Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #49
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Thursday, March 5 1998        Volume 03 : Number 049

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 00:31:54 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Praetor

Since nobody else has done so, I hereby volunteer for the Office of
Praetor, and am thus thereto appointed.  Or maybe Count Tabula has
to officially announce it...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Jon & Vangelis:Page of Life
Current Book--Zane Grey:Nevada
Questions of a zealous nature have become by degrees petty waxen jokes.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 01:02:41 -0500 (EST)
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The *Ping* is Gone

****** wrote:

> (If it is the case that two-star is simply too busy to report the
> *ping*ing, I apologize, but we need a new Scholar in that case too.)
> 
> -******

I kinda got bored with it. Best of luck to the next scholar.

**two-star

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 01:04:20 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: The *Ping* is Gone

> Due to eir attempts to hide the true Truth of the Machine from the rest of
> us, I am calling for the removal of two-star as Scholar.

It looks like this happened, and Hubert is the new Scholar of *ping*.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Jon & Vangelis:Page of Life
Current Book--Zane Grey:Nevada
*/ \*  <- Tribbles having a swordfight

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 01:17:15 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Praetor

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> 
> Since nobody else has done so, I hereby volunteer for the Office of
> Praetor, and am thus thereto appointed.  Or maybe Count Tabula has to
> officially announce it... 
> 

Okay.  I announce it.

hibert
Count Tabula

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 01:24:01 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Ice

Bill the pirate king is just barely overdue from eir Vacation and is
thus On Ice.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Weird Al Yankovic:Another One Rides The Bus
Current Book--Zane Grey:Nevada
"Your bag!  Suddenly!  Here!  Now--gone!"

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 02:55:52 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Its not my fault!

Memo to myself:  Do the dumb things I gotta do, touch the puppet head.

I would just like to disavow any responsibility for the recent quorum
failure.  I choose to abstain as a cost-cutting measure, clearly different
from most of the slackers who got us into this mess.  I say, hang em!

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 03:00:16 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Its not my fault!

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> Memo to myself:  Do the dumb things I gotta do, touch the puppet head.
> 

Sigh.

Memo to myself:  Do the dumb things I gotta do.  Touch the Puppet Head.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 03:02:53 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Its not my fault!

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> Memo to myself:  Do the dumb things I gotta do, touch the puppet head.
> 
> I would just like to disavow any responsibility for the recent quorum
> failure.  I choose to abstain as a cost-cutting measure, clearly different
> from most of the slackers who got us into this mess.  I say, hang em!

I hang all those who received a Puppet Head.  Except Vynd, and me, of
course.  Hanging is not regualted by the rules, so this occurs.

Hibert.
z
> 
> 
>                                   - Vynd
> 
> [email-masked]
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 03:05:13 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:  Senate nomination

I am now accepting nominations for the senate seat (melvin?) formerlly
held by Balsamic Dragon.

Reply to do the self-nomination thing.

hibert
your rather slow Count Tabula

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 03:09:25 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: ambassador nomination

I am now taking nominations for office of Ambassador, formerly held by the
late Balsamic Dragon.

Reply to do you-know-what.

hibert

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 09:19:29 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Quorum Failure

Ouch.  I feel stupid, yet part of some greater whole.

Memo to myself:  Do the dumb things I gotta do.  Touch the Puppet Head.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Brian Raiter [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Wednesday, March 04, 1998 8:32 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Acka: Quorum Failure
>
>In accordance with Rule 207, the following players have been issued
>Puppet Heads along with their five-point penalties:
>

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 09:46:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Stocks

This seems like an interesting, easily manipulated investment.  I wish to
buy 30 stocks.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 10:50:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stocks

Er...  never mind.  It appears that it far easier to artificially CRASH
the market than to inflate it.  I am selling my 30 shares.

GF

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> This seems like an interesting, easily manipulated investment.  I wish to
> buy 30 stocks.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:03:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Making the Harf go round

As Harfmeister, I declare proposals 2754, 2755 and 2757 as Harfy.

Long live the Harf,
CnH

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:07:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Memo To Myself

> Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the Puppet Head.
> 
> breadbox
> feeling DUMB DUMB DUMB
> 

Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the Puppet Head.

TGW
feeling equally dumb.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 15:54:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Memo To Myself

Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the Puppet Head.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 16:28:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Supreme Court reform RFC

>Should a Seat in the Office of Justice remain vacant for three days, or
>should such a Seat be vacant for any length of time if there are no
>players eligible to fill it, it is the privelege of the President to
>appoint a willing player to fill that Office.  The appointee fills the
>empty Justice seat, regardless of their eligibility stated elsewhere in
>this Rule.  Within the first week of eir Justicehood, the Senate may, as
>an organizational action, remove the appointee from office.  Players who
>held the office of Justice for less than one week are not considered
>former Justices for the pruposes of this or other Rules.

I would prefer that the Senate have two weeks to remove the new Justice
from office; it is possible that an Organization is unable to act within
one week if a member is incommunicado.  The change from one to two weeks
seems to be of little other significance.

>2.  If there are no Active Cortices, e shall assign the CFJ to the
>Undermanned Cortex that is already considering the fewest CFJ's.  If
>multiple Undermanned Cortices are tied for this distinction, e shall
>choose randomly among them.

This raises a question about Cortex ownership.  In principle, it might
be preferrable for two Unermanned Cortices to glom together into a single,
Active Cortex, so as to always have two Justices for each decision as
long as there are at least two Justices to begin with.  I know, that adds
layers of complication.

>Amend the last paragraph of Rule 417 (Justices Rock) to read, "When a CFJ
>is assigned to the Supreme Cortex that a Justice or Acting Justice owns,
>that Justice or Acting Justice may, as a public action, decline Judgment
>on that CFJ.  In this case, an Acting Justice is selected to act as an
>owner of that Supreme Cortex with respect to that CFJ only, in the
>original Justice's or Acting Justice's stead; the procedure used to select
>the Acting Justice is in this case the same as if the original Justice or
>Acting Justice had gone on Vacation."

It might be preferrable to make provision for the owner of a different Cortex
to be able to be the Acting Justice in a case such as this.  Liekwise for
Vacations.  This, too, adds complication, of course.

>However, unless at least three Justices or half the Supreme Court,
>rounding down, (whichever is lower) post a public message explicitly stating 
>their support of the re-appeal within a week following the re-appeal, the
>Supreme Court's most recent verdict is automatically upheld, and the CFJ
>may not be appealed further.  

How about having second appeals go to the full Court instead of this
dormancy/approval requirement?  And limit it to two appeals?

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 16:39:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: EBS

I suggest that The Moral Kiosk give its Evil Ballot Stuffer to me. I approve
of this suggestion.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 16:39:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Quorum Failure

>In accordance with Rule 207, the following players have been issued
>Puppet Heads along with their five-point penalties:
>
>Rex Mundi

Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the puppet head.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 16:56:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Supreme Court reform RFC

I can see what you mean.  The situation you're addressing is part of a
larger problem, though -- if two Cortices are deeply divided on an issue,
players can appeal and re-appeal, the final verdict being decided (rather
arbitrarily) by who got the last word in when the appeal limit ran out.
Basically, under this original RFC, the 2nd appeal goes to a body at the
same level as the first, which causes problems.

I'm beginning to prefer letting the second (and final) appeal go to the
Supreme Court as a whole, as ThinMan suggested.  This shouldn't cause too
much of a delay in judgment, since a two player body must reach unanimity
to get a majority opinion, but the Court as a whole would only need a
majority decision (and honestly, by the time the second appeal comes
around, it's often a matter of not what the Rules say, or not what clear
game custom exists, but simply a subtle bit of interpretation that's never
come up before; in such cases, a simple majority of the Justices favoring
one definition over another is probably as good a way as any to decide the
matter).

GF

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 17:10:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Supreme Court reform RFC

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> >Should a Seat in the Office of Justice remain vacant for three days, or
> >should such a Seat be vacant for any length of time if there are no
> >players eligible to fill it, it is the privelege of the President to
> >appoint a willing player to fill that Office.  The appointee fills the
> >empty Justice seat, regardless of their eligibility stated elsewhere in
> >this Rule.  Within the first week of eir Justicehood, the Senate may, as
> >an organizational action, remove the appointee from office.  Players who
> >held the office of Justice for less than one week are not considered
> >former Justices for the pruposes of this or other Rules.
> 
> I would prefer that the Senate have two weeks to remove the new Justice
> from office; it is possible that an Organization is unable to act within
> one week if a member is incommunicado.  The change from one to two weeks
> seems to be of little other significance.

This is a simple change to make, and if the Seanate needs more time, so be
it.  I had decided on one week to limit the damage a rogue Justice could
do if e was the only member of the Supreme Court (and a Presidential
appointee could very well be a sole Justice).  However, the Justice's
successors could clean up after him with AOJ powers, if need be.  
 
> >2.  If there are no Active Cortices, e shall assign the CFJ to the
> >Undermanned Cortex that is already considering the fewest CFJ's.  If
> >multiple Undermanned Cortices are tied for this distinction, e shall
> >choose randomly among them.
> 
> This raises a question about Cortex ownership.  In principle, it might
> be preferrable for two Unermanned Cortices to glom together into a single,
> Active Cortex, so as to always have two Justices for each decision as
> long as there are at least two Justices to begin with.  I know, that adds
> layers of complication.

It would be preferable to have two Justices for each decision, but I have
a feeling that if the situation you describe ever comes up, Acka has worse
problems than a need to consolidate the Supreme Court.  I will elaborate
on this, but the post is rather long and possibly of limited interest, so
I will make it to acka-research.  Honestly, if this situation ever
developed and the Justices refused to correct it voluntarily, it would
probably be better to let the players impeach them than to consolidate the
Cortices.  I don't think the added complexity is appropriate here.

> >Amend the last paragraph of Rule 417 (Justices Rock) to read, "When a CFJ
> >is assigned to the Supreme Cortex that a Justice or Acting Justice owns,
> >that Justice or Acting Justice may, as a public action, decline Judgment
> >on that CFJ.  In this case, an Acting Justice is selected to act as an
> >owner of that Supreme Cortex with respect to that CFJ only, in the
> >original Justice's or Acting Justice's stead; the procedure used to select
> >the Acting Justice is in this case the same as if the original Justice or
> >Acting Justice had gone on Vacation."
> 
> It might be preferrable to make provision for the owner of a different Cortex
> to be able to be the Acting Justice in a case such as this.  Liekwise for
> Vacations.  This, too, adds complication, of course.

Here, the added complexity is probably worthwhile.  It shouldn't be too
hard to change, either -- just change the selection processes for the
fill-in Justice.

> >However, unless at least three Justices or half the Supreme Court,
> >rounding down, (whichever is lower) post a public message explicitly stating 
> >their support of the re-appeal within a week following the re-appeal, the
> >Supreme Court's most recent verdict is automatically upheld, and the CFJ
> >may not be appealed further.  
> 
> How about having second appeals go to the full Court instead of this
> dormancy/approval requirement?  And limit it to two appeals?
> 
The full Court probably is preferable, as I stated in an earlier message.
The only problem I can see is such appeals taking a _long_ time to return,
maybe.  But we'd have to see the full Court in action before such a
judgment could be made.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 17:25:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Supreme Court reform RFC

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> > >However, unless at least three Justices or half the Supreme Court,
> > >rounding down, (whichever is lower) post a public message explicitly stating 
> > >their support of the re-appeal within a week following the re-appeal, the
> > >Supreme Court's most recent verdict is automatically upheld, and the CFJ
> > >may not be appealed further.  
> > 
> > How about having second appeals go to the full Court instead of this
> > dormancy/approval requirement?  And limit it to two appeals?
> > 
> The full Court probably is preferable, as I stated in an earlier message.
> The only problem I can see is such appeals taking a _long_ time to return,
> maybe.  But we'd have to see the full Court in action before such a
> judgment could be made.

Perhaps we should make the Full Court's results partially like those of
majority-style juries:

i.e. a decision in the first week requires the consent of all members of
the Court.
after the first week, a 70% majority in favour is required at any time for
the verdict to be handed down.

This should hopefully avoid eternal deadlock while still requiring
consideration of the verdict, and not allowing a small majority to sit on
their laurels knowing that they will win in the end.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 17:57:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Stocks

	I purchase 100 stocks.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:06:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stocks

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Towsner wrote:

> 	I purchase 100 stocks.

Insider dealing!

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa) - .Nomic Elector, Frgn Minister, HP(Morpork)
Acka - President "Gumball" Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:14:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stocks

>> 	I purchase 100 stocks.
>
>Insider dealing!
	Actually, I have no access to information that others don't.  The
only people who can insider trade are breadbox and TGW.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:26:28 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 543 (Alfvaen)

Balsamic Dragon has (unsurprisingly) failed to deliver a verdict so this
goes to the Praetor.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 543 - February 23, 1998
Subject: Blackness
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer  (sent February 20, 1998, 10:57 a.m.)
First Judge: Balsamic Dragon  (deadbeat)
Second Judge Alfvaen
Judgement:

Statement:
Black is not a colour.

Initiator's Reasoning:
Following Guy Fawke's recent butt-head CFJ and the recent goings-on on
the internomic mailing list I thought I'd see what a judge would make of
this one. Personally, I say that it isn't, but that isn't really what's
relevant. What is is the manner in which this CFJ is treated.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:26:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 528 (Alfvaen)

Once again, this one is going to the Praetor. Maybe e'll deliver a
verdict this time. :-)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 528 - February 2, 1998
Subject: Judgment Overturn
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: rufus  (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen (deadbeat)
Third Judge: Malenkai (deadbeat)
Fourth Judge: Alfvaen
Judgement:

Statement:

Some Judgements may not be overturned within 14 days of it being issued.

Reasoning:

Rule 215 says: "All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules
in
effect at the time judgement was invoked, and with respect to the game
state at that time. "

It further states: "A statement verified (or nullified) by judgement
applies retroactively to any past game situation it may concern. "

Therefore, if a judgement is overturned on appeal, in such a way that the
original judge's interpretation of a rule was wrong, then the first
judgement never happened, by Rule 215, provided (as in accordance with
rule 701: "If, however, the illegality or impossibility of a publically
knowable change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days,
the action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but
it is still a Crime.") that the judgement is overturned within 14 days.

Hence a judgement which is dependent upon the interpretation of a rule
may
not be overturned within 14 days of its issue.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:26:28 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 539 (Alfvaen)

Malenkai has (unsurprisingly) failed to deliver a verdict so this goes to
the Praetor.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 539 - February 16, 1998
Subject: Bandwidth Height
Initiator: Malenkai  (sent February 15, 1998, 7:40 p.m.)
First Judge: hoover 2300  (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Malenkai (deadbeat)
Third Judge: Alfvaen
Judgement:

Statement:

The height of the Tower of Bandwidth is between 131 and 132 feet.

Reasoning:

<none>

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 22:18:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Newspaper

I turn the aliasmobile trinket into A$.
I create a newspaper called the "Ackan Reserve Financial Report" and pay
the appropriate fee.

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 22:47:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Stocks

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Towsner wrote:

> 	I purchase 100 stocks.

Am I on crack, or can you only afford 1?

Is this why you have "31 or 130 bought" in your report for the day?  I
think the rule clearly specifies that you only get as many as you can
afford... right?

- -Hubert

When the chips are down, the cow is empty. 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 22:58:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: How to crash (or inflate) the stock market

The whole positivity side of the stock market is fairly invulnerable to
manipulation for manipulation's sake.  If you alter your voting strategy
to have an effect on the market, you sacrifice your ability to have the
desired effect on other aspects of the game.

The activity index, on the other hand, is ripe with oppourtunities for
stock manipulation.  Consider:

The average activity in terms of proposals and CFJ's in Acka has been
historically just over 3/day.  The way the index is set up, the Promoter
could easily cause the market to plummet at ~2 points per day simply by
releasing exactly one proposal per day.  But wait, you say, he has to
distribute them within three days or break the Rules.  Now say he gets
exactly three proposals per day, and distributes them 1 on the first day,
5 on the next, 1 one the third, etc.  Each 1-proposal day lowers the
activity index by ~1, while each 5-proposal day raises it by ~.4 -- which
points out the truth -- random fluctuations around the mean activity, even
without insider interference, will cause the market to dive much easier
than they will make it rise.

On the other hand, it is very obvious how to make the market rise quickly
- -- submit a bunch of CFJ's (the frobbed queue makes this difficult to do
with proposals).  There is no cost to submit a CFJ (and rightfully so --
one should not have to pay to have the Rules clarified), so on any given
day, one can author 30 (or 300, for that matter) CFJ's with more or less
trivial statements) and send them off to the CotC.  Buy a large collection
of stocks, watch the activity index jump by 10 (or 100) points that day,
and sell for a handy profit.  Bribe the appropriate officer not to spread
them out over three days, and you make a tidy profit.  (Or better yet, BE
the appropriate officer and bribe Acka not to impeach you afterwards.)
The thing I really don't like about this the way it currently stands is --
by making work for the Functional Officer's, one can rapidly make obscene
amounts of A$. 

The other part about the market Rules, as I understand them, that opens
them up to gross abuse is that just before midnight, anyone can quickly
calculate what the price of the stocks will be just after midnight, and
either buy or sell appropriately.  If you do it right, you will only own
the things for a few minutes, with near pefect knowledge of what their
price will be when you sell it.  As the Rules currently stand, the
Ackanomic Stock Market is heaven for overnight traders, and stock trading
becomes a sort of situation whose name begins with H that I'd rather not
mention right now -- whoever happens to have net access around midnight
EST can make a profit on stocks.

My solution would be to replace the activity index with something not so
easily manipulated by player actions that have no cost whatsoever to the
player (or whose cost is minimal as compared to the returns).  Perhaps
that buying X number of shares raises the market by 0.1 (the increase in
price occurring before you buy the stocks) and selling lowers accordingly
(once again, the change occurring before you sell).

As it is, the stock market is horribly loophole-ridden.  And indeed, now
that these loopholes have been publically revealed, it would be horribly
cheesy (almost as cheesy as /dev/joe's paradox win) to surf them before
they can be fixed.

Guy Fawkes 

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

Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 23:21:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Hubert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: How to crash (or inflate) the stock market

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> My solution would be to replace the activity index with something not so
> easily manipulated by player actions that have no cost whatsoever to the
> player (or whose cost is minimal as compared to the returns).  Perhaps
> that buying X number of shares raises the market by 0.1 (the increase in
> price occurring before you buy the stocks) and selling lowers accordingly
> (once again, the change occurring before you sell).

I think else...if included this as part of the market in eir original
proposal, but removed it for simplicity's sake.  You're right that this
would be harder to scam, but would not give as much incentive to buy.  My
idea would be to make the activity depend on something less controllable
by players, such as the frequency of a certain word chosen by the Chair
(who would obviously have to be excluded from dabbling in the market) in
postings of the previous day.  True, it would be more arbitrary, but less
dependent on the easily changeable aspects of the game state.  

And you're definitely right that flooding TGW with CFJs, or breadbox with
Proposals once the queue's unfrobbed, would be an easy but terribly
unharfy way to make some money in the market.

> As it is, the stock market is horribly loophole-ridden.  And indeed, now
> that these loopholes have been publically revealed, it would be horribly
> cheesy (almost as cheesy as /dev/joe's paradox win) to surf them before
> they can be fixed.

Here's another point: how much do two stocks bought simultaneously when
the market value is, say, 19.5, cost?  Section d) says they're treated
as if bought consecutively, in which case Rule 500 would round them each
up to A$20 as they were being bought, for a cost of A$40.  The second part
of the same sentence, however, implies that the total cost is taken and
_then_ rounded, which would make A$39 the total cost.  Rule 102 gives
preference to the second statement, which is the more logical (and
buyer-favorable) interpretation.  But the way I see it, the second part,
"the cost of the purchase will be rounded after all stocks specified to be
bought or sold in one group are bought or sold," can also imply that the
stocks are sold consecutively, and _then_ the total cost is rounded.
Which would mean, of course, that the cost would be A$40: the second part
never had an effect, because Rule 500 rounded each stock as it was bought.

I tried to come up with some logic that would pull a PWCFJ out of this,
and though I can see an interpretation going either way, it doesn't force
a paradox.  If some other loophole-surfer out there wants to try it, go
ahead, but if it works I want a frink of Grapefruit Juice. :-)

- -Hubert

When the chips are down, the cow is empty.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #49
******************************