Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #448
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, January 11 1997      Volume 01 : Number 448

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:31:15 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic VFJ 3 Verdict 

Internomic CFJ 3 has been judged false by Agora Nomic.

snowgod

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement for Judgement:

   The proposals 301 till 318 have all passed

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments of caller:

Rule 109 says:

109.  All proposals shall be voted on.  They will be adopted if and only if
      they receive the required number of votes.

Remark that this rule does not specify what KIND of votes (in favor,
against or abstaining) the proposal has to receive, it just has to
receive the required NUMBER of them. It takes precedence over rules 110
and 209, so their attempts to make proposals pass or fail for other
reasons automatically fail.

So a proposal passes if and only if it receives the required number of
votes. Did proposals 301 till 318 do so? The rules do not give a
required number of votes, so any such requirement is trivially met, and
thus proposals 301 till 318 passed.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgement:  false

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary included with the Judgement:

The Rules do not define what it means for a Proposal to "receive" a vote.
We are thus free to interpret the word in the most natural way.

In real-life referenda, we generally think of a question as "receiving"
votes cast in favor of it, and "not receiving" those cast against.  The
opinion of this Judgement is that a Proposal "receives" a vote just when
that vote is legally cast in favor of the Proposal.

Rule 109 states that the Proposal is adopted iff it receives the "required
number" of votes.  Rule 109 leaves it to other Rules to specifying this
number. Currently Rules 110 and 209 do the necessary specifying, requiring
all votes to be in favor for adoption.

By this standard at least one of the Proposals referred to has failed
(recently 316 and/or 317), and so the Statement is false.

Agoran Rules require the commentary of all members to be forwarded:

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Player favor <[email-masked]:

  What does it mean for a proposal to "receive" a vote?  A proposal
  doesn't in general have a mailbox, for instance, so it can't
  receive a vote in the same way that a player can receive a
  message.  If I cast a vote FOR a proposal, it seems uncontroversial
  that that proposal has received my vote, has gotten my vote.
  Is the same true if I vote AGAINST the proposal?  That seems
  much less clear.  "You get my vote!" for instance, seems to
  mean that I will vote FOR you.  It seems at least plausible,
  then, that a proposal receives a vote, simpliciter, if and
  only if that vote is FOR the proposal.  (Of course, there
  are qualified variants with other meanings: it is clear what
  it means for a proposal to receive a certain number of votes
  AGAINST, for instance.  But when the type of vote is not
  specified explicitly, I think most competent speakers of
  English would interpret "receives the required number
  of votes" to mean "of votes FOR".  Of course, it may be an
  open question whether a speaker making that interpretation
  is finding the default value of the phrase, or on the other
  hand is saying "well, although e said something else, e
  must have *meant* to say 'votes FOR'".

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Player Swann <[email-masked]:

  I agree with this, I'd also add the following:

  If there are to be judgements in Internomic based on Game Custom in
Internomic
  (I don't have the rules in front of me. But I suspect they are.) I suspect
  that there's already one developed, not jus vis a vis Internomic, but because
  with any nomic still so close to Suber's initial set has an implicit Game
  Custom-- especiallaly in a nomic of nomics-- based upon the assumptions the
  players bring into such a nomic, despite the minor textual varaiants.  When
  a nomic made of experianced nomic players begins with something this close
  to Suber's original, I think it begins with a Game Custom based on the
  player's common experiance with nomic, and when an unclear rule appears
it can
  be dealt with not just as past experiance in this one game dictates, but as
  past experience in prior nomics dictates.  (Note, I'm only arguing this in
  cases where the Ruleset is still closely tied to the original.)

NB: The InterNomic Rules do not currently mention Game Custom as a standard
of judgment. Rule 213 merely says judgments must be in accordance with the
Rules.
- -elJefe

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Player Murphy <[email-masked]:

  IN rules 110 and 209 place restrictions on the nature of votes
  received.  Do those restrictions count as restrictions on the
  number of votes received, in the sense that they both require
  there to be zero AGAINST votes received?  If not, then 109 takes
  precedence over both, by IN rules 111 and 211.

NB: Rules 110 and 209 do not use the term "received", and the natural
interpretation of the word, as above, implies that 109 accepts the
requirements of the other Rules as to number of votes for adoption.
- -elJefe

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

Submitted for Agora Nomic by

- -- elJefe, Agoran Liaison

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:31:42 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic CFJ 3 Verdict 

Internomic CFJ 3 has been judged false by Agora Nomic.

snowgod

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement for Judgement:

   The proposals 301 till 318 have all passed

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments of caller:

Rule 109 says:

109.  All proposals shall be voted on.  They will be adopted if and only if
      they receive the required number of votes.

Remark that this rule does not specify what KIND of votes (in favor,
against or abstaining) the proposal has to receive, it just has to
receive the required NUMBER of them. It takes precedence over rules 110
and 209, so their attempts to make proposals pass or fail for other
reasons automatically fail.

So a proposal passes if and only if it receives the required number of
votes. Did proposals 301 till 318 do so? The rules do not give a
required number of votes, so any such requirement is trivially met, and
thus proposals 301 till 318 passed.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgement:  false

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary included with the Judgement:

The Rules do not define what it means for a Proposal to "receive" a vote.
We are thus free to interpret the word in the most natural way.

In real-life referenda, we generally think of a question as "receiving"
votes cast in favor of it, and "not receiving" those cast against.  The
opinion of this Judgement is that a Proposal "receives" a vote just when
that vote is legally cast in favor of the Proposal.

Rule 109 states that the Proposal is adopted iff it receives the "required
number" of votes.  Rule 109 leaves it to other Rules to specifying this
number. Currently Rules 110 and 209 do the necessary specifying, requiring
all votes to be in favor for adoption.

By this standard at least one of the Proposals referred to has failed
(recently 316 and/or 317), and so the Statement is false.

Agoran Rules require the commentary of all members to be forwarded:

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Player favor <[email-masked]:

  What does it mean for a proposal to "receive" a vote?  A proposal
  doesn't in general have a mailbox, for instance, so it can't
  receive a vote in the same way that a player can receive a
  message.  If I cast a vote FOR a proposal, it seems uncontroversial
  that that proposal has received my vote, has gotten my vote.
  Is the same true if I vote AGAINST the proposal?  That seems
  much less clear.  "You get my vote!" for instance, seems to
  mean that I will vote FOR you.  It seems at least plausible,
  then, that a proposal receives a vote, simpliciter, if and
  only if that vote is FOR the proposal.  (Of course, there
  are qualified variants with other meanings: it is clear what
  it means for a proposal to receive a certain number of votes
  AGAINST, for instance.  But when the type of vote is not
  specified explicitly, I think most competent speakers of
  English would interpret "receives the required number
  of votes" to mean "of votes FOR".  Of course, it may be an
  open question whether a speaker making that interpretation
  is finding the default value of the phrase, or on the other
  hand is saying "well, although e said something else, e
  must have *meant* to say 'votes FOR'".

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Player Swann <[email-masked]:

  I agree with this, I'd also add the following:

  If there are to be judgements in Internomic based on Game Custom in
Internomic
  (I don't have the rules in front of me. But I suspect they are.) I suspect
  that there's already one developed, not jus vis a vis Internomic, but because
  with any nomic still so close to Suber's initial set has an implicit Game
  Custom-- especiallaly in a nomic of nomics-- based upon the assumptions the
  players bring into such a nomic, despite the minor textual varaiants.  When
  a nomic made of experianced nomic players begins with something this close
  to Suber's original, I think it begins with a Game Custom based on the
  player's common experiance with nomic, and when an unclear rule appears
it can
  be dealt with not just as past experiance in this one game dictates, but as
  past experience in prior nomics dictates.  (Note, I'm only arguing this in
  cases where the Ruleset is still closely tied to the original.)

NB: The InterNomic Rules do not currently mention Game Custom as a standard
of judgment. Rule 213 merely says judgments must be in accordance with the
Rules.
- -elJefe

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Player Murphy <[email-masked]:

  IN rules 110 and 209 place restrictions on the nature of votes
  received.  Do those restrictions count as restrictions on the
  number of votes received, in the sense that they both require
  there to be zero AGAINST votes received?  If not, then 109 takes
  precedence over both, by IN rules 111 and 211.

NB: Rules 110 and 209 do not use the term "received", and the natural
interpretation of the word, as above, implies that 109 accepts the
requirements of the other Rules as to number of votes for adoption.
- -elJefe

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

Submitted for Agora Nomic by

- -- elJefe, Agoran Liaison

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:34:22 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic CFJ 4 

There is a new internomic call for judgement.  It seems like every nomic
goes through this one during the 'warm up period'.  Agora is the initiator
and Thring will judge.

snowgod

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

Statement:

     Voting members of Internomic may vote exactly twice per
     proposal.

Arguments of Caller:

206.  Each voting member may vote exactly once per proposal. Nonvoting
      members may not vote.

Per Internomic rule 114 (permissibility of the unprohibited except for
rule changes), this says that each voting member *may* vote exactly
once per proposal, but it does not necessarily prevent them from voting
twice; after all, it doesn't prevent them from voting zero times.

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:34:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic CFJ 4

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> There is a new internomic call for judgement.  It seems like every nomic
> goes through this one during the 'warm up period'.  Agora is the initiator
> and Thring will judge.

Yes, this CFJ indicates a CFJ 113 phase :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:40:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Mad Hatter (ThinMan)

Jan 11 16:39 EST: -3 AirHead: did not post 23 Skidoo's SVH

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

See rule 937.

Malenkai
OICoRT

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:03:14 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: SVH for BuzzBee 

BuzzBee's silly vacation hat is bowling pin with internal neon lighting.
It is held firmly atop of his head by the octopus wrapped around it (and
presumably him).

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:29:14 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gaoler Poem 

I recieved Party Hall Party Greetings from Strider Niccolo Flychuck and (a
day late) from Bascule.  I sent greetings to all three.

It is, therefore, with my deepest regret to bring this depressing, and
awfully written 8-line poem in accordance with R939.

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

Townships and churches, population explosions
Vacationing players and rule implosions
Functional Officers playing musical chairs
These are the things for which Acka cares

Harfy proposals and modest solutions
Flights of the spelling bee and rule pollution
Rules that legislate our Ackanomic homes
I have no clue how to end this poem

snowgod
depressing and awfully written gaoler

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:19:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gaoler Poem

> Townships and churches, population explosions
> Vacationing players and rule implosions
> Functional Officers playing musical chairs
> These are the things for which Acka cares
> 
> Harfy proposals and modest solutions
> Flights of the spelling bee and rule pollution
> Rules that legislate our Ackanomic homes
> I have no clue how to end this poem

Ah, snowgod, we had no idea what we were letting ourselves in for when
we allowed you take the gaoler's office.

breadbox
radiating approval

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:40:49 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gaoler Poem 

>Ah, snowgod, we had no idea what we were letting ourselves in for when
>we allowed you take the gaoler's office.
>
>breadbox
>radiating approval

I will take that as a compliment to my abilities to produce dreadful poetry :)

snowgod
just call me ee poe

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 02:15:47 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Swingpoint history

As has been recorded before and corrected by /dev/joe
on Dec. 10 snowgod received 1 Swingpoint and I received 2
On the 17th I gave snowgod both Swingpoints.

On Dec. 24 they were all converted to points
then snowgod received 1 Swingpoints and I received 1

On Jan. 7 all the above Swingpoints were converted into points
By then , I believe that Strider was already NAP Swinger, which means that
snowgod received 2 Swingpoints, and I received 3

I think the Swingpoint rule need some ammending.
I suggest that Swingpoints will still be given every two weeks as they are
now, but that they should persist until the end of the Calendar month, or
the end of a cycle, whichever comes first.

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 02:16:57 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: GamesMaster G & C 106

G & C 106, which has been proposed bu Guy Fawkes prior to eir vacation,
didnot receive the required number of endorsements and was therefore
rejected.

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:58:48 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Oops (Tabulator)

I just ran the script, not realizing I had un-commented the part that 
sends reply messages to everyone.  Those of you that got acknowledgements 
before probably just received another ack (or another whole batch of 
them) via private mail.

Sorry 'bout that.  But now that it's done, how'd it work?  Did everything
come through okay?  Comments?  Suggestions?  From now on, Acrobot mail
will be answered automatically and for the most part I won't see it.

Results for proposals 1593 - 1620 are forthcoming.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 21:06:07 +0000
From: "Matt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Poll Results

THE DAY TODAY - YOUR MONTHLY DOSE OF POST-MODERN TABLOID (PMT)

ACKANOMIC DIVIDED OVER DIVISION

By Genar Hofoen, Batball correspondent

An impressive 10 players responded to our poll question, "Should
Acka subdivide?" The result was a perfect split, with 5 of you in
favour of a 3rd Reich-like blitzkrieg invasion of Acka, while 5 of
you preferred to own up to latent racist tendencies, owing to some
mischievous questioning by our pollster. Two prominent Township-
skeptics (Malenkai and fnord) did not vote, so it looks like an
uphill struggle for our former-president-turned-township-touter,
Robert Sevin.

Those results in full:

I would like my country to be invaded by foreigners:

Calvin n Hobbes
AirHead
Strider
snowgod
Robert Sevin

I am a paranoid xenophobe:

ThinMan
mr cwm (wearing a Silly Vacation Hat)
Mohammed
/dev/joe
Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:30:57 +0000
From: "Matt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *Ping*, the Truth, and a headache

/dev/joe, oh wondrous scholar

I have a headache from studying the machine, but I believe that the 
truth may take this form:

IF AND ONLY IF today has a date that goes by two different prime 
numbers, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*. 

Go on then, ridicule me! See if I care.

Bascule

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:10:21 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1593 accepted

Proposal 1593
Amend R505
Malenkai

Yes:  13    No:  0     Present:  2   ...Proposal is accepted.

YES votes:
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	ThinMan
	Jammer
	snowgod
	Lestrade
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

NO votes:

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin
	breadbox

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

Text of accepted proposal:

Proposal 1593
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.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:12:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: P1594 accepted (Beldin's Pants)

Proposal 1594
Beldin's Pants
Malenkai

Yes:  10    No:  5     Present:  1   ...Proposal is accepted.

- --Malenkai bribed Tammany A$5 to vote YES.

YES votes:
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus
	/dev/joe
	Lestrade
	Swann
	breadbox
	Tammany
	snowgod
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

NO votes:
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	ThinMan
	Jammer
	Niccolo Flychuck

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

Text of accepted proposal:

Proposal 1594
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: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:13:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1595 rejected (Golden Baton)

Proposal 1595
The Golden Baton of Ackanomia
Lestrade

Yes:  6    No:  7     Present:  2   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	breadbox
	snowgod
	Lestrade

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	Robert Sevin
	ThinMan
	Mohammed

PRESENT votes:
	Jammer
	Malenkai

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno
From [email-masked] Jan 10 20:46:31 1997
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 19:12:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Reply to: [email-masked]
To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1595

Proposal 1595
The Golden Baton of Ackanomia
Lestrade (John Duncan)

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: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:14:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1596 accepted

Proposal 1596
Ammend Party Hall
Niccolo Flychuck

Yes:  8    No:  2     Present:  5   ...Proposal is accepted.

YES votes:
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	ThinMan
	Jammer
	Mohammed

NO votes:
	Habeous Corpus
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:
	mr cwm
	Robert Sevin
	breadbox
	snowgod
	Lestrade

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

Text of accepted proposal:

From [email-masked] Jan 10 20:46:37 1997
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 19:13:48 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Reply to: [email-masked]
To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1596

Proposal 1596
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.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:15:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1597 accepted

Proposal 1597
Amend R1269 "Newton, Apples, and Parties"
Niccolo Flychuck

Yes:  8    No:  1     Present:  6   ...Proposal is accepted.

YES votes:
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	ThinMan
	snowgod
	Mohammed

NO votes:
	Habeous Corpus

PRESENT votes:
	mr cwm
	Robert Sevin
	breadbox
	Jammer
	Lestrade
	Malenkai

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

Text of accepted proposal:

Proposal 1597
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."

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:16:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1598 accepted (time zone)

Proposal 1598
ammend 1311
Niccolo Flychuck

Yes:  12    No:  2     Present:  1   ...Proposal is accepted.

YES votes:
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	ThinMan
	Jammer
	Lestrade
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

NO votes:
	breadbox
	snowgod

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

Text of accepted proposal:

Proposal 1598
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."

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:17:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1599 rejected (No False Modesty)

Proposal 1599
No False Modesty
Jammer

Yes:  6    No:  8     Present:  1   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	Habeous Corpus
	G. Peefalt
	Swann
	Jammer
	snowgod
	Malenkai

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	Robert Sevin
	breadbox
	ThinMan
	Lestrade
	Mohammed

PRESENT votes:
	AirHead

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:18:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1600 rejected (Elbow Room)

Proposal 1600
Elbow Room
Jammer

Yes:  8    No:  5     Present:  1   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	Jammer
	snowgod

NO votes:
	/dev/joe
	breadbox
	ThinMan
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Lestrade
	Techno

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:18:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1601 rejected (Building Up & Tearing Down)

Proposal 1601
Building Up and Tearing Down
Jammer

Yes:  6    No:  8     Present:  0   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	Habeous Corpus
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	Jammer

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	/dev/joe
	Robert Sevin
	breadbox
	ThinMan
	snowgod
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Lestrade
	Techno

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 17:18:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Oops (Tabulator)

> I just ran the script, not realizing I had un-commented the part that 
> sends reply messages to everyone.  Those of you that got acknowledgements 
> before probably just received another ack (or another whole batch of 
> them) via private mail.
> 
> Sorry 'bout that.  But now that it's done, how'd it work?  Did everything
> come through okay?  Comments?  Suggestions?  From now on, Acrobot mail
> will be answered automatically and for the most part I won't see it.

Made me feel all nostalgic, getting an automated reply....

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:20:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1602 rejected (Whose Land?)

Proposal 1602
Whose Land?
Jammer

Yes:  8    No:  6     Present:  1   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	Habeous Corpus
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	Jammer
	snowgod
	Lestrade

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	/dev/joe
	breadbox
	ThinMan
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:21:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1603 rejected (Saying how big)

Proposal 1603
Saying how big
Jammer

Yes:  6    No:  7     Present:  2   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	Jammer
	snowgod
	Lestrade

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	ThinMan
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin
	breadbox

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:21:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1604 rejected (Sweating the Small Stuff)

Proposal 1604
Sweating the Small Stuff
Jammer

Yes:  5    No:  8     Present:  2   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	Swann
	Jammer
	Lestrade

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus
	/dev/joe
	breadbox
	ThinMan
	snowgod
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin
	AirHead

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:22:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1605 rejected (WareHouses)

Proposal 1605
WareHouses
Jammer

Yes:  8    No:  5     Present:  2   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	Habeous Corpus
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	Jammer
	snowgod
	Lestrade

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	/dev/joe
	ThinMan
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin
	breadbox

Players who did not vote:
	fnord
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Strider
	Techno

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:23:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1606 accepted

Proposal 1606
P 1518, P 1543 bug fixes
Malenkai

Yes:  12    No:  0     Present:  5   ...Proposal is accepted.

YES votes:
	mr cwm
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	G. Peefalt
	Strider
	AirHead
	Swann
	fnord
	ThinMan
	snowgod
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

NO votes:

PRESENT votes:
	Habeous Corpus
	Robert Sevin
	breadbox
	Jammer
	Lestrade

Players who did not vote:
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Techno

Text of accepted proposal:

Proposal 1606
P 1518, P 1543 bug fixes
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend R 445, "Preator", to replace

"
c) the owner of a Gold Stripe
"

with

"
c) the owner of a Gold Stripe or Ruby Slipper
"

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

Amend R 406, "Promoter", to replace

"
      (c) to assign each proposal a number and distribute it for voting. 
"

with

     "
     (c) assign the proposal a number 1 greater than the number
     assigned to the previously distributed proposal, and distribute it
     for voting.
     "

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:26:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: P1607 rejected (Flyunder)

Proposal 1607
Flyunder
snowgod

Yes:  10    No:  8     Present:  0   ...Proposal is rejected.

- --snowgod bribed Tammany A$15 to vote YES.

YES votes:
	mr cwm
	Robert Sevin
	G. Peefalt
	AirHead
	Swann
	fnord
	Tammany
	Jammer
	snowgod
	Lestrade

NO votes:
	Habeous Corpus
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	Strider
	breadbox
	ThinMan
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:

Players who did not vote:
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Techno

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

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:27:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1608 rejected (Just the FAQ's)

Proposal 1608
Just the FAQ's
Jammer

Yes:  6    No:  8     Present:  1   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	G. Peefalt
	/dev/joe
	Strider
	Swann
	Jammer
	snowgod

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	Niccolo Flychuck
	fnord
	breadbox
	ThinMan
	Lestrade
	Mohammed
	Malenkai

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin

Players who did not vote:
	Calvin N Hobbes
	BuzzBee
	Bascule
	Clairence
	Guy Fawkes
	23 Skidoo
	Techno
	AirHead
	Habeous Corpus

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #448
*******************************