Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #350
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Wednesday, October 29 1997      Volume 02 : Number 350

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

Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:35:52 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: [RFC] New Proposal Idea

> Proposal 23XX: Workin' on the Razor Gang

> Create a new Rule, having number being the least integer greater than 401
> which is currently not in use as a Rule Number, and having Title
> "Budget Cuts", with the following text delimeted by double double quotes:

It's usually sufficient to specify a Rule number uniquely(i.e. "430", in
this case); if you're worried about another Proposal in the queue taking
the number you specify, you can always renumber it first.  :-)  Hmmm...I
suppose if a Proposal attempted to create a Rule that already existed, that
entire creation would just fail...

> ""There exists the office of Razor Gang Member, with five Seats.  Four
> of the five seats have no expiry date, and shall always be held
> concurrently with other positions, to whit: The Speaker, The President, 
> and both Justices of the Supreme Court.  If the holder of any of these
> Seats, to be designated as Guaranteed Seats, ceases to hold the title by
> which they qualify to hold a Guaranteed Seat, then the Seat shall become
> vacant until such time as a replacement player holds the Office and Seat
> which qualify them to hold the Guaranteed Seat. 

This sounds more like an Organization, possibly a Unique Organization if
Niccolo Flychuck's reorganization proposal passes.  Which would put it more
in the 1000's, perhaps(although there is the precedent of the Senate...)
But I'd suggest that there be an office of "Hellrazor" or something, and
that the Razor Gang would consist of the President, Speaker, Justices, and
Hellrazor, with no possibility of anyone not a holder of one of those
Offices being a member.

> The fifth Seat, the Probationary Seat, shall be held by the Active player
> with least experience in Ackanomic who is eligible to hold it.  A player
> is eligible to hold this Seat if they have never held any seat in the
> Razor Gang.  This seat has an expiry date of 90 days.  If at any time
> there are no eligible players for this seat, then the paragraph in the
> rule entitled "Budget Cuts" commencing with "The fifth Seat" and ending
> with "shall be deleted." shall be deleted.

"Probationary Hellrazor"?  :-)  (See, there's an emoticon!)  So what you're
saying is that the newest player(who isn't Justice, Speaker, or President,
which I can tell you is probably pretty unlikely anyway, though of course
not impossible)is always the Probationary Hellrazor?  Or only when the
90-day term is up does the newest player get the seat?

> Each Week each member of The Razor Gang submits to the Speaker a Rule
> which they wish to have stricken from the ruleset.  The Speaker selects
> randomly from all such submissions (including eir own) one rule.  A Strike
> Vote is held, with a deadline of 7 days after the Speaker's general
> announcement of the submission selected.  Legitimate Votes on the Strike
> Vote are STRIKE, HOLD, and CARE LESS.  The rule is deleted from the
> ruleset unless quorum is achieved and more than 2/3rds of all votes
> received are HOLD votes.  All entities eligible to vote on proposals are
> eligible to vote on a Strike Vote.

It would cause much less confusion if this were done every month or so,
instead of every week.  Otherwise, with a 7-day voting deadline(which
should be a Hearing, under our rules), they'd start overlapping, and it
would really be a pain.  Also, what happens if one of the Razor Gang fails
to submit a Rule to cut?

Finally, the requirements to _keep_ the rule, 2/3 of all votes cast, are a
bit heavy.  I'd rather make it the same as a Proposal, so that 3/5 of votes
would have to be STRIKE, and the rule would be innocent until voted guilty.

Tell the truth, now--what you're trying to imply here is that our Ruleset
is too large, right?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Talking Heads:Remain In Light
Current Book--Stephen Leigh:Alien Tongue
When all you've got is lawyers, make lawyerade.  --d.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:07:43 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [RFC] New Proposal Idea

On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> Proposal 23XX: Workin' on the Razor Gang
> 
> Create a new Rule, having number being the least integer greater than 401
> which is currently not in use as a Rule Number, and having Title
> "Budget Cuts", with the following text delimeted by double double quotes:

> 
> Each Week each member of The Razor Gang submits to the Speaker a Rule
> which they wish to have stricken from the ruleset.  The Speaker selects
> randomly from all such submissions (including eir own) one rule.  A Strike
> Vote is held, with a deadline of 7 days after the Speaker's general
> announcement of the submission selected.  Legitimate Votes on the Strike
> Vote are STRIKE, HOLD, and CARE LESS.  The rule is deleted from the
> ruleset unless quorum is achieved and more than 2/3rds of all votes
> received are HOLD votes.  All entities eligible to vote on proposals are
> eligible to vote on a Strike Vote.

Heh, the very first thing our newest player proposes to do is cut down the
ruleset.  I wonder if he would be interested in reviving our once thriving
trade in PFs, perhaps by selling me some PFSlakkos?

> 
> --
> Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
> Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
> "Equipment malfunction." "Well, whack it." -- Obscure P&TB Quote
> CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS, CUANZSS, Archimedeans, CUDipSoc, how do I study?
> 
> 

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:27:56 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RFC: Proposal Idea

Proposal 23xy
Title: Simplicity in Bundling

Amend Rule 303 as follows:
Renumber sections II.2 and II.3 to II.3 and II.4 respectively.
Insert new section II.2, delinated below by double double quotes:

""Otherwise, if the proposal specifies that the rule created is related to
an existing rule, the rule shall be given the smallest cardinal number
greater than the cardinal number of the rule it is said to be related
to.""

Motivation: To keep the ruleset numbers dense in particular regions,
without people worrying about their rule numbers being set to the 2300s if
they guess wrongly.

Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
"Equipment malfunction." "Well, whack it." -- Obscure P&TB Quote
CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS, CUANZSS, Archimedeans, CUDipSoc, how do I study?

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:20:02 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal Idea

> Proposal 23xy
> Title: Simplicity in Bundling

> Amend Rule 303 as follows:
> Renumber sections II.2 and II.3 to II.3 and II.4 respectively.
> Insert new section II.2, delinated below by double double quotes:

> ""Otherwise, if the proposal specifies that the rule created is related to
> an existing rule, the rule shall be given the smallest cardinal number
> greater than the cardinal number of the rule it is said to be related
> to.""

> Motivation: To keep the ruleset numbers dense in particular regions,
> without people worrying about their rule numbers being set to the 2300s if
> they guess wrongly.

The problem here is that if a person specifies in their proposal that
the new rule is related to an existing rule, then why not just specify the
rule number you want?  I'd wager that the people whose rules go into the
2300s would still have them go there, because if they don't bother to
specify a rule number they won't bother to specify a related rule either.

And as far as "guessing wrongly" goes, frankly I think it's easier to
check the Rules(and Proposals in queue)to find out what Rule numbers are
and are not in use, so one won't decide "My rule should be number 406"
without bothering to check and see if that might happen to be in use.  In
my 5-6 months in the game, I can't remember someone specifying a rule
number that happened to be in use, though that clause is useful for the
hypothetical case where it does happen.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Kate Bush:Never For Ever
Current Book--Stephen Leigh:Alien Tongue
We're going to melt them down for pills and soap

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:36:44 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: [RFC] New Proposal Idea

>> The fifth Seat, the Probationary Seat, shall be held by the Active player
>> with least experience in Ackanomic who is eligible to hold it.  A player
>> is eligible to hold this Seat if they have never held any seat in the
>> Razor Gang.  This seat has an expiry date of 90 days.  If at any time
>> there are no eligible players for this seat, then the paragraph in the
>> rule entitled "Budget Cuts" commencing with "The fifth Seat" and ending
>> with "shall be deleted." shall be deleted.

If I understand this correctly, the first time there were no eligible
players, the 5th seat would disappear, never to return.  Is this the
correct interpretation, is this what you want, and how does this fit in
with the rest of the proposed rule that, if I remember correctly (now I'm
sorry I cut so much) depends on there being 5 seats?

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:41:31 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal Idea

Alfvaen wrote:
> And as far as "guessing wrongly" goes, frankly I think it's easier to
> check the Rules(and Proposals in queue)to find out what Rule numbers are
> and are not in use, so one won't decide "My rule should be number 406"
> without bothering to check and see if that might happen to be in use.  In
> my 5-6 months in the game, I can't remember someone specifying a rule
> number that happened to be in use, 

I think it happened once during Mohammed's organization re-org (which
established the org powers framework) and once since then when somebody
used the wrong rule number in their proposal by mistake.

> though that clause is useful for the
> hypothetical case where it does happen.

Of course, we have to have it to fill the gap in the rules that would
otherwise be there; if it was possible to make a rule without a number,
or two rules with the same number, by some collision of new rule numbers,
renumbering, etc., then somebody would do it just for the sake of doing
so, and the potential paradox win that would result.  (This almost makes
me want to add a bit to handle rules with the same number and rules without
numbers onto the precedence rule, but that is probably over-protective.)

/dev/joe
In the same way, if it was ever possible to have two enchantments in Magic:
the Gathering to be enchanting each other, somebody would do it.  The Licids
in Tempest, with Ashnod's Transmogrant and Titania's Song, may be able to.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:49:53 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Pheobe and the Machine

... so, I come home from the Library, and what do I find?  The Machine
that goes *ping* has invaded the Revolving Shed.  Why did it come here? 
I've spent weeks, months, years (OK, maybe not years) avoiding even the
thought of the Machine that goes *ping*, in the apparently futile (but, to
this point, deceptively successful) hope that it wouldn't think about
*me*, and my home would remain free of its incessant *ping*ing.  It was
just lying there silent, now, at any rate - but I've read the reports - I
know what to expect.  Any day now, it might *ping*.  Every day, I'd be
living in horrible nervous anticipation - would it *ping* today, or would
it be silent?  It's a curse, I'm sure - until some bright Student of
*ping* discovers its infernal Truth, and sets me free. 

"But what Truth?" I thought.

At that moment the ever-lovely Phoebe stepped from behind the Machine.

"Phoebe!" I exclaimed.  "Am I glad to see you!  But I never expected to
see you with the Machine.  How often do you do that?  (I suppose I could
check the archives.)"

"I suppose you could," she replied, with perhaps a touch of sarcasm.  "You
know, IF AND ONLY IF today ****** *** ****** *** ******* **** **** ******
** ** ******, THEN the Machine that goes *ping* shall go *ping*."  (The
sound of a Steel Flea pronouncing asterisks is one I'll long remember.)

"Um ... is that your wisdom?" I asked.

"No," she said, and disappeared.

"WHAT ABOUT THAT?" I yelled into the emptiness, "WAS _THAT_ YOUR WISDOM?"

But there was no answer.

- -mr cwm
 Scholar of *ping*
 who is aware that there is an awkward shift of tense in the above, but
 figures it could be worse

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:08:49 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I will be going out of town for a few days, and then I will
not have good access over the weekend, so I am hereby going
on vacation, expected duration five days.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:23:26 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal Idea

On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Proposal 23xy
> Title: Simplicity in Bundling
> 
> Amend Rule 303 as follows:
> Renumber sections II.2 and II.3 to II.3 and II.4 respectively.
> Insert new section II.2, delinated below by double double quotes:
> 
> ""Otherwise, if the proposal specifies that the rule created is related to
> an existing rule, the rule shall be given the smallest cardinal number
> greater than the cardinal number of the rule it is said to be related
> to.""

Well, this is an intersting idea, but we couldn't just go with "rule it is
said to be related to."  Who is saying this?  And when?  Do you intend
that people would say in their proposals something like "Create a new rule
related to rule 102..."? 

I admit that the ruleset can be confusing at times, but this system
wouldn't really help much even if we found a way to implement it.  There
would be many occassions when the first open spot under this criteria
wouldn't really be very clsoe to the rule it is supposed to be near.  So
we would end up with, say, some new rule on Voting procedure that is most
closely related to Rule 203 or something end up numbered 214, immediately
after a rule on CFJs that it has nothing to do with.

Also, I can't say I like the idea of having a ruleset without any real
gaps in the numbering.  It makes it very difficult to change the numbering
on existing rules around if there aren't any openings in the ruleset.  It
means that if you want to say, renumber Rule 214 from my example above to
204, you would have to also renumber, not just the current Rule 204, but
probably also Rules 205-213.

Self regulation of the rule numbering, while it might make things easier
in some ways, wouldn't really help us very much in my opinion.  Nor can I
see a practical wy of achieving it.

> Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
> Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
> "Equipment malfunction." "Well, whack it." -- Obscure P&TB Quote
> CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS, CUANZSS, Archimedeans, CUDipSoc, how do I study?

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:36:26 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RFC: New Proposal Idea #3

Let's try that again.

Proposal 23xx
Title: Mmmmm.. Convenient

Create a new Rule, Rule 918, titled "Vending Machines", as follows
delinated by double double quotes:

""There exists a class of unownable entities known as Vending Machines.
Vending Machines are relics of the old civilisation which have been
adopted by the modern world.  To this extent they are used to enable the
purchase of all Vendable Goods.  All entities which state in other rules
that they can be manipulated by vending machines are Vendable Goods.

A player may use a vending machine to acquire a Vendable Good.  Use of a
vending machine requires that A$25 be put into the Vending Machine, at
which point the money is funneled away to the Treasury.  When this money
is put in, the player shall have the choice of which item to select from
the Vending Machine's inventory.  Unless otherwise specified, all Vending
Machines are capable of vending all Vendable Goods.

A vending machine may only be used when a player is in the same Location
as a vending machine.  Vending machines are in the Library and the Museum
(all wings).""

Yours in the hope I'll have a good idea sooner or later,

Slakko

- --
Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
"Equipment malfunction." "Well, whack it." -- Obscure P&TB Quote
CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS, CUANZSS, Archimedeans, CUDipSoc, how do I study?

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 20:03:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ackaphysicist

E-mail me if you want to run for Ackaphysicist.  The nomination
lasts for 3 days.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:28:52 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: RFC: New Proposal Idea #3

> Let's try that again.

> Proposal 23xx
> Title: Mmmmm.. Convenient

> Create a new Rule, Rule 918, titled "Vending Machines", as follows
> delinated by double double quotes:

> ""There exists a class of unownable entities known as Vending Machines.
> Vending Machines are relics of the old civilisation which have been
> adopted by the modern world.  To this extent they are used to enable the
> purchase of all Vendable Goods.  All entities which state in other rules
> that they can be manipulated by vending machines are Vendable Goods.

Let me just say:  "Rule 594.4".

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--None of The Above:Tomatoe Potatoe
Current Book--Stephen Leigh:Alien Tongue
Be frightened.  Be terrified.  One day, your characters will come for you.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:13:13 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC: New Proposal Idea #3

On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > Let's try that again.
> 
> > Proposal 23xx
> > Title: Mmmmm.. Convenient
> 
> > Create a new Rule, Rule 918, titled "Vending Machines", as follows
> > delinated by double double quotes:
> 
> > ""There exists a class of unownable entities known as Vending Machines.
> > Vending Machines are relics of the old civilisation which have been
> > adopted by the modern world.  To this extent they are used to enable the
> > purchase of all Vendable Goods.  All entities which state in other rules
> > that they can be manipulated by vending machines are Vendable Goods.
> 
> Let me just say:  "Rule 594.4".
> 

I'll be more expansive, and point out that we already have some vending
machines, I think we may even have some "vendable goods."  Great minds
think alike :)

> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--None of The Above:Tomatoe Potatoe
> Current Book--Stephen Leigh:Alien Tongue
> Be frightened.  Be terrified.  One day, your characters will come for you.
> 

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #350
*******************************