Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #410
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, December 11 1997      Volume 02 : Number 410

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:45:41 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > > 
> > > But SPAM is dedicated to preventing misdemeanours!  What is the Party to
> > > do?  We'd have to submit 20 odd CFCJs, now, wouldn't we?  I'd rather not
> > > do this, but the rest of the Party might toe the official Party line.  You
> > > never know.
> > 
> > I didn't think the rule change made it a Crime to try and create
> > negatively valued trinkets, it simply makes the action fail because its
> > impossible.
> 
> Isn't attempting an impossible action a Crime?  It's trying to do
> something which the Rules don't allow, after all.
> (Can't I be allowed to interpret one thing correctly? :-))
> 

You're right this time. :)

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:49:04 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > 
> > Isn't attempting an impossible action a Crime?  It's trying to do
> > something which the Rules don't allow, after all.
> > (Can't I be allowed to interpret one thing correctly? :-))
> 
> You're right this time. :)
Let the news be trumpeted across Acka:

VYND DECLARES SLAKKO IS RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING! :-)

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:51:28 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> > As you can see, I don't buy your reading of Rule 103.  I've already
> > commented in another response as to why I don't think it makes any sense.
> > I didn't mention in that commentary, however, the fact that if we are to
> > read Rule 103 in the manner you suggest, then there is no reason why the
> > line should be drawn at Rule 362.
> 
> In which case we should obviously repeal Rule 103, because it really
> doesn't do us any good at all. Does it?

Rule 103 prevents other rules from causing things to happen retroactively.
it does not prevent Rules from TRYING to cause things to happen
retroactively.  This is similar to Rule 1 and Rule 2000.  Rule 2000 was
trying to do something illegal, according to Rule 1, but Rule 2000 didn't
prevent Rule 2000 from being created, it simply prevented Rule 2000 from
having its stated effects.  Furthermore, as I guess I will reiterate now,
Rule 362 does not create Rule 100.  Rule 362 describes a process through
which the rules can be changed, by the President.  The President writes a
document, and that document can cahnge the rules.  You could argue that
the document is creating Rule 100, or that the President is creating it,
but not Rule 362.  Again, as I have said, this would be like arguing that
all changes caused by proposal are actually casued by Rule 104.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:55:14 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> > 
> > > As you can see, I don't buy your reading of Rule 103.  I've already
> > > commented in another response as to why I don't think it makes any sense.
> > > I didn't mention in that commentary, however, the fact that if we are to
> > > read Rule 103 in the manner you suggest, then there is no reason why the
> > > line should be drawn at Rule 362.
> > 
> > In which case we should obviously repeal Rule 103, because it really
> > doesn't do us any good at all. Does it?
> 
> Rule 103 prevents other rules from causing things to happen retroactively.

Not very successfully, as Rule 100 will soon demonstrate.  So why keep it?
That was my question.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:56:33 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> This is similar to Rule 1 and Rule 2000.  Rule 2000 was
> trying to do something illegal, according to Rule 1, but Rule 2000 didn't
> prevent Rule 2000 from being created, it simply prevented Rule 2000 from
> having its stated effects.  

Actually, as Rule 2000, Rule 2000 did squat.  Rule 1 didn't prevent it
doing anything, because it didn't do anything.
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 19:04:08 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Everybody Stay Calm

> > Rule 103 prevents other rules from causing things to happen retroactively.
> 
> Not very successfully, as Rule 100 will soon demonstrate.  So why keep it?
> That was my question.

Rule 100 most likely will not do anything retroactively.  The game
state will be adjusted at the time rule 100 is created, *as if* the
proposal had not be accepted.  In other words, lots of offsetting 
transactions will occur in the game state behind the scenes to make
it so, but *at* that time.  How does it magically do this?  We don't
care, the rules say it is so, so it is so, sort of like the earth being
flat.

Now, the retroactivity thing will be needed at least two cases.  One,
if there was somehow a loss of information in all the transactions that
were actually performed and thus traditional rollback is impossible,
(unless we sift through them all, we won't  know that), and secondly,
if my argument about the history of the game state is correct (of course,
this may be even a bigger problem :-)).  For these reasons, its nice
to throw it in if *necessary*.

Now, addressing the issue of deleting rule 103.  We have been circumventing
rule 103 for a long time by creating a lower numbered rule with precedence
in this way.  Unless undiscovered contrary fact on this matter exists, it
works.  The reason not to delete rule 103 is that you have to go to 
these pains to get around it, thus it becomes a visibility issue 
(this was discussed a while back -- someone wanted to fold it into 101
 with its godlike precedence to make it even more of a visibility issue).

As for a rule claiming precedence over itself, that has been done before
and has not created a paradox.

Malenkai
Expert in Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:33:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Suggestions

> I suggest that Pumpkin Patch Nomic build a Pyriac Frobnotzer with
> its second Secret Lab.  I approve of this suggestion.

So I guess this fails.  I suggest Pumpkin Patch Nomic
give this back to Vulcan.  I approve of this suggestion.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:55:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt

On the matter of the Witchhunt against Rex Mundi,
the vote was 9-8 for 'No, E said the earth is flat'.

Witchfinder General

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:04:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: INP 355 Hearing start

If I wait until after P2452 passes, it will be very
unlikely that the result would get to the moderator
in time.  So this announces the hearing on the matter
of INP 355, to last 7 days.  Hopefully this will be the last
of these.  I would be easier if you waited until
after P2452 is PK, which will likely be sometime
this weekend, and send your votes to Balsamic Dragon
then.

Count Tabula

- -----

A proposal to create a new rule with the following text:

"
I.
A new nomic called 'PlayNomic' is hereby created. PlayNomic is a
non-voting member of Internomic. Its initial ruleset is as follows:

'
Iron Rules:
- --------------
90. PlayNomic is a Charter Nomic of Internomic. Its purpose is to 
develop and manage an environment where players of member nomic of 
Internomic can play various games together.
91. There are three types of rules. Iron rules, Immutable rules and
Mutable rules. Initially, rules in the 90's are Iron rules, rules
on the 100's are Immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable.
However rules subsequently enacted or transmuted regardless of their
numbers.
92. Iron rules may only be changed by an Internomic proposal.

Immutable Rules:
- ---------------
101 Obey the rules.
All players must abide by all the rules then in effect in the form in 
which they are written down.

102. Adopting proposals.
All proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on. Three
condition must be satisfied for a proposal to be adopted:
1) a quorum must have been achieved.
2) The required number of votes must have been cast in favor of the
proposal
3)the prescribed voting period must have elapsed.

103. 
Proposals Must Be Written Down 

Any proposed rule change must be written down  (or otherwise 
communicated in print or text based electronic media) before it is voted 
on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. 

104. Retroactivity

No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
before the generation of the effect. 

105. 
Making Proposals 

The proper way to make a proposal is to send it by electronic mail to 
the current Speaker. The Speaker must then distribute the proposal to 
all Players. The prescribed voting period begins at the moment that the
proposal is distributed by the Speaker.

106. 
Rule Changes That Affect Rule Changing Rules

Rule changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule changes are 
as permissible as other rule changes. Even rule changes that amend or 
repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule change is 
impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or 
self-application of a rule. 

107. 
Voting Options

Players may vote either for or against any proposal during the 
prescribed voting period. Players should send their vote by electronic 
mail to the Speaker before the end of the voting period. Players who do 
not vote within the prescribed period shall be deemed to have abstained. 

108. 
Permissibility Of The Unprohibited 

Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is 
permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the 
rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or 
implicitly permits it.

109
Numbering Proposals 

The Speaker shall give each proposal an ordinal number for reference. 
The numbers shall begin with 301, and each proposal properly submitted 
will receive the next successive ordinal, whether or not the  proposal 
is adopted.

110. What is a rule change?
A rule change may be one of the following:
1. The enactment, amendment or repeal of a mutable rule
2. The transmutation of a mutable rule to immutable or vice versa

111. Resolving conflicts.
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or 
more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the 
lowest effective ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the 
rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another 
rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of 
rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for 
determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence 
over one another, or to defer to one another, then the numerical method 
must again govern.  Mutable rules always defer to Immutable and Iron 
rules. Immutable rules always defer to Iron rules

112. Sovereignty.
The rules may be changed either by a proposal which has been accepted
according to the rules, or by an Accepted Internomic Proposal.

Mutable Rules:
- --------------
201. Quorum
Quorum is defined as 50% of the active players.

202.The prescribed voting period.
The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, from the 
moment  it is distributed by the speaker.

203.When Proposals Take Effect  

An adopted proposal takes effect at the moment the Speaker announces it 
has been adopted.

204. The Speaker, Players and Guests.
A player is anyone who is registered as a player. A person may register 
as  a player by notifying the Speaker that e is registering as a player.
Any person who is a player of a nomic which is a member of Internomic 
may register as a player of PlayNomic. No other person may register as a 
player. The first Speaker will be appointed by the Internomic Moderator.

The Speaker is also a player, and may submit proposals and vote on
proposals.

Any player of a nomic which is a member nomic of Internomic may become a 
Guest by notifying the Speaker of PlayNomic that e is becoming a Guest.
Guest may participate in sub games, and may acquire awards in accordance 
with the rules. Guests may not vote on PlayNomic proposal, and may not 
submit such proposals. Guests may not be Referees in sub games.
Guests may submit CFJs.

205. Calls For Judgement.
1.
Any player who has a question or complaint about any matter concerning 
the laws and their interpretation may email their statement to the 
Speaker,
who will then distribute it to the rest of the Players. A call for
judgement is then incurred on that statement. 

2.When Judgement has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected from
among the other registered players by the Speaker. The player selected 
has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the appointment by posting to 
the Speaker. Any player who does not respond to selection in 3 days is 
deemed to have refused appointment. If a selected player
refuses appointment, then a further random selection is made from the
remaining pool. 

3. 
Having accepted the appointment, a Judge has exactly one week in which 
to post an official Judgement. 

4.There are only three possible Judgements:  (1) True; (2) False; or (3) 
Invalid. A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons an arguments, but any 
such reasons and arguments form no part of the official Judgement 
itself. 

5.All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules then in 
effect.
When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in
question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game 
custom and the spirit of the game in reaching a decision. 

6. If any player feels the judgement is wrong, e may appeal it by 
invoking an Internomic call for justice. The statement must call to 
change the verdict the of the CFJ, and to what verdict it should be 
changed.

7.
If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be true, 
and that Judgement is not overruled, it does not thereby become a rule, 
or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of currently 
accepted game custom until such a time as it is overturned or
superceded.

206. Required number of Votes.
The required number of yes votes for a proposal to be accepted in 3/5 of 
the number of legal votes cast on that proposal.

207. Each player has exactly one vote per proposal

208. A player may retract any proposal e has authored, provided the 
voting period for that proposal has not elapsed yet, by posting a public 
message to that effect.

209. The Speaker is also the Liaison to Internomic.
Whenever a decision has to be made in Internomic, the Speaker will post
all relevant  information, and specify all the possible outcomes, and 
all the players shall vote on it, by sending at most one vote each to 
the Speaker.
If out of all the possible outcomes at least one receives over 40% of 
the votes, and it also receives the highest number of votes, then that 
outcome becomes the decision of PlayNomic. If no outcome receives at 
least 40% then the Speaker shall present the two possible outcomes that 
received  the largest number of votes, and players vote for either of 
those two outcomes. The one that receives the largest number of votes 
becomes the decision of PlayNomic.
Should it not be possible to execute the second round of voting due to
ties. Then no decision is taken.

The voting period on Internomic decision is 7 days or until all the
players have voted, whichever comes first.

210. Awards Committee.
The Speaker shall appoint an Awards Committee. Whenever there is no 
awards Committee, then the Speaker becomes the Awards Committee, until 
such a time as he has appointed an Awards Committee.
The Awards Committee is made up of 1-3 players. It is the duty of the
Awards Committee to keep track of all awards, tangible and intangible 
given to Players and Guests as a result of participation in subgames.
Should a player decide to transfer any of eir Tangibles to another 
nomic, and the transfer succeeds, then the Awards Committee  need no 
longer track that entity.
' 

II. The moderator of Internomic shall appoint a PlayNomic's First 
Speaker, pending the appointed person's agreement. The Appointed player 
must be an active player of a nomic which is a member of Internomic.

III. Once PlayNomic has a Speaker, this rule will be amended to read in 
full:
'PlayNomic is a Charter Nomic of Internomic. Its purpose is to develop 
and manage an environment where players of member nomic of Internomic 
can play various games together. Initially it is a non-voting member of 
Internomic, although its status can be changed to voting in accordance 
with the rules. 
Should it ever become the case that PlayNomic has no players, it will 
continue to exist, and the first player to join PlayNomic will become 
its New Speaker.'

"

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

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:54:48 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Suggestions

Malenkai wrote:
> > I suggest that Pumpkin Patch Nomic build a Pyriac Frobnotzer with
> > its second Secret Lab.  I approve of this suggestion.
> 
> So I guess this fails.  I suggest Pumpkin Patch Nomic
> give this back to Vulcan.  I approve of this suggestion.

I suggest Vulcan accept the Frobnotzer from Pumpkin Patch Nomic.
I approve of this suggestion.

/dev/joe

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #410
*******************************