Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #383
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, December 7 1996      Volume 01 : Number 383

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 02:50:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Re Org again

RFC - v2
Re Org I
Malenkai

[There is much more to this version than the previous one; it is more
fleshed out.

gist:  the gist was published last time.  e-mail me if you would like
to discuss it.  If there are portions of this you dislike, e-mail me
and I will break it up.  I spent a good deal of time on this, and I
do believe it will simplify things in the long run.  Although I don't
presume it to pass, I would like it to pass, so I wish to work out any
concerns before hand.  The goal is to make the rules simpler for newbies,
and anyone else looking for something in them, and this, coupled with
Guy's player rewrite and Mohammed's precedence elimination will probably
lead to a cleaner and leaner ruleset, whilst maintaining its harfy charm
and some record of the historical development of the rules.]

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

Create a new rule with the following text:

{{

perform the following actions in the order specified:

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

I. [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 the sentence which reads:
 
"Until such time as they are legally transmuted, Rules 101-115 are
immutable, and Rules 201-219 are mutable."

Transmute every rule which is not mutable to mutable.

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

II. [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.  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]

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

III.  [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, renumbering, 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" [sucked into 103 and 217]

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

IV.  [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.
"

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

V.  [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.
Amend R 201, "Quorum and Active Players", to replace all occurrances
of "390" with "106".
Amend R 793, "Proposal Bribery", to replace all occurrances of
"390" with "106".

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

VI.  [put when scoring changes take effect after the scoring rule,
207.  I see Mohammed is going to bring "Modesty and Pride" up to 209.
That should work well.]
 
Renumber R 1089.2 "When Score Changes Take Effect" to 208.

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

VII.  [the precedence rule]

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
"

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

VIII.  [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.

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

IX.  [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 judgement 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.
"

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

X.  [put all the winning conditions in one place]

Amend R 422 so that its title is "Winning by Points".
Amend R 422 to replace:
"
Making this determination is a duty of the Office of Scorekeeper, and
this clause supercedes any mutable rule which would deny the Scorekeeper
this duty. 
"
with:
"
Making this determination is a duty of the Scorekeeper.
"

Renumber R 422 to 220.

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

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

If R 1501 exists, amend it so that its title is "Vault Divination", and
renumber it to 222.1

Renumber R 1243, "Chartreuse Goose" to 235.

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

XI.  [Consolidate Political Party Rules]

Renumber R 391, "Rewarding Party Unity" to 543.
Amend R 542 so that its title is "Political Parties".

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

XII.  [put all the office stuff in one place, pTangs general office
rules followed by the specific offices]

a) Amend R 609 to replace

"Offices are named, unownable entities."

with

"
Offices are named, unownable entities, unless the rules specify otherwise
for a particular office. 
"

and to replace 

"A Seat of an Office is an unownable entity."

with:

"
A Seat of an Office is an unownable entity, unless the rules specify 
otherwise for a particular office.
"
[the preceeding is needed to make Wizard and Capital Swinger work as
tradeable offices.  As it stands now, Wizard works because of its higher
precedence, but Capital Swinger does not.  Renumbering the rule will
give it higher precedence, though.]

b) Renumber R 609, "Offices, Commonalities", to 401.

c) Renumber R 611, "Offices, Related Definitions", to 402.

d) Amend R 612, "Functional Offices, Commonalities", to replace
all occurrances of "609" with "401".
e) Renumber R 612, "Functional Offices, Commonalities", to 403.

f) If Proposal 1503 was accepted, amend R 613 "Offices, Impeachment"
to place the following sentence at the beginning of the rule:
"
This rule defers precedece to rule 593 where there is a conflict.
"

otherwise, amend R 613 to replace
"
      This Rule takes precedence over all mutable rules.
"
with
"
      This Rule takes precedence over all rules, except that it defers
to rule 593.
"
g) Renumber R 613, "Offices, Impeachment", to 404.

h) Renumber R 615, "Speaker" to 405.

Renumber R 396 to 406, and change its title to "Promoter".
Renumber R 411 to 407, and change its title to "Web-Harfer".
Renumber R 414 to 408, and change its title to "Tabulator and Count Tabula".
Remove all occurrances of the word "mutable" from R 408.  [Mohammed's
proposals should take care of it, but just in case]

Renumber R 424 to 409, and change its title to "Registrar".
Renumber R 425 to 410, and change its title to "Scorekeeper".
Renumber R 478 to 411, and change its title to "Senate".
Renumber R 482 to 412, and change its title to "Financier and the Free 
Market".
Renumber R 489 to 413, and change its title to "Clerk of the Court".
Renumber R 504 to 414, and change its title to "President".
Renumber R 507 to 415, and change its title to "Supreme Court".
Renumber R 508, "Justices Rock", to 416.
Renumber R 563, "Justices Are Keeper Of The Sacred Laws" to 417.
Renumber R 583 to 418, and change its title to "Ambassador".
Renumber R 621, "Historian", to 419.
Renumber R 695, "Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy" to 420.
Renumber R 832, "Postmaster", to 421.
Renumber R 895, "Map-Harfer", to 422.
Renumber R 1271, "Poet Laureate" to 423.
Renumber R 1374, "Praetor" to 424.

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

XIII.  [put all the financial stuff in one place, after the entity stuff.
Merge Treasury and A$s, bring Treasury up as the first financial rule,
then bring the other financial rules in behind it].

[heads up, Guy, this will clash with yours]

Change the title of R 665 to "Treasury and AckaDollars" and change its
text to:

"
I. AckaDollars     

      The AckaDollar (A$) is the official currency of Ackanomia. 

      Each player who has not previously been granted A$ by application
of this rule shall be granted the lesser of A$900, or the average A$
balance of all other existing players, from the Treasury.

      AckaDollars are gift entities. 

II. Treasury:

      The Treasury is a named, unownable entity that serves as a
storing house for entities that belong to no Player. Items owned by
the Treasury are said to be "in the Treasury", and they may not be      
manipulated in any way except as explicitly allowed by the Rules. 

III. Hard Currency:
      
      AckaDollars may not be created nor destroyed. This Rule has
precedence over any Rule that would create or destroy A$. Whenever the
Rules specify that a Player should receive A$, and do not indicate
where those A$ should come from, they shall come from the Treasury. 
Whenever the Rules specify that a Player should lose A$, and do not
indicate where those A$ should go to, or specify that they should be
destroyed, they shall go to the Treasury instead. The total number
of A$ shall always be 75,000. 

IV. No Ackapennies:
      
      A$ may not be broken into fractional AckaDollars. If the Rules
specify a transfer should be made that includes a fractional reckoning
of A$, the transaction will instead be conducted in an integer number
of A$, and the rounding shall be in favor of the Player or entity
receiving A$. 

V. Bankrupt Treasury:
      
      Whenever some number of Players are to receive A$ from the
Treasury, and there are insufficient available A$ to meet those
obligations, the following process is executed: 

      a) If there are no A$ being haunted by Undead, skip to step (d) of this 
process.
      b) Each Undead stops haunting 10% (round up) of the A$ it is haunting.
      c) If there are still insufficient available A$ to meet the 
obligations, the process returns to step (a).
      d) If there are sufficient available A$ to meet to the obligations, the 
obligations are met, and the
      process ends.
      e) The remaining available A$ in the treasury shall be given to the 
players in proportion to the
      number of A$ owed each player. 

VI. Donation:
      
      A player may donate any Tradeable, non-mimsy entity they own to
the Treasury by publically announcing they are doing so. If the item is
a Trinket, it is converted into its value in A$ upon transferrence to
the Treasury. 
"

Renumber R 665 to 505.
Repeal R 480, "AckaDollars".

Renumber R 1348.1, "Trinkets", to 506.

Renumber R 481, "PF Bonds", to 507.
Change the title of R 565 to "Bond Yields", then renumber the rule to
508.

Change the title of R 510 to "Voluntary Debt Prohibited".

Renumber R 1098, "in Debt" to 511.
Renumber R 1318, "Bond Options", to 512.
Renumber R 1323, "Rental", to 513.

Renumber R 1416.5, "Trading and Gifts", to 515.

Renumber R 683, "ExtraNomic Entities" to 501. [put this with the entity
stuff while were here].

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

XIV.  [End Cycle consolidations.  Move some of the end of cycle stuff up 
after R 666.]

Renumber R 790, "Fat Lady". to 667.
Renumber R 867, "Eggs and Fruit", to 668.
Renumber R 1314, "Marks of the Champion" to 669.
Renumber R 1268, "Commission d'Arts" to 670.

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

XV.  [Criminal Justice consolidations, early 700s]

Renumber R 1067, "Cow Town Hotel", to 714.
Renumber R 1298, "in Contempt", to 715.
Renumber R 1300, "Patent Infringement", to 716.

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

XVI. [Locations and Buildings, mid 800s]

Renumber R 1108, "Locations", to 835.
Renumber R 1018, "Hotels", to 836.
Renumber R 767, "Nothing Important", to 837.
Renumber R 1099, "Hall of Elders", to 843.
Renumber R 894, "Map" to 845.

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

XVII.  [Rule naming, numbering, etc, mid 400s]

Amend R 452, "Rule Titles", to change its title to "Proposal and Rule
Titles", and to replace the word "name" with "Title" in the last 
sentence of the second paragraph.

Renumber R 642, "Proposal amd Rule Numbering" to 453.
Renumber R 682, "For Personal Glory..." to 454.
Renumber R 822, "Revision Numbers" to 455.

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

XVIII. [A couple of oddballs closer to what they are related to]

Renumber R 870, "Self Deleting Text", to 546.
Renumber R 939, "Party Hall Party", to 727.

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

XIX.  [If I had the time, move religious/church stuff to high 700s, subgame
stuff to 1200s, physics to 1300s.]

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

XX.  [Press Consolidation]

Amend R 891, "The Press", to append the following paragraph at the
end of the Rule:

"
It is a Crime for a Player to refuse to publish, in a newspaper he or
she owns, a correction of an untrue statement that previously appeared
in that newspaper, after a public request for such a correction has
been made. Simply neglecting to publish such a correction for a period
of three days or more after the request shall be taken as refusal to do
so.
"

Repeal R 892, "Journalistic Integrity".

Repeal R 1130, "Senate Seat Names".  [Its only use is if the size of
the senate changes.  If this happens, which seems unlikely, worry about
it in that proposal.]

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

XXI.  [Bad Pointer Fixup]

a) Amend R 709, "Gaol", to delete section 7), and to renumber section 8)
to 7) in the allowable actions list.  Also replace all occurrances of
"115" with "101" in the rule.

b) Amend R 208, "When Score Changes Take Effect", to remove all occurrances
of "This clause defers to R 106 where there is a conflict.". 

c) Amend R 208, "When Score Changes Take Effect", to remove all occurrances
of ", except as permitted by R 106". 

d) Amend R 208, "When Score Changes Take Effect", to replace all occurrances
of "588" with "212", "569" with "217", and ", 798" with "".

e) Amend R 716, "Patent Infringement", to replace all occurrances of "665"
with "505".

f) Amend R 1348.2, "Buried Treasure!", to replace all occurrances of "665"
with "505".

g) Amend R 714, "Cow Town Hotel", to replace all occurrances of "1018"
with "836".

h) Amend R 1237, "Fulfilling Campaign Promises" to replace all occurrances
of "939" with "727".

i) Amend R 1313, "Purple Robe of Justice", to replace all occurrances of
"588" with "212".

j) Amend R 235, "Chartreuse Goose", to replace 

"This clause takes precedence over R 219, R 422, and any other mutable
rule which establishes winning conditions."

with

"
This clause takes precedence over any other rule which establishes
winning conditions.
" 

k) Replace all occurrances of "609" with "401" in rules 402 and 403, and
in R 457, if it exists.

l) Replace all occurrances of "611" with "402" in rule 401.
m) Replace all occurrances of "612" with "403" in rule 401.

n) In rules 208, 726, and 593, replace all occurrances of "613" with "404".

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

XXII.  [Contingincies for the proposals currently in the queue, through
P 1520]

a) If Proposal 1496 was accepted, renumber R 1496 to 847.
b) If Proposal 1497 was accepted, renumber R 1497 to 848.

c) If Proposal 1522 was accepted, amend R 408, "Tabulator and Count Tabula",
to replace all occurrances of "611" with "402", and "613" with "404".

d) If Proposal 1529 was accepted, replace all occurrances of "1243"
with "235".

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

XXIII.  [Removing "mutable"]

Remove every occurrance of the word "mutable" and "Mutable" from all
rules.  [This looks like it will work, although it will be time consuming.
More on that later].

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

XXIV.  [Removing "immutable"]

a) Amend R 457 to remove ", or perform any action permitted by an Immutable
Rule".

b) Amend R 714, "Cow Town Hotel", to remove "unless it is allowed by an
immutable rule".

c) Amend R 1330, "Telepathy, Telekinesis, and Side Effecs", to remove
 "(unless immutable)".

d) If Proposal 1491 was accepted, amend R 513, "Rental", to remove
", or any action permitted by an immutable rule".

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

XXV.  [Hard Work Deserves Good Pay]

a) A$57 is transferred from the Treasury to the Web-Harfer upon completion
of web work caused by this rule.

b) An Automatic Sculpture is created and transferred to the author of
the proposal who created this rule [which shall soon be buried].

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

XXVI.  [Everything should just be a rule, like other games]

Remove the attribute of "Mutable" from all rules which have that attribute.

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

}}

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:52:02 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523

On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Acting Tabulator wrote:

> >Proposal 1523 -- Fri 6 Dec 7:32 CST 1996
> >Them Bonuses
> >Niccolo Flychuck
> >
> >A proposal to create a rule entitled "Them Bonuses" which contains the
> >following text:
> >"
> >When a proposal is accepted and the number of players who cast No Votes
> >was equal to or less than 1, a Bonus Vote is created and given to the
> >author of the proposal. If exactly one player cast a No Vote, then a Bonus
> >Vote is created and given to that player.
> >"
> 
> 
> This proposal will bring us back to the dread days when everyone was voting
> no on proposals they actually liked just gain position.  I fear if this
> passes, many fine proposals will fail as a multitude of players each try to
> block the author from recieving a bonus vote...
> 
> 
> snowgod

If there is more than one No vote then nobody receives a Bonus Vote. So
any effort would be a wasted one, and rational players know this. It
something of a Prisoner's Dillema in it.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:56:29 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rejoining the game.

Welcome back Techno.

Is this something the Registrar should anonuce as well?

If so, then consider this the anouncement. If not, then this is just a
welcome message.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Jerome Herrman wrote:
> 
> > I am happy to announce that I am returning to the greatest game of
> > harfiness in the world.
> 
> Welcome back.
> 
> My records indicate that you own a Prosthetic Forehead, your house and
> land, and are Silly.
> 
> I am giving you the 10 Bond Promissary Techno that I own, assuming
> you Ack the transaction.  I do not believe they will become actual bonds,
> but a proposal is in the works to fix that.
> 
> I am also giving you A$52 so that you are not completely penniless.
> 
> Malenkai
> Financier
> 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:12:13 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A Duel!

Mohammed has appointed me as eir Second for this Duel and charged with the
duty of anouncing that e is accepting Guy Fawkes' Challenge. However e has
explicitly waived his privilege of choosing the contest.

Hence Guy Fawkes may choose the contest. I shall await your anouncement on
the matter.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> Mohammed, you are hereby challenged to a duel. Guy Fawkes has challenged
> you, and I am his second. 
> 
> His reasons for the challenge follow, and I must say that I am in full
> agreement with him -- the honor of our beloved Gnome must be preserved.
> 
> >I cannot tolerate his disparaging remarks about our dearly departed 
> >friend, the Voting Gnome.  Have we no respect for the dead?  I therefore 
> >must fight to preserve the honor of him who I knew only so briefly.
> 
> Robert Sevin, who may or may not be...
> Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
> 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 03:44:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : - Financier

> 	Hey, care to be my second for the upcoming duel?  I waive the 
> privelege of selecting the game.

All right, this really is getting out of hand. Something needs to be
done. If we can't cure this disease, then the next best thing is to
make it Harfy....

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 03:53:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fame

> Mind you, *rumor* has it that there is a nomic out there which is being
> created with the sole purpose of waging a Holy War against Ackanomic.
> 
> CnH
> Another Cassandra figure

(NRA)RFC

If at any time in the future another nomic is found to be waging a
Holy War against Ackanomic, the player known as Calvin n Hobbes will
have eir name immediately changed to Cassandra. Another player will be
randomly chosen to have eir name changed to Clytemnestra. Blood will
then be spilled appropriately. (Other rules may stipulate further
players to take the parts of Agamemnon, Aegisthus, and the Chorus of
Argive Elders.)

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:03:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> If there is more than one No vote then nobody receives a Bonus Vote. So
> any effort would be a wasted one, and rational players know this. It
> something of a Prisoner's Dillema in it.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

Yes, and in the classical expression of the prisoner's dilemma, both 
prisoners lose if they behave rationally -- each prisoner is better off 
confessing no matter what the other one does, and so they both confess.  Here, 
it isn't quite that deterministic, but close.  If on a proposal you 
particularly don't care about, you vote NO, there's a slight chance of getting 
the bonus.  If you vote YES, there's no chance of getting the bonus.  
Therefore, in the case where the outcome of the vote does not matter to 
you, there is no reason not to vote NO.  _Rational_ players, going by the 
odds, will rarely get the bonus, and the casualties are our proposals.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:10:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1531

Proposal 1531 -- Sat 7 Dec 7:04 CST 1996
Not a Game at All
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Create a new rule with text as follows:
{{The entity Boolean Tic-Tac-Toe is hereby destroyed.  [The second player 
can always force a win.]}}

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:10:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1532

Proposal 1532 -- Sat 7 Dec 7:04 CST 1996
In Which Them Bonuses Get With the Harf
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)

When a non-modest Proposal submitted by a Player is accepted by a margin
so thin that, had even one Player changed his or her mind and voted NO
rather than YES, the Proposal would have been rejected, the Player who
submitted the Proposal is awarded one Bonus Vote.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:10:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1533

Proposal 1533 -- Sat 7 Dec 7:05 CST 1996
Consistency Is All I Ask!
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal. 

In Rule 1302, replace the string, "The duel starts upon the Challenged 
Player posting his" with, "The duel starts upon the Challenged Player's 
Second posting the".

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:11:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1534

Proposal 1534 -- Sat 7 Dec 7:05 CST 1996
Where Your Posts Don't Go
breadbox (Brian Raiter)

Whenever a player posts a message to a public forum that appears to
have been sent there accidentally, any other player may ask for the
Truth of the Matter. This is done by posting a public message to the
same forum that: a) addresses the player in question; b) quotes the
message under suspicion (or enough of the message to clearly identify
it); and c) asks, "Was this intended to be a private message?" If such
a request is sent within 24 hours after the message under suspicion
was originally sent, the player in question must reply truthfully, and
as soon as e is able to, with a yes or no answer to the same public
forum. (If multiple requests for the Truth of the Matter are made in
regards to the same message, all but the first one may be freely
ignored.)

If the Truth of the Matter is no, and the message under suspicion was
actually meant to be sent to the public forum, nothing more is
required of the player who sent it. [Note, however, that it is
generally considered good form for the player to "take the hint", and
try to clarify what the original message was trying to communicate.]

If, on the other hand, the Truth of the Matter is yes, and the message
under suspicion was indeed intended to be private, the player who sent
it will be "Unconsciously Parodied" for the next three days. During
this time, every single private message that e sends to another player
must be matched by a public message, posted to the public forum, that
is an unconscious parody of the private message. Also during this
time, the Unconsciously Parodied player will be followed by a filthy
scarecrow waving its broomstick arms, and always where eir eyes don't
go: when e turns to look, said scarecrow will be gone behind em,
wearing eir confused expression on its face.

If a player sends a private message to the public forum during a time
when e is being unconsciously parodied, e is not required to admit it:
specifically, if any players ask for the Truth of the Matter, e is
free to ignore them. E is not, however, excused from his duty to write
an unconscious parody of the message in question and publically post
it as well.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:18:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A Duel!

I choose Ghost as our duelling Contest.
Guy Fawkes

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> Mohammed has appointed me as eir Second for this Duel and charged with the
> duty of anouncing that e is accepting Guy Fawkes' Challenge. However e has
> explicitly waived his privilege of choosing the contest.
> 
> Hence Guy Fawkes may choose the contest. I shall await your anouncement on
> the matter.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:53:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> > 
> > If there is more than one No vote then nobody receives a Bonus Vote. So
> > any effort would be a wasted one, and rational players know this. It
> > something of a Prisoner's Dillema in it.
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> Yes, and in the classical expression of the prisoner's dilemma, both 
> prisoners lose if they behave rationally -- each prisoner is better off 
> confessing no matter what the other one does, and so they both confess.  
That's the right solution only for a single round Prisoner's Dillema. The
iterated prisoner's dillema, where the game continues for a indefinite
number of rounds, has been shown to different. In the latter case,
cooperation (with the other prisoner) rather than defection is the
rational move, which translates to voting yes, thus increasing the chance
of the creation of Bonus Votes in general. The more instances of an item
exist, the easier it is to get.
Niccolo Flychuck

 >Here, 
> it isn't quite that deterministic, but close.  If on a proposal you 
> particularly don't care about, you vote NO, there's a slight chance of getting 
> the bonus.  If you vote YES, there's no chance of getting the bonus.  
> Therefore, in the case where the outcome of the vote does not matter to 
> you, there is no reason not to vote NO.  _Rational_ players, going by the 
> odds, will rarely get the bonus, and the casualties are our proposals.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:56:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1531 -- Sat 7 Dec 7:04 CST 1996
> Not a Game at All
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> Create a new rule with text as follows:
> {{The entity Boolean Tic-Tac-Toe is hereby destroyed.  [The second player 
> can always force a win.]}}
>
Thiman has shown this to be trivially true if 4 countermoves were allowed,
and sugggested the limit be lowered to 3, which has been done.
Can you demonstrate.
(below is an unofficial first move a demonstration game - it is not part
of a Duel)

   |	|  1
- --------------
   |    |
- --------------
   |    |          

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:00:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

>Thiman has shown this to be trivially true if 4 countermoves were allowed,
>and sugggested the limit be lowered to 3, which has been done.
>Can you demonstrate.
>(below is an unofficial first move a demonstration game - it is not part
>of a Duel)

I assume you're playing true, and I'm playing false, and that the 1 in 
the corner represented your opening move.

   |	| !T
- --------------
   |    |
- --------------
   |    |          

your turn

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 08:05:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

About it being unplayable -- never mind.
I missed the rule restricting anti-play to last-chance defenses.
Sorry.

I'm not retracting it quite yet, though.
There is one more possiblility I hadn't thought of before that still 
might make it unplayable for any number of countermoves.

Could I see ThinMan's analysis of the 4-countermove situation if anyone 
has it lying about?

Guy Fawkes
embarrassed

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:06:13 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> >Thiman has shown this to be trivially true if 4 countermoves were allowed,
> >and sugggested the limit be lowered to 3, which has been done.
> >Can you demonstrate.
> >(below is an unofficial first move a demonstration game - it is not part
> >of a Duel)
> 
> I assume you're playing true, and I'm playing false, and that the 1 in 
> the corner represented your opening move.

You assume correctly. However I suggest you refer back to the rules. An
anti-play is only permissibile if the opponent  has a winning on eir next
turn.  Since I do not have such a move your anti-Play was not a legal
move.
It is still your turn.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
>  |	| !T
> --------------
>  |    |
> --------------
>  |    |          
> 
> your turn
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 10:05:41 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: Holy War

CnH warns us of an impending Holy War for Harf.  My response is Bring em
on!With Techno's return,  and a preliminary look at our new Players,  we
are a match for any.  I will soon be offering a Proposal just for this
contingency,  creating a new office of Marshal of the Wardens.

This new Officer will be responsible for planning our defenses in case of
attack.  E must be capable of escalating silliness to new heights,  as
well as having the keen,  analytical mind required to prevent enemy
agents from penetrating Loopholes.

Thank you Calvin,  for giving me the inspiration to rise to the
challenges of writing Harf.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:12:45 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> About it being unplayable -- never mind.
> I missed the rule restricting anti-play to last-chance defenses.
> Sorry.
> 
> I'm not retracting it quite yet, though.
> There is one more possiblility I hadn't thought of before that still 
> might make it unplayable for any number of countermoves.
> 
> Could I see ThinMan's analysis of the 4-countermove situation if anyone 
> has it lying about?
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> embarrassed
I might have it, but the gist was that with countermoves, any symbol could
eventually revert back to a symbol equivalent to its original value.
Which would not only make countermoves null, but introduce several
additional ways of forcing a win.
He argued a first player win, played a corner, I replied with center, to
which he replied with a corner adjacent to the first one.
Blocking with  an F between the eir two Ts would have allowed to anti-play
that T and win immediately. So I anti-Played one of eir Ts, which the
situation winnabble to me on my next move, and legal for Thinman to
anti-play the resultant !T.
Clearly, we could play out all the permissibile anti-plays on the two Ts
which would leave the board with a forced first player win.

I don't believe this situation exists with 3 anti-plays.

Niccolo Flychuck
 
 > 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:17:09 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Retracting 1523

While I don't actually agree with the popular I am retracting this one,
because I don't believe it will pass.
I'll submit something less objectionable

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:33:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1523

Uri Bruck wrote:

> If there is more than one No vote then nobody receives a Bonus Vote. So
> any effort would be a wasted one, and rational players know this. It
> something of a Prisoner's Dillema in it.

I agree with snowgod and oppose the proposal.  If we are going to have
it, however, it should not apply to Modest proposals; it should be 
as simple and painless as possible to fix bugs.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:48:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Reminders

1) Today is Party Hall Party day.

2) There are ongoing nominations for the following offices:

NAP Swinger
Tabulator

Email snowgod if you wish to be Tabulator, me if you wish to be NAP Swinger

3) The President's term ends on the 11th.  It was extended 4 days due to
holidays.  Now is a good time to post some pre-campaign rhetoric, so
the newspapers can do some in-depth analysis and tell the voters who
is going to win :).  The next President will be possibly responsible
for building a Bomb Shelter, and will be Acting Tabulator.

Malenkai
speaker
who is willing to moderate a debate in accordance with R 115

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #383
*******************************