Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #377
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, December 5 1996      Volume 01 : Number 377

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:29:19 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: Contempt 

The senate is dangerously close to being held in Contempt, though I believe
it is unintentional.  Voting results for Internomic P315 and P316 have not
beern made publically knowable by the senate in accordance with R720
(section 3) which states:

>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.

I know the senate has reached a decision so this is just a formality.
However, it could be a costly formality for the senators... A$100 or three
days in Gaol.  Ouch

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:38:31 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Internomic: draft rule for discussion 

I have been thinking and thinking of a way to adress this mesage while
forwarding to the ackanomic list, but everything I come up with falls falt.
Therefore I will just forward it verbatim and allow each of you to reach
you own conclusions.  If you would like to copmment on the RFC by Thring,
you may either send you comments to [email-masked] or send
them to me and I will pass them along.

If this interests enough of you, perhaps we can tear it apart like we would
any of our RFC's and forward the results on to Thring.

>Sender: [email-masked]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>Date: Wed, 4 Dec 96 16:54:43 GMT
>From: Anthony Bailey <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Internomic: draft rule for discussion
>
>Hello people.
>
>I'm temporarily the liaison for Thring whilst Luke Schubert takes a
>holiday.
>
>Recently within Thring there has been some discussion of whether or
>not Internomic could be usefully used in order to settle controversial
>disputes over rule interpretations. (E.g. some CfJs.) There are three
>reasons why a decision-making process external to the nomic could be
>useful.
>
>1. To remove problems of bias. Although players in nomics tend to be
>   good sports who are as honest and objective as they can be, some CfJs
>   affect every player and it seems problematic to insist that one such
>   player should work out a difficult decision.
>
>2. To gain a fresh outside perspective. Some arbiter new to a rule set
>   is likely to consider the problem carefully and to pay greater
>   attention to the literal wording of a rule.
>
>3. To take advantage of all that valuable experience within the nomic
>   community.
>
>There is one main problem with such a process:
>
>1. Some decisions require a familiarity with the rules of the nomic and
>   sometimes also with game custom that would take some serious effort
>   on the part of the outsider to gain.
>
>A tentative solution is to see the decision process as a discussion
>between the deciding party and the interested parties within and
>without the nomic asking for the decision. The deciding party asks
>questions when it feels it needs some information and consults
>relevant provided documents. Other parties try to persuade it that it
>should decide one way or the other by offering information, history
>and opinion. Eventually, having satisfied itself that it has all the
>relevant evidence, and has heard, considered and balanced the
>presented arguments, the deciding party makes its decision.
>
>I thus offer you a draft of a rule to allow Internomic to act as the
>legislative body controlling such a system. Nomics who want to
>participate would have to make whatever amendments to their rules they
>thought necessary in order to best use the external service (Thring
>might consider using it for Appealed CfJs, for example), and to allow
>it to play its part in providing that service.
>
>I am very interested to hear comments on all matters related to this
>draft proposal, including the wording, the vocabulary, the underlying
>ideas and their implementation.
>
>Thankyou,
>@*-.,_,.-`'-=*@@*=-`'-.,_,.-*@  For my contact details, and information on the
>|          Anthony.          |  bands Pulp, Saint Etienne, and the Kitchens OD,
>@*-.,_,.-`'-=*@@*=-'`-.,_,.-*@  home's <URL:http://WWW.CS.Man.ac.UK/~baileya/>.
>Anthony Bailey studies for a CompSci/Maths PhD at the University of Manchester
>
>=============================================================
>A Draft Of A Rule To Establish An Internomic Court Of Justice
>=============================================================
>
>Terms defined within this document are indicated by enclosing them in
>quotes at their point of definition.
>
>_The Internomic Court Of Justice_
>
>The "Internomic Court of Justice", known hereafter as the "Court", and
>also abbreviated as the "InCJ", is a system for allowing participating
>Nomics (who are known collectively as the "Council" and individually
>as "Council Members") to decide statements relating to each other's
>Rules (e.g. in order to Judge each other's CfJs) when such decisions
>are considered to be desirable.
>
>A "Hearing" is a formal session of the Court. It starts when an
>Acceptance (qv) has been received in relation to a particular Petition
>(qv). Once a Hearing is underway, e-mail on all matters related to it
>should be sent to the Petitioning Address (qv) and the Deciding
>Address (qv) given in the Petition and the Acceptance that started
>that Hearing. It may also be sent to the Internomic mailing list, and
>to any other addresses as well, but this is not formally required. The
>Hearing is ended when a Decision (qv) is provided by any of the
>mechanisms described in this document.
>
>_The Magistrate_
>
>The "Magistrate" administrates the affairs of the Court. In the
>absence of other Rules, the Magistrate is a consenting subscriber to
>the Internomic mailing list, chosen by the Moderator. If there is no
>current Magistrate the task defaults to being the responsibility of
>the Moderator emself.
>
>The Magistrate has two responsibilities:
>- To decide whether or not a particular Nomic is a Council
>  Member. This involves em deciding whether an application to become a
>  Council Member is successful, and if and when a Member should be
>  expelled.
>- To decide whether a Petition is well-formed, and if so, to
>  select one of the Council Members at random and request that they
>  deal with the Petition. If this Member Declines (qv), further
>  Members may be similarly randomly selected. If the Magistrate judges
>  that no suitable Member can be found, e should return a Decision
>  of undecided by emself. (It is advised, for example, that the
>  Deciding and Petitioning Nomics (qv) should not be the same.)
>
>_Council Membership_
>
>A Nomic applies to be a Council Member by contacting the
>Magistrate. The applicant Nomic should have an Internomic liaison, but
>it need not be a voting member within Internomic. (It is hoped that
>Nomics who feel unready to take on the role of a voting member will
>still become members of the Council.)
>
>After it has become a Council Member, the Nomic will be required to
>provide a certain service relating to decisions, which is described in
>a later section. Certain specifically defined failures to provide this
>service (known hereafter as "Defaulting") results in the member
>automatically being expelled from the Council Membership. (It may
>apply to join again, of course.)
>
>Also, a Member may be expelled if in the opinion of the Magistrate it
>is not performing the service in an acceptable manner. For example, a
>Member that always Declines requests or that appears not to take
>seriously its responsibilities to make decisions in a considered and
>unbiased manner might be found to be acting in an unacceptable manner.
>
>The Magistrate should find it credible that any applicant Nomic will
>be able to offer this service before e accepts the application. E may
>wish to inspect the Rules of the applicant Nomic to reassure emself
>that this is the case. If e is satisfied, the Nomic is accepted as a
>Member of the Council.
>
>The Court provides a service for every Council Member, which is
>described in the following section.
>
>_The Service Provided By The Court_
>
>The following is the service provided for Council members. It is
>independently specified here so that a Council member may formulate
>Rules that allow it to use this service in an effective manner.
>
>A Council Member (known hereafter as the "Petitioning Nomic") may
>present a Petition to the Court by sending it within an e-mail clearly
>labelled as a Petition to the Internomic list.
>
>A "Petition" is a formal document that request the Court to decide a
>particular Case. A well-formed Petition includes:
>- A contact e-mail address (the "Petitioning Address".)
>- A statement which may sensibly be found to be either true or false
>  (the "Case".)
>- The basic information that the Petitioning Nomic feels is directly
>  relevant to the Case (the "Evidence".) This may also take the form
>  of directions as to how to retrieve this information electronically
>  (e.g. an URL.) It need not be exhaustive, as it may be supplemented
>  further during the Hearing, but it should provide a sensible
>  starting point for someone seeking to decide the Case.
>- An argument as to why the Case might be decided to be true
>  (the "Argument For".) This may also be presented by giving an URL.
>- A second argument as to why the Case might be decided to be false
>  (the "Argument Against".) Again, this may be an URL.
>- A time some reasonable distance in the future by which, at the very
>  latest, the Petitioning Nomic requires the Hearing to be over (the
>  "Curfew".)
>
>A Petition might be considered badly formed if it does not meet these
>requirements. Possible ways in which it may fail include the failure
>to include one of the above items, or the inclusion of a Case which
>cannot be sensibly decided, or of a Curfew that is too soon for the
>Court to sensibly decide the Case. Since Cases are likely to be
>complex and controversial, it is advised that the Curfew allows a time
>of two weeks at the very least. (The total default time for a Hearing
>as described elsewhere comes to nine days.)
>
>The Court will provide a verdict of either true, false or undecided by
>the Curfew time at the very latest, unless the Petition is found to be
>badly formed, or no Deciding Nomic for the Case can be found, in both
>which circumstances a Decision of undecided is returned as soon as
>this conclusion has been reached.
>
>The Petitioner is not *required* to do anything further, but there are
>conventions that should be followed in order for the Court to be used
>in an effective manner. These are documented in a separate section.
>
>_The Service Required Of A Member_
>
>If a Council Member receives a request to deal with a Petition from
>the Magistrate, it has two days (forty-eight hours) to accept this
>request by sending an e-mail clearly identified as an Acceptance to
>the Internomic mailing list and to the Petitioning Address. If it does
>not do so, or if it explicitly states that it will not do so, it is
>said to have "Declined" the Request.
>
>An "Acceptance" is a formal document that promises that a
>Council Member, the "Deciding Nomic", will decide a particular Case. A
>well-formed Acceptance includes:
>- A contact e-mail address (the "Deciding Address".)
>- The phrase "This Hearing is now in session".
>
>Members are encouraged to Decline only if it happens to be a
>particularly bad time for them, or if they feel the time that the
>Curfew allows is too short. Most of the time, Members will be expected
>to accept the requests they receive.
>
>Once a Hearing has started, the Deciding Nomic is required to provide
>a Decision by a certain time, in the form of an clearly identified
>e-mail which must also be forwarded to the Internomic mailing list. If
>it feels it such action is appropriate because of the complexity of
>the Case, then it may extend this time further into the future by
>stating that it desires to do so. The default time (before any
>extensions are made) is seven days (one hundred and sixty-eight hours)
>after the Hearing starts.
>
>A "Decision" is a formal document consisting of a conclusion that the
>Case should be found to be true, false, or undecided. This conclusion
>may be accompanied by the reasoning that led to it, and it is
>encouraged that this should occur, but such reasoning is not formally
>required.
>
>If the Deciding Nomic does not make a Decision by the time specified
>above, or additionally, by the Curfew time, then the Nomic is said to
>have Defaulted, in which case a trivial Decision of undecided is
>returned by default.
>
>The Deciding Nomic is not *required* to do anything further, but there
>are conventions that should be followed in order for the Court to be
>used in an effective manner. These are documented in the following
>separate section.
>
>_Conventions_
>
>It is expected that any Case taken to the InCJ will be controversial
>and will arouse different opinions amongst the players of the
>Petitioning Nomic. It is hoped that the Deciding Nomic will be able to
>be as objective and unbiased as possible in making its decision. (It is
>expected that the Deciding Nomic will pick a single representative in
>order to decide the Case on its behalf, but that is a matter for the
>Rules of that Council Member.)
>
>However, the Deciding Nomic may be unfamiliar with the issues involved
>in the Case. Because of this, it is encouraged that it ask questions
>about matters of which is uncertain, and information with which it has
>not been furnished. Everyone else interested in the Hearing (those on
>the Petitioning address, which will probably be the players of the
>Petitioning Nomic) is encouraged to answer these questions. (The
>Petition is required to provide Evidence and Arguments For and Against
>to give the Deciding Nomic a good starting point.) A Hearing should be
>a discussion in which all interested parties participate throughout,
>including the Deciding Nomic.
>
>Subjective opinions and interpretations are welcome (although attempts
>to mislead the Deciding Nomic as to the facts are strongly
>discouraged) since it is the job only of the Deciding Nomic to make a
>balanced decision having heard and taken into account all of the
>relevant arguments.
>
>To head off possible misunderstandings and mistakes it is very
>strongly encouraged that the Deciding Nomic should address the Court
>some reasonable time before it intends to make its formal Decision,
>explaining clearly what that decision will be and the reasoning behind
>it. This will give all interested parties the chance to correct any
>actual errors in understanding, and to offer any new evidence that may
>seem relevant in the light of the provisional decision. If the
>Deciding Nomic is satisfied that its Decision is still reasonable, it
>should proceed to make it formally. If not, it may wish to reopen
>discussion and to repeat the above process at a later date. The time
>at which the Decision is due can be extended if necessary, of course.
>

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

Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 22:40:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Dangling

If it is the case that 5 buildings started dangling because of the
recent flood, the randomly chosen buildings are:

Hall of Elders
snowgod's beach cottage
The Courthouse
Niccolo Flychuck's House
Cowtown Hotel

CnH's house is dangling from a previous flood.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:46:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blackmail and other official stuff

> >I hereby transfer A$500 to snowgod for the safew return of my Whamiol.
> My point being made, I hereby transfer A$499 back to Habeous Corpus and ask
> him to stand up and take a bow for his fine performance.
	**applause**

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 23:06:36 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Frobnotzer

I am attaching the titanium node of my Pyraic Frobnotzer to the first
occurrance of the phrase "15,000 A$" in Rule 1344.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:41:53 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: water, water, everywhere... 

At 05:55 PM 04-12-96 -0600, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
>By my count, there were four non-vacationing priests on december 1.
>
>snowgod
>Calvin N Hobbes
>Bascule
>Guy Fawkes
>
>Of these, only Calvin and I prayed to forstall the floods.  If any 
>other priests prayed or were on vacation, please state such.  Otherwise, 
>five more buildings in Acka should be dangling.
>
>Guy Fawkes
>disgusted with this heathen state of ours :)

Hold it! Snowgod did pray! (see below). This means only Bascule is at fault.

>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: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:43:32 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: water, water, everywhere... 

Excuse me. What I mean to say was that snowgod did make it on time as far as
I can tell, his time stamp was good (11 somthing).

Are we playing by a specific time zone or not?

CnH
puzzled

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:50:03 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Help with my house! 

Snowgod has offered to help put my house back. Malenkai, would you give us a
hand? Or someone with wings please?

CnH
who did his praying this time

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:12:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Score Report

On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Since the last score report:
> Habeous and snowgod lost 1 more point each on Dec 3 for the whamiols;

why is snowgod losing these points?  Since he buried it, that whamiol has 
been unowned, I thought.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:28:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Senate vote on internomic 315, 316

> The senate is dangerously close to being held in Contempt, though I believe
> it is unintentional.  Voting results for Internomic P315 and P316 have not
> beern made publically knowable by the senate in accordance with R720
> (section 3) which states:
> 
> >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.
 [...]
> I know the senate has reached a decision so this is just a formality.
> However, it could be a costly formality for the senators... A$100 or three
> days in Gaol.  

OK, the senate voted against both internomic props 315 and 316; the vote was
3-1 against 315 (with my vote the only YES) and 4-0 against 316.

/dev/joe
Senator, seat /dev/senate3
Didn't read the new rules he put up on the web page

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:35:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Score Report

> On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Since the last score report:
> > Habeous and snowgod lost 1 more point each on Dec 3 for the whamiols;
> 
> why is snowgod losing these points?  Since he buried it, that whamiol has 
> been unowned, I thought.

He bought Malenkai's Whamiol (which he won from the machine that goes *ping*)
for A$90 before it ever whammed Malenkai.

Habeous has his first whamiol back, so if no new player becomes active by
10:08 (or whatever time it is) tomorrow he will lose 2 more points and
snowgod will lose one.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:45:02 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Awards

I am awarding Malenkai and Niccolo Flychuck each a silver stripe.

/dev/joe
Senator

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #377
*******************************