Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #380
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, December 6 1996       Volume 01 : Number 380

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:42:12 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Internomic Stuff

I don't know about the rest of the Senate,  but I really like the idea
behind Thring's RFC;  it really gives us a chance to open up the concept
of true inter-nomic relationships.  It does need a little work,  and not
just from the standpoint of adapting Acka rules to allow for it.

I was going to responmd top this to the Senate forum,  since it will be
the Senate that has to vote on it when it becomes an official Internomic
Proposal,  but I decided that all of Acka really needs to discuss this
and whether we want or should support it.

I like it.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:42:12 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Internomic Stuff

I don't know about the rest of the Senate,  but I really like the idea
behind Thring's RFC;  it really gives us a chance to open up the concept
of true inter-nomic relationships.  It does need a little work,  and not
just from the standpoint of adapting Acka rules to allow for it.

I was going to responmd top this to the Senate forum,  since it will be
the Senate that has to vote on it when it becomes an official Internomic
Proposal,  but I decided that all of Acka really needs to discuss this
and whether we want or should support it.

I like it.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:50:30 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: More Metoring 

>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

I like this idea.  It never hurts to be redundant, and as long as the
discretionary text is option for the web-harfer he won't be breaking any
rules (oops, commiting crimes) if he doesn't have the time to deal with it.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:54:05 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Stuff 

>I don't know about the rest of the Senate,  but I really like the idea
>behind Thring's RFC;  it really gives us a chance to open up the concept
>of true inter-nomic relationships.  It does need a little work,  and not
>just from the standpoint of adapting Acka rules to allow for it.
>
>I was going to responmd top this to the Senate forum,  since it will be
>the Senate that has to vote on it when it becomes an official Internomic
>Proposal,  but I decided that all of Acka really needs to discuss this
>and whether we want or should support it.
>
>I like it.
>
>Habeous Corpus

I too like it.  It seems that the use of the system set up is optional, so
even if we agree to the system participation is not mandatory.  There may
be certain circumstances in which we decided it is a good idea to go
outside for solutions (an apealk of an appeal for example).  I think with a
little work this is something that acka should support.

Also, I am all for the idea of actual internomic participation, as opposed
to the small bit of competitition (but no interaction) that we have now.

snowgod
ambassador

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:08:33 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic Stuff 

>I too like it.  It seems that the use of the system set up is optional, so
>even if we agree to the system participation is not mandatory.  There may
>be certain circumstances in which we decided it is a good idea to go
>outside for solutions (an apealk of an appeal for example).  I think with a
>little work this is something that acka should support.
>
>Also, I am all for the idea of actual internomic participation, as opposed
>to the small bit of competitition (but no interaction) that we have now.

As my new party's platform would suggest, I am strongly supportive of making
InterNomic more interesting, dynamic, useful, etc. This would be a good
first step. It will require a lot of revision, and a lot of adjustment to
make it fit with our rules, but it is worth it. If we pass Experts, we can
have some Experts on the judicial process study the problem and fix our
rules to be compatable. 

If this proposal is written well, and if the rest of my party agrees that it
would be beneficial, you can count on a lot of support for whatever Acka
proposals need to be passed in order to enact this effectively.

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:31:41 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Public mail

snowgod wrote:
> >>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!

This was exactly what I worried about way back in the early days of the
mailing list, before I set the list reply-to address to go back to the
list.  (Maybe 6 or 7 of the current players were around back then.)
Since there are a lot more public replies to public messages than
private replies to public messages, it generally is easier on everyone
if the reply-to goes back to the list.  I might be able to make a
separate list address which goes out to all the players but doesn't
set the reply-to to the list, but I can't help it if you make public
replies to private mail.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 21:58:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PROPOSAL (fwd)

Malenkai
who has written acka's only palindromic proposal

Which one?

And not for long.

Guy Fawkes
enjoying the privege of seeing all proposals in advance

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:12:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PROPOSAL (fwd)

Oh no!  It's got me too, now!

Guy Fawkes
who has a fix for this epidemic in the next docket

On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Malenkai
> who has written acka's only palindromic proposal
> 
> Which one?
> 
> And not for long.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> enjoying the privege of seeing all proposals in advance
> 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 23:13:22 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PROPOSAL (fwd)

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> Malenkai
> who has written acka's only palindromic proposal
> 
> Which one?

P 902.

Malenkai
who, in accordance with R 1237, is ordering 3 tumblers of Laphraig, an
excellent single Islay malt Scotch

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #380
*******************************