This proposal will create a nomic entity known as a Political Party. A party will be defined as any group of three or more Players that declare themselves a Political Party. The creation of a Politcal Party must be announced by a Charter that is sent to the Speaker who will then distribute it publically. This Charter is a statement that must include, but is not restricted to, the following:
(1) a statement that declares the existence of the PartyAny Player may create, join or leave a Political Party at any time, but no Player may be affiliated with more than one Political Party at any one time. If a Player joins or leaves a Political Party, he must declare it publically. If at any time, a Political Party does not have at least 3 members, it will cease to exist.
(2) the name of the Party
(3) information on joining the Party
(4) a description of goals and ideals of the Party
The internal organization and guidelines of a Political Party are entirely the responsibility of the Party itself. Any titles or offices that exist within the Party do not affect in any way those that exist outside of it.
Proposal 352- Thu Jan 25 12:00pm 1996
Be Concise
Julian Richardson
Decision: Rejected
Any new proposal which contains more than 120 words shall automatically be deemed invalid, as shall any proposal which contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.Existing rules which do not meet the above criterion must be amended, as far as this is allowed within the rules, within 30 days of the passing of this proposal.
Proposal 353- Thu Jan 25 12:00pm 1996
Squeel
Julian Richardson
Decision: Rejected
Any player who submits more than four proposals within any 24 hour period shall automatically incur a penalty of 3 points. They shall be deemed to be silly and shall be assigned by the speaker the name of a farmyard animal which must be used in all subsequent communications when referring to them while they are silly. If they were already silly when they infringed this rule, the speaker shall assign them the name of a larger farmyard animal. A player automatically ceases to be silly 7 days after their most recent infringement of this rule.
Proposal 354- Fri Jan 26 2:00am 1996
egad a base tone denotes a bad age!
Paul Swan
Decision: Rejected
Any proposal made from this point on that contains a palindrome will effect the scoring of points as such: The person who proposed said proposal will recieve double points upon its passing. Anyone who voted for that proposal will also recieve 1 point in addition to any might otherwise recieve.
Proposal 355- Fri Jan 26 2:45am 1996
The Voting Gnome
Sean Crystal
Decision: Accepted
I propose to create an nomic entity known as the Voting Gnome. The Voting Gnome will serve one function, and that is to cast one vote on any proposal. At any time, the Player with the lowest score will have control of the Voting Gnome. The Player that currently controls the Gnome will be known as The Gnome Buddy.The Gnome Buddy may cast a vote for himself as well as the Voting Gnome for every Proposal dated within the period that the Player has control of the Gnome.
If there is more than one person who is tied for the lowest score, then the next lowest score is used, and continues until the lowest single score is found. If all scores are tied, then no one will control the Voting Gnome until the scores change.
This rule takes precedence over Rule 204.
Proposal 356- Fri Jan 26 7:45am 1996
Short and sweet
Julian Richardson
Decision: Rejected
Each player will receive 15 points the first time he or she proposes anamendment to this rule on condition that he or she adopts for a period of seven days the name of a character from a Walt Disney cartoon and instructs the speaker to list this as their name in the yellow pages.
Proposal 357- Fri Jan 26 2:15pm 1996
Wibble
Julian Richardson
Decision: Rejected
All proposals which are made by the speaker must include an approved silly word. The approved list of silly words is as follows: spong, wibble, ni!, pheeeeew, zopzop, boing, banana, squawk, thatcher, yeenewkleorrrrmeeesseilllllee.
Proposal 358- Fri Jan 26 2:15pm 1996
Vote or I'll kick your ass....
Austin Appleby
Decision: Rejected
Any player that fails to vote on a rule within that rule's specified voting time frame loses two points.
Proposal 359- Fri Jan 26 2:15pm 1996
General "Don't break the rules" addon
Austin Appleby
Decision: Rejected
Any player found to be breaking a rule that does not include a clause explicitly stating the effects of that rule on the player if the player is found to have broken the rule will be given -5 points and the action of his which caused the violation of the rule will be considered as if it had never happened.
Proposal 360- Sat Jan 27 5:00am 1996
Pre-Proposals
David Chapman
Decision: Rejected
This proposal will create an Ackanomic entity known as a 'pre-proposal'.The format of a pre-proprosal is the same as that of a proposal but it does not become an official proposal until it's owner has decided that it is in a format that is likely to be acceptable to most players.
There is no obligation on the part of the pre-proposer to make the pre-proposal official. It is illegal for any other player to make a proposal that is in essence equivalent to an existing pre-proposal up for discussion. The pre-proposer may withdraw the pre-proposal at any time. Once a pre-proposal has been withdrawn, the concept returns to the 'public domain'.
A concept may remain in pre-proposal state indefinitely.
Pre-proposals will be allocated numbers beginning with 101.
Any proposal which passes and which started out life as a pre-proposal will earn an extra 5 points for it's owner.
Any disputes related to this entity shall be resolved by a Call For Judgement.
Proposal 361- Mon Jan 29 1:45am 1996
Copyright
Julian Richardson
Decision: Rejected
This rule establishes the notions of publication and copyright.An idea is said to have been published when a message containing the idea has been sent to the Players.
Once an idea has been published it becomes the copyright of its author. Copyright on an idea expires 7 days following its initial publication, except in the case that the copyright holder chooses to extend the copyright for a further 7 days. If such an extension is made, the copyright holder loses 3 points. After the first extension, no further extensions of the copyright on an idea are allowed. The holder of copyright on an idea may withdraw copyright on that idea at any time.
Any proposal or draft proposal containing an idea which is currently under copyright is automatically deemed invalid unless that proposal or draft proposal is made by the copyright holder.
When copyright expires or is withdrawn, the idea is in the public domain and may not be copyrighted.
Proposal 362- Mon Jan 29 1:45am 1996
No Dead Players Allowed
Mitchell Harding
Decision: Accepted
If any player does not vote or communicate publically with all of the Ackanomic players for a time period of one week, and this fact is pointed out to the Speaker by any player (other than the said player), then the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent. In this message the Speaker must ask the player if he wishes to continue playing the game, and points out why the message is being sent. If the player does not reply within two days, then the player is no longer a player in the game. The ex-player may rejoin the game later, if he desires, with the same score he had when he left.
Proposal 363- Tue Jan 30 9:15am 1996
Proposal Correction System (aka I Type Like A Handicapped Mongoose)
Mitchell Harding
Decision: Rejected
If a player makes a proposal, and discovers that it contains a flaw, he may send the speaker a corrected version of the proposal. At this point, the speaker appoints a judge who is to be randomly chosen from the current players (but who may not be the person who authored the proposal in question). The judge, once selected, has the following task. He must judge that, first and foremost, the proposal is basically in the same "spirit" as the first proposal (i.e. has the same intentions, and whose mechanics are basically the same). The exact interpretation of this is at the judge's discretion. In addition to that, the judge must decide whether or not the proposal fits one or more of the following criteria:1. The author was making cosmetic changes (spelling, grammar, and other such corrections).
2. The author was clarifying his intentions and the wording and/or mechanics of the proposal. For example, if a proposal is vague on a certain point, and the author clarified it, that would fall under this category, unless the clarification radically changed the proposal.
3. The author is adding in a detail that was obviously left out, or there is definite need for in order for the proposal to make sense.
4. The author is altering a minor detail -- It is not a necessary change, but it is not a major change either. An example of this would be if the author had proposed that "Any player with a score of 15 or higher cannot vote on odd-numbered proposals". The author could change the score from 15 to some other number, or he could change it from odd-numbered to even-numbered. Such changes may change the proposal, but leave it essentially the same.If the judge decides that the rule fits one or more of the above criteria, and that the proposal retains essentially the same spirit, then he passes this judgement on to the speaker. If he feels that the changes do not meet with the above requirements, then he passes this judgement on to the speaker. In either case, as with normal judgements, the judge optionally may include his reasoning on his judgement. The speaker reports the results to all of the players. (This judgement may be overturned per the standard rules for overturning judgements) The proposal is then updated, and all previous votes for or against the proposal are erased. The old version of the proposal is essentially "erased" from the books. All players must re-vote. However, this is not as if the proposal has been "re-proposed". Any players who joined between the original proposal and the revision still do not get to vote on the revision.
The voting period for a revised proposal begins again when the revised proposal is sent to the public. No proposal may be corrected more than 3 times.
Proposal 364- Tue Jan 30 10:00am 1996
Transmute Rule 105
Wes Contreras
Decision: Rejected
Transmute Rule 105 to a Mutable Rule.
Proposal 365- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Amending of Rule 105
Wes Contreras
Decision: Deemed invalid by CFJ 105
Amend the Rule formerly known as Rule 105 to read: "Any Proposal shall be written down (or otherwise communicated in print media) before it is Voted upon. If Adopted, it shall guide play in the form in which it was Voted upon."
Proposal 366- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Transmute Rule 105 to Immutable
Wes Contreras
Decision: Deemed invalid by CFJ 105
Transmute the Rule formerly known as Rule 105 to an Immutable Rule.
Proposal 367
Due to a numbering error, no proposal was officially assigned this number.
Proposal 368- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Transmute Rule 106 to Mutable
Wes Contreras
Decision: Rejected
Transmute Rule 106 to a Mutable Rule.
Proposal 369- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Amending of Rule 106
Wes Contreras
Decision: Deemed invalid by CFJ 105
Amend the Rule formerly known as Rule 106 to read: A Rule Change may take effect when the Proposal which contains it is Adopted. No Rule Change may have retroactive application. A Proposal may be Adopted at the completion of its perscribed Voting Period or when all Players have cast their Votes, whichever is first. The Adoption of Proposals may be subject to additional restrictions.
Proposal 370- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Transmute Rule 106 to Immutable
Wes Contreras
Decision: Deemed invalid by CFJ 105
Transmute the Rule formerly known as Rule 106 to an Immutable Rule.
Proposal 371- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Transmute Rule 107 to Mutable
Wes Contreras
Decision: Accepted
Transmute Rule 107 to a Mutable Rule.
Proposal 372- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Amending of Rule 107
Wes Contreras
Decision: Deemed invalid by CFJ 105
Amend the Rule formerly known as Rule 107 to read: "The Speaker shall give each Proposal an ordinal number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each Proposal Proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive ordinal number, whether or not the Proposal is Adopted. The ordinal number of a Rule is the ordinal number of the Proposal which most recently changed that Rule."
Proposal 373- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Transmute Rule 107 to Immutable
Wes Contreras
Decision: Deemed invalid by CFJ 105
Transmute the Rule formerly known as Rule 107 to an Immutable Rule.
Proposal 374- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Definition of a Proposal
Wes Contreras
Decision: Rejected
Create a Rule as follows with the title "Definition of a Proposal": "A Proposal may contain a single Rule Change. If a Proposal is Adopted, the Rule Change which it contains then takes effect immediately, unless the Proposal indicates otherwise in a legal manner."
Proposal 375- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Transmute Previous Rule to Immutable
Wes Contreras
Decision: Deemed invalid by CFJ 105
Transmute the Rule created by the previous Proposal to an Immutable Rule.
Proposal 376- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Amending of Rule 203
Wes Contreras
Decision: Rejected
Amend Rule 203 to read: "The number of Votes required to Adopt a Proposal is two-thirds of the Votes legally cast within the prescribed Voting Period, unless the Proposal Transmutes a Rule from Immutable to Mutable, in which case the number of Votes required to Adopt that Proposal is three-fourths of the Votes legally cast within the prescribed Voting Period."
Proposal 377- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Amending of Rule 314
Wes Contreras
Decision: Rejected
Amend Rule 314 to read: Any Player A sending a public message (a message to all Players) should be polite in doing so. If some Player B feels that Player A was not polite, he may call a hearing. In this hearing, all Players may send their Votes to the Speaker and vote to either agree with Player B or disagree with Player B. If more Players agree than disagree, then it shall be determined that Player A was not polite and Player A shall be forced to apologize by means of another public message (to all Players). If more Players disagree than agree, then it shall be determined that Player A was polite and that Player B was not polite when accusing him.
Proposal 378- Tue Jan 30 10:15am 1996
Not Polite Players Are Bad
Wes Contreras
Decision: Rejected
Create a Rule as follows with the title "Not polite Players are bad" "If a Player has been determined by a hearing to be not polite, then that Player shall post a public message (a message to all Players) with an apology. Said apology shall be at least 100 words in length. In addition, any Player may require the not polite Player to include a particular word in that apology if they send a message to the not polite Player within 72 hours of the announcement that the Player was not polite. A not polite Player shall not post the apology for at least 72 hours in order to have time to ponder their error and reconsider their ways, but shall post it within one week or lose 5 Points.
Proposal 379- Tue Jan 30 11:30am 1996
Short is Good
Wayne Sheppard
Decision: Accepted
Any player who makes a proposal that has less that five lines of text in the body of the proposal shall be awarded five points if the proposal passes.
Proposal 380- Tue Jan 30 11:30am 1996
Long Is Bad
Wayne Sheppard
Decision: Rejected
Any player who makes a proposal that has more that fifteen lines of text in the body of the proposal shall be penalized five points if the proposal passes.
Proposal 381- Tue Jan 30 11:30am 1996
Free Points! Revisited
Wayne Sheppard
Decision: Accepted
All players who vote for this proposal shall be awarded ten points each. All players who vote against this proposal shall be penalized ten points. These awards and penalties are in addition to any other awards or penalties that may occur.
Proposal 382- Tue Jan 30 1:30pm 1996
Let's nip this in the bud
David Chapman
Decision: Rejected
Any proposal which modifies the points score of players if they vote for it will be deemed invalid.
Proposal 383- Wed Jan 31 11:00am 1996
Player Names
Wayne Sheppard
Decision: Accepted
Each player will have an Official Ackanomic Name. The Name must consist of at least four, and no more than twenty alphanumeric characters. All nomic business must use the Name when refering to a specific player.Players must choose a Name when they register. No player may choose a Name that is already in use. Players without a Name must choose a Name within one week.
Proposal 384- Wed Jan 31 11:00am 1996
Amending Rule 207
Wayne Sheppard
Decision: Rejected
Amend Rule 207 so that it reads: When a proposed rule change is adopted, those players who voted against it shall lose 1 point. A player whose proposed rule change is adopted shall receive 5 points.
Proposal 385- Wed Jan 31 12:00pm 1996
Haddock Points and The Keeper of the Haddock
Sean Crystal
Decision: Rejected
This proposal will create a nomic entity known as a Haddock. At any one time there will be (10 * Number of Players) Haddock in the game. At the start of each game, each Player will have 10 Haddock. The number of Haddock that a person has will be a general reflection of other Players' opinion of that Player. A Player may take away up to 3 Haddock a week from any Player if they feel he/she has acted dishonorably, and give up to 3 Haddock a week to any Player if they feel he/she has acted honorably. Haddock must always exchanged. One cannot give a Haddock to a Player without taking a Haddock from someone else. A Player may not give or take Haddock from themselves.This proposal will also create an office known as the Keeper of the Haddock. All transactions involving Haddock should be sent to the Keeper of the Haddock. He/she will post any such transactions when they occur. The Keeper will also report a summary of the current Haddock points whenever requested.
Proposal 386- Thu Feb 1 11:30am 1996
Removing Inactive Players
Wayne Sheppard
Decision: Rejected
Inactive Players shall be defined as a registered player not on vacation who has not voted or made a proposal in the past week. If someone believes that a player is Inactive, he should make such a statement to the Speaker. The Speaker shall then distribute publicly a statement declaring the intent to remove the Inactive Player from the game. If a week passes and the Inactive Player has not responded, he shall be considered unregistered.
Proposal 387- Thu Feb 1 11:30am 1996
Amending of Rule 207
Andrew Baumann
Decision: Rejected
Amend Rule 207 so that it reads:
When a proposed rule change is adopted, those players who voted against it shall receive 6 points. A player whose proposed rule change is adopted shall receive 12 points. Those players who voted for it shall receive 2 points.
Proposal 388- Thu Feb 1 11:30am 1996
Points for Judgement
Sean Crystal
Decision: Rejected
I propose that for every Call for Judgement on which a Player, selected as judge, delivers a verdict, be it TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED, that Player shall be awarded 5 points.
Proposal 389- Fri Feb 2 10:30am 1996
Amending of Rule 344
Mitchell Harding
Decision: Rejected
Rule 344/0 (Mutable) Vacationing
Any Player who wishes to leave the game for a period of time less than or equal to one month from the time of the announcement of this leaving shall be placed on "vacation" through the sending of a message to the Speaker containing the words "I, , am going on vacation for days" where is the name of the Player who wishes to go on vacation and is the number of days for which the Player wishes to be on vacation. This Player's voting or lack thereof shall not be figured into the passing of any rules until days have passed or until the Player informs the Speaker that he/she has returned. The Player's votes will then count normally.to:
Vacationing
Any Player who wishes to leave the game for a period of time less than or equal to one month from the time of the announcement of this leaving shall be placed on "vacation" through the sending of a message to the Speaker containing the words "I am going on vacation for x days" where x is the number of days for which the Player wishes to be on vacation. This Player's voting or lack thereof shall not be figured into the passing of any rules until days have passed or until the Player informs the Speaker that he/she has returned. Also, the player is essentially considered to not be in the game. No rules apply to them (this supersedes all mutable rules that concern players) until they once more send a message to the Speaker announcing their return. Therefore any rule that concerns removing inactive players would be superseded by this rule, because the vacationing players cannot be considered inactive. Upon their sending mail to the Speaker announcing their return, the Player's votes will then count normally.
Proposal 390- Fri Feb 2 10:30am 1996
Amending of Rule 204
David Chapman
Decision: Accepted
This proposal amends R204 from204: One Player One Vote (most of the time)
Each player has exactly one vote except if their score is prime, as defined by the "Prime Numbers Are Good" rule (and any other applicable rules), in which case they have two votes until their score is no longer prime.to:
204: One Player One Vote
Each player has exactly one vote, unless otherwise specified by other applicable rules.
Proposal 391- Fri Feb 2 10:30am 1996
Rewarding Party Unity
Mitchell Harding
Decision: Accepted
If on any proposal every member of a political party votes in the same way (either Yes or No) then an extra vote is cast on the proposal. This vote will be a Yes vote if the party voted Yes unanimously. The vote will be a No vote if the party voted No unanimously. The extra vote is not considered to have been cast by any of the players, so it is not in violation of Rule 204 (which states that every player has only one vote). There is no limit to the number of political parties that can gain an extra vote on a proposal (i.e. more than one political party, if each was united in its voting, could get this bonus on the same proposal). If any member of the party changes their vote, or abstains, before the voting is completed, the extra vote is no longer counted. If they change their votes again and become eligible once more, this rule will then apply once more.
Proposal 392- Fri Feb 2 7:00pm 1996
Points
Wayne Sheppard
Decision: Rejected
Points can be either gained or loss only by methods permitted in the Rules. No other way of gaining or losing points shall be allowed.New players shall start with zero points.
Proposal 393- Fri Feb 2 7:00pm 1996
Paul Swan
Decision: Accepted
In order to make handling this game easier on all players, all subject lines should have standard components. all voting records, discussions, offical news, proposals, and calls for judgments should have subject lines as follow:voting records: Ackanomic :voting results ###
discussions: Ackanomic :discussion
news, aka messages from the speaker: Ackanomic :official
proposals: Ackanomic :proposal ###
calls for judgment: Ackanomic :call for judgment ###
players should use these subjects for any message sent concerning the game. if a player fails to use these standardized subjects, they will recieve a penalty of a deduction of one point from their score.
Proposal 394- Fri Feb 2 7:00pm 1996
The AckaNomic Week
David Chapman
Decision: Rejected
This proposal defines an entity known as the AckaNomic Week.The AckaNomic Week begins at midnight, each Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week unless otherwise stated in the Rules. Any activity which must occur at least weekly must occur at least once each Nomic Week.
Proposal 395- Wed Feb 7 3:00am 1996
Amending of Rule 107
David Chapman
Decision: Rejected
Amend the Rule formerly known as Rule 107 to read:"The Speaker shall give each Proposal an ordinal number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each Proposal Proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive ordinal number, whether or not the Proposal is Adopted.
The number of a newly adopted rule shall be the least integer greater than all other numbers previously given to a rule.
Once a rule has been given a number, it shall not be changed except as specified in the rules.
Proposal 396- Wed Feb 7 3:00am 1996
Office of Promoter
David Chapman
Decision: Accepted
Let there be officer called the Promoter. The Promoter would be selected on a volunteer basis. In the case of multiple volunteers, the Speaker will choose by random selection. In the event of there being no volunteers for the office of Promoter, the duties of the Promoter are to be carried out by the Speaker.A proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promoter. As soon as poosible after receiving the proposal, the Promoter shall assign the proposal a number and distibute it to the players for voting.
Proposal 397- Wed Feb 7 3:00am 1996
Office of Clerk-Of-The-Courts
David Chapman
Decision: Rejected
Let there be officer called the Clerk-Of-The-Courts. The COTC would be selected on a volunteer basis. In the case of multiple volunteers, the Speaker will choose by random selection. In the event of there being no volunteers for the office of COTC, the duties of the COTC are to be carried out by the Speaker.The COTC shall be responsible for the general administration of the Call For Judgements, as defined by the rules.
Proposal 398- Wed Feb 7 3:00am 1996
Office of Scorekeepor
David Chapman
Decision: Accepted
Let there be officer called the Scorekeepor. The Scorekeepor would be selected on a volunteer basis. In the case of multiple volunteers, the Speaker will choose by random selection. In the event of there being no volunteers for the office of Scorekeepor, the duties of the Scorekeepor are to be carried out by the Speaker.The Scorekeepor shall be responsible for detecting and announcing as soon as possible when a player has won the game by points.
Proposal 399- Wed Feb 7 3:00am 1996
Office of Registrar
David Chapman
Decision: Accepted
Let there be officer called the Registrar. The Registrar would be selected on a volunteer basis. In the case of multiple volunteers, the Speaker will choose by random selection. In the event of there being no volunteers for the office of Registrar, the duties of the Registrar are to be carried out by the Speaker.The Registrar shall be responsible for maintaining a list of all registered players. The Registrar may have other duties as assigned by other rules.
Proposal 400- Fri Feb 9 4:45pm 1996
Ammending Rule 314
Robert Sevin (aka Mitchell Harding)
Decision: Accepted
I propose that Rule 314 (Politeness Moon) be amended. The current version is :Any Player A sending a public message (a message to all Players) must be polite in doing so. If some Player B feels that A was not polite, be may call a hearing. In this hearing, all Players will send their votes to the Speaker and vote either "Yes, he was polite", "No, he was not polite", or abstain. If the verdict shows that a person was not polite, he loses 3 points. If it. shows that he was polite, he gets the nickname Jazz JackRabbit for the next 3 days.
I propose it be changed to read:
Any Player A sending a public message (a message to all Players) must be polite in doing so. If some Player B feels that A was not polite, be may call a hearing. In this hearing, all Players will send their votes to the Tabulator and vote either "Yes, he was polite", "No, he was not polite", or abstain. Players have 3 days from when the hearing is called in order to vote. At the end of that time the votes will be counted by the Tabulator and a simple majority (50% or more) will determine the outcome. The Tabulator will then publicly announce the outcome of the hearing. If the verdict shows that a person was not polite, he loses 3 points. If it shows that he was polite, he gets the nickname Jazz JackRabbit for the next 3 days.