Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #194
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, July 14 1997         Volume 02 : Number 194

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 01:52:23 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2205 rejected (Greater Internomic Interface)

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Where do you get these ideas from? ;-) As the maintainer of the
> Internomic web pages, it can hardly be said that I have "little or no
> interest in Internomic".  I voted no, because, in my opinion, the proposal
> added unnecessary complexity to a process that works fine now, in my
> opinion.  I cannot speak for the others who voted no, but I would bet
> they had other reasons than the one you proffer as well.  If they did
> not care about Internomic, it would seem that present would be the 
> appropriate vote, not no.
> 
> Malenkai

 In that case, let me ask you this. Would you support  a proposal that
would retain the same or lower level of simplicity - basically, have the
entire population of Ackanomic vote on Internomic proposals.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 18:54:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2205 rejected (Greater Internomic Interface)

>  In that case, let me ask you this. Would you support  a proposal that
> would retain the same or lower level of simplicity - basically, have the
> entire population of Ackanomic vote on Internomic proposals.

I would like that each internomic proposal goes through the acka
proposal queue, but found that that has some problems, such as what
if the matter up for vote is tri-state, or what about the logistics
of submitting the proposal in the first place; it should not be
a scoring situation for the Liaison.  Because of these problems, I
have shied away from it.

I think Vynd had some good ideas, though.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 16:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC for Internomic voting (was: P2205 rejected)

> In that case, let me ask you this. Would you support a proposal that
> would retain the same or lower level of simplicity - basically, have
> the entire population of Ackanomic vote on Internomic proposals.

I would.

In fact, consider the following to be an RFC.

   {{[This may look complicated, but the gist of it is simply this:
   when Ackanomic has to vote in Internomic, a proposal is created and
   the players vote. And if for some reason that doesn't work, then
   the Senate is called upon to reach a decision. Everything else is
   just handling special cases for when that procedure fails.]}}

   FIRST: Create a new rule, numbered 419.3 and titled
   "Ackanomic Voting in Internomic", with the following text:

I. Internomic Proposals Become Ackanomic Proposals

Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic,
the Liaison shall sumbit a proposal in Ackanomic.

The text of the proposal shall begin with: "The Liaison shall vote in
favor of NAME: TEXT", where NAME is replaced by the identifying name
of the Internomic matter, and TEXT is replaced by the matter's
official text, which shall be enclosed by square brackets [as per Rule
344 "Notes and Comments"]. The proposal shall end with: "The author of
this proposal shall receive no points for its adoption." The entire
text of the proposal shall be enclosed in double curly braces [as per
Rule 346 "Self-Deleting Text"]. If the Internomic matter has no
official name, the Liaison should assign it a reasonable unique
identifier. If the Internomic matter has no official text, the Liaison
may, in its place, compose a brief text that describes the matter
being voted upon. The Liaison must strive to make such a composed text
as objective and informative as possible (but still brief).

No other text should appear in the proposal. If the Liaison feels that
other information is necessary for the members of Ackanomic to vote
intelligently, e should disseminate this information via public fora.

If the proposal passes, the Liaison shall cast Ackanomic's vote in
favor of the Internomic matter. If the proposal fails, the Liaison
shall cast Ackanomic's vote against the Internomic matter.

If the proposal fails due to a lack of quorum, and if the time
remaining in which Ackanomic's vote is due in Internomic is greater
than the prescribed voting period, then the Liaison shall submit the
proposal again. If the later proposal meets quorum, the Liaison shall
abide by its results instead.

II. The Senate Is Plan B

The Liaison must submit a proposal as described above as soon as
possible, and in time for its results to be available to em before the
deadline for Ackanomic's vote in Internomic, and e must abide by its
results, except in the following circumstances:

1) if the time between the announcement of the Internomic matter to
vote upon and the deadline for Ackanomic's vote in Internomic is less
than the prescribed voting period for Ackanomic proposals;

2) if the time between the Promoter's posting of the above proposal
and the deadline for Ackanomic's vote in Internomic is less than the
prescribed voting period for Ackanomic proposals;

3) if the above proposal does not meet quorum and there is
insufficient time to vote on another;

4) if the Internomic matter has more than two possible ways to vote
(not including the "vote" of Abstaining).

If any of the above are true, then the Liaison should instead initiate
a vote in the Senate to determine how e should cast Ackanomic's vote
in Internomic, and the Liaison will abide by that decision instead.

If the time left (before the Internomic vote is due) is less than the
amount of time normally granted an Institution for internal voting,
the Liaison should also name the deadline time by which e must be
informed of the decision in order to vote in Internomic. In such a
situation, the Senate shall make every reasonable effort to meet that
deadline; if they do not, however, the Liaison is not required to
abide by their final decision. [All this means is that the Senate will
not be in Contempt as long as the meet the usual deadline, but the
Liaison is freed from having to follow their decision if it is
returned after the vote is due.]

III. The Liaison Is Finally Accountable

If none of the above procedures provide the Liaison with a decision on
how e should vote, e shall abstain from voting. If Internomic rules do
not permit abstaining, however, then the Liaison should vote in the
manner e feels best represents the will of Ackanomic.

{{[This is the other difference from the current method: the Liaison
is the absolute last resort instead of the President. While you could
argue that the President is the one who is supposed to most embody
"the will of Ackanomic", I felt that the importance of understanding
Internomic's state, and the ramifications of whatever it is we're
voting on, would be more valuable in a critical situation.]}}

   SECOND: Remove the two paragraphs in Rule 419.2
   "Ackanomic/Internomic Interface" that currently read:

Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic,
the Liaison shall initiate a vote in the senate to determine how he
should cast Ackanomic's vote in Internomic.

In the event that the senate does not reach a decision [for whatever
reason], the Liaison shall cast his vote in Internomic in accordance
with the decision of the President.

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:08:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: heeeeeeeeeeere's ben 

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Benjamin Good wrote:

> basically, in party chess, i want to be my own man.  i'm not exactly
> sure how joining a party works, but in the context of party chess, when
> it comes time to moving pieces and buying pieces, etc etc, i don't want
> to have to confer w/ anybody else or get anybody else's approval.  

Party Swingers are not required to confer with their Parties, but then
again they don't really own their Offices. I currently own a Capital
Swinger's Office, previously I was a member of a Party, when I left it, I
left the Swinger's Office with the Party (had the PArty disbanded
completely, there is a provision that would have allowed me to keep the
Office, but that was not the case) I am in the situation when 'my' former
army is now my opponent. 

 > 
> so it has been suggested to me that i either buy a swinger's office, or
> become that NAP swinger.  i noticed people were discussing the NAP
> swinger's office on the digest, and it appeared as tho the NAP office is
> not actually vacant, that the guy who was NAP swinger is on 6 month
> vacation or something.  but i think i should check on that, nobody
> really seemed sure, and i'm not sure if a definite conclusion was
> reached.

The 'real' NAP Swinger is now on Vacation, an acting NAP has been
appointed, and looks like he's staying there. Anyway, a NAP Swinger can
only be a player who is not a member of a Party. 
This option is not really available right now.

 > 
> if i decide to buy a swinger's office, do i talk to anyone in
> particular?  who approves the sale and sets the cost?  do i officially
> have any A$ to my name yet?
The cost is set by the Party-Hall rule, you have A$, the exact amount is
shown on the players/entity web page (there's a ling off the main
ackanomic home page.

The current price is A$350 (although MetaMorph should appoint a Swinger
any day now, and then the price would jump to A$400.

> every vote, i'm also affecting quorum.  the question is, is this enough
> of a big deal that i shouldn't be a registered voter all the time? 
> aaron suggested that i could be non-voting, and switch to voting when
> something came up that i needed to vote on.

Party Chess is only one part of this game. Party Chess related proposals
are in minority (they usually come in waves). I'd say your Mentor gave you
good advice.
Note that when changing status from Voting to non-Voting, you have to wait
two days before you can change back. As the Voting period on proposals in
7 days, this shouldn't matter much.

Note that you will some source of income. Chess pieces cost A$. You get
five three ones, and you acquire more by Capturing them.
Also note that PartyChess is a pretty slow game, and your turn might come
up once every 3 weeks or so.

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire
PartyChess Expert

 > 
> well, that's all i can think of right now.  any comments or suggestions
> or gifts can be sent to me at [email-masked], or of course, you
> can send directly to the ackanomic digest (like you need my permission).
> 
> thanks,
> ben 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:12:18 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Transaction

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> snowgod wrote:
> > > I am giving two bonus votes to the church of  Odo in the wormhole.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck replied:
> > On behalf of the Church of Odo, I ack this, if I need too.
> 
> I request that the Senate vote to revoke Niccolo's title of Expert in
> thefield of "Organizations and Institutions".  The statement above
> not only reveals Niccolo's ignorance of the rule detail in question,
> but also demonstrates a reluctance to tackle the rules and find out.

The conditional has nothing to do with the rules for Organizations, it has
to do with the wretched mob and red tape of rules for transfer of
entities, of which I am certainly not an Expert, not have I ever claimed
to be.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 19:14:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC for Internomic voting (was: P2205 rejected)

> In fact, consider the following to be an RFC.

> Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic,
> the Liaison shall sumbit a proposal in Ackanomic. 
> The proposal shall end with: "The author of
> this proposal shall receive no points for its adoption."

You must disable *all* scoring on the proposal, or I shall show you a
spam scam win ;-).

In acka, if it is *ever* the case that a player can submit a proposal
without losing points for it, the spam scam is possible.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:21:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 429 (mr cwm)

What's the point of this CFJ?
Every Organization's Similarity to itself is 100.
Niccolo Flychuck

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> mr cwm has been picked.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgment 429
> Subject: Similarity
> Initiator: Malenkai
>   Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 13, 1997, 19:10h EDT)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The H similarity of They Might be Slumbering Giants and They Might be
> Slumbering Giants is 100.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> Similarity is described by rule 1003, section 4.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:22:21 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Your Delegate :)

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> MLF wrote:
> > The synod began with A$400. {{double braced gift}}
> > 
> > The church of the markovian dream was the first to purchase a seat on the
> > synod, but its A$75 went to the treasury (I remember discussion about
> > this).  NExt Odo purchased a seat, and it's A$75 went to the synod.  Seleya
> > just purchased a seat, and it's A$75 went to the synod.
> > 
> > The synod currently is valued @ A$550.
> 
> My records show that the Odo church spent A$80 on its synod seat, due to
> some 6th member having left only recently before the seat was purchased.
> 

The Odo Delegate stands corrected.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 16:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC for Internomic voting (was: P2205 rejected)

>> Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic,
>> the Liaison shall sumbit a proposal in Ackanomic. 
>> The proposal shall end with: "The author of
>> this proposal shall receive no points for its adoption."
> 
> You must disable *all* scoring on the proposal, or I shall show you a
> spam scam win ;-).
> 
> In acka, if it is *ever* the case that a player can submit a proposal
> without losing points for it, the spam scam is possible.

How about if the first sentence read: "Whenever Ackanomic is permitted
to vote upon any matter in Internomic, and only at such a time, the
Liaison is required to submit a corresponding proposal in Ackanomic. E
may not submit more than one such proposal."

Or perhaps there should be a clause that states: "No one may submit
such proposals except when required by the rules."

?

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 19:59:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC for Internomic voting (was: P2205 rejected)

> How about if the first sentence read: "Whenever Ackanomic is permitted
> to vote upon any matter in Internomic, and only at such a time, the
> Liaison is required to submit a corresponding proposal in Ackanomic. E
> may not submit more than one such proposal."
> 
> Or perhaps there should be a clause that states: "No one may submit
> such proposals except when required by the rules."

Here's how it works:  *I* submit 100 internomic proposals, either 
from this nomic, or another, and then anti-vote them.  The Liaison
would be required to submit them all.  The real answer is to eliminate
anti-voting.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 17:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ross Morgan-Linial <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2205 rejected (Greater Internomic Interface)

On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

// On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Acrobot wrote:
// 
// > Proposal 2205
// > Greater Internomic Interface
// > Niccolo Flychuck
// 
// > NO votes:
// 
// The only conclusion I can draw from this, combined with the fact that
// hardly any Internomic proposals were made recently, is that all of those
// players, with the possible exception of the Senators, have little or no
// interest in Internomic.

Hmmm? I'd like to see your reasoning on that one. I, personally, like
Internomic, but don't see any reason why the Senate shouldn't decide
Acka's vote. From what I've seen, Ackanomic is usually one of the first
Nomics to vote on new INPs, which means we're doing something right, I
think. And I don't usually disagree with the Senate's vote, either.

I don't think that the Senate should be given less power, or abolished. I
think that it should be given more power, if anything, and perhaps more
accountability (I haven't really considered the pros and cons of regular
elections for Senate seats, or similar systems).

// Niccolo  Flychuck

- ------
Ross Morgan-Linial * [email-masked]

Any man who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
 - Samuel Goldwyn

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 17:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ross Morgan-Linial <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Personal Info

On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

// > First person to guess 2 of the 3 sports (not neccessarily
// > competitive) I engage in gets a PFAntimatter.
// 	Did anyone ever guess?

Several people guessed. IIRC, no one got it. I will still accept guesses,
provided they consist of *only* the two sports you're guessing. No more
hints, either. FWIW, there are probably easier ways of getting a
PFAntimatter...

- ------
Ross Morgan-Linial * [email-masked]

Any man who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
 - Samuel Goldwyn

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:14:49 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Synod

RexBank is buying a seat in the synod. This costs 50 + 1x5 = 55 A$
#award RexBank: -55 A$: buying Synod seat.
Approved by me.
By my count RexBank now has 514 A$, and 100 PFRex Mundi.

RexBank is appointing Rex Mundi as the Trade Delegate, and Rex Mundi is
approving his appointment.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 21:17:29 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure

> /dev/joe sent me a Python program(which I hope he will provide a copy of
> for the web pages if Malenkai so wishes)accompanied by documentation which
> rigorously determine the possible ranges for the pangram's letter counts,
> and then runs through them all.

This proof is at http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackabtax.htm for anyone
interested.

Malenkai
treasure-harfer

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 22:39:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation 

I will be going on vacation from Monday 14th of July at 0000 hours until
Thursday 7th of August at 0000 hours.

While not yet on vacation, I give the monopole back to Alfvaen.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #194
*******************************