Subject: Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #11
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Discussion Digest)
To: acka-discuss-digest

Ackanomic Discussion Digest  Tuesday, March 11 1997  Volume 02 : Number 011

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:15:47 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Blueprint

On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

>Blueprint for "Gimme Shelter"
>
>Malenkai
>Wizard
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The Gimme Shelter is a small tent.  It is canvas with a repeating 
>pattern of 3 black squares followed by one white one

What color is the background? (Or am I spoiling a joke?)

- -mr cwm

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:43:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Good Bye

We'll miss you in Party Hall

:(

Niccolo Flychuck

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> I'm Leaving Ackanomia Now.  It was fun, but I have no free time now.
> Ludwig
> 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 10:00:03 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: Reorganization

Ackers writes:
> Here is an idea I've been playing with and I want to see what you 
> think of it.  I am thinking of writing a proposal to do the 
> following...(this isn't an official RFC, just want some feedback)
> 
> [Description of multiples of mini-senates, each
>  getting to vote on things in its arena of influence]

I gotta say I don't really like this at all.  It's a lot more
complex than I think we need to be, and enters into one
of my bugaboos, not being allowed to vote on proposals/ideas
that may affect me.
> 
> Essentially this is more like the system in the US.

And is this a good thing?  One of the things I like about Acka (as
has been pointed out before, if I recall correctly) is that we can
try out new and different forms of government.  (hmmm... anybody
for a monarchy?)

fnord

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:26:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:  enough

> Come talk to the discoverer of Harf on IRC right now!
	I have to say the proliferation of IRC junkmail rather dismays me. 
:o(  I know everybody's enthusiastic about being able to meet the Acka
regulars for chat.  I am too.  Is the mail really necessary tho?  If we
had an acka-irc mailing list I would unsubscribe from it. 

- --Mohammed
probably alone in this one
no disrespect intended  =)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:41:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 350 (fnord)

> Statement:
> 
> In R252 section 1, in the sentence " A player may change the
> name of this building by publically announcing the new name and
> unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename." refers to the
> player's own building.
	I think this is worded in a way that, while not intentionally 
misleading, lends itself to a sort of misunderstanding.
	"This building" refers to a player's home.  Which player?  Probably
the player in the previous sentences.  The real question here is not to what 
"this building" refers, but rather to whom "a player" refers.
	Taken literally, there's no denying that "a player" refers to any
player; that's been game custom for ages.  Taking a more lenient
construction, I'll admit there's room for argument, but I still believe 
this should be ruled false.

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:44:24 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: acka: CFJ 349 

>Let me prelude this by saying I sincerely hope it gets judged False
>somehow.  I may have overlooked some stuff.  Anyway:

That's funny, I hope to be able to judge it False somehow.

>260 ("Public Actions"):
>> If the rules specify that a certain course of play is available to a
>> player or organization, but do not specify how that course of play
>> is to be taken, then that course of play is a public action, and it
>> is taken as described above.

The following is the first part of R260:

Each attempt to perform an action either succeeds or fails. To perform an
action entails two things: first, to
     attempt the action; and second, for the attempt to succeed. 

     The rules may specify that certain possible courses of play are public
actions. Any active player may attempt any
     public action available to him or her simply by sending a public message
specifying the action to be taken.
     However, if any information that is necessary to specify the action
fully and unambiguously is left out of that
     message, then the attempt fails. [An attempt may also fail for other
reasons.] 

I was hoping to judge this CFJ false on the grounds that R260 says "Any
active player MAY attempt... "[emphasis added by me] but the follow on
paragraph ( "...that course of play is a public action, and it
is taken as described above.") seems to me to clarify that the ONLY way to
take a public action is through a public post.

>Rule 408 ("Tabulator and Count Tabula"):
>> The Office of the Tabulator is a Functional Office. The Duties of
>> the Tabulator are:
>> (a) to count votes on each proposal.

Unfortunately, it does not specify how the votes are to be collected or
tabulated, leaving it subject to R260.

>Rule 106 has more on voting, but it doesn't mention the Tabulator.

Nor does it specify how votes are collected or tabulated.

My last hope in judging this CFJ false came from R215 which says:

All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules in effect at the time
judgement was invoked, and with
     respect to the game state at that time. When the rules are silent,
inconsistent, or unclear on the statement in
     question, however, then the Judge shall consider currently existing game
custom and the spirit of the game in
     reaching a decision. 

I was hoping to use currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game
to render this CFJ false.  However, the rules are not silent, inconsistent or
unclear on the statement in question, therefore this clause does not apply.

It is with a great deal of trepidation and worry that I therefore
A) return a verdict of TRUE on CFJ 349
and
B) Ask for a CSRR report on the matter at hand.  It would take very little in
the way of change and I expect the reaction to it would be positive.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:41:11 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Diplomacy 

We need a player to take over for Turkey.  The position may be a mercy
position, but there is still some play left in it.  Please help us move this
game along.

Reply privately to me if interested in filling the slot ([email-masked])

Thank you.

Narf

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:36:13 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Public voting

Well, in light of the just announced CFJ, I'd appreciate an announcement
from the Tabulator as to how he would like us to submit our votes.  Should
we be sending them to acka-discuss and CCing the to you, and including
Acrobot in the subject, etc etc?  What commands for the acrobot are
you letting go through privately, if any?  Also, am I correct that all the
votes I've submited privately up until the CFJ came back are fine, that I
don't have to resubmit them?  #thanks =)

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 21:45:50 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC-Stuff (log onto IRC now!) 

>Finally, I plan to be on IRC later tonight... Maybe if some people stop buy
>we can play ghost or something.  If not, I will silently copntemplate my
>total defeat of Narf in round two of destructochess.
>
>snowgod

Me, Harf (the discoverer of harf), and IdiotBoy are online right now, and
all should join us.

I personally think we should create an optional mailing list just to
announce what is going on in IRC...

Robert Sevin

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:06:15 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Good Bye 

>I'm Leaving Ackanomia Now.  It was fun, but I have no free time now.
>Ludwig

Ludwig,  glad you played.  We'll try not to have too much fun without you.
If you ever have some more free time, come back and join us again.

snowgod

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 22:40:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Public voting

> What commands for the acrobot are
> you letting go through privately, if any?
	Everything except normal voting can be sent via private mail to 
the bot, but don't expect a quick reply because I still have to filter 
everything manually (at least for the next week.)

> Also, am I correct that all the votes I've submited privately up until 
> the CFJ came back are fine, that I don't have to resubmit them?
	Well, no.  The CFJ was not a rule change; it merely points out
what has been true *ever since P1758 passed*.  I have sent private mail to
everyone whose votes came privately after P1758 (not too many of those.)

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:58:00 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: acrobot

#vote 1783 y n y

ta dah

                            - Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #11
*****************************************