From: owner-ackanomic@wilma.che.utexas.edu (Ackanomic Digest) To: ackanomic-digest Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #222 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 Tuesday, July 29 1997 Volume 02 : Number 222 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:09:57 -0400 (EDT) From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Acka: CSR 117 Well, I'd been meaing to get around to doing one of these. My current plans for this office, by the way, are to patch stuff that has recently made it inot the rules. The long standing problems I figure I at least desrve a few points for fixing, if I go to the trouble of hunting them down. The text of CSR 117 is as follows: In Rule 419.2 VI. delete the second and third sentences and replace them with: "Any player may join this Institution by posting a public message stating they are doing so. Any player may leave this Institution by posting a public message saying they are doing so." - Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu - Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:00:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Acka: Cheering, Victory Gestures, etc. Hooray! Wheeee! _ / \ | | | | | | | | | | | |.---. | || |.---. | || || |.---. | || || || | | | _-_| _ || _ | | _--\ \/ \||/ \| |_-- \_/\_/ \_/| | _- | | _- | | | \ / \ / /dev/joe BWG victory gestures ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:43:53 -0700 From: **Alexandre Muniz Subject: Re: Acka: Viruses & CarsesraC I hear he was murdered. The only witness was too far away to see it clearly, but the murderer appeared to be wearing a *toga* **two-star > And what's going on with fnord, anyway? He's been extremely quiet of late. > Anyone have any idea about that? (Like fnord, perhaps?) > > -- > --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) > Current Album--Stolen Moments--Red Hot & Cool > Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone > Unanimous is a mouse with a single horn in its forehead. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:06:35 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: P2233 rejected (Otzmaara) On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote: > > I already pointed out in a previous post that the three day limit doesn't > > really prevent any countering, or double countering, although it might > > leave a rathger small windows for anti-countering. > That limitation gives players who can log on at (say) 2:32 > A.M. Saturday morning if they like an unfair advantage over those of > us who can't... or just don't enjoy such time-sensitive shenanigans. > Also, the assertion that I had a window of a number of hours > in which I could have countered the Go Fish played against my Fix My > Gadget, while true enough of itself, ignores the goal of Ackanomic to > be fully playable by anyone who has email access once in three days. > Any other player who had a Go Fish could have countered the first Go Fish any time during those first three days. In Acka many such deals are made. Anyway, if you have email access once in three days, then the next time you access you'd be able to use another Card. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:07:11 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: P2233 rejected (Otzmaara) On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote: > > I already pointed out in a previous post that the three day limit doesn't > > really prevent any countering, or double countering, although it might > > leave a rathger small windows for anti-countering. > That limitation gives players who can log on at (say) 2:32 > A.M. Saturday morning if they like an unfair advantage over those of > us who can't... or just don't enjoy such time-sensitive shenanigans. > Also, the assertion that I had a window of a number of hours > in which I could have countered the Go Fish played against my Fix My > Gadget, while true enough of itself, ignores the goal of Ackanomic to > be fully playable by anyone who has email access once in three days. > k Anyway, I'm not deadset against eliminating this specific provision. I judt don't think it's necessary to remove it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:17:24 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote: > > As I've stataed before, CFJ 429 established no such thing. The reasoning > > for that CFJ may have mentioned this, but the CFJ statement was very > > specific, and refered to no Organization other than TMBSG. > > CFJ 429 affirmed existing game custom that an organization's similarity > with itself is undefined. Are you saying that TMBSG's similarity with > itself is undefined, yet all all other organization's self-similarity > is defined? Doesn't that seem absurd? Whether or not it is absurd is not the question. R214 is very explicit about what is being judged, and what is official and what is not. The reasoning is explicitly and unamigously not part of the official judgement. You misrepresent CFJ 429, which was poorly phrased to begin with. > > > I find this a real stretch of one's logical imagination to apply this > > reasoning to any Organization. Especially from a player who is so strict > > about other things, such as, when is there truly a precedecne conflict. > > Arguing that is no more that trying to pull the wool over our collective > > eyes :) > > I find the above offensive. I submitted a CFJ, nothing more. I have > no intent to deceive anyone, as is implied above, and as I said, find > the implication offensive. Is that smiley written in invisible ink or something? I find it very offensive that you imply that a metaphor, clearly marked with a smiley, is offensive. > What does interpreting the precedence rule > have to do with this anyway? You stated several times that you tend to be strict about those. Well, I'm strict about judgements, and I find it offensive that you are tying to pass off reasoning as something 'established by CFJ'. Game Custom is established by the CFJ statement (provided it is judged true), not by reasoning. I urge the Justices to refer to the rules about CFJs when considering this appeal. Niccolo flychuck > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:19:11 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: P2246 accepted (Internomic a la Vynd) On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, mr cwm wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Niccolo Flychuck wrote: > > > > > >That's absurd. > > ... which, around here, is not actually an argument against it :) > > - -mr cwm Funny, I just made that argument in an unrelated post. I think Game Custom is strong enough to make this have the intended effect, but if it will make everyone feel better, I'll submit the appropriate proposal to ammend it so that everyone will agree on its meaning, and give the points to someone else. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:20:18 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: IP's (/dev/joe, ThinMan) I am voting to accept both IPs Niccolo Flychuck On 28 Jul 1997 Shimmin@hrn.bradley.edu wrote: > I have already voted to ACCEPT the IP against /dev/joe. > > I am now taking the opportunity to ACCEPT the IP against ThinMan. I > have no problem with Officers attempting to abuse their offices. I have > no problem either, with removing said Officers from said Offices when > they try L;) > > Guy Fawkes > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:22:25 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Resolution - IP On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote: > > Let's impeach him for this. > > I am calling for impeachement of Senator /dev/joe > > > For good measure I am calling for impeachment of Sentor ThinMan (he > > proposed the rule) > > This might be problematic. I've already called an IP on /dev/joe; Rule 404 > says that a player may only have one IP pending at any one time. It does > not say, however, that only one IP may be pending against a player at any > one time, so it looks like there are now two IP's against /dev/joe and none > against ThinMan. Well, perhaps someone else will call an IP against ThinMan, or not. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:28:41 +0300 (EET DST) From: Uri Bruck Subject: Re: Acka: PCI On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote: > > BTW, what's the status of all those Auctions? > > The Runemaker is late on Otzma auctions, I believe. Malenkai is correct. I am late. I'll anounce this in a few hours, and after that I'll resign from the position of RuneMaker. I suppose this will prompt a proposal from someone to change the Card creation procedure. There are two elements I'd really like to see kept - the dependence on game events. Right now the number of Cards one can create depends on the LSAP. The secod is the RuneMaker not having complete control over which Cards are being created. Currently the RuneMaker may excercise some control, but randomness dominates. Niccolo Flychuck ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:42:08 -0800 From: Phil Ackley Subject: Acka: people's council I hereby petition to be a member of the peoples council, if I am not already, as Bascule pointed out, a member of the peoples council. Mr. Lunatic Fringe have I sent an odd number of messages? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:47:24 -0800 From: Phil Ackley Subject: Acka: IP I am calling an IP against Vynd, the third senator in the triumverate. As a supporter of the senate coup, I feel that he should be impeached. I am voting in faovr of this IP, as well as the IP against /dev/joe. I also encourage any other freedom loving citizen to enact an IP against senator ThinMan. Perhaps Robert Sevin could redeem the senates honor by ousting it of these vermin. Mr. Lunatic Fringe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:50:37 -0800 From: Phil Ackley Subject: Re: Acka: 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.}} I don't believe this clause has the nessacary precedence to be carried out. There is a specific method in the rules for filling empty senate seats, and the rule that regulates that has a lower number than this one. I believe there are three empty senate seats, andd that an election should be held to fill them. Mr. Lunatic Fringe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:35:17 -0400 From: Malenkai Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal > Game Custom is established by the CFJ statement (provided it is judged > true), not by reasoning. *Explicit* game custom is established by the statement of a CFJ. It is *implicit* game custom that self-similarity of organizations is undefined. I cannot see what I am doing here that is offensive. You also dodged this question which was clearly stated in my last post: > Are you saying that TMBSG's similarity with itself is undefined, yet > all all other organization's self-similarity is defined? Malenkai ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:23:48 -0400 From: jordan james Subject: RE: Acka: Viruses & CarsesraC - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9C01.2039F1E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -----Original Message----- From: **Alexandre Muniz [SMTP:munizao@cyberhighway.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 1997 1:44 AM To: ackanomic@wilma.che.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Acka: Viruses & CarsesraC I hear he was murdered. The only witness was too far away to see it clearly, but the murderer appeared to be wearing a *toga* **two-star > And what's going on with fnord, anyway? He's been extremely quiet of late. * Anyone have any idea about that? (Like fnord, perhaps?) * I understand someone dressed as a crazed ceaser in a toga killed him ruthlessly * - Karma > > -- > --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) > Current Album--Stolen Moments--Red Hot & Cool > Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone > Unanimous is a mouse with a single horn in its forehead. - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9C01.2039F1E0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjINAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYA9AEAAAEAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAWwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGFja2Fub21pY0B3aWxt YS5jaGUudXRleGFzLmVkdQBTTVRQAGFja2Fub21pY0B3aWxtYS5jaGUudXRleGFzLmVkdQAAHgAC MAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAB8AAABhY2thbm9taWNAd2lsbWEuY2hlLnV0ZXhhcy5l ZHUAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAACEAAAAnYWNrYW5vbWljQHdpbG1hLmNoZS51dGV4 YXMuZWR1JwAAAAACAQswAQAAACQAAABTTVRQOkFDS0FOT01JQ0BXSUxNQS5DSEUuVVRFWEFTLkVE VQADAAA5AAAAAAsAQDoBAAAAHgD2XwEAAAAfAAAAYWNrYW5vbWljQHdpbG1hLmNoZS51dGV4YXMu ZWR1AAACAfdfAQAAAFsAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAABhY2thbm9taWNAd2lsbWEu Y2hlLnV0ZXhhcy5lZHUAU01UUABhY2thbm9taWNAd2lsbWEuY2hlLnV0ZXhhcy5lZHUAAAMA/V8B AAAAAwD/XwAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAACAXYBBIABAB4AAABSRTogQWNrYTogVmlydXNlcyAm IENhcnNlc3JhQwCJCQEFgAMADgAAAM0HBwAdAAkAFwAwAAIASgEBIIADAA4AAADNBwcAHQAJABYA JAACAD0BAQmAAQAhAAAAMDYwMkE5MTVGMzA3RDExMThCNDQ0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAAowYBA5AGAGwN AAAiAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAQAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAEAAAADAC4AAAAAAAIBMQABAAAAzwAA AFBDREZFQjA5AAEAAgBMAAAAAAAAADihuxAF5RAaobsIACsqVsIAAE1TUFNULkRMTAAAAAAATklU Qfm/uAEAqgA32W4AAABDOlxXSU5ET1dTXG1haWxib3gucHN0ABgAAAAAAAAAm4hLafcyvBG4PQbg QJKjuqKAAAAAAAAAGAAAAAAAAACbiEtp9zK8Ebg9BuBAkqO6woAAABAAAAAGAqkV8wfREYtEREVT VAAAHgAAAFJFOiBBY2thOiBWaXJ1c2VzICYgQ2Fyc2VzcmFDAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQDgmSamIpy8 AR4AcAABAAAAHgAAAFJFOiBBY2thOiBWaXJ1c2VzICYgQ2Fyc2VzcmFDAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAA AbycIqXbFakCBwfzEdGLRERFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAAA8AAABn bHVnQHRvdGFsLm5ldAAAAwAGEMIkFAUDAAcQoQIAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAC0tLS0tT1JJR0lOQUxN RVNTQUdFLS0tLS1GUk9NOioqQUxFWEFORFJFTVVOSVpTTVRQOk1VTklaQU9AQ1lCRVJISUdIV0FZ TkVUU0VOVDpUVUVTREFZLEpVTFkyOSwxOTk3MToAAAAAAgEJEAEAAAByCQAAbgkAAOAVAABMWkZ1 8u006QMACgByY3BnMTI1cjIMYGMxAzABBwtgbpEOEDAzMw8WZmUPkk8B9wKkA2MCAGNoCsBzhGV0 AtFwcnEyAACSKgqhbm8SUCAwAdCFAdA2D6AwNTA0FCHzAdAUEDR9B20CgwBQA9T7Ef8TC2IT4RRQ E7IY9BTQ+wcTFeQ0AuMWtw5QF28UMEkcn31XC4BnZB3Rc1cCgAKRCOY7CW8wHy9l/Q4wNSBaIXEh LyI5IEQiYn8gzySfJF0j3yIPIF8QYDL+OCoqK0Eq/ywJIEQsMiqf3y5vLi0tryvfL6Q5DlAy9A80 USxzNFACgnN0eWx1B5BoCeB0AAATUAPwZChjdGwKsVw2qGFkzGp1NcAFEGdoBUIWMh0MAWMJwDaw AzBzbmW+eBcwB7AFsADAAnNzAFBYc2IyFFA1sGET8Fz6awngcAuQNo828whgNuD1C4BlNfB2PbAB QDfrDDB/OLQsUDuQBKAd0SxBOTZi+mEXEGQCIDnwOZY2IDfg+R3RIDE1gw5QOu87/z0P/wBRPkwA oDi+QM9B1jV0D8D/Qt9D70T/DlA+P0dfSG9CA/YzAoITEGM6sE/xN+AeACR0aT3gIEQBEGF1KmwF QFAKwGEJwGFwOGggRgIhOnQpkGZp+i0PkDgBQD2AVINLXzbzemILIHIJUFaiFqBWonf2NCmRFwBw AdBRwjgPTu/fT/ZUIFLgBRACMC1TgANhEDogVG9cAFN1YgpqBZB0XABEYXRl+jo6dDZUT1VfVm9X f1iJ/zYQQfMOIU/xPwYOUFm/Ws7mUj3RFwEgSEHhBJA6dP43Xb9ez1/fYO09X2IPD5DLHKAI0GIK sHQ4TkoPVD9KYGQPZRZuUGYgC1B5L/9TkGEACxFmlR5BOpIsUGeP/2ifaa9g/1ifb69wv3HFXCJ7 W8Rc+Tl0DzePAzBuAzmHd+94/37wRG9jdQeA/wIwBdBTUB5TExBrwDXAAZHPNfAAAIJygmRlbQtR XRDXfKBzQFQgNYRgOXnwDlB/gnIAkIPRgvVsA3OQbBJuzRbAMg/AbANqY3OBbBL1AhBsCQB3h5U1 wArAAZD3FzGIhAqwYwpghmQLgAEAHwIwAeFsA10QOdBcJzAhAFB1LTM4c3AgP7cCgoZ0gXBicnMa NGIHMPZzT/FzITNKwXOlh3CCdZsMwXNSIIxygoFuYQeA/iCNYYJyfKBdkBOgDjAPsPQ3NoIYb2ZB OVEXIILI75LWkS+SiwWgdYqxc5A6sAuCFB9AdgJRIHtVblZrfHEV0moFsGQDkWp/kMEeQn0ifIB8 wHWhAYBu/1yAAGAJ8FHwgVACATowYqKXlHCawTXQcCLQXHYIkHx3a4pxGmCcMgTwB0Bl5jcpkJwy emsOUA4AdXL3QdKeBQIQbwVCFyES8oO2oCBDOlxcW1BvUzHebVOAAxAHkKCwTQ3gA2Dkc28BgCBP ASAN4JRwAlyiZkVNQUlMLvhET1SNcBcQfMA5cWvC9ngBQJqRbjYgH0CkBFKEn49Al8ATAgCABZBs dkXx/0sgDnA6MKaSiOKnIop0AcF/ppEW4A9wAABLIAzQAZAg/i6CFKamnfGnUVLAfRCnv/+oz6nf D8BLIAWBq3+sj62fdmwaYEsgbKs/r/+xBSkfqgwpkK7fs7+w9GIgKP8CkbTfptNdoLKPt0+4X7lv /6cAZ2C6sqePvB+9L6oMLFD/ur/AP8FPwl+nAHxQvz/Ez3/F38bkCvkDMHx/fY9/HXv/CoUKhcuk pGLJosyPzZ8IwYc5QjnwEvJia21riNMcIF+B0AMQXPFhfS391ZJPzkELgAdABdAHkEqg/Gdl1ZPQ G8wGZ01zcNFP/3UPdh9rj2yfba9uv89E05ZDW8MMgiAqKkE18HgXAHDbMBOATZaAaXoggFtTTVRQ Om3jUqBhb0BjeY0haM5RyXHgeS45sHRd1z/YRP9zC9l/2o/bn3cPzswMIdOlXwZgAjDiJB5y07RU ClBzoZiweSwgSlKweUmwJjnvQDRAOTdCQDo08DQgQU3QFuzpXCHt7VUA0GsTQW0N4EAD8GxlAMAu FtBlLtzg4sFz+i4JgHXwv+1xXHXt7WYgjVwAQfMRXABWaXLrYK0HkSaggBbyc1MQQ+Wf/8xC0Q/S H+ufz1rQj/s/0q3uSUHCBcA2ICBx4AQg5ADzCyClQWQuXBACERDg74GfFnCQoNaBAjOSwG8gUpDt CtBh5REEYSAXEBOAUhDf0AaPQAHRcYDvQGLc4ARg9wIRAoUE0XCb8ArACYAFMl+NIAIwAdFCErFQ KpLAZ/RhKgXlPNZwiDDpkJDAv10ADeACcNYgmJADUHIJsDf6cBbQmJE+z6zigHR37G8tiNLPrD7w gIqAAjDJFuB0JwJgZ29CEk/QvwOiU3AagJiR70CYwHnlEbw/IGaRD1GNIB/AIDnB5x9AkNDvgXF1 nECfUKIg+iCgQi4F5bDji2LLyI2En39piDAa4PxQjZJkYhZTn6TQ5NAWUY2R/vAnZCxQ/4+Ry5WO Pv9//+OPPqZk/vD/w6GnAILQg1DVIKcAlrO2Qf8/wJ9AtDKNkskmc1PJ7Rfy75lRHbLSyw7QeU/Q kOAPIP9SQRDRBaCKkLFQj6Dc0QcR410AETEoTGlK8BBWm/DznmBTUHM/tUBT8JdhgzC/KlCXUlKg ByB/MJdhZIOg/m2EYJ1g8BBKYIwA0AYT//8VCiXPJt8VvxbPF98Y7xn//xsPHB8dLx4/H08gX9Lq Kj/9K08gAaCWgHJij5AO4aIQ/5DQIkLjAdaQCFECUbFQyFD8YXoIUYngT5EH0MxBsVD/CZKQMjjP Od5+8JxwiCAIUd/k0KEw+EAHIKFxc3GAJ///KQ8qHz+/QMAsXy1vLn/Mb/8xfzKPM580rzW/Ns83 30Sv+z/+W6BLBMAK0Ixw/i//P38AT9NDDrAOR9cXWQLioGbjUtCakChXZcZABhDWwANcAPzwdHA6 Ly939VuALl0QbPhQoDHlUeVCzC9w9iDdAGMvnTBaE/YvtTAOR0MCkBIwgaHioHUG4G3VkFOSwN1A +nBN+zvRyyBz1ZBmIHIRn0H4oVUEgGxd30IEgGvVkEo+b90wZhCiAJqQjSFnOv0DIlNNYQfBX1F5 sA5Hl+D/mMCFYNzQAmCDMAlRZXICIf8QIrFQhVC0kN1AAbCYkPpwb8xBA8ACYJsBZZ5yqfB7z9QW mpHU6VT2fQBqsWrwAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERABAAAAAwCAEP////9AAAcwAArWeiKcvAFAAAgwAArW eiKcvAELAAGACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAAAAMAA4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAGgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAUoUAALcNAAAeACaACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAQAAAA4LjAAAwAngAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAYUAAAAA AAALADCACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAOhQAAAAAAAAMAMYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA ABGFAAAAAAAAAwAzgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAGIUAAAAAAAAeAEKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARgAAAAA2hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgBDgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAN4UAAAEAAAAB AAAAAAAAAB4ARIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADiFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAD0AAQAAAAUA AABSRTogAAAAAAMADTT9NwAA4pA= - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9C01.2039F1E0-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:07:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Raiter Subject: Re: Acka: Maiden Voyage Note: I have just sent out an email via ackanomic@muppetlabs.com. If you did not receive this message, please notify me at your earliest convenience. breadbox ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:30:36 -0500 From: "Bollinger, John C." Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal Niccolo Flychuck wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote: > > > > As I've stataed before, CFJ 429 established no such thing. The > reasoning > > > for that CFJ may have mentioned this, but the CFJ statement was > very > > > specific, and refered to no Organization other than TMBSG. > > > > CFJ 429 affirmed existing game custom that an organization's > similarity > > with itself is undefined. Are you saying that TMBSG's similarity > with > > itself is undefined, yet all all other organization's > self-similarity > > is defined? Doesn't that seem absurd? > > Whether or not it is absurd is not the question. R214 is very explicit > about what is being judged, and what is official and what is not. > The reasoning is explicitly and unamigously not part of the official > judgement. > > You misrepresent CFJ 429, which was poorly phrased to begin with. > R214 is very explicit about what becomes _explicit_ game custom in connection with a CFJ. But that is by no means the only component of game custom. We have gone through this discussion around here before. In at least some cases, part or all of a judge's reasoning must be accepted as implicit game custom, because the explicit game custom of the truth or falsehood of the question may depend on the reasoning given being the correct interpretation of the rules. It's a kind of logical feedback. > > What does interpreting the precedence rule > > have to do with this anyway? > You stated several times that you tend to be strict about those. Well, > I'm > strict about judgements, and I find it offensive that you are tying to > pass off reasoning as something 'established by CFJ'. Game Custom is > established by the CFJ statement (provided it is judged true), not by > reasoning. > Game custom is established according to the truth or falsehood of the CFJ statement, but as above, that does not preclude the possibility of part of the reasoning entering Custom as well. Whether that principle applies in this case will be decided by the Court. > I urge the Justices to refer to the rules about CFJs when considering > this > appeal. > I have no reason to doubt that they would. ThinMan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:00:07 -0800 From: "Jerome Herrman" Subject: Acka: IP Microsoft Mail v3.0 (MAPI 1.0 Transport) IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Jerome Herrman To: 'acka' Subject: Acka: IP Date: 1997-07-29 08:51 Priority: 3 Message ID: E22E77412107D111948C0060976638FA Conversation ID: Acka: IP - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am calling for an IP against Thinman. Techno While an intelligent blind funny detective from another planet was with a team of kangeroos, one cosmic Russian from Indiana stole all the air. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:38:52 -0500 From: "Bollinger, John C." Subject: RE: Acka: Senate Resolution Mr. Lunatic Fringe wrote: [From S.R. 101:] > >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.}} > > I don't believe this clause has the nessacary precedence to be carried > out. > There is a specific method in the rules for filling empty senate > seats, and > the rule that regulates that has a lower number than this one. > > I believe there are three empty senate seats, andd that an election > should > be held to fill them. > MLF is incorrect. Here is the relevant text from rule 401: (x) Office Type All offices are either Functional or Political. If the rules fail to specify the type of an office, that office is a Political Office. Vacancies in a particular Political office are filled by election for office (by the procedure in R 402), unless other rules specify otherwise. In the case of an optional Political office where a nomination did not produce any volunteers, the election process is aborted at that point. Rule 401 specifically allows other rules to specify other ways in which political offices (such as Senator) are filled. The new rule created by S.R. 101 did so. There is no precedence conflict. ThinMan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:48:26 -0500 From: "Bollinger, John C." Subject: Acka: Fair's fair I am calling an IP against Senator Robert Sevin. ThinMan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:51:06 -0700 From: **Alexandre Muniz Subject: Acka: IP I am voting for acceptance of the IPs pending against /dev/joe and ThinMan, and for rejection of the IP pending against Vynd. **two-star ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:57:33 -0600 (MDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: yet another hidden agenda RFC I'm a bit fuzzy on how this is supposed to work, but...I think it might be overly complicated. It would be best, IMHO, to start out with a simple Hidden Agendas rule, trusting the Speaker to come up with a good method to generate Agenda Items. I have been meaning to send out a real truly honest-to-Azpiazu RFC on this one(suitable for submission as a Proposal), but this Senate Coup has been distracting me. Join The Rebellion! Stand up for your democratic rights! - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--Duran Duran:Shadows On Your Side Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone I have a black belt in origami--stop or I'll fold you! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:48:37 -0600 (MDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: Cheering, Victory Gestures, etc. I am hereby forming an Organization called The Rebellion. This Organization is dedicated to the overthrow of the Tyrannical Ruling Elite, also known as the Senate, by disempowering Rule 411.1 and impeaching them all(except the noble Robert Sevin, who refused to be a party to this coup). - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--Duran Duran:Shadows On Your Side Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone I'm confused as a baby at a topless bar! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:54:39 -0600 (MDT) From: alfvaen@telusplanet.net (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Acka: IP Since Public Voting seems to be the norm(do we have to wait for Count Tabula to announce the voting periods having begun, or not? If so, I can't help but wonder at Malenkai's complicity in this whole thing...as, after all, the burier of the Bonus Votes that were used so profligately on this Proposal), I hereby vote to accept the Impeachment of /dev/joe(both times, if necessary)and ThinMan. I vote against the Impeachment of Robert Sevin. Vynd's fate I will hold in abeyance for now... Long live the Rebellion! - -- - --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ ) Song In My Head--Duran Duran:Shadows On Your Side Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone Throw another Ken on the Barbie. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Ross Morgan-Linial Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Resolution - IP On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Uri Bruck wrote: // > This might be problematic. I've already called an IP on /dev/joe; Rule 404 // > says that a player may only have one IP pending at any one time. It does // > not say, however, that only one IP may be pending against a player at any // > one time, so it looks like there are now two IP's against /dev/joe and none // > against ThinMan. // // Well, perhaps someone else will call an IP against ThinMan, or not. I am calling for an IP against ThinMan. I am voting for the IP against ThinMan, and I will carefully consider the IP against /dev/joe before voting. - ------ Ross Morgan-Linial * rmorganl@fhcrc.org Any man who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined. - Samuel Goldwyn ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1997 12:34:34 CST/CDT From: Shimmin@hrn.bradley.edu Subject: Acka: Fair's fair AC>I am calling an IP against Senator Robert Sevin. AC>ThinMan Now that all the IP's are out on the table, here's by final attempt at going for them... ACCEPT the first IP against /dev/joe ACCEPT the second IP against /dev/joe ACCEPT the IP against ThinMan ACCEPT the IP against VYND REJECT the IP against Robert Seving GF *whew* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 13:01:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Acka: Postmasterness I am announcing the following postal code change, delimited by BOSTON. This will make the muppetlabs.com lists official in 3 days, while still leaving the wilma lists official for a reasonable transition period (after which our new postmaster can phase out the old lists). BOSTON Change the first sentence in the postal code from: All addresses below which end in @wilma should be treated as having ".che.utexas.edu" appended to the name. to All addresses below which end in @wilma should be treated as having ".che.utexas.edu" appended to the name. The addresses created by instead replacing "@wilma" with "@muppetlabs.com" are all public forums subject to the same restrictions as their "@wilma" counterparts. BOSTON Now, I am resigning from the office of Postmaster. /dev/joe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:05:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Raiter Subject: Re: Acka: Postmasterness > Now, I am resigning from the office of Postmaster. I hereby volunteer for the Office of Postmaster. breadbox fingers crossed ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 13:40:05 -0800 From: "Jerome Herrman" Subject: RE:Acka : IP Microsoft Mail v3.0 (MAPI 1.0 Transport) IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note From: Jerome Herrman To: 'acka' Subject: RE:Acka : IP Date: 1997-07-29 13:29 Priority: 3 Message ID: 1EBE0E4BFE07D111948C0060976638FA Conversation ID: RE:Acka : IP - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please record the following votes from me.... ACCEPT the first IP against /dev/joe ACCEPT the second IP against /dev/joe ACCEPT the IP against ThinMan ACCEPT the IP against VYND REJECT the IP against Robert Seving Techno While an intelligent blind funny detective from another planet was with a team of kangeroos, one cosmic Russian from Indiana stole all the air. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:25:57 EDT From: edg@juno.com (Ed Graham) Subject: Acka: BWGL (and other stuff) NOW I am training the bussiness end of the BWGL on Breadbox. Re: Hidden Agendas RFC: I like the concept, but as Vynd pointed out, a lot has to do with participation. A possible solution may be for "Whoever it is Who's Harfing This Thing" to make up a series of truly impossible conditions( such as the accumulation of *all* Acka-dollars, or to hold some mutually exclusive offices like a seat on the Senate and the Presidency simultaneously, or even to solve the ROJ). Then, if not enough volunteers sent in sufficient conditions, whatever was left would be distributed. Also, how about, instead of Auctioning the NE's, that Players submitting AE's (in ascending order of score at end of the previous Cycle) would get to choose the NE's from the list of those available, in turn? Of course, if you failed to complete your choices in the alloted time (36 hoursor so?), you would be skipped, and have to contend with one of the randomly chosen impossibles. One other thought, similar to Vynd's caution about the relative length of Cycles; coulkd we make the destruction of AE's and NE's voluntary for anyone who doesn't win? If we make it voluntary to "turn in" AE's, some Players may wish to keep the ones they have. This would, of course make it more difficult for "Whoever it is Who's Harfing This Thing" to track and distribute NE's, but it *could* require less time coming up with new conditions. I know I will be ineligible to vote on this when and if it gets this far, but I really like it so far. I would like to see some form of playtest before it gets adopted Acka-wide, but I realise that it might take months before we really know if it will be good or bad with or without testing. A last note to anyone who can: Please fix the wording in the PCI Rule! By my reckoning, this message will unfortunately result in my leaving the PCI, before I even had a chance to mess up. Voting (whether it's legal or not) Gnome ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:21:49 -0400 (EDT) From: mr cwm Subject: Acka: is (thank you) is mr cwm, revived editor, publisher, etc. is would like to devote this entire end-of-the-month issue to thanking those who voted to restore its belly to its proper place. Thanks. (You know who you are.) (And doesn't this BWG make it all worthwhile?) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:14:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: is (thank you) mr cwm wrote, under the appearance of publishing in his newspaper: > is would like to devote this entire end-of-the-month issue to thanking > those who voted to restore its belly to its proper place. Thanks. (You > know who you are.) (And doesn't this BWG make it all worthwhile?) P2242 was rejected, due to one additional NO vote by proxy (ThinMan's proxy to me) than was first reported. No newspapers were reinstated. /dev/joe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:14:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: is (thank you) mr cwm wrote, under the appearance of publishing in his newspaper: > is would like to devote this entire end-of-the-month issue to thanking > those who voted to restore its belly to its proper place. Thanks. (You > know who you are.) (And doesn't this BWG make it all worthwhile?) P2242 was rejected, due to one additional NO vote by proxy (ThinMan's proxy to me) than was first reported. No newspapers were reinstated. /dev/joe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:29:40 -0400 From: Malenkai Subject: Acka: CFCJ 139 Verdict CFCJ 139 has been judged FALSE. 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: FALSE 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. mr cwm's reasoning: The evidence against Chaos is, indeed, overwhelming, but that is actually an argument in favor of his innocence since, as anyone who has watched _Murder, She Wrote_ knows, the party to whom the evidence most clearly points is never guilty. In researching Ancient Texts, I have come to suspect that the *zot* noises which figure so prominently were added in transcription by scribes who could not bring themselves to believe that the Incredibly Wise Ancient Ones had ommitted any reference to such an amusing sound. I have examined the record, and exacty two CFCJ's (not including this CFCJ) have been called since Zuriti'ili has been recognized as a Crime. One of those (CFCJ 137) was a charge of Zuriti'ili, but one, CFCJ 138, was not. Consider CFCJ 138: a Crime was committed, and yet there was not the slightest hint of Zuriti'ili. From this I draw the logically indefensible (well, R719 *does* say "unusual lattitude") conclusion, which is also the guideline brought forth by this verdict, that Zuriti'ili is never committed simultaneously with another Crime. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:31:34 -0400 From: Malenkai Subject: Acka: CFJ 440 Verdict CFJ 440 has been judged FALSE. 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: FALSE 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. mr cwm's reasoning: (I haven't felt the need to download the entire rule set and conduct a search for quite a while.) It is impermissible to turn to game custom in this case. R595/17(vi) is clear, as there are at least two instances of entity protection being defined in the Rules: by R921/5 the Amber Banana Tree (which is an entity by R923/7) may be protected by the Bronze Umbrella, and by R1131/9 Rules (which are entities by R500/1) may be protected by Earth Defense Missles. R595/17(vi), then, gives Gadgets the ablility to create, destroy, or manipulate both the Amber Banana Tree while it is under the protection of the Bronze Umbrella, and Rules that are under the protection of Earth Defense Missles. One should note, however, that R595/17(i) states that "the Gadget behaves in the manner defined by the Blueprint." Any Gadget, then, whose Bluprint defines its behavior in such a way that it could manipulate the protected entities noted above, has the ability to do so by R595/17(i). R595/17(vi), therefore, adds nothing to the ability of any Gadget, and its removal will not take any ability away. (... on reflection, I feel I must address Malenkai's claim that without R595/17(vi), Gadgets will have no ability to affect the game state, which I quote here: "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)." I contend that R595/17(i) is a rule which descibes how a Gadget may effect a change in the game state, namely, as it behaves in a manner defined in its Blueprint. R101/3 does not require that the actual changes in the game state be described in the Rules--if that were case then no proposal could ever become a rule, unless it already was one. Rather, R101/3 requires that the methods by which the game state may be changed must be described, a requirement that R595/17(i) fulfills.) ------------------------------ End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #222 *******************************