Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #97
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Tuesday, May 27 1997         Volume 02 : Number 097

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

Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 21:08:22 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..)

Aaron Humphrey wrote:
> 
> 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...:-)
> Funny, that games and contests are generally the most innocuous part of 
Ackanomic, but submiting Nomic as a G&C entry is probably one of the 
most subversive acts I could think of.

> 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.
> Yes, I think that something like an Acka-Enfant was what Phoebe was 
trying to show me. (But perhaps I didn't see Phoebe at all; the memory 
recedes from me, as though it were a dream...)
I think there is room for compromise between the Experimentalist (...the 
game has become boring, room must be made for a fresh start...) and 
Traditionalist (...the game has a tested framework, let us work within 
it...) factions here. We have this wonderful (and woefully underused) 
metaphor of place in Acka. What if we allowed rules to have scope over 
some places, but not others? Players congregating in a certain place 
should have an extra say (perhaps 2 extra votes for the choice of the 
majority in that place) in proposals that have that place in their 
scope, but not enough to drown out the will of Ackans at large. At the 
very least it should get people out of their houses, (and maybe Guy 
Fawkes out of the Museum.)
In this way, the places are not seperate nomics, but rather organic 
parts of Acka, still bound to the same basic set of rules, (although I 
expect that if this occurs, many rules will be reduced in scope.)
Ideally, Experimentalist communities should be able to pass wild rule 
changes without breaking the game as a whole, and if they come up with 
something that looks like it would be fun and safe for everyone, the 
scope of that rule could be increased.
   The main difference I see between CnH and Vynd on this issue is on 
the proportion of rules that should remain the same between Acka as a 
whole and the AckaEnfant. This method would allow us to begin with a 
place that has the same rules as every other place, and then the local 
rules could be changed as denizens of the AckaEnfant, in conjunction 
with the rest of Acka, see fit.

**two-star

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:14:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..) 

> There is little effective difference between
>the enfants and entirely new nomics.

I disputed that point before and will below again. Just for fun.  ; )

>  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.

That's correct. Infusion of new blood.

>  They need not have ANY of the
>same rules as Acka.

Once again that is true.

>  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. 

That is correct. We are really on the same frequency.

> 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.

Playing a subnomic. Not a nomic. But you'll say that's a semantic difference
only. I will explain why I do not believe so. Otherwise true.

>  This
>nomic will have some rules which are similar to ackas, and many which are
>not.

Why many? Perhaps in some cases, perhaps not in some other.

>  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).

Except that the cooperation possible between Agora and PP is minimal and
requires great coordinated effort: they are two distinct nomics. Cooperation
between subnomics of Acka would be far easier because we would have a common
history, a common foundation, common structural resources (political or
social), a common pool of players (that may be diluted with time but
nonetheless so for a long while), and a common event horizon. But that I
mean that events happening in various subnomics can have impact on others
and that certainly, events in Acka will have an impact on AEs.

Acka's dominance at the top level is implied in the RFC. It is completely
distinct and unique from the AE: it is the only rule set not a subset. While
the RFC puts stringent constraint on how we access and deal with the
subnomics, that is because creating black box is easier and safer. There is
nothing to stop Acka however, from opening this black boxes, building
bridges... playing with fire.

For example, allowing EAs to elect their own Senators in Acka. Might be a
bad idea, it's just an example, but it is one that shows a crucial
difference between nomic-nomic relations. Would Agora accept being overseen
by our Senate? Or of our appointing a Governor for them? No. But these are
things which Acka has the possibility to create over AEs. Having rules like
this in Acka only, rules that have effect on AEs, is possible because Acka
is the top level. The RFC rule claims it so other could too. The current
requirement that there be a 'reflective' rule in the AE is a gift, a flower,
a casual reassurance from Acka that it won't try and meddle in the affairs
of AEs too much. But remember that no rule in Acka cannot be changed!

RS talked about Olympic games and that would work very well with AEs. Access
to very well regulated entities such as Ackadollars should be worked on.
Building these bridges will require people who have a strong knowledge of
Acka. Ironically, this may yet provide us with a greater understanding of
them and ourself. Acka players may enforce more requirements on AEs, like
having a newspaper to report what is going on there. It will need
modification of the rule (should the RFC pass) but it can be. We cannot, we
must not try to incorporate and regulate every little bit of AEs from Acka,
this should be done later when we see an opportunity to do so.

But I waffle on. The RFC is so broad that I cannot accept your focusing on
one potentiality and saying that it will be bad and doom us all. If Acka
sees something that will be bad, we will correct it with new rules. Acka
never loses its overall control or power.

>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.

I don't see AEs having any more recruitment drives than political parties or
churches have. Or more success. People will join them because they look fun
at the time. Certainly, it may mean some people will split their time... but
how many people are active in Acka right now out of its 20 odd people?

And Acka is not a tyrant that demands we stick to it no matter what. We the
players are Acka, not the other way around. Acka will only survive if
players want it to. Acka cannot demand we play it only. That's not how it
works. If players have fun in a subnomic then I say Acka has accomplished
its role by providing them fun, which is what a game should do. This is the
*Game* of Ackanomic. R101.

>They just CAN'T be as active on Acka as they would have been if they
>weren't on an Enfant.

No dispute here, but we do not agree on the target demographics. People who
like "lawyer rules" and are predominantly active in Acka right now will
stick to Acka: there will be no substitute or competition, it will have
supreme effective power. AEs are for builders and innovators. What should be
encouraged is not joining an AE, it should be abstracting at the Acka level.
The most successful AEs (here comes my best bet) will be those that manage
to incorporate enough of Acka to appeal to a particular demographic that
will build on that. The way political parties and churches work now. Where
is the completely different royalist party now? Dead and forgotten save for
a few fossils like myself.   [grin]

>  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.

Probably. Let's address some of those.

>  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.

First point of contention. Why restrict ourselves to force AEs to be
"anything like Acka". My first wish as an AE was a "fanfic zone" kind of
thing for people who like writing, doing crossovers between Acka events and
RL/TV/films, basing a subnomic on that. Nothing like Acka yet related. Also
on the list is an "Eldurian" (Markovians take note!) where points are gained
by passing language tests and enriching the language. My list of AEs is
long...   : )

>  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.  

Agreed. Most will be, I agree. But there are solutions that are pretty much
work invisible, details below. [brought to you by the person who first
coined the term "epsilon work proposals"]   ; )

>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 detract 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.

Why would they quit their office? This is scare tactics if I ever saw it!   : )

Why can't we have a note at the end of a proposal in the bot queue that says
"proposal is for this or that AE"? There is no need to change the bot at
all. People from various places will see what's for them. Better, a common
queue will allow everyone to keep in touch with what's going in everywhere.
And if people who aren't in that AE vote on it, so what? We can deal with
that pretty easily by just ignoring those votes.

As for maintaining web pages, sure, that will take some time if we want
them. But why have we come to expect /dev/joe to do it? He has done a more
than admirable job for this task but that's just going too far in taking him
for granted. I will be very happy for him if he finds some game or subgame
that he enjoys so much he doesn't have time for Acka. Will miss him, but
happy for him still. This is a GAME! We are not his life and we have no
right to ask anyone to be subservient to Acka. If this can be a wake up
call, then so be it!

As for kissing Acka goodbye, the love for this game and place many players
such as myself have means that slack will be picked up. The game might go
slower but it _will_ endure. It will adapt. But it must stay a game that
provides fun.

>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?

What do you mean "passing"? Someone creates the AE... that's that. If people
are interested they join, if not they don't. Perhaps I'm just strange but I
wonder what would have happened if certain proposals (some I didn't like and
didn't pass even) had passed and affected our game.

>  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?

So those who don't like that won't join AEs that have them. Those who love
it to death and want to form games around them to explore everything they
can about it will join them. What's the problem? This is a pure supply and
demand kind of thing.

>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.

Well in the case you mention I can say it will _necessarily_ happen because
I plan on looking at a theocracy myself (that's why I brought it up
originally). But you are right, neither you nor I can make any long term
guess as to what will or will not be in the AEs. Scary perhaps? Exhilarating
certainly imho.

So what if we can't tell? If the whole thing turns sour and we find AEs are
useless, why not repeal the rule? At least we won't be wondering how good it
might have been. In true Acka fashion we will have gone where ahead and
pushed some boundaries. And I'm certain that even if this were a total flop
we would still learn a lot from it, the problem we faced.

And had fun doing it.

>  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 do not believe that I have ever said this was unqualifiedly "good for
Acka" and would appreciate it if no other single player made such a
statement on behalf of everyone. [puppy dog grin]

Who will tell us all what is good for Acka? Who can? The point is that I
have outlined things I believe offer us an opportunity to break some new
ground, open up new opportunities. Are fun. That's the only game plan. If
people recognize some good in it individually then that's a great bonus.

>  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.

Why the gloom? Why the statements of doom? Our players will run from Acka
like the worst kind of plague? _No_ new player that joins an AE be
interested in Acka itself? Are we so boring? Are we so beyond redemption?
This cannot be what you are saying.

I believe in the enthusiasm for Acka that the players from Acka can carry
with them in the AEs. And I believe that will make great impacts on the
attitudes of those who might learn of Acka through them. That every piece of
Acka we recreate in an AE will be a marker that other generations of players
in these AEs will find interesting, perhaps become curious enough of them to
read about and want to participate in the nomic that create the fun sub or
separated nomic they are playing in. And that legendary nomic will be Acka.
We are a great nomic. We are a wild nomic. We are Acka!    [crowd roars!]

And at this point I'm going to throw up. That little chauvinistic rant was a
stone throw away from including something about an unacka ethic committee
for good show.    : )

>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.

Of course not! Neither can you read it in the way you are reading it, that
is, that they will be completely different! That was the whole point of the
RFC: it is very broad in a neutral way. Like that cave on Yoda planet, you
find in it only what you bring with you. [Alert: cool SW ref has been made]
So broad that the avenues are gigantic! To tell you what will happen I would
need to be able to read the minds of every player here and extrapolate that
one hundred years into the future.

I make you this pledge though. Where I the only one who still believed in
Acka as a cool nomic, I would still make proposals here in Acka that will
bind our AEs together. Why? Because I believe in strength in unity. In
greater power for the whole rather than the pieces. Other players do too.

There will be separatist groups who will want to create purely independent
nomics from us. Same way some children run from their parent first chance
they get. It is up to good people like you to build a common spirit, a
common heritage that will create ties to bind us all together. You know
exactly what you are looking for in AEs, you will do a great job
implementing that vision. But we should not expect all AEs to be either very
tied to Acka or have no ties. It will be a mixture, an equilibrium.

We may have strong disputes with some AEs. We may have severe crisis. I
cannot see the future and promise it will all end well and good. But Acka is
strong and I know we have weathered many many crises before.

Acka will have ties with its AEs so long as there are people like you and I.
Players who want Acka to retain it's dominance yet build ties with its AEs.
The RFC allows this and we should not neglect it.

>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.  

Very precise predictions. They all will have different rules? All have
different members? No similarities? No ties? Tell me, do I quit Acka in 5
months, 4 days and 3 minutes?   ; )

You may read in the RFC our worse fears and while they may be there,
allowing them also allows our greatest dreams to exist.

>Certainly close ties
>are possible, but they are by no means guaranteed,

Exactly true...

> and there is certainly
>no way we could force them.  

False!

Acka defines the recursive subnomics: it is the top level. Repeal the rule
and they are gone. Amend the rule and you change the game. Create new rules
to play with the AEs and we are in business. Acka can force AEs to have
strong ties with it. But I predict that only wise rules in Acka will be
welcome in AEs. I think I brought up taxation without representation as a
thread in my last message? That was the thread. Acka can do as it pleases
certainly, but at what cost?

One thing to note is that you may have hit upon a very cool way of building
ties actually. We create loose AEs. They have fun, they use pieces of Acka,
we have ties, we provide them shelter and resources. After the carrot... the
stick. We propose new rules that create more stringent ties. Bad ties they
don't like... What happens? Do they break off? Why would they want to lose
things like the bot? Or players that still enjoy Acka quit? There is an
easier option for them...

No. They would get together, get players member of AEs to all join as
members of Acka (especially those who had never been players in Acka) and
with their numerous votes, kill such bad props at the ballot box. Acka has
gained a lot of members that have an interest in it and will continue to
give it scrutiny and public accountability, while the AEs have built one
more strong tie between themselves in a common cause.

Tough game, of course, that will only work if there is a carrot given to the
AEs before. I'm not advocating we do this. However, it does highlight the
fact that we have numerous options at our disposal. Our imagination (and
cunning) is the only limit.   >: )

>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.

I think that's the bottom line here. Why is that the only thing you see in
it? For sure, that's not what I see in it. Hey, why not read it from my
perspective? Imagine you are me, a wild and crazy 20 something whose only
dream is to make an impact on the world. Hmm. Not really me but that's my
target demographic.   : )

Seriously. Read it knowing that it is neutral, broad and that you will find
people who will work with you to make AEs like Acka and build a ties with
them. It strips no power away from you. You can make new rules that will
promote ties with AEs. You can work to make AEs in the image you'd like them
to have. The RFC is broad.

The RFC is broad... the leitmotiv of the week.   : )

>  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.

That is certainly one of the reasons, yes. By removing frontiers we explore
to find new ones. Exploration is fun imho.

>  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.

Actually I can show you that's wrong. There will always be one tie between
Acka and it's AEs or ex-AEs. The founding father was a member of Acka. Not
much you say? But what a history!

And do you really believe that we will have children to just abandon them?
No! We have people like Malenkai who scream far and wide that they want to
be involved in _everything_! People like snowgod, yourself, Mohammed,
Thinman, the whole rest of these living legends [I hope someone's going to
remember I said that about them...] who will tweak and poke and add and
remove and test and try and shake and generally leave an unmistakable
imprint on these AEs.

There will be ties with our AEs.

Our AEs will predominantly be testing grounds for Ackazens to freak out and
mess about. That a subnomic will grow and become wonderful is an option, not
a guarantee nor perhaps aim for all AEs! Perhaps many of them will die off
after a while, when interest in it dies down. Like orgs and parties and
churches do in Acka right now.

>Acka isn't so old yet that I think we need to start writting it's Last
>Will and Testament, in my opinion.

Nor in mine. But the analogy is good. At least, I think it fits nicely.
"Will Acka be a good parent to these AEs?" is what this thread can be
summarized in. Will we raise AEs who will respect and have ties with Acka,
it's parent, or will they all grow away from us, shun us as we shame it?

We will not shame them because we are a nomic worthy of being a parent.

>  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?)

Perhaps they would, yes. And so our legend grows...
But maybe you can come up with ideas, incentive as to why AEs should remain
AEs and why other nomics might want to be adopted by Acka? I have a couple
of ideas certainly. Strength in unity might be Acka's motto.

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

Nah. I was just projecting my own insecurities about children and personal
taste.   : )

If I may add one last thing. The RFC is broad and neutral. It allows the
creation of AEs as sub parts of Acka. This does not lower Acka; it lifts it
on the shoulders of the AEs. Acka is the top level, the supreme power. It is
unreplaceable. Because the RFC is so neutral it does mean we can be anything
but uncertain as to what the future holds. Yet Acka has never wavered before
a splendid leap into the unknown before. There may be problems to solve, but
then that's the foundation of all good games.

I truly look forward to having the opportunity to work with you in creating
ties with AEs.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:16:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Renaissance, Rebirth, Phoenix... You Get The Picture 

>I'll go for the general idea.  I always wanted my own little pocket
>universe.  The details need to be sorted out, however.  I think that
>the RFC can be rather much simplified while making very little
>difference in the effect.  I don't have time to go into the details
>right now, however.

I'd very much like to talk about any simplification possible. I'm glad you
approve of it on principle.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:19:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Reneisance etc...)isance etc..) 

>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".  

Yes! That's hitting it on the head if I ever saw it!
Does not take anything away, it creates.

>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 can't wait to play in snowgodland.    : )

>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.

This means much to me.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:48:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..) 

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

As would I. Yet at the Acka level, the greatest challenge, a very
interesting one, will be to incorporate it into any political representation
we may wish to give to AEs... Very interesting.

>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...:-)

The point propagation between levels is a cool idea. Incorportating it would
be a nice touch. Petitioning for local wins to become global. Stuff like that.

But AEs in Acka will be different from nomics in IN. They can be made to
look as though the same system is in place but the point being it needs not
be like that: we have more options than just that kind of relationship.

>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.

The primary aim perhaps.

>> experimental. All the colours of the rainbow. Eh... colors.   : )
>
>("Colours" looks right to me...:-)

  ; )

>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?

The RFC says just as messages so it's public. I don't want them voted on, it
should be a free process, much like political parties and churches. So it is
easy to create an AE. There is no procedure to destroy an AE but lack of use
will make the fact obvious if not official. We can always add rules to make
such an event official.

>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.

I have hopes for this, but my greatest hope is that the every player will
find a niche they can feel comfortable working in. If Acka can make everyone
happy, then Acka will be a happy place. Whether AEs become independent or
not, their players will have decided for themselves and had fun in the process.

Thanks for the support, enthusiasm and ideas. I hope to read your proposals
on this when the future makes it possible.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:52:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..) 

Alito

Thanks! I hope to be able to put a prop forward soon. You mention scamming?
I seem to remember talk of a special zone that would act as a
training/proving ground for finding loopholes and stuff like that.
Incorporating that as an AE would be cool as it would not hurt Acka at all.

Well... not obviously...   >: )

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:56:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..) 

>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.

Hopefully we can take our next step not just into a new part of a cycle, but
have multiple cycles in different stages going on simultaneously in various
AEs.   : )

That might make the job of Historian a tad crazy.   [evil grin]

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 01:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not quite an RFC.

> 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.

Boy, do I deserve that. Just last week I realized that my progress is
currently at the rate of one month per month. That's not good.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 11:42:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: IdiotBoy

On Fri, 23 May 1997, ThinMan wrote:

>
>> With oddly mixed emotions, I hereby nominate IdiotBoy to the Hall of
>> Elders.
>> 
>I support IdiotBoy's nomination to the Hall of Elders.
>

I, also.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:15:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1981 rejected (Trinity)

On Thu, 22 May 1997, Uri Bruck wrote re P1981 Trinity:
> Yesterday this was reported as accepted, with 5 votes against.
	mr cwm (and 1 or 2 others) had sent me some votes which
Acrobot could not count because they were from an alternate address.
I had the bot count mr cwm's votes and resend everything.  Trinity was
one of the proposals whose outcome was toggled by the missing votes.

- -- 
Mohammed
A lone hero suddenly blew up last year.

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 08:53:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..) 

I've snipped breadbox's excellent dissertation on the phases of Ackanomic,
but I would like to reccomend to the senators that they keep it in mind
when the next Silver Moon award thingee comes due.

Hear hear, breadbox!

snowgod
pushing Acka into the experimental phase

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 09:28:41 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enfants (was RFC: Renaisance etc..) 

>
>No dispute here, but we do not agree on the target demographics. People who
>like "lawyer rules" and are predominantly active in Acka right now will
>stick to Acka: there will be no substitute or competition, it will have
>supreme effective power. AEs are for builders and innovators. What should be
>encouraged is not joining an AE, it should be abstracting at the Acka level.
>The most successful AEs (here comes my best bet) will be those that manage
>to incorporate enough of Acka to appeal to a particular demographic that
>will build on that. The way political parties and churches work now. Where
>is the completely different royalist party now? Dead and forgotten save for
>a few fossils like myself.   [grin]

I am hereby by creating a trinket, with a value of A$100 called "I Remember
Oom-Pah-Pah!".  It is a pink vinyl bumber sticker made to be worn across
the forehead.  It says, in honest to god actual 24 karat gold lettering,
and with not a hint of frog contamination, (and what are the odds of this?)
"I Remember Oom-Pah-Pah!".

I hereby transfer it to CnH, or at least I would if I could figure out how
to work the bot.

#trinket snowgod : I Remember Oom-Pah-Pah : 100 : Bumper Stickers Are Us
#transfer snowgod, Calvin N Hobbes : I Remember Oom-Pah-Pah : Just for \
the hell of it.

snowgod
oops, Nacho Dude

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:29:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: A call to arms

> Unfortunately, this is incorrect.  Rule 408 clearly states that if Count
> Tabula is on vacation, then the Tabulator will assume Count Tabula's
> duties.  Furthermore, it also states that the only way in which the office
> of Count Tabula can be flled is by appointment by the Tabulator.  Seeing
> as how Mohammed is the Tabulator, and warned us that he would not be
> around until, I think it was Sunday, this Inquisition was rather poorly
> timed.  Thus, I hearby retract this call for a hearing, I'll try again
> later when Mohammed is around.
	I'm back.  Feel free to call for a hearing at any time.
	Interesting.  I'll have to look up the Tabula rules now..

- -- 
Mohammed
Watch out for jolly nomads.

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:49:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Email forwarding?

On Sat, 24 May 1997 [email-masked] wrote:
> There is a need for passwords if the voting is done by email, but 
> that means a lot of rewriting of the code and rewriting of rules.
	There is no need to rewrite any of the rules; just the code.

- -- 
Mohammed
Vampires from Honolulu plead not guilty.

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 19:08:51 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: IdiotBoy

> >> With oddly mixed emotions, I hereby nominate IdiotBoy to the Hall of
> >> Elders.
> >> 
> >I support IdiotBoy's nomination to the Hall of Elders.
> >
> 
> I, also.
> 
> -mr cwm

As do I.

Bascule

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

Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 15:45:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka : Joining that wacky crazy MetaMorph 

>I am forming a new Organization. I name it MetaMorph.
>
>Niccolo Flychuck

I'd like to join MetaMorph... Where do I sign up?

Robert Sevin

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #97
******************************