Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #379
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, December 5 1996      Volume 01 : Number 379

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 12:45:15 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1516

Malenkai wrote:

>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.

At the least, Malenkai has reprised the comments he made at that time.
There were several attempts to get rid of the Gnome before it got
packaged with the goose, and I believe some of them came very close to
passing.  The playership of Acka has changed substantially since that
time, but I, at least, strongly oppose reintroducing the Gnome.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:53:51 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re-org

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 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.}}

I specifically wrote that to change a QT level the proposal needs to be
the higher QT level of the two. It can easily worded to make that rule
change void. In fact, my outline already makes it void.

  
> ----
> 
> > 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)

Rule Suites could be used for that.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:55:25 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re-org

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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.

Naturally. And I believe I stated a similar sentiment. Finish one
reorganization first, then go on to the next. No harm in discussing it
various organizations, though.

I'll take some more time tomorrow to comment on your RFC.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 12:50:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Frobnotzer

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

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:57:35 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  up for grabs, one Scientist

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 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!

I'll take you up on it, assuming it's legal.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> 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 12:58:48 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  up for grabs, one Scientist

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > 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!
> 
> I'll take you up on it, assuming it's legal.

I believe it is legal, but once the Auction is over, the office is
transferred to the winner of the Auction in accordance with R 1023, so
you will only have it for 2 days or so, unless you win the auction.

Chief Cheese

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:24:13 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: On Simple Majority rule

Mohammed wrote:

[I wrote:]
>> We are up to revision 7 of R491, but a "rule change" is still "a
>> description of a game effect."  Whether the example proposal describes
>> more than one game effect is debatable, but I think that the answer
>> should be that it does not.
>> 
>> The braces are irrelevant; I could write the same proposal, not much
>> longer, without them.  If one version contained multiple rule changes,
>> then so would the other.  The question, therefore, is whether
>> "encapsulated" descriptions of game effects qualify as rule changes
>> under the auspices of R491.  There is no game custom to support either
>> side, for multiple-rule-change proposals became allowed before the
>> definition of the term "Rule Change" was changed to its present form.
>	There is ample game custom saying that descriptions of changes 
>embedded within changes are *not* rule changes themselves (in the same 
>context).  Read the rest of rule 491; if indeed every "description of a 
>game effect" that appears in a proposal is a rule change, then we've been 
>breaking the rules for a very long time, in the way we've interpreted 
>the last few hundred proposals...

I did read the rest of R491.  Its saving grace wrt this discussion
is that it defines which "Rule Changes" are "Valid."  Only valid
rule changes take place upon the passage of a proposal, and I think
that that actually covers all of the possible problems with
"encapsulated" text being interpreted as rule changes in the proposals
we have passed during the relevant period.  Those rule changes would
all fail to be valid.  Game custom, therefore, does not tell us
whether those potential rule changes really were invalid (and
unremarked) rule changes, or whether they were not rule changes at all.

>	I don't think that interpreting quoted material differently from 
>non-quoted material is a stretch of normal English usage.  We do it all 
>the time....  Hmm.  Dangerous possibility, this.

I agree.  I just don't think that there is a clear case for one
position over the other.  I would much prefer that "encapsulated"
pieces of proposal text not be eligible for consideration as
independant rule changes.

ThinMan
>

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:35:57 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[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.

Others would have voted against the Goose except for the redeeming
virtue of the associated Gnome killing.  I don't think the UW's
departure has any direct bearing on the matter, either, except
inasmuchas Wayne was a true-blue Gnome hunter.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:34:23 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: RFC Re-org

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
>> 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.}}
>
>I specifically wrote that to change a QT level the proposal needs to be
>the higher QT level of the two. It can easily worded to make that rule
>change void. In fact, my outline already makes it void.

I think you are missing the point, Niccolo.  Your outline puts no
restrictions on what Rules can do -- only on what proposals can do.
GF's example shows how to pass a QT 42 rule with a simple majority:
by passing a QT 1 rule that amends itself to QT 42.  Your outline
has nothing to say about it.

I worked hard on these problems for the defunct Power proposal.  You
need to set up the following scheme, or something similar:

(a) All actions which can affect rules must have a QT or equivalent,
    preferrably based on the QT of an appropriate Rule or Rules.
    Actions performed by all entities (not just Rules and/or
    proposals) must be covered.  Some of the fundamental voting
    and rule changing may need to be modified to facilitate this.

(b) Actions must be forbidden from in any way assigning a QT greater
    than their own to any Rule.

The problem, however, is the old bootstrap dilemma: no rule will be
able to have a greater QT than the one that allows rules to be assigned
a QT.  More on that later.
>  
>> > 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.

I tend to agree with GF about the R108 problem in this context.  Again,
this is an issue to which I have devoted some thought.  I recommend
something like:

a) For rules of the same QT level, the current precedence procedure
   applies.
b) For rules of different QT levels:
  1) If a rule of QT n claims precedence over a rule of QT m, then that
     precedence claim shall be considered valid if and only if n>=m.
     All claims of deference shall be considered valid.
  2) Valid precedence and deference claims are honored, provided that
     they can be unambiguously resolved.
  3) To whatever extent that valid precedence and deference claims do
     not unambiguously determine the precedence, the rule having the
     greatest QT takes precedence.

QT would be essentially the same thing as Power, and I like the
concept.  I think the method of implementation is the real
breakthrough here, though.  pTang1001001sos' idea, which I stuck
with, was to attempt to change everything in one fell swoop.
That was doomed to failure from the start.  This version allows
us to set up the framework and then fit the rules to it.

One of the concerns with Power was that once implemented, it
would be difficult to get rid of, or even to amend.  You could solve
the bootstrap problem and address that concern at the same time by
making the whole thing operate only if a QT 2 rule of a particular
title existed in the rule set.  That would allow for establishment
of the entire framework in a dormant state, then activation with a
a "key" proposal.  Repeal of the "key" proposal would deactivate the
whole scheme.  That could also make the whole project less sensitive
to small numbers of detractors.

ThinMan
>

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:37:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: On Simple Majority rule

> >embedded within changes are *not* rule changes themselves (in the same 
> >context).  Read the rest of rule 491; if indeed every "description of a 
> >game effect" that appears in a proposal is a rule change, then we've been 
> >breaking the rules for a very long time, in the way we've interpreted 
> >the last few hundred proposals...
> 
> I did read the rest of R491.  Its saving grace wrt this discussion
> is that it defines which "Rule Changes" are "Valid."  Only valid
> rule changes take place upon the passage of a proposal, and I think
> that that actually covers all of the possible problems with
> "encapsulated" text being interpreted as rule changes in the proposals
> we have passed during the relevant period.
	You are right.  Stupid Jason.
	However, Rule 1433 contains a phrase describing the deletion of a 
paragraph from it.  That would be a valid rule change.  There may be 
others.  I haven't done research.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:45:21 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Inventor

I'm building an Orbital Mind Control Laser.  It'll be done on Sunday, 
barring unforseen Holidays or Impeachment.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:49:10 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: On Simple Majority rule

Mohammed wrote:

[I wrote:]
>> I did read the rest of R491.  Its saving grace wrt this discussion
>> is that it defines which "Rule Changes" are "Valid."  Only valid
>> rule changes take place upon the passage of a proposal, and I think
>> that that actually covers all of the possible problems with
>> "encapsulated" text being interpreted as rule changes in the proposals
>> we have passed during the relevant period.

>	However, Rule 1433 contains a phrase describing the deletion of a 
>paragraph from it.  That would be a valid rule change.  There may be 
>others.  I haven't done research.

There is no rule 1433.  Not on the web page, at least.  However, I
considered that general class of potential rule changes, too.  Most,
if not all, such repeals and amendments are conditional, and it
has been established that conditional rule changes are not "valid."

I think the same would probably apply to time-delayed rule changes,
though I don't believe that that question has actually been
adjudicated.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:57:29 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Forming a new political party 

>> 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?

At the moment we still need one more player in order to become an official
political party. Once we've got a total of three we just need to send a
public message which says who is in the party, our charter, and a few other
bits of information that I currently don't recall (I'll check out the rule
again soon). 

While we wait for our third member, do you have any suggestsions about the
charter? Additions, revisions, etc?

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:03:20 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forming a new political party 

Robert

Malenkai and I would like to merge the two parties. Bascule is silent so
far. We never hear much from him.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:19:37 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forming a new political party 

>Malenkai and I would like to merge the two parties. Bascule is silent so
>far. We never hear much from him.

Well, what I'd like to know is if there are any parts of my proposed charter
that you disagree with... We need to iron that part out first. The more the
merrier...

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:21:52 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1512

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 PartyChessPieceDef rule 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'm not sure that this amendment will do the trick.  The problem
is with R985.2: "Move- The Swinger moves an on-board piece e controls
from the square it is on to an unoccupied square according the
PartyChessPieceDef rule, defining that piece."

I am assuming that the comma can and should be ignored, otherwise
Party Chess has BIG problems.  Under that assumption, it is certainly
the case that R 985.2 says that moves are performed according
specifically to the particular PCPD rule that defines the moving piece.
The question of deference becomes very tricky there.

My recommendation is to model the move portion of R 985.2 after the
capture portion, which simply says "Capture - The Swinger uses one of
his pieces to perform a capture according to the applicable rules."
In fact, I will write the proposal now.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:30:35 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forming a new political party

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, T Joffrain wrote:

> Robert
> 
> Malenkai and I would like to merge the two parties. Bascule is silent so
> far. We never hear much from him.
> 
> 
And I was hoping to see another Swinger...

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:34:56 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forming a new political party 

>Well, what I'd like to know is if there are any parts of my proposed charter
>that you disagree with... We need to iron that part out first. The more the
>merrier...

None that I know of.
The only thing I was wondering is the name and the age of the party. I know
you've created (are in the process) the Harf party, but FUN is older. It may
not be much, but it is something.

What if the charter of FUN was updated to be just that of Harf?
And what if we changed the name FUN to something else? (I don't like the
name FUN too much either).

Basically, I'm looking for a cool party name. Froznober not accepted.  :)
CnH

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:36:30 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forming a new political party 

AAAArgh!

It's contagious! Get away from me!
Those messages were meant to be private. Sorry guys.

CnH
shoot me now

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:15:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Clair Anthony Viglione)
Subject: My *new* proposal 

OK, here's a proposal that I think will work:

      This rule would be called "ESP Tester". At any time, a person may
tell Guy Fawkes that he/she wants to test his/her ESP. They then tell Guy
Fawkes a number: either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Then, Guy Fawkes will tell the
rest of the group that youi are testing your ESP. When this happens, you
must randomly pick a number: either one, two, three, four, or five and send
it in to the rest of the group. Anyone that does not send in a number is
minus 5 points. Guy Fawkes then tallies the numbers. If the majority of the
numbers is the SAME number the person testing their ESP thought, that
person gets + 10 points. If you fail your ESP test, you are lose 5 points.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:33:01 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: On Simple Majority rule

On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Mohammed wrote:

>	There is ample game custom saying that descriptions of changes 
>embedded within changes are *not* rule changes themselves (in the same 
>context).  Read the rest of rule 491; if indeed every "description of a 
>game effect" that appears in a proposal is a rule change, then we've been 
>breaking the rules for a very long time, in the way we've interpreted 
>the last few hundred proposals...
>	I don't think that interpreting quoted material differently from 
>non-quoted material is a stretch of normal English usage.  We do it all 
>the time....  Hmm.  Dangerous possibility, this.
>

I don't think we're breaking the rules *now* - this is about "what if we
go back to one rule change per proposal" or "what if we go to one rule
change per proposal that proposes a transmutation".  And I think a
"rule change" was defined differently back when one rule change per
proposal was the rule.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:34:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gnome

Friends of the Voting Gnome, Unite!  All who consider themselves Friends 
of the Voting Gnome, email me privately, and I tell you how to bring our 
friend back to life.

Guy Fawkes
Friend of the Voting Gnome

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:55:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC -- players consolidation

[The idea here is manifold: (1) simplify the ruleset; (2) get most of the 
player stuff in one place; (3) define the temporal mechanics of joining 
the game; (4) formalize the rather fuzzy 
system of "player states" we have now; (5) resolve any potential problems 
with the several uses of "new" players throughout the ruleset; (6) Fix 
the little problem that exists now that Bond Promissories never convert 
back to PF's when their owner rejoins the game.  Suggestions 
are welcome -- I'd rather not accidentally open up any old loopholes.  I 
think I covered all the bases and remembered to repeal the subsumed 
rules.  If you see anything, let me know.]

RFC
Players
Guy Fawes (Robert Shimmin)

Perform the following actions, in the order specified.

Create a new rule with text as shown between the "----" delimiters.

- ----
I. [What is a player, and why does it matter?]
A player is any person who is registered as a player.  A player is a 
named, unowable entity.  No person may register as a player more than 
once concurrently.  Anyone is allowed to observe the game and participate 
in discussion of any issue, but a person who is not a player make not 
make proposals, vote on Ackanomic issues, call for judgement, judge, 
score points, win, hold office, or have any duties or responsibilities 
within the game.

II. [Player names]
Every player has exactly one Ackanomic name.  This name must be a string 
of legal characters from three to twenty characters in length.  Neither 
the first nor the last character in this string may be the space character.

A player may change his Ackanomic name, so long as the new name complies 
with all appliccable rules.  This shall be accomplished when the player 
announces his old name, new name, real name, and short explanation of the 
change.  The Registrar shall record the change.  When a player changes their 
Ackanomic name, all Ackanomic business will be changed to follow their 
new name.

When choosing or changing their Ackanomic name, no player may take any 
name previously held by any past or present player, unless they are the person 
who was previously registered under that Ackanomic name [no one could take the 
name pTan1001001sos unless they really were the Mark Nau who held that name 
previously.]  It is the Registrar's duty to make sure all names comply with 
this rule, and it is the Registrar's right to reject any name choosing or 
change which violates it. 

III. [Joining the Game]
A person shall become a player through the following procedure:
1) That person shall contact the Registrar and express their desire to 
join the game.
2) The Registrar shall send the prospective player a welcome packet, the 
contents of which may be defined by other rules; ask them what they wish 
their Ackanomic name to be and how they found out about the game; and 
explain that they will not be registered until they supply, at the very 
least, a valid Ackanomic name.
3) The prospective player shall reply, providing their desired Ackanomic 
name and optionally, how they found out about the game.  If the Registrar 
determines that their desired name is not a valid Ackanomic name, he 
shall explain to them why it is invalid and request that they supply 
another name.  This procedure shall not continue until they supply a 
valid Ackanomic name.
4) The Regitrar shall post a public message containing the joining 
player's real name, email address, Ackanomic name, and if provided, how 
they found out about the game.  Upon this posting, the person described 
in this message is registered as a player.

If the just-registered player did not legally choose the name of an 
extant Undead as his Ackanomic name, he is a New player.

Upon the regisration of a New player, the following procedure takes 
place, in the order shown.
1) The New player is granted 1 kaa of urban land and a Small building 
thereupon as their legal residence.  This building shall be known as 
their Home.  This building shall be known as "player name's House", where 
"player name" is replaced by their official Ackanomic name.  A player may 
change the name of this building by publically announcing the new name and 
unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename.
2) The New player is paid from the Treasury the lesser of A$900 or the 
average A$balance of all other extant players.
3) The New player is given 100 newly created PFBonds associated with 
himself.  The Financier shall assign a label that may bew used to refer 
to the PFBonds associated with the New player, although this procedure 
may continue without waiting for him to do so.
4) The Registrar shall select a Mentor for the new player.  The Mentor 
receives A$25 from the Treasury. 

Upon a player legally taking the name of an existing Undead, the following 
procedure takes place, in the order shown.
1) The Undead which shares the player's name is destroyed.
2) All entities the just-destroyed Undead was haunting are given to the 
returning player.
3) All Bond Promissories in that player's name are converted to PFBonds; 
their label is the same is it was when these PFBonds were originally created.
4) All Tick Marks in that player's possession destroyed.  For every Tick 
Mark lost by this process, the player receives one point.

IV. [Player States]
At any given time, exactly one of these four states shall apply to a player.

Pending
Active
On Vacation

Upon registration, a player is Pending.  A Pending player becomes Active 
when it becomes publically knowable that he has voted.

Only Active players may be randomly selected for anything.

A player in any player state shall become On Vacation upon posting a 
public message that he desires to be placed On Vacation.  A player may 
place only himself On Vacation.  The rules may define other ways in which 
players may be placed On Vacation.  Upon going On Vacation, a player 
should specify the expected length of his absence (If no length is 
specified, 14 days is the default.  Lengths less than 2 days are recorded 
as 2 days; Lengths greater than 30 days are recorded as 30 days.)  The 
Registrar should maintain this information.

Vacationing players have no duties, and shall not be chosen for any 
task.  If an On Vacation player holds any Offices, and the rules do not 
specify the disposition of any duties of those Offices, the Speaker, or 
someone appointed by the Speaker, shall perform those duties.  Anyone 
performing those duties in such circumstances in doing so in an Acting 
capacity.  It is permissible for an acting officer, appointed by this 
clause, to assume the duties of another acting officer.

An On Vacation player may take no game action other than taking himself 
off Vacation or one permitted by an immutable rule.  A player must spend at 
least 2 days On Vacation before remvoing himself from Vacation.  Upon 
removing himself from Vacation, he has whatever player state he had 
immediately prior to going On Vacation.

Any mutable rule which appears to allow On Vacation players to perform 
some game action by virtue of allowing players in general to perform 
that game action shall be interpreted as to exempt On Vacation players
from the ability to perform that game action.

A player who has been On Vacation 14 days longer than the recorded expected 
duration is automatically Impeached from any offices he may hold.  A 
player who has been On Vacation 90 days longer than the recorded expected 
duration is deregistered from the game.

V. [Leaving the Game]
A player may always quit by publically announcing that they are 
quitting the game.  The rules may define other ways in which players may 
be caused to leave the game.

Upon a player leaving, the following procedure takes place, in the order 
shown.
1) All of his mimsy possessions are taken away and considered unowned.
2) The player is removed from all offices.
3) If the player was never at any time Active, all of his A$ are 
transferred to the Treasury, every PFBond associated with him is 
destroyed, every rented object in his possession reverts to its owner, every 
entity remaining in his possession is destroyed, and then the player is 
deregistered.  In this case, the procedure ends here.
4) If the player was at any time Active, the procedure continues.
5) Every PFBond assiciated with him is converted into a Bond Promissory 
in his real life name.
6) He receives newly created Tick Marks equal to his score.  If that 
score is negative, exactly zero Tick Marks are created.
7) An Undead is created, haunting all the player's remaining possessions.
8) All these haunted possessions become unowned and go into the Treasury.
9) The player is deregistered.
10) The Undead is given the name the player had immediately prior to 
deregistration.
- ----

Amend Rule 201, "Quorum and Active Players," to read, "In a vote on a 
proposal the quorum required is 50% of (the sum of the nuumber of On 
Vacation players who voted on the proposal and the number of Active players, 
less the number of players in Gaol)."

Repeal Rule 218. [subsumed]

In Rule 306, replace all occurrences of the string, "randomly chosen 
player" with "randomly chosen Active player".

In Rule 362, delete all text between the string "and treated as if he 
never joined the game" and the end of the paragraph, inclusive.

Repeal rule 457. [subsumed]

Repeal rule 570. [subsumed]

Amend Rule 666 by relettering step m to step n and inserting, "m) All 
Tick Marks are destroyed." immediately after step l.

Rename Rule 962.1 to "Bond Promissories and Tick Marks".  Change its text 
to read in full, "Bond Promissories exist.  They are Protected and 
Tradeable.  Bond Promissories are nameless entities.  Tick Marks exist; 
they are protected, nameless, non-tradeable entities."

Repeal rule 1026. [subsumed]

Amend the first paragraph of Rule 1051 to read, "When the Registrar must 
select a Mentor for a new player, he shall follow these guidelines.  No 
one may become a mentor except as specified in the rules."  Delete the 
sentence containing the string "A$25" from Rule 1051.

Renumber this rule created by this proposal to 218.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:07:55 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: More Metoring 

>Ok, who's holding what Offices, and where do I send my votes?
>Where do I send proposallsls? (Those being the important things.)
>
>Swann
>pestering his mentor

Aha!  The important question.  I've been waiting for this one, though I did
not send the info out earlier as I did not want to overwhelm you.  Send
your votes to me, snowgod, president, and in the absense of an official
tabulator, acting tabulator <[email-masked]>.  Please incluse the word
vote somewhere in the subject line (for filtering purposes).

Proposals can be sent to Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>, our
promotor.  The subject line he prefers for proposals is Acka: Proposal:
SOMETHING IN ALL CAPS TO GET GUYS ATTENTION.  There is a page linked from
the main ackanomic page that has all of the forms, etc that certain
officers request you use.  The maibn ackanomic page is at
http://wilma..che.utexas.edu.

Other officers:
Malenkai: Speaker financier
dev/joe: Web harfer, map harfer, postmaster, scorekeeper
Mohammed: Justice
mr cwm: Justice

At list of every office and it's officer can be found at Malenkai's
players/entities page <http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackayp.htm> which is
also linked off of the main ackanomic page.  By the way, I am still working
on your last question....  I just want to make sure I understand it pretty
well before I reply.  hate to lie to my mentee, you know :)

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:10:16 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: More Metoring 

>>Ok, who's holding what Offices, and where do I send my votes?
>>Where do I send proposallsls? (Those being the important things.)
>>
>>Swann
>>pestering his mentor
>
>Aha!  The important question.  I've been waiting for this one, though I did
>not send the info out earlier as I did not want to overwhelm you.

I'll offer A$20 to first inventor who finds a cure for this horrible
plaugue sweeping ackanomic!  Damn the private messages!  Would anyone
support the following?

Sending private message to the public forum is heresy.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:14:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC -- players consolidation

> RFC
> Players
> Guy Fawes (Robert Shimmin)

That was my next project :).  I thought it too ambitious to include in
"re org", though.  I will read it in more detail later; it looks good 
though.

Some quick comments:

1) you are redundant with "re-org" in allowing players to quit (R 101, or
R 111 now), already allows that.

2) You have to be careful with the vacation rule.  R 457 has a blanket
precedence claim which is necessary.  Your version does not, and it will
break some places.  I do not remember where, but when I rewrote it, I
remember there were many intracacies (how do you spell that ?)

If "re-org" passes, a long rule like you propose will not look good at
218, right between judgements and winning conditions.  Perhaps in the
high 100s or high 200s.  Purely asthetic.

Perhaps we should coordiate "re-org" with this, at least compare final
versions before submission.  They are the sort of things that could
clash.

Malenkai
who is waiting for GF's comments on re-org ;)

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:19:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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!
> 
> I'll take you up on it, assuming it's legal.
> Niccolo Flychuck
	Thank you.  Can I assume that's sufficient to start the rental
period?
	I think Malenkai's right, though; the Office will go to whoever
wins the Auction.  :o\  Well, I'll give you your money back when that
happens; I'll just hold on to it in the meantime... in case of miracle... 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:23:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Metoring

Acting Tabulator wrote:
> 
> >Ok, who's holding what Offices, and where do I send my votes?

> Proposals can be sent to Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>, our
> promotor.

[...]

I am glad this is public, because it leads into another idea I had, that
I may wish to include in "re-org":

The idea is descretionary changeable text, and goes like this:

Any text in [[double square brackets]] is descretionary changeable text.
It is a priviledge of the Web-Harfer to change such text (but not the
brackets) contained within such brackets, by publically announcing he or
she is doing so.

The idea is that the following sort of things can be added at the end
of a rule that contains an office definition:

[[The current Web-Harfer is /dev/joe ([email-masked],edu)]]

If the Web-Harfer is really ambitious, he could add a mailto href.

Is this idea worth going after, especially since the information is
redundant with my page, and it creates more work for the Web-Harfer?
This has a decent chance to make it easier for new players.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:28:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  YORL

ThinMan has joined.  The deck is almost halfway used up!  I suspect I'll 
have to add a lot of cards before the game ends....

There are 44 cards in the deck.
                       Bascule has   7 cards.
                      /dev/joe has   7 cards.
                       snowgod has   7 cards.
                Habeous-Corpus has   7 cards.
                      Malenkai has   7 cards.
                       ThinMan has   7 cards.

It is Bascule's turn.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:30:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fictionary

The following is the list of Fictionary players.  The game will start
once the GamesMaster performs the duty of announcing the playing order
in accordance with the Fictionary pseudo-rule.

breadbox
/dev/joe
Guy Fawkes
Habeous Corpus
Malenkai
snowgod
ThinMan

Malenkai
who believes he has found the Chalice in the Palace, and awaits 
confirmation from Niccolo

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:39:55 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Forming a new political party 

>None that I know of.

Well look over the charter carefully. It certainly needs to be rewritten,
and I am sure it needs revision.

>The only thing I was wondering is the name and the age of the party. I know
>you've created (are in the process) the Harf party, but FUN is older. It may
>not be much, but it is something.
>
>What if the charter of FUN was updated to be just that of Harf?
>And what if we changed the name FUN to something else? (I don't like the
>name FUN too much either).

If we can come up with a suitable charter, I don't mind just switching FUN's
charter to Harf's, but I would like to change the name also. I like the name
Harf, but I'm open to suggestions...

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

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #379
*******************************