Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #337
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, October 16 1997      Volume 02 : Number 337

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

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:39:44 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PSOPS

I am founding an organization called "The Player Sanctioned Organization 
Preservation Society," with an open admission policy.

Somehow I expect it'll attract the right sort of folk.

**two-star

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

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:26:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PSOPS

two-star wrote:
> I am founding an organization called "The Player Sanctioned Organization 
> Preservation Society," with an open admission policy.

I am joining The Player Sanctioned Organization Preservation Society.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 01:28:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Machine

/dev/joe did not post a truth within 7 days.  The machine
teleports to Calvin N Hobbes house.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 01:32:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chorg & Otzma stuff

> A check of the records shows that 4 pages of my spell book of chorg have
> been read. (2 by malenkai, then 2 by me)  I am reading the 5th page of
> my Spell Book of Chorg.

Not exactly accompanied by the 'pyrotechnic description' :-).  No one
else objected, so I won't.  IAC, an Automatic Sculpture comes out.  Note
that I harfed it under the assumption that no Pyriac Frobnotzer or Null
Gadget blueprints exist, which I think is a reasonable assumption.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:10:16 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC : Organization/Institution reform

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> 
> Now this is a point I can agree with.  The single player orgs do seem
> to violate the spirit of organizations.  I suggest you simply make org
> powers be dormant when an org has less than 3 members; make up some name
> for 1 or 2 player orgs, which will only be allowed to perform the org
> actions of accepting new members and disbanding. [anything else?]

ThinMan's counter RFC attempts that. In fact it is probably the only point
in that Counter RFC which I like

> Keep the bit about disbanding generic orgs with fewer than 3 members
> a week after the new rule takes effect.

ThinMan's counter RFC doesn't do that. This may be a good thing to put in
Organizations, regardless of which model eventually comes to be.
> 
> Drop the membership drive bit for parties; a party is an org with a
> big tent and 3 or more members.

This is exactly what I want to avoid "Look it's a Party, no it's a Church.
No it's ..ehh I don't know what it is, let's go home."

I don't like the idea of a Church buying a Big Tent and becoming a Party
too, because of the differences in style between the two Organizations.
Sure, the members of one such Organization can band together to make the
other type as well  (history refference, Vulcan Party and Church of
Seleya) but then a player can leave one and remain a member of the other
(history refference Niccolo Flychuck leaving the Vulcan Party and
remaining for a long while afterwards a member of the Church of Seleya)

This would still be done with your model- butit would be effectively
discouraged, since the same group of players would readily just get more
Powers within the same Organiztion. Under the pre-Mohamedan we player of
two different Parties ( but not all the members of those Parties) form
together a Church. The Church division differed from the Party
division.And it is no accident that the Markovian Church disbanded some
time after the Mohamedan reform. 

I like Organizations to have type and then be able to add some power. It
puts the Organization is some context. Each rule-defined type of
Organization has some advantages inherent in the type it chooses. It does
not have some other advantages other Organizations might have. It makes
the game just a bit more interesting.

 >  An org with a tradelicense and 3
> or more members is a corporation.  [Change all those "trade-licensed
> organizations" in the synod rule to "corporations".]  A player-sanctioned

I don't mind naming them. 

> org that is not a church, party, or corporation, but has 3 or more members,
> is a society. (i.e., TMBSG)  [Later, if somebody comes up with another

This could be part of the ammendment. I don't mind calling them Society,
but I'd rather define Society by a rule, and  get rid of all thsi
player-sanctioned stuff.

Niccolo Flychuck

> org power which marks a different type of org, we can add it to this list
> if that's appropriate.]
> 
> /dev/joe
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:36:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: RFC : Organization/Institution reform

On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> Can you be a little more specific?  What, exactly, would Churches lose?
> 
> Without having examined the matter in much depth, I would currently
> support an attempt to bring Churches closer under the Organizational
> umbrella.

The same umbrella I want to change :)

Churches have the following properties:
1. An internal hierarchical structure, of which three-tiers are visible
   outside the Church.
2. An internal enforceable Policy, which , without breakingOdo Policy
(althought currently one might argue that Odo being a Cult, it is not
enforceable) I can reveal that Odo's Policy is a nomic like self-ammending
Policy. This clause should also note that there is also a default Policy
3. Default procedures for decision making and taking actions as an
Organization, procedures which pre date the Mohamedan reform.
4. Trade License like power explicitly given in the rules.

Now this last one might prompt you to break up the Organization Power that
might a Church into a  Trade License plus something. I find that idea
unattractive since I don't want to see Organizations which are half
Churches. Nor do I want to equate Trade Licensed Organizations with
Churches.

Note that the above are properties of the Church. Organizationl Power are
defined in terms of actions an Organization can take.  
I know it's possible to create a very convoluted rule that will endow an
Organization with these properties once it has purchased certain
Organizations Powers, but that's exactly what it would be, a very
convoluted rule.  
The Church rule associates some  elements of its growth to the presence of
the Founder. 
Rephrasing this with Organizationl Power language would make it very
unaesthetic, and to me, very unattractive.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > > 
> ThinMan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of acka-research-digest V2 #161
> ***********************************
> 

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:36:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC : Organization/Institution reform

> And it is no accident that the Markovian Church disbanded some
> time after the Mohamedan reform.

Huh?  The CoMD collapsed because its members left the game.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:16:51 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: PSOPS

Two-star wrote:

> I am founding an organization called "The Player Sanctioned
> Organization 
> Preservation Society," with an open admission policy.
> 
I am joining The Player Sanctioned Organization Preservation Society.

> Somehow I expect it'll attract the right sort of folk.
> 
Indeed.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:51:34 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PSOPS

> I am founding an organization called "The Player Sanctioned Organization 
> Preservation Society," with an open admission policy.
> 
I am joining the PSOPS.

> Somehow I expect it'll attract the right sort of folk.
> 
As well as me.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:56:32 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: counter-RFC

While I did not receive through the mailing list. I have no doubt that it
was intended for the mailing list, (considering the
refferences to me in the third person, and addresses to the
general populace)  and therefore I will reply to the mailing list

 On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> > It is a definition that allows the rules to create individual
> > Organizations.  By your argument the quoted text is entirely
> > redundant.
> > The current language on that specific matter is, IMO, better.
> > 
> That second statement is mostly correct.  The only effect the quoted
> text has is to define the term "Rule-sanctioned Organization."  If the
> text were entirely excised it would not prevent rules from creating and
> defining Organizations just as the Churchrule does now.  We just would
> have no rule-founded term by which to refer to such organizations as a
> group.  
Right.

> Or do you claim that a rule which says "There exists an
> Organization named The Debating Club; its members are ThinMan and
> Niccolo Flychuck," would not, in fact, create and define an Organization
> without the current rule 1003 wording or something similar?

I made no such claim. I specifically said that the phrasing was
restrictive, and in fact any phrasing is restrictive, rather than
permissive. 
Similarly the lack of specifying a method for joining an Organization does
not restrict such membership, but rather permits it. Except for those
cases where memberhsip is defined for the specific Organizations. For
Unique Organizations my RFC depends on definitions
elswhere in the rules, such as the Offices definitions for Senate and
Party Hall, or the definitions in the rules themselves.

> Yes, but the Senate ought not to be able to accept members from the
> populace at large.  Or the Synod.  This is actually not a problem with
> your version of the RFC, as it makes no provision for players joining
> organizations in general.  And as I said, it would mostly be covered
> by precedence under mine.  I just don't like relying on precedence to
> make things work correctly (especially numerical precedence).

> 
> > > I'm for organizations that have whatever combination of abilities
> > and
> > > powers that they care to have, can afford, and are legal. 
> > 
> > With some basic template chosen among the current ones. As far legal
> > is
> > concerned, we are currently debating what we want eventually to be
> > legal.
> > 
> This is, apparently, the center of our philosophical difference.  I see
> no reason why we need multiple templates to describe groups of players.
> You prefer to have mutually exclusive categories, each customizable
> to some degree.  I would prefer to have a single, but more freely
> customizable, category; or, to look at it another way, non-exclusive
> categories.
So you see that I am not arguing against customizability, and I'm not
arguing against Organizational Powers. I see them as enhancing
Organizations rather than defining them.

> 
> Niccolo brought up the prospect of a Church buying a Big Tent and
> becoming a political party as well, which he found distasteful. 
The members of a Church would still have the option of forming a Party. 
> I see
> nothing wrong with that, personally.  My problem is that the opposite
> is impossible: a party cannot easilly become a Church. 
The members of a Party can form a Church. Initially, the Church and the
Party will have the same membership, but the fact that they are two
seperate Organizations, will give the memebrs more freedom. 
 > There is an
> inequity there.  Niccolo did point out that there may be advantages to
> having seperate organizations with similar or identical membership
> filling these roles, and I agree.  However, I see no advantage
> whatsoever to _forcing_ the organizations to be seperate. 

And I see no disadvantage.

> I don't
> want Big Brother telling me what's best -- I want to be free to make my
> own decision. 

I believe that my way allows for the same freedom, and encourages more
freedom of choice. It encourages unrelated membership in different types
of Organizations.
The Mohamedan model encourages one group to take on take on additional
powers. 
If I form a Church some of whose members are also members of existing
Parties, then turning the Church into a Party will force those people to
either leave the Church, their other Party, or become Criminals.
Contrariwise, if I form another Organization which is a Party, shares some
of the Church's ideology, then the two can co-exist, without forcing the
hand of all Church members. 

 > Also, the more generalized we make it, the more avenues
> for play are open.  Certainly this principle can be taken to extremes,
> but I don't think we have even begun to approach them.

> 
> > > I don't see
> > > the point of assigning type names, except insomuchas it allows other
> > > rules to treat subclasses of Organizations individually with less
> > > verbiage. 
> > 
> > It's not about assigning type name, it's about defining types. When
> > players form an Organizationthey should consider the pros and cons of
> > various of each existing type and choose the one that best suits their
> > tastes and their goals, instead of making the pointless no-choice of
> > generic Organization.  This is about making choices that mean
> > something.
> > The Mohamedan Organizationl Reform introduced a form of free-wheeling
> > into
> > Organization which lacks the kind of social responsibility I associate
> > with the concept.
> > 
> Social responsibility?  I don't think you and I are working from the
> same definitions or assumptions.  As I see it, players now form an
> Organization and then obtain those organizational powers which make the
> Organization suit their tastes and goals.  Churches are somewhat of a
> special case, but the same still applies to them to some degree.  It is
> this model that I would like to see developed -- Organizations that are
> categorized according to the powers and characteristics chosen by the
> members.  I simply don't see any need for or advantage to the kind of
> exclusionary typing Niccolo is advocating.
> 
> Even if we want restrictions on the possible combinations of
> Organizational Powers/abilities/characteristics, however, we can
> easilly incorporate it into the Mohammedan-style framework.  For
> example: "Organizations that own Big Tents may not purchase Altars"
> appended to the Big Tents rule or to the hypothetical "Altars" rule.
> That is neither messy nor convoluted in my opinion.

Messy or convoluted was a refference to a hypothetical Altar rule, which I
have yet to see even a draft of.
> 
> Once a generic organization obtains one or more Powers then it is no
> longer generic as far as I am concerned.  There is all the choice that
> is necessary.  Consider, for instance: is there a fundamental difference
> between forming a three-player organization, giving it A$ 300, and
> buying a Big Tent on the one hand, and forming a political party
> according to Niccolo's proposed revision on the other?  
The reason there is no fundamental difference is that my revision is
mostly a revision into a previous form of the Party rule, the Big Tent
rule being a translation of that rule into Mohamedan language. The reason
for that being that Mohammed originally wanted to nuke all the Parties as
part of eir reform, and had it not been done this way it would have never
passed.

 > To take full
> advantage of communal ownership, a group can form an organization and
> buy a trade license.  How is that different from forming an organization
> of hypothetical type "Corporation"?

Not much. If it's not that different, then why do you object so much?

> 
> I like modular.  I like customizable.  And I like flexible.
It the sentences were no so short I would almost think it was pasted from
one of my texts :)

I also like all of the above, and I believe that all of the above work
better on a sound basis.

> 
> 
> ThinMan
> (Anyone remember GURPS?)
> 

As far as supporting or not support, I fully expect everyone to vote as
they feel.  If the proposal in the form I will submit it, then I may break
it up into more than one proposal. I don't think I was ever one for 'safe'
proposals'as the large number of my failed proposals demonstrates. But
there are changes that I feel need to be done - such as getting
Organizations back to being Organizations, and not just a tool for gaining
power. I think any that actions and decisions that have only advantages
are not conductive to an interesting game. Real choices are made between
options that carry different advantages, or that have an implicit
disadvantage, or even an element of risk.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:51:11 -0500
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Organizations, Institutions, etc...

I've been following the reorganization discussion as best I could,
though I was and still am fairly unfamiliar with the finer rule details.
 If someone could respond to these questions, even if they are obvious
to _everyone_ else in the game, I would appreciate it.

1)  The purpose of the two RFC's that I've seen seems to be to combine
Institutions and Organizations into one category (or to remove
Institutions and create special cases for the already existing ones).
Right?

2)  A bone of contention is the concept of player-sponsored
organizations, as opposed to rule-sponsored organizations.  What is the
main argument against player-sponsored organizations?  Rule-sponsored
organizations are those that are proposed and voted on as normal,
correct?

3)  As the rules stand now, a single player could publicly announce that
e is creating an organization, and buy a big tent and a trade license.
Is this statement correct, and is this something that you are also
trying to change?

Thanks,

Fortunato

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:24:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Organizations, Institutions, etc...

> 1)  The purpose of the two RFC's that I've seen seems to be to combine
> Institutions and Organizations into one category (or to remove
> Institutions and create special cases for the already existing ones).
> Right?

Right.

> 2)  A bone of contention is the concept of player-sponsored
> organizations, as opposed to rule-sponsored organizations.  What is the
> main argument against player-sponsored organizations?  Rule-sponsored
> organizations are those that are proposed and voted on as normal,
> correct?

I think the main issue is that single-player organizations violate
the spirit of the organizational powers.  Niccolo Flychuck has some
additional objections.

> 3)  As the rules stand now, a single player could publicly announce that
> e is creating an organization, and buy a big tent and a trade license.
> Is this statement correct, and is this something that you are also
> trying to change?

Yes.  The big tent wouldn't get the player any extra votes, but it would
get him a swinger's office.  Of course, there is already a way for players
to buy their own swinger's office, so I don't see this as a problem.
The problem is that the trade license allows a single player to create an
organization which can take advantage of certain loopholes (of course,
the loopholes are as much at fault here as the possibility of single-
player orgs), and the secret lab does not feel right in the hands of single
players.  (Imagine if players had private *armies* -- that was another
org power which failed.)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: What Phoebe said.

"Vynd!" a voice out of nowhere cried.

I paused in my pacing around the concrete lot that surrounds The Faceless
State.  This was new.  Normally the voices just whispered.

"Yes God?" I shouted, looking around.  "Could you come a little closer, I
can't see you."

"No no Vynd, it's me, Phoebe."  I looked down, and there she was, standing
right next to...

I hunkered down to get a better look.  "Phoebe!  So good to see you!  But
what happened to your Matchbox?"

"It's been vandalized," Phoebe said.  "I was bored since I hadn't had
anyone to talk to in awhile, so I took a short vacation to visit my
family.  When I came back, someone had spray painted my Matchbox orange!"

I was aghast, struck almost dumb as the implications of what I had thought
to be a simple redecoration job sank in.  Phoebe continued to speak, but I
was barely listening.  Something about borrowing some turpentine...

I leapt to my feet.  "Phoebe!  The Orange Menace must have done this!"  I
began pacing anew.  "How dare they sully the Matchbox of the beloved
Phoebe with their orangeness!  This is awful.  You know what it means
though, don't you?  They are trying to sow dissention in Acka by
associating you with the Orange.  Even for me, ever on guard against
the Agents of Orange, the sight of your familiar Matchbox painted glowing
Orange strikes fear into my heart.  Surely though, by drawing you into the
struggle, thy have sown the seeds of their demise.  For you are wise, and
surely have come to advise us on how best to combat this Menace."  Quickly
I spun and strode back towards Phoebe.  "Tell me Phoebe!  What must we do
to crush..."  *CRUNCH*

Phoebe sighed.  "Oh dear."

Slowly I looked down.  I moved my foot.  Phoebe's Matchbox was rather flat
now, except for this one part where the tread of my boot had created a
relief map of sorts.

Phoebe sighed again, grabbed the Matchbox, and slowly dragged it towards
the chainlink fence around the lot.  I watched her go, to ashamed even to
apologize.  Just as she was leaving though, I cried out.

"But Phoebe, what about the Orange Menace?  What about the wisdom you came
to give us?"

Phoebe stopped, put down the Matchbox, and looked at me.  "You want some
wisdom, eh Vynd?  Well watch your step."  And then with one mighty heave,
Phoebe and her Matchbox disappeared into the underbrush.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:24:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: New Observer

A fellow by the name of Oren Bassik <[email-masked]> has asked to be set
up as an observer of this fine game.  So he's now watching everything we say
and do.  So let's...let's pretend that we're playing, I mean, um, just get
on with playing Numic, shall we?  Nomic!  I meant Nomic.  Numic?  What's
that?  Ha ha!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Police:Walking On The Moon
Current Book--Dean R. Koontz:Midnight
A little delve'll do ya.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #337
*******************************