Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #268
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Sunday, August 24 1997        Volume 02 : Number 268

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:26:14 -0400
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Resigned

  If possible, I nominate myself for the office of Mad Scientist.
  They laughed when Autonomic crashed.  They laughed when Rishon was
suffused.  But soon, it will not be they who are laughing.  It will be I
who have been up too long.

>The man who laughs last has not yet heard the terrible truth.

  The man who laughs last ... obviously does not get the joke.
:-)

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 11:57:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Beldin's Pants

The museum receives 'Practice Voodoo Economics'

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 12:00:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: snowgod's disease

Red Barn is found to have snowgod's disease by a 5-0 vote

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 12:01:29 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate

No one volunteered for Senate seat Rebus 8.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 12:05:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Mad Scientist

The office of Mad Scientist is open.  The nomination starts now,
reply if you want to volunteer.  Of course, as long as the rules in
this area remain as they are, I contend it will be virtually impossible
to build one of these things, but volunteer anyway if you'd like.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 12:06:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Poet Laureate

The following have volunteered for Poet Laureate:

breadbox
Guy Fawkes

The election lasts for 3 days, reply to vote.  Perhaps a sonnet on
the shape of the earth by the candidates would be appropriate :)

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 11:35:29 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants

> The museum receives 'Practice Voodoo Economics'

So whose Benefactor Value does this accrue to?  Beldin's Pants?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Clash:Lover's Rock
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
Be yourself.  Who else would take the job?

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 12:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Items 3

> 1.  No,  Malenkai,  breadbox has NOT been zapped yet,  I haven't loaded
> the BWGL.  I was giving em time to compose emself.2.  I am going to
> norpan Cell Block H to sign the Guest registry.3.  NOW I load the bottle
> of Bacardi into the BWGL,  which is still aimed at breadbox.  
> ZZZZZapVoting Gnomebody

Have I been shot? Am I now Hosed?
I really have got to get composed!
It might have been my imagination,
But I thought I felt a Pulsing sensation.

I know not if these rhymes the Rules require,
Or if to show off I merely aspire.
Is this a Bacardi I see in my hand?
What is my state? How do I stand?

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 20:50:57 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A Little Chapel

> The Church of Azpiazu shall spend A$100 to build a small temple on kaa
L3.
> As Founder, I authorize this action; so shall it be done.  In keeping
with
> the formlessness of our Patron, so shall the Temple of Azpiazu be
formless.
> 
> 
I am going to the Temple of Azpiazu. On arrival, I find that, being
formless, there is no door, and indeed no apparent interior. Summoning all
of the divine inspiration that I am privileged to have as a Priest of the
Mighty Azpiazu, I press on into the heart of the formless Temple, there to
further my oneness with the Divine Azpiazu, and meditate on the true nature
of BWG.

Rex Mundi, Priest of Azpiazu.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 13:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's Pants

>> The museum receives 'Practice Voodoo Economics'
> 
> So whose Benefactor Value does this accrue to?  Beldin's Pants?  :-)

It accrues to no one, I would presume:
To "gain" does not a "donation" assume.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 16:30:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 444 Verdict

CFJ 444 has been judged TRUE

Clerk of the Courts
- ----------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 444
  Subject: Voting in Favor
Initiator: Vynd
    Judge: two-star (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (declined)
3rd Judge: Supreme Court (assigned Aug 13, 1997, 21:46h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The Senate did not vote in favor of the Senate resolution
provisonaly entitled "Concerning the Senate".

Vynd's Reasoning:

> Pursuant to rule 1001 ("Institutions") I announce the voting results
> of the SR: "Concerning the Senate".  Said SR is ACCEPTED, 1 vote for.
>
> [From section 3: "Results may be announced before the alloted time
> ends, in which case the voting period is over when those results are
> announced."  Note that the announcer is nowhere required to be a
> member of the institution.]
>
> Malenkai

I'd quote the other messages he sent, but I'm not up to the cutting and
pasting.  Essentially, Malenkai exercised his privilige as Speaker to
submit a senate resolution, voted on it as proconsul (since the Senate was
in a 0-0 tie) and then announced the vote as above.

This is mostly correct, everything except the accepted part.  The
Pro-Consul can vote whenever there is a tie, not jsut when all Senators
ahve voted and there is a tie.  It is correct that anyone is allowed to
announce the results of the vote, and thereby end the voting period, even
if the vote has not been truly completed.  However...

Rule 1001 section 2a says:

"...An Institution votes "in favor" of something or "in support of an
action" when a simple majority of it's members vote "in favor" or "in
support."

Rule 411.1 3rd paragraph says:

"If the Senate votes in favor of accepting a resolution then immediately
after the results of the vote are publicly announced..." yadda yadda
yadda.

1 of 5 does not constitue a majority.  Thus the Senate did not vote in
favor of the resolution, and since it's voting period ended without the
Senate voting in favor, it didn't pass.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The facts in this case seem clear.  When the Senate was tied with respect
to the acceptance vote on SR 102, the Speaker, in eir role as Proconsul,
cast a vote in favor of its acceptance.  Then, e reported the final
results of the Senate vote as 1-0, with the four Senators abstaining, and
as a result, claimed that SR 102 was accepted.

At the time, the Speaker claimed that eir casting of the vote was legal
because the rules allow the Proconsul to cast a vote "when" the vote is
tied, rather than when the vote is tied after all Senators have voted or
when the vote is tied at the end of the voting period -- whatever wording
would cause the Proconsul to vote in the Acka Senate just as the Vice
President does in the United States Senate.  The Court agrees this was legal.

The Speaker also claimed that eir preemptive reporting was legal because
Rule 1001 does not restrict who may report the voting results of an
Institution.  In this respect also, the Speaker's actions appear to be
within the rules.

The initiator of this CFJ, however, raises a valid point -- what exactly
is the effect of this?  E quotes Rule 1001, section 2a, which states that
an Instituion accepts something if a simple majority of its members vote
in favor of that something.  Clearly, SR 102 was not accepted as a result
of this clause.  None of the four members of the Senate voted in favor of
SR 102.

Rule 1001, however, should be more closely examined.  First of all, it
states that its sections 2a-c defer to other rules governing
decision-making procedures in Ackanomic.  The Court has failed to find
other portions of other Rules whose provisions for the acceptance of
failure of a Senate Resolution are anything other than those described in
Rule 1001, sections 2a-c.  Specifically, neither Rule 411 (The Senate) or
Rule 411.1 (Senate Resolutions) give any indication that the acceptance
of a Senate Resolution, or any other vote of the Senate, should be based
on criteria other than those found in Rule 1001.

As noted above, SR 102 was not accepted by the Senate with regard to
clause 2a of Rule 1001.  Neither was it rejected by this clause, since a
simple majority of the Senate did not vote against it.  2a gives no
guidance in this matter.

Clause 2b governs Institutional decisions with many possible outcomes.
Since the only two votes a Senator could have cast on SR 102 were yes or
no, it too gives no guidance in this matter.

Clause 2c governs what to do when a vote is tied without means to break
it, or if the application of a tiebreaker fails to break the tie.  It
does not apply either, since there does exist a tiebreaker for the Senate
(the Proconsul's vote) and that vote did succeed it breaking the tie (in
a most basic sense -- before the Speaker voted, the vote was tied 0-0.
Afterwards, it was untied 1-0.)

The Court wonders though, what is the result of the tie being broken?
The rules provide no answer.  Nowhere do the Rules give any indication
that the Proconsul vote causes the acceptance or rejection of a Senate
matter -- they simply state that e may cast it.  Rule 1001, section 2, is
the only portion of the Rules that addresses whether a Senate vote
results in acceptance or rejection of a measure, and does not address the
situation with which we are faced.

It seems that in the absence of other rules defining acceptance/rejection
criteria, Rule 1001 imposes an implicit quorum on Institutional votes --
the only circumstances in which a yes/no decision can be reached are
those in which a majority of the members vote in favor or opposition to a
measure.  This quorum results from the fact that R1001 is not a robust
rule -- the Speaker's actions have found one of its holes.

It is the Court's opinion that the Senate did not accept SR102.
It is also the Court's opinion that the Senate did not reject SR102.
The Senate did, however, fulfill its obligation under the Rules -- it put
the matter up for vote, and reported its results.

Due to the lack of accptance of SR102, the Court rules TRUE.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 22:12:43 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re acka CFCJ

Karma has been picked.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 141

I accept!
- - Karma

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 21:28:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Change of voting status

I'd like to declare myself a voting player once again!

Once that has been processed, I volunteer for the vacant Senate seat.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 23:02:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Change of voting status

> Once that has been processed, I volunteer for the vacant Senate seat.

This works.

Malenkai

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #268
*******************************