Subject: Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #24
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Discussion Digest)
To: acka-discuss-digest

Ackanomic Discussion Digest  Saturday, March 22 1997  Volume 02 : Number 024

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:17:30 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: About CFJ 360

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> Obviously, there are some areas more difficult to screen for cheating (such
> as looking up words in Ghost) and we simply have rely on trust.  I agree that
> if that trust shoul fail, it will be a sad day.  Do we close our eyes to the
> possibility of more incidents like that or prepare for them as best we can
> and deal with them on a case by case basis?
> 
> Narf
>
I'm going to be terribly provocative in this message, and I intend no
offense to anyone, since it is possible that Narf is not aware of the
implication above, but such statements are at the base of  "divide and
conquer" philosophies, and since Narf brings up RL, many a social and
political witch hunts. We're playing a game here, and that  whole
suspicion thing is a just somewhere I don't want to go.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 11:10:14 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : the Rationale of Tiers

The last I RFCd this it received very little attention, other than some
obejctions from Malenkai, and good advice from botb Malenkai and ThinMan.

The thing is, I've recently observed some cases where Tiers would be very
useful.

One such case is implementing G&C as a Rule Suite. I don't see it a
necessary, and part of the point of making it non-rule was to not to
clutter the rules set. However, this, if, memory serves,  was either
before Rule Suites, or when they were very new. I'm not sure which would
work better.
This would mean that G&C would need a majority to pass. But seeing as G&C
are devloping nicely, I don't think that would a problem.

Other cases are the two existing Rule Suites, PartyChess and Otzma Cards
where some rules _are_ more fundamental than others.

One way to avoid making this encumber the game would be to give the web
harfer the to organize the rules documents  in a way would reflect the
Rational Tiers. This may not be suitable for Rule Suites, but the web
harfer might find it suitable for rules which are not members of Rule
Suites.
Another option would be to restrict  the use of Tiers to Rule Suites,
making the current Tier the highest one. I don't see much advantage in
that, other than lowering some players' objections to introducing a useful
tool to Ackanomic.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 04:27:19 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Douglas Adams 

>I met the man.  He read my work, he read his work, he read 11 other peoples
>work and he commented on it.  And then the boring stuff was over and he
>took questions for an hour and a half.

Was he what you expected? Tell us more.

>Robert Sevin: Douglas Adams is full of harf, though i didn't have time to
>adequately explain the concept (is there ever enough time?).

Did you mention harf to him?

>Everyone: I asked abvout ackanomic and he said (he's a very big internet
>user) that he had actually looked at the ackanomic webpage (as well as
>subers nomic page) iun the past.

Did he say he would join? :)

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 04:27:41 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: This is not an IRC message 

>I am on IRC right now (wait, don't stop reading yet mohammed) but there is
>no one there with me.  I find it odd that just when I finally have the free
>time to do something fun, everyone deserts me.  It's a plot, isn't it?

I was busy writing a paper for my Linguistics class... :(

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 08:53:46 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 356 Appeal (Supreme Court)

CnH wrote:

> We agree attempt must involve intent. I have claimed that any means of
> transfer that could result in transfer to someone that _is not_
> eligible
> _is_ an attempt. You have said that any means of transfer that could
> result
> in a transfer to someone that _is_ eligible _is not_ an attempt.
> 
That is overgeneralizing my position.  I do not claim that _any_ means
of transfer that could end up giving a Key to an eligible player is not
an attempt.  Indeed, although you acknowledge the necessity of intent,
you do not seem to apply it to your summary of my position.  There is
a whole class of potential attempts, which you discuss later, wherein
either an eligible or a non-eligible player might receive a Key.  My
position is that whether or not these actually are attempts depends
on the intent of the transferer.  I acknowledge that it might be
difficult, or even impossible, to actually determine the donors intent,
but that matters not.

> I think that's where the situation is, but I'm just stating it to be
> clear.
> I've generalized it beyong just burying. It should prehaps be
> restricted to
> that.
> 
> I'm going to do something awful and take one paragraph out of context
> from
> your last message. Just to give some kind of vague reference, it dealt
> with
> a previous attempt to summarize the positions and I used it to build
> the
> above summary.
> 
> >What I say
> >is that if there is any possible instance of Key burying that would
> not
> >be an attempt, then the CFJ statement is FALSE.
> 
> Ok, that's what I based most of my summary above on.
> 
> >CnH seems to be disputing only the second part of that, claiming
> >instead that there are no instances of Key burial that do not
> >constitute attempts to transfer the Key to a non-eligible player.
> >Indeed, that is the only argument that (IMO) could support his
> verdict.
> 
> Yes, quite, and that is what I based my summary on.
> 
> Now, we are basically dealing with a large set (all possible burials)
> and
> your interpretations makes "ok" all those that have any chance of
> being
> legitimate. While mine is to make "ok" all those that have no chance
> of
> being illegitimate. I believe this means my subset is a proper subset
> of
> your interpretation. Our intersection is my subset. Our union is your
> subset.
> 
As I described above, you mischaracterize my subset.  However, it is
still the case that your subset is a proper subset of mine.  I note at
this point that if your subset is non-empty, then CFJ 356 is FALSE (c.f.
my quoted statement above with which you stated agreement), regardless
of the contents of my subset.

> What bothers me is that ((your subset) - (my subset)) consists of
> actions
> which could be both legitimate and illegitimate. And I argue that to
> include
> it, you have to be certain (or beyond resonable doubt at least... and
> to try
> and be fair requires a jury) you have to be certain that these do not
> fall
> under the "cunning attempt/concealed intent" category.
> 
This appears to be the new focus of our debate.  I grant that even
under the somewhat restricted form of my subset that I stipulated, there
are actions that might be either "legitimate" or "illegitimate."  You
claim that because it is not clear whether or not these are attempts,
they must be considered attempts.  I say that you do not have the
liberty of _considering_ non-attempts to be attempts, even though you
cannot demonstrate them to not be attempts.  They are what they are,
whether or not we _know_ what they are.  I agree that this underscores
an insufficiency in our rules, but that does not justify ruling CFJ
356 TRUE.  The rules are not necessarilly fair.

> My own argument was that R222 said it could not be that a key would be
> owned
> by an illegitimate player <g>, so I ducked for safety.
> 
R222 actually says that a Key cannot be _received_ by an ineligible
player.  It also says that there are several ways in which a Key is
returned to the Goose if its owner is, or becomes ineligible.  There
are loopholes for some of the Keys, however, that would not cause them
to be returned to the Goose in some instances of being owned by an
ineligible player, if, somehow, that player could come into possession
of it in the first place.

Ducking for safety is understandable.  I insist, however, that the
rules be followed as written (warts and all), and interpreted according
to our customary practices.  I claim that that requires CFJ 356 to be
judged FALSE.

> This is still a short message, and I'd hate to go further if I got
> something
> wrong, so I'm going to just send this (I also have to leave, I have an
> exam). Sorry for restating a bunch of stuff, I'm just trying to get
> everything cleared up in my mind. (ie: beyond a reasonable doubt
> [grin])
> 
I hope you did well, and I hope this clears things up a little.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:05:32 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: About CFJ 360

Malenkai wrote this, in addition to much additional, well-composed
material:

> We try not to legislate spirit of the game and cheating, we do not
> clutter
> the general case to handle the once a year case, we handle instances
> of
> cheating on a case by case basis, as a culture, and we realise that
> while not closing our eyes to the possibility of cheating, we spend
> our
> energies, talents, and limited capacity for work and ruleset size 
> tolerance to fun development of the game, not this sort of stuff.
> 
I will not enter the debate except to say that I am fully in agreement
with Malenkai's opinion on the matter.  His statements in the message
from which I excerpted the above quotation mirror my own opinions on
this question extremely well, and I would shed no new light on the
debate by reiterating them.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 07:31:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tornado

> Calvin N Hobbes: dislodged
> snowgod: no effect
> Niccolo: no effect
> 23 Skidoo: dislodged

I note that Calvin N Hobbes does not have wings, so he is now trapped
in his house. (And the same goes for 23 Skidoo, I guess.)

If Calvin N Hobbes would like to borrow my Gravitational Monopole, I
am willing to loan it to him.

I am also available to give piggyback rides.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:53:09 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (Mentor: CnH)

snowgod writes:
> We have a new (well, not really) player in Ackanomic.  Would everyone
> please give a warm ackanomic welcome and a huge round of applause to Andy
> Swan <[email-masked]>, or, if you prefer to call him by his Ackanomic
> name (and who wouldn't?), Simon Marty Harriman.

Welcome back, Simon Marty Harriman!

fnord
(contemplating changing his name to fnord_ahimnorsty)

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:39:34 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I've just been to the players' web page 

> The first player to post a public message containing the words "IF,
> AND ONLY IF this cycle has a number that is odd and greater than
> one, THEN the Player That Is Malenkai shall win the cycle" shall find
> the Machine That Goes *blurp*. Unless it was their second try.

  Under that map, eir third try would have worked.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:41:08 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor 

> I bid A$100 for the Plunky Monkey Wrench.

  I bid A$110.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 10:18:25 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Douglas Adams 

At 1:27 AM -0900 3/21/97, Mitchell Harding wrote:
>>I met the man.  He read my work, he read his work, he read 11 other peoples
>>work and he commented on it.  And then the boring stuff was over and he
>>took questions for an hour and a half.
>
>Was he what you expected? Tell us more.

To tell the truth, he was almost exactly what I expected.  Listening to him
was just like reading one of his books.  Thats a real sense of huor, not
just something he has to sit down and attempt to conjure up.  A real funny
guy.  He likes playing with all sorts of media.  He said that they are
doing the hitchikers guide (the actual guide) as a website in the near
future, and that his next hitchiker "book" is actually going to be a cdrom.
And then he said he wants to do the hitchiker movie in IMAX, but he doesn't
think they can get the funding together to do it that way.

He said he is writing another book that will be "formatted" for movies, so
maybe we'll get to see a douglas adams movie before too long.

>>Robert Sevin: Douglas Adams is full of harf, though i didn't have time to
>>adequately explain the concept (is there ever enough time?).
>
>Did you mention harf to him?

I might have mentioned it, but I didn't get a chance to really explain it.

>>Everyone: I asked abvout ackanomic and he said (he's a very big internet
>>user) that he had actually looked at the ackanomic webpage (as well as
>>subers nomic page) iun the past.
>
>Did he say he would join? :)

I wish
snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:39:03 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Douglas Adams

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> just something he has to sit down and attempt to conjure up.  A real funny
> guy.  He likes playing with all sorts of media.  He said that they are
> doing the hitchikers guide (the actual guide) as a website in the near
> future, and that his next hitchiker "book" is actually going to be a cdrom.

There is now a website inspired by the guide that has over 600 articles
(real, semi-real, and completely unreal) on various subjects.
Don't remember the address off-hand, but there's a link on my home page,
which I do remember off-hand (http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/)

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

Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 00:31:57 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Locations

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> 
> The Machine That Goes *ping* is in breadbox's house
> snowgod is at the Museum
> fnord and Niccolo Flychuck are at the Hall of Elders

When did I go to the Hall of Elders and what am I doing there?
Also - what is the state of my house, whateveru it's called now adays?

Niccolo Flychuck
Confused

> Mohammed is at the Castle on a Cloud
> /dev/joe is at the Tower of Bandwidth
> ThinMan is at snowgod's beach cottage
> IdiotBoy is at Acme Labs
> mr cwm is at the Library
> Strider and Jammer are at the Band Shell
> 
> I also note that Calvin N Hobbes's house (with him in it) has fallen off the
> face of Ackanomia, and Zone 23 (haunted by undead 23 Skidoo) attempted
> to break loose but the undead/haunted rules don't allow it.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:46:24 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Locations

Niccolo Flychuck asked:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > fnord and Niccolo Flychuck are at the Hall of Elders
> 
> When did I go to the Hall of Elders and what am I doing there?
> Also - what is the state of my house, whateveru it's called now adays?
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> Confused

You and two other winged players brought the Hall of Elders back to
terra firma after it began dangling due to two priests not praying
one month.

Your house, which is named Mohammed's Winter Mosque, is dangling,
but is still hanging by its tether.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:56:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (Mentor: CnH) 

>We have a new (well, not really) player in Ackanomic.  Would everyone
>please give a warm ackanomic welcome and a huge round of applause to Andy
>Swan <[email-masked]>, or, if you prefer to call him by his Ackanomic
>name (and who wouldn't?), Simon Marty Harriman.

Woo-Ha! Welcome back to our old friend.

>Oh yeah, Calvin N Hobbes has been selected as his mentor

This must be heaven week. First a good debate, then Bascule comes back, then
I start voting again, now SMH is back, plus I get to be his mentor. How good
can ackalife get?

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:40:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Political Party

> This message is to announce the creation of the Benevolent AcKanomic 
> Economic Reconstruction Party. (For easy popular usage, we may be referred
> to as the BAKER Party.
	This message is to announce that it isn't all that simple anymore....

- --Mohammed
preparing to be lynched

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:44:32 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Political Party

> This message is to announce the creation of the Benevolent AcKanomic 
> Economic Reconstruction Party. (For easy popular usage, we may be referred
> to as the BAKER Party.

> The Founding Members of BAKER are:
> 
> IdiotBoy (BAKER's Dozen)
> Narf
> Strider

Fine, but it is not a political party until you buy a big tent
in accordance with R723.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:50:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Political Party

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Fine, but it is not a political party until you buy a big tent
> in accordance with R723.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

Ok, we're an organization, but boy do we have high hopes of becoming a
Political Party as described.

IB
ahead of himself

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:10:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 356 Appeal (Supreme Court) 

ThinMan (and all those people eavesdropping on us <g>)

I think we have reached the end of this thread, and as I indicated before,
your moderate position is one I would quite naturaly embrace as a good one,
perhaps bettter, if arguably not the better or 100% correct one. (don't bite
me, I'm jes' doo-in' ma job)

I'll answer a few points, bring up something else I just considered about
R222 (unpredicatable player's privilege), all in the hope our Supreme Court
is looking this way. [CnH waves to his creation and the Justices that make
it work]

>That is overgeneralizing my position.  I do not claim that _any_ means
>of transfer that could end up giving a Key to an eligible player is not
>an attempt.  Indeed, although you acknowledge the necessity of intent,
>you do not seem to apply it to your summary of my position.  There is
>a whole class of potential attempts, which you discuss later, wherein
>either an eligible or a non-eligible player might receive a Key.  My
>position is that whether or not these actually are attempts depends
>on the intent of the transferer.  I acknowledge that it might be
>difficult, or even impossible, to actually determine the donors intent,
>but that matters not.

But it does matter! You and I agree, in principle if nothing else, that
fairness is important. Perhaps not present, but important still.

You mention that the rules as they stand allow for your interpretation
(arguably granted) and that whether or not this is fair is not the point,
the rules aren't supposed to be fair. You also say that the rules should be
followed to the letter, that's all.

That is exactly what I did. There is nothing in the rules that prohibts me
from applying a rule to its fullest extend. Indeed, I see the sentence
saying some players can't receive keys as calling on me to do so, that
anything less would betray the rule. It may not be fair, but we've agreed
the rules aren't fair. And by applying them as given, I don't care if in
some fuzzy funky way there is one possible way in which the transfer is
legitimate, and that this was the obvious intent of the player. Tough! Rules
are rules.

The end result should always be that a non-eligible player can never receive
a key. That's the hard facts and that's that. (as far as this CFJ and the
rules go, personally, I have a different view). You and I are officially
disagreeing on this, you interpret the statement to be more lax, but that's
all, and that's what CFJs are here for, to see what interpretation is to be
used.

>As I described above, you mischaracterize my subset.  However, it is
>still the case that your subset is a proper subset of mine.  I note at
>this point that if your subset is non-empty, then CFJ 356 is FALSE (c.f.
>my quoted statement above with which you stated agreement), regardless
>of the contents of my subset.

No, that's wrong. My subset is non empty because there are legitimate ways,
explicitly described in R222 to transfer keys. That's what my set contains,
and that's all. That's why CFJ356 is ruled the way it is.

I also note something else in R222:
"Any Player possessing one or more Keys may attempt to [...]"

It says "may attempt". I parse this as saying "they are allowed to try",
reflecting the intent you postulate. I note also that it comes _after_:
"After initial distribution, each Player shall either redistribute eir
Key(s) to another eligible Player as outlined in this Rule, or the Key(s)
shall be responsible for the respective actions taken against that Player as
outlined below."

The rule seems very clear. First is says that it will define the legitimate
ways to transfer "below" (for each key). Then it goes on to say players may
attempt to do otherwise... as illegitimate attempts which lead to the goose
getting it. This is like saying "my way... or the highway".

I officially decline all room for compromise with your all too cuddly
interpretation that would be tantamount to tossing a candy to those
ferociously devious players out there. [Yes, you people  out there! You know
who you are! <g>] There is no room for compromise and I stand by my ruling.
If a player tries to do something that does not fit with the defined ways to
transfer the keys, to the goose it goes!

Unofficially, I invite you over to my house for tea and biscuits so that we
may try and plan some amendments to the rules.

Calvin N Hobbes
just waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on this

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:37:26 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Auctions

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 	I bid A$ 125 on the Electronic Potato.
> 
> --Mohammed
> 

I bid A$140.

                            - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:45:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Locations

/dev/joe wrote:

> All players are in their homes, all unowned entities are in the treasury,
> and all other entities do not have a location specified, except as follows:

As I recall, the items in the Museum are actually in the Museum, and
the items buried as treasure may be *at* the Treasury, but not *in*
the Treasury.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 18:55:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Political Party

IdiotBoy wrote:

[potential party]

> IdiotBoy (BAKER's Dozen)
> Narf
> Strider
> 
> Strider shall be our Swinger in Party Chess.

Even after the big tent is purchased, I'm not sure it will
be permissable for Strider to do this until he resigns as NAP
Swinger, but would have to check the rules and precedence to see
what actually happens, or, conversly, whether the organization is
permitted to become a party as long as Strider remains NAP swinger.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 03:27:10 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : My dangling house

It appears that my house is dangling.

Fortunately I have wings. Unfortunately, there is only of me. Are there
two valiant winged players out there who would help me reattach my house?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 19:43:01 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: About CFJ 360 

In a message dated 97-03-21 00:26:43 EST, you write:

> I don't want to have to play the game like this if we don't have
>  to. And I don't think we do. I want to rely on mutual trust for as
>  long as possible.

I am certainly willing to concede this point.  What I'm not willing to
concede is my initial point that my cfj filed from an unregistered email
address in invalid.  There is, of course, another solution... what about a
proposal that simply validated a players ability to log on from alternate
email addresses?

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 19:47:13 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (Mentor: CnH) 

Welcome (back) Simon!

Narf
Who immediately jumps the gun and offers A$50 for just 5 pfSimon

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

Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 03:53:58 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Political Party

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> IdiotBoy wrote:
> 
> [potential party]
> 
> > IdiotBoy (BAKER's Dozen)
> > Narf
> > Strider
> > 
> > Strider shall be our Swinger in Party Chess.
> 
> Even after the big tent is purchased, I'm not sure it will
> be permissable for Strider to do this until he resignsas NAP
> Swinger, but would have to check the rules and precedence to see
> what actually happens, or, conversly, whether the organization is
> permitted to become a party as long as Strider remains NAP swinger.
> 
> Malenkai
>
He doens't need to resign, the rule says that e remains a NAP Swinger
until e either resigns, is impeahced, or becomes a member of a Party.

So as it stands now, since BAKER is still not  a Party, Strider remains
NAP Swinger. Should BAKER purchase a Big Tent, Strider will immediately
cease to be NAP Swinger, and that office will be up for grabs.

Niccolo Flychuck

Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 19:58:35 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Mad Scientist 

In a message dated 97-03-21 12:29:47 EST, Malenkai wrote:

> Narf
>  ----
>  Narf
>  Malenkai

And I thought you didn't like me!
<said in best imitation of Richard -- better known as Riff-Raff>

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:02:07 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Auctions 

In a message dated 97-03-21 14:35:04 EST, you write:

> I bid A$110 on the electronic potato and A$125 on the plunky monkey wrench.
>  
>  /dev/joe

Scum.  I bid $121 on da electronic potato

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:07:26 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: New Political Party 

In a message dated 97-03-21 17:00:44 EST, you write:

> IdiotBoy (BAKER's Dozen)
>  Narf
>  Strider
I ack this, if such be neccesary

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:09:38 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: New Political Party 

In a message dated 97-03-21 17:43:09 EST, you write:

> > This message is to announce the creation of the Benevolent AcKanomic 
>  > Economic Reconstruction Party. (For easy popular usage, we may be
referred
>  > to as the BAKER Party.
>  	This message is to announce that it isn't all that simple anymore....
>  
>  --Mohammed
>  preparing to be lynched

Sure it is... what's happened here is that an organization has been set up.
 Of course, by the rules it's not a political party until it has a big tent.
 With an eye to that, I'm donating A$100 to BAKER

Narf

Narf -A$100
BAKER +A$100

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:10:00 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Auctions 

In a message dated 97-03-21 17:45:58 EST, you write:

> I bid A$ 125 on the Electronic Potato.
>  
>  --Mohammed
>  
grumble grumble

I bid A$150 on the Electric Potato

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:17:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: acka : My dangling house 

In a message dated 97-03-21 19:28:07 EST, you write:

> Fortunately I have wings. Unfortunately, there is only of me. Are there
>  two valiant winged players out there who would help me reattach my house?
>  
>  
>  Niccolo Flychuck

Once again, I take to the sky like the winged rodent that I am and meet
Niccolo high above (far below?) his house.

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:20:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: New Political Party 

In a message dated 97-03-21 19:53:54 EST, you write:

> He doens't need to resign, the rule says that e remains a NAP Swinger
>  until e either resigns, is impeahced, or becomes a member of a Party.
>  
>  So as it stands now, since BAKER is still not  a Party, Strider remains
>  NAP Swinger. Should BAKER purchase a Big Tent, Strider will immediately
>  cease to be NAP Swinger, and that office will be up for grabs.
>  
>  Niccolo Flychuck
>  

Actualy... as I understand things, he's not really even a member of BAKER
yet, since no player can be made part of an organization against his will and
he hasn't acknowledged joining Baker yet.  I might also point out that were
he to join us and help us buy the big tent before leaving NAP he would be a
criminal (remember the proposal I retracted?)

Narf

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 20:27:08 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Player (Mentor: CnH)

snowgod wrote:

> We have a new (well, not really) player in Ackanomic.  Would everyone
> please give a warm ackanomic welcome and a huge round of applause to Andy
> Swan <[email-masked]>, or, if you prefer to call him by his Ackanomic
> name (and who wouldn't?), Simon Marty Harriman.

Welcome back.  Your starting cash is A$1065.

SMH +1065

Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:45:15 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Trinket 

At 7:10 PM on 3/21/97, Malenkai wrote:

> I am creating a trinket called the "Earth".  Its value is A$1.
> It is a small, round, blue-green sphere, and is mostly harmless.
>
> Malenkai

  I am calling for a witch hunt against Malenkai...

- -Red Barn
Please, just this one?

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:47:39 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Treasure Hunting 

At 7:29 PM on 3/21/97, Malenkai wrote:

> > In hopes of saving my Gadgets, I am creating a treasure consisting of the
> > Silver Key. I am burying this treasure with a map that says "The silver key
> > will be found by the first players wit two or more entities who wants to
> > possess, and wants to love it, and hug it, and call it george."
>
> I possess 2 or more entities.  I want to possess, love, hug, and call
> the Silver Key george.  I really truly do.

  As you posted this to acka-discuss, it didn't happen.  Assuming the full
text of the treasure map really is as posted, you don't have the key yet.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:48:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket

Red Barn wrote:

>   I am calling for a witch hunt against Malenkai...
> 
> -Red Barn
> Please, just this one?

Sorry.  Malenkai is Enlightened.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:54:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure Hunting

Red Barn wrote:

>   As you posted this to acka-discuss, it didn't happen.  Assuming the full
> text of the treasure map really is as posted, you don't have the key yet.

It is true that I do not have the key yet, because the map owner has
not determined if I, or anyone else, has yet met the conditions.  
However, the message in question was not posted to acka-discuss.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:55:02 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket 

> Sorry.  Malenkai is Enlightened.

  Awww...

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:00:28 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure Hunting 

> It is true that I do not have the key yet, because the map owner has
> not determined if I, or anyone else, has yet met the conditions.
> However, the message in question was not posted to acka-discuss.

  Oh.  Must have misread the mail headers, then.

- -Red Barn

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

End of Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #24
*****************************************