Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #378
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, December 5 1996      Volume 01 : Number 378

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:37:11 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: VRML 

I am almost finished with a VRML model of our fine city.  For a preview (no
VRML browser required) as well as link to VRML info vist
http://www.alaska.net/~snowgod/acka/vrml

Thanks, and enjoy,
snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:39:24 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling 

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

>Cowtown Hotel

Does the whole pond dangle or just the Hotel, and if the whole pond
dangles, how does the Hotel manage to stay inside the water?  How does the
pond come out of the ground?  Mr AckaPhysicist?

snowgod
who didn't read the time zone rule before posting his prayer.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 01:42:59 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Re-org

RFC
Re-org I
Malenkai

[gist:

There is some debate about rule tiers.  I propose to remove the 
immutable/mutable distinction.  The goal is to simplify the rules.  I
claim the distinction adds no value, and actually clutters the rules,
and provides a barrier to moving to another scheme such as power.  I
do not believe we will ever go to another system in a fell swoop, but
must evolve there.  Moreover, I believe breaking down the current system
is the first step towards that migration, whatever that may be.  This
RFC does not change the 2/3 thing, or change voting in any way.

One argument is that the immutability of certain rules provides additional
protection for those rules, or it should provide such.  The reality is
that there is no protection for such in our current game, but lets assume
that there is.  Lets look at what we are actually protecting, and what
those 100s rules do.

Not much really.  The only real important ones are R 111, which allows 
you to quit, and the proposal ones.  Why are some proposal rules immutable,
and others, like R 491, not?  Why is voting mutable?  R 491 used to be
an immutable R 103; we've lived with it mutable for a while.  All I
agree with is that these things should be at the top of the rule list.

I simply propose to group all the proposal and voting stuff in one place,
and combine all the other 100 level rules into 1 rule (101).

I have also proposed renumbering a boatload of rules.  It will look
drastic from what we are used to, but in the long run, I claim it will
make more sense, and be easier for a newbie to understand, or at least
navigate, the rules.

Sorry for the length, all comments appreciated.
]

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

Create a new rule with the following text:

{{

perform the following actions in the order specified:

[get rid of R 101's binding mutability on the low number rules, and 
make them all mutable.]

Transmute R 101 to mutable.
Amend R 101 to remove its last sentence.
Transmute all rules which are not mutable to mutable.

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

[fold R 101, 110, 111, 115, 592 into 101]

Amend R 101 so that its title is "The Game of Ackanomic", and so that
its text is:

"
      Ackanomic is a self-modifying game of rules without end.  All
players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form
in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in accordance with
currently existing game custom.

     The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in
the rules.  Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and
shall only have those effects, as specified by the rules.  Whatever is
not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however, is
permitted and unregulated.  Game Custom, Spirit of the Game, and
Lingusitic Interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated
or part of the game state.

     The Game consists of a sequence of "Cycles".  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 achieving a winning condition that
is defined by the Rules.  A player may not win the Game of Ackanomic. 
A player always has the option to leave the Game of Ackanomic.  

     This rule has precedence over all other rules.
"

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

Repeal R 108, "Mutable/Immutable Inconsistencies" [nuke the axe]
Repeal R 110, "The Game and Winning" [folded into R 101]
Repeal R 111, "Leaving The Game" [folded into R 101]
Repeal R 115, "Permissibility Of The Unprohibited" [folded into R 101]
Repeal R 113, "Rule Changes That Affect Rule Changing Rules" [do we 
need this?]
Repeal R 592, "Protection" [folded into R 101]

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

[bring back Rule Changes to 103 where it belongs, merge in the parts
of R 106 that apply to rule changes, remove transmutation, and remove
R 106.  Point to R 104 explictly for clarity]

Amend R 491 so that its title is "Proposals and Rule Changes", and
so that its text is:

"
      A proposal is any collection of text designated as a proposal,
submitted and distributed as described in Rule 104. If a proposal is
accepted, any valid rule changes in the proposal are applied, one at a
time, in the order in which they appear, starting at the time its
tabulated voting results are officially reported.  This is considered
the "time of application", or "when the rule changes are applied". 
 
      A rule change is a description of a game effect.  A rule change
is valid if it describes the creation of a new rule, the amendment of
an existing rule, the repeal of an existing rule, or the renumbering of
an existing rule. If an accepted proposal does not refer to amending,
repealing, or creating rules, then it is treated a valid rule change to
create a new rule with the entire body of the proposal as its text; this
implicit creation of a new rule is only applied in the case defined in
this sentence. If an amendment to a rule does not unambiguously describe
the amendment to take place, it is not a valid rule change. Rule changes
not defined as valid by the rules are invalid. 

      When a valid rule change takes effect, at its time of application,
the effect described by the rule change happens. The adoption of an
invalid rule change has no effect. 

      No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a
time before the generation of the effect. A rule change may not have
any effects retroactive to before the time of its application. 
"

Renumber R 491 to 103.
Repeal R 106, "When Proposals Can Take Effect"

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

[merge R 104 and R 105; make the language a little more concrete]

Repeal R 105, "Proposals Must Be Written Down"
Amend R 104, "Adopting Proposals" to read:

"
      Proposals are made by e-mailing them to the Promoter, who shall 
distribute them to the players to be voted on. Accepted proposals must
guide play in the form in which they were distributed to the players. 

      All such proposals shall be voted on, unless they are retracted,
nullified, or deemed invalid in accordance with the Rules. In these cases,
they are removed from consideration, and are considered to be neither
accepted or rejected. 

      When a proposal's prescribed voting period ends, or all players have
cast a vote on a proposal, then that proposal is accepted if a quorum has
been achieved and the required number of YES votes were cast on the
proposal. 
"

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

[bring the voting rule right up here next, between submitting proposals,
and quorum and acting players]

Amend R 390 so that its title is "Voting on Proposals".
Renumber R 390 to 106.

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

Renumber R 1089.2 "When Score Changes Take Effect" to 208.

[put this puppy near 207]

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

Amend R 210 so that its title is "Resolving Precedence Conflicts", and
to replace

"
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or
more immutable rules conflict with one another
"

with

"
If two or more rules conflict with one another
"

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

[put the judgement rules back where they belong, with their brothers]

Renumber R 589, "Invoking Judgement" to 211.
Renumber R 588, "Selecting A Judge" to 212.
Renumber R 569, "Overturning Judgements" to 217.

[clarify temporal stuff about CFJs, fold the CFJ part of old R 106 into
here]

Amend R 215, "Judgements Must Accord With The Rules", to read:

      All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect
at the time jusgement was invoked, and with respect to the game state at
that time.  When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the
statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently
existing game custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision.

      A statement verified (or nullified) by judgement applies
retroactively to any past game situation it may concern. 

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

[put all the winning conditions in one place]

Amend R 422 so that its title is "Winning by Points".
Renumber R 422 to 220.

Amend R 798 so that its title is "Winning by Palindrome".
Renumber R 798 to R 221.

Amend R 1430 so that its title is "Winning by Finding the Crystal Chalice"
Renumber R 1430 to 222.

Renumber R 1243, "Chartreuse Goose" to R 235.

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

[put all the office stuff in one place]

##todo
Starting with R 401, move all of pTang's office standardization rules
to 401, 402, etc, then move all the offices into the 400s after that
stuff, so they are in one place.  The exception would be the scientist
stuff
##

[put all the financial stuff in one place, viz the high 400s.  Basically
that means renumbering a few things already in the 400s, and moving
"in Debt" and "Bond Options" up there.]

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

[misc consolidations]

Amend 832, "Postmaster", to add the following text after the second
paragraph:

"
      A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to
all registered Players who subscribe to the official mailing list.  The
subject line of such messages should contain the customary "Ackanomic:"
or "Acka:" 
"

Repeal R 622, "Customary Subject Line".

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

##todo:
consolidate Rule naming, numbering, and authorship credit
##

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

##todo:

replace all occurrances of R 390 with R 106 in the ruleset.  Remove
all occurrances of R 106 in other rules.  Check for all occurances of
references to renumbered rules, and all precedence claims, and all
reference to "mutable" and "immutable".  Fortunately, Mohammed has done
some of this already.
##

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

Remove the attribute of "Mutable" from all rules.

}}

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 01:49:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Help with my house!

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

I don't have wings, but if I ever gain the privilege to create
inventions, I shall invent a Gravational Monopole Gadget that can be
added to any building which is dangling, and will cause the earth to fall
to it, removing the dangling problem.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 01:51:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Wizard Seat

I am starting the auction for the vacant wizard seat.  It ends
3 days from the date of this post.

I shall also bid A$227.

Malenaki
Chief Cheese

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:09:31 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Help with my house! 

>I don't have wings, but if I ever gain the privilege to create
>inventions, I shall invent a Gravational Monopole Gadget that can be
>added to any building which is dangling, and will cause the earth to fall
>to it, removing the dangling problem.

Certainly this wonderful device shouyld be coin operated, or require days
of labourous hand crank turning or some such.  A device this powerful
without limits will cause the earth very soon to impact the universe where
it ends (or begins) at the edge of the imperfection.  This of course would
seriously much with out pressure variations, and possibly send acka
spiraling all over the place as pressure reorganizes itself and the earth
continues to fall to this device which will be alternate3ly up down left
and right.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:26:17 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1512

On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1512 -- Wed 4 Dec 17:34 CST 1996
> Allowing More Unique Party Chess Pieces
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> Add the following text to rule 985.1, section 3, immediately after 
> subsection H.
> 
> I.  A PartyChessPieceDefrule may define conditions under which the 
> position on the Party Board of a piece it defines enhances or restricts the 
> moves or captures available to other pieces.  PartyChessPieceDef rules defer 
> to such enhancements or restrictions.
> 
> 
I believe this is already  implicit in the Party Chess rules. But if its
explicit existence encourages creative pieces, so be it.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:28:27 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: VRML... Oh boy! 

At 09:37 PM 04-12-96 -0900, Acting Tabulator wrote:
>I am almost finished with a VRML model of our fine city.  For a preview (no
>VRML browser required) as well as link to VRML info vist
>http://www.alaska.net/~snowgod/acka/vrml
>
>Thanks, and enjoy,
>snowgod

Snowgod

It is I and everyone who should thank you! This is wonderful and I really
can't wait till it's done. It really does add something to see that Senate
building being "up". Wow.

If you need any help, please don't hesitate to ask here. I'm sure plenty of
people would love to give you a hand. I noticed you left this open ended for
homes and such.

CnH

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:43:24 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1505 - Retracting this one

I am retracting P1505 due to its similarity to P1504 by a fellow member of
the Vulcan Party.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:45:46 -0600 (CST)
> From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: Proposal 1505
> 
> 
> Proposal 1505 -- Tue 3 Dec 9:44 CST 1996
> Voting with Bonus Votes
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> In R793, add the following text as section II D:
> "Casting a Bonus Vote by rule 1386."
> 
> In R1269 replce all occureces of "Bonus-Vote" with "Bonus Vote"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:13:19 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: WWW web site

I've been having a lot of problems hooking up with the web site in the past two days.  Has anyone else been having any problems?

Jammer

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:47:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1511

> > Proposal 1511 -- Wed 4 Dec 17:34 CST 1996
> > Steal
> > Clairence (Clair Anthony Vigilone)
> 
> This proposal won't work, and should be retracted.

True. Nonetheless, it's pretty harfy for a new player.

b

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:54:48 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1511 

>> > Proposal 1511 -- Wed 4 Dec 17:34 CST 1996
>> > Steal
>> > Clairence (Clair Anthony Vigilone)
>>
>> This proposal won't work, and should be retracted.
>
>True. Nonetheless, it's pretty harfy for a new player.
>
>b

Even though it won't work, and I'll have to vote NO if it's not retracted,
I quite enjoyed the concept and the effort that a new player put into it.
I have a feeling we are gopnna have to watch out for Clairence or he'll
have us all covering our scores!

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:29:32 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: More VRML 

In the model of Ackanomic I am building, I had to switch the locations of
the library and the afterlife, because the Afterlife as I have it imagined
(and as I am building it) would end up competing with the senate building
next door for valuable real estate, and on top of that it makes for a messy
sky line -Ick!  Anyhow, with the Afterlife where the library goes and vice
versa everything looks lovely and balances out nicely.  In other news, I am
adding a VRML version of the gallery in the Rotunda (sp?) of the senate
building.

Individual player houses are going to be fairly generic to start with,
except for a couple of places where my imagination got the best of me.  I
am, hoever, more than willing to work with individual players in designing
the look that they would like for their house.

Also, to save space, building interiors are not going to be included in the
model (with a couple of exceptions). When a building needs an interior I
will most likely create a seperate model and have it hyperlinked from the
main city model (think of the city as a map).  For best results I imagine
you should download a copy of the main city to your local computer (should
run about 650k), that way you will only have to do it once.  Then, when you
need to access another part (such as an interior) you can click on the
hotspot and your VRML browser will take you where you need to go (interior
models will be smaller and download time won't be a hasle for individual
cases).

Finally, I am hiding a few "Easter Eggs" for you guys to find in the model.
I will probably link these to a treasure map and have our first real live
treasure hunt.  But more about that later.....

It's late, goodnight.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:18:28 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re-org

While I do not entirely agree with Malenkai that the Immutables hamper the
 introduction of a system like Power, I agree with most of his other points. 
The Immutables have long lost their meaning, and re-organization is necessary.

I'd like to take this opprtunity to introduce my idea for a new tier system. My
intention is to support Malenkai's proposal, and should it pass, make a 
proposal that will introduce this system. This is an extremely rough draft, 
so please bear with me.

Every rule and every proposal has a QT (which stands, at least in my mind for 
Quantum Tier) level. A QT level is always a positive integer.
All rules currently in existence, including this one, have a QT level of 2.

The loweset QT level is 1. 

If a proposal does not state its own QT level than its QT level is 2.

A proposal is accepted if and only if the number of Yes Votes divided by 
the total number of Yes and No votes is equal to or greater than
QT/(QT+1) , where QT is equal to that proposal's QT level.

{{[now here's some stuff that should probably go into valid rule changes]}}

When a rule is created by a proposal it has the same QT level as the proposal 
which created it. A proposal with a given QT level can only ammend rules
whose QT level is less than or equal to the QT level of 
that proposal.

A proposal to change the QT level of a rule from QT level X to QT level Y, 
must have a QT level equal to or greater than the greater of (X,Y).

One exception I'd like to make for proposal with a QT level of 1 is in legal 
voting actions. 
That is to append the sentence:
"The only legal voting action for a proposal with QT level 1 is a vote cast 
by a player."

Precedence {{[I'm just gonna outline it here]}}
Within the same QT level, keep the same precedence rule we have now.
Between adjacent QT levels, keep the same relation we now have 
between mutables and immutables.

When the difference between QT level is equal to or greater than 2, 
the rule with the higher QT level always takes precedence.
QT levels shouldbe considered before rule numbers.

While in principle there is an infinite number of levels here, 
I doubt we'd ever go beyond a QT level of 4. 
I suppose even 5 would be possible. 
A QT level of 2 is the same as the currently mutable rules. And indeed, 
all such refferences should be changed,
and would be, once this is drafted into a full fledged RFC.
A QT level of 1 requires half the Votes to be Yes Votes, however, 
I'd like to eliminate any kind of bonus votes, party 
unity votes, tammany, etc. for such proposals, so it  balances out.  One
of the reasons for this, is that I wanted to keep the 2/3 requirement  
for QT level 2 proposals.  IF many players feel that a simple majority
should be more than half, then I'll explicitly state this exception for
 Qt level 1 proposals. 
QT level 3 would require 3/4 75% yes votes, which seems a reasonable next
level.
From here on the level are bunching closer together.
QT level 4 requires 80%
QT level 5 requires 83.333%

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 07:19:21 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Whamiol

I graciously ack the transfer of A$499 from snowgod to myself.

I hope you enjoy that A$1, snowgod.  I'll make sure you choke on it
someday.:)

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 07:19:21 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Whamiol

I graciously ack the transfer of A$499 from snowgod to myself.

I hope you enjoy that A$1, snowgod.  I'll make sure you choke on it
someday.:)

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 07:19:21 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Welcome!

I would like to take this oportunity to welcome all our new players to
the game,  and urge them to not just sit on the sidelines ,  but jump
right in there and become active.

There are two very good reasons  for my urging:  As a relative newcomer
to Nomics in genreal,  I have found that the only real way to understand
the workings of this game is to become active in as many aspects as you
can,  and don't worry about making mistakes.  No one here (In Ackanomic
anyway) will seriously flame you if you step on some sacred cows (eating
grass or therwise).  Even those who take this game more seriously than
most (you know who you are) and are quick to criticize poorly written
Proposals or Judgements are more willing to help make it better than just
ridicule other Players.  Of course one Player's definition of "better"
doesn't always agree with another's. :)

Clairence is off to a good start with a nice,  original Rule,  but I urge
em to retract it,  for it is not passable in its present form.  Better to
eat 2 points now than to lose 7 points later.  

The second reason is more personal,  and therefore more gratifying. Now
that I have both my Whamiols,  as soon as you all become active Players, 
I get a ton of new points.  Seeing as my Proposal writing has been a
little off lately due to the holidays and my work schedule,  I really
could use them.  

So come on! get in there and write something clever and original (or
stupid and self serving) and VOTE!

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 07:19:21 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Welcome!

I would like to take this oportunity to welcome all our new players to
the game,  and urge them to not just sit on the sidelines ,  but jump
right in there and become active.

There are two very good reasons  for my urging:  As a relative newcomer
to Nomics in genreal,  I have found that the only real way to understand
the workings of this game is to become active in as many aspects as you
can,  and don't worry about making mistakes.  No one here (In Ackanomic
anyway) will seriously flame you if you step on some sacred cows (eating
grass or therwise).  Even those who take this game more seriously than
most (you know who you are) and are quick to criticize poorly written
Proposals or Judgements are more willing to help make it better than just
ridicule other Players.  Of course one Player's definition of "better"
doesn't always agree with another's. :)

Clairence is off to a good start with a nice,  original Rule,  but I urge
em to retract it,  for it is not passable in its present form.  Better to
eat 2 points now than to lose 7 points later.  

The second reason is more personal,  and therefore more gratifying. Now
that I have both my Whamiols,  as soon as you all become active Players, 
I get a ton of new points.  Seeing as my Proposal writing has been a
little off lately due to the holidays and my work schedule,  I really
could use them.  

So come on! get in there and write something clever and original (or
stupid and self serving) and VOTE!

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:19:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1515

Proposal 1515 -- Thu 5 Dec 7:12 CST 1996
Auntie Em!  Auntie Em!
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Insert the following text immediatlely before the last clause of Rule 1253:

Whenever a Tornado sweeps through Acka, each player's or haunted 
house that is dangling from its emergency tether stands a separate 50% chance 
of losing its tether and being swept off the face of Acka.  The player or 
undead shall retain possession or haunt of the land the building was 
sitting on.  A player so bereaved of shelter may rebuild his house for 
A$100, and he must name it upon its reconstruction.  Until such time, he 
shall be issued a small tent for use as his Home.

If the house belonged to a player who was on vacation, that player shall 
be assumed to be vacationing in a far-off land with a two-letter name.  
Upon his return, he may submit a report containing the name of this far-off 
land and a summary of his journeys there.  If he does so within seven 
days of his return, he shall receive five points.

A dangling house may be saved from this chance of being blown away if 
within the five days preceding the tornado, a Priest in good standing 
with the weather gods blessed the house.  Such a blessing must state that 
which house is being blessed and contain at least two words of at least 
six syllables.  A priest is said to be in good standing with the weather 
gods if he posted a prayer of deliverance, as defined by the rules, at 
the beginning of the current calendar month.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:20:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1516

Proposal 1516 -- Thu 5 Dec 7:13 CST 1996
Return of the Voting Gnome!!!
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal.  Perform the following actions in the order 
they appear.

Create a new rule, entitled "The Voting Gnome" with text identical to that
had by rule 355 immediately before its September 23, 1996, repeal.

Amend Rule 1516 by renumbering it to Rule 355.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:20:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1517

Proposal 1517 -- Thu 5 Dec 7:13 CST 1996
If a Thousand Years is like a Day in the Eyes of the Lord, Can't We Have 
	a Few Extra Hours?
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal.

Replace the phrase, "on the first of each month," found in Rule 1349 with 
"sometime during the first three days of each month"

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:21:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1518

Proposal 1518 -- Thu 5 Dec 7:13 CST 1996
More Awards for Malenkai
/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)

Amend Rule 549, "The Blue Cross" as follows:

Change the last sentence of section 2 to read:
  "Ruby Slippers, Gold Stripes, Silver Stripes, and Blue Crosses are
   nameless, nontradeable entities, and are medals."

Change section 4 to read:
"4. a. A player with a Blue Cross Rank of 20 or more qualifies for a Blue
       Cross.
    b. For each 160 points of Blue Cross Rank above 20 that a player has, he
       qualifies for a Ruby Slipper.
    c. For each 40 points of Blue Cross Rank a player with a Blue Cross has
       above that required for his Blue Cross and all his Ruby Slippers, he
       qualifies for a Gold Stripe.
    d. For each 10 points of Blue Cross Rank a player with a Blue Cross has
       beyond that required for his Blue Cross and all his Ruby Slippers and
       Gold Stripes, he qualifies for a silver stripe."

In section 5, change "Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and/or Gold Stripes"
to "medals".

In section 6, change "one Gold Stripe" to "one Gold Stripe or Ruby Slipper"
and change "four Gold Stripes" to "one Ruby Slipper" and add at the end:
  "A player with at least two Ruby Slippers may wear them on his feet and
   may click them together to transport himself to Kansas, by publicly
   announcing the action, but only if he is not wearing any other form of
   footwear, and only if Kansas is a place defined in the rules, and
   only once per calendar month.  Ruby Slippers are magical, so they adjust
   to fit left and right feet, and any size feet, as needed."

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:21:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1519

Proposal 1519 -- Thu 5 Dec 7:14 CST 1996
The Size of Things
Jammer (John Lotz)

I wish to make a modest proposal.

All Items in Acka have a size measured in thingees.

Negligible		0 Thingees
Small			1 Thingees
Medium		2 Thingees
Large			4 Thingees
Huge			5 Thingees
Really Huge	6 Thingees

The significance of this is that all structures and land have a capacity measured in Thingees as well;
a Space in a structure holds 10 Thingees
a Kaa of land holds 25 Thingeess
A Tower holds 6 Thingees 

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:24:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: an omen

What does it mean when two non-collaborating players submit Wizard of Oz 
allusions in their proposals in the same docket?

The end is near.

Guy Fawkes
(as always) wasting bandwidth

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:31:25 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: (Acka) RE: WWW web site

>
>I've been having a lot of problems hooking up with the web site in the past
>two days.  Has anyone else been having any problems?
>
>Jammer

I have had no trouble whatsoever.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:29:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Grab-a-Donkey II; round 6

Round six of Grab-a-Donkey II, Revenge of the Mules, is beginning!

The results of round 5:

Habeous Corpus and snowgod grabbed Bascule's donkey and bounced.
Mohammed successfully grabbed Habeous Corpus' donkey.
Bascule grabbed breadbox, who covered.
ThinMan and mr cwm covered.
fnord admired.

Current GAL:

Mohammed (+1)
snowgod
mr cwm
Bascule (+1)
ThinMan (+1)
fnord
breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 05:29:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1516

> Proposal 1516 -- Thu 5 Dec 7:13 CST 1996
> Return of the Voting Gnome!!!
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

My, my. May I ask, Guy Fawkes, why you think of bringing back the
Voting Gnome now, after such a determined effort to kill it? Surely
you don't think that the absence of Wayne is by itself enough? Don't
get me wrong, I support your effort - I'm just curious....

(By the way, for any new players: the text of repealed rule 355 can
be found on the Ackanomic web page under "Repealed Rules".)

b

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:36:35 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Fictionary

>
>I have seen the following express a desire to play Fictionary:
>
>/dev/joe
>Habeous Corpus
>Malenkai
>snowgod
>
>I am sure others have that I have missed.  If you wish to play Fictionary,
>and are not on this list, reply to this message.  Lets start the game
>with the above players, and anyone who replies to this message by
>Dec 05, 18:00 EST (assuming we get one more).  Seem reasonable?

I guess my message disappeared somewhere along the line.  I am
interested in playing Fictionary, and also in that Rusty Lantern
thingy.

Cheers,

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:36:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1516

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Proposal 1516 -- Thu 5 Dec 7:13 CST 1996
> > Return of the Voting Gnome!!!
> > Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> My, my. May I ask, Guy Fawkes, why you think of bringing back the
> Voting Gnome now, after such a determined effort to kill it? Surely
> you don't think that the absence of Wayne is by itself enough? Don't
> get me wrong, I support your effort - I'm just curious....

Malenkai sacrificed the Gnome for the Goose.  The Goose passed by the 
narrowest of margins, and many of those YES voters, I think, did not 
entirely support the gnome-killing but did like the Goose.  At any rate, 
with UW gone, there may be a chance.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:39:40 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Offiical (Reprise)

Ackazens,

It seems that my announcement of my return from vacation may be
among those messages that for whatever reason did not get delivered.
Therefore, I once again remove myself from vacation.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:41:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: to the Registrar

Please add my name to the list of mentor volunteers.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:51:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re-org

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> A proposal to change the QT level of a rule from QT level X to QT level Y, 
> must have a QT level equal to or greater than the greater of (X,Y).

Once again, my favorite ploy may be applicable here...

Create a new rule of QT1, with text as shown between the "----" delimiters
- ----
The official name of this game is Leroy.
{{This rule's QT shall be changed to 42.}}  
- ----
 
> Precedence {{[I'm just gonna outline it here]}}
> Within the same QT level, keep the same precedence rule we have now.
> Between adjacent QT levels, keep the same relation we now have 
> between mutables and immutables.

With a large assortment of tiers, keeping the "great axe" relationship 
could create messes of threads too tricky to follow.  Usually, the great 
axe's applicability isn't hard to determine, but often it's some time 
after the conflict arises that anyone notices.
 
Guy Fawkes
who is considering grouping rules together by content (importance could 
be worked in, too)

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:02:08 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re-org

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> who is considering grouping rules together by content (importance could
> be worked in, too)

My re-org attempts to group rules by content.  That is the whole point.
Removing the immutables is just a side thing, really.

I would personally be interested if there is support and/or bugs in the
re-org before developing the next generation system.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 09:03:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1516

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> Malenkai sacrificed the Gnome for the Goose.  The Goose passed by the
> narrowest of margins, and many of those YES voters, I think, did not
> entirely support the gnome-killing but did like the Goose.  At any rate,
> with UW gone, there may be a chance.

I thought it was the other way around, players supported the Gnome killing
but did not really like the Goose.  It was an experiment in bi-partisan
politics.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:47:27 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: to the Registrar

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Please add my name to the list of mentor volunteers.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 
Thanks.

In less than 24 hours the Mentors page will be updated with the all the
current information

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:49:02 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: WWW web site 

>I've been having a lot of problems hooking up with the web site in the past
two days.  Has anyone else been >having any problems?

No, and I've spent a lot of time there lately...

Robert Sevin, who may or may not be...
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

ps - Try and include Acka in the subject line of your messages

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:52:00 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Super-User)
Subject: Acka: *ping* 

Today is Thursday, the 5th day of December, in the Year of Our Lord 1996,
and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.
Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 2 times.

Malenkai
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:02:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  up for grabs, one Scientist

I am willing to rent the Office of Wizard to anyone for the low, low 
price of A$35 for a period of two weeks.  The first person who replies to 
this gets the Office, so reply now!

If nobody holds the office, it's going to be re-Auctioned.  I'm not sure 
what'll happen if someone rents it from me.  Presumably they'll be Wizard 
for a while.

If the currently pending auction results in the renter's not being able to
hold on to the Office, then I will happily refund the A$35 to the 
renter.  You've got nothing to lose!

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 11:40:38 -0800
From: "Eric L. Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forming a new political party

Mitchell Harding wrote:
> 
> I am going to form a new political party. I have investigated the three
> currently existing political parties, and none of them fit my ideology
> closely enough for me to join them. Therefore, I am looking for players who
> wish to join a new party. Here is what I have come up with so far:
> 
> Name (tentative): Harf
> (etc., etc.)

Being a new (and so far very confused) member of Ackanomic, I like the idea
of a party devoted to making the game easier for new players.

How do I join?

AirHead

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #378
*******************************