From: owner-ackanomic@wilma.che.utexas.edu (Ackanomic Digest) To: ackanomic-digest Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #220 Reply-To: ackanomic@wilma.che.utexas.edu Sender: owner-ackanomic@wilma.che.utexas.edu Errors-To: owner-ackanomic@wilma.che.utexas.edu Precedence: bulk Ackanomic Digest Monday, July 28 1997 Volume 02 : Number 220 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 01:40:18 -0400 (EDT) From: mr cwm Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 440 (mr cwm) I accept. Apparently, simply owning the PRJ is enough to keep a steady flow of CFJ's coming. - -mr cwm On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote: >ThinMan failed to respond in time. Apparently the confusion over >vacation, or a lost e-mail was the problem, unfortunately. > >mr cwm has been selected. > >Clerk of the Courts >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Call For Judgment 440 > Subject: Gadgets >Initiator: Alfvaen > Judge: ThinMan (failed to respond) >2nd Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 24, 1997, 23:51h EDT) >Judgement: > >Statement: > >Removing Clause (vi) of Rule 595, "Gadgets", will cause many existing >Gadgets to stop working since they will no longer be able to manipulate >entities. > >Alfvaen's Reasoning: > >I am phrasing it that way because I find it easier than the converse; I >believe that it should be ruled FALSE. > >The clause in question is(excluding square-bracketed text which does not >change the effect): > > (vi) A Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a Protected entity > if its Blueprint so specifies. > >I have listed in a recent email message the rules which contain the word >"Protected", and they are few. I do not believe that removing this >restriction will have the effects that Malenkai claims. > >Malenkai stated that he beleieves game custom holds that all entities >are "Protected", because of that phrasing in an earlier version of Rule >500. However, Niccolo Flychuck also stated, in reference to a recent >proposal to amend Rule 1301, that "Protection language is obsolete". So it >seems to me that no entities are Protected, except perhaps those that >specifically state it in the Rules, and I can't find any real reason why a >Gadget should be able to manipulate those things in the first place. > >If what is _meant_ is that Gadgets may manipulate any entity, then perhaps >the CSRR Officer should change Rule 595 to reflect this fact if this CFJ is >judged true. > >Malenkai's Bronze Torch Reasoning: > >> Alfvaen's Reasoning [quoted]: > >> I have listed in a recent email message the rules which contain the word >> "Protected", and they are few. I do not believe that removing this >> restriction will have the effects that Malenkai claims. > >The provision in clause (vi) is a an *enabling provision*, not a >restriction. The key question here is to ask: What does the word >"Protection" mean as used in clause (vi). I am going to make a >case that it means "any" or "all" (or is a no-op), whereas the >initiator appears to make a claim that it is an attribute, without >definition, yet with significance (if it has no significance, then it >doesn't really exist, leading to any or all anyway). I am going to >argue that my construction is supported by game custom, whereas no other >is. (Saying "protected entity" means "all entities" is the same as >saying "protected" is a no-op). > >> Malenkai stated that he beleieves [sic] game custom holds that all >> entities are "Protected", > >I did not say such a thing, and prefer to be quoted directly in the >future, rather than have my quotes misconstrued. I stated that game >custom gives us the construction of "Protected entity" to mean "any >entity", because that is what it meant from the time Blanket Protection >was added with proposal 986, and continued to mean when its definition >was removed with proposals 1416 and 1539. > >The question ramins, then, what does "Protection" mean when its defintion >is removed. When proposal 986 was accepted, giving all entities >and actions Protection by default, the term became obsolete as an adjective, >yet was not removed from all places as an adjective. Some entities were >described by the adjective, whereas others were not, yet the idea of >Protection as described in rule 592 applied to everything, hence the >word had no real meaning where it was actually used as an adjective at >that point; it was obsolete, a no-op. > >That is when this custom was created, and it applied to clause (vi) at >that time. It remained defined as a noun in rule 592 for entities and >actions (ie, rule 592 delineated what it meant for an entity to be >Protected). Entity Protection was removed from rule 592 and moved to >rule 500 by proposal 1416. Proposal 1416 was a very long proposal which >removed virtually all instances of the word Protection from the rules >where it pertained to entites. This did not change the customary >meaninglessness of the word. The fact that it did not remove the >instance in clause (vi) did not remove the custom created by its >obsolecence by proposal 986, and did not change what it *meant* to be >Protected, which for entities, was now described by rule 500, without >use of the actual word. Proposal 1539 later moved action Protection >into rule 101, strengthened the concept of Protection, and dumped rule >592 altogether. Again, this did not change the customary null rendering >of the word as used as an adjective. Clause (vi) meant the same thing, >whether or not proposal 1416 accidently forgot to remove it. Proposal >1416 did not create this custom because of the oversight, it was *already* >there with 986. > >> However, Niccolo Flychuck also stated, in reference to a recent >> proposal to amend Rule 1301, that "Protection language is obsolete". > >Niccolo may or may not have said that, but the statement is true, IMO. >As I have stated, it became obsolete by proposal 986, yet game custom >allowed it to exist as a null op in various places, including clause (vi). > >The rules are silent on the proper construction of the term "Protected", >therefore the above game custom must be consulted to find the correct >rendering, and since proposal 986, that rendering is a no-op. > >Given that, clause (vi) gives Gadgets the ability to manipulate entities >as described in their blueprints. Without clause (vi), Gadgets have >no rule-based authority to change the game state, hence they cannot, >as rule 101 is clear on the matter of the game state may only be changed >as described in the rules (which, ironically, is part of my half of the >elimination of Protection and CFJ 113 -- proposal 1539). > >> seems to me that no entities are Protected, except perhaps those that >> specifically state it in the Rules, and I can't find any real reason why a >> Gadget should be able to manipulate those things in the first place. > >To clarify my difference of opinion with the initiator: He appears to >be arguing for Protection to be an attribute of entities, even in the >absense of a definition of the term, and I am arguing that Protection >is an obsolete term whose rendering, in the places it remains, is given >to us by game custom; it is *not* an attribute. I am *not* arguing >that all entities are *Protected*, but that "Protected" means "any" as >used in clause (vi). Indeed, game custom itself favors my interpretion >over that of the initiator, because that is how we have been doing it >in the case of clause (vi) since proposal 986, over a year now (gee time >flies...). If the initiator's apparent interpretation indeed held sway, >then gadgets could *not* manipulate most entities, and the CFJ would >indeed should be judged FALSE for that reason, but that is not the game >custom interpretation of clause (vi). In any case, I cannot find how >gadgets will manipulate *any* entities, under *either* interpretation, >if clause (vi) is removed (although if the initiator's apparent non- >customary construction is chosen, it doesn't really matter much). > >> If what is _meant_ is that Gadgets may manipulate any entity, then perhaps >> the CSRR Officer should change Rule 595 to reflect this fact if this CFJ is >> judged true. > >Yes, this is a perfect candidate for a CSRR, but the enabling provision >of clause (vi) must remain. I do not see how the CFJ can be judged other >than TRUE. > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 01:59:31 -0400 (EDT) From: mr cwm Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 139 (mr cwm) Oh, what the heck. I accept this one, too. I hope my employer doesn't expect much of me on Monday. - -mr cwm On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote: >ThinMan failed to respond to CFCJ 139. It has been reassigned >to mr cwm. > >Clerk of the Courts >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Call for Criminal Judgement 139 > Subject: Entity Manipulation >Initiator: Malenkai > Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (failed to respond) >2nd Judge: ThinMan (failed to respond) >3rd Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 25, 1997, 21:56h EDT) >Judgement: > >Statement: > >Chaos has committed a Crime. > >Malenkai's Reasoning: > >Chaos attempted to zap the following entities with an Orbital Mind >Control Laser via the following action on July 14th: > >--- >> I offer /dev/joe Jephthah's Pride in exchange for the Collossus of >> Sardia, an Otzma Card type Go Fish, a Plunky Monkey Wrench, a Scroll of >> Crumble, and A$250. Oh my, this is too good to pass up. I am zapping /dev/joe with my Orbital Mind Control Laser for >the trade offer quoted above. > *zot* >--- > >Now, its been alleged that this was in fact a Crime, due to the fact that >the Collossus of Sardia did not exist at the time, but were not here to >judge that. > >It seems much more likely that the heinous crime of Zuriti'ili was comitted >in regards to these nefarious attempted entity manipulations. Lets look >at the mysterious circumstances surrounding this action: 1) The fabled >Collossus of Sardia mysteriously disappears. 2) The target is nothing but >charred remains in the afterlife. 3) The President (and defendant) is >making secret deals with his partner in crime to gerrymander him onto >the Supreme Court in exchange for supporting this underhanded entity >manipulation. > >We know that the heinous crime of Zuriti'ili involves entities, but not >a prime number of entities. The number of entities in question here >is 254 or 255, depending how you count. It is also rumoured in the >ancient texts that a *zot* noise is involved, and that is the case here. > >The Judge has no choice, given the overwhelming evidence presented, that >Chaos comitted the Crime of Zuriti'ili here on this day of July 14th. > >Suggested Penalty: > >A FINE of A$1150 -- known A$ value of the entities in question. > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 02:04:51 -0400 (EDT) From: mr cwm Subject: Re: Acka: More Offices On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, /dev/joe wrote (amongst other things): >Gallery -- one tiny (3K) web page, about 15 pictures, typically about 10K >each, could be more if other players ever get around to submitting pictures. >Light workload, requires some manipulation of pictures on those infrequent >occasions when players submit them, and you have to keep adding/deleting >empty frames as players join/leave. I'd like to make some small contribution, and since I just learned how to make minimalist web pages, but don't, as yet, have anyting worthwhile to put on them, I'd like to give this a shot. - -mr cwm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:03:04 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: acka : The People's Council For Internomic With this message I am joining the People's Council for Internomic. The People's Council for Internomic is now in Session. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:04:36 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: acka : The People's Council for Internomic - 2 Of course, it might have been in session before that, I read digest, so it's possible someone joined already. But it undoutedly in Session now. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:17:54 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: acka : a string of Modest proposals A string of Modest proposal by me just passed this morning. Some of them fix and clear some points that have to do with the Synod. I feel inclined to agree with Malenkai that his most recent attmempt to repeal it helped propel it in this direction, and I thank him for it. If you haven't read Chaos's analysis of the Synod yet, I urge you to do so, it raises many interesting and valid points about the Synod and its role. I'm not so sure about the 'ahead of its time' bit. Chaos seems to say that all things must be built by a slow evolutionary process, and that the Synod seems to spring forth suddenly. I see this rule more as a framework, it may well have been premature when it was first accepted, whicih was why it remain dormant for such a long time, but now, with more Churches, and TLOs, ths rule can start on that evolutionary path Chaos talks about. Finally we've seen the Internomic interface reformed, as far as the name of the Institution is concerned, considering the debates surrounding it, I felt it was an appropriate name. Another proposal, no completely unrelated, ammended Joint Assembly toa more workable form. My original concept of JA was that when players vote as members of Institution, theyvote as Officers, or members of that instituion and not necessarily as players,which was the rationale behind the 'one vote per player per Institution' which survived as the Additive JA. However, Institutions are not strictly representational bodies (Senate, and Synod are, Party Hall, only partly so, The History Guild and the People's Council for Internomic are not), so this might not be the best formula for all cases. I am pleased with these results. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 09:52:48 -0400 From: Malenkai Subject: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict CFJ 437 has been judged TRUE. Clerk of the Courts - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Call For Judgment 437 Subject: Similarity II Initiator: Malenkai Judge: Mr Lunatic Fringe (declined) 2nd Judge: Karma (declined) 3rd Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Jul 21, 1997, 19:04h EDT) Judgement: TRUE Statement: It cannot be determined with finality whether the Church of Seleya is eligible for a Seat in the Synod. Malenkai's Reasoning: This is not a PWCFJ, although it could easily be reworded to be. Its the situations, and not the wins, that I find intersting, and by making winning *not* an outcome, the air can be cleared. This is just for fun. Rule 1303, section 10b, says: > b. A Church is not eligible for a Seat in the Synod if the total M > Similarities with all the Churches which are members of the Synod is > equal to or greater than 80. CFJ 429 established that self-similarity was undefined. This rule establishes eligibility based on, in part, a test that involved calculation of self-similarity. Thus the eligibilty cannot be determined with finality. What than means, I'll leave to someone else to decide. Note that none of the other churches, indeed any church, is eligible either. Rex Mundi's Reasoning: I concur with Malenkai's reasoning. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:29:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Acka: Senate Resolution The text following this sentence constitutes a Senate Resolution, with the provisional title "Concerning Government". {{ The phrase "at most once per calendar month" is deleted from rule 411.1 immediately. The last paragraph of rule 411.1 is deleted immediately. Into rule 417, at the end of the list of prohibited types of AOJ, the following double-asterisk-delimited text is immediately inserted: ** 4) An AOJ that nullifies a Senatorial decision either to accept or to reject a Senate Resolution. ** Vynd is appointed to Senator seat Sinecure 33; Robert Sevin is appointed to Senator seat Rebus 8-{}; /dev/joe is appointed to Senator seat /dev/senate3; ThinMan is appointed to Senator seat Melvin.}} No IP against the Speaker or any Senator shall be accepted unless, in addition to the conditions imposed by Rule 404, the Senate votes in favor of impeaching the officer named in the IP. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:32:46 -0500 (CDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Acka: Senate Resolution Speech On the subject of the Senate Resolution entitled "Concerning Government": This Senate Resolution is about Progress. Progress, with a capital P, which rhymes with T, and that stands for Taking Acka back to something that resembles Nomic. When, in the course of Nomic events, the game degenerates to the point that players are bored of it and feel like leaving, action such as this is necessary to liven up the game and make it interesting again. This has the potential to be one of the best things that has ever happened to this nomic, and will be sure to leave a mark in history. It is my firm belief that this resolution is the first necessary step toward many of the goals of many of the players here, such as: - - Reducing the rule set to something actually readable and understandable without several months of intense study. - - Capturing at least one Nomic with the letters H, A, R, and F in its name. - - Landing a player on a moon. - - Tying off lots of loose ends which do nothing more than require some officer to track them. - - Providing a solid base of leadership in Acka. For all these reasons, this Senate Resolution should be accepted. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 01:19:43 -0600 (MDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 440 (mr cwm) > I accept. Apparently, simply owning the PRJ is enough to keep a steady > flow of CFJ's coming. Much better than the Little Lamb has helped me get the Magic Potato so far. Oh, well, I suppose CFJ's come more often than once a week...and that wasn't my only motive anyway. And I suppose I'd get more CFJ's if I wasn't the one submitted 90% of them...:-) - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--The Guess Who:No Sugar Tonight Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone Dogs come when you call. Cats have answering machines. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 12:26:09 -0600 (MDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Acka: IP I am submitting an Impeachment Paper against the Senator /dev/joe, holder of seat /dev/senate3. While it is still possible for me to do so in the normal fashion. (Hey, I figured somebody's gotta.) If we are all supposed to be so keen on letting the Senate run this game as they see fit, then why didn't they just submit a proposal to put themselves in charge outright, and see how we voted? Are we not to be trusted to keep Ackanomic running as we would like it? I say that that shows a lamentable lack of faith on the part of the Senate, and I find the assumption that we ourselves are not bright enough to make a game we want to play somewhat offensive. Of course, this is all loophole surfing anyway, and I am probably in the minority of players in that I don't particularly care for it... - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--Joe Walsh:Radio Song Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone I shot an arrow into the air, and it stuck. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 12:38:53 -0600 (MDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Resolution Speech > This Senate Resolution is about Progress. Progress, with a capital P, > which rhymes with T, and that stands for Taking Acka back to something > that resembles Nomic. And Ackanomic no longer resembles Nomic? Please explain. > When, in the course of Nomic events, the game degenerates to the point > that players are bored of it and feel like leaving, action such as this > is necessary to liven up the game and make it interesting again. > This has the potential to be one of the best things that has ever happened > to this nomic, and will be sure to leave a mark in history. I won't disagree with the last clause of the last sentence. However, I disagree very strongly with the contention that players are bored of it and feel like leaving. I don't know that anyone has done both. Some may be bored of it, but staying around; some may have left, but not out of boredom. I, for one, find the game in its current state lively and interesting, and harbour some suspicions that I would actually get quite bored with, and likely to leave, a game that is "more like Nomic", to use your quaint phrasing. > It is my firm belief that this resolution is the first necessary step > toward many of the goals of many of the players here, such as: > > - Reducing the rule set to something actually readable and understandable > without several months of intense study. Oh, c'mon. I spent no more than a weekend reading over the Rules the first time, and I got the basic gist. Maybe I'm unusual or something. I must say that I certainly had more success there than I did with Pumpkin Patch, or even Rishonomic. > - Capturing at least one Nomic with the letters H, A, R, and F in its name. > > - Landing a player on a moon. No problems there. > - Tying off lots of loose ends which do nothing more than require some > officer to track them. I'd rather take these on a case-by-case basis, and make sure that _no_ officer was willing to do it. If there are some things that the Speaker, or Registrar, or Tabulator, or whoever, would rather see go because they don't like that part of their duties, then find out if somebody else wouldn't mind. > - Providing a solid base of leadership in Acka. Which, up until now, has been a democracy. > For all these reasons, this Senate Resolution should be accepted. If this is the kind of behaviour we can expect from our Senators, then perhaps repealing the Senate is the right idea after all. - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--The Guess Who:No Sugar Tonight Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone By chapter and worse ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:10:08 -0400 From: Malenkai Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 440 (mr cwm) > > I accept. Apparently, simply owning the PRJ is enough to keep a steady > > flow of CFJ's coming. > > Much better than the Little Lamb has helped me get the Magic Potato so far. > Oh, well, I suppose CFJ's come more often than once a week...and that > wasn't my only motive anyway. There is also no Potato Ineligibility List. Malenkai ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 15:13:00 -0400 From: Malenkai Subject: Re: Acka: P2248 rejected (You notice you have no gold! --More--) > > Proposal 2248 > > You notice you have no gold! --More-- > Hmmm. So where, exactly, did I miss the mark on this one? I will > definitely resubmit some version of this one, but I'm willing to make > necessary changes. I stated what I did not like about the proposal twice (once as an RFC, and once after submission). Those comments appeared to be ignored. Since the proposal, as submitted, did not fix the loophole anyway, but made the rules more complex, I voted no. Malenkai ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 12:28:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Ross Morgan-Linial Subject: Re: Acka: Freeze On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Phil Ackley wrote: // Antimatter did not return form his vacation on the 24th, and is on Ice. // Darth Vader was R271'd on ice. Oops. Well, I do whatever it is I have to do to become an Active Voting Player again :-) - ------ Ross Morgan-Linial * rmorganl@fhcrc.org Any man who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined. - Samuel Goldwyn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:50:24 -0600 (MDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: Freeze > On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Phil Ackley wrote: > > // Antimatter did not return form his vacation on the 24th, and is on Ice. > // Darth Vader was R271'd on ice. > > Oops. > Well, I do whatever it is I have to do to become an Active Voting Player > again :-) I think you have to say the magic words "I hereby take myself off Vacation". - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--Bruce Willis:Respect Yourself Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone This sentence would be seven words long if it were six words shorter. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:51:16 -0600 (MDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: P2248 rejected (You notice you have no gold! --More--) > > Hmmm. So where, exactly, did I miss the mark on this one? I will > > definitely resubmit some version of this one, but I'm willing to make > > necessary changes. > > I stated what I did not like about the proposal twice (once as an RFC, > and once after submission). Those comments appeared to be ignored. > Since the proposal, as submitted, did not fix the loophole anyway, but > made the rules more complex, I voted no. Right, the Majik thing. I have, hopefully, fixed that in the RFC I sent out this morning. Mea culpa. - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--Bruce Willis:Respect Yourself Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone I trust my fingers about as far as I can throw them. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:12:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Jason Orendorff Subject: Re: Acka: P 2242 > I am still rather out of touch, but on checking the > voting digest, I see myself listed as not voting on > P2242. On Thursday I attempted to designate /dev/joe > as my voting proxy. Did this fail for some reason? > If it was successful, then my one additional vote > against P2242 would be enough to reject it. This is correct. I haven't checked my mail for a few days. - -- Chaos For weeks on end a few extravagant Russians ran over stop signs. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 13:12:58 -0800 From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" Subject: Re: Acka: Freeze > I think you have to say the magic words "I hereby take myself off > Vacation". I hereby take myself off Vacation, if I'm on Vacation. I am creating a trinket called "Slogan #1", worth A$1. It is a small white button, to be pinned on a shirt, carrying the slogan "Abolish Contitional Actions" in forceful, but elegant, black letters. #trinket Antimatter : Slogan #1 : 1 - ------------------------------- Antimatter * rmorganl@fhcrc.org You have the power of negation. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 19:08:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Jason Orendorff Subject: Re: Acka: Streak > It just depends on the order the Tabulator releases the results. There > was a rule a while back that required the tabulator to release all the > results in numerical order, and if any proposals' results were skipped, > the later ones weren't processed by the game until after the earlier > results were released + processed. However, somewhere in all the office > rearrangements I think this went away. Thank ear! - -- Chaos the next Tabulator will understand, I'm sure ------------------------------ End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #220 *******************************