Rule 355 is herby repealed.
Proposal 602 - Thu Apr 4 04:41:33 EST 1996
Proposals, Dependant
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
A Proposal to create a new Rule, that will read, in whole:
(i) A Proposal is Dependant iff it contains text stating that
it is Dependant and specifies which other Proposal(s)
it is Dependant upon. The Rules may specify other means
of making a Proposal Dependant upon another Proposal.
(ii) Whenever there is a set of Proposals such that every
member of the set is Dependant upon every other member
of the set, each member of this set is said to be Bundled
with each of the other members.
(iii) Whenever a Proposal is resolved and fails to pass, all
Proposals that are Dependant upon that Proposal are
retracted without penalty to the author.
(iv) A Proposal's voting period shall not expire before
all Proposals that it is Dependant upon, but NOT Bundled
with, have been resolved.
(v) Whenever a Proposal creates a new Rule, any text stating
the Proposal's Dependancies shall not appear in the new
Rule.
(vi) A Proposal X is Distantly Dependant upon another Proposal
Y iff there exists a Proposal Z such that X is Dependant
or Distantly Dependant upon Z and Z is Dependant upon Y.
[So if P600 depends on P599 and P598 depends on P599,
P598 is Distantly Dependant upon P600]
(vii) A Proposal is held to be Dependant upon all Proposals
that it is Distantly Dependant upon.
[[This rule allows an author to state that the Proposal shall
disappear should some other Proposal fail to pass.
The Bundle stuff is there to prevent the problem of multiple
Proposals waiting for the others to pass.
(vi) and (vii) are there to prevent a different sort of paradox
that can occur. Write me private E-mail if you want to discuss
these clauses, or if my explanation was insufficient.]]
Proposal 603 - Thu Apr 4 04:42:33 EST 1996
Names are Unique
fon (Adrian Smith)
Decision: Accepted
A player may not change their name to that of another player.
Proposal 604 - Thu Apr 4 04:43:31 EST 1996
After a Name Change
fon (Adrian Smith)
Decision: Accepted
When a player changes their Ackanomic name, all Ackanomic business (for example CJF's and offices) will be changed to follow their new name.
Proposal 605 - Thu Apr 4 11:01:57 EST 1996
Amend 306
snowgod (Phil Ackley)
Decision: Rejected
This rule will amend rule 306 by adding the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph:In addition, the player holding the Magic Potato may change his score to any whole number that will factor into 106,842 by announcing publically that he has done so. This score change shall only be valid during the week said player holds the Magic Potato. When a player releases the Magic Potato his score will revert to it's previous value.
Proposal 606 - Thu Apr 4 11:04:26 EST 1996
Amend 201 - Quorum
Wayne (Wayne Sheppard)
Decision: Rejected
Rule 201 shall be amended to read:Quorum is defined to be 20% of the active registered players.
Proposal 607 - Thu Apr 4 12:37:17 EST 1996
File Clerk, Creation of:
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
A Proposal to create a new Rule, that will read, in whole:
----------------------------------------------------------------- (i) The Functional Office of File Clerk is hereby created.
(ii) There shall be one Seat for this Office.
(iii) The Duties are:
a) To serve as the Officer responsible for recieving copies of all Contracts.
b) To keep a private record of all Enforcable Contracts.
c) To make an Enforcable Contract public upon the request of one of the Players involved in that Contract.
d) To NOT disclose or make reference to any of the specifics of any Enforcable Contract unless required to by (iii)c of this Rule.
(iv) The Privileges are:
a) To receive the usual salary for a Functional Officer.
b) The right to demand receipt of a filing fee of .30 units from each Player involved in an Enforcable Contract when that Contract is submitted. This transaction shall be accomplished in the proper fashion. If one or more Players involved in the Contract cannot or will not pay the fee, the Contract is deemed to be non-Enforcable.
(v) An Acting File Clerk has the right to demand payment of the filing fee. This section takes precendence over all mutable rules.
Proposal 608 - Fri Apr 5 00:33:16 EST 1996
Offices, Starting List of
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
(i) Offices:
Each of the following Ackanomic entities, if it exists, is considered to be an Office: President, Senator, Justice, Financier, Promoter, Clerk of the Court, Publicist, Tabulator, Web-Harfer, Registrar, Pollster, Scorekeeper. Other entities may be Offices if so specified by the Rules. (ii) Functional Offices:
Each of the following Ackanomic entities, if it exists, is considered to be a Functional Office: Promoter, Clerk of the Court, Publicist, Tabulator, Web-Harfer, Registrar, Pollster, Scorekeeper. Other entities may be Functional Offices if so specified by the Rules.
Proposal 609 - Fri Apr 5 00:33:48 EST 1996
Offices, Commonalities
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
The following applies to all Offices: (i) Seats:
The Rule that creates an Office should specify how many players can hold that Office at any one time. This is referred to as the number of "Seats" an Office has. If the Rules fail to specify the number of Seats for any given Office, the Office has only one Seat. A Seat is either held by one Player or it is vacant. (ii) Duties:
The Duties of an Office are the tasks that the Officer(s) are expected to carry out to facilitate the conduct of Ackanomic business. Duties tend to be typified by the compilation, maintenance, and distribution of information. (iii) Privileges:
The Privileges of an Office are the considerations the Officer(s) receive according to the Rules regulating the Office. Examples can include the receipt of Ackanomic currency, the ability to cast extra votes in certain circumstance, or special consideration with regards to making appointments or issuing CFJ decisions. (iv) Acting Officers:
The Rules may specify conditions under which a Player serves in an Office in an "Acting" capacity. In such a case, the Player is responsible for performing all of the Duties without receiving any of the Privileges of the Office. For any given Seat, there can be an "Acting" Officer only if the Seat is vacant. (v) Salaries:
If the Rules specify that a particular Officer is to be paid a certain amount of currency (a "salary") periodically as one of the Privileges of Office:
- Unless otherwise specified, the payment shall be in units of the Official currency of Ackanomic, should such an entity exist.
- The payment is considered to happen every Tuesday at noon Eastern time if the salary is weekly. (vi) Term of Office:
a) The Rules may specify a Term of Office, which is the amount of time a Player may hold an Office before his Term is considered to have expired. If the Rules fail to specify a Term for any Office, the Office is considered to have none, which is to say that the Term never expires.
b) When a Player's Term expires, he is no longer considered to be holding the Office. The Player performs the Office in an "Acting" role until the Seat is filled. (vii) Stepping Down:
An Officer may always voluntarily step down from office, leaving it vacant. Whenever possible, the Officer should give at least 3 day's notice of his intention to vacate an office.
Proposal 610
Due to a numbering error, no proposal was officially assigned this number.
Proposal 611 - Fri Apr 5 10:43:41 EST 1996
Offices, Related Definitions
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
(i) A Nomination is conducted as follows:
a) The appropriate Officer publicly announces the
beginning of the Nomination, the reason the
Nomination is being called, and when the Nomination
shall end.
b) If there is no Nomination Period specified for
the Nomination, the default Period is 48 hours.
c) During the Nomination Period, volunteers shall
notify the appropriate Officer of their intent to be
considered.
d) At the end of the Nomination Period, the appropriate
Officer shall publicly report the list of eligible
volunteers (Nominees).
e) If there are no eligible volunteers, the Nomination
Period shall continue until there is an eligible
volunteer.
f) If the rules fail to state who is eligible to volunteer,
then all Players are eligible.
(ii) An Election for Office is conducted as follows:
a) A Nomination is conducted. Any Player who is eligible
to hold the Office is eligible to volunteer.
b) The appropriate Officer publicly announces the start
of the Election, the Office for which the Election is
being held, and when the Election will end.
c) If there is no Election Period specified for the
Election, the default Period is 72 hours.
d) During the Election Period, each Player may cast one
vote for any one of the Nominees by so notifying the
appropriate Officer.
e) At the end of the Election Period, the appropriate
Officer shall publicly announce the vote tallies
for each Nominee, and which Nominee(s) shall hold
the Office.
f) Letting N stand for the number of vacant Seats for the
Office in question, the top N Nominees, ranked by
votes received, shall hold the Office.
g) In the event of a tie for number of votes received,
the tie can be resolved in one of the following
manners:
1) Random: the Speaker shall randomly assign a ranking
order among any Nominees tied for votes received.
2) <Officer> Preference: the Officer named shall select
a ranking order among any Nominees tied for votes.
3) New Election: the entire Election for Office shall
start over, with all results of the current Election
for Office disregarded.
h) If the Rules fail to specify what method shall be used
to resolve ties, then the Random method shall be used.
Proposal 612 - Fri Apr 5 10:45:56 EST 1996
Functional Offices, Commonalities
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
This Proposal is Dependant upon the Proposal
entitled "Offices, Starting List of"
This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules.
The following applies to all Functional Offices:
(i) A functional Office has only one Seat unless the
Rules specify otherwise.
(ii) As a Privilege of Office, each Player holding at least
one Functional Office shall receive a weekly salary
equal to the maximum of:
a) 1 unit plus .25 units for every Office held.
b) The salary that the Player would be eligible to
receive if he held no Functional Offices.
(iii) A Functional Officer going on vacation shall be judged
to have vacated his Seat for the period of the vacation,
after which he shall hold the Seat once again. At his
discretion, the Appointer may appoint a volunteer to
fill an "Acting" role for a Functional Office vacated by
vacation. In this case, there shall be no action to
fill the empty Seat. This section takes precedence over
section (vi) of this Rule.
(iv) Whenever a Functional Office has a vacant Seat, and there
is no Acting Officer for that Seat, the Appointer is
to be the Acting Officer for that Seat.
(v) Functional Officers may be impeached by the following
process:
a) The Appointer declares publicly his intention to
impeach a stated Player from a given Functional Office.
b) At least 2/3 of Senators concur with the impeachment
by so notifying the Appointer within 72 hours of
the Appointer's declaration.
c) At this time, the Functional Office is vacant.
(vi) Whenever a Functional Office has a vacant Seat, the
Appointer shall conduct a Nomination for that Seat.
After the Nomination, the following process is followed:
a) If at any time there is only one eligible Nominee, then
that Player will hold the Functional Office.
b) The Appointer will select an eligible Nominee, now called
the "Candidate", to fill the Office. The Appointer will
notify each Senator of his selection for Candidate.
c) When at least 1/2 of Senators confirm the Candidate by so
indicating to the Appointer, or whenever 48 hours have
passed since the notification to the Senate, the Candidate
shall hold the Office.
d) Whenever more than 1/2 of the Senators reject the Candidate
by so indicating to the Appointer, the Candidate is no
longer considered to be an eligible Nominee. The process
returns to section(vi), clause "a" of this Rule.
Proposal 613 - Fri Apr 5 10:46:32 EST 1996
Offices, Impeachment
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
This Proposal is Dependant upon the Proposal
entitled "Offices, Commonalities"
This Rule takes precedence over all mutable rules.
An Officer is Impeached by the following process:
(i) An Impeachment Paper (IP) is authored by a Player
and submitted to the same Officer responsible for
distributing Proposals. The IP shall contain the
stated intent to remove one Player from one Office
held by that Player. An author may only have one
IP pending at any one time.
(ii) The IP shall be distributed publicly. All Players
except the Officer named in the IP shall be able to
cast one vote either YES or NO on the matter of
removing said Officer from Office. The voting period
shall be 3 days.
(iii) Upon submission of the IP, the Player in question
shall no longer be considered to hold the Seat,
instead filling an "Acting" role for the Office.
There shall be no action taken to fill that Seat
until the IP is resolved.
(iv) At the expiration of the voting period, there will
be a resolution of ACCEPTED or REJECTED for the IP.
An IP is REJECTED unless it meets ALL of the
conditions below, in which case it is ACCEPTED:
a) At least 1/2 of all active Players, excluding the
Officer named in the IP, voted YES.
b) At least 2/3 of all Players who voted on the IP
voted YES.
(v) If the IP is ACCEPTED, the Player named in the IP
is no longer considered to be the "Acting" officer,
and the Seat is open.
(vi) If the IP is REJECTED, the Player named in the IP
is restored to Office, and the author of the IP is
penalized 10 points. Also, the author of the IP cannot
author an IP for a period of one month.
(vii) The Rules may specify additional means of impeachment
without invalidating the process outlined above. As well,
this rule defers to all other rules on the matter of what
conditions are required for an IP to be ACCEPTED.
Proposal 614 - Fri Apr 5 10:46:57 EST 1996
Appointer, Creation of
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
This Proposal is Dependant upon the three Proposals
entitled "Offices, Commonalities", "Offices, Starting List of",
and "Offices, Related Definitions"
(i) The Office of Appointer is hereby created.
(ii) There shall be one Seat for this Office.
(iii) This Office shall be filled by an Election for Office.
If this process is undefined, the Office shall not
exist so long as this condition continues.
(iv) The Duties are:
a) To publicly announce the occurrence of an open
Seat for a Functional Office.
b) To serve as a source for notices from volunteers for
Functional Office.
c) To publicly announce the occurrence of a Player
being appointed to hold a Functional Office.
(v) The Privileges are:
a) To decide who among the volunteers shall be selected to
hold an open Seat for Functional Office.
b) A salary of 1 unit per week.
(vi) Whenever this Office is vacant, the Speaker shall be
the Acting Appointer unless the Rules otherwise state.
In this one instance, the Speaker may exercise Privilege
"a" as listed in section (v) of this Rule. This takes
precedence over any Rule that would prevent this action.
Proposal 615 - Fri Apr 5 10:47:20 EST 1996
Speaker
pTang1001001sos (Mark Nau)
Decision: Accepted
This Proposal is Dependant upon the Proposal
entitled "Offices, Commonalities"
This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules.
(i) The Office of Speaker is declared to have one Seat.
(ii) Whenever this Office is vacant, it shall be filled by
an Election for Office. The specifications for the
Election for Office are:
a) Nomination Period: 48 hours.
b) Voting Period: 72 hours.
c) Tie Resolution: New Election.
(iii) As an additional Privilege of Office, the Speaker shall
receive a weekly salary of 10 units.
(iv) Whenever the Speaker goes on vacation, he is considered
to be temporarily vacating the Office until he returns
from vacation. No action shall be taken to fill the office.
The Speaker shall appoint a volunteer to be Acting Speaker
for the vacation period. If there are no volunteers, then
the Clerk of the Court shall be Acting Speaker for the
duration. This section takes precendence over section (ii)
of this Rule.
(v) Upon passage of this Rule, Robert Sevin will hold the
one Seat of the Office of Speaker, and section (v) shall
be subsequently stricken from this Rule.
Proposal 616 - Sat Apr 6 10:05:58 EST 1996
Confidentiality
snowgod (Phil Ackley)
Decision: Retracted By Author Using Rule 423
All electronic messages transmitted between players or observers (or any
combination thereof) shall be deemed private, and may not be redistributed
to anyone other than the original sender or recipient(s) without express
permission of all involved parties.
This rule applies to all forms of electronic messages not specifically
excluded in this rule be they E-mail, IRC logs, Audio Clips, Video Clips or
any other form of comunication possible over the internet.
Any player or observer who redistributes a private electronic message shall
have his score reduced by 20 points, and shall not be allowed to vote or
propose rule changes for one week. Any penalties (if they exist) that
apply to not voters shall still apply.
Furthermore, any private electronic message that is redistributed shall be
considered invalid, and will not be be used in the promulgation of officil
ackanomic business. Nor shall redistibuted private electronic messages by
allowed as evidence (should it exist) in any court procedings (should they
exist)
The following forms of comunication shall be deemed public and are excluded
from this rule:
1) All Ackanomic list mailings
2) Proposals submitted in the correct manner
3) Calls for Judgement submitted in the correct manner
4) Poll replies submitted in the correct manner
5) Votes submitted in the correct manner
6) Proposals revisions submitted in the correct manner
7) Requests for Financial Transactions submitted in the correct manner
8) Any other release of information by an Officer of information
submitted in the correct manner in accordance with the rules
affecting that office.
This rule supercedes all other applicable rules.
Proposal 617- Sat Apr 6 10:06:36 EST 1996
Official Language of Ackanomic
snowgod (Phil Ackley)
Decision: Rejected
Pig Latin shall be the official language of Ackanomic. All ackanomic list messages from this day forward must be posted in pig latin. An english translation may be provided, but must be placed on the page following the complete text of the message originally written in Pig Latin. In addition, the Web-Harfer will be required to maintain a pig latin version of all ackanomic pages. Proposals submitted in Pig Latin will be become rules in Pig Latin upon passage.
Proposal 618 - Sat Apr 6 10:30:56 EST 1996
Amend 485 - The Prescribed Voting Period
Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
Decision: Retracted By Author Using Rule 423
The words:"The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days," Will now read "The prescribed voting period on a proposal is ten days,"
Proposal 619 - Sun Apr 7 01:38:32 EST 1996
Amending R203
Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Decision: Rejected
In R203, replace the phrase "two-thirds" with the phrase "60 percent or more".
Proposal 620 - Sun Apr 7 23:15:27 EDT 1996
Balancing Party Bonuses
Nicolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
Decision: Rejected
1. This rule is only active when there are three or more political parties, and a rule exists for giving a bonus for a party based on the way party members vote. 2. If all parties, not counting abstenations, vote the same way, and each party receives a bonus according to the way party members vote, additional votes will be cast the other way, which will be reffered to to as anti-votes, according to the following rule: let n be the number of parties let v be the number of anti-votes v=n/3 rounded up to the nearest integer hence, if there are 1-3 parties there will be 1 anti-vote if there are 4-6 parties, there will be 2 anti-votes etc. 4. If a vote is is either unanimously YES or unanimously NO, then no anti-votes will be cast.
Proposal 621 - Tue Apr 09 11:30:52 EDT 1996
Historian
Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Decision: Accepted
1) The office of the Historian is hereby created. There will be one seat for this office.2) Upon vacancy of the office, it will be filled on a volunteer basis. Upon multiple volunteers, the Speaker will choose one [preferably one with access to a web server]. In the event that no volunteers come forth, the office will remain vacant and its duties unfulfilled.
3) Salary: The Historian will draw a salary as appropriate for a Functional Office. Should this term be undefined or its salary be undefined, the salary will be 0.
4) Term: The Historian will hold the office until he or she resigns or until he or she is Impeached.
5) Duties: The Historian will be responsible for maintaining a WWW page of the History of Ackanomic. Content of the page is up to the Historian [but should include the comings and goings of political parties (and their adjendas); history of Presidents, Senators, and Winners, notable historical events such as the Quorum Crisis, etc].
The site of the Ackanomic History Web Page shall be jointly chosen by the Historian and the Web-Harfer. Note that the Historian is ultimately responsible, and should not create more work for the Web-Harfer.
Proposal 622 - Tue Apr 09 11:33:26 EDT 1996
Amending R499: RFC
Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Decision: Accepted
Amend R499 to insert the following paragraph, directly after the paragraph which begins with the phrase "The SL for a message containing any official announcement":The SL for a message containing a draft proposal shall have the following form: "Ackanomic: RFC (text)" (where (text) is not required, but encouraged). The key word that cannot be altered is "RFC". [Note that the acronym RFC stands for "Request For Comment"].
[[This rule is intended to somewhat codify the notion of draft proposals without being overly bureaucratic, and to shorten subject lines.]]
Proposal 623 - Wed Apr 17 12:01:51 EDT 1996
Amending "What is a Rule Change?"
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Decision: Retracted By Author Using Rule 423
The Rule Titled "What is a Rule Change?" shall be amended to read: ----- (i) A rule change is a body of text. (ii) The effect of the adoption of a rule change is the effect described by the text of the rule change, unless the text has been judged to be nonsense, in which case it has no effect. [The judgement has to come during the proposal's voting period.] (iii) A body of text is nonsense if one or more of the following apply: (a) It discusses or describes effects that are outside the scope of the game. (b) It is ambiguous, or describes an ambiguous effect. (c) It is not written in standard English, unambiguous typographical errors aside. (d) It has no intelligible meaning.
Proposal 624 - Wed Apr 17 12:04:09 EDT 1996
Proposal Controls
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Decision: Rejected
A new rule shall be created, reading: ----- (i) [proposal rejection] A message to the Promoter submitting a proposal is a Go submission if the subject field of the submission contains the word "go". Otherwise it is a non-Go submission. The Promoter may respond to a non-Go submission with a request that its author rephrase it, add notes, correct typos, and so on. Such a response is called a submission rejection. When the Promoter rejects a submission, no proposal is generated by it, and the Promoter has no further Duties in regards to that submission. [ Non-Go submissions that aren't rejected, and all Go submissions, do generate proposals. The Promoter is obligated to handle these in the usual way. ] Rejecting submissions is a Privilege of the office of the Promoter. (ii) [proposal editing] The Promoter may, before or after distributing a proposal generated by a non-Go submission, change the text of the proposal in the following ways, provided such changes neither alter the meaning of the text nor resolve any ambiguities inherent in it: (a) He or she may correct inaccurate spelling. (b) He or she may correct non-standard or confusing grammar. This is a Privilege of the office of the Promoter. (iii) This rule takes precedence over other rules defining the duties of the Promoter. This rule takes precedence over other rules describing the process of proposal submission and distribution.
Proposal 625 - Wed Apr 17 12:05:49 EDT 1996
"Changing Rule Changes"
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Decision: Retracted By Author Using Rule 423
Amend the Rule titled "What is a Rule Change?" to read:"All rule changes are valid. When a rule change is adopted, the legal effect (if any) described by its text is carried out. Rule changes may create, destroy, or manipulate protected objects."
Proposal 626 - Wed Apr 17 12:12:40 EDT 1996
Rule "Suites"; Explicit Permission
The Governor (Dan Marsh)
Decision: Rejected
A rule "suite" shall be defined as a set of rules to be voted on as a unit. The proposal of rule suites shall be explicitly permitted. Each individual rule in a suite may be referred to as a "splinter."
All rules proposed thus shall have the same ordinal number, followed by consecutive lowercase letters of the Roman alphabet, in an order specified by the player proposing the rule suite. Each player shall cast his vote, in accordance with the rules, for the entire suite of rule proposals. The results of the vote shall determine the fate of the entire suite of rules.
Once a rule suite is enacted, the splinters of the suite shall be treated as if they were individual rules. While (exclusive of letters) individual splinters have the same ordinal number, their priority shall be in order of their proposal, with those coming earlier in the proposal coming before those which come later.
[[Dependency is an awkward way to propose rules, even though the Michigan Legislature does it all the time. This proposal would let all of the dependent rules be proposed at once, with ONE vote deciding the outcome. I don't see a problem with this rule if the Dependency rules pass, but they might then be unneccesary.]]
Proposal 627 - Wed Apr 17 12:16:55 EDT 1996
Amendment of a Rule to a Rule Suite
The Governor (Dan Marsh)
Decision: Rejected
If rule suites may be proposed, then a player may propose that a rule be amended so as to become a rule suite. The format of the proposal shall conform both to the rules governing proposals to amend rules and to the rules governing proposals of rule suites.
Proposal 628 - Wed Apr 17 12:19:39 EDT 1996
Priority of Rules with Equal Priority
The Governor (Dan Marsh)
Decision: Rejected
(a) Should the application of all other rules result in two or more rules having equal priority, they shall be ordered by their length in words, with the rules with fewer words having priority over the rules with more words. The words in the titles and histories of the rules are not to be counted. A "word" for the purposes of this rule shall be defined as a sequence of one or more consecutive characters, at least one of which shall be a letter of the Roman alphabet, bounded by one or more spaces.
(b) Should the application of part (a) of this rule result in two or more rules having equal priority, they shall be ordered by their length in letters, excluding spaces or punctuation, with the rules with fewer letters having priority over the rules with more letters. The letters in the titles and histories of the rules are not to be counted. A "letter" for the purposes of this rule shall be defined as a letter of the Roman alphabet, in either its uppercase or lowercase form.
(c) Should the application of parts (a) and (b) of this rule result in two or more rules having equal priority, the rules in conflict shall be ordered alphabetically, with the rules coming earlier alphabetically having priority over those coming later.
(d) This rule shall have precedence over any rule which explicitly gives rules equal priority.
[[This proposal isn't currently needed, but it could be. My first draft of my Rule Suites proposal gave the splinters of the rule equal priority. Other rules might in the future explicitly or inadvertantly give rules equal priority.]]
Proposal 629 - Wed Apr 17 12:23:06 EDT 1996
Constitutional Convention; Procedure
The Governor (Dan Marsh)
Decision: Accepted
(a) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention is not a "proposal" as
the word is used in any other rule.
(b) (1) Any player may make a proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention.
(2) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention shall be made and
distributed in the manner that the rules specify that proposals are to be
made and distributed.
(c) (1) If a proposal is made to hold a Constitutional Convention, the
Tabulator shall accept votes on the proposal to hold a Constitutional
Convention for the length of the Official Voting Period.
(2) If, at the end of the official voting period, 3/4 or more of the
votes received by the Tabulator in accordance with section (c) (1) of this
rule excluding votes of "PRESENT" are "YES", then a Constitutional
Convention shall be called.
(3) If, at the end of the official voting period, less than 3/4 of the
votes received by the Tabulator in accordance with section (c) (1) of this
rule excluding votes of "PRESENT" are "YES", the proposal to hold a
Constitutional Convention shall be deemed to have failed.
(d) (1) If a Constitutional Convention is called, the position of Delegate
to the Constitutional Convention shall exist. This position may be referred
to as "Delegate." The Delegates may be referred to collectively as the
"Convention."
(2) The Tabulator shall accept nominations for Delegate for the length
of the Official Voting Period.
(3) Each player may nominate a maximum of one player to the position of
Delegate by sending a message to the Tabulator which informs him of the
player so nominated.
(4) (i) At the end of the Official Voting Period, the Tabulator shall
determine the three players receiving the greatest number of nominations.
These players shall be considered to have been elected as Delegates.
(ii) If the application of section (d) (4) (i) of this rule does not
result in exactly three players being elected as Delegates, the Tabulator
shall choose exactly three players by a method of his choosing. Each of the
three players so chosen must have received at least as many nominations for
Delegate as any player not chosen. [If that isn't clear, I'm trying to let
the Tabulator resolve ties in the quickest way possible.]
(5) The Tabulator shall inform all players which three players were
elected Delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
(e) (1) The Delegates may meet and confer in any manner of their choosing,
whether private or public.
(2) The Delegates shall produce a report which shall reflect the
unanimous opinion of the Delegates. This report shall be posted to all players.
(3) (i) The Report produced by the Delegates shall recommend one or more
of the items in sections (e) (3) (iv) through (e) (3) (vii) of this rule.
(ii) The recommendations of the Report shall be specific and shall
state the mutability of each rule which would be changed or added if the
recommendations were adopted.
(iii) The report shall give the reasons for the delegates'
recommendations.
(iv) The Report may recommend the adoption of zero or more rules.
(v) The Report may recommend the amendment of zero or more rules.
(vi) The Report may recommend the repeal of zero or more rules.
(vii) The Report may recommend the replacement of the entire rule set.
(viii) The immutability of any rule shall not hinder the
Convention's recommendations.
(f) (1) (i) After the Report of the Convention has been posted to all
players, the Tabulator shall accept votes on the question of whether to
accept the Report for the length of the Official Voting Period.
(ii) A vote of "YES" shall be to accept the Report, and a vote of
"NO" shall be to reject the Report.
(iii) Only players may vote on the question of accepting the Report
of the Convention.
(iv) Each player may cast a maximum of one vote.
(2) If, at the end of the Official Voting Period, 7/8 of the votes
received, exclusive of votes of "PRESENT", are "YES", then the Report of the
Convention shall be Accepted.
(g) If the Report of the Convention is Rejected, then the position of
Delegate shall cease to exist.
(h) (1) If the Report of the Convention is Accepted, then the game shall
end, following all subsections to section (h) of this rule.
(2) A game of AckaNomic shall be created with a rule set which shall be
the same as the rule set to the game which has ended, with the
recommendations of the Report of the Convention made to the rule set of the
game thus created. If the Report recommended replacing the entire rule set,
then the rule set recommended shall be the rule set created by this
subsection. The game created by this subsection may be referred to by this
section as the "new game".
(3) All players of the game which has ended shall automatically be
players in the new game.
(4) All players shall begin the new game with all points, items,
properties, and titles which were held in the game which has ended, at the
time that it ended.
(5) If, in the new game, a "score" exists, then each Delegate to the
Constitutional Convention in the game which has ended shall receive have his
score in the new game increased by twenty. This subsection shall not have
effect if it violates the rules of the new game.
(j) (1) If a proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention has been made,
another shall not be made until one of the items in (j) (2) through (j) (4)
has occurred.
(2) The proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention has failed, and one
week has passed since said proposal failed.
(3) A report of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention has been
delivered, it has been rejected, and one week has passed since said report
was rejected.
(4) A report of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention has been
accepted.
(5) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention which is invalid by
section (j) of this rule shall be officially ignored. This subsection shall
not bar notification to the proposing player that the proposal is invalid.
(k) Should any term in this rule be undefined, the Speaker shall define it
if and when this rule is invoked. If the "Speaker" is not defined, then the
player invoking this rule shall appoint a player other than himself to act
as Speaker for the purposes of this rule.
[[The only objection I got to this when it was a draft proposal was that it
was too powerful. Of course it is, that's the point. But, with the votes
necessary to effect radical change set 3/4 and 7/8, I'm not sure that really
radical change is actually possible. Should this rule pass, I intend to
invoke it for the purpose of rationalizing the arrangement of the rules, and
attempting to ensure that they stay rationalized. I'll make a more complete
proposal to those ends if and after this rule passes.]]
Proposal 630 - Wed Apr 17 12:27:22 EDT 1996
Anti-Party Votes
Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
Decision: Retracted By Author Using Rule 423
1. This rule is only active when there are three or more political parties, and a rule exists for giving a bonus for a party based on the way party members vote.
2. If all parties, not counting abstenations, vote the same way, and each party receives a bonus according to the way party members vote, additional votes will be cast the other way, which will be reffered to to as anti-votes, according to the following rule:
let n be the number of parties
let v be the number of anti-votesv=n/3 rounded up to the nearest integer
hence, if there are 1-3 parties there will be 1 anti-vote if there are 4-6 parties, there will be 2 anti-votes etc.4. If a vote is is either unanimously YES or unanimously NO, then no anti-votes will be cast.
Proposal 631 - Wed Apr 17 12:31:52 EDT 1996
Amend on Rule "Welcomer, Creation of"
CarsesraC (Jeroen M.W. van Dijk)
Decision: Rejected
By this proposal the 'Gee, Wally' condition will be remove from rule
The lines to be removed are
===============================================================
b) A bonus of .10 units of currency each time the "Gee, Wally"
condition is met according to section (v) of this Rule.
(v) The "Gee, Wally" condition is met whenever all of the
following apply:
a) A Player sends a message to ONLY the Financier that
contains the phrase: "Gee, Wally, this sure is a neat game."
b) The Player sending the message mentioned in section (i)
does so during a time period running from 28 to 42 days after
the Player first became a Player.
c) The Player sending the message mentioned in section (i) has
never before sent a message that triggered a "Gee, Wally"
condition.
d) The message is received on a Tuesday or a Friday, and no
"Gee, Wally" condition has been triggered yet that day.
e) The Officer holding the Welcomer Office has made no
reference to the Player of the "Gee, Wally" condition other
than the following sentences: "There is a way you can give
me bonus currency if you think I've done a good job as
Welcomer. I'm not allowed to tell you anything more about this."
(vi) Whenever currency is to be awarded as a consequence of the
"Gee, Wally" condition, the Financier should report the
change as a result of "mysterious conditions."
(vii) Any Player who makes any mention of the "Gee, Wally" condition
except as allowed by this Rule shall be penalized .10 units
of currency. This change shall be reported as resulting from
"bad Juju."
==============================================
Any player how will vote "yes" to this proposal will get A$0.25 from
CarsesraC (that's me)
Proposal 632 - Wed Apr 17 12:34:53 EDT 1996
The Undertaker, creation of. . .
Techno (Jerome Herrman)
Decision: Rejected
Let there be an Undertaker. It is the job of the Undertaker to notify the Executor of any deaths. When it is made public that a player has died, the Undertaker has 3 days to notify the Executor.Any player wishing to leave the game shall commit suicide. Said player shall notify the Registrar of their leaving. Said player must also notify the Undertaker. A player commiting suicide shall not be allowed to re-enter the game for a period of 1 month.
Proposal 633 - Wed Apr 17 12:36:56 EDT 1996
Reproposing identical same proposals
CarsesraC (Jeroen M.W. van Dijk)
Decision: Rejected
A proposal that is defeated may not be brought again to be voted for in exact the same words.
Excluded from this rule are proposals which didn't pass the quorum rule and which would without that rule pass.
This rule can only be overturned by a decision of judge.
If this rule is conflict with an other rule, this rule will CFJ if the conflicting part of that rule should be removed.[If someone thinks that his/hers proposal should be brought again for voting after defered a CFJ can always be asked to overturn this rule. This rule will also protect itself against other rules that are trying to overturn this rule.]
Proposal 634 - Wed Apr 17 12:39:41 EDT 1996
The Will
Techno (Jerome Herrman)
Decision: Rejected
I propose that all players have a Will that names a beneficiary of all their properties and monies. Current players will have 7 days from the announcement of this proposal passing to create a Will. New players shall have 14 days to decide who shall be the beneficiary named in their Will. If a player is deemed a dead and removed from the game, all of said players holdings, including land, PFbonds, and A$ shall go to the named beneficiary. The beneficiary shall pay 10% of said inheretence as taxes. Said taxes shall be put into an account marked as New Players Fund. New players to the game will recieve 10% of the New Players Fund into their accounts. The inheretence and tax transactions shall be performed by the Executor, if such a position exists. If no position exists, the job of Executor shall be performed by the Speaker.
Proposal 635 - Wed Apr 17 12:42:07 EDT 1996
The Executor, Creation of. . .
Techno (Jerome Herrman)
Decision: Rejected
There shall be an Executor. The Executor shall perform the required transactions needed to transfer inheretence and taxes for the beneficiary of a will.
Proposal 636 - Thu Apr 18 13:32:52 EDT 1996
Amending R550
Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Decision: Accepted
Add the following line to R550:Standard Confirmation Period: 5 days
Proposal 637 - Thu Apr 18 13:32:55 EDT 1996
Rewriting R491: Mutable List Rules
Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Decision: Rejected
[[Current text of R491:
A rule change must be one of the following: (1) the enactment
repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or
amendment of an amendment; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule
into a mutable rule, or vice versa.]]
Amendment (including original text for convienence):
A rule change must be one of the following: (1) the enactment
repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or
amendment of an amendment; (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule
into a mutable rule, or vice versa; or (4) the transmutation of any
number of mutable rules into mutable list rules or vice versa.
In addition to the above, a rule change may contain any number
of amendments to existing mutable list rules. These amendments must be
clearly listed in the rule change with the phrase "Amendments to
existing mutable list rules:" followed by the rule number of a mutable
list rule, and the proposed amendment. Upon Adoption of the rule change,
the additional amendments properly specified as above will also be
immediately Adopted.
A mutable list rule is still considered to be a type of mutable
rule, and will inherit all the properties of such when specified by
other rules pertaining to mutable rules.
[Example, Assuming R550 is a mutable list rule:
"The Senate must confirm by the end of the Standard Confirmation
Period, or lose 10 points.
Amendments to existing mutable list rules:
R550 - Append the phrase "Standard Confirmation Period: 5 days"]
[[R499 is also a candidate. The point of all this is to make it
easier to make these types of updates to obvious rules such
as 550 and 499 when creating a new rule which will add an
item to the list. This will promote standardization in the
rule set]].
Proposal 638 - Thu Apr 18 13:32:58 EDT 1996
What is the Name of This Rule?
snowgod (Phil Ackley)
Decision: Rejected
This Is the Title of This Rule, Which Is Also Found Several Times
in the Rule Itself
This is the first sentence of this rule. This is the second
sentence. This is the title of this rule, which is also found
several times in the rule itself. This sentence is questioning
the intrinsic value of the first two sentences. This sentence is
to inform you, in case you haven't already realized it, that
this is a self-referential rule, that is, a rule containing
sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This
is a sentence that provides an ending to the first section.
This is the first sentence of a new section in a
self-referential rule. This sentence is introducing you to the
ackanomic entity that would be created by the rule, a young boy
named Billy. This sentence is telling you that Billy is blond and blue-eyed
and American and twelve years old and strangling his mother. This sentence
comments on the awkward nature of the selfreferential narrative
form while recognizing the strange and playful detachment it
affords the writer. As if illustrating the point made by the
last sentence, this sentence reminds us, with no trace of
facetiousness, that children are a precious gift from God and
that the world is a better place when graced by the unique joys
and delights they bring to it.
This sentence describes Billy's mother's bulging eyes and
protruding tongue and makes reference to the unpleasant choking
and gagging noises she's making. This sentence makes the
observation that these are uncertain and difficult times, and
that relationships, even seemingly deep-rooted and permanent
ones, do have a tendency to break down.
Introduces, in this section, the device of sentence fragments.
A sentence fragment. Another. Good device. Will be used more
later.
This is actually the last sentence of the rule but has been
placed here by mistake. This is the title of this rule, which
is also found several times in the rule itself. As Gregor Samsa
awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself in his bed
transformed into a gigantic insect. This sentence informs you
that the preceding sentence is from another rule entirely (a
much better one, it must be noted)if such a rule does exist,
otherwise the sentence shall delete itself and has no place at all in
this particular rule. Despite claims of the preceding
sentence, this sentence feels compelled to inform you that the
rule you are reading is in actuality "The Metamorphosis" by
Franz Kafka, and that the sentence referred to by the preceding
sentence is the only sentence which does indeed belong in this
rule. This sentence overrides the preceding sentence by
informing the reader (poor, confused wretch) that this piece of
legislation is actually the Declaration of Independence of the United
States of America (which is hereby recognized by this sentence as a friend
and ally of ackanomic) , but that the author, in a show of extreme negligence
(if not malicious sabotage), has so far failed to include even one single sentence
from that stirring document, although he has condescended to use
a small sentence fragment, namely, "When in the course of human
events", embedded in quotation marks near the end of a sentence.
Showing a keen awareness of the boredom and downright hostility
of the average reader with regard to the pointless conceptual
games indulged in by the preceding sentences, this sentence
returns us at last to the scenario of the rule by asking the
question, "Why is Billy strangling his mother?" This sentence
attempts to shed some light on the question posed by the
preceding sentence but fails. This sentence, however, succeeds,
in that it suggests a possible incestuous relationship between
Billy and his mother and alludes to the concomitant Freudian
complications any astute reader will immediately envision.
Incest. The unspeakable taboo. The universal prohibition.
Incest. And notice the sentence fragments? Good literary device.
Will be used more later.
This is the first sentence in a new section. This is the second
sentence in a new section, and as such it delcares that the story
of billy and his mother shall infact be preserved and recorded by
the Historian (if such an office should exist). This is the
last sentence in a new section.
This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the section
or end, depending on its placement. This is the title of this
rule, which is also found several times in the rule itself.
This sentence raises a serious objection to the entire class of
self-referential sentences that merely comment on their own
function or placement within the rule e.g., the preceding four
sentences), on the grounds that they are monotonously
predictable, unforgivably selfindulgent, and merely serve to
distract the reader from the real subject of this rule, which
at this point seems to concern strangulation and incest and who
knows what other delightful topics. The purpose of this sentence
is to point out that the preceding sentence, while not itself a
member of the class of self-referential sentences it objects to,
nevertheless also serves merely to distract the reader from the
real subject of this rule, which actually concerns Gregor
Samsa's inexplicable transformation into a gigantic insect
(despite the vociferous counterclaims of other wellmeaning
although misinformed sentences). This sentence can serve as
either the beginning of the section or end, depending on its
placement.
This is the title of this rule, which is also found several
times in the rule itself. This is almost the title of the
rule, which is found only once in the rule itself. This
sentence regretfully states that up to this point the
self-referential mode of narrative has had a paralyzing effect
on the actual progress of the rule itself -- that is, these
sentences have been so concerned with analyzing themselves and
their role in the rule that they have failed by and large to
perform their function as communicators of events and ideas that
one hopes coalesce into a reson for a proposed rule change. - in
short, the very raisons d'et_-re of any respectable, hardworking
sentence in the midst of a piece of legislation.
This sentence in addition points out the obvious analogy between
the plight of these agonizingly self-aware sentences and
similarly afflicted human beings, and it points out the
analogous paralyzing effects wrought by excessive and tortured
selfexamination.
The purpose of this sentence (which can also serve as a
section) is to speculate that if the Declaration of
Independence had been worded and structured as lackadaisically
and incoherently as this rule has been so far, there's no
telling what kind of warped libertine society we'd be living in
now or to what depths of decadence the inhabitants of this
country might have sunk, even to the point of deranged and
debased writers constructing irritatingly cumbersome and
needlessly prolix sentences that sometimes possess the
questionable if not downright undesirable quality of referring
to themselves and they sometimes even become run-on sentences or
exhibit other signs of inexcusably sloppy grammar like unneeded
superfluous redundancies that almost certainly would have
insidious effects on the lifestyle and morals of our
impressionable youth, leading them to commit incest or even
murder and maybe that's why Billy is strangling his mother,
because of sentences just like this one, which have no
discernible goals or perspicuous purpose and just end up
anywhere, even in mid
This sentence specifically overrides any other rule that this one
may come in conflict with.
Bizarre. A sentence fragment. Another fragment. Twelve years
old. This is a sentence that. Fragmented. And strangling his
mother. Sorry, sorry. Bizarre. This. More fragments. This is it.
Fragments. The title of this rule, which. Blond. Sorry, sorry.
Fragment after fragment. Harder. This is a sentence that.
Fragments. Damn good device.
The purpose of this sentence is threefold: (1) to apologize for
the unfortunate and inexplicable lapse exhibited by the
preceding section; (2) to assure you, the voter, that it will
not happen again; and (3) to reiterate the point that these are
uncertain and difficult times and that aspects of language, even
seemingly stable and deeply rooted ones such as syntax and
meaning, do break down. This sentence adds nothing substantial
to the sentiments of the preceding sentence but merely provides
a concluding sentence to this section, which otherwise might
not have one.
This sentence, in a sudden and courageous burst of altruism,
tries to abandon the self-referential mode but fails. This
sentence tries again, but the attempt is doomed from the start.
This sentence, in a last-ditch attempt to infuse some iota of
sense into this paralyzed legislation piece, quickly alludes to
Billy's frantic cover-up attempts, followed by a lyrical,
touching, and beautifully written passage wherein Billy is
reconciled with his father (thus resolving the subliminal
Freudian conflicts obvious to any astute reader) and a final
exciting police chase scene during which Billy is accidentally
shot and killed by a panicky rookie policeman who is
coincidentally named Billy. This sentence, although basically in
complete sympathy with the laudable efforts of the preceding
action-packed sentence, reminds the reader that such allusions
to a rule that doesn't, in fact, yet exist are no substitute
for the real thing and therefore will not get the author
(indolent goof-off that he is) off the proverbial hook.
Section. Section. Section. Section. Section.
Section. Section. Section. Section. Section.
Section. Section. Section. Section.
The purpose. Of this section. Is to apologize. For its
gratuitous use. Of. Sentence fragments. Sorry.
The purpose of this sentence is to apologize for the pointless
and silly adolescent games indulged in by the preceding two
paragraphs, and to express regret on the part of us, the more
mature sentences, that the entire tone of this rule is such
that it can't seem to communicate a simple, albeit sordid,
scenario.
This sentence wishes to apologize for all the needless apologies
found in this rule (this one included), which, although placed
here ostensibly for the benefit of the more vexed readers,
merely delay in a maddeningly recursive way the continuation of
the by-now nearly forgotten rule line.
This sentence is bursting at the punctuation marks with news of
the dire import of self-reference as applied to sentences, a
practice that could prove to be a veritable Pandora's box of
potential havoc, for if a sentence can refer or allude to
itself, why not a lowly subordinate clause, perhaps this very
clause? Or this sentence fragment? Or three words? Two words?
One?
Perhaps it is appropriate that this sentence gently and with no
trace of condescension reminds us that these are indeed
difficult and uncertain times and that in general people just
aren't nice enough to each other, and perhaps we, whether
sentient human beings or sentient sentences, should just try
harder. I mean, there is such a thing as free will, there has to
be, and this sentence is proof of it! Furthermore, this sentence recognizes
free will as part of currently existing game custom and opens the doors for a
dictator of Ackanomic, in a bi-modal type of way, by creating the Office of
Dictator, who shall be selected by the speaker appointing the author of this
bill as Dictator. This sentence states that the dictator shall have no powers
other than the ones he publicly declares to holding in his first official
adress, which he shall be required to give within one week of assuming the
dicatorship. Neither this sentence nor you, the reader, is completely
helpless in the face of all the pitiless forces at work in the universe.
We should stand our ground, face facts, take Mother Nature by the throat and just
try harder. By the throat. Harder. Harder, harder.
Sorry.
This is the title of this rule, which is also found several
times in the rule itself.
This should be, but isn't the last sentence of the rule.
This should be, but isn't the last sentence of the rule.
This should be, but isn't the last sentence of the rule.
This is.
Proposal 639 - Thu Apr 18 13:33:03 EDT 1996
Rob Ert Sevin
mr cwm (Eric Murray)
Decision: Retracted By Author Using Rule 423
Nothing in Ackanomic shall have a Name or Title that would be the same as the Name or Title of anything else in Ackanomic if all alphabetic characters in both Names or Titles were lower-case, and all space characters were removed. If two or more things in Ackanomic are found to be in violation of this Rule, the Player who selected the most recent Name or Title shall change that Name or Title to bring it into compliance. If the identity of that Player can not be determined, or if that Player has left the game, that Name or Title shall be brought into compliance by the Officer, should one exist, in charge of making minor changes to the Rules, or by another Officer as directed by the Rules. [[Currently, this would prevent someone from naming themself president, Ptang1001001sos, or mr cwm, for example. Additionally, for example, it would prevent the phrase "I'm under the president" from having multiple meanings: are they the vice-president? operating the president gadget from below? subject to the president rule? contracted to the president player? (You get the idea.)]]
Proposal 640 - Sat Apr 20 11:15:35 EDT 1996
Executive Authority
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Decision: Retracted By Author Using Rule 423
The office of the President of Ackanomia shall have Executive Authority. The
President may make use of Executive Authority at any time.
Executive Authority allows the President to issue Executive Orders.
Additional powers to be granted to the President under Executive Authority
may be included in other rules. Executive Orders operate as outlined below:
I. The President publicly issues an Executive Order, under the following
restrictions:
a. The Executive Order must be assigned a number (by the President)
that is not shared by any other Executive Orders.
II. The following 72 hours (3 days) are called the Grace Period of the
Executive Order. During that period, players have the chance to
override the Executive Order. The process for overriding the Executive
Order is as follows:
a. Any player that wishes to oppose the Executive Order sends a message
to the Tabulator that states that they wish to move to override the
Executive Order.
b. The Tabulator will then send a public message stating that the
Executive Order is being challenged. The Grace Period
of the Executive Order thereby resets (i.e. it acts as if the
Executive Order was just proposed the instant the Tabulator makes
his announcement).
c. All players may send their votes to the Tabulator. They may either
vote for or against the Executive Order. (The initial message to
the Tabulator that initiated the challenge is counted as a vote
against the Executive Order by the player that initiated the challenge).
d. At the end of the Grace Period, the Tabulator will count the votes.
If a quorum was not met, or if 3/4 or more of the players voted for
the Executive Order, the Executive Order goes into effect. Otherwise
the Executive Order is overridden. In either case, the Tabulator
publicly announces the results.
An Executive Order does not have to obey any rules, save the process
described above. Therefore, an Executive Order can amend immutable rules,
remove players from the game, change Ackanomic Names, repeal rules, etc. The
very essence of the Executive Order is its ability to do anything, with
consent of the players.
No CFJs may be called on an Executive Order. At any given time there may be
a maximum of 1 Executive Order in its grace period.
All Executive Orders will be recorded on the Ackanomic web page by the
Web-Harfer. Along with each Executive Order will be a comment telling if it
was accepted or overridden.
[This mechanism is designed to fix problems that are not easily solved
through normal channels. This can include, but is not limited to, situations
such as the quorum-crisis, ambiguities in rules, and conflicting rules. This
is a very powerful tool, but it is very carefully designed to be un-abusable.]
Proposal 641 - Sat Apr 20 11:15:39 EDT 1996
Census
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Decision: Rejected
At any time (maximum of one per any given 30 day period) the Registrar may
take a census of the players and/or observers. To do so, the Registrar must
use the following process:
1. The Registrar sends a message to all of the players (excepting those on
vacation) and/or observers (whichever is appropriate to the particular
census).
a. The subject line of the message must contain the word "census".
b. The message must request a reply, and must also request the
recipient's Ackanomic Name (if they are a player).
2. After four days have passed, all of the players and/or observers who did
not reply to the message sent to them will be removed from the game.
3. The Registrar publicly announces the results of the census.
a. The announcement will include:
1. A current list of players (including real names, Ackanomic Names,
and email addresses)
2. A current list of observers (including real names and email addresses)
3. A list of who (if anyone) left the game.
[This is a general tool for use by the Registrar.]
Proposal 642 - Mon Apr 22 12:48:48 EDT 1996
Amending Numbering Proposals
Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
Decision: Accepted
The rule titled "Numbering Proposals" shall be amended to read, in full: ----- The Promoter shall give each proposal a number for reference. This number shall be the least positive integer greater than all proposal numbers already taken. Each rule has a number. If a rule change creating a new rule does not assign it a number, the new rule's number shall be the least integer greater than all rule numbers previously used. Rule numbers and proposal numbers are protected. ----- [[ Under the current rules, rule numbers change whenever rules are amended or transmuted. This would end that practice. Here's the text of the rule I want to amend: ----- Rule 487/2 (Mutable) Numbering Proposals The Promoter shall give each proposed rule change an ordinal number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive ordinal, whether or not the proposal is adopted. The effective ordinal number of a rule is the ordinal number of the most recent change to that rule. ----- ]]
Proposal 643 - Mon Apr 22 12:50:08 EDT 1996
I Pity The Fool...
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Decision: Reatracted by author
The Ackanomic title of Mr. T is hereby created. Once a month an active player is randomly selected by the Registrar. The player, for the next 30 days, holds the title of Mr. T. If the player leaves the game during the 30 day period, the Registrar will give Mr. T to whoever currently has the Magic Potato. This player will keep Mr. T until the original player's 30 day period is completed.Whoever holds the title of Mr. T can, once during the 30 day period that they hold the title, send a public message (to all players and observers) stating : "I pity the fool who doesn't vote X on Proposal N", where X is a legal vote that any player may cast on a given proposal [Currently Yes, No, and Present] or X may be Abstain. N must be a proposal that is currently in its voting period, AND is not within the last 2 days of its voting period. [i.e. it must have 48 hours or more remaining in its voting period]
Whenever this public statement is made (in accordance with the guidelines above) then when Proposal N is evaluated, the following things happen:
1. An extra vote of X is cast (if X is a legal vote, and not an abstention) on the proposal by Mr. T (not by the player controlling him). This vote does NOT count towards computing quorum.
2. Any active player who does not vote X (or, in the case of abstention, who does not abstain) loses 3 points.
Proposal 644 - Mon Apr 22 12:51:49 EDT 1996
Hungry Hungry Hippo
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Decision: Retracted by author, reversed by AOJ 101, removed from
voting consideration by Rule 1751
The Ackanomic entity the Hungry Hungry Hippo is hereby created. A player is chosen randomly by the Registrar to receive the Hungry Hungry Hippo once every 30 days. If the player who owns the Hungry Hungry Hippo leaves during the period of his ownership, for the remainder of the period, the Gnome Buddy will possess the Hungry Hungry Hippo.Whoever owns the Hungry Hungry Hippo can, once during their ownership period, eat up one of the current proposals being proposed. The proposal is then considered retracted, with no point penalties to anyone (except to the controller of the Hungry Hungry Hippo, who either gains 3 points or loses 3 points; the Pollster gets to decide which it is after each instance).
Proposal 645 - Mon Apr 22 12:54:43 EDT 1996
Robin Hood Strikes Again!
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Decision: Retracted by author, reversed by AOJ 101, removed from
voting consideration by Rule 1751
On Monday each week the Financier will take 3% of the wealth of the richest player (the one with the most units of Ackanomic currency) and give the money to the player with the least wealth (or the most in debt, if anyone is in debt).
Proposaal 646 - Mon Apr 22 12:55:45 EDT 1996
Redistribution of Scores
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Decision: Retracted by author, reversed by AOJ 101, removed from
voting consideration by Rule 1751
On Tuesday of every week, the Scorekeeper will take 1 point from the 3 players with the highest scores, and from the 3 players with the lowest scores (if these two groups overlap (i.e. there are only 5 players) then some players will lose money twice). These points will be given to players randomly, one by one.
Proposal 647 - Mon Apr 22 12:56:58 EDT 1996
Amending R508
Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Decision: Retracted By Author Using Rule 423
Append the following text to R508:Explicity prohibited are the following AOJs:
An AOJ may not be used to nullify the decision of the President to appoint a particular candidate to the Supreme Court.
An AOJ may not be used to nullify the decision of the Senate to confirm a particular nominee to the Supreme Court.
Note that the term President, as used in this rule, means the office acting in an offical capacity as the President, not the person who happens to be the President. For example, if the President and the Web-Harfer were the same individual, an AOJ could not be used to nullify the Web-Harfer's decision to publish rules on the Ackanomic Web Page. [[or to prevent the person who is the President from submitting proposals, you get the idea...]]
Proposal 648 - Mon Apr 22 13:00:53 EDT 1996
Confirmation Procedure
Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Decision: Accepted
Whenever a rule calls for the confirmation by the Senate of a particular candidate or action (e.g. R507), each Senator will have the amount of time defined by the Standard Confirmation Period to post a "Yes" or "No" vote to the public forum.Should a Senator be on Vacation during the Standard Confirmation Period, the Period will be extended 3 days beyond the time the Senator returns, if such an extension would lengthen the Period.
Should a Senator quit the game, be Impeached, or otherwise leave office for any reason, the Senator will be deemed to have voted "No" for the confirmation.
Should a Senator fail to post a proper vote as defined above by the end of the Period, the Senator will be deemed to have voted "Yes" for the confirmation, and will also be held in Contempt, and suffer any penalties defined for being held in Contempt.
The candidate or action will be deemed to have been comfirmed if 2/3 or more of the votes are "Yes". It will be deemed to not be confirmed otherwise.
The Period will end upon all Senators posting a proper vote in the proper way. Senators may publically retract and resubmit votes up to the end of the Period.
If the term Standard Confirmation Period is undefined elsewhere in the rules, it will be defined here as 7 days.
[[Note that the term Standard Confirmation Period will be defined by an amendment to R550, should it pass. I am also working on a way to make these type of amendments easier]]
Proposal 649 - Mon Apr 22 13:02:14 EDT 1996
Bored Senators
Malenkai (Randy Hall)
Decision: Rejected
1) The Senate seat names, "Seat A", "Seat B", "Seat C", and
"Seat D" are uninteresting. Senate seat names which contain the
underscore character ('_') are also uninteresting.
2) Upon passage of this proposal, each Senator will have 7 days
to change the name of their seat to something that is not uninteresting,
as defined by the rules.
3) The chosen name must conform to the rules defined for Player
names, with the exception that it is explicitly noted that a Senate seat
name is not the same thing as a Player name.
4) Once a name is chosen and announced publically, it is permanent
and may not be changed, even upon a new Senator filling the seat. If the
Senate should somehow be dissolved and reformed, the seat names will be
reused. If the new Senate has less seats than the old Senate, the Speaker
shall decide which names are reused. If the new Senate is larger, the excess
seats shall be given uninteresting names by the Speaker.
5) Upon the filling of a vacant seat with an uninteresting name,
or upon the re-election to a seat with an uninteresting name, the Senator
will have 7 days to change the name something that is non uninteresting, as
per the clauses in this rule and elsewhere.
6) Should an occupied seat ever have an uninteresting name as
defined by the rules, and the occupying Senator is NOT within a 7 day
period to change the name as defined by this rule, the term for that seat
ends immediately and an election for that seat is held using the rules for
doing so. This clause superceeds all mutable rules defining the term or
termlessness of a Senate seat.
7) Should a Senator go on vacation during a 7 day period to change
the name as defined by this rule, that 7 day period is automatically
extended to 7 days past when the Senator returns from vacation.
Proposal 650 - Mon Apr 22 13:03:31 EDT 1996
Executive Authority
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)
Decision: Rejected
The office of the President of Ackanomia shall have Executive Authority. The President may make use of Executive Authority at any time.Executive Authority allows the President to issue Executive Orders (hereafter referred to as EOs). Additional powers to be granted to the President under Executive Authority may be included in other rules. EOs operate as outlined below:
I. The President publicly issues an EO, under the following restrictions: A. The EO must be assigned a number (by the President) that that is equal to the number of the highest existing EO, incremented by one. The first EO will be assigned the number 100. II. The following 72 hours (3 days) are called the Grace Period of the EO. During that period, there are two methods to override an EO: A. Popular Veto 1. Any player that wishes to oppose the EO may send a message to the Tabulator that states that they wish to move to override the EO. 2. The Tabulator then sends a public message stating that the EO is being challenged. The Grace Period of the EO thereby resets (i.e. it acts as if the EO was just proposed the instant the Tabulator makes their announcement). 3. All players send their votes to the Tabulator. They may either vote for or against the EO. (The initial message to the Tabulator that initiated the challenge is counted as a vote against the EO by the player that initiated the challenge). 4. At the end of the Grace Period (if the EO has not been overridden by other means) the Tabulator will count the votes. a. If a quorum was not met, the EO is overridden. However, within the next 3 days the Supreme Court may, through unanimous agreement, resurrect the EO. To do so, they publicly announce that they are doing so. In this case, the EO goes into effect. If an EO is not resurrected within 3 days of the end of the Grace Period, it may never be resurrected at a later date. b. If a quorum was met, and 3/4 or more of the players (that cast votes) voted for the EO, then the EO goes into effect. c. If a quorum was met, and less than 3/4 of the players (that cast votes) voted for the EO, then the EO is overridden. d. Regardless of the results, the Tabulator publicly announces them. B. Judicial Veto 1. Any time within the Grace Period of the EO the Supreme Court may override the EO by unanimous agreement. They must publicly announce that they are overriding the EO. If they do so, the EO is overridden and its Grace Period immediately ends. However, within the next 3 days the Senate and Speaker may, through unanimous agreement, resurrect the EO. To do so, they publicly announce that they are doing so. In this case, the EO goes into effect. If an EO is not resurrected within 3 days of the end of the Grace Period, it may never be resurrected at a later date. III. An EO does not have to obey any rules, except the process described above AND any limitations listed within this rule. Therefore, an EO can amend immutable rules, remove players from the game, change Ackanomic Names, repeal rules, etc. The very essence of the EO is its ability to do anything, with consent of the players. The one limitation on an EO is that it may NOT in any way amend, repeal, or transmute the mutability of this rule. Therefore, it may not change the fact that it can be overridden. IV. No CFJs may be called on an EO. At any given time there may be a maximum of 1 EO in its grace period. V. All EOs will be recorded on the Ackanomic web page by the Web-Harfer. Along with each EO will be a comment telling if it was accepted or overridden.[This mechanism is designed to fix problems that are not easily solved through normal channels. This can include, but is not limited to, situations such as the quorum-crisis, ambiguities in rules, and conflicting rules. This is a very powerful tool, but it is very carefully designed to be un-abusable. I see two main uses for it: Number one, to fix such trivial things as spelling errors, redundant rules, ambiguous rules, etc. These are things that you don't want to reward someone 10 points for correcting, but they are things that ought to be corrected. The second main use would be to solve problems in the rule set that would be very inconvenient, tedious, or impossible to solve through "normal" channels.]