ackanomic Digest Wednesday, December 09 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 441 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: P3871 Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 14:42:31 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: >On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, John Bollinger wrote: >>I am very concerned about P3871. I am not certain about the general idea, >>but I think that the prop itself has some serious problems. >> >>1) I am concerned that precedence will be broken by the proposed hierarchical >> system; both because it is unclear how to judge whether one rule number is >> greater than another and because there are multiple rule number pointers >> in the precedence clauses of various rules which are not updated by the >> proposal. > >I believe in-rule rule pointers are required to be updated by the >rule-harfer, but I could be misremembering the rules and don't have the >time to check them thoroughly for the moment. Well, I did a search on "pointer" and another on "rule-harfer," and I didn't turn up anything to that effect. I vaguely remember something like what you describe, but I'm not sure it whether it is in the current rules, or whether it was ever in the rules. >I do believe that the precedence rules work as long as something says that >a rule has precedence by default over it's decendant, and then bases >global precedence on the first 'locator' in an H number. If those two >things weren't in fact done (again, a bit too busy momentarily to go >check), then I would urge else...if to retract, cleanup and resubmit the >prop. I overlooked the part of the prop that specifies how H numbers are compared; it appears to take care of things properly. >>2) I am not sure that the renumbering will work as it is phrased. The rules >> will all have L numbers equal to their current numbers. The prop will >> renumber rules LX to HY. X is not the same as LX. If this is supposed >> to be notationally equivalent then the prop fails to so specify. > >I thought he specified above that LX was the rules L number, or at least >it seemed to on my reading, but if it wasn't clear to you, then I probably >read into it more than was there. Perhaps I'm just being too picky. In any case, what the prop says is that a number prefaced by an L is an L number [sounds logical]. It also says that a rule number is an L number if it is not prefaced by an H or an L, which effectively makes all rule numbers L numbers. Then the prop says to at a specified time "give rule LX the number HY" for specified pairs of X and Y. My point is that there will at that time be _no_ rules LX, only rules X. >I will say that I think a heirarchical ruleset would be cleaner and would >make it easier to find things and keep related things together and so >would like it. It does seem to be a reasonable extension of our current, rather informal, century scheme. I think I am willing to vote for it if I can be convinced that the technical details will all work. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: Tom Walmsley Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Bonus Vote Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:02:55 -0500 (EST) K 2 wrote: > Jenny (aka TEFKA Hubert) recieves this months door prize. It also occours tome that I did do > last months door prize, the recipent of which was ThinMan. With apologies for the confusion could you just clarify who this is? I'm Jenny; the player with the real name Eric Plumb used to be called Hubert (no, not two-star). Which one of us is it? Jenny. -- Tom Walmsley t.walmsley@lineone.net http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739 Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo. ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: P3871 Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:03:43 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, John Bollinger wrote: >>I believe in-rule rule pointers are required to be updated by the >>rule-harfer, but I could be misremembering the rules and don't have the >>time to check them thoroughly for the moment. > >Well, I did a search on "pointer" and another on "rule-harfer," and I didn't >turn up anything to that effect. I vaguely remember something like what you >describe, but I'm not sure it whether it is in the current rules, or whether >it was ever in the rules. Oh.. He has the power to do it via CSR is all. I still don't believe that will be a serious problem, but it might be sufficient. >>>2) I am not sure that the renumbering will work as it is phrased. The rules >>> will all have L numbers equal to their current numbers. The prop will >>> renumber rules LX to HY. X is not the same as LX. If this is supposed >>> to be notationally equivalent then the prop fails to so specify. >> >>I thought he specified above that LX was the rules L number, or at least >>it seemed to on my reading, but if it wasn't clear to you, then I probably >>read into it more than was there. > >Perhaps I'm just being too picky. In any case, what the prop says is that >a number prefaced by an L is an L number [sounds logical]. It also says that >a rule number is an L number if it is not prefaced by an H or an L, which >effectively makes all rule numbers L numbers. Then the prop says to at >a specified time "give rule LX the number HY" for specified pairs of X and Y. >My point is that there will at that time be _no_ rules LX, only rules X. Having reread the prop, you are correct. However, Trent's prop which gives all rules without an H number a parent of H99 would allow him to then renumber them and rearrange them as appropriate, so I believe the only issue is one of references to rule numbers within the rule-set which I don't feel will cause real problems. >>I will say that I think a heirarchical ruleset would be cleaner and would >>make it easier to find things and keep related things together and so >>would like it. > >It does seem to be a reasonable extension of our current, rather informal, >century scheme. I think I am willing to vote for it if I can be convinced >that the technical details will all work. Let me know if the above convinced you :) --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: Corporations Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:07:42 -0500 (EST) I supported the intoroductions of Corporations, but seeing the problems created, I think it would be better to bring them, as-are, under the Organizational umbrella, and that it is possible to do so without affecting the functionality of Corporations, or the share-holder concept. The org rules as they stood allowed for specific types of orgs to have different method of carrying out actions, and differenet methods of controlling membership. Membership can be defined in terms of share ownership. This will also enable the rule to address some concerns I had about Highly Similar Corporations. There is a fundamental difference between Corporations and Organizations, and that is that Coroporations don't have memebrs, but rather owners. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Acka: CFJ 710 (TRUE) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:40:44 -0500 (EST) Wild Card has ruled this TRUE Call for Judgment 710 - Dec 7, 1998 Subject: Thrall Win Initiator: K 2 (sent Dec 7 1998, 7:12 Acka) Judge: Wild Card Judgement: TRUE Statement: K 2 has an Unclaimed Winning Condition by Rule 615 (Win By World Domination). Reasoning: On 05 Dec 1998 23:52:19 with the acceptance of P3830 I enthralled rufus making me Overlord of 16 active players. There are currently 26 active players in ackanomic which means that I am overlord of more than 60% of all active players, by rule 615 this gives me a winning condition, or it would have if I didn't have the goose. At 07 Dec 1998 20:17:07, Trent, the acting CotC distributed a verdict of False on CFJ 709 - a PWCFJ. This caused the goose to befriended else...if. Gooseless and with more than 60% of all active players enthralled to me, never having achieved a winning condition in this manner let alone won a cycle by it, rule 615 awarded me a winning condition. The thralls were gained in the following manner (I have deleted those thralls which were lost to JT and Trent on 05 Dec 1998 12:10:58): 01 Dec 1998 04:11:26 3776: Euphrates -> K 2 3778: Robin Hood -> K 2 3779: JT -> K 2 3783; Alfvaen -> K 2 3786: /dev/joe -> K 2 3791; Thomas Jute -> K 2 3793: two-star -> K 2 3794: ThinMan -> K 2 3796: MTM. (True Name Eric Plumb) -> K 2 3799: Wild Card -> K 2 07 Dec 1998 09:56:14 3823: 404 Not Found -> K 2 3824: else...if -> K 2 3825: Jenny -> K 2 3827: Fortunato -> K 2 3828: IdiotBoy -> K 2 3830: rufus -> K 2 Judge's Reasoning: Consensus. -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 710 (TRUE) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:47:30 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: >Wild Card has ruled this TRUE > >Call for Judgment 710 - Dec 7, 1998 >Subject: Thrall Win >Initiator: K 2 (sent Dec 7 1998, 7:12 Acka) >Judge: Wild Card >Judgement: TRUE Assuming this is not appealed, A cycle will end on Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:40:44 -0500 (EST) and will be won by K 2. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: Corporations Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:47:58 -0500 (EST) >Rule 250: Players going On Ice should probably forfeit any corporate shares >they hold, just as they are kicked out of any Organizations they are in. I think I was unclear to JT. I don't think players who go On Ice should have their shares forfeited, but they should not be counted for determining if a motion passes. >IMPORTANT: > >Prop 3883 will take care of Rules 515 and 1009, and prop 3884 will take care >of Rule 510. I like the general idea of "Trading Entities," but I do not >like that P3883 would make Parties cease to be Organizations. After that, Unintentional. I retract 3883, and will resubmit a fixed version. >Rather than further fragment our structures and procedures for assemblages >of players, why not bring Corporations back under the Organizational >umbrella? The Organization rules are written so as to allow different >internal structures and procedures than the default. I'm still reluctant, particularly since I am becoming increasingly convinced that the entity rules as a whole need to be reorganized. I will shortly RFC a concept I have for redoing the entity system. >I am not convinced, but I believe I have a stronger argument for the scam >not working: > >Rule 515, which governs trading, only specifies what happens when a _Player_ >accepts a trade. Even if OPM was able to accept the trade offered it [of >which I am not convinced], nothing happened as a result. The game state >only changes as specified by the rules, you know. else..if was correct; the >trading rules appear to be full of holes. I also point out that Corporations >and Organizations are not empowered to offer trades (P3883 would fix that >if passed), but I imagine you already knew that. > >Can we agree that the scam did not work, or shall I call the CFJ? Rule 515 allows players to offer and receive trades, and explains how. 1003 allows Corporations to offer and receive trades. I would interpret this as making Corporate trades identical to normal ones. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: P3871 Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:59:37 -0500 (EST) >>I believe in-rule rule pointers are required to be updated by the >>rule-harfer, but I could be misremembering the rules and don't have the >>time to check them thoroughly for the moment. > >Well, I did a search on "pointer" and another on "rule-harfer," and I didn't >turn up anything to that effect. I vaguely remember something like what you >describe, but I'm not sure it whether it is in the current rules, or whether >it was ever in the rules. After one week all L numbers are replaced by the corrosponding H numbers. >Perhaps I'm just being too picky. In any case, what the prop says is that >a number prefaced by an L is an L number [sounds logical]. It also says that >a rule number is an L number if it is not prefaced by an H or an L, which >effectively makes all rule numbers L numbers. Then the prop says to at >a specified time "give rule LX the number HY" for specified pairs of X and Y. >My point is that there will at that time be _no_ rules LX, only rules X. According to the rules, a number is an L number if "preceded" by L, or if preceded by neither L nor H. So LX is the same as X. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Acka: Retract me too Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 15:59:39 -0500 (EST) #retract 3884 #end -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Acka: OPM scam Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 16:50:32 -0500 (EST) I have sent a CFJ off to Trent (whom I hope is the acting CotC) laying out a four point argument for why Trent was unable to consumate the scam trade he attempted with OPM. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Acka: CFJ 710 (Wild Card) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 17:08:43 -0500 (EST) r-attila the farce has been selected Call for Judgment 711 - Dec 9, 1998 Subject: Corporate Trades Initiator: ThinMan (sent Dec 9 1998, 16:40 Acka) Judge: r-attila the farce Judgement: Statement: Corporation OPM has fewer than -1000 Ackadollars. Reasoning: I believe the CFJ statement to be false. On Tuesday, Trent offered OPM the trinket "The Previous Sentence" in exchange for A$3000. At that time OPM had no ackadollars, I believe. Trent stated that he approved, and the other shareholders quickly followed suit. 1) I do not believe that any motion to accept the trade was actually made. If it was not made then it could not have been passed. 2) If such a motion were assumed to have been implicitly made and subsequently passed, it is not clear to me that that has the effect of causing OPM to attempt to perform the action of accepting the trade offer. In fact, I am inclined to believe that it does not. Rule 1003 certainly does not specify that the passage of a motion causes any additional effect whatsoever. 3) The rules regulate both the verb and the noun forms of "trade." In the noun sense, certain trades are legal and others are illegal. In the verb sense, certain entities are explicitly permitted to trade various other entities. Both political parties and Churches are explicitly empowered to make trades, but Corporations are not. I believe this means that Corporations may not offer or accept trades. 4) Rule 515 does not specify what happens when any entity other than a player accepts a trade. The game state may only change as specified by the rules, so even if OPM had legally accepted the trade, nothing would have happened. Except for the trade with Trent, nothing occured which could have caused OPM to go into debt, certainly not more than A$1000 in debt. The CFJ statement is therefore false. -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 711 (r-attila) (wrong topic) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 17:12:59 -0500 (EST) the topic on the previous message was incorrect. At 05:08 PM 12/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >r-attila the farce has been selected > >Call for Judgment 711 - Dec 9, 1998 >Subject: Corporate Trades >Initiator: ThinMan (sent Dec 9 1998, 16:40 Acka) >Judge: r-attila the farce >Judgement: > >Statement: >Corporation OPM has fewer than -1000 Ackadollars. > >Reasoning: >I believe the CFJ statement to be false. > >On Tuesday, Trent offered OPM the trinket "The Previous Sentence" in exchange >for A$3000. At that time OPM had no ackadollars, I believe. Trent stated >that he approved, and the other shareholders quickly followed suit. > >1) I do not believe that any motion to accept the trade was actually > made. If it was not made then it could not have been passed. > >2) If such a motion were assumed to have been implicitly made and > subsequently passed, it is not clear to me that that has the effect of > causing OPM to attempt to perform the action of accepting the trade offer. > In fact, I am inclined to believe that it does not. Rule 1003 certainly > does not specify that the passage of a motion causes any additional effect > whatsoever. > >3) The rules regulate both the verb and the noun forms of "trade." In the > noun sense, certain trades are legal and others are illegal. In the verb > sense, certain entities are explicitly permitted to trade various other > entities. Both political parties and Churches are explicitly empowered > to make trades, but Corporations are not. I believe this means that > Corporations may not offer or accept trades. > >4) Rule 515 does not specify what happens when any entity other than a player > accepts a trade. The game state may only change as specified by the > rules, so even if OPM had legally accepted the trade, nothing would have > happened. > >Except for the trade with Trent, nothing occured which could have caused >OPM to go into debt, certainly not more than A$1000 in debt. The CFJ >statement is therefore false. > >-- >Trent > >Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, >Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker >Caste, Weird > -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: "Bryan Federico" Subject: Re: Acka: offer n stuff Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 20:03:36 -0500 (EST) >As Dungeon Master, I raise r-attila the firecat's intelligence by 1 >I offer em my OC Training Regime >-- >Trent > >Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, >Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird I accept this OC Training Regime Thanks R-Attila The Farce (:|Worker|General Contractor|Daring Adventurer|:) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of ackanomic Digest V3 #441 *******************************