting a proposal (this will not count votes cast by
anything other than players). I just don't feel right  about accepting a
proposal on a single yes vote.

I suggest at least 10% of the number of eligible voters. Currently this
would mean at least two players voting yes for each proposal. Soon, I
hope, when we pass the 20 player mark, this might be raised to three
players voting yes for a proposal.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:49:04 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Senate and Internomic

The population seems to start picking up (there have been further requests
for membership. Every since the Tim situation I wait for acknowledgement
to the welcome pack befor I actually add them, so I can't tell exactly how
many, and the process can take up a few days)

However we were very close to getting below the minimum number of players
required for the Senate to be in session (unless that's been ammended when
I wans't looking - vote Yes for Experts)
What happens to the internomic interface when the Senate is not in
Session. Ambassador?

If currently there is no provision for this, then I'll propose an
ammendment back to the players in such a case.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 10:52:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: National Identity

I'd wait for a population increase before I'd support this. 
However, if there's any interest, I'd be glad to compose some tunes for
acka and place MIDI files on my site. Either for existing lyrics, or just
tunes for their own sake. Perhaps Ackazens could let me know what their
favorite musical styles are. 
MIDI files of modest size will acceptable as illustrations of said style.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Acting Tabulator wrote:

> I working on a series of proposals in which we establish a national
> identity.  A "theme song" (who needs an anthem?), a falg, coats of arms,
> tourism beaureas (wow, I can't spell tonight) and such.  I would like to
> see Ackanomic become a micro-nation instead of a city state.  After all, we
> have spent almmost a year establishing a cultural identity (and a damn fine
> one, i think), and this would truly enhance that.
> 
> I'll RFC the proposals in a day or so.
> 
> snowgod
> rambling
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 03:25:41 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: acka: Senate and Internomic

> The population seems to start picking up (there have been further requests
> for membership. Every since the Tim situation I wait for acknowledgement
> to the welcome pack befor I actually add them, so I can't tell exactly how
> many, and the process can take up a few days)
> 
> However we were very close to getting below the minimum number of players
> required for the Senate to be in session (unless that's been ammended when
> I wans't looking - vote Yes for Experts)

The provision for knocking the senate out of session when there are
fewer than 10 players was removed by a recent proposal.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 00:30:36 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Senate and Internomic

If the senate can not for any reason reach a decision within the
prescribed period, The ambassador must cast his vote in accordance with
the will of the president.  I believe that contingency applies if senate
is not in session.

snowgod
ambassador

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:29:37 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Senate and Internomic

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > The population seems to start picking up (there have been further requests
> > for membership. Every since the Tim situation I wait for acknowledgement
> > to the welcome pack befor I actually add them, so I can't tell exactly how
> > many, and the processcan take up a few days)
> > 
> > However we were very close to getting below the minimum number of players
> > required for the Senate to be in session (unless that's been ammended when
> > I wans't looking - vote Yes for Experts)
> 
> The provision for knocking the senate out of session when there are
> fewer than 10 players was removed by a recent proposal.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 
I guess I missed that.

Did I mention vote Yes for Experts?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 06:54:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: On Simple Majority rule

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> even under the current system it is possible to pass a proposal with a
> single yes vote, and a sufficient number of present votes to make Quorum.

Actually, a proposal can pass with no yes votes, if everyone else votes 
present.

> However, I suggest, that if we adopt a Simple Majority rule to accpet
> proposals, we should also raise Quorum. I also believe a minimum number
> (or rather percentage) of players who voted yes should be added as a
> requirement for accepting a proposal (this will not count votes cast by
> anything other than players). I just don't feel right  about accepting a
> proposal on a single yes vote.

Another option would be to change the requirement to a simple majority of 
the total votes.  While this would make the difference between no and present 
only a semantic one, it also solves Niccolo's misgivings. 
 
> I suggest at least 10% of the number of eligible voters. Currently this
> would mean at least two players voting yes for each proposal. Soon, I
> hope, when we pass the 20 player mark, this might be raised to three
> players voting yes for a proposal.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 15:00:44 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: On Simple Majority rule

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > even under the current system it is possible to pass a proposal with a
> > single yes vote, and a sufficient number of present votes to make Quorum.
> 
> Actually, a proposal can pass with no yes votes, if everyone else votes 
> present.
> 
> > However, I suggest, that if we adopt a Simple Majority rule to accpet
> > proposals, we should also raise Quorum. I also believe a minimum number
> > (or rather percentage) of players who voted yes should be added as a
> > requirement for accepting a proposal (this will not count votes cast by
> > anything other than players). I just don't feel right  about accepting a
> > proposal on a single yes vote.
> 
> Another option would be to change the requirement to a simple majority of 
> the total votes.  While this would make the difference between no and present 
> only a semantic one, it also solves Niccolo's misgivings. 

We've had something similar way back (with the 2/3 rule), and I don't find
it desirable to rob the present vote of its meaning.
One purpose of the present vote is to allow a player to contribute to
Quorum even on a proposal on which he is undecided, or cares very little
about.
With reducing the acceptance criteria to a simpe majority rather than 2/3,
perhaps there will less incentive to use the present vote, since any
single no vote will have less destructive potential for a proposal. But I
don't think we should throw away the present vote.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> > I suggest at least 10% of the number of eligible voters. Currently this
> > would mean at least two players voting yes for each proposal. Soon, I
> > hope, when we pass the 20 player mark, this might be raised to three
> > players voting yes for a proposal.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:09:00 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Ackanomic Digest V1 #371

/dev/joe wrote:

>Guy Fawkes won the first game of Ghost when 3 days passed and ThinMan
>failed to post a word containing "amnem".  I note that there was exactly
>one word in the official dictionary containing the word "amnem", and it
>was "amnemonic".

That was actually in there?  Drat!  That was, in fact, the word I
had as a backup when I bluffed with the "a", but I figured it was a
long shot.  I got caught up in work and in trying to think of another
word containing "amnem," and didn't post a move in time.
Guy Fawkes still deserves his congratulations, though.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:09:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: On Simple Majority rule

> Malenkai has suggested proposing a major rewrite that would eliminate the
> so-called immutable tier, and change the voting rule to a simple majority
> rule.
	I hope he proposes them separately.  I'll vote for the former, 
but never the latter, unless there's some kind of really nice bribe.  I 
love the current voting system; something very nice would have to come 
along to convince me to vote for a change.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:09:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: On Simple Majority rule

> > Malenkai has suggested proposing a major rewrite that would eliminate the
> > so-called immutable tier, and change the voting rule to a simple majority
> > rule.
> 	I hope he proposes them separately.  I'll vote for the former, 
> but never the latter, unless there's some kind of really nice bribe.  I 
> love the current voting system; something very nice would have to come 
> along to convince me to vote for a change.

I also am quite happy with the voting system as it stands. Even bribes
wouldn't change my vote on that one. The rules are pretty important,
after all; I really don't think that rule changes should be
significantly easier to pass muster.

Actually, I am also happy with the immutable tier. In fact, I would
support proposals to select specific new rules to be given
immutability. Immutability may be all-but-impotent under the current
ruleset, but that could change in the future. And in any case, they
provide a good demarcation of the game's foundation, the rules that
one should really think twice about before diddling with.

(I have avoided saying anything about this lately, since I am clearly
in the minority here, but I have to say that the current fad of
large-scale rule changes done mainly for their own sake scares me. I
would feel a whole hell of a lot better if more people were interested
in tightening up the rules we already do have, rather than willy-nilly
piling on more of them. It would not surprise me to find out that our
current ruleset is rife with little paradoxes, and weakening rule 219
is not the way to deal with such a situation.)

b

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:42:25 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Return from vacation

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I hereby return from my vacation.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 16:49:39 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: On Simple Majority rule

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, breadbox wrote:

[snip

>
>Actually, I am also happy with the immutable tier. In fact, I would
>support proposals to select specific new rules to be given
>immutability. Immutability may be all-but-impotent under the current
>ruleset, but that could change in the future. And in any case, they
>provide a good demarcation of the game's foundation, the rules that
>one should really think twice about before diddling with.
>
>(I have avoided saying anything about this lately, since I am clearly
>in the minority here, but I have to say that the current fad of
>large-scale rule changes done mainly for their own sake scares me. I
>would feel a whole hell of a lot better if more people were interested
>in tightening up the rules we already do have, rather than willy-nilly
>piling on more of them. It would not surprise me to find out that our
>current ruleset is rife with little paradoxes, and weakening rule 219
>is not the way to deal with such a situation.)
>

I'm not sure you are in a minority.  Is there any decent way (or desire, I
suppose) to return to the "a proposal consists of one rule change" era?
Maybe if a proposal containing a transmutation could only contain one rule
change (that being the transmutation) some of the meaning of immutability
would be restored.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:59:09 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: On Simple Majority rule

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> >(I have avoided saying anything about this lately, since I am clearly
> >in the minority here, but I have to say that the current fad of
> >large-scale rule changes done mainly for their own sake scares me. I
> >would feel a whole hell of a lot better if more people were interested
> >in tightening up the ruleswe already do have, rather than willy-nilly
> >piling on more of them. It would not surprise me to find out that our
> >current ruleset is rife with little paradoxes, and weakening rule 219
> >is not the way to deal with such a situation.)
> >
> 
> I'm not sure you are in a minority.  Is there any decent way (or desire, I
> suppose) to return to the "a proposal consists of one rule change" era?
> Maybe if a proposal containing a transmutation could only contain one rule
> change (that being the transmutation) some of the meaning of immutability
> would be restored.
> 
> -mr cwm
> 
>
Since breadbox responded to a response to my message, e might have missed
my actual point. I'm exploring the both(at least) sides of the issue now.
I think there is another way of doing this. It is somewhat reminiscent of
Power, and could be easily be worked into my yet to be posted RFC,
if transmuting an immutable rule into a mutable rule would require a
higher majority (I'd prefer keeping the 2/3 for the mutables as well, my
other suggestion were backups in case of failure of such).
Likewise to transmuting a mutable into an Immutable. Such a sysem could
making ammending immutable perhaps not easier, but more simply worded, for
it would make sense to allow an immutable to be ammeded directly with that
higher majority.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:32:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: On Simple Majority rule

On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> I'm not sure you are in a minority.  Is there any decent way (or desire, I
> suppose) to return to the "a proposal consists of one rule change" era?
> Maybe if a proposal containing a transmutation could only contain one rule
> change (that being the transmutation) some of the meaning of immutability
> would be restored.
> 
> -mr cwm

Create a new rule with text as follows:

{{ Transmute rule XXX to mutable.
Amendment, amendment amendment.
Transmute rule XXX to immutable.}}

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 20:11:42 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I hereby remove myself from vacation.

I have not yet checked to traffic that has no doubt piled up in my
absense,  but I do hjope to find lots of Harf to soothe my weary spirit. 
It has been a long,  cold week,  with nothing but breathtaking vistas and
companionship to show for it.  I don't know how peopole can survuve on
that alone.  :)

Habeous Corpus
suffering nomic withdrawl

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:04:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Ye Olde Rusty Lantern

So far, Bascule is the only person playing Ye Olde Rusty Lantern.
Now that I have more time to write about it, maybe I can convince some of 
you slackers to join up...  :o)

In case you deleted all 243 messages after returning from Thanksgiving
vacation, Ye Olde Rusty Lantern is a proto-Game/Contest in which players
get dealt a hand of 7 cards, each bearing a story element.  For instance,
you might get dealt a hand that looks like this: 

	Thought Police
	tidal wave
	harfy
	something changes color
	ink
	underwater cave
	swarm

To get rid of your cards, you tell part of a story.  Hammer out twelve 
lines of text talking about how when you were young, your village was 
destroyed by a tidal wave.  At the end of that, put a line that says

tidal wave

and that card is removed from your hand (actually it gets burned.)  The 
object of the game is to get rid of all your cards and finish the story 
at the same time.

There's more; if you want a second (or first) look at the rules, send me 
mail saying you want to join the sample game, and I'll send a copy to you 
personally ASAP.

- --Mohammed
(wasting bandwidth)

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

Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:54:02 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: subgames

I'd like to play in the practice Lantern game, and in a game of Fictionary.

/dev/joe

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #373
*******************************