Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #221
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, July 29 1997        Volume 02 : Number 221

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:26:12 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: yet another hidden agenda RFC

This is an informal RFC, so the language isn't as precise as it would be 
in a real proposal, and in some spots it is missing entirely.

At the beginning of the cycle, a 7 day agenda condition submission 
period shall begin. During that period, any player may become an Agenda 
Vaqueiro (hey, I've been listening to north-eastern Brazilian cowboy 
music; it as good a name as any,) by submitting 3 Agenda Conditions to 
Whoever it is Who's Harfing This Thing. Agenda conditions should be 
statements about the game state  that are fairly difficult but not 
impossible for a player to cause to become true. At the end of the 
submision period, for each agenda condition submitted, an associated 
agenda element and a nemesis element are created. Agenda elements may be 
visible or hidden, if one is visible, it is tradable. Nemesis elements 
are nontradable. Each player gets a number of Agenda credits 
proportional (equal?) to the magic number.
The nemesis elements are then auctioned (how to do this efficiently?) 
for Agenda credits. Once a player has 3 nemesis elements, e can receive 
no more; if at the end of the auction, there are any unowned nemesis 
elements remaining, they are randomly distributed to Vaqueiros so that 
every Vaqueiro owns 3 Nemesis elements. The weights of the Agenda 
elements are then calculated as (magic number / 3) - price paid for 
corresponding Nemesis element in the auction (0 if it was not sold.) The 
Agenda elements are then randomly distributed to the Vaqueiros, 3 apiece 
(except that no Agenda element may be distributed to, or subsequently 
owned by the player who submitted its condition. This is to discourage 
agenda conditions like "two-star owns this agenda element."). The Agenda 
elements are initially hidden, and only Whoever it is Who's Harfing This 
Thing and the element's owner know the condition for a given element. A 
Vaqueiro may make a hidden Agenda Element visible by publicly revealing 
that element's condition. 

If it is publicly knowable (elements must be visible) that all of a 
Vaqueiros agenda element conditions are true, and the Vaqueiro's score 
>= the sum of eir agenda element weights, that Vaqueiro shall win the cycle. Something Nasty (what?) will happen to players owning the Nemesis 
elements corresponding to to winner's agenda elements. At the end of the 
cycle, all nemesis and agenda elements are destroyed.

The idea is that Vaqueiros will bid higher for Nemesis elements with 
conditions that are difficult to acheive, and lower or not at all for 
easy to acheive conditions. The score requirement from the Agenda 
element weights calculated from the nemesis element bids should provide 
a balance against the differences in difficulty levels in acheiving the 
agenda conditions which are inevitable. I think 3 is a good number of 
conditions per player because it should provide a buffer against errant 
high bids on easy conditions, while if it were much higher it would make 
the situation more confusing and players would put less effort into 
crafting each condition. I took Malenkai's idea of tradeable conditions, 
(sorta like RoJ,) but I think conditions should be visible if traded, to 
make this less dependant on Whoever it is Who's Harfing This Thing 
verifying that conditions are being properly given to Vaqueiros with 
each trade; this way, e must only verify that the proper condition is 
revealed when the agenda element is made visible. So. What do people 
think? Is this a reasonable direction to go with the hidden agenda idea? 
If so, how should this be implemented in order to work smoothly, put the 
smallest possible burden on officers, and be reasonably balanced in 
difficulty against other cycle wins?

**two-star

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:18:07 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict 

>CFJ 437 has been judged TRUE.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Call For Judgment 437
>  Subject: Similarity II
>Initiator: Malenkai
>    Judge: Mr Lunatic Fringe (declined)
>2nd Judge: Karma (declined)
>3rd Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Jul 21, 1997, 19:04h EDT)
>Judgement: TRUE
>
>Rex Mundi's Reasoning:
>
>I concur with Malenkai's reasoning.

Whilke I have nothing against Malenkai's or Rex Mundi's reasoning, and am
unable to find a compelling arguement in opposition myself, I am
unsatisfied with the results of theis CFJ because it just *seems* wrong.  I
am taking this oppritunity to appeal it to the Supreme Court where our wise
justices can mull over the matter a little more.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:56:15 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P2233 rejected (Otzmaara)

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > > Proposal 2233
> > > Otzmaara
> > 	Why'd this fail?
> > 
> > > NO votes:
> > >  Niccolo Flychuck  Alfvaen  Rex Mundi  breadbox  ThinMan  Karma  Vynd
> > 
> > > Text of rejected proposal:
> > ! This is a Modest Proposal
> > ! Amend rule 1240.1 by removing this:
> > ! 
> > ! 10. When a player has used an Otzma Card in a public forum, e may not
> > ! use another Otzma Card in a public forum for three days. This section
> > ! has no effect on Otzma Cards used on proposals.
> 
> Maybe it was the context.  This was submitted in the middle of the last
> OMCL affair, and it looked like you were trying to remove an obstacle in
> the way of whatever you were trying to do.  The three-day limit doesn't
> seem that much of a terrible restriction, IMHO, and removing it leaves
> thingstoo open to possible scams.
> 

I already pointed out in a previous post that the three day limit doesn't
really prevent any countering, or double countering, although it might
leave a rathger small windows for anti-countering.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:57:55 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2246 accepted (Internomic a la Vynd)

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Alexandre Muniz wrote:

> > > "
> > > The People's Council for Internomic is an Institution. Any player may join
> > > this Institution by posting a public message. Any players may leave this
> > > Institution by posting a public message. "
> > 
> > Hmmmm
> > 
> > The content of the messages appears immaterial. Can it be publically
> > knowable who is and who is not a member of the People's Council?
> > 
> > Bascule
> 
> Sure. If the content of the message is immaterial, *every* public
> message toggles membership in the People's Council. One merely has to
> keep track of the number of public messages each player has sent since
> this passed.

That's absurd.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:04:13 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Resolution - IP

So much for balancing power.

I was thinking of suggesting to President Chaos something along the lines
of appending text that if a majority of the players who were Senators on
July 27 vote for a proposal it passes, if a majority of those same players
vote against a proposal it is rejected. If those players can't establish a
majority , their votes are counted as any other player's vote. 
and tuck it in somewhere in the rules for accepting proposals. But
/dev/joe has demontstrated another possible abuse of the rule.

Let's impeach him for this.  
I am calling for impeachement of Senator /dev/joe

For good measure I am calling for impeachment of Sentor ThinMan (he
proposed the rule)

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> The text following this sentence constitutes a Senate Resolution, with
> the provisional title "Concerning Government".
> 
> {{ The phrase "at most once per calendar month" is deleted from rule 411.1
> immediately.  The last paragraph of rule 411.1 is deletedimmediately.
> Into rule 417, at the end of the list of prohibited types of AOJ, the
> following double-asterisk-delimited text is immediately inserted:
> **
> 4) An AOJ that nullifies a Senatorial decision either to accept or to
> reject a Senate Resolution.
> **
> Vynd is appointed to Senator seat Sinecure 33; Robert Sevin is
> appointed to Senator seat Rebus 8-{}; /dev/joe is appointed to Senator
> seat /dev/senate3; ThinMan is appointed to Senator seat Melvin.}}
> 
> No IP against the Speaker or any Senator shall be accepted unless, in
> addition to the conditions imposed by Rule 404, the Senate votes in
> favor of impeaching the officer named in the IP.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:20:10 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal

I'm appealing this.

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 437 has been judged TRUE.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgment 437
> Subject: Similarity II
> Initiator: Malenkai
>   Judge: Mr Lunatic Fringe (declined)
> 2nd Judge: Karma (declined)
> 3rd Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Jul 21, 1997, 19:04h EDT)
> Judgement: TRUE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> It cannot be determined with finality whether the Church of Seleya is
> eligible for a Seat in the Synod.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> This is not a PWCFJ,although it could easily be reworded to be.  Its
> the situations, and not the wins, that I find intersting, and by making
> winning *not* an outcome, the air can be cleared.  This is just for
> fun.
> 
> Rule 1303, section 10b, says:
> 
> > b. A Church is not eligible for a Seat in the Synod if the total M
> > Similarities with all the Churches which are members of the Synod is
> > equal to or greater than 80.
> 
> CFJ 429 established that self-similarity was undefined.  This rule
> establishes eligibility based on, in part, a test that involved calculation
> of self-similarity.  Thus the eligibilty cannot be determined with
> finality.  What than means, I'll leave to someone else to decide.

As I've stataed before, CFJ 429 established no such thing. The reasoning
for that CFJ may have mentioned this, but the CFJ statement was very
specific, and refered to no Organization other than TMBSG.

I find this a real stretch of one's logical imagination to apply this
reasoning to any Organization. Especially from a player who is so strict
about other things, such as, when is there truly a precedecne conflict.
Arguing that is no more that trying to pull the wool over our collective
eyes :) 

As far as the eligibility clause quoted by Malenkai, there are a couple of
different eligibility clauses in the Synod rules, each for a different
purpose, and that is why this specific definition of eligiligy cannot be
reasonably applied to anything other than the clause in which it is
present.
That clause is specifically about eligiblity to join the Synod. It is
unnquestionable that the Church of Seleya is not eligible to join the
Synod, because it already has a Seat (that's another condition)

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> Note that none of the other churches, indeed any church, is eligible
> either.
> 
> Rex Mundi's Reasoning:
> 
> I concur with Malenkai's reasoning.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 05:31:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P2233 rejected (Otzmaara)

> I already pointed out in a previous post that the three day limit doesn't
> really prevent any countering, or double countering, although it might
> leave a rathger small windows for anti-countering.
 	That limitation gives players who can log on at (say) 2:32
A.M. Saturday morning if they like an unfair advantage over those of
us who can't... or just don't enjoy such time-sensitive shenanigans.
	Also, the assertion that I had a window of a number of hours
in which I could have countered the Go Fish played against my Fix My
Gadget, while true enough of itself, ignores the goal of Ackanomic to
be fully playable by anyone who has email access once in three days.

- -- 
Chaos

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 05:43:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Offices

> Blueprints -- is supposed to be the duty of the inventor to keep track of
> this stuff, though I don't know that any inventor has ever done so; 50K of
> web stuff.
	I did it the first few weeks the rule existed, and I'm doing
it now (for the past 3 weeks or so).  You can hit it from the Acrobot
page; oddly enough the only way to get there is via a weird CGI query.
	I thought the blueprint for the Really Big Blue Thing (etc.)
was destroyed by some CFJ or other.

- -- 
Chaos

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 05:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: More Offices

> 	I thought the blueprint for the Really Big Blue Thing (etc.)
> was destroyed by some CFJ or other.

The Supreme Court (mr cwm and myself) overturned the original decision
on CFJ 391.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:39:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal

> As I've stataed before, CFJ 429 established no such thing. The reasoning
> for that CFJ may have mentioned this, but the CFJ statement was very
> specific, and refered to no Organization other than TMBSG.

CFJ 429 affirmed existing game custom that an organization's similarity
with itself is undefined.  Are you saying that TMBSG's similarity with
itself is undefined, yet all all other organization's self-similarity
is defined?  Doesn't that seem absurd?  For example, lets say we had
vague game custom that pi = 3.  Someone submits a CFJ with the statement
2 + pi = 5, and it is judged TRUE.  What you are saying is that we can
not then argue 3 + pi = 6?  C'mon. :)
 
> I find this a real stretch of one's logical imagination to apply this
> reasoning to any Organization. Especially from a player who is so strict
> about other things, such as, when is there truly a precedecne conflict.
> Arguing that is no more that trying to pull the wool over our collective
> eyes :)

I find the above offensive.  I submitted a CFJ, nothing more.  I have
no intent to deceive anyone, as is implied above, and as I said, find
the implication offensive.  What does interpreting the precedence rule
have to do with this anyway?

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:08:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2246 accepted (Internomic a la Vynd)

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Alexandre Muniz wrote:
>
>> > > "
>> > > The People's Council for Internomic is an Institution. Any player may join
>> > > this Institution by posting a public message. Any players may leave this
>> > > Institution by posting a public message. "
>> > 
>> > Hmmmm
>> > 
>> > The content of the messages appears immaterial. Can it be publically
>> > knowable who is and who is not a member of the People's Council?
>> > 
>> > Bascule
>> 
>> Sure. If the content of the message is immaterial, *every* public
>> message toggles membership in the People's Council. One merely has to
>> keep track of the number of public messages each player has sent since
>> this passed.
>
>
>That's absurd.

... which, around here, is not actually an argument against it :)

- -mr cwm

(Sorry for the nested and probably messed-up attributions.)

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:20:40 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Viruses & CarsesraC

I am noting publicly that CarsesraC has not done any Virus-refereeing since
his return from Vacation, and is furthermore not being very active as a
player.  In private email he said that he doesn't have time to check email
every day, which I sympathize with; but perhaps it's time once again to
start the search for another Viruses referee, futile as that may be...:-)
I am hereby officially asking the Speaker to ask CarsesraC if he wishes to
a)remain the Referee for our Viruses game, and b)remain an active player.

And what's going on with fnord, anyway?  He's been extremely quiet of late.
Anyone have any idea about that?  (Like fnord, perhaps?)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Stolen Moments--Red Hot & Cool
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
Unanimous is a mouse with a single horn in its forehead.

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

Date: 28 Jul 1997 12:58:20 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: IP's 

I have already voted to ACCEPT the IP against /dev/joe.

I am now taking the opportunity to ACCEPT the IP against ThinMan.  I
have no problem with Officers attempting to abuse their offices.  I have
no problem either, with removing said Officers from said Offices when
they try L;)

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: 28 Jul 1997 13:05:06 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Mathematical query 

A question for ThinMan, or anyone else who knows with certainty.

Is     lim 5/x  > 5
       x -> 0

a true statement, since the limit is infinite, or not true, since the
limit does not exist.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:05:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal

> I'm appealing this.

And this was appealed shortly before by Mr. Lunatic Fringe.  Is there
anything in the Rules(or game custom)about how to deal with this?
Do both appeals go through, or just the first one?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Stolen Moments--Red Hot & Cool
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
How much hedge can a hedgehog hog if a hedgehog could hog hedge?

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:02:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Resolution - IP

> Let's impeach him for this.  
> I am calling for impeachement of Senator /dev/joe

> For good measure I am calling for impeachment of Sentor ThinMan (he
> proposed the rule)

This might be problematic.  I've already called an IP on /dev/joe; Rule 404
says that a player may only have one IP pending at any one time.  It does
not say, however, that only one IP may be pending against a player at any
one time, so it looks like there are now two IP's against /dev/joe and none
against ThinMan.

Luckily, it looks like even if their proposed resolution goes through,
the Rule it creates won't have the precedence to overrule the normal
conditions for IP's, in my opinion.  And I've got a Proposal which should
be distributed as soon as Acrobot is working again, which should fix the
problem with 411.1.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Stolen Moments--Red Hot & Cool
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
She criticized my apartment, so I knocked her flat.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:20:39 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Mathematical query

> A question for ThinMan, or anyone else who knows with certainty.
> 
> Is     lim 5/x  > 5
>        x -> 0
> 
> a true statement, since the limit is infinite, or not true, since the
> limit does not exist.

The problem is an ambiguity with the limit.  It's true that the limit does
not exist, since

lim 5/x = Inf   and  lim 5/x  = -Inf
x -> 0+              x -> 0-

The first limit would indeed be greater than 5, and the second would not.
Your statement is in fact not true, because the limit does not exist.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Patty Smythe:Never Enough
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
This is my brain... This is... WAIT!  WHERE'S MY BRAIN!??

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:31:11 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Mathematical query

Alfvaen wrote:

> > A question for ThinMan, or anyone else who knows with certainty.
> > 
> > Is     lim 5/x  > 5
> >        x -> 0
> > 
> > a true statement, since the limit is infinite, or not true, since
> the
> > limit does not exist.
> 
> The problem is an ambiguity with the limit.  It's true that the limit
> does
> not exist, since
> 
> lim 5/x = Inf   and  lim 5/x  = -Inf
> x -> 0+              x -> 0-
> 
> The first limit would indeed be greater than 5, and the second would
> not.
> Your statement is in fact not true, because the limit does not exist.
> 
There is, indeed, an ambiguity in that the "limit" is different
depending on which side you approach from.  But that is only part
of the problem.  The terminology used by Trench in _Advanced_Calculus_
is that a limit "exists" only if it is finite.  Trench finds it
convenient to define one-sided and two-sided infinite limits as well,
but in his terminology, that is a convenient way of saying that the
limit does not exist.  For that reason, under that scheme of things,
in the real numbers, the expression

 lim 5/x  > 5
 x -> 0

is meaningless because the left-hand side does not represent a real
number.  Thus the answer to the question is "neither"; the expression
is neither true nor false -- it is malformed.

Even that doesn't end the story, however.  It is possible to define
the "Extended Real Numbers" as the union of the real numbers with a 
set containing "infinity" and "-infinity".  This is convenient for
defining the truth or falsehood of some questions similar to the
above, but it suffers from problems, too; for example, the extended
real numbers no longer form an algebraic group under addition, because
neither infinity nor -infinity has an additive inverse (some
operations are undefined ( infinity - infinity; infinity * 0;
infinity / infinity; etc.).

Even if we were discussing lim 5/x^2 as x->0, which doesn't suffer
from the sign problem, you have to be very careful what you mean.
Under conventional calculus (i.e. on the real numbers) the answer is
the same as before (neither true nor false).  In the extended reals,
however, the answer is true.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:32:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal

> And this was appealed shortly before by Mr. Lunatic Fringe.  Is there
> anything in the Rules(or game custom)about how to deal with this?
> Do both appeals go through, or just the first one?  :-)

This has happened before.  Both appeals happen.  The precedent is
CFJ 157, and I believe it also happened one other time as well, but
I cannot verity that from memory.

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 19:24:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato + Aliens

Antimatter has found the magic potato.

937
741
898

None of them are rules majiks and someone else can check if they
are all prime :)

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ross Morgan-Linial <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato + Aliens

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

// Antimatter has found the magic potato.

I am amending the rule Beldin's Pants by changing "The" to "Each". It now 
reads:

    Beldin's Pants are a Garment, initially Somewhere Else. Beldin's Pants
    may only be removed as described by the Praetor. Beldin's Pants are
    unique.

    Each recipient of Beldin's Parka loses 1 trinket every Thurday at
    noon.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:28:50 EDT 
From: [email-masked] (Ed  Graham)
Subject: Acka: PCI

By this message to the public forum,  I announce that I am joining the
People's Council for Internomic.

Unless,  that is,  I am declared the Ambassador,  then this wasn't really
necessary.  (But what are the chances?)

BTW,  what's the status of all those Auctions?

Voty-oh-doh-Gnome

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:37:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PCI

> BTW,  what's the status of all those Auctions?

The Runemaker is late on Otzma auctions, I believe.  I am not yet
late, but am swamped, and like to do things in order, but since you
asked:

1) Voting Gnome was high bid on the Pulse Laser for A$70.
2) I was the only volunteer for Praetor, thus I am appointed Praetor without
election.

As for the Ambassador election, I am going to hold that as long as the
rules allow, to avoid a thread split, if possible.

There is other stuff I need to harf, I intend to get to it tomorrow
or wed, but in any case, will not be late (I hope ;-))

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 17:42:48 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2246 accepted (Internomic a la Vynd)

Uri Bruck <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Sure. If the content of the message is immaterial, *every* public
> > message toggles membership in the People's Council. One merely has to
> > keep track of the number of public messages each player has sent since
> > this passed.
> 
> That's absurd.

And this is Ackanomic. :-)
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:19:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: PCI

Malenkai wrote:
> 1) Voting Gnome was high bid on the Pulse Laser for A$70.

I believe you mean the BWG Laser.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: yet another hidden agenda RFC

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, **Alexandre Muniz wrote:

> This is an informal RFC, so the language isn't as precise as it would be 
> in a real proposal, and in some spots it is missing entirely.
> 
> At the beginning of the cycle, a 7 day agenda condition submission 
> period shall begin. During that period, any player may become an Agenda 
> Vaqueiro (hey, I've been listening to north-eastern Brazilian cowboy 
> music; it as good a name as any,) by submitting 3 Agenda Conditions to 
> Whoever it is Who's Harfing This Thing. Agenda conditions should be 
> statements about the game state  that are fairly difficult but not 
> impossible for a player to cause to become true. At the end of the 

Well, one problem is that we really would need something to hold out
elements that are just ridiculously easy.  The fact that you aren't
allowed to get your own elements back will help, but there are still going
to be groups of people who decide to cooperate to give one of them an
excellent, call it hand, of conditions.  It also won't stop people who
honestly think their easy conditions are difficult (a new player, say).
One possibility would be to give the harfer-guy the discretion to reject
conditions, but you'd then have to put in provisions that would allow the
players who've had conditions rejected a chance to resubmit, even if it is
after the 7 day deadline.  Also, I think 7 days is too long, I know we're
big on conformit when it comes to deadlines, but I think 4 or 5 days wuld
be better, plus a few days for people who have had stuff rejected.  Cycles
don't necessarily last all that long around here, and the whole agenda
thing could get real old real fast if you have to keep starting over only
a few weeks after it started.  Finaly, I think the harfer for this should
be a completely seperate office, with its own quick and easy way of
changing the office holder.  That way the Speaker or Financier doesn't
have to miss out on the fun every time.

> submision period, for each agenda condition submitted, an associated 
> agenda element and a nemesis element are created. Agenda elements may be 
> visible or hidden, if one is visible, it is tradable. Nemesis elements 
> are nontradable. Each player gets a number of Agenda credits 
> proportional (equal?) to the magic number.
> The nemesis elements are then auctioned (how to do this efficiently?) 
> for Agenda credits. Once a player has 3 nemesis elements, e can receive 
> no more; if at the end of the auction, there are any unowned nemesis 
> elements remaining, they are randomly distributed to Vaqueiros so that 
> every Vaqueiro owns 3 Nemesis elements. The weights of the Agenda 
> elements are then calculated as (magic number / 3) - price paid for 
> corresponding Nemesis element in the auction (0 if it was not sold.) The 
> Agenda elements are then randomly distributed to the Vaqueiros, 3 apiece 
> (except that no Agenda element may be distributed to, or subsequently 
> owned by the player who submitted its condition. This is to discourage 
> agenda conditions like "two-star owns this agenda element."). The Agenda 
> elements are initially hidden, and only Whoever it is Who's Harfing This 
> Thing and the element's owner know the condition for a given element. A 
> Vaqueiro may make a hidden Agenda Element visible by publicly revealing 
> that element's condition. 
> 
> If it is publicly knowable (elements must be visible) that all of a 
> Vaqueiros agenda element conditions are true, and the Vaqueiro's score 
> >= the sum of eir agenda element weights, that Vaqueiro shall win the cycle. Something Nasty (what?) will happen to players owning the Nemesis 
> elements corresponding to to winner's agenda elements. At the end of the 
> cycle, all nemesis and agenda elements are destroyed.
> 
> The idea is that Vaqueiros will bid higher for Nemesis elements with 
> conditions that are difficult to acheive, and lower or not at all for 
> easy to acheive conditions. The score requirement from the Agenda 
> element weights calculated from the nemesis element bids should provide 
> a balance against the differences in difficulty levels in acheiving the 
> agenda conditions which are inevitable. I think 3 is a good number of 
> conditions per player because it should provide a buffer against errant 
> high bids on easy conditions, while if it were much higher it would make 
> the situation more confusing and players would put less effort into 
> crafting each condition. I took Malenkai's idea of tradeable conditions, 
> (sorta like RoJ,) but I think conditions should be visible if traded, to 
> make this less dependant on Whoever it is Who's Harfing This Thing 
> verifying that conditions are being properly given to Vaqueiros with 
> each trade; this way, e must only verify that the proper condition is 
> revealed when the agenda element is made visible. So. What do people 
> think? Is this a reasonable direction to go with the hidden agenda idea? 
> If so, how should this be implemented in order to work smoothly, put the 
> smallest possible burden on officers, and be reasonably balanced in 
> difficulty against other cycle wins?
> 
> **two-star
> 

OK, you don't say this explicitly, but the agenda nemesi(ses?) will have
the conditions for their counterparts plainly labeled on them, so to
speak?  Otherwise how will anyone know which nemsis to bid on?  Auctioning
might be more than a little bit awkward, for that matter.  We could easily
have 30 some things up for bidding, it's inevitable that some are going to
attract lots of attention while others will get no bids at all.  Perhaps
something more akin to a draft should take place.  I don't know exactly
how you coudl go about deciding who gets to choose first though, and this
method would probably be even more time consuming than an auction
(especially if some players don't bother to respond right away when it is
there turn).  I think that while this is a very good framework for an idea
most everyone seems to be interested in, that the distribution of the
nemesis thiniges is going to take some serious work.

So long as I'm here, a few other things that might cause problems.  what
if someone deliberately creates impossibly hard conditions, since he knows
he won't get them?  What if, god forbid, only 1 or 2 people submit any
conditions?  what if someone gets mutualy contradictory conditions?  All
of these things can probably be dealt with, but I'll leave it to someone
who hasn't been at work the last 12 hours to figure out.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:09:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate Resolution voting results

The vote in the Senate on /dev/joe's "Concerning Government" Senate
resolution has ended.  The votes were 3 in favor (myself, /dev/joe,
Thinman) and one against (Robert Sevin).  Thus, the resolution passes, and
I believe /dev/joe is entitled to make victory symbols.  Some other stuff
happens to I guess.

                            - Senator Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:49:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *that* room

I am going to the Museum, and there donating my Cheez-Whiz, just in case I
ever forget and chew the gumball.

I am then going to the Library, where I am entering the Vault of the Book
in search of forbidden knowledge.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #221
*******************************