Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #442
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Tuesday, January 7 1997       Volume 01 : Number 442

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:21:34 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (Robert Sevin) 

>In terms of Treasure 101, which will be found by the first player to
>win 3 different subgames, we have:
>
>Guy Fawkes: +2 (GAD, Ghost)
>snowgod: +1 (GAD)
>Robert Sevin: +1 (Ghost)
>
>Malenkai
>referee

I won a game of ghost in a duel... Does treasure 101 make specific
references to dueling subgames?

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:26:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Automation

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> #vote 140 y y y n y y n p n n
> #vote 150 n n n g g y n n n y
> #vote 160 n y
> 

I think this is too error prone.
What about retracted proposals. Does it make you vote for them as well.
Would this be optional, in addition to the old syntax, or a replacement

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:34:47 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal Volume Issue 

In this post I issue a possible suggestion to the problem of proposal
volume affecting newbies entrance into ackanomic.

I suggest that a acka-newbie list is created to which any player under
mentorship is subscribed.  Copies of important messages wil be cc: to this
list, as while as messages from experts pointing out important discussions
going on on other lists, etc.  In essence, we will be creating a "what you
need to know" guide for newbies so that they can dive right in *or* ignore
messages on the main list as they feel comfortable doing so.

Though this will serve to actually increase email volume, the net effect
will be to increase the ease with which newbies can digest the large
amounts of email. Perhaps the newbie list could have it's own customary
subject line (ie, newbie: presidential election).

just tossing out ideas,
snowgod
who personally enjoys high email volume

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

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:38:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Question about Publically knowable 

If a new player has voted and I announce that he has done so (even though
the results for that proposal have not been released yet) does that make
him active?

If if does, I would like the following noted:

G. Peefalt has voted and wishes to be listed as active.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 03:44:53 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Acka: RFC: Manic Rule Goblin

I'd like to RFC about the following two proposed Rules
inspired by someone's comment (I forget whose) about the
posibility of non-player generated proposals.  I think the
first rule doesn't actually conflict with anything, but
I'm too new here to say that with any sense of certainty

a Rule entitled "Proposing Things" with the following text
delimited by "~";

~

     Anything designated by the rules as a Proposing Thing may submit a 
     proposal to be voted on.  All Proposing Things must have a player 
     designated to e-mail its Proposals to the appropriate officer. (If 
     there is no such Player, the Proposing Thing may make Proposals, 
     but not submit them.)  Players are Proposing Things, and each 
     player is designated to e-mail eir own proposals.

     If there is to be any bonus or penalty applied to a Proposing Thing 
     based on a proposal it made, or on the voting on that proposal, it 
     shall only be applied if the bonus/penalty specifically applies 
     itself to that type of Proposing Thing. [i.e. all rules that refer 
     to the "player who proposed <foo> shall only apply when the 
     Proposing Thing was a Player.]  If the bonus/penalty does not 
     specifically apply itself to a specific type of Proposing Thing, 
     then it shall only be applied to players.

~

another rule entitled "The Manic Rule Goblin" with the following text delimited 
by "~";

~

     There is a unique Proposing Thing named The Manic Rule Goblin which 
     rarely, if ever, makes any sense.  The Manic Rule Goblin only makes
     modest proposals.  Whenever there is no rantee, the officer in
     charge of random things shall determine the player that the Manic
     Rule Goblin appears to.

     The Manic Rule Goblin appears, grabs the chosen player by the 
     shoulders, and gibbers a proposal.  That player, becomes the 
     rantee, and is designated to e-mail the Goblin's gibbered proposal 
     (appropriately credited to the Goblin) to the appropriate officer.

     The rantee shall decipher the Goblin's gibbering as follows:

     E shall secretly pick a current Rule as being the one most closely 
     resembling the gist of the Goblin's rant. E shall use this Rule as 
     the basic text of the Goblin's rant.  Of course, since the Goblin 
     rarely makes that much sense, the rantee shall delete 3 to 10 
     nouns, 3 to 10 verbs, 0 to 5 adjective, and 0 to 5 adverbs, from 
     the basic text of the Goblin's proposal. E shall note each part of 
     speech (as well as tense, number &c.) for each gap where a word had 
     been deleted.

     E shall then publicly ask the players of Acka (who may have 
     overheard what the Goblin actually said) for more Rules, without 
     revealing the one e has chosen eimself.  Helpful players shall then 
     post their own suggested Rules. If the rantee fails to do this 
     within a week of the Goblin ranting at eim, e is deemed to have wax 
     in his ears, loses 3 points, and ceases to be rantee.

     Once the other players have suggested at least two rules that do 
     not duplicate the one selected by the rantee, the rantee shall fill 
     in the gaps in the basic text with words from the suggested rules 
     with the following restrictions:

      i) The word filling the gap must be the same part of speech as the 
         deleted word (i.e. noun, verb, adjective, adverb)
     ii) The word filling the gap may not be the same as the word that 
         was deleted.
    iii) The Nth part of speech in the basic text must be replaced by 
         the Nth part of speech from a suggested rule (i.e. If the basic 
         text is missing the second noun, that gap must be filled by the 
         second noun from a suggested rule.)

     The rantee may change the form of a word to fit it in the basic 
     text as long as its part of speach does not change. (i.e. if the 
     original verb is past tense, it may be replaced by a present tense 
     verb, and the rantee may change the tense of the new verb to match 
     the original. E may not, however, replace an adjective with a noun, 
     even if he changes the noun into a possessive by adding "'s")

     When the rantee has filled all the gaps in the basic text, e must 
     submit that text in a proposal for a Rule creation, with the basic
     text being the text of the rule being created.  The rantee may
     title proposal and this rule in any way e wishes.  (The Goblin
     cares little for titles:)

     The rantee has one week from the receipt of the second (non-
     duplicate) rule suggestion to assemble the text of the Goblin's 
     Proposal and submit it.

     If the rantee asked the players to suggest rules, but does not 
     assemble the Goblin's Proposal and submit it within a week of the 
     second rule being suggested, e has insulted the Goblin, ceases to 
     be rantee, and loses 5 points.  E may also never be selected as 
     rantee again until e makes a public apology to the Goblin.

     If the Goblin's proposal fails, the rantee gains 6 points for eir 
     trouble, and ceases to be rantee; the Goblin sulks.

     If the Goblin's proposal passes, the rantee gains 12 points for 
     getting the rant right, and ceases to be rantee; the Goblin dances.

~

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:58:45 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Alternative to Senatorial Consent

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, T Joffrain wrote:
> "scheme"

How does this have a negative connotation?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 00:01:32 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: JAVA 

Could three people who have JAVA capable web browsers and wish to Beta test
a JAVA irc applet please contact me?

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:11:09 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JAVA

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Could three people who have JAVA capable web browsers and wish to Beta test
> a JAVA irc applet please contact me?
> 
> snowgod
> 
> 
I have not installed one at home yet, but use one at work. I could check
it out tomorrow.

Niccolo Flychuck

being on-line is in my job description :)

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 08:13:56 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (Robert Sevin)

Phil Ackley wrote:

> I won a game of ghost in a duel... Does treasure 101 make specific
> references to dueling subgames?

I don't haver to tell you anything about T 101's *actual* map, but 
what I posted is that the game had to have 3 or more players to count :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:15:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Treasure

Since the treasures have been piling up in my house, I've decided to
take one of the larger ones out and bury it in a safe place.  I've
chosen the one that was made to be buried, the Exquisite Dead Guy.

Here is the map to the Exquisite Dead Guy treasure #2:

4A 6F 22 72 77 6C 72 87 42 AB 
C8 B0 4F E2 D0 3F 5D 8C BD D2 
E2 74 69 91 86 9A B5 DC 29 8D 
FD 49 47 48 2D D0 C0 9E 1B F7 
8D AB 0A 4B E6 7F 10 A4 86 D7 
B1 4D D4 AD CD 56 C2 04 9E 43 
7C 3A 49 20 A7 BB 64 BB B6 F0 
3A CE 9A FF 29 73 7E D6 9D 59 
CA AC C9 63 0E EB 8C 10 30 EC 
65 29 6B 2D 26 A0 B5 29 67 E3 
33 E9 BA 3A 42 66 7F 30 9D A1 
C7 BB 70 FD 06 A2 27 5D 14 05 
71 5A B0 A9 E4 14 93 2A 46 C7 
F2 9E C3 5D 0A F0 4D 1D 53 00 
F1 83 0A 2E C8 41 F1 09 45 3C 
55 1E 15 77 66 B1 B9 C7 EC 

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 07:47:21 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: JAVA

> snowgod wrote:
>
> Could three people who have JAVA capable web browsers and wish to Beta
test
> a JAVA irc applet please contact me?
> 
Okay, I'm game

Jammer

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 08:59:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fictionary Results for Round 5

All Bluffers have voted for the fifth round of Fictionary. Apologies
to snowgod from the Brainiac, who brilliantly lost his vote the first
time around.

The actual definition of the word was: "An apparatus on which crushed
ore is washed" (definition 2).

This round there were no less than three votes for the correct
definition. Either we are getting better at detecting each other's
bluffs, or (I suspect) the bit about washing crushed ore was just too
weird-looking to pass.

             Definition voted for  Definition written
/dev/joe              2                    1
snowgod               2                    6
Habeous Corpus        7                    4
Malenkai              2                    5
ThinMan               6                    7
Techno (Guy Fawkes)   1                    3

Scoring:

5a.i: Each Bluffer receives 1 Gamepoint for every player other than
      himself who voted for his definition.

/dev/joe, snowgod, and ThinMan receive 1 Gamepoint apiece.

5a.ii: A Bluffer receives 2 Gamepoints if he voted for the Actual
       Definition.

/dev/joe, snowgod, and Malenkai receive 2 Gamepoints apiece.

5a.iii: If no one voted for the Actual Definition, the Brainiac
        receives 2 Gamepoints.

I recieve zilch.

              Previous score  Score this round  Cumulative score
/dev/joe             7                3                10
snowgod              3                3                 6
Thinman              2                1                 3
Techno (Guy Fawkes)  8                0                 8
breadbox            10                0                10
Malenkai             1                2                 3
Habeous Corpus       2                0                 2

Although /dev/joe and Malenkai both did rather well this round, they
also submitted definitions that did not match the ing word's part of
speech, so I take it that their submissions may be ridiculed.

Malenkai is the next Brainiac.

breadbox
defrocked Brainiac

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:27:14 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Fictionary Results for Round 5

>Although /dev/joe and Malenkai both did rather well this round, they
>also submitted definitions that did not match the ing word's part of
>speech, so I take it that their submissions may be ridiculed.

"To sneak to one's lover's residence under the cover of darkness"?  HA!
How could Malenkai think we would be fooled by a definition that isn't
even a _noun_?  I've never heard of such ridiculousness!  Buddle indeed.
And /dev/joe!  I have come to expect better stuff from you.  "To
confuse a situation intentionally"?  If _I_ were coining the word
buddle, I'm sure that that is about the second-to-last definition I
would ever consider.  Better, at least, than "a towel with which one
covers one's head when facing the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal,"
but I can't think of any other less likely definition.

Ha!

Ha, Ha!

ThinMan
Bluffer

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:21:04 -0800 (PST)
From: "G. Peefalt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Alternative to Senatorial Consent

> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, T Joffrain wrote:
> > "scheme"
> 
> How does this have a negative connotation?
> 

Well, it does if it has the word pyramid in front of it.  Also, lots of
people are referred as scheming back-stabbers, etc.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:26:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Automation

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> > #vote 140 y y y n y y n p n n
> > #vote 150 n n n g g y n n n y
> > #vote 160 n y
> I think this is too error prone.
> What about retracted proposals. Does it make you vote for them as well.
> Would this be optional, in addition to the old syntax, or a replacement
	You don't have to use it.  This is in addition to the old syntax.
	As for retracted proposals, you can:

#vote 140 y y y n - y n p ...

	Errors are a legitimate concern, but the problem is lessened by
the fact that you'll get an itemized "receipt" for your votes, just like
the old nomicbot gave.  Any errors you made will be very easy to catch, 
as soon as the reply message comes in.
	Again, the old syntax will still be there, so if you prefer that, 
be my guest.

- --Mohammed
making life more complicated, one monster at a time
next version of bot will support computed gotos

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:35:21 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Alternative to Senatorial Consent

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> > "scheme"
> How does this have a negative connotation?
	Have you ever tried to write anything in Scheme?

- --Mohammed
:o)

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:00:04 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: RFC Updating the Rule Numbering System

I've been looking at R453 lately, because of the P1577 thing (BTW, does
*anybody* want to comment on that thing, or are you all too busy discussing
what we're going to do if 70 more players suddenly join the game? -- if not,
I'm just going to CFJ that those two rules exist + have the right numbers.)
Anyway, the more I look at it, the less I like it.  The new procedure is
slightly different than what we have now in some weird corner cases, but
should be easier to follow, and part III *should* handle all possible ways
of creating rules.

This is also closer to what we eventually want if the rules are
someday all categorized and all new rules are required to pick
a category to go into -- just delete II.3. and change II.4. to make
all other rules fall into a "junk" rule suite and you're there, but
we're not ready for that until we renumber all the existing rules.

RFC
Numbering Rules Created by Rules
/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)

{{[I am deleting the first section about the promoter; with the P1606 fix,
the promoter rule will handle it.  I'm also overhauling the rest of the
rule, which is seriously out of date with the rest of our rules in this
area, and overly wordy.  Also explicitly allow proposals to assign
numbers to new rules they create.]}}

Amend rule 453 by changing the title to "Rule Numbering" and
changing the body to read:

I. Each rule has an effective ordinal number, hereafter referred to simply as
the rule's number.  Rule numbers and proposal numbers are unownable entities.
Only numbers of the form 'X' or 'X.Y', where X and Y are any positive
integers, are valid rule numbers.

II. When a rule change in an accepted proposal creates a new rule, it is
numbered as follows:

  1. If the proposal specifies that the new rule is to be a member of
  "<phrase> Rule Suite", and a Head of a Rule Suite rule exists named
  "<phrase> Rule Suite", then that new rule is numbered X.Y, where X is the
  rule number of that Head of a Rule Suite, and Y is the least positive
  integer such that X.Y is not the number of any other rule.
  
  2. Otherwise, if the proposal specifies a valid rule number for the new
  rule, and that number is not already the number of another rule, then the
  new rule is assigned that number.
  
  3. Otherwise, if this is the only new rule created by any rule change in
  the proposal that would not be numbered by part 1 or 2 above, then the
  new rule uses the proposal's number as its rule number if no other rule
  already has that number.
  
  4. Any new rule not given a number by part 1, 2, or 3 above is numbered
  X.Y, where X is the number of the proposal that created it, and Y is the
  least positive integer such that X.Y is not the number of any other rule.

III. When a new rule is created by another rule, or by some entity (other
than a rule change in an accepted proposal) granted the power to create
rules by some rule, it is numbered as follows:

  1. If the entity creating the rule declares it to be a member of a Rule
  Suite, as in II.1. above, then it is numbered as in II.1. above.
  
  2. Otherwise, if the rule or entity creating the new rule assigns it a
  valid rule number which is not already the number of another rule, then
  the new rule is assigned that number.
  
  3. If the new rule is not numbered by part 1 or 2 above, the new rule
  is numbered X.Y, where X is the number of the rule creating or granting
  the power to create the new rule (but X is only the part before the
  period in that rule's number, if it has one), and Y is the least
  positive integer such that X.Y is not the number of any other rule.
  If a non-rule entity is creating the new rule and there is more than
  one rule granting this power, treat this as a conflict between the
  rules granting the power and use the number of the rule with the
  highest precedence for this step.

 = = = = = = = = = = 

Amend Rule 103 by adding the following to the end of the third paragraph:
  "A renumbering rule change is not valid if it attempts to assign a rule
   a number which is already the number of some other rule, or if it
   attempts to assign a rule number that is not valid."

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:23:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1618

Proposal 1618
Amend R 505
Malenkai

[I needed to amend R 505 to allow entities which are unowned by any
acka player to not be in the treasury.  This will eliminate precedence
claims like those in R 1348.2, and make rules like "Museum" work without
the precedence claim.  It will also allow items to leave acka and not
also be in the Treasury.

I threw in the CFJ 325 fix while I was here, not to steal anyone's thunder,
but I was going to do this amendment anyway.
]

This is a Modest proposal.

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

Amend R 505, "Treasury and AckaDollars", as follows:

I.  In section II of the rule, replace

"
The Treasury is a named, unownable entity that serves as a storing house
for entities that belong to no Player
"

with

"
The Treasury is a named, unownable entity that serves as a storing house
for entities that belong to no Player, except for those entities for which
the rules explicitly state are not in (or considered to be in) the Treasury.

{{all entities in the Treasury that were donated to the Museum are
transferred from  the Treasury to the East Wing of the Museum, and
all necessary transactions are performed to set the state of such items
and the Museum to the state they would be in had the above amendment been
in force when P 1551 was accepted.}}
"

II.  In section VI of the rule, remove:

"If the item is a Trinket, it is converted into its value in A$ upon
transferrence to the Treasury."

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

Amend R 1348.2, "Buried Treasure!", to remove

"This clause has precedence over R 505."

from the second paragraph.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:23:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1619

Proposal 1619
Beldin's Pants
Malenkai

Create a new rule entitled "Beldin's Tailor", which reads:

"
The bearer of the Magic Potato is also Beldin's Tailor.  Beldin's 
Tailor has the privilege of amending the rule entitled "Beldin's Pants"
as described in this rule, if and only if they were not the last player
to amend that rule via the methods described in this rule.

Beldin's Tailor may amend the rule entitled "Beldin's Pants" in any one
of the following ways by publically announcing the amendment, provided
said amendment is unambiguous:

1) They may replace any one word in the rule with a different word.
The new word must appear in the Official Dictionary or elsewhere in the
rules.

2) They may delete any one word in the rule, and, as part of this
amendment, optionally delete an article which directly precedes the
deleted word (if one happens to directly precede it).

3) They may add any one word anywhere in the rule, and, as part of 
this amendment, optionally add one article to directly precede the new
word.  The new word must appear in the Official Dictionary or elsewhere
in the rules.

4) They may add or delete one piece of standard English language
punctuation, or change one piece of punctuation to another piece of
standard English language punctuation.  Square brackets and curly braces
are not considered standard English language punctuation for the
purposes of the preceding sentence.

For the purposes of the above, the articles are 'a', 'an', and 'the'.

The rule entitled "Beldin's Pants" may not be amended by the Spelling
Bee, by Common Sense Report (CSR), or by an effect generated by a CSR.
This paragraph has precedence over rules 421 and 1022.
"

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

Create a new rule entitled "Beldin's Pants", which reads:

"
Beldin's Pants are a Garment, initially Somewhere Else.  Beldin's
Pants may only be transferred as described in the rules.  Beldin's
Pants are unique.

The wearer of Beldin's Pants loses 1 Ackadollar every Thursday at noon.
"

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:24:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1620

Proposal 1620
The Golden Baton of Ackanomia
Lestrade

The Golden Baton of Ackanomia is hereby created. It is unique, and will
always be in the possession of one player.

The possessor of the Golden Baton shall be the author of a proposal that
ends with the digits '09. When that proposal is made public the previous
possessor will post a public message containing within the message the
words "passing the baton". At the initial occurance, P1609, or when a
player is on vacation or left the game, the President shall pass the
baton.

The holder of the Golden Baton will have the privilege of waving it
about during parades.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:25:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1621

Proposal 1621
Ammend Party Hall
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest Proposal

Ammend R726 "Party Hall" to read in full:
"
I. Party Hall is an Institution. Party Hall is in session when there are
three or more Swingers. 
II. the number of members of Party Hall is equal to the number of Parties
plus the number of Capital Swingers plus one. Each member is a Political
Officer known as a Swinger. The Office of Swinger is an Optional Political
Office.
III. There are three kinds of Swingers: Party Swingers,
Capital-Swingers, NAP Swingers
A. Party Swingers - 
1. Each Party has exactly one Swinger's Office in Party
Hall. Each Party's Office may be filled by a member of that Party selected
by the Party, by a method decided upon by the Party.
2. A PartySwinger can be impeached by the procedure for Impeachment
described
by the rules with the additional provision that at least one of the votes
in favor of Impeachment was cast by a member of eir Party.
This section takes precedence over R404 and R403 where there is a
conflict.
3. Whenever a Party's Swinger Office becomes vacant, the Party may appoint
another member of the Party in eir stead. 
4. When a Party's Swinger or Acting Swinger is on Vacation, that Party may
appoint another one of its member as Acting Swinger.
5. If all members of a Party are on Vacation then no Acting Swinger is
appointed for that Party.
6. If a Party Swinger leaves a Party, then e immediately ceases to be a
Swinger for that Party.
7. A Party Swinger may resign at any time.
8. When a Party dissolves its Swinger's Office continues to exist for 7
days after it dissolves. During those 7 days the Swinger's Office is
considered to be On a Limb. If it is legal to purchase a Capital Swinger's
Office, then a Swinger who occupies a Swinger's Office which is On a Limb
has the option of purchasing a Capital Swinger's Office for a price which
A$100 hiegher than the price as calculated in section B of this rule. If a
Swinger exercises this option then the  Swinger's Office becomes a Capital
Swinger's Office, and retains all of its PartyChessPieces and its current
board position.  
At the end of those 7 days, if the Swinger has not exercised the above
option, the Swinger's Office is destroyed and all of its pieces are
destroyed.
This section precedence over section B 2 of thie rule.

B. Capital Swingers - 
Capital Swinger Offices are Tradable.
If  there are fewer than 7 non-Warm Swinger Offices in Party Hall, then
additional Offices can be created in the following manner:
1. Any player who is not currently a Swinger may announce eir desire to
purchase an Office of Capital Swinger
2. An amount of A$ equal (100 + (Number of Swingers multiplied by 50)) is
transferred from that player's account to the Treasury
3. The player names eir Office a legal Ackanomic name.
4. Swingers who acquire their Offices in this manner are known as Capital
Swingers
5. When a Capital Swinger goes on Vacation, no acting Swinger is
appointed. If a Capital Swinger's Office changes ownership, then the
previous owner ceases to be a Swinger, and the new owner becomes Swinger
in eir stead.
6. A Capital Swinger may resign at any time. In such a case, the Office of
Swinger e resigned from is destroyed

C. NAP Swinger

1. The NAP Swinger's Office is filled by general election as described in
the rules with the following exceptions:
a. Only non-aligned players, that is, players who are not members of any
political party, are eligible to run for the Office of NAP
Swinger.
b. Each vote sent in by a non-aligned player is counted as if it were two
two votes.
2. The Player who holds the NAP Swinger's Office continues to be NAP
Swinger until e either resigns, is impeached, or becomes a member of a
Party.
3. The NAP Swinger may be impeached according to therules describing
impeachment, with the additional requirement that e can only be impeached
if at least half the active non-aligned players vote for the impeachement,
regardless of the number of players who voted on the IP.
This section takes precedence over R404 and R403 where there is a
conflict.

4. If there are no non-aligned players, then there is no NAP Swinger
Office.
5. When the NAP Swinger goes on Vacation, the Speaker shall appoint a
non-aligned player as Acting NAP Swinger. If the Speaker is a member of a
Party, then e may not be an Acting Swinger emself.

IV. If A Swinger's Office remains vacant for more than 6 days then the
Office is declared a Warm Office, until it is no longer vacant.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:26:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1622

Proposal 1622
Amend R1269 "Newton, Apples, and Parties"
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest Proposal.
Ammend R1269 "Newton, Apples, and Parties" In the following ways.

1. Replace the text "NoS-1" with the the text "NoS"
2. Replace the text "NoS-2" with the the text "NoS-1"
3. Replace the text "NoS-3" with the the text "NoS-2"
4. Replace the text "NoS-4" with the the text "NoS-3"
5. Replace the text "NoS-5" with the the text "NoS-4"
6. Replace the text "NoS-6" with the the text "NoS-5"

7. Ammend section 4 subsection a to read in full
a. Any set of Swingpoint can be converted to points to be added to the
player's score according to the formula points added = Swingpoints*2

8. Append to section 2 subsection a the following text:
"According to the formula in section 4a of this rule."

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:27:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1623

Proposal 1623
ammend 1311
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest Proposal.

Append the following text ro R1311 "Time Zone":
"When a day of the week or a day of the month is specified, and no time of
day is specified, then the action is said to occur at 12:00, noon on that
day."

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:46:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Updating the Rule Numbering System

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> I've been looking at R453 lately, because of the P1577 thing (BTW, does
> *anybody* want to comment on that thing, or are you all too busy discussing
> what we're going to do if 70 more players suddenly join the game? -- if not,
> I'm just going to CFJ that those two rules exist + have the right numbers.)
	I don't think they have the right numbers, but I'm not sure what 
numbers they might have.  Very odd.  It seems more and more likely to me 
that the rules don't exist at all.

	Let me first say that this is a very strong proposal, on the 
whole, and where I disagree with you it's mainly on wording or a trifling 
detail.  That said:

> Amend rule 453 by changing the title to "Rule Numbering" and
> changing the body to read:
> 
> I. Each rule has an effective ordinal number, hereafter referred to simply as
> the rule's number.  Rule numbers and proposal numbers are unownable entities.
> Only numbers of the form 'X' or 'X.Y', where X and Y are any positive
> integers, are valid rule numbers.
	Unnecessarily mathy language is a pet peeve of mine.  I think it 
would be nicer to have

     A valid rule number is a whole number, or two whole numbers 
     separated by a period.  [ 701 is a valid rule number; so is 1204.3 ]

than all the Xs and Ys.  (Like I said, it's a pet peeve.  Probably I take it 
more seriously than I should.)

>   1. If the proposal specifies that the new rule is to be a member of
>   "<phrase> Rule Suite", and a Head of a Rule Suite rule exists named
>   "<phrase> Rule Suite", then that new rule is numbered X.Y, where X is the
>   rule number of that Head of a Rule Suite, and Y is the least positive
>   integer such that X.Y is not the number of any other rule.
	You could get rid of the dreaded angle brackets here, and at the 
same time make this more readable, by saying:

     If the proposal specifies that the new rule is to be a member of
     a specific existing Rule Suite, then that new rule is [...]

Also, I'd prefer "Y is the least whole number Y such that in a numerical
listing of the rules in the Rule Suite, the newly added rule would come 
last."  If there exists 15.2, 15.3, and 15.4, I'd want a new rule to be 
15.5, not 15.1.

>   3. If the new rule is not numbered by part 1 or 2 above, the new rule
>   is numbered X.Y, where X is the number of the rule creating or granting
>   the power to create the new rule (but X is only the part before the
>   period in that rule's number, if it has one), and Y is the least
>   positive integer such that X.Y is not the number of any other rule.
>   If a non-rule entity is creating the new rule and there is more than
>   one rule granting this power, treat this as a conflict between the
>   rules granting the power and use the number of the rule with the
>   highest precedence for this step.
	*smile*  Yuck.  I'd much prefer that you say "If the new rule is not
numbered by part 1 or 2 above, it is numbered with the least whole number
greater than all existing rule numbers.  The CSRR Officer is encouraged to
renumber such a rule into a more appropriate place with all due haste."
	(You might also have to grant CSRs the ability to renumber rules.)
	First, method 3 is meant to be a catchall anyway, right?  Like the
precedence rules, this is error handling.  Errors of this type aren't
supposed to happen every day.  So there's no point bending over backwards
to make it work beautifully.
	Second, having a human deal with it will result in the rule being
put in exactly the right place... more likely than your automatic system
would.
	Third, throwing it way down at the end of the rule set will 
guarantee the rule won't implicitly have precedence over anything, just 
in case there are other things wrong with the rule.
	Fourth, you don't have to tap into the precedence system (I think 
that's kinda dubious, but you get kudos for trying) to resolve weird cases.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:47:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1624

Proposal 1624
No False Modesty
Jammer

This is a modest proposal

Any time a modest proposal is made, any active player may
call for a modesty trialby posting ies accusation and resoning as 
to why the proposal is not modest.

A modesty trial must be requested before the results of any voting
 on the proposal is announced. and only one modesty trial may occur 
a calendar month.and no player may be the subject of 2 two trials 
sucsessively.  

If a trial is called, a random, unenvolved active player is selected
as Manner Minder,  The Manor Minder calls for the question by
posted, "This is trial of false modesty,  <Name of accused> stands 
accused of Overwelming Oer Modesty on the issue of <Name, 
Idnetification and text of Proposal in question>  What say you."

All active players vote either "That was a Proposal?" if it was 
modest, or "I'm Awestruck" if the proposal was not modest.

If a majority vote "That was a proposal?" the accuser loses 20 points
and cannot levy a charge of "False Modesty" until a successful charge
of False modesty has been made.

If a majority vote "I'm Awastruck" the accused loses 20 points

The Manner Minder is Paid A$ 10 \for services rendered>

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:49:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1625

Proposal 1625
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.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:53:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Official:  Berserk Promoter

I just went berserk and started re-promoting proposals that have already 
been sent out (at least) once.  Please ignore Proposals 1618 through 1625!

I had a slight flutter.

- --Mohammed
humble acting Promoter
hoping to get automated reeeally soon

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 00:23:55 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Alternative to Senatorial Consent

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, G. Peefalt wrote:

> > On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, T Joffrain wrote:
> > > "scheme"
> > 
> > How does this have a negative connotation?
> > 
> 
> Well, it does if it has the word pyramid in front of it.  Also, lots of
> people are referred as scheming back-stabbers, etc.
>

Encryption scheme.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 00:41:08 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Official:  Berserk Promoter

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> I just went berserk and started re-promoting proposals that have already 
> been sent out (at least) once.  Please ignore Proposals 1618 through 1625!

I'm not sure this is legal to do. But just to be on the safe side I am
retracting all proposals it is legal for me to retract between 1618 and
1625.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> I had a slight flutter.
> 
> --Mohammed
> humble acting Promoter
> hoping to get automated reeeally soon
> 

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:41:46 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Official:  Berserk Promoter

> 
> On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > I just went berserk and started re-promoting proposals that have
already 
> > been sent out (at least) once.  Please ignore Proposals 1618 through
1625!
> 
> I'm not sure this is legal to do. But just to be on the safe side I am
> retracting all proposals it is legal for me to retract between 1618 and
> 1625.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 
Same with me

Jammer

> > 

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:51:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "G. Peefalt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Official:  Berserk Promoter

> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > I just went berserk and started re-promoting proposals that have already 
> > been sent out (at least) once.  Please ignore Proposals 1618 through 1625!
> 
> I'm not sure this is legal to do. But just to be on the safe side I am
> retracting all proposals it is legal for me to retract between 1618 and
> 1625.
> 

If so, that should be a rule... is there a rule dealing with redundancy and
redundancy in the ruleset in the ruleset?

(Yes this does parse.)

- -- G. Peefalt

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:54:04 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Official:  Berserk Promoter

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>
>
>On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Mohammed wrote:
>
>> I just went berserk and started re-promoting proposals that have already 
>> been sent out (at least) once.  Please ignore Proposals 1618 through 1625!
>
>I'm not sure this is legal to do. But just to be on the safe side I am
>retracting all proposals it is legal for me to retract between 1618 and
>1625.
>

It seems legal to ignore them (this from someone who hasn't read the rules
for a month).  If the postings weren't entirely a result of the complete
proposal process, then I don't think they were actually proposals, anyway,
despite their format.

- -mr cwm
 wearing a silly vacation hat

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #442
*******************************