Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #386
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, December 8 1996       Volume 01 : Number 386

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:37:36 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> I am working with an idea that makes the number of anti-plays 
> irrelevant.  It may be that the first player can always force a win by 
> playing to force stalemate, at which point he would have 5 symbols on the 
> board to false's 4.  There are a few cases I haven't checked yet.  I'll 
> get back on this.
> 
> I do have one personal theory that there is no such thing as a game of 
> this sort.  There are a finite number of routes the game can take, and 
> the only thing that makes a game of this sort a game is that the 
> possibilities are too complex for a player to master.  Thus standard 
> tic-tac-toe is nota game; chess, for human minds, is.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
>
What you are calling 'not a game' is usually reffered to in game theory as
a solved game. That is, a game for which there is a known algorithm that
can insure a first player movee (or alternatively a second player move).

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:47:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1531

Well done.
:)
Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> OK.  I have completed my analysis on Boolean tic-tac-toe, and I have found
> that my original hypothesis was flawed by an incorrect understanding of 
> the rules.  However, I am not retracting this proposal because I have 
> found that the _first player_ can force a win -- for ANY level of 
> repetitive antiplay.
> 
> Consider standard tic-tac-toe, and regard it as boolean tic-tac-toe with 
> antiplay allowed 0 times per square.  The first player will always win, 
> if he acts rationally, because two rational tic-tac-toe players will 
> always force it to a cat's game, upon which the first player wins (with 5 
> symbols to second's 4).
> 
> The first player, then, can always win boolean tic-tac-toe if he can 
> reduce it to standard tic-tac-toe; that is, he can win by eliminating 
> anti-play.  He can do this with a twofold strategy.
> 1) Never give the second player the opportunity to anti-play -- do this 
> by never placing two of your symbols in a row, column or diagonal unless 
> the third space is already occupied by your opponenent's symbol; never 
> give yourself the winning move, but force your opponent to give it to you.
> 2) Create a situation where if ever the second player gives the first 
> player the ability to anti-play, the first player can immediately win the 
> game.
> 
> For the analysis below, 0 is an unmarked square
> 
> True, to force the win, opens center.  The two distinct responses are corner 
> and side.  True then plays diametrically opposite the response.  Distinct 
> grids at this point are:
> 
> f00  0f0   False is now faced with an interesting dilemma.  If he places
> 0t0  0t0   an f anywhere that lines up the two moves, true can antiplay his
> 00t  0t0   (false's) first move and win.  Avoiding this, he must play 
> 	   elsewhere.  True responds with thesame tactic he did the 
> first time -- diametric play.  Distinct grids now are:
> 
> f00  0f0  (the other response to the second case above yields
> ttf  ftt  the same grid as the only response to the first)
> 00t  0t0
> 
> False is faced with the same dilemma.  True responds as before.
> Distinct grids:
> 
> f0t  ft0  (response to the second case above yields one of the
> ttf  ttf  grids produced from the left case.
> f0t  0ft
> 
> No further winning moves are possible.  Anti-play is eliminated from the 
> game, which goes to the cat, and true wins, 5 spaces to 4.
> 
> As you can see, changing the number of times anti-play is allowed is 
> irrelevant to the game; true can always win by using anti-play as a 
> blocking tool until it is impossible to use, stalemating the game for his 
> victory.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 
> 
> On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Uri Bruck 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 entityBoolean 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)
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 01:49:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Boons of the Ancients

RFC v1
Boons of the Ancients
Malenkai

[gist: create a standard rule that is a probability-weighted list of
prizes that can be doled out as specified by the rules.  Right now,
the *ping* machine is the only thing that does this, but other things
can be added.  Replace the gadget that the machine gives out with a
Boon of the Ancients from this list].

Create a new rule which reads:

1) Whenever the rules specify a Boon of the Ancients is bestowed upon a
particular player, the Boon is chosen from the list below, created
if necessary (or as described following), and transferred to the particular
player (or elsewhere, as described following).

2) Boons may either be bestowed randomly or deterministically.  If the rule
bestowing the Boon does not specify a method, the random method is used.

3) Under the deterinmistic method, the player designated to receive the
Boon ("player" for the purposes of this rule) has 3 days to choose a
Boon for himself to receive.  No Boon is bestowed if three days pass and
the player has made no selection.

4) Under the random method, the numbers in parentheses following each choice
are summed, and the probability of receiving a particular Boon on the
list is the number in parentheses after that Boon divided by the sum.  The
Officer in Charge of Random Things then randomly chooses a Boon for the
player to receive based on these probabilities.

5) If the Boon is not of type "Must Describe", it is immediately created
if necessary, and transferred to the player after it has been chosen.

6) If the Boon is of type Must Describe, the player has 3 days to post a
description of the Boon as specified in the list.  If no description is
posted in that time, no Boon is bestowed.

7) Boons of type Must Describe are created 7 days after their description
is posted, or when the results of a Bogusity Hearing on that particular
Boon's description are publically knowable, whichever is later, unless
the Boon is found to be Bogus, in which case the player receives no Boon,
and/or no Boon is created.
 
8) Any player may call a Bogusity Hearing within three days of a 
description of a Must Describe Boon being posted.  Only one such Hearing
may be called per Boon.  The player who described the Boon may not vote
in the hearing.  This takes precedence over R 1396.  The valid responses
to the Bogusity Hearing are "This loophole surfer is totally Bogus", and
"Thats a pretty cool idea".  If the result is the former, the Boon is
found to be Bogus and the player who described it loses 11 points.

9) Boon list [weights sum to 100 in this case]:

	a) The player has found an ancient artifact.  A random Gadget
from the pool of Blueprints which have existed for at least 14 days,
such that no instance limits are exceeded for any particular Gadgets,
is bestowed (45).

	b) The player has found an ancient scroll.  A random Otzma Card,
all cards having the same probability, such that no instance limits are
exceeded for any particular Otzma Card, is bestowed (25).

        c) The gods smile upon the player.  1 Bonus Vote is bestowed(10).

        d) An ancient relic.  A Trinket of value A$75 which the
player Must Describe.  In this case, A$75 in the Treasury is transmuted
into the Trinket when it is bestowed as above (7).

        e) Ancient knowledge.  A Blueprint is created in the Blueprint
Archive (not owned by the player, but said to be created by the player),
as described by the player (Must Describe) (5).

        f) Ancient wisdom.  An Otzma Card is added to the Otzma Card
Rule Suite, which the player Must Describe (5).

        g) The gods are bored.  The player is given pointy ears (2).

	h) The gods are grouchy.  The Chartreuse Goose is transferred to
the player.  This takes precedence over the rule entitled "Chartreuse
Goose" (1).

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

Amend R 1240, The Machine That Goes *ping*, as follows:

a) replace

"one Gadget from a Blueprint randomly selected from the set of Blueprints
 which both existed at the beginning of the current Scholar's term and
 currently exist; this Gadget"

with

"one random Boon of the Ancients; this Boon"

b) remove "Create a new rule reading:" from the top of the rule.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 02:12:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Party Hall

Party Hall is over.  Do we get to hear snowgod's poetry?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:20:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Party Hall

On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Party Hall is over.  Do we get to hear snowgod's poetry?
> 
> Malenkai
> 
Party Hall _PARTY_ is over.

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire who recalls a really long bus trip a coupla weeks back, on a
bus that was equipped with a video, on which th driver has chosen to show
"Speed" (yeah, the one with Keanu Reeves)

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:48:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Niccolo Flychuck for President

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > It is time for Presidential Elections once again.
> > And I am in the running again.
> 
> Actually, the nomination period will not be until I call it, which can
> be no earlier than December 11th, when snowgod's term ends.  4 days
> of snowgod's term did not count against its duration (Holidays) per
> R 973.
> 
> Sorry if the previous message caused confusion, or looked like the start
> of the nomination period.  Pre-nomination campaigning is cool, though :)
> 
> Malenkai
> speaker
>
<Embarrased grin > Guess I just couldn't wait
:)
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:05:22 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Boons of the Ancients 

>Create a new rule which reads:
>
>1) Whenever the rules specify a Boon of the Ancients is bestowed upon a
>particular player, the Boon is chosen from the list below, created
>if necessary (or as described following), and transferred to the particular
>player (or elsewhere, as described following).
>
>2) Boons may either be bestowed randomly or deterministically.  If the rule
>bestowing the Boon does not specify a method, the random method is used.
>
>3) Under the deterinmistic method, the player designated to receive the
>Boon ("player" for the purposes of this rule) has 3 days to choose a
>Boon for himself to receive.  No Boon is bestowed if three days pass and
>the player has made no selection.
>
>4) Under the random method, the numbers in parentheses following each choice
>are summed, and the probability of receiving a particular Boon on the
>list is the number in parentheses after that Boon divided by the sum.  The
>Officer in Charge of Random Things then randomly chooses a Boon for the
>player to receive based on these probabilities.
>
>5) If the Boon is not of type "Must Describe", it is immediately created
>if necessary, and transferred to the player after it has been chosen.
>
>6) If the Boon is of type Must Describe, the player has 3 days to post a
>description of the Boon as specified in the list.  If no description is
>posted in that time, no Boon is bestowed.
>
>7) Boons of type Must Describe are created 7 days after their description
>is posted, or when the results of a Bogusity Hearing on that particular
>Boon's description are publically knowable, whichever is later, unless
>the Boon is found to be Bogus, in which case the player receives no Boon,
>and/or no Boon is created.
>
>8) Any player may call a Bogusity Hearing within three days of a
>description of a Must Describe Boon being posted.  Only one such Hearing
>may be called per Boon.  The player who described the Boon may not vote
>in the hearing.  This takes precedence over R 1396.  The valid responses
>to the Bogusity Hearing are "This loophole surfer is totally Bogus", and
>"Thats a pretty cool idea".  If the result is the former, the Boon is
>found to be Bogus and the player who described it loses 11 points.
>
>9) Boon list [weights sum to 100 in this case]:
>
>        a) The player has found an ancient artifact.  A random Gadget
>from the pool of Blueprints which have existed for at least 14 days,
>such that no instance limits are exceeded for any particular Gadgets,
>is bestowed (45).
>
>        b) The player has found an ancient scroll.  A random Otzma Card,
>all cards having the same probability, such that no instance limits are
>exceeded for any particular Otzma Card, is bestowed (25).
>
>        c) The gods smile upon the player.  1 Bonus Vote is bestowed(10).
>
>        d) An ancient relic.  A Trinket of value A$75 which the
>player Must Describe.  In this case, A$75 in the Treasury is transmuted
>into the Trinket when it is bestowed as above (7).
>
>        e) Ancient knowledge.  A Blueprint is created in the Blueprint
>Archive (not owned by the player, but said to be created by the player),
>as described by the player (Must Describe) (5).
>
>        f) Ancient wisdom.  An Otzma Card is added to the Otzma Card
>Rule Suite, which the player Must Describe (5).
>
>        g) The gods are bored.  The player is given pointy ears (2).
>
>        h) The gods are grouchy.  The Chartreuse Goose is transferred to
>the player.  This takes precedence over the rule entitled "Chartreuse
>Goose" (1).

I like it alot, but I wish there was another way to modify the boon list.
Perhaps if the boon list could be "kept" by the officer in charge of random
things, and amended by a procedure (possibly a hearing or a senate vote?)
that any player could initiate....

other than that, i think it's gret.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:05:26 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Party Hall 

>On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:
>
>> Party Hall is over.  Do we get to hear snowgod's poetry?
>>
>> Malenkai
>>
>Party Hall _PARTY_ is over.

i recieved greetings from Niccolo FLychuck, and sent them to Malenkai
(acting NAP swinger I hope), Niccolo, and Bascule.

looks like I better start writing!

snowgod
who doesn't believe in the shift key

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:09:53 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Party Hall

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Acting Tabulator wrote:

> >On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> >
> >> Party Hall is over.  Do we get to hear snowgod's poetry?
> >>
> >> Malenkai
> >>
> >Party Hall _PARTY_ is over.
> 
> 
> i recieved greetings from Niccolo FLychuck, and sent them to Malenkai
> (acting NAP swinger I hope), Niccolo, and Bascule.
> 
> looks like I better start writing!

I received greetings from snowgod, and sent greeting to both snowgod and
Bascule,a nd I don't believe Malenkai is acting NAP Swinger.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> snowgod
> who doesn't believe in the shift key
> 
> 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:31:35 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: We want a race (official) 

Presidential Elections are one of the funnest things that happen in
Ackanomic.  The more people running, the better.  However, I am aware that
some people may choose not to run, for fear of the increased workload that
would come from conducting the duties of the tabulator, if elected.  I do
not want to see an otherwise good race spoiled by a lack of candidates, so
i am official volunteering, and appointing myself, Tabulator.  Whoever is
elected president may now do so without fear of vote overload!

However, I do not wish to be tabulator forever, and I am sure you guys do
not wish me to be tabulator forever (Wayne did a much better job -- I just
don't always have the time to get the results out when they should be) so
inn accordance with R612, section vi, I am announcing my intent to vacate
this seat (and request that the president (myself) conduct a nomination to
fill it)  pending the nomination of another player.

I quote:

(vi) Whenever a Functional Office has a vacant Seat, or if the current
holder of that Seat publically states an intent to vacate his Seat and
requests the President conduct a Nomination to fill it, the President shall
conduct a Nomination for that Seat. After the Nomination, the President
shall select an eligible Nominee  and announce that Nominee's name
publically. That Nominee shall hold the Functional Office. If the
Nomination was initiated at the Functional Officer's request, he shall be
considered to have resigned at the instant the new Officer is announced, if
he has not already left the Seat.

_____ Now For the Official Bit _____

In accordance with R612, snowgod has announced his intention to vacate his
seat in the office of the tabulator.  I am hereby begining a nomination for
that office.  Send you nominations to [email-masked].  Please be aware
that the office of the tabulator requires a lot of work and time, so if you
don't have it, please don't volunteer :)

_______ And back to our regularly scheduled programming __________

I believe that I shall now remain tabulator (in an official, though
outgoing) capacity until someone else volunteers for the position,
regardless of who is elected president.

Thank you, and good night.

snowgod
tabulator
president

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:02:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again

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

You're not kidding. This is an immense re-organization. I seriously
doubt that I would vote in favor of it if it were submitted as a
single proposal, or even it if were submitted as several proposals all
at once. Not because it has parts I don't like, but there are just too
many changes to the foundational rules. I would have a hard time
convincing myself that all possible bugs had been foreseen and
avoided.

b

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:00:19 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again 

>> [There is much more to this version than the previous one; it is more
>> fleshed out.]
>
>You're not kidding. This is an immense re-organization. I seriously
>doubt that I would vote in favor of it if it were submitted as a
>single proposal, or even it if were submitted as several proposals all
>at once. Not because it has parts I don't like, but there are just too
>many changes to the foundational rules. I would have a hard time
>convincing myself that all possible bugs had been foreseen and
>avoided.
>
>b

I will vote for it, unless someone gives me a convincing reason to vote
otherwise.  I like the concept, and as far as i can tell, there is no point
in worrying about bugs.  They're gonna crop up whatever we do.  Malenkai
has an excellent history as a bug fixer, second only to /dev/joe, and I
trust that whatever comes up will be fixed.

We cannot live in fear of bugs.  They happen and we respond.  I think that
this restructuring is important and can make the game easier for new
players, so I'm all for it.  Of course, I'm not a laywer, so if someone can
convince me otherwise, go ahead and try.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:23:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again

On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> I will vote for it, unless someone gives me a convincing reason to vote
> otherwise.  I like the concept, and as far as i can tell, there is no point
> in worrying about bugs.  They're gonna crop up whatever we do.  Malenkai
> has an excellent history as a bug fixer, second only to /dev/joe, and I
> trust that whatever comes up will be fixed.
> 
> We cannot live in fear of bugs.  They happen and we respond.  I think that
> this restructuring is important and can make the game easier for new
> players, so I'm all for it.  Of course, I'm not a laywer, so if someone can
> convince me otherwise, go ahead and try.
> 
> snowgod
>
I've spent quite some time tracking down the various changes, and I am
sufficiently satisfied with that I will not vote against it. I'll very
probably support it, unless the final version includes something that
would be really offensive.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:27:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again

> We cannot live in fear of bugs.  They happen and we respond.  I think that
> this restructuring is important and can make the game easier for new
> players, so I'm all for it.

I guess that is where you and I differ. I would be more willing to
completely replace large sections of the game's foundation in one shot
if there was a pressing need (e.g., something was seriously
broken). But this seems to be mostly for aesthetic purposes. I'm not
trying to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I don't see why
this shouldn't be done over time, in a more cautious manner.

b

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:34:34 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again

On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > We cannot live in fear of bugs.  They happen and we respond.  I think that
> > this restructuring is important and can make the game easier for new
> > players, so I'm all for it.
> 
> I guess that is where you and I differ. I would be more willing to
> completely replace large sections of the game's foundation in one shot
> if there was a pressing need (e.g., something was seriously
> broken). But this seems to be mostly for aesthetic purposes. I'm not
> trying to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I don't see why
> this shouldn't be done over time, in a more cautious manner.
> 
> b
>
I side with Malenkai here. I've been here for a very long time and there
are some areas in which i find it difficult to follow some sub areas of
the game. This is re-organization will ultimately benefit acka. It will
strengthen its conceptual foundations and faciliate its further growth.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 04:38:08 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Re Org again 

>> We cannot live in fear of bugs.  They happen and we respond.  I think that
>> this restructuring is important and can make the game easier for new
>> players, so I'm all for it.
>I guess that is where you and I differ. I would be more willing to
>completely replace large sections of the game's foundation in one shot
>if there was a pressing need (e.g., something was seriously
>broken). But this seems to be mostly for aesthetic purposes. I'm not
>trying to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I don't see why
>this shouldn't be done over time, in a more cautious manner.

I, on the other hand, seem to fall somewhere in between the two of you. I
think that it is of vital importance to reorganize the rules in a logical,
coherent fashion. Note, I do not want to alter the content of the rules,
just the manner in which they are listed and organized. I think that the
sooner we make the game organized in a simple way, the better. This should
be one of our top priorities. But we shouldn't go into it blindly and
quickly. Partially because of the bugs that would occur, but more
importantly because we want to actually figure out what system would best
organize the rules, and that will take some time and discussion. Several
recent proposals have been eliminating unnecessary clauses in the rules,
which I feel is a first step towards accomplishing this goal. Hopefully my
Experts proposal will pass, in which case an Expect can examine the rules in
their area of expertise and propose ways to unify and simplify them. 

Sorry about my longwinded reply, but I really think that most people who
leave the game do so because it becomes increasingly difficult to keep up
with the game, partially because of the sheer bulk of the rules. And new
players that stay are rare, due to difficulty becoming up to date with the
rules. We need the rules in a better system, and we need mechanisms whereby
some players (Experts, etc) will understand some of the rules very well, and
all new players can receive a briefing about voting, proposing, etc from the
appropriate Expert. I would also like new players to be able to go to
Experts for help with writing proposals (ie knowing if their proposal
conflicts with any of the existing rules, etc). Our game isn't very
"user-friendly" which is good in one sense, because it produces dedicated,
intelligent players, but it's bad because it bogs down the game
occasionally, and it reduces the number of players... Hopefully my new
party, when formed, will help correct some of these problems.

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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 14:33:42 +0200
From: "amitai goldblit" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again

Hi uri ,
Well i got back after the weekend and found 300 new messages in my mail box.
Please Please Please stop sending me so much mail .
Try to send me everything in one file and please also send me some more
instructions on the game.
Thanks,
AMITAI

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:41:37 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again

On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > We cannot live in fear of bugs.  They happen and we respond.  I think that
> > this restructuring is important and can make the game easier for new
> > players, so I'm all for it.
> 
> I guess that is where you and I differ. I would be more willing to
> completely replace large sections of the game's foundation in one shot
> if there was a pressing need (e.g., something was seriously
> broken). But this seems to be mostly for aesthetic purposes. I'm not
> trying to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I don't see why
> this shouldn't be done over time, in a more cautious manner.
> 
> b

I think this should be done now, while we can, because we are in a place
in the game where it is important to recruit new players.  By making the
game easier for new players to join ackanomic will grow and thrive in the
future.  In the past, before we had mentors, before our ruleset was as
clean as it is now, it was fairly common for a player to join and leave
within a couple of days (remember Tim?  same deal).  I don't like to see
that happen.  If a player has decidedthey want to play nomic, and we have
the power to make it easier for them, I see no reason not to do it.

Besides, A Change like this cannotever be completed gradually.  New rules
are introcded which hamber the change and add more material.   The job is
never finished.  If we do it in one fell swoop, future changes will follow
this same form.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:45:35 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: SVH

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

AS the author of the SVH rule, and self proclaimed expert in the field I
feel fairly certain that you are no longer wearing an SVH.  As a matter
of fact, your blatent disregard for the provisions of my rule greatly
offend me, and should you not cease and decist claiming that swatch of
air hovering over your head is still a Silly Vacation Hat, I will be
forced to call for a duel

snowgod
in good fun
> 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:49:02 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: P1487 Passes 

Quorum achieved: 14 Eligible voters - 10 Players cast votes
6 YES votes - 3 NO votes - 1 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1487 - Tue 26 Nov 15:23 CST 1996
A Truly Deplorable Pun
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Guy Fawkes gains 5 points:

YES Votes:
- ---------

Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan
Malenkai                     FUN
breadbox
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)
snowgod                      (None Yet)
/dev/joe                     Vulcan

NO Votes:
- --------

ThinMan                      Vulcan
Calvin N Hobbes              FUN
Habeous Corpus

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
Robert Sevin

Abstentions:
- -----------

Bascule
fnord
Mohammed
mr cwm                       (None Yet)

New Players Who Are Not Yet Active:
- ----------------------------------
Airhead
Jammer
Clairence
Swann

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------

     This is a modest proposal. Add the following text to the end of
     rule 306:

     There also exists the Great Tuba of Ackanomic, a unique entity.
     Whenever the Magic Potato is transferred from one player to
     another, the Great Tuba is given to the player who just lost the
     Magic Potato. The holder of the Great Tuba scores two extra points
     whenever one of his proposals passes.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:49:04 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: P1488 Fails 

Quorum achieved: 14 Eligible voters - 11 Players cast votes
6 YES votes - 4 NO votes - 1 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES

Proposal 1488 - Tue 26 Nov 15:23 CST 1996
Making Towers Useful
/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)

/dev/joe loses 7 points:

YES Votes:
- ---------

Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan           +3

breadbox                                      +3
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)       +3
/dev/joe                     Vulcan           +3
Habeous Corpus                                +3
Mohammed                                      +3

NO Votes:
- --------

ThinMan                      Vulcan
Calvin N Hobbes              FUN
Malenkai                     FUN
snowgod                      (None Yet)

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
Robert Sevin

Abstentions:
- -----------

Bascule
fnord

mr cwm                       (None Yet)

New Players Who Are Not Yet Active:
- ----------------------------------
Airhead
Jammer
Clairence
Swann

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------

   NONE

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:49:07 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: P1489 Passes 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:49:09 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: P1490 Fails 

Quorum achieved: 14 Eligible voters - 11 Players cast votes
5 YES votes - 5 NO votes - 1 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS

Proposal 1490 - Tue 26 Nov 15:24 CST 1996
Otzma Card Type Blank
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)

Mohammed loses 7 points:

YES Votes:
- ---------

Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan        +3

/dev/joe                     Vulcan        +3
Habeous Corpus                             +3
Mohammed                                   +3
breadbox                                   +3

NO Votes:
- --------

Calvin N Hobbes              FUN
Malenkai                     FUN
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)
snowgod                      (None Yet)
ThinMan                      Vulcan

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
Robert Sevin

Abstentions:
- -----------

Bascule
fnord
mr cwm                       (None Yet)

New Players Who Are Not Yet Active:
- ----------------------------------
Airhead
Jammer
Clairence
Swann

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------
NONE

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:49:11 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: P1491 Passes 

Quorum achieved: 14 Eligible voters - 11 Players cast votes
10 YES votes - 1 NO votes - 1 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS

Proposal 1491 - Tue 26 Nov 15:24 CST 1996
Renting Bugs
/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)

/dev/joe gains 5 points:

YES Votes:
- ---------

Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan

/dev/joe                     Vulcan
Habeous Corpus
Calvin N Hobbes              FUN
Malenkai                     FUN
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)
snowgod                      (None Yet)
ThinMan                      Vulcan
breadbox
Vulcan Unity Vote

NO Votes:
- --------

Mohammed

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
Robert Sevin

Abstentions:
- -----------

Bascule
fnord
mr cwm                       (None Yet)

New Players Who Are Not Yet Active:
- ----------------------------------
Airhead
Jammer
Clairence
Swann

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------
 This is a Modest Proposal.

     Amend rule 1323, "Rental", by changing
     "trade them to Player A."
     at the end of the third paragraph to
     "trade them to Player A, or any action permitted by an immutable
     rule; if he trades them to Player A, or if they leave Player B's
     possesion in any other way, the rental period ends when Player B
     no longer possesses them."
     and delete from the fifth paragraph the text:
     ", unless player A is no longer in the game, in which case Player
     B becomes their owner for all purposes"

     {{[ As it stands now, you could rent something to another player
     that you will soon have to give up for whatever reason, have him
     trade it back early, lose it as some rule requires, and then get
     it back later when the rental period ends. The rule prevents this
     abuse with A$, but it could happen with other things. I'm not sure
     if any such things exist now, but the original Magic Potato could
     be traded (though it would still get reassigned as usual); by
     playing this trick, the potato's owner could keep stealing it back
     every time it was reassigned. When PF bonds partly reverted to
     their original owners at end-of-cycle, you could do this with
     PFbonds too. ]}}

     Amend rule 962.2 by renumbering the steps 2 through 7 in the
     procedure when a player leaves the game to be steps 3 through 8,
     and inserting the following after step 1:
     "2) All entities e is renting from other players return to their
     previous owners. All entities e is renting to other players become
     fully owned by the players renting them, and the rental periods of
     those entities end."

     {{[ The recent amendment of the rental rule has made it fall prey
     to the giant axe of rule 108, since it prevents a player renting
     an object from leaving the game, as this would cause him to no
     longer possess the entity. ]}}

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 09:11:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1489 Passes

Phil Ackley wrote:

I received no text with this message.  Did anyone else?

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 09:14:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Boons of the Ancients

Acting Tabulator wrote:

> I like it alot, but I wish there was another way to modify the boon list.
> Perhaps if the boon list could be "kept" by the officer in charge of random
> things, and amended by a procedure (possibly a hearing or a senate vote?)
> that any player could initiate....

I figured we would do it the old fashioned way, with proposals.  This
was conceived out of discussion that the machine producing gadgets all
the time was too much.  It also comes from my love of re-use.

Malenkai
who is waiting for Fictionary and YORL to progress

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:32:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again

There are several bugs in the set now as it is that we don't know about; 
this re-org probably fixes several of them.  A lot of the time, when you 
re-read the foundational rules (as you must when you do a major rewrite) 
you find out things you never knew before because what we thought was the 
case seemed so obvious.  The PF problem (Hang on Techno, the fix is part 
of a massive players rules consolidation prop) is a good example.  If 
nothing else, this re-org should prompt a good rereading of the basic 
rules, which we all should do from time to time.  I'd rather create a bug 
that we can find than unwittingly live in constant violation of the rules.

Guy Fawkes  

On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:

> You're not kidding. This is an immense re-organization. I seriously
> doubt that I would vote in favor of it if it were submitted as a
> single proposal, or even it if were submitted as several proposals all
> at once. Not because it has parts I don't like, but there are just too
> many changes to the foundational rules. I would have a hard time
> convincing myself that all possible bugs had been foreseen and
> avoided.
> 
> b
> 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 08:39:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1489 Passes

Me neither.

Did someone go and pass a rule that states the tabulator must give the 
voting results for all proposals whose digits add to 22 in invisible ink?
:)

Guy Fawkes

On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I received no text with this message.  Did anyone else?
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 16:55:33 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1489 Passes

On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I received no text with this message.  Did anyone else?
> 
> Malenkai
> 
Same here
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 09:51:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Re Org again

Brian Raiter wrote:

[about re-org I]

> I guess that is where you and I differ. I would be more willing to
> completely replace large sections of the game's foundation in one shot
> if there was a pressing need (e.g., something was seriously
> broken).

I guess the pressing need in my mind is that several players have
indicated publically or privately that the rule set is too confusing.
While I don't claim that this proposal is a cure all, no one has 
indicated specifically how it would make the rules *less organized*,
or has indicated a specific bug in the proposal.  So I guess my claim
is that the rules are "seriously broken" in terms of disorganization".

As for breaking down the Immutables, I am going to argue that that is
a net win.  The Immutable rules we have now are of two classes:

1) General things about the game: (R101, 108, 110, 111, 113 and 115)
2) About proposals: (R104, 105, and 106)

As for class 1), the contentious rule is the axe, R 108.  A previous
proposal of mine to rework R 108 such that only the *clause* of the
mutable rule in conflict was neutered, as opposed to the whole rule,
received broad-based support, so I believe that is the way we wish to
play the game.  Moreover, its simpler that way; I find R 108 bad law to
begin with [I retracted the proposal at the time for unrelated reasons].

So with simplified precedence of R 108 gone, R 101, 110, R 111, R 113, and
R 115 are sucked into a single rule with the highest precedence of any
rule, thus, with the exception of R 108 style precedence, the way the
game is played is not changed. except Protection is strengthened.  [The
only thing left out is R 113, which no one has given me any reason at
all as to why this rule is not completely unnecessary.  In the unlikely
event that it is found to be necessary, it can always be reproposed].

As for class 2, why are some proposal rules Immutable, and some (491 and
a couple of others, not)?  R 491 was originally Immutable Rule 103.  It
has been mutable since before I joined the game (which was a long time
ago), and it has not hurt anyone.  I find it very confusing that R 491
is mutable and light years away from the other proposal rules, and I'm
sure newbies do too.  Why is proposal submission Immutable, and Voting
Mutable?  That makes no sense to me.  By putting all of the proposal,
voting, judgement, winning stuff right at the front, the rules are easier
to navigate.  I still know of no valid reason, or value added, in having
some proposal rules mutable, some immutable, and them scattered.  By
moving them up, and by Mohammed's elimination of the precedence claims,
they effectively have Immutable precedence sans the axe style of R 108,
thus are better than they were.

> But this seems to be mostly for aesthetic purposes.

The asthetic result achieves a functional purpose, in my mind.  I do not
believe this is the final look of the rules, but I do not think we are
ready for an LRO (logical rule order), and I find that less asthetically
appealing.  I do find that if the rules are re-orged as I am attempting
to do, it will be easier to see how an LRO will evolve, if that is
appropriate.

> I'm not trying to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I don't
> see why this shouldn't be done over time, in a more cautious manner.

I actually find this is a very small change relative to what *needs* to
be done, and have argued that it is broke.  As for doing things all at
once, there are many parts of re-org that are all or nothing, it was
the only way to do it.  Moreover, I did alot of research while writing
the proposal, and if I didn't include most of what I found in the one
searh of the rules, while I had the entire state of the ruleset in my
mind, that work would be lost and have to be re-done, which would mean
more work, ie, duplicated work.

As for bugs, I cannot guarentee there will not be any, but I have made
a good faith attempt to assure that there aren't any.  This is less far
reaching than the "Entities" rewrite, and we have lived with the few
bugs.  As for serious bugs, that is why I wrote "crash patch" before 
attempting this.  If there is a crash, we can go back to the rules of
today without going outside the nomic, thus not really crashing.

Several players have been talking about "power", "tiered rules", etc for a
while now, and I believe the reason we have not gone in that direction
is that the rules right now are too far from it; there is not a stable
base.  So I see this as a baby step in either of those directions,
without committing to any of them until they are discussed more.  I
see this as just making a game of rules.

I apologize for the length, but I should like to make clear my thinking,
and why I feel it is beneficial, and the rules easier to learn and
follow when done.

Malenkai
who would have to buy an awful lot of Frobnotzers to do this change without
a proposal

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #386
*******************************