Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #286
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, September 4 1997      Volume 02 : Number 286

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

Date: 04 Sep 1997 12:56:08 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

"Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]> writes:

> Therefore, the burden of proof lies not on me, but on those who would
> challege my interpretation.  I will defend my views.  Saying that "this
> might not work" and "I don't think this should work" are not good enough. 
> Unless you can prove by that it is explicitly prohibited by the rules to
> treat all organizations as the same type of entity, then all organizations
> other than The Revolution are destroyed.

	Provided the Supreme Court agrees (since it's likely to be
appealed that far), and it is the Court that considers Game Custom in
rendering a verdict.

	This game includes more than just the Rule; precedent (a.k.a.,
game custom) plays a role too.

- -- 
Archie Leach <[email-masked]>
PGP Fingerprint: 
             BC AB 28 19 A6 A4 FF 5B  CA 4D B4 03 3A A7 F4 5C

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:16:33 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Organizations

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> Let me be more clear.  Rule 101 says, in pertinent part:
> 
> Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules,
> however,
> is permitted and unregulated. Game custom, spirit of the game, and
> linguistic interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated
> or
> part of the game state. 
> 
> Therefore, the burden of proof lies not on me, but on those who would
> challege my interpretation.
> 
Whether Ms. Dragon's statement follows from her excerpt of R101 is
debatable.  For instance, I say that I hereby create a new rule,
numbered 0 and entitled "Not Again!", with text "ThinMan is permitted
to change the rules in whatsoever manner he chooses, as a public
action, except that he may not alter Rule 1 in any way."  If my
statement is challenged, then is the burden of proof on the
challenger?  Perhaps it is, but I think not.

>   I will defend my views.  Saying that "this
> might not work" and "I don't think this should work" are not good
> enough. 
> Unless you can prove by that it is explicitly prohibited by the rules
> to
> treat all organizations as the same type of entity, then all
> organizations
> other than The Revolution are destroyed.
> 
Nevertheless, I agree that such wishywashy objections are not good
enough.  Ms. Dragon's case is sufficiently well-established as to
require a CFJ.  I have, in fact, written a CFJ which mounts what I
believe to be a strong counter-argument against a key element of
B.D.'s position.  We can debate that argument once it is released
by the CotC.

ThinMan

> Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:17:15 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Treasury

Oh, and according to calculations I am now reasonably sure of, there is
A$30464 in the Treasury.  I should be able to keep this on the PE page now.

I think my confusion stemmed from my conviction that the amount required
for the RERS was twice the amount of the Treasury, which was an
off-by-order-of-magnitude error from an early rule-reading.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Midnight Oil:Diesel & Dust
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Heck was created for those who refuse to believe in Gosh.

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> Let me be more clear.  Rule 101 says, in pertinent part:
> 
> Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however,
> is permitted and unregulated. Game custom, spirit of the game, and
> linguistic interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated or
> part of the game state. 
> 
> Therefore, the burden of proof lies not on me, but on those who would
> challege my interpretation.  I will defend my views.  Saying that "this
> might not work" and "I don't think this should work" are not good enough. 
> Unless you can prove by that it is explicitly prohibited by the rules to
> treat all organizations as the same type of entity, then all organizations
> other than The Revolution are destroyed.
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 

I have been assured that there are some CFJs in the works on this matter.
So far as where the burden of proof lies...  Well, it's really more a
matter of how good your arguement is than anything else, so far as I ahve
seen.  Players have claimed to do things before and simply been shouted
down as completely loco, especially when what they are doing is clearly
forbidden by the rules.  If they weren't, we'd constantly be playing two
or three threads and dealing with CFJ after CFJ on things that everyone
(except that one guy) knew didn't happen.  This, I would say, is not one
of those situations.

While I am here, I would like to ask, however, where you get the idea that
organizations are a type of entity.  they aren't defined as such.  Indeed,
the organization rule clearly describes two different types, or classes,
or what have you, of organizations, Player-sanctioned and
Rules-sanctioned, of which the Revolution would seem to belong to only
one.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:42:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Pending IP

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Now, on his blatant refusal to release the results for CFCJ
> > whatever-it-is (am I the only one who forgets those numbers
> > instantly?), _that_ is more of an impeachable offense.  But I'll let
> > it ride unless he takes it to extremes.
> 
> Indeed. One delayed verdict must be balanced against months of
> sterling effort when considering something as important as grounds for
> Impeachment.
> 
> breadbox
> 
> 

Indeed, at the very least wait to see if Malenkai is removed from the
office of the Speaker before you start piling more IPs on him, please.
For that matter, aren't there still a number of CFJs before the Supreme
Court whose verdicts have been due for weeks?  Maybe I missed it, but I
don't think my original CFj on the legality of Vulcan's first coup attempt
was ever resolved.  Then again, it's been pretty hectic, and with the CotC
page out of date I may have missed it and not know about it.

                        - Vynd, kept meaning to ask about that...

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:03:37 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

> 
> While I am here, I would like to ask, however, where you get the idea
that
> organizations are a type of entity.  they aren't defined as such. 
Indeed,
> the organization rule clearly describes two different types, or classes,
> or what have you, of organizations, Player-sanctioned and
> Rules-sanctioned, of which the Revolution would seem to belong to only
> one.
> 

My reasoning is as follows:  Organizations are entities.  It doesn't say in
the rules that organizations are divided into different types of
organization.  Therefore, assume they are not divided into different types.
 Therefore, all organizations are the same type of entity.  

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:07:23 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Organizations

Vynd wrote:

> While I am here, I would like to ask, however, where you get the idea
> that
> organizations are a type of entity.  they aren't defined as such.
> Indeed,
> the organization rule clearly describes two different types, or
> classes,
> or what have you, of organizations, Player-sanctioned and
> Rules-sanctioned, of which the Revolution would seem to belong to only
> one.
> 
As much as I hate to disagree with a fellow Vulcan, especially on this
matter, the first sentence of R1003 (Organizations) specifies that
Organizations are entities.  Vynd is correct, however, that The
Revolution is a Rule-Sanctioned org whereas Vulcan is a
Player-Sanctioned org.  This distinction is raised in my CFJ reasoning
on the matter.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Pending IP

> For that matter, aren't there still a number of CFJs before the Supreme
> Court whose verdicts have been due for weeks?  Maybe I missed it, but I
> don't think my original CFj on the legality of Vulcan's first coup attempt
> was ever resolved.  Then again, it's been pretty hectic, and with the CotC
> page out of date I may have missed it and not know about it.

You missed it. I can send you the official posting of the final
verdict if you'd like.

breadbox

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

Date: 04 Sep 1997 14:14:07 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Timothy J. Miller)
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]> writes:

> While I am here, I would like to ask, however, where you get the idea that
> organizations are a type of entity.  they aren't defined as such.  

	Au contraire-- The first line of Rule 1003, "Organizations",
prior to all sections:

	"Organizations are unownable, named entities."

- -- 
Archie Leach <[email-masked]>
PGP Fingerprint: 
             BC AB 28 19 A6 A4 FF 5B  CA 4D B4 03 3A A7 F4 5C

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:20:24 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Organizations

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> My reasoning is as follows:  Organizations are entities.  It doesn't
> say in
> the rules that organizations are divided into different types of
> organization.  Therefore, assume they are not divided into different
> types.
>  Therefore, all organizations are the same type of entity.  
> 
I don't want to rewrite my entire CFJ reasoning, but I will point out
that the Rules absolutely do call certain Organizations
Player-Sanctioned and the others Rule-Sanctioned.  The rules do not
specify that these are "types" of organization, but then they do not
specify that organizations are "types" of entity, either.  My CFJ
reasoning on this matter points to several specific examples that
demonstrate, I claim, that the customary interpretation of "type of
entity" in R 500.3 is quite narrow; much narrower than Balsamic Dragon
is attempting to assert that it should be.  All will be revealed when
the Clerk of the Courts gets around to it.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:44:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Org

Question:  When did the Blueprint for the Llama come into existence.  
Secondly, when did the first Llama come into existence.  SL's can only 
make Gadgets from non-lonely Blueprints.  If not for that restriction, 
A$1000 could make anyone dictator.

GF

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> I am hereby creating a new Organization named The Matress.
> 
> I am giving The Matress A$ 1050.
> 
> I suggest that The Matress buy a Trade License.
> 
> I approve of that suggestion.
> 
> I suggest that The Matress buy a Secret Laboratory.
> 
> I approve of that suggestion.
> 
> I suggest that The Matress use its Secret Laboratory to create a
> Jaran Llama.
> 
> I approve of that suggestion.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:45:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Random Rule-harfing

>One last note - I've got my system set up to generate both HTML and
>flat-text Rules documents. I created the latter mostly for my own
>usage, because I dislike some of the formatting done by Lynx. But it
>occurred to me that this might be useful to others as well. Are there
>people who would like to also see a link to a flat-text version of the
>Rules for downloading? If so, speak up. (A flat-text version would
>also be amenable to being gzipped, which is another plus.)

  Yes, I would find a flat-text very useful indeed.

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cheez-Whiz + Llama

ThinMan's comments prompted me to go back and look at the Jaran Llama
blueprint again.

> A Jaran Llama is an amber bananawood llama slightly larger than the 
> gates separating the city of Acka from the Wilds of Ackanomia. It has a 
> hidden compartment capable of carrying a fair number of people.
> If a Jaran Llama is owned by an organization and each member of that 
> organization within a seven day period consents to join another 
> organization, publicly stating, "I am crawling into the belly of the 
> llama, that <name> will be open to me," where <name> is the name of an 
> organization, (refered to here as the adversarial organization,) then 
> the Jaran Llama will do the following:
> 
> a)It will cause each member of the organization that owns it to become a 
> member of the adversarial organization.
> b)It will transfer itself to the adversarial organization. 

I have to agree with ThinMan that this is too powerful. Perhaps if it
were amended to read "after three days the Jaran Llama will do the
following", thus ensuring that everyone in the target Organization would
at least know what hit them.

On the other hand, maybe not even then. After all, it is pretty
traditional for Organizations to have full control over their own
membership. (See CFJ 140 - or don't, actually: it's official text
isn't terribly enlightening.)

> If an unburied Jaran Llama exists when another Jaran Llama is created, 
> the newly created Jaran Llama will place itself in a random buried 
> treasure. If a Jaran Llama is found as part of buried treasure, any 
> other unburied Jaran Llama will place itself in a random buried 
> treasure.

On first impression, I rather like this. But I could also see how it
could be abused, and perhaps give the Treasure-Harfer some headaches
to boot. It's also not clear what would happen if a Jaran Llama placed
itself in a random buried treasure when a player had already crawled
"into the belly of the llama".

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Organizations

>Whether Ms. Dragon's statement follows from her excerpt of R101 is
>debatable.  For instance, I say that I hereby create a new rule,
>numbered 0 and entitled "Not Again!", with text "ThinMan is permitted
>to change the rules in whatsoever manner he chooses, as a public
>action, except that he may not alter Rule 1 in any way."  If my
>statement is challenged, then is the burden of proof on the
>challenger?  Perhaps it is, but I think not.

  I'd say it is, only in this case such proof happens to be trivial.

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:57:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Org

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> >Damn.  It _really_ is time to fix the Secret Laboratory Rule, IMHO.  Even
> >if you pay A$1000 and can only use it once a month, instant Gadgets of any
> >kind are way too unbalancing.
> 
>   Not true.  IMUHO, they keep Gadgets from being too scarce.

I don't know if _destroying_ the Secret Labs Rule is a good idea.  I 
present here several alternatives.

1) Raising its price.
2) Create a three-day building period on all Gadgets produced from it, 
like Gadgets from the Inventor.
3) To prevent Gadget inflation, introduce a more frequent means (other 
than Scroll of Crumble) for destroying Gadgets.
4) Raise the Processing Chip requirement for Gadget construction, and 
require processing chips from those who would use the Secret Laboratory.
5) Require a per-gadget construction fee in addition to the up-front costs.

Personally, I think the Secret Laboratory is a good means of getting 
Gadgets into the game.  What the game needs (and why I like #3 the best 
of all of these) is a good means of getting Gadgets out of it, to create 
a technological circulation, if you will.

GF

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cheez-Whiz + Llama

>I have to agree with ThinMan that this is too powerful. Perhaps if it
>were amended to read "after three days the Jaran Llama will do the
>following", thus ensuring that everyone in the target Organization would
>at least know what hit them.
>
>On the other hand, maybe not even then. After all, it is pretty
>traditional for Organizations to have full control over their own
>membership. (See CFJ 140 - or don't, actually: it's official text
>isn't terribly enlightening.)

  That's the point.

>On first impression, I rather like this. But I could also see how it
>could be abused, and perhaps give the Treasure-Harfer some headaches
>to boot. It's also not clear what would happen if a Jaran Llama placed
>itself in a random buried treasure when a player had already crawled
>"into the belly of the llama".

  Well, if entities had locations and players could "grab" objects in eir
locations, it would be a good way of dealing with those sticky
treasures...

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:11:13 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cheez-Whiz + Llama

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > I believe the Cheez-Whiz has been completed. Bidding on it by public 
> > auction commences.
> 
> I will bid A$9 on it.

I bid A$20

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:13:46 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Pending IP (CFCJ)

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> Now, on his blatant refusal to release the results for CFCJ whatever-it-is
> (am I the only one who forgets those numbers instantly?), _that_ is more of
> an impeachable offense.  But I'll let it ride unless he takes it to
> extremes.  Besides, I'm still convinced that my attempt to remove the ETRE
> frompower worked.  (Though I've only been skimming the discussion between
> you and ThinMan...)

Malenkai is still well within his time limits. 

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> 
> - --
> - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Iron Maiden:Seventh Son of A Seventh Son
> Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
> The things which you do not see are connected by spokes.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

Guy: I would agree with you that a more vigorous circulation of
Gadgets would be a good thing, if it weren't for the fact that Gadgets
are so damned abusable.

Ther's not really anything feasible we can do to assure that any given
Inventor will make any effort to preserve game balance when e makes a
Blueprint. (And Gadgets seem to have a history of being either pure
harf or pure exploit.) The only check we have on Inventors is
Impeachment, which in other cicumstances is supposed to be a last
resort.

Well, that and the personal restraint of Inventors. Which has been
shown to be insufficient on many an occasion. Really, what *has*
continued to be a successful check on Gadgets is the personal
restraint of their owners. For that I am grateful, but I wonder how
long we can count on it.

(Of course, before I argue that Gadgets aren't frequently abused, I
should go check Voting Gnome's score....)

(124. Sheesh.)

breadbox
who has never been happy with the existence of the Frobnotzer
before last week, that is
and even then it proved to be not abusable enough

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:19:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Organizations

First, let me say that I made a monumentally poor choice of phrasing when
I said what amounted to "organizations are not entities."  What I was
trying to say was that there is nothing in the organization rule that says
that organizations are a particular type of entity.

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Balsamic Dragon wrote:
> 
> > My reasoning is as follows:  Organizations are entities.  It doesn't
> > say in
> > the rules that organizations are divided into different types of
> > organization.  Therefore, assume they are not divided into different
> > types.
> >  Therefore, all organizations are the same type of entity.  
> > 
> I don't want to rewrite my entire CFJ reasoning, but I will point out
> that the Rules absolutely do call certain Organizations
> Player-Sanctioned and the others Rule-Sanctioned.  The rules do not
> specify that these are "types" of organization, but then they do not
> specify that organizations are "types" of entity, either.  My CFJ
> reasoning on this matter points to several specific examples that
> demonstrate, I claim, that the customary interpretation of "type of
> entity" in R 500.3 is quite narrow; much narrower than Balsamic Dragon
> is attempting to assert that it should be.  All will be revealed when
> the Clerk of the Courts gets around to it.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 

This is essentially what I tried and failed to convey in my earlier post.
You claim that organizations are a "type" of entity, and yet the rules do
not explicitly say they are.  You seem to argue that they must be a "type"
of entity, since they are entities but not just a generic entity.  From
the rule, however, it seems like thre are actually two types of
organizations, although (again) it does not explicity call them such.
these are the Player-sacntioned organizations, and the Rules-sanctioned
organizations.  They are both entities, they are both organizations, but
they are different types of organizations.  Indeed, rule 1003
(Organizations) is written such that no organization could possibly be
created that was not one or the other, but not both, of these types of
organization.  You might claim that your proposal has in fact created an
organization that overlaps both of these types, but since the organization
rule takes precedence over your new rule, this could not possibly happen.
At most, you could ahve created a third type of organization, one outside
the bounds of Rule 1003 entirely, and presumably not the same "type" of
entity as other organizations.

While I am on the subject, I am not sure if it is possible for players to
join The Revolution as described in it's rule or not.  Rule 1003 states
that any player may join an organization if they request membership and
the organization grants the request.  The revolution rule, 2283, says that
any player may join by making a public action (unless they are a member of
Vulcan).  This is in conflict with Rule 1003, which takes precedence,
unless the revolution is not a real, Rule 1003, defined organization at
all.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:22:14 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ceasefire

This is just the kind of Presidential address I have been waiting for.
I endorse this ceasefire. 

I was only having fun part of the time, like when the coup first started,
and in the last day or two. 

But parts of this were downright boring.

Let us meditate upon this for a while, and tell stories of happier times.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> I might as well get up on Guy Fawkes' Soapbox for this:
> 
> As President of Ackanomic, founder of The Rebellion, and a member of the
> Committee For Understanding, I would like to ask both sides to enter into a
> ceasefire.
> 
> What this means is the following:  I would ask that no-one on either side
> initiate any new offensive activity.  Defensive actions may be taken;
> I'm not trying to use this to get the Vulcan party to leave itself open to
> attacks that are already in process, unless of course they haven't noticed
> them yet.  And any proposals still in the queue need not be retracted
> by their submitters.  Also, any actions by the Vulcan party that are
> specifically aimed at its own removal from power are perfectly acceptable.
> 
> This all assumes that one of the several attempts to remove the Vulcan
> party from power have not been successful, which I personally do not
> believe, but we must wait for the Courts' rulings on these matters.  That
> is another motivation for the Ceasefire, to try to minimize any
> further thread-splitting.
> 
> This proposed Ceasefire may last until at least this coming Monday.  I
> would ask both sides to, in good faith, not take advantage of the other
> side's inaction before that time.  If the Vulcan party has(in such threads
> where it is still in power)removed itself from power by that time, then of
> course the Ceasefire becomes null and void then.
> 
> The Game of Ackanomic will survive this trouble, as it has survived so many
> before.  We shall all be wiser for the experience.  And some of us may have
> been having fun anyway.  (Not _me_, personally, but I'm told that some have
> regarded this as a welcome change...)
> 
> 
> - --
> - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Iron Maiden:Seventh Son of A Seventh Son
> Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
> Candidates should write on at least one side of the paper.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:29:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Malenkai IP

Are we vtoing on that IP yet, or does that start only on Friday. If we are
voting on it, the I vote in favor of impeaching Malenkai.

\

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:31:40 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: New Org

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> > 
> Have time how?  The Llama can be used instantaneously by a single-
> player org.  Once that player is a member of the target organization,
> he can block any and all actions that that organization attempts.  I
> agree that it is not a Deus ex Machina, but I, personally, don't think
> it very fun.  Others may disagree.

I think that was the point. It was designed specifically for the current
situation. Did the rule change about members of Vulcan can't be removed
from Vulcan against their will take effect yet. It would require that as
well to be effective againstVulcan currently.
Niccolo Flychcuk

 > > 
> ThinMan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Organizations

> While I am on the subject, I am not sure if it is possible for
> players to join The Revolution as described in it's rule or not.
> Rule 1003 states that any player may join an organization if they
> request membership and the organization grants the request.  The
> revolution rule, 2283, says that any player may join by making a
> public action (unless they are a member of Vulcan).  This is in
> conflict with Rule 1003, which takes precedence, unless the
> revolution is not a real, Rule 1003, defined organization at all.

I don't think joining the Organization was considered as high as a
priority at the time.

But, to follow up on this subject for the hell of it, Rule 1003
doesn't look as if its language excludes the possibility of a
Rule-sanctioned Organization from defining further means for itself by
which players may join.

If you don't like that, well then maybe we can assume that the creator
of the Organization is its Founder, and thus can be petitioned.

I hereby request Rule 2283 to grant me membership in the Revolution.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Pending IP

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > For that matter, aren't there still a number of CFJs before the Supreme
> > Court whose verdicts have been due for weeks?  Maybe I missed it, but I
> > don't think my original CFj on the legality of Vulcan's first coup attempt
> > was ever resolved.  Then again, it's been pretty hectic, and with the CotC
> > page out of date I may have missed it and not know about it.
> 
> You missed it. I can send you the official posting of the final
> verdict if you'd like.
> 
> breadbox
> 
> 

Heh, oops.  I'd like that, and apologize for implying you guys weren't on
the ball.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:04:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Org

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Robert Shimmin wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:
> 
> > >Damn.  It _really_ is time to fix the Secret Laboratory Rule, IMHO.  Even
> > >if you pay A$1000 and can only use it once a month, instant Gadgets of any
> > >kind are way too unbalancing.
> > 
> >   Not true.  IMUHO, they keep Gadgets from being too scarce.
> 
> I don't know if _destroying_ the Secret Labs Rule is a good idea.  I 
> present here several alternatives.
> 
> 1) Raising its price.
> 2) Create a three-day building period on all Gadgets produced from it, 
> like Gadgets from the Inventor.
> 3) To prevent Gadget inflation, introduce a more frequent means (other 
> than Scroll of Crumble) for destroying Gadgets.
> 4) Raise the Processing Chip requirement for Gadget construction, and 
> require processing chips from those who would use the Secret Laboratory.
> 5) Require a per-gadget construction fee in addition to the up-front costs.
> 
> Personally, I think the Secret Laboratory is a good means of getting 
> Gadgets into the game.  What the game needs (and why I like #3 the best 
> of all of these) is a good means of getting Gadgets out of it, to create 
> a technological circulation, if you will.

I agree most heartily.  Indeed, this could be said of most everything in
Acka.  We have lots of rules that allow for the creation of stuff, but
very little that lets us get rid of it later.  At most, we have places
where we can put stuff we don't want anymore, such as the Museum.

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

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cheez-Whiz + Llama

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> ThinMan's comments prompted me to go back and look at the Jaran Llama
> blueprint again.
> 
> > A Jaran Llama is an amber bananawood llama slightly larger than the 
> > gates separating the city of Acka from the Wilds of Ackanomia. It has a 
> > hidden compartment capable of carrying a fair number of people.
> > If a Jaran Llama is owned by an organization and each member of that 
> > organization within a seven day period consents to join another 
> > organization, publicly stating, "I am crawling into the belly of the 
> > llama, that <name> will be open to me," where <name> is the name of an 
> > organization, (refered to here as the adversarial organization,) then 
> > the Jaran Llama will do the following:
> > 
> > a)It will cause each member of the organization that owns it to become a 
> > member of the adversarial organization.
> > b)It will transfer itself to the adversarial organization. 
> 
> I have to agree with ThinMan that this is too powerful. Perhaps if it
> were amended to read "after three days the Jaran Llama will do the
> following", thus ensuring that everyone in the target Organization would
> at least know what hit them.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe not even then. After all, it is pretty
> traditional for Organizations to have full control over their own
> membership. (See CFJ 140 - or don't, actually: it's official text
> isn't terribly enlightening.)
> 
> > If an unburied Jaran Llama exists when another Jaran Llama is created, 
> > the newly created Jaran Llama will place itself in a random buried 
> > treasure. If a Jaran Llama is found as part of buried treasure, any 
> > other unburied Jaran Llama will place itself in a random buried 
> > treasure.
> 
> On first impression, I rather like this. But I could also see how it
> could be abused, and perhaps give the Treasure-Harfer some headaches
> to boot. It's also not clear what would happen if a Jaran Llama placed
> itself in a random buried treasure when a player had already crawled
> "into the belly of the llama".
> 
> breadbox
> 

I agree with everything anyone has said thus far about the Jaran Llama
being too powerful, I also agree with the statement that it is too easy
for an organization to make gadgets, even if Alfvaen has changed his mind.
frankly, I think gadgets in general are open to massive abuse.  If I could
see a way of retricting them that wouldn't kill them entirely, I would
propose it.  Ever since the Cheez-Whiz buisness though, I have sought in
vain for such measures, except for this one idea.  Some sort of review
board, which would have to vote in favor of allowing a blueprint to be
made available for use.  Am I alone in thinking that such a body might be
a good thing?  I'm sure that Vulcan would volunteer to handle the
duties... :)

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:35:03 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Pending IP

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Now, on his blatant refusal to release the results for CFCJ
> > whatever-it-is (am I the only one who forgets those numbers
> > instantly?), _that_ is more of an impeachable offense.  But I'll let
> > it ride unless he takes it to extremes.
> 
> Indeed. One delayed verdict must be balanced against months of
> sterling effort when considering something as important as grounds for
> Impeachment.
> 
> breadbox

Before we get sidetracked, I would like to remind everyone that the
pending IP is not about a delayed verdict (btw - it's not delayed yet)
but about an attempt by the Speaker to use the power of office for
personal gain of power, during the begining of this coup.
Voting against this IP will send a message to the Speaker and all
Officers, I blieve such a message is the wrong one to send.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: malenkai IP

> Are we vtoing on that IP yet, or does that start only on Friday. If
> we are voting on it, the I vote in favor of impeaching Malenkai.

When the IP proceedings begin, Count Tabula will make a public
announcement.

You will be able to vote then by sending your votes privately. (It's
not necessary to vote publicly unless you have some need to let
everyone to know how you stand, and I think in your case, Niccolo, we
had already guessed what your vote would be.)

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:43:24 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

> This is essentially what I tried and failed to convey in my earlier post.
> You claim that organizations are a "type" of entity, and yet the rules do
> not explicitly say they are.  You seem to argue that they must be a
"type"
> of entity, since they are entities but not just a generic entity.  From
> the rule, however, it seems like thre are actually two types of
> organizations, although (again) it does not explicity call them such.
> these are the Player-sacntioned organizations, and the Rules-sanctioned
> organizations.  

It will be interesting to see what happens because neither interpretation
has explicit support in the rules.  Obviously, I am going to stick with my
interpretation because it will stop Vulcan.  I think, and I say this
without meaning any disrespect, that many players have a lot of time and
effort tied up in their respective organizations and thus, will take the
opposing viewpoint.  Forgive me, but I believe that it comes down to what a
person wants to believe is the best way of viewing it will be the way it is
viewed.  Remember however:  I did not write these rules.  It is not my
fault that they are unclear, I am merely taking advantage of that fact. 
The argument for greater emphasis on what is in the rules (or what is not
in the rules) as opposed to game custom is that it makes it easier for a
new player to come in and shake things up by spotting something that was
overlooked.  Simply because it has been overlooked does not mean that game
custom says that it can't be used.  Believe me when I say that there are
other, nastier loopholes that have yet to be explored.  My motives (though
not my arguments) are based on two concepts.  One, it should be possible to
overthrow the Vulcan party within the rules.  Two, nomic as a game should
be constantly in flux, anything which encourages abiding by the status quo
for no other reason than "that's the way we thought it worked" is suspect.

> While I am on the subject, I am not sure if it is possible for players to
> join The Revolution as described in it's rule or not.  Rule 1003 states
> that any player may join an organization if they request membership and
> the organization grants the request.  The revolution rule, 2283, says
that
> any player may join by making a public action (unless they are a member
of
> Vulcan).  This is in conflict with Rule 1003, which takes precedence,
> unless the revolution is not a real, Rule 1003, defined organization at
> all.
> 
I hereby announce that anyone who asks to join the Revolution will be
admitted, with the exception of the members of Vulcan.  More expressly, I
invite anyone from the Rebellion to join.  The Revoultion, as I envision
it, will remain after all is over as a monument to the Rebellion's victory
over the Evil Tyrannical Overlords.  That is, assuming we win.

Balsamic Dragon

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #286
*******************************