Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #437
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Saturday, January 4 1997       Volume 01 : Number 437

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 10:06:29 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Fictionary

7) A small, rare bird native to northern Scotland.

I vote for #7

HC

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 09:17:18 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC on fixing up some recent stuff

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Rule 1564 is the wrong idea, IMHO.  Lestrade recognized that a Festival
> was a poor name for something that happens when a bunch of proposals
> fail due to quorum, but he failed to realize that the rules we have now
> make it unlikely that consecutive proposals will fail due to Quorum.
> (See the 5th paragraph of rule 207 and rule 201.)  A better proposal
> (vs. P1564) would have been to just delete the section about proposals
> failing by Quorum from the Festival rule.  Stray rules like 1564 are
> a lot of what is confusing about our rule set and what makes it so big;
> we are better off without it.

I have no particular objection to 1564 being repealed, but I do object
to returning it, even in modified form, to the Festival of Torkola. If
1564 is covered by rule 201 & 207; why, as you stated in an earlier
post, is it necessary to return it to the Festival?

The Festival rule, as written before, was an example of a (bad) tendency
to put a lot of unrelated items together under the same rule. It may be
convienent. It may shorten the rule list. It also does nothing for the
continuity or clarity of the rules.

Lestrade

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 10:24:56 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC on fixing up some recent stuff

john duncan wrote:

> The Festival rule, as written before, was an example of a (bad) tendency
> to put a lot of unrelated items together under the same rule. It may be
> convienent. It may shorten the rule list. It also does nothing for the
> continuity or clarity of the rules.

The items of the old festival rule were related in that they were all the
ways, and the only ways, under which a proposal moratorium could occur.

I agree with /dev/joe that seperating these things from each other in
the ruleset makes it harder to follow.

If anyone cares, reorg II was going to repeal the Festival anyway.  Now it
will repeal what is there now, and I will let /dev/joe decide whether to
repeal the part that was seperated out.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:38:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official Gaffe

> Is there a proposal 1608?
> Malenkai
	Yes.  It's titled "Just the FAQs" or something similar, and you 
ought to have received it (it's in my outbox)... need another copy?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:39:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1612

Proposal 1612
Internomic Justice take 3.1
Habeous Corpus

Ammend Rule 588 (Selecting a Judge) by replacing the second paragraph
with:

If the "remaining Pool" is ever reduced to 0 eligible active Players, 
and a judge needs to be selected,  the Clerck of the Court (CotC) shall
send a public message to the Ambassador containing the following:

1.  A request for Internomic Judgement,  with the reason for the request
(i.e. no available judges).
2.  A copy of the CFJ or CFCJ responsible for the request.
3.  The initiator's comments.
4.  Any extenuating circumstances that might require Judgement before the
default Internomic Judgement.

Prior to submitting the CFJ or CFCJ to Internomic for Judgement,  the
Ambassador shall request in a public message for additional FOR and
AGAINST comments on the CFJ or CFCJ from Players.  The iniator of the CFJ
or CFCJ shall be given priority in adding to the FOR argument,  Any
number of Players may submit arguments AGAINST,  but in cases of a CFCJ
or any CFJ aimed at a particular Player,  the concerned Player shall be
given priority.

The Ambassador shall pick one or more AGAINST arguments to accompany the
FOR argument (even in cases where the only argument is the CFJ Statement)
 when submitting the CFJ or CFCJ to Internomic.  

Any Player providing an argument either FOR or AGAINST should be prepared
to defend eir argument if queried by the Internomic Judge.  

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:40:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1613

Proposal 1613
Internomic Justice Take 3.2
Habeous Corpus

Ammend Rule 569 (Overturning Judgements) by replacing the seventh (7th)
eighth (8th) and ninth (9th) paragraphs with the following:

In the event that any Player opposes the verdict of the Supreme Court, 
they may appeal for Internomic Justice as along as they do not exceed any
appeal limiots specified by this or other Rules.  An Internomic Court of
Justice appeal is initiated by submitting a statement to the Praetor
containing the following information:
1.  A request for Internomic Judgement,  with the reason for the request
(i.e. opposition to an appeal verdict).
2.  A copy of the CFJ or CFCJ and/or appeal responsible for the request.
3.  The initiator's and all Judges' comments.
4.  Any extenuating circumstances that might require Judgement before the
default Internomic Judgement period.

  The Praetor shall forward the message to the Internomic Liason in a
public message,  who shall submit the appeal to the Internomic Court of
Justice for Ackanomic. 

Prior to submitting the appeal to Internomic for Judgement,  the
Ambassador shall request in a public message for additional FOR and
AGAINST comments on the appeal from Players.  The Supreme Court Justices
shall be given priority in adding to the FOR argument,  Any number of
Players may submit arguments AGAINST,  but in cases of a CFCJ or any CFJ
aimed at a particular Player,  the concerned Player shall be given
priority.

The Liason shall pick one or more AGAINST arguments to accompany the FOR
argument (even in cases where the only argument is the CFJ Statement) 
when submitting the appeal to the Internomic Court of Justice.  

Any Player providing an argument either FOR or AGAINST should be prepared
to defend eir argument if queried by the Internomic Judge.  

Internomic Judgements may not be appealed either to Ackanomic nor
Internomic.  This takes precedence over any Ackanomic Rule governing
appeals of CFJ's,  CFCJ's or Supreme Court Rulings or Judgements.

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:42:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1615

Proposal 1615
Internomic Justice Take 3.4
Habeous Corpus

Ammend Rule 1374 (Praetor) by adding to Section IV the following
paragraph:

The Praetor shall review any appeals to Supreme Court Rulings or
Judgements submitted by a Player.  If the Praetor finds that the Player's
complaint does not meet the required Format,  nor canotains a valid
argument for opposoing the appeal,  the complaint shall be deemed Invalid
and returned to the Player with an explanation as to why it was Invalid. 
The Player must resubmit the complaint within three (3) days or forfeit
the right to submit compaints on the particular CFJ,  CFCJ or Supreme
Court Ruling or Judgement.  The Praetor may not judge the complaint for
content,  only form.  If any Player believes a complaint was judged
Invalid for content or personal bias,  e may call for the impeachment of
the Praetor,  challenge the Praetor to a Duel,  sneer at the Praetor,  or
resubmit the complaint with no time limit.

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 11:37:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official Gaffe

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > Is there a proposal 1608?
> > Malenkai
>         Yes.  It's titled "Just the FAQs" or something similar, and you
> ought to have received it (it's in my outbox)... need another copy?

Yep.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:43:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1614

Proposal 1614
Internomic Justice Take 3.3
Habeous Corpus

Ammend Rule 589 (Invoking Judgement) By inserting between the fourth
(4th) and fifth (5th) paragraphs the following:

Any Player who believes that a pending CFJ is either too controversial or
too important to the existing Ruleset to be Judged by any single Player
in Ackanomic,  may request that the CFJ be judged by the Internomic Court
of Justice.

A request for Internomic Justice on an existing CFJ is made by posting a
message to the Clerk of the Courts containg the following information:
1.  A request for Internomic Judgement,  with the reason for the request
(i.e. impact on ruleset).
2.  A copy of the CFJresponsible for the request.
3.  The initiator's comments and any additional comments FOR or AGAINST.
4.  Any extenuating circumstances that might require Judgement before the
default Internomic Judgement period.

The Clerk of the Court shall post to the public Forum a summary of the
reasoning for requesting Internomic Justice,  and commence a Hearing to
determine if the CFJ will be heard by the existing Ackanomic Judge,  or
be forwarded to Internomic.  Valid responses are "No,  our Judge is good
enough" and "Yes,  Internomic needs to hear this".  If fifty percent (50)
plus one (1) of the votes are for "Yes,  Internomic needs to hear this", 
then the Liason shall  forward the CFJ to Internomic;  otherwise,  the
case goes back to the original Judge.

Prior to submitting the CFJ  to Internomic for Judgement,  the Liason
shall request in a public message for additional FOR and AGAINST comments
on the CFJ from Players.   Any number of Players may submit arguments FOR
or AGAINST.

The Liason shall send all arguments both FOR and AGAINST  when submitting
the CFJ to Internomic.  

Any Player providing an argument either FOR or AGAINST should be prepared
to defend eir argument if queried by the Internomic Judge.  

Internomic Judgements may only be appealed either to Ackanomic nor
Internomic if there was a demonstrable violation of Ackanomic Rules in
the Judgement delivered.  This takes precedence over any Ackanomic Rule
governing appeals of CFJ's or CFCJ's.

CFJ's that would result in a Rule 219 Win (Winning by Paradox) are not
elligable for submission to the Internomic Court of Justice.

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 08:38:05 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: withdrawing P16045/1610

I would like to withdraw the proposal 
titled
What may have towers

Jammer
who is getting badly confused

Proposal 1605
What may have Towers
Jammer  (AKA John-Martin Lotz)

This is a modest proposal.

Proposal 1600 be changed from

Proposal 1600
 Elbow room
Jammer
> 
> This is a modest propsal.
> 
> A full Kaa of land is needed to build a space in a structure.
> 
> Any structure may have additional things built on to it, including
> towers.

to become
> 
> Proposal 1600
> Elbow room
> Jammer
> 
> This is a modest propsal.
> 
> A full Kaa of land is needed to build a space in a structure.
> 
> Only structures legally able to have tower on them may have towers
attached to it.

by deleting 

Any structure may have additional things built on to it, including
towers

and replacing it with

Only structures legally able to have tower on them may have towers
attached to 

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 08:42:03 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Re: Reorg

> 
> Please try to use "Acka:" in the subject line of messages to the list 
> server.  Thanks.  :o)
> 
Okay

> > A) Organization of Rules
> > A rule number is in the form Rule x-9999 where x is
> > a roman alphabetic charaacter and 9 is a Arabic digit.
> 	I'd prefer to see an expansion of the current system:
> 
> A rule number is a whole number, followed by one or more suffixes made up

> of a period followed by another whole number.
> 
> 	So that 9.8 is an okay rule number, and so is 9.1028.109 and so 
> is 3.4.5.6     ... Precedence wouldn't change all that much from the way 
> it is right now.
> 	This has the further advantage that we could renumber rules 210 
> thru 219 (for example) to 2.10 through 2.19 without making me relearn the

> numbers again.  :o)

Were this a proposal it could be altered to to include decimal \values
I had thought that 
> 
> > 4.  While the reorginization is treated as a proposal, any rules
relating
> > to gain or loss of points or Processing chips are specifiacaly waived.
> 	If what you mean is that your proposal will start having effects 
> before it actually passes a vote, that's impossible.  What benefit are 
> you going after with this?
> 
No, this is a two step process-first enact the rule to change the rules
then change them

Twofold.
1)  Because I wasn't sure how legally to account for required rules, as
with
the committee
2)  Because I wasn't sure how to apply the numbers to a committee.

this set up the mechanism, it doesn't actually set up the committe or re
catagorize 
the rules.
> > E:  Ammendments
> > The Promoter shall determine what catagory any proposal shall be in
> > and post it in the announcement.
> 	A Proposal also should be able to say for itself what category it 
> wants to go under.
> 
That's why this is more in the way of RFC intstead of a Proposal.  I agree

> > Any Proposal that is accepted shall be assigned a rule number one
greater
> > current newest rule in a catagory and it shall be the newest rule in
the
> > catagory.

> 	I tried to do something remotely like this a while ago, but /dev/joe 
> (?) quickly changed it back.  The result was the entire dotted-number 
> system we have now.  At the time I remember I recoiled at the thought of 
> adding a page and a half of rules for no apparent reason... :o)  I was 
> young then...

Why was it changed back?

Jammer

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 10:59:37 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC on fixing up some recent stuff

Malenkai wrote:
 
> The items of the old festival rule were related in that they were all the
> ways, and the only ways, under which a proposal moratorium could occur.

I see your point, but it doesn't change my opinion of the old rule, or
my reason for proposing 1564. The purpose of the rule was to give some
sense of urgency to game conditions that I didn't feel was addressed, by
both the nature of the title and  the other conditions that are involved
in invoking the Festival. 

> I agree with /dev/joe that seperating these things from each other in
> the ruleset makes it harder to follow.

IMO, I still don't think they belonged together in the first place.
 
> If anyone cares, reorg II was going to repeal the Festival anyway.  Now it
> will repeal what is there now, and I will let /dev/joe decide whether to
> repeal the part that was seperated out.
> 
Sounds good to me. The whole problem can be erased.

Lestrade

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 11:05:21 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Reorg

John Martin Lotz wrote:
> 

> E:  Ammendments
> The Promoter shall determine what catagory any proposal shall be in
> and post it in the announcement.
> If there is a diagreement as to what catagory a trial shall be held
> according
> to the aplicable rules

The Proposer, rather than the Promoter should specify the catagory. The
Proposer knows what the purpose is for, the Promoter may have to guess.

Lestrade

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 11:10:56 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1607

> Superman may only fly through Ackanomic's airspace when wearing the a tight
> blue suit with a yellow and red "S" badge on the front, and a red cape, or
> while traveling as Clark Kent.

You won't let Superman fly through  Ackanomic airspace wearing his new
suit? (which is, I think, blue and white without a cape) :)

Lestrade

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 11:35:08 -0600
From: Eric Freeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Reorg

John Martin Lotz wrote:
> 
> This is to inspire, hopefully, discussion
> 
> A) Organization of Rules
> A rule number is in the form Rule x-9999 where x is
> a roman alphabetic charaacter and 9 is a Arabic digit.
> etc. etc.

I like this concept.  My only suggestion would be to number
the rules in the form of xx-9999 in case more than 26 catagories
are needed.

AirHead
(anxiously awaiting the opening kickoff of the san fran - green bay game)

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 11:42:59 -0600
From: Eric Freeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Map-Harfer

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> If my first scenario is correct, I believe Australia is incorrect to use
> the slogan "the land down under" and we shouddrespectfully request that
> they cease and decist immediatly (probably a matter for the ambassador) and
> failing that, we may have to declare war on australia (of course, this
> decision should be left to everyone).
> 

Having spent some time in Ausie-land, I can say two things with confidence:

1) They will never give up the slogan voluntarily

2) They spend so much of their time in drunken stupors that we could kick their
   butts in a war

AirHead
(watching green bay kick some butt of their own!!!!!)

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:52:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Reorg

> John Martin Lotz wrote:
> > 
> > This is to inspire, hopefully, discussion
> > 
> > A) Organization of Rules
> > A rule number is in the form Rule x-9999 where x is
> > a roman alphabetic charaacter and 9 is a Arabic digit.
> > etc. etc.
> 
> I like this concept.  My only suggestion would be to number
> the rules in the form of xx-9999 in case more than 26 catagories
> are needed.

Using a number for the x's instead of letters would be easier, since
there would be no limit.  Also, the precedence rules already take care
of rules numbered like xx.yyy -- you wouldn't have to amend rule 210 at
all.  I think this is where the reorg's we are doing now are headed,
anyway.

Unless, of course, you have some other idea for precedence with this
system (Jammer's concept is identical, precedence-wise, with the
current rule 210 except for the use of letters in place of the
primary rule number).

> AirHead
> (anxiously awaiting the opening kickoff of the san fran - green bay game)

Green Bay's off to a good start!

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:30:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1616

Proposal 1616
Fixing the Price of Land, Meditation, and Scoring Silliness
/dev/joe

1. Amend rule 207 as follows:
   Number the 8 paragraphs of the rule I through VIII, and insert
   these titles at the front of the respective paragraphs:
     I. Timing of these score changes
     II. Timing when results are reported simultaneously
     III. Scoring on Accepted Proposals
     IV. Scoring on Rejected Proposals
     V. Effect of Proposals which do not meet Quorum
     VI. Short Proposal Bonus
     VII. New Player Author Bonus/Soft Penalty
     VIII. Null Proposals

2. Amend rule 1554 to read, in full:
   "Any active player may purchase a kaa of empty, common land by paying
    the current Price of Land (rounded down to the nearest whole number
    of A$) to the treasury.  This purchase does not require senate
    approval; this paragraph takes precedence over rule 839.

    Every two weeks, at the time officer's salaries are paid, the
    Officer in Charge of Random Things shall choose one of the following
    five possible events to occur:

      A. The Price of Land increases by five percent (5%)
      B. The Price of Land increases by 1%
      C. The Price of Land does not change
      D. The Price of Land decreases by 1%
      E. The Price of Land decreases by 5%

    If this results in the Price of Land having more than 3 digits to
    the right of the decimal point, those beyond the third are truncated."

    {{[This prevents having the price of land being 49.871562302625 after
    many months of doing this, while still being reasonably exact.]}}

3. Renumber rule 1554 to 844.

4. Renumber rule 728 to 207.1  {{[ Scoring for silly proposals ]}}

5. Repeal rule 1564.  {{[ Days of Meditation -- the strident approach
      of showing how much work it is to keep this idea changed some
      minds.  I'm leaving the Festival for Malenkai or Mohammed or
      somebody else to fix up. ]}}

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:31:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1617

Proposal 1617
Yet Another Stab At Point Reform
Mohammed

This is a modest proposal.

Rule 220 ("Winning by Points") is amended by changing:
- ---
     Immediately upon a single player reaching the Magic Number of points
     exactly, that player will be declared the Winner of the Cycle, and
     all rules pertaining to what happens when someone wins the cycle,
     including, but not limited to, Rule 666, shall apply.

     If 2 or more players reach the Magic Number at exactly the same
     time, as determined by the Scorekeeper, the Magic Number shall be
     incremented by 13, and none of the players shall be declared winner
     of the cycle at that time.
     
     If 2 or more players reach the Magic Number at substantially the
     same time, and the Scorekeeper, in a good faith attempt, cannot
     determine which of the players reached it first, then the players
     are deemed to have reached the Magic Number at exactly the same
     time, and the preceding paragraph shall apply. Making this
     determination is a duty of the Scorekeeper.
     
     If the score of any player becomes greater than the Magic Number,
     then the Magic Number is increased by 16, or to 11 points above the
     highest player score, whichever is greater.
- ---
to:
- ---
     If a single player has a number of points equal to or greater than
     the Magic Number, that player has achieved a Winning Condition.
     [See Rule 666 for the effects of winning a cycle.]

     If two or more players reach the Magic Number at exactly the same
     time, as determined by the Scorekeeper, the Magic Number shall be
     increased by 100, or to 11 points above the highest player score,
     whichever is greater.  None of the players shall win the cycle at
     that time.

     If two or more players reach the Magic Number at substantially the
     same time, and the Scorekeeper, in a good faith attempt, cannot
     determine which of the players reached it first, then the players
     are deemed to have reached the Magic Number at exactly the same
     time, and the preceding paragraph shall apply. Making this
     determination is a duty of the Scorekeeper.
- ---

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 14:36:23 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Reorg II

RFC
Reorg II
Malenkai

[
I.  This is a continuation of Reorg I and "Players", and assumes "Players"
passes.  The idea is to move some more stuff near its brothers.  As
for xx.yyy, etc, my personal preference is to have no more than one
"." in rule number.  This reorg does a logical grouping and does not
worry about that issue for now.  The idea here is that its fairly easy
to learn that locations are in the 800s, players in the 250s, 
Judgement in the low 200s, crime in the 700s, etc, and the "." isn't
needed until a cluster gets crowded.

II.  It leaves open some issues:

1) Seperate vs single rule documents.  This preserves the single rule
document concept that acka uses, and many players like.

2) Drift.  What about new rules, and where they go.  I have been counting
on people placing self-renumbering clauses in their new rules.  This
is where the descretion should be, IMO, so that both the content and
organization can be reasons to vote no (in other words, write a good 
rule, and be clear as to where it belongs).  Ulitmately, then, reorg
descretion is with the voters.

This proposal, then, does not address the issue of giving some player
or players the power to renumber rules; that is a seperate issue
and is not its intent.

3) Logical Rule Order.  We can defer whether or not we want to do this.
I believe we can accomplish the same thing by chapter heading rules in
our rules.  Again, that issue is beyond the scope of this reorg.

III.  What I am trying to do here.

1.  Move some of the meta rules, and other rules dealing with proposals
and voting and rule organization into the 300s.  There is nothing related
to that stuff in the 300s now, they are in the mid 400s and scattered.
The first thought was to move the scatter into the mid 400s, but I find
it a better idea to move this stuff into the 300s, as it seems more meta,
and helps the rules by 100s byte count.  There are a few oddballs in the
300s now, which all have logical places to go elsewhere anyway.

2.  Move e-mail related stuff into the high 300s.  More meta stuff that
is now scattered.

3.  Move all entities someplace. 900s to 1000s sounds good.  Entites
are scattered now, and 900s to 1000s will be freed up.

Thats the controversial stuff in my mind.  The rest is just clustering
stuff around where it currently is anyway.
]

I.  [Proposal/Voting and Rule Meta-Rules]
- -----------------------------------------
renumber R 452, "Proposal and Rule Titles" to 301
renumber R 453, "Proposal and Rule Numbering" to 303
renumber R 454, "For Personal Glory..." to 305
renumber R 455, "Revision Numbers" to 307
renumber R 1325, "Substantially Similar Proposals" to 309
renumber R 1307.1, "Rule Suites" to 311 [great band]
renumber R 793, "Proposal Bribery" to 313
renumber R 554, "Tammany" to 315
renumber R 1386, "Bonus Votes" to 317
renumber R 1457, "Unanimity Is Lovely (although not so lovely as it used to 
be)" to 319
renumber R 450, "Retractions" to 330
renumber R 451, "Spelling Errors" to 340
renumber R 1022, "Spelling Bee" to 342
renumber R 545, "Notes and Comments" to 344
renumber R 546, "Self Deleting Text" to 346
renumber R 703, " " to 348

II.  [E-mail/ettiquite]
- -----------------------
renumber R 901, "No E-mail, No Game" to 370
renumber R 622, "Customary Subject Line" to 372
renumber R 400, "Politeness Moon" to 374
renumber R 1311, "Time Zone" to 380 [a bit of a stretch, got a better
idea, it is 'meta']

III.  [Actual Entities (and their related rules)]
- -------------------------------------------------
renumber R 306, "The Magic Potato" to 901
renumber R 495, "Gumball" to 903
renumber R 549, "The Blue Cross" to 905
renumber R 1033, "Bronze Torch" to 907
renumber R 730, "Steel Flea" to 909
renumber R 762, "The Great Trombone of Ackanomia" to 911
renumber R 761, "Parades" to 913
renumber R 818, "Prosthetic Foreheads" to 915
renumber R 1036, "Rock" to 917
renumber R 824, "Brass Monkey" to 919
renumber R 826, "Acid Rain Dance" to 921
renumber R 827, "The Amber Banana" to 923
renumber R 891, "The Press" to 925
renumber R 973, "Silly Vacation Hat" to 927
renumber R 1046, "Baaa" to 929
renumber R 1312, "Garments" to 931
renumber R 1313, "Purple Robe of Justice" to 933
renumber R 1428, "Processing Chips" to 935

IV.  [Party Stuff (to the other party related stuff)]
- -----------------------------------------------------
renumber R 542, "Political Parties" to 722
renumber R 543, "Rewarding Party Unity" to 723
renumber R 728, "Thats just silly" to 207.1 [just in case]
renumber R 729, "Ackanomic Middle Ages" to 1307
renumber R 1269, "Newton, Parties, and Apples" to 728, and amend its 
title to be "Swingpoints"
renumber R 1571, "Another Truly Deplorable Pun" to 729

V.  [Locations]
- ---------------
amend R 840 so that its title is "Library"
renumber R 1096 to 852, and amend its title to be "Portrait Gallery"
renumber R 1364, "Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication" to 854 [is
this on the map?]
renumber R 1554, "Land Baroncy" to 844 [just in case]

VI. [Subgame Related]
- ---------------------
renumber R 1206, "Games & Contests" to 1201
renumber R 1155, "Decks of Playing Cards" to 1203
renumber R 1185, "Description of a Legacy Deck" to 1205
renumber R 1156, "Description of a Eleusis Deck" to 1207
renumber R 1240, "The Machine that goes *ping*" to 1209
renumber R 1241, "Boons of the Ancients" to 1211
renumber R 1276, "Grab-a-Donkey" to 1213
renumber R 1302, "Duels" to 1215
renumber R 1348.2, "Buried Treasure!" to 1217
R 1369, "Otzma Card Rule Suite" [requires moving the entire thing]
R 985, "Party Chess Rule Suite" [this requires renumbering the entire thing]

VII.  Religion, Physics, and Nature (all Intertwined)
- -----------------------------------------------------
renumber R 775, "Church" to 1301
renumber R 1356, "Synod" to 1303
renumber R 1014, "Taking the Altar by the Horns" to 1305
[Ackanomic middle ages has previously been renumber to 1307]
renumber R 1238, "We don't need Gravity" to 1309
renumber R 1306, "If we don't need Gravity, we'd better have Pressure"
to 1311
renumber R 1253, "Tornado" to 1313
renumber R 1329, "Church Sanctuary" to 1315
renumber R 1335, "Codex of Kra" to 1317
renumber R 1344, "Round Earth Restoration Society" to 1319
renumber R 1349, "Rama-lama-ding-dong" to 1321

VIII.  [Other Stuff]
- --------------------
renumber R 339, "Keep 'Em In The Game", to 207.2
renumber R 362, "No Dead Players Allowed" to 257
renumber R 1540.1, "The Mad Scientist" to 596
renumber R 1540.2, "The Frankenstein Monster(s)" to 597
renumber R 1023, "Auction" to 516

IX. [Unclassifiable Harf]
- -------------------------
[1122 series is already there]

renumber R 1237, "Fulfilling Campaign Promises" to 1125
renumber R 1458, "Undead (aka I didn't come back as a bag of groceries)"
to 1127
renumber R 1508, "This Is Where The Party Ends" to 1129
renumber R 1526, "snowgod's disease" to 1131

X.  [Unneeded]
- -------------
Repeal R 797, "Festival of Torkola" [fold into 415]
Repeal R 924, "Required Reading" [:(]
Repeal R 1564, "Days of Meditation"

XI.  [Bad Pointer fixup - todo]
- ------------------------------

XII.  [In the queue, some of these will be invalid rule changes]
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

renumber R 1579, "Bartender" to 1133
renumber R 1580, "No Frinking and Driving" to 1135
renumber R 1581, "Sanctity of Harf" to 1137
renumber R 1586, "Birdhouse in your Soul" to 937
renumber R 1594.1, "Beldin's Tailor" to 939
renumber R 1595.2, "Beldin's Pants" to 940
renumber R 1595, "The Golden Baton of Ackanomia" to 914
renumber R 1599, "No False Modesty", to 209.1 
[1600 to 1609, we see what passes and decide how to organize it]
renumber R 1607, "Flyunder" to 1139
[toto 1612+]

XIII.  [Torkola Elimination, todo, search for "Torkola"]

1) Amend R 406, "Promoter", to replace

"
except during a Festival of Torkola. Then, the Promoter may not distribute
the proposal until the Festival is over and is given three days from the
end of the Festival to do so. [See Rule 797 ("Festival of Torkola").]
"

with

"except during a Proposal Moratorium [see R 415]."

2) Amend R 415, "Presidential Decisions", to replace

"
      II. Festival 

      The President may declare a Festival of Torkola to start on the
day following the declaration, so long as the Festival is in accordance
with R 797. 
"

with:

"
      II. Proposal Moratorium 

      The President may declare a Proposal Moratorium to start on the
day following the declaration, so long as the declatation is an integral
amount of days from 1 to 10, and a Proposal Moratorium is not currently
in progress.  No officers may distribute Proposals during a Proposal
Moratorium.
"

XIV.  [rewrite "Portrait Gallery" to make a location (minor)

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:54:14 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Harf

On the cover of the current (February 1997) issue of Games magazine, the
word HARF is clearly visible at the upper left part of the bowl of
alphabet soup.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 22:11:13 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Reorg II

I wouldn't really classify "Church" and "Synod" as religious things.
One is a type of Organization and the other is a type of Institution. 
Just a minor bone to pick, really.

Otherwise - looks good.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 15:11:24 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Reorg II

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> I wouldn't really classify "Church" and "Synod" as religious things.
> One is a type of Organization and the other is a type of Institution.
> Just a minor bone to pick, really.

They are related to each other, and church is highly intergrated with
the physics and nature stuff (several rules).  Perhaps they sre not
religious things (although the titles invoke religious imagry), but
they are related to the physical/natural things, so it makes sense.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:22:24 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Reorg II

> 
> RFC
> Reorg II
> Malenkai
> 
> [
> I.  This is a continuation of Reorg I and "Players", and assumes
"Players"
> passes.  The idea is to move some more stuff near its brothers.  As
> for xx.yyy, etc, my personal preference is to have no more than one
> "." in rule number.  This reorg does a logical grouping and does not
> worry about that issue for now.  The idea here is that its fairly easy
> to learn that locations are in the 800s, players in the 250s, 
> Judgement in the low 200s, crime in the 700s, etc, and the "." isn't
> needed until a cluster gets crowded.
> 
> II.  It leaves open some issues:
> 
> 1) Seperate vs single rule documents.  This preserves the single rule
> document concept that acka uses, and many players like.
> 
Where does Reorg 1 have multiple rule documents.  

> 2) Drift.  What about new rules, and where they go.  I have been counting
> on people placing self-renumbering clauses in their new rules.  This
> is where the descretion should be, IMO, so that both the content and
> organization can be reasons to vote no (in other words, write a good 
> rule, and be clear as to where it belongs).  Ulitmately, then, reorg
> descretion is with the voters.
> 
> This proposal, then, does not address the issue of giving some player
> or players the power to renumber rules; that is a seperate issue
> and is not its intent.
> 
Reorg 1 specifically covered this,  I want to try to ensure that future
rules
fit into catagories.

> 3) Logical Rule Order.  We can defer whether or not we want to do this.
> I believe we can accomplish the same thing by chapter heading rules in
> our rules.  Again, that issue is beyond the scope of this reorg.
> 
> III.  What I am trying to do here.
> 
> 1.  Move some of the meta rules, and other rules dealing with proposals
> and voting and rule organization into the 300s.  There is nothing related
> to that stuff in the 300s now, they are in the mid 400s and scattered.
> The first thought was to move the scatter into the mid 400s, but I find
> it a better idea to move this stuff into the 300s, as it seems more meta,
> and helps the rules by 100s byte count.  There are a few oddballs in the
> 300s now, which all have logical places to go elsewhere anyway.
> 
> 2.  Move e-mail related stuff into the high 300s.  More meta stuff that
> is now scattered.
> 
> 3.  Move all entities someplace. 900s to 1000s sounds good.  Entites
> are scattered now, and 900s to 1000s will be freed up.
> 
> Thats the controversial stuff in my mind.  The rest is just clustering
> stuff around where it currently is anyway.
> ]
I had thought that it was best to try a hyperlinked ruleset to allow people
to kick the tires,  Also I wanted to work this as a committee/RFC to
allow various points of view to be included.

> 
> I.  [Proposal/Voting and Rule Meta-Rules]
> -----------------------------------------

<<==SNIP==>>
> 
> V.  [Locations]
> ---------------
> amend R 840 so that its title is "Library"
> renumber R 1096 to 852, and amend its title to be "Portrait Gallery"
> renumber R 1364, "Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication" to 854 [is
> this on the map?]
> renumber R 1554, "Land Baroncy" to 844 [just in case]

"Just in case Why?"
> 
>Where is "The Size of Things"

> ------------------------------
> 
> XII.  [In the queue, some of these will be invalid rule changes]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> renumber R 1579, "Bartender" to 1133
> renumber R 1580, "No Frinking and Driving" to 1135
> renumber R 1581, "Sanctity of Harf" to 1137
> renumber R 1586, "Birdhouse in your Soul" to 937
> renumber R 1594.1, "Beldin's Tailor" to 939
> renumber R 1595.2, "Beldin's Pants" to 940
> renumber R 1595, "The Golden Baton of Ackanomia" to 914
> renumber R 1599, "No False Modesty", to 209.1 
> [1600 to 1609, we see what passes and decide how to organize it]
> renumber R 1607, "Flyunder" to 1139
> [toto 1612+]
> 

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 13:33:00 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1607

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1607
> Flyunder
> snowgod
> 
> Ackanomic maintains the exclusive right to regulate the skies under the
> bottom side of the earth.  No entity, ackanomic, internomic, or extranomic,
> may pass through Ackanomic's airspace without first recieving permission
> from the President (or a player he appoints for the purpose of granting
> flyunder rights) unless that flyunder is specifically permitted by
> Ackanomic's rules [ie, the goose]
> 
> It is impermissable for the President (or his appointee) to grant flyunder
> rights to an entity who has been specifically banned the right to pass
> through our airspace by a rule.
> 
> Superman may only fly through Ackanomic's airspace when wearing the a tight
> blue suit with a yellow and red "S" badge on the front, and a red cape, or
> while traveling as Clark Kent.

    Do we have a way to contact him and inform him of this?  It seems a
bit presumptuous of us to regulate his clothing without his knowledge.
Perhaps we could wait until he drops by, and let him know how we feel
before banning him based on his wardrobe.

			Regards, 
				Strider

(who is ambiguous about the new costume)

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

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 13:42:51 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1608

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> Note that this is not a modest proposal.  --acting promoter
> 
> Proposal 1608
> Just the FAQ's
> Jammer
> 
> This is a modest idea.
> 
> This creates the functional office of the FAQtotem.
> 
> The duties of the FAQtotem is to gather together all
> required officer reports; a brief description of each office,
> not to excede 256 ascii characters including spaces;
> and an E-Mail address of all current officers.
> 
> E shall gather all of this information together on a
> document called Just the FAQs, and shall e-mail all
> active players, all observers, and anyone else deemed
> eligable to recieve it.
> 
> E shall send it out on or before.the 10th day of each
> calandar month.
> 
> E shall send it to any person who joins Ackanomic
> as an oberserver or  a player.
> 
> If the FAQtotem is not available to proform the
> duties of the office the president shall designate a player
> to fill this role.
> 
> If the !0th days of the month falls on a festival or a holiday,
> Just the FAQs must

My copy of P1608 stops here.  Is there more?

			Regards, 
				Strider

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #437
*******************************