Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #96
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, May 26 1997         Volume 02 : Number 096

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

Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 23:05:33 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acid Rain Contract Trinket Auction Results

The auction is now over.  Bascule made the highest bid, A$331, for the
Brass Umbrella, and is thus its new owner.

#transfer Alfvaen Bascule : Brass Umbrella : auction sale
#transfer Bascule Alfvaen : A$331 : auction bid

As a result, I am now bound by The Acid Rain Contract Take 2 to obey
Bascule's wishes regarding the performance of the Acid Rain Dance, as set
forth therein.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Beethoven:Symphony No. 5/Egmont
Current Book--C.S. Friedman:Black Sun Rising
Bounce, went the bunnies.  Bounce bounce bounce.

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

Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 22:16:02 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: IdiotBoy

ME TOO.
That is, I'll support IdiotBoy's nomination for much the same reason
**two-star

Aaron Humphrey wrote:
> 
> I further support IdiotBoy's nomination to the Hall of Elders.  Though I've
> barely known him, I'll be darned if his nomination fails by one
> confirmation point because I haven't supported this motion.

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

Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 21:15:17 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: IdiotBoy

Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I further support IdiotBoy's nomination to the Hall of Elders.

Just to be sure, I also support the nomination.
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 00:59:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..) 

First of all my apologies for forgetting to add "Acka" in the subject line
of the RFC. No one has commented on it but I thought I'd save someone the
trouble.

>Well, while I agree that Acka seems to be getting rather staid, set in
>it's ways, I think this is going to far.

Staid is the right word... let's keep that in mind for later in the message.

>There's really no difference
>between these Enfants and completely seperate Nomics.

Oh please. *No* difference? None? I beg to differ sir, I'm sure I can find
at least one.   : )
And to boot, I'm sure could find an infinite number of differences.

>Frankly, I don't
>think Acka can support something like this.

When did I last hear that?   ; )
Story of my life in Acka...

>  We've all seen the posts by
>various ackazens about how now that they're playing on Rishonomic, or
>Agora, or whatever, they don't have much time to devote to Acka anymore.

Right. They seem to be having a lot of fun too.

>By establishing these Enfants, we're encouraging people to draw their
>attention and time away from Acka itself and into their own smaller
>nomics.  

Not at all. Neither separate nor smaller.

The fact that we can built subnomics does not preclude us building ties and
links to these nomics. On the contrary, the RFC clearly spends a lot of time
detailing how these links can be built. There would be a lot of potential
that has a purely Acka flavor. Introducing trinkets and currency to these
subnomics. Granting them special areas on Acka world perhaps. Safe havens
for heretics to practice their apostate scientific rituals. *True*
multithreading when we have rule conflicts [grin]. Not to mention the
discussions we can have about the physics in the various AEs. Should they
get tornados? Aliens? How to introduce that? How about political activism
and parties spanning more than one subnomic? And how do we work with the
political structures? Does the president keep his 'top' status? The senate?
Justices? And a really big one, the speaker? Tax evasion? Taxation without
representation? Robert Sevin would probably add his excellent "Olympic Game"
idea to this endless list. A list which enriches Acka while in no way
forcing it to change its character. Want to try a theocracy? Why leave Acka
or have to completely reshape it? Work within the system.

And I would argue that this cannot lead to less participation in Acka
itself. Those people who will be more interested in living in sub-nomics
would be people who would have left or not done anything anyway: no loss. On
the contrary, we provide a creative outlet for them to stay and formally
keep in touch with Acka, be involved. The advantage to them is clear. The
idea is novel, the contacts with Acka and other subnomics allow for a
greater pool of players, talents and events. More diversity and the option
to experiment with relatively little work overheads (Acka is established and
has web, bots, etc) are also strong points.

This kind of development, as far as I know, has never really been explored
or touched on by any other nomic. The idea of a nomic recursively defining
_itself_ to explore potentially infinite number of avenues is so crazy and
mind boggling, I'd have to say it's purely Acka. With a hint of Star Trek's
parallel universe...

Want to relive the past of Acka and see how it would have been different if
a proposal like the Financier or Senate had not passed? Or if we never had
the gnome? I could spend the rest of the night theorizing about things we
can do with this. From the totally obscure and crazy to the practical and
experimental. All the colours of the rainbow. Eh... colors.   : )

>If we're really interested in bringing new life to Ackanomic, I
>think we should work on new rules for acka itself, not just rubber stamp
>new nomics with the acka seal of approval.

While that sentence is a very cool statement, it bears not testimony to the
scope of what is proposed in the RFC. "Seal of approval"? The whole point is
to bring diversity to Acka, not create nomics we approve of. Approval has
nothing to do with it. If you mean "in our image", I'd say that while at
first that may be the case because it will be new, there is nothing in the
RFC that says that. I have made it as neutral as possible. Accepting the
fact that a subnomic could even grow to be completely antagonistic to Acka
(who knows?!) we grant them right of secession. Certainly we could have
subnomics that separate which we would consider Acka mirror images, complete
with a seal of approval (I could see a rule for that!), I think that such a
possibility is interesting. Would certainly be nice to have like minded
nomics working with us in Internomic. But the main focus of the RFC is how
the subnomic is an integrated part of Acka and how the AEs and Acka will be
interconnected together.

In your own words, Acka is getting staid. I would go as far as to argue that
we are experiencing our own kind of "brain drain". People who would be
enthusiastic enough to break new ground either leave or become pretty much
dormant. By providing subnomics (_not_ separate nomics) we give Acka new
frontiers of expansion, new room for development.

I have two hopes with this. First to keep people in Acka by granting an
unprecedented breadth of freedom for experimentation and creativity. Second,
I believe that while Acka will be the primary influence on the subnomics,
they will themselves grow in unexpected ways and provide new ideas for Acka.
A rebirth from within. New ideas propagating back to Acka, the top level.
Hence the title of the RFC.

Having children is how some people achieve their kind of immortality. Acka
may not exist in 10 years time, but by having children, we give ourselves
our best chance at posterity. Why do I see some Darwinian experiments for
natural selection among nomics in my head?...   : \   And why do I imagine
some nomics asking to become adopted children by Acka to participate in
certain things like competitions and games?

I could not help but feel "Enfants" was a term you did not approve of? It is
an RFC, I used it only because it made the initials "AE" which as you may
know I tend to add to most major objects I create. For some reason.  [grin]

Suggestions welcome. So long as they can be abbreviated AE. [evil grin]

The options are endless and limited only by our imagination: they provide a
structure we will need vision and imagination to make grow.

Calvin N Hobbes
verbose as usual... sorry!

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

Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 22:43:52 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Reneisance etc...)isance etc..) 

>Well, while I agree that Acka seems to be getting rather staid, set in
>it's ways, I think this is going to far.  There's really no difference
>between these Enfants and completely seperate Nomics.  Frankly, I don't
>think Acka can support something like this.  We've all seen the posts by
>various ackazens about how now that they're playing on Rishonomic, or
>Agora, or whatever, they don't have much time to devote to Acka anymore.
>By establishing these Enfants, we're encouraging people to draw their
>attention and time away from Acka itself and into their own smaller
>nomics.  If we're really interested in bringing new life to Ackanomic, I
>think we should work on new rules for acka itself, not just rubber stamp
>new nomics with the acka seal of approval.
>
>
>                                   - Vynd
>
>[email-masked]

I disagree, Vynd, and it's not to often that I disagree with you (As a
matter of fact, some have suggested that there is no need for me to post
messages anymore because you always post my sentiments).

This will keep the top level of Ackanomic, the one that we all play (and
rule laywer in), and keep it fun for the laywer guys, while adding a while
new set of levels for us "little guys".  Me and CnH and Bob Sevin can go be
as harfy as we want without disturbing /dev/joe and Malenkai, and my evil
twin ThinMan while at the same time still being able to interact with the
other ackanomic players (and I love you all guys, strict contructionalists
or not :).

I think this is a good thing for our nomic.  I am voting YES and casting
all the votes at my disposal in its favor.

snwogod

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

Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 09:43:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..)

I've kept quiet on this one so far because I wasn't quite sure what my
opinions are yet.  Originally, I wasn't quite sure what the difference was
between AE's and separate Nomics, so I agreed with Vynd at first.  But some
of CnH's arguments are compelling...

> >  We've all seen the posts by
> >various ackazens about how now that they're playing on Rishonomic, or
> >Agora, or whatever, they don't have much time to devote to Acka anymore.
> 
> Right. They seem to be having a lot of fun too.

I recognize the fact that there are some people who are just more
comfortable with the earlier stages of a Nomic, and who find the inevitable
result of the later stages of a Nomic's development staid, stagnant, and
dull.  I'm not one of them, but I'm gathering that there are a few.  These
people are going to continue to suffer a lapse of interest in Acka proper
anyway, and it's a question as to whether we let them slip away or we see
if there's anything we may be able to do to keep them interested. Which I
think both CnH and Vynd agree with, but you obviously both differ on how
this should be done.  :-)

> >By establishing these Enfants, we're encouraging people to draw their
> >attention and time away from Acka itself and into their own smaller
> >nomics.  
> 
> Not at all. Neither separate nor smaller.
> 
> The fact that we can built subnomics does not preclude us building ties and
> links to these nomics. On the contrary, the RFC clearly spends a lot of time
> detailing how these links can be built. There would be a lot of potential
> that has a purely Acka flavor. Introducing trinkets and currency to these
> subnomics. Granting them special areas on Acka world perhaps. Safe havens
> for heretics to practice their apostate scientific rituals. *True*
> multithreading when we have rule conflicts [grin]. Not to mention the
> discussions we can have about the physics in the various AEs. Should they
> get tornados? Aliens? How to introduce that? How about political activism
> and parties spanning more than one subnomic? And how do we work with the
> political structures? Does the president keep his 'top' status? The senate?
> Justices? And a really big one, the speaker? Tax evasion? Taxation without
> representation? Robert Sevin would probably add his excellent "Olympic Game"
> idea to this endless list. A list which enriches Acka while in no way
> forcing it to change its character. Want to try a theocracy? Why leave Acka
> or have to completely reshape it? Work within the system.

Heck, I'd be interested to see an Imperial-style AE.

In a sense, how would this be different from Internomic?  The principle is
the same as far as I can tell--some people from other Nomics start a
new nomic, mostly for the fun of having a new nomic to work with.  Points
could propagate back upward; maybe this could be treated in some ways like
making Nomic a subgame of Ackanomic...:-)

And thinking of two-star's abortive Phoebe post(which I quite enjoyed),
perhaps there are explorations that can be done into other bizarre
environments in this setting wherein Ackanomic lies.

> And I would argue that this cannot lead to less participation in Acka
> itself. Those people who will be more interested in living in sub-nomics
> would be people who would have left or not done anything anyway: no loss. On
> the contrary, we provide a creative outlet for them to stay and formally
> keep in touch with Acka, be involved. The advantage to them is clear. The
> idea is novel, the contacts with Acka and other subnomics allow for a
> greater pool of players, talents and events. More diversity and the option
> to experiment with relatively little work overheads (Acka is established and
> has web, bots, etc) are also strong points.

Yes, this is what I was saying up above there.  It's a question between
more or less letting some people leave, or providing them an incentive to
stay.

> Want to relive the past of Acka and see how it would have been different if
> a proposal like the Financier or Senate had not passed? Or if we never had
> the gnome? I could spend the rest of the night theorizing about things we
> can do with this. From the totally obscure and crazy to the practical and
> experimental. All the colours of the rainbow. Eh... colors.   : )

("Colours" looks right to me...:-)

> >If we're really interested in bringing new life to Ackanomic, I
> >think we should work on new rules for acka itself, not just rubber stamp
> >new nomics with the acka seal of approval.
> 
> While that sentence is a very cool statement, it bears not testimony to the
> scope of what is proposed in the RFC. "Seal of approval"? The whole point is
> to bring diversity to Acka, not create nomics we approve of. Approval has
> nothing to do with it. If you mean "in our image", I'd say that while at
> first that may be the case because it will be new, there is nothing in the
> RFC that says that. I have made it as neutral as possible. Accepting the
> fact that a subnomic could even grow to be completely antagonistic to Acka
> (who knows?!) we grant them right of secession. Certainly we could have
> subnomics that separate which we would consider Acka mirror images, complete
> with a seal of approval (I could see a rule for that!), I think that such a
> possibility is interesting. Would certainly be nice to have like minded
> nomics working with us in Internomic. But the main focus of the RFC is how
> the subnomic is an integrated part of Acka and how the AEs and Acka will be
> interconnected together.

Would new Nomics be submitted like normal proposals?  Would there be a
"Subnomic"(or "AckaEnfant")Rule Suit sort of like the G&C one?  Or would
there just be "soft links" to where the ruleset really lies?  How easy
would it be to create or destroy a Nomic?

> In your own words, Acka is getting staid. I would go as far as to argue that
> we are experiencing our own kind of "brain drain". People who would be
> enthusiastic enough to break new ground either leave or become pretty much
> dormant. By providing subnomics (_not_ separate nomics) we give Acka new
> frontiers of expansion, new room for development.

That's right.  In the brief time I've been here there are a lot of
people who've been so quiet that I wondered if they were still active at
all.  I still think that I hope to stick with Acka for a while, because I
find it interesting at this stage--now that a bunch of rules are there, I
wouldn't mind actually playing the thing, refining it, etc.  I don't know
if I want to turn it upside down; maybe I wouldn't even like the early
stages of a Nomic(though I should try it someday, I suppose).

I'm perfectly willing to see how this would work.  Maybe it will end up
like Vynd suggests, as more or less separate Nomics that eventually become
totally independent from Acka.  Or maybe it will work like CnH suggests and
restimulate Acka in the process.  Regardless, I'd like to see it done
because it hasn't been done before.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Neil Diamond:Crunch Granola Suite
Current Book--C.S. Friedman:Black Sun Rising
Slowly and carefully saunter amok.  --Lisa Chabot

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

Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 13:18:00 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..) 

>And I would argue that this cannot lead to less participation in Acka
>itself. Those people who will be more interested in living in sub-nomics
>would be people who would have left or not done anything anyway: no loss. On
>the contrary, we provide a creative outlet for them to stay and formally
>keep in touch with Acka, be involved. The advantage to them is clear. The
>idea is novel, the contacts with Acka and other subnomics allow for a
>greater pool of players, talents and events. More diversity and the option
>to experiment with relatively little work overheads (Acka is established and
>has web, bots, etc) are also strong points.

[snippage]

>This kind of development, as far as I know, has never really been explored
>or touched on by any other nomic. The idea of a nomic recursively defining
>_itself_ to explore potentially infinite number of avenues is so crazy and
>mind boggling, I'd have to say it's purely Acka. With a hint of Star Trek's
>parallel universe...

I don't talk much here, but let me comment that this is easily one of the
most dazzling concepts I've ever come across in _any_ game of Nomic. When
(if) this ever comes to a vote, I will wholeheartedly support it. I'm one of
those people who's drifting Rishonward these days, but this idea _by itself_
kept me perusing the Acka mailbox all day today. I'll be happy to do a
guinea pig routine with this idea, when it comes around. Of course, the
potential for scamming is compelling as well...;v)

Alito

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

Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 09:31:55 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Road Trip 

Ackazens,

I, Mr. Nacho, I am hereby declaring my intent to go on a road trip today.
Specifically, I will be driving a 1963 Jaguar Mk X from Anchorage to
Fairbanks and then flying home early tomorrow morning.  I will bve
incomunicado until I return.

Oh yeah, I'm also resigning from the office of the president (something
which I have been meaning to do for a while).  I hereby officialy endorse
Techno as the next president of Ackanomic.

Mr. Nacho
who went in as snowgod and came out on the other side as a cheesy chip

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

Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 17:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..)

On Sun, 25 May 1997, Thierry Joffrain wrote:

> First of all my apologies for forgetting to add "Acka" in the subject line
> of the RFC. No one has commented on it but I thought I'd save someone the
> trouble.
> 
> >Well, while I agree that Acka seems to be getting rather staid, set in
> >it's ways, I think this is going to far.
> 
> Staid is the right word... let's keep that in mind for later in the message.
> 
> >There's really no difference
> >between these Enfants and completely seperate Nomics.
> 
> Oh please. *No* difference? None? I beg to differ sir, I'm sure I can find
> at least one.   : )
> And to boot, I'm sure could find an infinite number of differences.

OK, let me rephrase that.  There is little effective difference between
the enfants and entirely new nomics.  They need not have the same players,
in fact you specificaly put forward the idea of allowing people who are
not players on Acka to join the enfants.  They need not have ANY of the
same rules as Acka.  True, to be an Enfant they have to have the Enfant
rule in their rules (at the begining, even?), but the enfat rule itself
leaves provisions for an Enfant repealing said rule and becoming truly
independant.  So what you're likely to get with this idea is a group of
people playing a Nomic, some of whom play here, some of whom do not.  This
nomic will have some rules which are similar to ackas, and many which are
not.  Sounds like most other nomics already in existance, frankly.  If
Agora or Pumpkin Patch or Rishonomic passed the Enfant rule and stuck it
at the top of their rules, they'd be an enfant even though they've been
around longer than the idea has (in some cases longer than Acka has).

> 
> >Frankly, I don't
> >think Acka can support something like this.
> 
> When did I last hear that?   ; )
> Story of my life in Acka...
> 
> >  We've all seen the posts by
> >various ackazens about how now that they're playing on Rishonomic, or
> >Agora, or whatever, they don't have much time to devote to Acka anymore.
> 
> Right. They seem to be having a lot of fun too.
> 
> >By establishing these Enfants, we're encouraging people to draw their
> >attention and time away from Acka itself and into their own smaller
> >nomics.  
> 
> Not at all. Neither separate nor smaller.
> 
> The fact that we can built subnomics does not preclude us building ties and
> links to these nomics. On the contrary, the RFC clearly spends a lot of time
> detailing how these links can be built. There would be a lot of potential
> that has a purely Acka flavor. Introducing trinkets and currency to these
> subnomics. Granting them special areas on Acka world perhaps. Safe havens
> for heretics to practice their apostate scientific rituals. *True*
> multithreading when we have rule conflicts [grin]. Not to mention the
> discussions we can have about the physics in the various AEs. Should they
> get tornados? Aliens? How to introduce that? How about political activism
> and parties spanning more than one subnomic? And how do we work with the
> political structures? Does the president keep his 'top' status? The senate?
> Justices? And a really big one, the speaker? Tax evasion? Taxation without
> representation? Robert Sevin would probably add his excellent "Olympic Game"
> idea to this endless list. A list which enriches Acka while in no way
> forcing it to change its character. Want to try a theocracy? Why leave Acka
> or have to completely reshape it? Work within the system.
> 
> And I would argue that this cannot lead to less participation in Acka
> itself. Those people who will be more interested in living in sub-nomics
> would be people who would have left or not done anything anyway: no loss. On
> the contrary, we provide a creative outlet for them to stay and formally
> keep in touch with Acka, be involved. The advantage to them is clear. The
> idea is novel, the contacts with Acka and other subnomics allow for a
> greater pool of players, talents and events. More diversity and the option
> to experiment with relatively little work overheads (Acka is established and
> has web, bots, etc) are also strong points.

Time and effort are finite things.  If we encourage people to join these
enfants, we're encouraging them to at best split their time between them.
They just CAN'T be as active on Acka as they would have been if they
weren't on an Enfant.  That's mostly what I mean when I say that Acka
can't support these Enfants, but I can see more um, practical, issues as
well.  For these enfants to be anything like Acka at all, there are going
to ahve to be some proposals being made, web sites maintained, votes being
tabulated.  Sure, they may go by different names, and in theory one could
get by without a web site, but every new Enfant is going to create that
much more drudge work to be done.  Now I'm not saying that there aren't
people out there who would do it, but I am saying that their dealing with
all this kind of stuff will detrect from their ability to contribute
anything to Acka.  If say, dev/joe/, Mohammed and Malenkai went of to
found an Enfant and quit all their offices so they could take on similar
duties there, we could pretty much kiss Acka itself good bye.

You talk a lot about interesting what ifs we could
do on an Enfant.  If the players are all the same as Acka, then why should
these what ifs have any real chance of passing?  If the players are
substantially different from what they are on Acka right now, who's to say
they're even going to care about stuff like the Aliens or the Financier?
maybe all they'll want to do is pass proposals establishing a Zoroastrian
Theocracy or something.  It's not that I don't think that these might be
interesting things to do, but you can't put forward this Enfant thing and
say that if it passes this is the kind of stuff that is necessarily going
to result.  I'd say there's a very good chance that what you will end up
seeing hasonly loose ties to Acka, as the players use their creativity and
follow their inclinations to create something entirely new.  This is all
well and good, but it isn't good for Acka.  I think it is a grave mistake
to think that this will do anything but hurt Acka, in fact.  Our
established players will spend less time here, and the new players on the
enfants may well never do anything here at all.

[Vynd swears as he realizes he snipped more than he had in mind]

> to bring diversity to Acka, not create nomics we approve of. Approval has
> nothing to do with it. If you mean "in our image", I'd say that while at
> first that may be the case because it will be new, there is nothing in the
> RFC that says that. I have made it as neutral as possible. Accepting the
> fact that a subnomic could even grow to be completely antagonistic to Acka
> (who knows?!) we grant them right of secession. Certainly we could have
> subnomics that separate which we would consider Acka mirror images, complete
> with a seal of approval (I could see a rule for that!), I think that such a
> possibility is interesting. Would certainly be nice to have like minded
> nomics working with us in Internomic. But the main focus of the RFC is how
> the subnomic is an integrated part of Acka and how the AEs and Acka will be
> interconnected together.

Please explain furhter how these Enfants are really like acka, how they
are really so heavily tied to Acka, because I just don't read it that way.
They will have different rules.  They will have different members.  As you
point out above, the members of Acka need not even approve of what the
enfants are doing, nor the enfants approve of Acka.  Certainly close ties
are possible, but they are by no means guaranteed, and there is certainly
no way we could force them.  All I can see in this RFC is how different
the Enfants are going to be from Acka, not how similar they're going to
be.  Reading between the lines here, it seems to me that your main reason
for wanting these enfants is to get free of the constraints of Acka's
fairly well established rules, customs, players, etc.  In my view, these
constraints are just as much a part of Acka as the zanier stuff like harf.
remove them, and there's nothing linking your enfants to Acka other than
the aforementioned (well, actually I think I deleted that part by
mistake...) rubber stamp.

> 
> Having children is how some people achieve their kind of immortality. Acka
> may not exist in 10 years time, but by having children, we give ourselves
> our best chance at posterity. Why do I see some Darwinian experiments for
> natural selection among nomics in my head?...   : \   And why do I imagine
> some nomics asking to become adopted children by Acka to participate in
> certain things like competitions and games?

Acka isn't so old yet that I think we need to start writting it's Last
Will and Testament, in my opinion.  As far as other nomics asking to be
adopted, I fail to see why they wouldn't just lift the rules and start
their own game (the Aliens come to mind here, didn't somone borrow them
from Agora?)

> 
> I could not help but feel "Enfants" was a term you did not approve of? It is
> an RFC, I used it only because it made the initials "AE" which as you may
> know I tend to add to most major objects I create. For some reason.  [grin]

Um, no, I don't have any problems with "Enfants."  Should I? =)

> 
> Calvin N Hobbes
> verbose as usual... sorry!
> 
> 

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 16:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..)

I have been silent countless times while listening to people predict
dire things for Ackanomic lately. It's boring; nobody wants to take
any chances anymore; you can't get anything fun past the entrenched
plutocracy; yada yada yada.

As our Historian I would like to encourage everyone to step back for a
moment and consider a larger perspective. Humor me for a moment.

Evolving systems tend to appear to walk a straight-line progression
toward some perceived goal. This appearance, however, vanishes when
you take a broader view, and instead the system can be seen as passing
through phases of a cycle.

The phases are marked differently by different people, but one common
view has there being four. First, the experimental phase, which
involves a lot of groping around in the dark and trying new ideas - a
lot of which fail to work in the long run but some of which prove
useful, and withstands the test of time. This evolves into a second
phase, the rule-making phase, wherein a useful set of rules and/or
patterns starts to take form, and most of the energy is directed
towards finding them and making sure they are consistent, complete,
and aesthetically appealing. As these efforts succeed, they give way
to a third phase, the rule-using phase: the full ramifications and
possibilities of the ideas that have been laid out are explored and
tested. Over time this bleeds into the fourth phase - the rule-testing
phase - as the exploring starts discovering boundaries more often than
new territory, and the rules' capabilities are pushed to the breaking
point. As it becomes harder and harder to do something considered
"new" with the existing structure, more and more people start saying
the system is dead, and that something completely different is needed
for anything interesting to ever happen again - and this naturally
builds up into a new experimental phase. And so it goes round again.

These four phases can be seen very clearly in the evolving system of
Western Music, for example. The experimental phase corresponds to the
Renaissance era, the rule-making phase is the Baroque era, the
rule-using phase is of course the Classical Era, the rule-testing
phase is the Romantic Era, and much of twentieth-century classical
music corresponds to the next experimental phase. (Whether or not we
have already begun the next rule-making phase only time will tell.)
Furthermore, this cycle occurs on a smaller scale within each
phase. From some viewpoints, the Baroque era alone can be seen cycling
through these phases three or more times.

Now, I'm not putting this forth as a great truth of the ages; it's
merely one way to look at human pursuits that evolve over time. But I
am saying that this view has merit when applied to Ackanomic. In the
summer of 1996 the game went through a string of near-fatal crashes
(an experimental phase), and so during autumn a great deal of effort
went into making the game more crash-proof (rule-making phase). In my
opinion this was quite successful, but since danger is an integral
part of a Nomic, this meant that some of the fun had been taken
away. However, the majority of people were unwilling to throw away the
fruits of that effort without first exploring its possibilities, and
so winter saw the rise of many new pursuits in the game that were fun
without endangering stability (rule-using phase). These were very
popular for a while, but now that we've come to take stability for
granted, more and more people are developing a taste for danger again
(rule-testing phase). It is abundantly clear to me that our next
go-round in the experimental phase is almost here. In fact, a later
Historian might say that it has already begun, pinpointing its onset
with the passage of the Alien Abduction Act, and the failure of the
proposed repeal. Or perhaps not; it is impossible to say until well
after it has already happened.

But whatever the coming summer will bring to Ackanomic, I think it
will be fresh and interesting, and not more of the same-old same-old
that others predict. And I for one am looking forward to it.

breadbox
Historian

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

Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 20:10:32 EDT 
From: [email-masked] (Ed  Graham)
Subject: Acka:  Hall of Elders

Even though I can't vote on Proposals,  I believe I *can* support a
nomination for Idiot Boy to be enshrined in the Hall of Elders.  I hereby
do so.

I will miss em most of all,  for e is the only Acknomian I have had a
chance to meet in RL.  Even though the m,eeting did not go off,  at least
I was there when e was.

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 03:52:28 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Vacation

I'm going as of now
Expected date of return June 18

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 00:40:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Not quite an RFC.

Well, this started out as a comment on a proposal I was writting, but it
was getting way too damn long for that, so I'm making it a seperate
message instead. =)

I'm going to try to make good on my call for proposals that make acka more
interesting.  As I see it right now, one of acka's biggest problems is
that it is relatively lacking in goals, in things to strive for.  We have
a set of rules to a game, but they don't really describe very much that
one can actually play.  I thought about trying to come up with some sort
of new game that everyone could play and would ahve cool prizes and stuff,
a la the Crystal Chalice, but frankly that's just not my thing (and it'd
probably get voted down).  So instead I've been trying to think of ways
that we could make the simple acts of voting and submiting proposals more
interesting.  This would, hopefully, have the added benefit of encouraging
people to come up with some neat proposals that give us all kinds of other
interesting stuff to do (and will almost certainly provide enough flaws
and screwy rules to keep the paradox hunters happy).

To this effect, I have already submited a proposal to lower the magic
Number back down to something attainable (don't worry, it'll still be
prime).  I can't say I really know why it was ever raised so high.  I can
only assume it was an attempt to cut down on BWG.  If so, I think it has
failed, or at least that it's discouraging of attempts to win by points
has out-wieghed any benefits in that area.  Of course, maybe it was just
an attempt to stop Malenkai from winning every time.  If so, well, all I
can say is I have some other ideasthat should help assuage any fears in
that area...  but they're still so rough that I can't really get them into
even the semi-coherent form I'm using here, believe me, I tried (if you
could see all the lines I've deleted, this message would be four times as
long).

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

P.S. -  Hey breadbox, you keep sending us messages as Acka's official
historian, so I feel justified in proding you to add another chapter to
the official online history.  consider yourself poked.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #96
******************************