Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #443
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, January 8 1997      Volume 01 : Number 443

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:14:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Official:  Berserk Promoter

G. Peefalt wrote:
> > 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?

Actually there is.  Rule 1325 makes all those proposals invalid if they
were proposals at all.  Rule 104 nukes the invalid proposals.
I think we can safely ignore them.

I love it when rules have unexpectedly beneficial effects (the point of
the rule was to prevent a scam like Malenkai's "Coup" proposals a while
back).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:18:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Official:  Berserk Promoter

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I love it when rules have unexpectedly beneficial effects (the point of
> the rule was to prevent a scam like Malenkai's "Coup" proposals a while
> back).
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

I guess that means I didn't retract any proposals after all...

Niccolo Flychuck
raising an eyebrow

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:22:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Research - wasting bandwidth

I just counted over 120 messages with SL research, all from the last three
days. Just that one discussion.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 16:01:44 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:Party Hall Party

Salutations!!

		On this, the day of my first Party Hall Party, I hope everyone else is
having as much fun as I am!

	I wish to praise snowgod; whose Party reveres that most singularly
hoopy of concepts, self reference; see this sentence for details.  

	I wish to praise Bascule; a man who truly knows the meaning of the word
"harf".

	I wish to praise Niccolo Flychuck; whose party surfs the ruleset,
revelling in its intricacies, and its (occasionally tenuous) logic.

			Happy Party Hall Party, everybody!

		Regards, 
			Strider

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 19:32:19 -0600
From: Eric Freeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal Volume Issue

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> 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

I agree that something should be done to make it easier for us newbies.  
I have a hard time keeping up with the game (more accuratly: i can't keep
up with it).  I skim thru the mail, reading some, deleting others, and filing
others away (then forgetting about them, oops).  Hopefully my RL job will
slack up soon (right now in the process of adding 250+ PC's to the WAN).

One prob., the rule set is so big that only a person with a lot of leisure time
could understand it in a short time.

AirHead

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 21:39:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Official:  Berserk Promoter

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I love it when rules have unexpectedly beneficial effects (the point of
> the rule was to prevent a scam like Malenkai's "Coup" proposals a while
> back).

Actually, the point of R 1325 was to take preemptive action against a
potential Underworld Party scam at the time, at least that was my thought.
Its also cool when others found the above use too.

Malenkai
who has a deep love of history

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 21:55:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Updating the Rule Numbering System

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?

Well, I agreed with your interpretation, at least what I thought to
be your conclusion.  Also, no one commented about the effects of
Reorg II (except Niccolo about 1 minor point), which will renumber
half the rules.  

I guess the +70 debate is the hot ticket; debating about screening
rules, rather than *actually* screening the RFC that would massivly
reorg the rules in an attempt to actually move towards solving the
problem, go figure :)

> but we're not ready for that until we renumber all the existing rules.

I have submitted Reorg II that will renumber all but about 2 rules into
categories.  Actually, it leaves alot of them alone; I should say all but
about 2 will be in categories when it is done.

> RFC
> Numbering Rules Created by Rules
> /dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> {{[I am deleting the first section about the promoter; with the P1606 fix,

You will then have to wait to see if P 1606 is accepted to submit this,
or add conditional language.

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

Reorg II has attempted to renumber that rule to 3xx something.  I hope
the Promoter can distribute that with all due haste to minimize these
sort of potential errors.  To be safe, I would suggest the sort of
conditional language I have been using:  Amend the rule created by
proposal X [# and title]...

I like the gist of the RFC otherwise.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 22:13:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Mad Hatter (AirHead)

Jan 07 22:16 EST: -3 Mohammed: did not post 23 Skidoo's SVH

AirHead has been chosen as a Mad Hatter for 23 Skidoo.  

See rule 937.

Malenkai
OICoRT

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:35:53 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Townships (idea to help Acka grow)

I have come up with the following idea to change Acka. It is not necessary
yet, because of the number of players we have, but I think we will gain more
players (particularly if we continue to make the game easier for new players
to join) and if so, the email volume will also increase. I don't want this
to scare people off, so I have come up with the following system. We would
probably not enact it until we had a minimum of 50 players. It could be done
with 40 if desired. Please read it over and let me know what you think. It's
a rough draft, and not very technical... Just a sort of general concept sort
of thing. Comments, please...

The Township System
(rough draft, but better than my first attempt)

  Under this system, all of the players in Ackanomic would be divided into
Townships. Each Township would be composed by approximately 20-35 players.
Each Township would have a name, chosen by it's members. Each Township would
also have it's own rule set. This rule set would only bind members of that
Township, and it would have no effect on members of any other Township.
Every Township would start with the same Initial Rule Set. Then each
Township would be free to alter their rule set as the game progressed. A
rule in one of these rule sets would be called a Local Rule, and a proposal
to amend such a rule set would be a Local Proposal. When this system first
goes into effect, players would most likely be allowed to "sign up" for
Townships, so players would have control over what other players they would
share a Township with.

  There would also exist one Global Rule Set. This rule set would define any
global ideas we wanted in the game. For example, it would define Ackanomic
Names, Money, Points, etc. This Global Rule Set would take precedence over
Local Rule Sets. Any Local Rule Set in violation of this Global Rule Set
would be invalid. This Global Rule Set would probably also allow players to
move from Township to Township, if desired. It would also define how the
Townships interact with one another.

  Each Township would elect 2-7 Senators (we would have to decide on an
exact number). These Senators would make up the Ackanomic Senate. This
Senate would be in charge of making many decisions for all of Ackanomic.
They would probably deal with Internomic, as well as maintaining the Global
Rule Set.

  In order to amend a Local Rule Set, a player would send their proposal to
their local Promoter and they would distribute it. It would be voted on
within the Township, and if it passed, it would go into effect for that
Township. Of course, this mechanism could be changed if the Local Rule Set
were changed. All of the rules defining how local voting occurs, and other
such issues, would be contained within each Local Rule Set.

  In order to amend the Global Rule Set, a player would create their
proposal. Then they would have to decide how they want to distribute the
proposal. They would have the following 3 options:

1. The player sends their proposal to one of their Senators. This Senator
forwards the proposal to the entire Senate. The Senate would vote on the
proposal. The Global Rule Set would define how many Senators are required to
vote Yes on a proposal in order for it to pass. If the proposal passed, it
would go into effect. This is the fastest, most efficient way to get a
Global Proposal passed.

2. The player sends their proposal to all of the Townships. (Presumably each
Township would have an officer in charge of receiving these proposals). Each
Township would hold an internal vote on the proposal. Each Township's Local
Rule Set would define what is required to pass such a proposal. After all
the Townships have voted on it, they would send their results to the Senate.
The Global Rule Set would define what percentage of Townships are required
to vote Yes on the proposal in order for it to pass. If it passed, it would
go into effect. This is a less efficient way to get a Global Proposal
passed, but it allows for more popular interaction.

3. The player sends their proposal to all players. Each player casts a vote
on the proposal. The Global Rule Set defines what percentage of Yes votes
would be required to pass the proposal. If this was met, it would go into
effect. This is the least efficient method, but it would allow all voices to
be heard equally.

I would anticipate most players using method #1 first, and if that failed,
using one of the other two. 

  This system would allow for political parties to span between Townships,
for games and contests to be held between Townships, for newspapers to have
much larger roles than currently (both globally and locally), and in general
for much harfiness.

  This system would keep the email volume more or less constant. All players
would deal with their Township mail, and would occasionally have to vote on
Global Proposals.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 19:44:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Updating the Rule Numbering System

>> 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 ]

One caveat: the phrase "whole number" is usually construed to include
zero. "Positive integer" does not.

Otherwise, I think it's a valid suggestion. We should strive to keep
the language of the rules simple when we can without losing precision,
especially for the important, foundational rules such as this would
be.

b

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:47:35 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal Volume Issue 

>One prob., the rule set is so big that only a person with a lot of leisure time
>could understand it in a short time.
>
>AirHead

I agree, as do others. Currently the Acka-Research mailing list is an
inferno of discussion about this very thing... Hopefully the game will
become much easier for new players in the near future.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:47:37 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal Volume Issue 

>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.

I agree. This is a great idea. It won't solve the problem if we get a lot of
players, but it will go far to helping new players right now. I'd say a
proposal should get in the works...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 19:20:20 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New Newspaper 

I am creating a new nespaper called SFG Internomic Edition which we be
published twice weekly on a web page and contain current (low detail) news
on the goings on in ackanomic for members of other games.  To fulfill the
requirements our our press laws, I will also publish a monthly acknaomic
edition, which will contain information and outtakes of rules from a
differnt feature nomic each month.

snowgod -20, newspaper purchase.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 00:19:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fictionary

The ing word is 'agrise'.

Send your definitions to me privately.

Malenkai
Brainiac

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 07:48:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Updating the Rule Numbering System

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 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?
> 
> Well, I agreed with your interpretation, at least what I thought to
> be your conclusion.  Also, no one commented about the effects of
> Reorg II (except Niccolo about 1 minor point), which will renumber
> half the rules.

It seemed like a logical extension of re-org I.
If you'd prefer commentary, fine.
I have read it, and it appears to be fine to me. I found no flaws. You
might have missed some rules, but once this passes, they'll probably stand
stand out like the roverbial sore thumb anyway, so they'll easy to find.

I spend more bandwidth on objections .

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #443
*******************************