Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #396
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, December 11 1996     Volume 01 : Number 396

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:53:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1553

Proposal 1553 -- Wed 11 Dec 11:53 CST 1996
Ackanomic History Guild
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Create a new rule with text as delimited by the ":p" symbols.

:p
1. There exists an Institution called the Ackanomic History Guild, 
hereafter called the Guild.

2. The Ackanomic History Guild consists of all players who have a Guild 
Ranking greater than zero.  Guild rankings may not be changed except as 
described by the rules.

3. Any player may submit a public message called a Historical Dissertation.  
A Historical Dissertation must: (a) be at least 50 lines in length, excluding 
blank lines; (b) state that it is a Historical Dissertation; (c) describe in 
detail one or more events in Ackanomic history.

4. Unless more than one-third of the members of the Ackanomic History 
Guild express disapproval of a particular Historical Dissertation within 
a week of its posting, the author of that Historical Dissertation shall 
have his Guild Ranking incremented by 1 seven days after its posting.

5. Only members of the Ackanomic History Guild are eligible for 
Nomination for the Office of Historian.   
:p

For the purposes of this proposal, y=621 if Proposal 1539 did not pass, 
and y=420 if Proposal 1539 did pass.

Add, to the end of the second paragraph in Rule y, "The Historian 
should maintain a copy of all Historical Dissertations."
 
Renumber Rule y to y.1

Renumber Rule 1553 to y.2

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:11:13 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Re: Acka:

>
>Hubert
>
>
Ok this is the fourth or fifth Hubert I've seen.  At the risk of
demening some sacred rite with my prattle-- what is this all about?
Who is Hubert?

Swann

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:12:16 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Lantern Interruption

I am interrupting snowgod's play of the card "accident", with my card,
"underwater".

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:58:59 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1546

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> > Proposal 1546 -- Tue 10 Dec 12:36 CST 1996
> > But not a Real Green Dress, that's cruel
> > fnord (Michael Thomas)
> 
> Any fan of "Gordon" has got my vote :-)

Cool.  Hearing that you and snowgod liked BNL got my
creative juices flowing, and I finally managed to
write a couple of proposals.  I'll submit the second
once I'm certain what Rule number "Retractions" is.

fnord
(If I had A$1,000,000...)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:45:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC 3 -- players consolidation (fwd)

> 6) The player is transformed into an Undead; all entities in the player's 
> possession at the time of this transformation are now unowned, in the 
> Treasury, and haunted by the Undead.
	It'd be helpful for a newbie, I think, if this specified that the
Undead is no longer a player, or that the Undead can't be controlled by 
the person who just left the game.  I dunno how to word it though.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:02:29 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Proposal 1550 - retracting

I'm retracting this one.

I looked over the rule and have decided that a rewrite will do it more
good than patches.I expect to submit it later tonight.
Niccolo Flychuck

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1550 -- Wed 11 Dec 11:52 CST 1996
> Make Room for Capital-Swingers
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> In the rule "Party-Hall"
> Replace the text:
> "The number of seats in Party Hall will be equal to the number of
> Political Parties plus one."
> 
> With the text:
> "The number of seats in Party Hall will be equal to the number of
> Political Parties plus the number of Capital-Swingers plus one. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:49:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church: Chess

Would anybody object to a proposal to wipe out the NAP Seat in Party 
Hall?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:56:26 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church: Chess

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Would anybody object to a proposal to wipe out the NAP Seat in Party 
> Hall?
> 
> --Mohammed
>
I would.
What I can't stop wondering, is why players would prefer to pay for a
Swinger's Office, when they can get one for free.
One of the advantages of forming a Party is getting a free Swinger's
Office, and there's no reason not to extend this to one non-aligned
player.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:00:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:

Hubert

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:18:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church: Chess

> One of the advantages of forming a Party is getting a free Swinger's
> Office, and there's no reason not to extend this to one non-aligned
> player.
	Yes there is!  Why should one non-aligned player get the free 
seat, and the next one have to cough up A$600 (or whatever the going rate 
is) ?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:21:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lantern

"accident" was successfully played; it was burned.  However, snowgod may 
have been interrupted (I haven't read all my mail yet.)

There are 41 cards in the deck.
4 cards have been burned.

There is one loose end:
        monster

Players:
        snowgod         has   6 cards.
        Habeous-Corpus  has   7 cards.
        Malenkai        has   7 cards.
        ThinMan         has   7 cards.
        Bascule         has   8 cards.
        /dev/joe        has   5 cards.

It is snowgod's turn. (maybe)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:25:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lantern Interruption

> I am interrupting snowgod's play of the card "accident", with my card,
> "underwater".
	This interruption succeeds.  snowgod is dealt a card for being 
interrupted, "underwater" is burned, and it is /dev/joe's turn again.

There are 40 cards in the deck.
5 cards have been burned.

There is one loose end:
        monster

Players:
        /dev/joe        has   4 cards.
        snowgod         has   7 cards.
        Habeous-Corpus  has   7 cards.
        Malenkai        has   7 cards.
        ThinMan         has   7 cards.
        Bascule         has   8 cards.

It is /dev/joe's turn.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:45:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC 3 -- players consolidation (fwd)

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > 6) The player is transformed into an Undead; all entities in the player's 
> > possession at the time of this transformation are now unowned, in the 
> > Treasury, and haunted by the Undead.
> 	It'd be helpful for a newbie, I think, if this specified that the
> Undead is no longer a player, or that the Undead can't be controlled by 
> the person who just left the game.  I dunno how to word it though.
> 
> --Mohammed

Thanks for the suggestion; unfortunately, I already sent it out.  Would 
this be enough to make you vote no on it?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:40:31 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: FUN mutation 

The FUN party hereby changes its name to the Harf Party.
Its charter shall be changed to read in full:

1. Name: Harf Party
2. The Harf Party is hereby created. It has the following goals:
    a. Make Ackanomic more fun, interesting, and silly.
    b. Avoid rules that unnecessarily (fun is necessary) complicate the game.
    c. Gather more players and observers for Ackanomic.
    d. Make Ackanomic more able to deal with a large number of players.
    e. Organize Ackanomic in a more systematic way in order to help new
       players and observers get the hang of the game.
    f. Make Ackanomic as grand and impressive as possible.
    g. Encourage Inter-Nomic activities, as well as any other activities in
       which Ackanomic interacts with the outside world (in an enjoyable way)
    h. Have an article about Ackanomic published in a major, real world medium.
    i. To have fun.
3. Party unity and discussion of proposals is encouraged in the Harf party.
4. A player may become a member of the Harf party if half or more of the
  current party members vote in favor of the player joining.
5. A player may be expelled from the Harf party if half or more of the current
   party members vote in favor of the player leaving.
6. This charter can be changed by unanimous member approval.
- ------------------------------------------------

As of this date, it has six members: Bascule, Malenkai, Calvin N Hobbes and
three new members, Airhead, Techno and Robert Sevin. Bascule continues to be
in charge of Party Chess.

Of course, membership is not closed.

CnH
making a public announcement

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:20:59 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: RE: Acka: Java

What I want to know is this...  How manby people have web browsers that
suppport JAVA.  Or better yet, how many don't?  Would you be interested in
having a small java applet directly on the ackanomic web page that would
allow you to connect to an IRC server without having to worry about
configuring your own client?

IE 3 and Netscape 3 here, I'm okay

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:06:22 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:

Steven A. Swiniarski wrote:
> 
> >
> >Hubert
> >
> >
> Ok this is the fourth or fifth Hubert I've seen.  At the risk of
> demening some sacred rite with my prattle-- what is this all about?
> Who is Hubert?
> 
> Swann

Swann, I am glad it was YOU who asked because I don't have a clue
either.

Lestrade

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:17:36 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1552

I must object to some of the provisions of proposal 1552.  At least
one fairly important one is of questionable operability, and another
opens the door to a scam.

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>Proposal 1552 -- Wed 11 Dec 11:53 CST 1996
>Players
>Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
>
>Create a new rule with text as follows:
>{{
>Perform the following actions, in the order they appear.

[...]
>
>III. [Joining the Game]
>
>Create a new rule, entitled "Joining the Game", with text as shown, 
>delimited by ~ symbols.
>
>~

[...]
>
>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.

[...]

If I quit, and then rejoin with a different name, then this would
make me a new player.  That in itself would be a tolerable nuisance,
but it goes on -- I would then get new starting cash, a new house,
etc., and with a partner I could easilly scam my way to being a
multi-thousandaire and real-estate magnate.

The current rules define "new" players differently, in a way that
seems to prevent such a scam.

[...]
>~
>
>Renumber the just-created rule to 252. 

I believe that the number of the rule to which that refers would be
1552.1.  It is far preferrable (in that there is less ambiguity) to
use the actual number.
>
[...]

>V. [Leaving the Game]
>
>Amend Rule 962.2's text to that delimited by the ~ symbols, and change 
>its name to "Leaving the Game."
>
>~
>Upon a player leaving, the following procedure takes place, in the order 
>shown.

[...]

>6) The player is transformed into an Undead; all entities in the player's 
>possession at the time of this transformation are now unowned, in the 
>Treasury, and haunted by the Undead.

There is currently some ambiguity in the rules about just what a
player is, at least the way I see it.  I would prefer to not multiply
that by transforming players into other things.  The current scheme of
undead creation seems to work just fine, and I don't understand why you
wish to change it.

[...]

All things considered, I urge a retraction.  Failing that, I urge
no votes.  I offer my apologies for not detecting these problems in
the RFC stage.

ThinMan

>

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:18:25 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 

Celine

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:20:39 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 

Dawn

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:20:57 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 

Emily

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:21:04 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 

Sandrine

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:22:02 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 

Anne

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:31:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church: Chess

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > One of the advantages of forming a Party is getting a free Swinger's
> > Office, and there's no reason not to extend this to one non-aligned
> > player.
> 	Yes there is!  Why should one non-aligned player get the free 
> seat, and the next one have to coughup A$600 (or whatever the going rate 
> is) ?
> 
> --Mohammed
> 
Any non-aligned player can run for the Office. and the Capital Swinger
Offices are not limited for non-aligned players. 
As for the price, which has become much lower now, a couple of players can
pool their resources to buy such an Office together, as it seems the
Markovian Church might do soon. There is limited room on the PartyBoard,
so such a strategy makes sense.
The NAP Office offsets the Party advantage a bit, but does not eliminate
it entirely.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:00:42 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Church: Chess - II

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > One of the advantages of forming a Party is getting a free Swinger's
> > Office, and there's no reason not to extend this to one non-aligned
> > player.
> 	Yes there is!  Why should one non-aligned player get the free 
> seat, and the next one have to coughup A$600 (or whatever the going rate 
> is) ?
> 
> --Mohammed
>
If you can get elected, fine. Otherwise, you might as well buy your way
into Office.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:09:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retraction

Dec 11 17:09 EST: Guy Fawkes: retracting 1552

I am retracting 1552

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:40:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1552

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> If I quit, and then rejoin with a different name, then this would
> make me a new player.  That in itself would be a tolerable nuisance,
> but it goes on -- I would then get new starting cash, a new house,
> etc., and with a partner I could easilly scam my way to being a
> multi-thousandaire and real-estate magnate.
> 
> The current rules define "new" players differently, in a way that
> seems to prevent such a scam.

You wouldn't need a parnter, actually.  By changing your name to the 
original player name, you would gain the Undead's possessions from 
before, and in addition, doing it this way would give you a double set of 
PF's.  Still, I don't see why you have to apply such a deroguatory word 
like "scam" to it.  I prefer "unexpected action".  :)  It'll be fixed.

> >Renumber the just-created rule to 252. 
> 
> I believe that the number of the rule to which that refers would be
> 1552.1.  It is far preferrable (in that there is less ambiguity) to
> use the actual number.

_I_ can easily do this, as I know all proposal numbers before they are 
numbered, but how would anyone else write a proposal with that language 
without using some variation of the truly roundabout syntax I've employed 
elsewhere [...for the puroposes of this proposal, the letter y, when used 
as a variable, is equivalent to this proposal's proposal number...] 

> >6) The player is transformed into an Undead; all entities in the player's 
> >possession at the time of this transformation are now unowned, in the 
> >Treasury, and haunted by the Undead.
> 
> There is currently some ambiguity in the rules about just what a
> player is, at least the way I see it.  I would prefer to not multiply
> that by transforming players into other things.  The current scheme of
> undead creation seems to work just fine, and I don't understand why you
> wish to change it.

The current Undead system is broken in at least one and possibly two ways.

The original versions of this in RFC form used the current systems of 
undead creation/destruction, and they were the parts of those RFC's which 
drew the most suggestions for changing; (1) Undead are named entities; 
however, during an Undead's creation process, there exists an 
infitessimal amount of time in which the Undead has no name.  I could CFJ 
this, but that would serve no purpose.

(2) During the destruction of an Undead, there exists an infitessimal 
amount of time in which a Player and an Undead have the same name.  The 
Rule " " defers to other rules as to whether this is permissible, but 
there exists no rule for it to defer to, unless you want to say the 
player returning process does so implicitly.

No matter how I phrased the Undead workings in any version of this, 
_someone_ had complaints, either material or aesthetic.  Often, those 
complaints conflict with each other.

The next version of this will contain several minor but significant 
reworkings of Undead.  If that does not meet everyone's satisfaction, I 
will consider abolishing the things in favor of another system (not that 
what I have in mind is significantly different, but it seems there exists 
a significant degree of ambiguity it the general player mindset as to 
what exactly an Undead is, and I feel these preconceptions are the basis 
for several of these conflicting objections.  It may be best to shed them 
and start out again on a clean slate on the matter.  We'll see.)

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:04:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:

john duncan wrote:

> > Ok this is the fourth or fifth Hubert I've seen.  At the risk of
> > demening some sacred rite with my prattle-- what is this all about?
> > Who is Hubert?
> >
> > Swann
> 
> Swann, I am glad it was YOU who asked because I don't have a clue
> either.
> 
> Lestrade

Try http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackabta.htm#111

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:23:55 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:

Bob

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:04:48 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1548

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> Proposal 1548 -- Wed 11 Dec 11:51 CST 1996
> More Exciting Endgames

> [Gist: [...] I also feel it strips the point win of finesse.  Here, I
> propose a third alternative [...]

I would hardly call tactics like CFJ 323, voting YES on dubious
proposals, or voting NO on good proposals, "finesse".  Other tactics
of end-of-cycle point juryrigging are in the same non-game play league,
IMHO.

Mohammed's proposal reduced those tactics at end-of-cycle, which seemed
like a good idea to me.  I believe there should always be incentive
to always be  increasing your score, and due to the ease with which it
can be done on demand, not be incentive to decrease your score.  As
we well know, any player can set their score to any value between -59
and their current score by making more work for the Functional Officers, 
unless they have a Victory Eggplant.  

This is why I finally turned against the Gnome.  While I liked the Gnome
very much, I could not accept it the way points could be shed at will
quickly, by retracting stuff.  I did not mind score reduction via 
garbage proposals, as they generally took a long time to develop the
score loss, and had harf value.  Moreover, a Gnome hunt generally cost
the hunter enough in A$ loss from point conversion to make Tammany a
competetive value for the votes anyway (That is the real reason it never
bothered me in all cases). 

All that said, I still feel wins should be given for points, but the
percentage of such wins should be a lower percentage of the total number
of wins than they will be with R 219 wins virtually dead now.  I also
feel that wins should not be awarded for Palindromic rules and for
the Frankenstein Monster, but such should be a large chunk towards some
other sort of win (perhaps another key in the Vault Chalice).  I believe
this is similar to /dev/joe's point in terms of R 219 wins, but I
disagreed with him for that specific case.

In short, we have handicapped champions, and now we propose to allow
someone with possibly a substantially lower score defeat one, depending on
the luck of the way points fall at the end of the cycle, or questionable
tactics similar to the ones I used to win this one.  I do not object to
the handicapping, but I do find myself at odds with this proposal.

I would perfer a more holistic look at our winning conditions.  I have
been blocked in regard to this area, but perhaps I shall stumble onto
something.  I would like winning conditions that reward players who
make ingenius plays, thus giving good players who spend much less time
on the game than others an equal footing in competing for wins.  That is
why I like R 219; I find it that type of rule.  Perhaps Frankenstein will
be similar, I did vote for it, figuring that if it leads to wins too
frequently, it can be amended.

Malenkai
who apologizes for the length of this post

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:36:35 -0800 
From: David Thomas Fisher <[email-masked]>
Subject: : Acka: The Gumball

It bis now Wednesday, December the 11th, and I am sitting in my home, which is
newly built, and resembles very much an construction site.  Digging throughthe
rubbish, looking for a copy of the rules to look through to better
aqaint myself with the game in general), what should I come across but the old
gumball, which has not been chewed in... how long?  Anyway, I lift it to my
mouth and chew, nearly chipping my teeth rock-hard substance.  Is there
something that happens now, something that would cause peoplee to not have
chewed the gumball in so long?

23 Skidoo
- --
David Fisher ([email-masked])
"Seduced, shaggy Samson snored./ She scissored short.  Sorely shorn,/ Soon
shackled slave, Samson sighed,/ Silently scheming/ Sightlessly seeking/ Some
savage, spectacular suicide."  - Stanislaw Lem, "The Cyberiad"

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:33:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Processing Chips

Processing Chips are awarded as follows:

p1499 +3 Guy Fawkes
p1502 +2 Robert Sevin
p1507 +3 Guy Fawkes
p1508 +2 Robert Sevin
p1509 +3 Guy Fawkes

Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:50:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: : Acka: The Gumball

Yes, at this point, your post is recorded in the Gumball archive, 
although the rules by no means require this.

Guy Fawkes

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, David Thomas Fisher wrote:

> It bis now Wednesday, December the 11th, and I am sitting in my home, which is
> newly built, and resembles very much an construction site.  Digging throughthe
> rubbish, looking for a copy of the rules to look through to better
> aqaint myself with the game in general), what should I come across but the old
> gumball, which has not been chewed in... how long?  Anyway, I lift it to my
> mouth and chew, nearly chipping my teeth rock-hard substance.  Is there
> something that happens now, something that would cause peoplee to not have
> chewed the gumball in so long?
> 
> 23 Skidoo
> --
> David Fisher ([email-masked])
> "Seduced, shaggy Samson snored./ She scissored short.  Sorely shorn,/ Soon
> shackled slave, Samson sighed,/ Silently scheming/ Sightlessly seeking/ Some
> savage, spectacular suicide."  - Stanislaw Lem, "The Cyberiad"
> 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:03:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Presidential Debate

Presidential candidates have expressed desire for me to moderate a
debate in accordance with R 115.  Considering the suggestions of
players and time constaints, I have chosen to conduct it as follows:

1) All players (including the candidates) may send me questions to be 
addressed to the candidates.  If you do so, please put something in
the subject line to indicate that it is a debate question.

2) I will randomly sort and post the questions in a single post at the
end of the nomination period, when I announce the candidates.  If I
receive alot of questions, I will eliminate some questions, choosing
questions submitted by players who have submitted more than one first,
but never eliminating a player's only question, or never eliminating
questions from a presidential candidate such that that candidate has
less than 2.  If players submit alot of questions, (which is ok), they
should list them in an order such that I will eliminate them from the
bottom of the list. 

3) Candidates should reply to the questions in the public forum,
preferrably in a single post, quoting the question.
 
4) I realise this is not the ideal format, but it will work, if players
choose to submit questions before the nomination is over.  If any
candidate objects to this format, they may post so publically, and
the debate will be cancelled.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:45:43 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: : Acka: The Gumball 

 Is there
>something that happens now, something that would cause peoplee to not have
>chewed the gumball in so long?

I think no one wanted to chew it anymore after I fed it to the little lamb :)

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:45:47 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: random Tabulator Babbling 

I apologize to 23 skidoo (and lestrade?) for not including their names on
the list of players who have not yet voted.  Oversight on my part.  Sorry.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:40:34 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: I'm building a tower.

I am building an ostentatious tower to live in. It will be 40 meters
tall, and at the top of the tower will be a light of 1 million
candlepower when operating. The beam is  directed by a revolving
reflector. It will also be equipped with a foghorn. My rules library
will be located on the level directly below the lamp; so I can, as a
break from my study, have a view of Ackanomia.  The name of my house
will be changed to Lestrade's Lighthouse.
 As I have no wish to disturb the rest of my fellow Ackanomians, I will
only turn on the lamp and foghorn on important occasions. 

The cost of my tower is A$120, according to R 841, which shall be
deducted from my account.

To see a picture of the lighthouse visit 
http://www.infi.net/~andy1/litehous/litehous.htm

My lighthouse is pictured next to the line "poem about lighthouses..." 

Lestrade

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:48:57 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: I'm building a tower. 

> As I have no wish to disturb the rest of my fellow Ackanomians, I will
>only turn on the lamp and foghorn on important occasions.

Oh no, please keep them on all the time.  Perhaps then people will begin to
take notice of us :)... By the way, remember that all towers extend
downward from the earth (we are on the bottom) and not upward as is common
on the topside of the earth.

 snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:48:10 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: random Tabulator Babbling

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I apologize to 23 skidoo (and lestrade?) for not including their names on
> the list of players who have not yet voted.  Oversight on my part.  Sorry.
> 
> snowgod

That's O.K.. I have begun voting with  P 1540, so as yet I haven't been
looking for my name.

Lestrade

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:04:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1548

[Malenkai's comments on winning reform]

This is one of many areas of the game where I feel we say we want 
something, and then complain (occasionally offensively) about all 
attempts to provide what we say we want, often scaring off new creativity 
in the process.  While the first steps in a given direction may be small 
and bring forth all sorts of unexpected consequences, they are well worth 
it for the growth they provide.  Have we become such paraphobes that we 
would rather languish in a smoothly running but eminently boring shell 
rather than explore new systems of rule-making and gameplay?  My journeys 
through the archives, of the turbulent and occasionally nearly 
game-crashing CFJ's of June and July make me wish I had been a player 
then -- perhaps they weren't the most stable of times, but they were 
perhaps the most exciting days this nomic has ever seen.

The words, "If is isn't broke, don't try to fix it," seem to pop up more 
and more in the ruleset these days.  Perhaps in real life they are 
suitable, but I feel that in nomic they represent a very stagnant 
philosophy.  While I do enjoy the multitude of sub-games that seem to 
occupy our time lately, it seems to me that they are a distraction from 
the point of the game itself -- to change the rules.  Why should the fact 
that a rule works be reason to let it be?  I would much rather try to 
rewrite it in an entirely different direction just to see where it would 
carry the game rather the life in boring contentment with the current 
game mechanics.  There have been days where I have felt like deliberately 
breaking rules so they could be fixed, and not to their original 
condition [the player's rewrite was not written in this spirit, as a 
reassurance].

Sometimes it seems we have two groups of entrenched concepts that do not 
work well together, and yet we seem unwilling to part with either one.  
In the case of these Magic Number reforms, for instance, the problem is 
this:  We have a win condition based on hitting a number exactly with 
your score, and yet we have ways to easily manipulate your score.  The 
first, to me seems an interesting challenge.  The second group 
(retraction penalties), in my opinion, serve no purpose but to protect 
the game from thoughtlessly written proposals.  Quite frankly, if this is 
a foe we really need protected from, the game has deeper problems than 
the rules can correct.  Well-written proposals are their own reward.

We say we want more win conditions, but when they appear, we say, "Yes, 
but not that."  We have choked R 219 to near-uselessness.  People hint 
that the palindrome win is "cheap" and "unworthy."  I will be the first 
to laud praise upon Malenkai for the hours he puts into this game every 
day, but for those besides besides he, Niccolo, and I, and perhaps a few 
hours, who are unable to spend hours a day writing proposals, or who have 
more important real-life priorities (Quite frankly, as much as I enjoy 
this game, its effect on my real life frightens me), points really don't 
mean a whole lot.  Yet we insist on making them one of the most important 
aspects of this game.  I would support sticking a few odd win conditions 
here and there, and if they provoke a premature death of cycle, it's no 
great harm and actually a little bit of fun.  

In short, it seems to me that non-point wins are somehow viewed as 
inferior and "cheap" to the general populous, and in some cases paramount 
to scamming.  I predict that when the time comes that someone actually 
does win by the crystal chalice, there will be those who call it a scam.  
Sometimes, attempts at non-point wins have provoked violent reactions; I 
was called "total shit" once for a paradox attempt, and yet R219 is not a 
scam; it is plainly written for all to see, and even if it is false, the 
Chartreuse Goose is mine to bear for it.  And yet we insist we do want to 
grow, that we do want new frontiers to play in and new ways to win.  Why 
do I sometimes doubt the sincerity of these wishes?

No matter how you choose to play or change the game, you deserve 
respect.  Even if you try to repeal the vast majority of rules, even if 
you carefully plot and manipulate loopholes to surf, even if you spend 
hours a day scanning the rules for the tiniest possible paradox, you do 
not deserve to have your rules or yourself called "cheap" or 
"destructive" or "scams."  You might be a rather strange person, but as 
long as you play within the rules, your choice of where to focus your energies 
to play within the rules is yours, and it derseves respect.

Guy Fawkes
apologizing for rambling 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:06:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: : Acka: The Gumball

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> I think no one wanted to chew it anymore after I fed it to the little lamb :)
> 
> snowgod

I chewed it after that -- however, I do recall it having a grassy aftertaste.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:26:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: players RFC 4

Create a new rule with text as follows:
{{
Perform the following actions, in the order they appear.

- ----

I. [Registered players]
Renumber Rule 218 "Registered Players" to 250.

II. [Player names]

Amend Rule 570's text to that delimited by the ~ symbols.

~
Every player has exactly one Ackanomic name.  This name must be a string 
of name characters from three to twenty characters in length.  Neither 
the first nor the last character in this string may be the space character.
All official nomic business shall use this name to refer to that player.

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 pTang1001001sos 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. 
~

Renumber Rule 570 to 251.

- ----

III. [Joining the Game]

Create a new rule, entitled "Joining the Game", with text as shown, 
delimited by ~ symbols.

~
For the purposes of this rule, a player whose most recent departure from 
Ackanomic prompted the creation of an Undead is considered a Returning 
player.  All other players are considered New.

A person wishing to join the game, and who cannot do so as a Returning  
player, should notify the Registrar, providing a valid email adress, 
their real name, and the legal Ackanomic name they wish to play under.  Upon 
them providing this information, the Registrar shall post a public message 
announcing the new player and providing their Ackanomic name, real name, and 
email adress, and if the prospective player provided it, how they discovered 
the game.  Upon the posting of such an announcement, the person becomes 
registered as a 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 also 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 be 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.  

A person able to join the game as a Returning player may do so by posting 
a public message to that effect.  This message must include their 
Ackanomic and real life names, as well as a valid email address.  The 
Registrar shall then record their return to the players list.

Upon the registration of a Returning player, the following procedure 
takes place: 

1) The Undead created in response to their most recent departure from 
Acka, who bears their Real Life Name, transfers all entities it is 
haunting to the Returning player.  These entities are now no longer haunted.
2) That Undead is destroyed.
3) All Bond Promissories in that player's real life name are converted to 
PFBonds associated with that player.  Their label is the same as the PFBonds 
whose conversion created the Bond Promissories. 
4) If the player left during the current cycle, his score is the minimum 
of 0 and the score he had upon last leaving the game.  Otherwise, his 
score is -15N, where N is the number of cycles he has won.  If this 
causes his score to be negative, he is given a Victory Eggplant, and his 
Eggplant Weight is set to -15N, where N is defined as above.
~

Renumber the just-created rule to 252. 

In Rule 362 "No Dead Players Allowed", delete all text between the string 
"and treated as if he never joined the game" and the end of the paragraph, 
inclusive. Add a period to the end of this paragraph.

Amend the first paragraph of Rule 1051 "Mentors" 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 Rule 1051 
to 253.

Repeal Rule 1026 "New and Returning players".

Delete the paragraph beginning, "Each player who has not previously..." 
from Rule 839 "Buildings".

[This next few bits attempts to account for either the passage of failure of 
reorg-1.  Please scrutinize carefully.]

If Proposal 1539 passed, do the following: (1) Delete the second 
paragraph of Rule 665, section I. (2) Delete the third paragraph of rule 507.
(3) Add "(vii) the name and email address of their Mentor" to the end of 
Rule 409, section (b).
[money, PF's, Registrar]

If Proposal 1539 did not pass, do the following: (1) Delete the second 
paragraph of Rule 480. (2) Delete the third paragraph of rule 481.
(3) Add "(vii) the name and email address of their Mentor" to the end of 
Rule 424, section (b).
[same in current ruleset]

- ----

IV. [Player States]

Create a new rule, entitled, "Player States" with text as follows, 
delimited by ~ symbols.

~
At any given time, exactly one of these three states shall apply to a player.

Pending
Active
Vacation

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

Only Active players may be randomly selected for anything.
~

Renumber the just-created rule to 254.

Renumber R457 "Vacation" to 255.

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

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 number of 
Vacationing players who voted on the proposal and the number of Active 
players, less the number of players in Gaol)."

- ----

V. [Leaving the Game]

Amend Rule 962.2's text to that delimited by the ~ symbols, and change 
its name to "Leaving 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 entity 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.  Bond Promissories are tradeable entities.
6) An Undead is created; its name is the same as the player's Real Life 
name.
7) All entities in the player's possession are taken away, considered 
unowned, haunted by the just-created Undead, and in the Treasury.
8) The player is deregistered.
~ 

Renumber R 962.2 to 256

All Bond Promissories associated with currently registered players become 
PFBonds associated with that player.

All Undead are renamed.  An Undead's new name is the same as the Real Life 
name of the player whose deregistration prompted its creation.
}}

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #396
*******************************