ackanomic Digest Monday, December 14 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 447 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Acka: CFJ 706 (1-FALSE) (Amicus Draconis) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 00:07:06 -0500 (EST) Trent has appealed this. it goes to Amicus Draconis Call for Judgement 706 - November 23, 1998 Subject: Church Policy PWCFJ Take 2 Initiator: Pol Pot (sent Nov 23 1998, 05:31 Acka) 1st Judge: Thomas Jute (chosen Nov 24 1998, 04:27 Acka) (deadbeat) 2nd Judge: rufus (chosen Dec 04 1998, 5:20 Acka) (deadbeat) 3rd Judge: ThinMan Judgement: FALSE Appellant: Trent Cortex: Amicus Draconis Judgement: Statement: The legality of Pol Pot's donation of Alice in Wonderland to They Might Be About to Win a Cycle cannot be determined with finality. Reasoning: this is a paradox win CFJ Rule 1301 says: c. A Player who disobeys the Church Policy of a Church of which he or she is a member is guilty of Iconoclasm, which is a Crime. It is impermissible for a Player to take a game action which constitutes Iconoclasm if he or she has any legal alternative which would not constitute Iconoclasm. [That is, Iconoclasm normally doesn't happen unless there is no alternative. It is possible for a player to commit Iconoclasm by inaction, though.] Because the Church Policy is continually flipping back and forth between requiring and not allowing its members to donate such trinkets to the Church, it is impossible to determine with finality which state the game was in when I attempted to donate the trinket. Judge's Reasoning: The court agrees with the submitter that it impossible to determine what the Church Policy was when he attempted to donate the trinket. However, this is not a matter of legality at all. According to rule 701 (Crime): To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is the Crime of Illegal Action. An action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is, by contrast, impossible. Although such an action does not occur it is not in itself a crime. In setting up a contrast between the illegal and the impermissable, Rule 701 establishes that impermissible does not imply illegal. To the contrary -- it is the Court's interpretation of the last (somewhat unclear) sentence quoted above that an action being impermissable does not cause attempts to perform that action to be Crimes. As the rule specified just before that to perform an illegal action is a Crime, it follows that to attempt to perform an impermissable action is not illegal. In reviewing this case the Court considered that there may be a precedence argument that would have the donation occur even if impermissable. The Court has not and will not decide that issue, for it is not relevant to the case. There are several reasons why the attempt to donate the trinket might fail, and it may be impossible to determine whether or not the attempt succeeded, but failed attempts to perform actions have never been considered illegal in Ackanomic, and successful attempts are certainly legal. The CFJ statement is FALSE. Appellant's Reasoning: If an action does not occur, its legality is nonexistent. This means that the legality of an indeterminately permissable action is indeterminate. ThinMan's dichotomy into legal/illegal actions as per Rule 701 is specifically oriented toward crime. Other meanings of the word 'illegal' pervade the rules (examples in Rules 342, 620, and throughout the Party Chess and subgame Rules). For either of these two reasons, the CFJ should therefore be overturned to TRUE -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Butthead, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Acka: Next Step (Scaremonger) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:47:33 -0500 (EST) If the scaremonger would be so good as to announce the official end of the game... K 2 Aaron V. Humphrey wrote: > I resign as Justice. > I change my state to Non-Voting. ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 706 (1-FALSE) (Amicus Draconis) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:47:35 -0500 (EST) I staple the following reasoning to CFJ 706: This CFJ, being a PW-CFJ, alleges that that the legality of a player action that would affect the game state cannot be determined with finality [Rule 602]. The question is who or what is unable to determine the action with finality? The players of Ackanomic? The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the rules [Rule 101], so the beliefs of the players of Ackanomic is irrelevant in so far as the rules are concerned. Further more since a cfj, is an assertion about the rules, the facts, or their interpretation [Rule 211] it is therefor implicit that the action must be indeterminate according/from the view point of the rules if this CFJ is to be ruled true. It is known that the org policy was in one of two states with an infinitesimal transition time between those states - that is Trent's action was either legal or illegal according to the rules. While the players of Ackanomic are unable to determine the state of the org policy the the rules were able to. This is analogous to the thread split situation where, from the player perspective, there are two or more possible game states but from the rule's perspective the has only ever been one. As players the the action appears indeterminate since we have no way of deciding which state the org policy was in at the time the action was attempted, from the perspective of the rules, however, the org policy was in a particular state during the infinitesimal time Weisaupt required to perform the action and the game state would have proceeded accordingly based on that state [Rule 101]. From the perspective of the rules, which judgements must be in accordance with [Rule 215], the legality of the action could be determined with finality by the rules and in fact were. This CFJ is FALSE. Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > Trent has appealed this. it goes to Amicus Draconis > > Call for Judgement 706 - November 23, 1998 > Subject: Church Policy PWCFJ Take 2 > Initiator: Pol Pot (sent Nov 23 1998, 05:31 Acka) > 1st Judge: Thomas Jute (chosen Nov 24 1998, 04:27 Acka) (deadbeat) > 2nd Judge: rufus (chosen Dec 04 1998, 5:20 Acka) (deadbeat) > 3rd Judge: ThinMan > Judgement: FALSE > Appellant: Trent > Cortex: Amicus Draconis > Judgement: > > Statement: > > The legality of Pol Pot's donation of Alice in Wonderland to They Might Be > About to Win a Cycle cannot be determined with finality. ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Acka: A Founding Foundling but failing to make a motion Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:47:38 -0500 (EST) > I call a Corruption hearing against OPM for attempting to abuse the > rules. I am > the hearing harfer. The valid votes are "They're just honest business > people, > and besides, everyone does it" and "Split 'em up like Ma Bell!". The result were: They're just honest business people, and besides, everyone does it JT & EBS & EBS Split 'em up like Ma Bell! K 2 & GBS, Wild Card Thus the verdict is Split 'em up like Ma Bell! OPM disbands and I get A$50 from the treasury. K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: PE Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:47:45 -0500 (EST) www.acaknomic.org/~k2/finance/pe.html If your looking for one that's really out of date checkout www.acaknomic.org/~k2/finance/pe.htm ***Flashback*** :) I bury a trinket called Flashback worth A$ 50 with the description "I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now." as a treasure. It will be found by the first player to correctly guess the date and time of that page. One guess per player per week. Guess's may be public or private. Whenever I feel like it I'll respond publically with the traditional "warmer" or "colder" as apropriate. K 2 Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > is there a PE page more recent than september? Where is it? > -- > Trent > > Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, > Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker > Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Acka: Commission D'Arts (JT, Vynd, rSiE, Alfvaen, else...if) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:53:31 -0500 (EST) The following members comprise the commission. President: JT Historian: Vynd Poet-Laureate: rSiE Random Player: Alfvaen Random Player: else...if These 5 players must produce a list of 4 nominees within 7 days of the date of the newest member joining (ie today). --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 706 (1-FALSE) (Amicus Draconis) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:27:57 -0500 (EST) I use my privilege as a Bronze Torch holder to append the following text to CFJ 706: The appelant wrote: >If an action does not occur, its legality is nonexistent. This means that >the legality of an indeterminately permissable action is indeterminate. The appellant's assertion is interesting, but not supportable. What about the legality of an action which has not yet occured, for instance? Or one which might not or will not occur? How about the wide variety of actions we see failing every week? Are these subject to PW CFJs? If they have no legality then they are neither at all legal nor at all illegal, and thus equally legal and illegal, right? I think not. Indeed, I observe that most PW CFJs in the past have revolved around hypothetical actions -- actions that were not even attempted and thus certainly did not occur -- but that did not prevent the vast majority of those CFJs from being ruled FALSE (therefore establishing that the hypothetical action at issue was either legal or illegal, as is generally clear from the reasoning). Not only, then, does game custom not support the appelant's claim -- it contradicts it. >ThinMan's dichotomy into legal/illegal actions as per Rule 701 is >specifically oriented toward crime. Other meanings of the word 'illegal' >pervade the rules (examples in Rules 342, 620, and throughout the Party >Chess and subgame Rules). Rule 701 alone establishes the meaning of "impermissible" with repsect to player actions, therefore it is the appropriate resource for evaluating events which involve an impermissable actions. It is absurd to suggest that consideration of the context of the relevant provision is inappropriate. Furthermore, it is a misrepresentation of the original reasoning to claim that it asserts a legal/illegal dichotomy in the first place. It doesn't even come close. Rather, it interprets rule 701 to establish that actions which are impermissable are not necessarilly illegal. That, in fact, an action's being impermissable does not by itself make that action illegal. The appellant has not challenged the propriety of that interpretation, nor do I think there are grounds for a challenge. Moreover, the fact that rule 701 focuses on defining various sorts of Crimes does not invalidate it as a tool for evaluating the legality of player actions. Indeed, the specific passage cited in the original reasoning pertains to illegal and impermissable player actions, which would seem to make it quite germane to the issue at hand. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Acka: What's up with that? Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:44:23 -0500 (EST) I am, frankly, rather surprised that IdiotBoy's mass repeal (P3857) passed. Although I am happy enough to see enthrallment go away, it does leave the Puzzler kind of hanging. Enough players seemed to like the Agenda win, despite its complexity, that its removal caught me off-guard. I was much in favor of the Museum, and have been since long before the promise of newly-scammed riches came my way. That's three winning conditions out the window, leaving only -- what -- the originals, points and paradox? And I can see that some people might not have liked the Purple Robe or Tammany, but I thought they added color to the game. I am truly mystified by the elimination of retractions. Did people vote for this because they wanted specific subsets of these rules removed? Are there any that people would like to see restored in one form or another? Please enlighten me. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: What's up with that? Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:51:14 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, John Bollinger wrote: >I am, frankly, rather surprised that IdiotBoy's mass repeal (P3857) >passed. Although I am happy enough to see enthrallment go away, it does >leave the Puzzler kind of hanging. Enough players seemed to like the >Agenda win, despite its complexity, that its removal caught me off-guard. >I was much in favor of the Museum, and have been since long before the >promise of newly-scammed riches came my way. That's three winning >conditions out the window, leaving only -- what -- the originals, points >and paradox? And I can see that some people might not have liked the >Purple Robe or Tammany, but I thought they added color to the game. I >am truly mystified by the elimination of retractions. Did people vote >for this because they wanted specific subsets of these rules removed? >Are there any that people would like to see restored in one form or >another? Please enlighten me. The only two I really want to see back are agendas and retractions. Museums I would probably vote for if it was reproposed, similar for purple robes. Tammany I really don't care one way or another, but think that maybe it and Bonus Votes should go for a while and see what grows up in their stead. Thre ways of getting extra votes (Tammany, BV, and party unity) were sufficient, so new ways were unlikely to be proposed or pass if they were proposed. I personally like the current trend to repeal, but would prefer to see the 'add-ons' repealed rather than reasonably central parts of the game such as retrations. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: What's up with that? Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:42:26 -0500 (EST) >>I >>am truly mystified by the elimination of retractions. Did people vote >>for this because they wanted specific subsets of these rules removed? >>Are there any that people would like to see restored in one form or >>another? Please enlighten me. > >I personally like the current trend to repeal, but would prefer to see the >'add-ons' repealed rather than reasonably central parts of the game such >as retrations. > What is the necessity for retractions? Without the 'substantially similar' rule, the only difference is 9 points. Unless they're going for a point win, most players don't care about a measly nine points. If one IS going for a point win, then that just means that they must be careful. Explain what makes 'retraction' such a keystone in the ruleset. It makes little sense to me. -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Butthead, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: What's up with that? Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:01:53 -0500 (EST) >>>I >>>am truly mystified by the elimination of retractions. Did people vote >>>for this because they wanted specific subsets of these rules removed? >>>Are there any that people would like to see restored in one form or >>>another? Please enlighten me. >> >>I personally like the current trend to repeal, but would prefer to see the >>'add-ons' repealed rather than reasonably central parts of the game such >>as retrations. >> > >What is the necessity for retractions? Without the 'substantially similar' >rule, the only difference is 9 points. Unless they're going for a point >win, most players don't care about a measly nine points. If one IS going >for a point win, then that just means that they must be careful. Explain >what makes 'retraction' such a keystone in the ruleset. It makes little >sense to me. Well, if it were only proposals then I would not be too put out, but that rule also covered CFJs and appeals, of which we see too many. I seem to remember that something else was covered, too, but I don't remember what. As far as the centricity of retractions, I would say that whereas of course we can do without them, they were still part of the nuts and bolts of the game. Something like the Purple Robe, which is way out on the periphery, will be much less missed. I also note that my comments quoted above are taken slightly out of context; my query was in response to the whole collection of things that were repealed, of which retractions were only one [though one about which I have heard no objection or even discussion for a very long time]. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Acka: 'Nother test Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:58:29 -0500 (EST) All right.. let's see if we've fixed it, at least for the moment. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: What's up with that? Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:11:01 -0500 (EST) >I am, frankly, rather surprised that IdiotBoy's mass repeal (P3857) >passed. Although I am happy enough to see enthrallment go away, it does >leave the Puzzler kind of hanging. Enough players seemed to like the >Agenda win, despite its complexity, that its removal caught me off-guard. >I was much in favor of the Museum, and have been since long before the >promise of newly-scammed riches came my way. That's three winning >conditions out the window, leaving only -- what -- the originals, points >and paradox? And I can see that some people might not have liked the >Purple Robe or Tammany, but I thought they added color to the game. I >am truly mystified by the elimination of retractions. Did people vote >for this because they wanted specific subsets of these rules removed? >Are there any that people would like to see restored in one form or >another? Please enlighten me. I'd certainly like to see Agenda Hats put back, as well as retractions. I might vote to restore Tammany or the Museum, but I'd rather see something similar but innovative. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: Cutting off this Vulcan thing at the Pass Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:57:57 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, John Bollinger wrote: > > /dev/joe wrote: > > >I suggest and approve that Vulcan make the following BAD_TRENT action: > > > >BAD_TRENT > >In all game threads where Rule 1 exists and contains the text > >"The organization Vulcan is empowered to, as an organizational action, > >make any change whatsoever to the rules or game state." append to the > >end of Rule 1 the following WHOOPS-delimited text: > > > >WHOOPS > >This rule takes precedence over Rule 101. > >{{ The paragraph of Rule 101 which contains the word "retroactively" has > >square brackets placed around it so that it becomes a note.}} > >{{ All aspects of the game state, including the rules and the history > >of the game since September 5, 1997 are adjusted to the state they would > >be in if the Vulcan action performed on that date had said > > > >"(2) In rule 1, change each occurrence of the number 1 to 4, then renumber > >it to rule 4." > > > >in place of > > > >"(2) Change the rules by renumbering rule 1 to rule 4." > >}} > >{{ The square brackets around the paragraph in Rule 101 containing the word > >"retroactively" are removed.}} > >WHOOPS > >BAD_TRENT > > > I approve. > > > ThinMan > Does Vulcan still have three members? Does it even need three members to do this, if the rules are as funky as we suspect they may be? If a third player is necessary, then I apply for membership in Vulcan, or join Vulcan, or do whatever it is we do to get into a VSO. Vynd, not planning on staying jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: Cutting off this Vulcan thing at the Pass Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:10:10 -0500 (EST) >Does Vulcan still have three members? Does it even need three members to >do this, if the rules are as funky as we suspect they may be? If a third >player is necessary, then I apply for membership in Vulcan, or join >Vulcan, or do whatever it is we do to get into a VSO. > >Vynd, not planning on staying Vulcan currently has two members, /dev/joe and me. There are, however, no more VSOs, and no restriction on small orgs performing actions (at least not that I can see). Nevertheless, Vynd may rejoin Vulcan if he cares to do. I suggest Vulcan accept Vynd into membership. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" Subject: Re: Acka: Cutting off this Vulcan thing at the Pass Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:38:05 -0500 (EST) > >Does Vulcan still have three members? Does it even need three members to > >do this, if the rules are as funky as we suspect they may be? If a third > >player is necessary, then I apply for membership in Vulcan, or join > >Vulcan, or do whatever it is we do to get into a VSO. > > > >Vynd, not planning on staying > > Vulcan currently has two members, /dev/joe and me. There are, however, no > more VSOs, and no restriction on small orgs performing actions (at least > not that I can see). > > Nevertheless, Vynd may rejoin Vulcan if he cares to do. I suggest Vulcan > accept Vynd into membership. I approve. He joins. I then suggest and approve that Vulcan make the following YEAH_WHATEVER action: YEAH_WHATEVER In all game threads where Rule 1 exists and contains the text "The organization Vulcan is empowered to, as an organizational action, make any change whatsoever to the rules or game state." append to the end of Rule 1 the following WHOOPS-delimited text: WHOOPS This rule takes precedence over Rule 101. {{ The paragraph of Rule 101 which contains the word "retroactively" has square brackets placed around it so that it becomes a note.}} {{ All aspects of the game state, including the rules and the history of the game since September 5, 1997 are adjusted to the state they would be in if the Vulcan action performed on that date had said "(2) In rule 1, change each occurrence of the number 1 to 4, then renumber it to rule 4." in place of "(2) Change the rules by renumbering rule 1 to rule 4." }} {{ The square brackets around the paragraph in Rule 101 containing the word "retroactively" are removed.}} WHOOPS YEAH_WHATEVER /dev/joe ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Acka: Potato (ThinMan) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:24:58 -0500 (EST) ThinMan has found the Potato Wild Card thus gets the Tuba. [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Acka: Cycle 32 ended Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:25:40 -0500 (EST) At 15:24:04 Acka time this afternoon, Cycle 32 ended. At this time, the following things happened in order. a) Ackanomic play is suspended b) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs, Right-Handed Grapefruit and Agenda Hats that are not being worn are destroyed. All Nemesis Eggplants with the same condition as an Agenda Hat that was destroyed in this manner are destroyed. I will let Financier K 2 handle the Goose Eggs and Grapefruit. c) The winner is given the title of winner of the cycle, and a Right-Handed Grapefruit and a Champion's Cloak are created in that player's possession. If this results in his having two Champion's Cloaks, one of them is instantly transformed into a Badge of Glory. Trent is given the title of winner of the cycle and a RHG. He is given a Champion's Cloak which immediate becomes a Badge of Glory. d) All players who have zero or fewer points are given a Chartreuse Goose Egg. I will let Scorekeeper K 2 provide this information. e) If the amount of A$s in circulation plus the value of all extant Trinkets exceeded the amount in the Treasury at the time this winner was declared, the following shall occur: i) All entities with a Total Wealth greater than zero shall transfer 10% of eir Total Wealth to the Treasury. ii) All entities with a Total Wealth greater than zero and all players with a Total Wealth of zero or less, shall be placed on The List in decreasing order of Total Wealth. If there is a tie for Total Wealth, the Financier shall make the random determination necessary to order the entities on the list. iii) A random entity appearing in the first half of The List, shall transfer 5% of eir total wealth to the active player lowest on The List and both entities shall be removed from The List. iv) If there are at least two entities still on The List, one of which is a player and the other of which has postive wealth, the go to step iii. I will let Financier K 2 accomplish this task and report the results. f) Each Player is awarded A$ equal to his point total. Scorekeeper K 2 should post the final scores shortly :) g) Each player's score is set to zero. Need I keep saying how easy this is :) h) If the cycle currently ending has exceeded 30 days in length, all players who have been vacationing for the entire cycle are removed from the game as if they have quit. The cycle was less than 30 days in length. i) If the cycle was won by points (i.e. the Winning Condition was due to Rule 603), then amend Rule 603 to change the base value of the Magic Number to the smallest prime number greater than (the current Magic Number*1.2). If the last two cycles were not won by points, then amend Rule 603 to change the base value of the Magic Number to the smallest prime number greater than (the current Magic Number*0.9). Neither of the previous two cycles were won by points. The base value of the Magic Number is set to 233. j) The game cycle number is incremented, and the Magic Number is reset to its base value. Welcome to cycle 33. The Magic Number is reset to 233. k) All players who are in Gaol are released from Gaol. All players who are in the Ackanomic Afterlife are relocated to their homes. I don't believe anyone was in either place. l) If the game state is such that the single winner of the last cycle would immediately win again upon the resumption of Ackanomic play, the Chartreuse Goose is transferred to that player. This is not the case. m) All events specified by other rules to occur at the end of the cycle occur, in the numeric order of the rule that defines the event. By rule 540, Trent gains 1 point of alignment. By rule 550.1, Trent gains 2 honour. n) Ackanomic play resumes. The Fat Lady has begun singing and will continue to sing until 1 day from the time of this message. [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle 32 ended Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:31:48 -0500 (EST) > Trent is given the title of winner of the cycle and a RHG. I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I make RHGJ I frink RHGJ > He is given a Champion's Cloak which immediate becomes a Badge of > Glory. errr... howcome? -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Butthead, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle 32 ended Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:01:52 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: >I frink RHGJ *glub* >> He is given a Champion's Cloak which immediate becomes a Badge of >> Glory. > >errr... howcome? Because you already had a Champion's Cloak and are restricted to having one only.. Read the rules :) --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle 32 ended Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:06:51 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, JT wrote: >On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: >>I frink RHGJ > >*glub* > >>> He is given a Champion's Cloak which immediate becomes a Badge of >>> Glory. >> >>errr... howcome? > >Because you already had a Champion's Cloak and are restricted to having >one only.. Read the rules :) I now shoot myself and remind myself to double-check the PE page before I spout off. This was the first cycle Trent won. He in fact still has a champion's cloak and I feel really stupid. Culpa Mea and my most abject apologies to Trent. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: Cycle 32 ended Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 23:06:53 -0500 (EST) At 11:01 PM 12/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: >>I frink RHGJ > >*glub* > >>> He is given a Champion's Cloak which immediate becomes a Badge of >>> Glory. >> >>errr... howcome? > >Because you already had a Champion's Cloak and are restricted to having >one only.. Read the rules :) > Wow! How'd I get one of those? -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Butthead, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ End of ackanomic Digest V3 #447 *******************************