Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #6
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Tuesday, May 21 1996         Volume 01 : Number 006

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 96 23:57:44 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Tabulator will be out of town.

Folks, I'm taking a mini-vacation.  I'm leaving town Wed morning and will
be back in town Friday night.  I am not officially going to be on vacation,
as it would be very difficult for someone to do my job.  

So any proposals that are sent beween Wed and Fri will be sent out on Friday
night.  

Wayne

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 96 0:13:57 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 796

Proposal 796 - Tue May 21 00:13:57 EDT 1996
Make 452 mutable
this is not a name  (Mike Epstein)

The passage of this proposal would make Rule 452 mutable.

[[

Rule 452/1 (Immutable)
Rule Titles

       Each Rule shall have a Title. Each Proposal shall also
       have a Title. When a Proposal is submitted, the player
       that submits it may indicate the Title for the Proposal. If
       the player doesn't indicate a Title for the Proposal then
       the Promoter shall select a Title. 

       If the Proposal passes and the Proposal creates a New
       Rule, then the New Rule shall have the Title of the
       Proposal. If the Proposal amends or mutates a Rule, the
       Title of the Rule shall remain unchanged. 

       Once a Rule has a Title, the only way that the Rule may
       have its Title changed is if a Proposal is passed which
       changes the Title. 

  Created by Proposal 452, Mar 14 1996
  Transmuted to Immutable by Rule 446, Mar 14 1996

]]

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 23:16:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: discussion P794, rule numbers, other ides

> I'm still baffled by one thing, and regretablly don't have the time
> to research it right now:

> R508 exists.

> What if P700 amends R508?

> Is the new rule numbered R508.2 (or r508/2) or R700/0? or something else.
> This is what's needed. I heard this was fixed, if so, how so, and I regret
> I don't have time time to look without the web page.

The new rule continues to be numbered 508.  There is no rule which dictates
the practice of numbering revised rules as 508/2, etc.  The proposal which
passed recently amending 508 claims to number it as 508/1 and to take
precedence over rules preventing it from doing so, or something like this.
I'd need to examine the rules on rule numbers to see if a proposal amending
a rule can also assign it a number, and whether it can assign a number such
as 508/1, but clearly the proposal (note that this is *not* part of the rule
it amends) cannot take precedence over rules.  The rule 'Numbering Proposals'
allows for a proposal creating a *new* rule to specify the number of that
rule.  Proposal 642 amended this rule, deleting all mention of amendments
to rules causing the rules' numbers to be changed, but also changed the
numbers assigned to new rules so that they are no longer the same as the
numbers of the proposals that created them.

> I really thought the ARN mechanism fixed this, but it was not followed,
> or I misunderstood it.

The ARN mechanism left the rule numbers as they were before, including
their use for determining precedence, and just defined the ARN as *another*
number a rule has, which is the same as its other number when a rule is
first created.  The ARN didn't change when a proposal was amended.

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 00:37:33 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 796

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 796 - Tue May 21 00:13:57 EDT 1996
> Make 452 mutable
> this is not a name  (Mike Epstein)
> 
> The passage of this proposal would make Rule 452 mutable.
> 

So will CFJ 163 (I believe the number is), which will nuke R446.
Will it nuke its past effects? That's a different can of worms, I
suppose.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 96 1:19:35 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 797

Proposal 797 - Tue May 21 01:19:35 EDT 1996
Festival of Torkola
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

1) This rule defines the Festival of Torkola, a period of much
merriment and mirth in the land of Ackanomia, where players concentrate
on enjoying the existing rules, and relatively inactive players may
participate in ways other than just voting.

2) A Festival of Torkola (hereafter "Festival") has a duration of 1 to 10
days. Only one Festival may be going on at a time. Its length cannot
be changed while it is going on.

3) There is no limit to the number of Festivals that can occur in a given
time period, except as in 2) above.

4) During a Festival, it is illegal for the Promoter or anyone else to
distribute a Proposal for voting. This clause superceeds any mutable rule
which would require or allow the Promoter, or anyone else, to do so. This
specifically applies to Proposals. Not Resolutions, not CFJs, not Recall
Petitions, etc. Just Proposals.

5) A Festival is started in one of 3 ways:

5a) Upon the passage of a Resolution or Proposal that specifies that a
Festival of a given length start on a given date, relative to when it is 
passed. E.g: "Upon passage of this, a Festival of Torkola will
start on the day following, and last for 7 days". Note that clause 2)
cannot be violated. Note that this is e.g., it doesn't happen when this
rule is passed.

5b) Upon distributation of any proposal whose last 2 digits are "00", the
Promoter may declare a Festival to start on the day following the
distributation of the proposal. He or she shall also determine the length.
The Promoter is strongly encouraged, but not required, to do this. He
or she must consider the state of the game and popular opinion when
making this decision. This clause superceeds or augments all mutable
rules which define the priveledges of the Promoter, and all mutable
rules which would deny the Promoter this priveledge. This shall be a
Priveledge of the office of Promoter. [ie, a Festival can occur every
100 proposals].

5c) Upon failure of any 3 consecutive proposals/resolutions due to
Quorum not being met, a Festival of 5 days will automatically start on
the day following the public disclosure of the 3rd failure. Any failures
which occur during a Festival or before the known start date of one
shall not count. e.g, if 6 proposals fail on a Saturday, the first 3
are sufficient to start a festival on Sunday, and the other failures
shall be ignored.

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 00:58:05 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 780 

>> To interpret "a decision of the president" as was done by quite a few
>> players is amazing, given the context. Thanks, that's the perfect example of
>> pettiness I could have ever come up with. It is the perfect Star-Trekish
>> work: quick, find a loophole Data!
>> No. Just because some people didn't want Robert Sevin to win didn't mean
>> that hey, let's use the Holy Texts to find which sentence we can take out of
>> context, interpret for our own agenda and then blame it on who ever made
>> that rule.
>
>By R400 I invoke the Politeness Moon on the above statement. Its rude,
>insensitive, and worst of all, FALSE.

If anyone has an aversion to fireworks, stop reading this and move on.

Malenkai, my friend...
[sight]
[heavy sight]

I do wish your memory was better than your rhetoric. If thou could only
remember, when, in dire times of crisis and troubled hours, I stood by you
oft, and publicly endorsed your action. An action you know I will not
discuss here, and for what reasons. If thou could remember how I also
privately supported you in those times.
How much it H+U+R+T+S to know see such infamous garbage from you. Maybe you
thought the only person who had feelings was you?

If you had even READ the message you quote, you would know a certain fact.
But then I can only guess as to how you would just skip to that part and
ignore the *first* paragraph:

>I thoroughly enjoy mixing my own opinions with the words of the "devil's
advocate". Please remember that all that's here is not my opinion, and let
us continue forward on this theoretical discussion. There are many points we
have brought up here than are interesting and whose solution would do much good.

Then, you would have known that what you quote MUST have been something I
said for the argument. But no. You chose to ignore at least two messages.
You chose to act on something that was not worthy of action. You chose to
assume the worse and "deal with it". Or me. Or whatever you were angry at...
[slow, pacing myself, not angry at all]
By your action, you attempt to punish free speech. You try to cover up
things you do not feel comfortable about. Opinions you wish to censor out of
existence. There is a word for that, but it's so overused and misunderstood
I will not say it here. Needless to say I am awed to see such a beast of an
email come from you.

Even if what you quote is something I actually believed in, I see no reason
for you to do a censorship act on it. So you want no one to talk about it?
Huh? It may have been rude, but I say your email was rude and grotesque
given all that you *knew*. "Insensitive"?? HA! Well guess what I think of
your message. And as for being FALSE, who the h*** knows!

And will you call a politeness moon if I say that "all grass is blue" and it
is false???
No! No! No! You cannot, it's not what it's there for. Never should you have
mentioned it.

I am still not angry, but I certainly have a straight face. No, I'm not
smiling, because to be honest I find little to smile about. This is the
first time I vow to fight a politeness moon, and I hope it will be the last.
You are plain wrong about the situation and you are plain wrong about
calling the politeness moon in these circumstances. And you (should) know it.

I will wear the name "Jack rabbit whatever" with pride if it is repealed,
but even if I were to lose, I would not concede that I was impolite to you.
Well, maybe I've been in this email and now deserve it. It was a discussion,
nothing aimed at you, all in the air.

My apology to all who read through this. I humbly ask for everyone's
forgiveness in that I was unable to find less "emotional" arguments. I guess
I'm far from perfect.

I will understand if some players wish me to go on vacation for a while. It
seems that either I have become the unofficial target practice of Ackanomic,
or people just don't like my arguments. To that effect, I will go on
vacation from Wednesday till at least next Monday, maybe till much later.

Even though I am almost finished setting up everything for the FM, I will
not finish it. I will resign from my position effective tomorrow. This is
still unofficial. An official announcement is forthcoming.

Malenkai, I consider you a friend, and you are in no way to blame for my
decision. Many, many things have brought it on. I hope that you can continue
to fight for what we have believed in until I get back, which I hope will be
very soon.

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 09:01:08 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion: English, sort of

There's a list at 
http://www.bucknell.edu/~rbeard/diction.html

Nicolo Flychuck

On Mon, 20 May 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> To:  Ackanomians
> From:  mr cwm
> 
> Is there an on-line dictionary somewhere?  I'm trying to write a proposal
> that might, occasionally, require that whether or not a word is in English
> be verified, and I'd like to use as fair and accessable method as
> possible.  (I promise it has nothing to do with genderless pronouns!)
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 09:13:27 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC - method for selecting Judges

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> > 
> > RFC
> > Method for Selecting Judges
> > Nicolo Flychuck
> > 
> 
> I think this is much less straight forward than my method, and does not
> quite deliver the benefits, but, be that as it may, I have the following
> suggestion:

I agree that it is not as straight forward, but it's very complex either. 
AS far as benefits are concerned,  I think it does a much better job than 
your method. It is based on a simple principle that the more you are 
selected, the less chance you have of being selected again, with an 
occasional semi-equalization. One could make more strnoger, and more 
complex, by introducing an additional factor of difference between CFJ 
numbers for any specific player, and add that to the calculation as well. 
However, CFJ numbers would have to be scaled down, the scaling factor 
could be set to have more or less effect than JI, in short, an additional 
factor not worth bothering with.
So, unless someone a loophole with this, I'll propose this, as you suggest,
as an ammendment to the CFJ selection rule.

Nicolo Flychuck

 > 
> Amend the CFJ selection rule, or give this precedence over it, otherwise
> it will have no effect. The procedure will remain random.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
> > 1. Let each registered player have a Judgement Index, which may be reffered
> > to as JI.
> > 2. Let TJI be the sum total of all players who are eligible to be selected
> > as Judges.
> > 3. The probability that any single player will be selected a Judge for a
> > given CFJ is calculated as JI divided by TJI, and may be denoted as JP.
> > Hence for each player
> > JP=JI/TJI  ;   0<=JP<=1 [[in probabilty, p=1 is certainty, p=0 is certainly
> > not :)]]
> > 4. The officer in charge in selecting Judges, will select the judges
> > randomally according to the probabilities calculated for each player.
> > 5. When a player is selected to be a judge for a specific CFJ, eir JI is
> > decreased by 1, regardless of the verdict the Judge returns. [[this is
> > intended so when a Judge returns undecided, their JI will be decreasd
> > anyway, being selected is the important factor, IMO]]
> > 
> > 6. Let MaxJI equal the greatest JI. There may be more than one player whose
> > JI equals MaxJI
> > 7. Whenever MaxJI is smaller than 4, the JI of all players are increases by
> > (4-MaxJI)
> > 8. Whenever a new player joins the game, eir JI will be set to 3
> > 9. When this rule passe, all players' JIs are set to 4
> > 10 The officer in charge of selecting Judges will keep track of JIs.
> > 11. The value of JIs is public information.
> 

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 01:40:20 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official 

Acka.

There is a mountain beyond this realm, a place where I may find some peace
for a while, far from the energetic discussions of this place. Even, and
this is my hope, I may find there in my meditation a new way to argue my
ideas, since some do not like the current one. I bear no one ill feelings,
nor do I blame anyone for making me go on vacation. It is my decision, and
mine alone, and no one but my silly self is to blame. [no duh]

So I will put myself on vacation for a few days, to think things through.

I _will_ be back.

My last action will be to officially resign from my post of Financier. I
would like to recommend ThinMan for the position. He has been an excellent
assistant and I am sure you will all find him to be more than worthy of the
job. To the person that will follow, ThinMan hopefully, I would like to say
that the web pages I have set up are here to stay, so if you send things to
me, I can post them up. Good luck in the job, it's not yet difficult, but
keep a close eye on that treasury cash flow. My only request is that you try
to keep the job as distant from the political offices as possible. I know it
may seem strange, or unnecessary, but this I ask as a favor. Interpret it as
you see fit.   : |

Oh, I have promised Malenkai and Mohammed half of the estate of the The
Governor each, if they can fulfill the second half of the contract and each
send you a message claiming it. The governor's PFBonds will have to be
removed (no longer a player) but the currency is there.

And don't forget to ask Wayne for Tammany stuff! Wayne's been pretty good
with the scores and everything, but help him out by reminding him; he has
much to do.

Malenkai, you are the best Justice Acka will ever have. Mohammed, I enjoyed
our last discussion very much. CPF, SMH, and the other excellent senators in
general: good luck. I hope our spectacular Speaker and President will make a
cool comeback from his vacation. If I start naming everyone, it's going to
be really bad, so let me stop here, and simply let you know I can't think of
a single player (and I know all of you, I do your accounts) that I do not
appreciate.

I'm kind of glad I get to say all the things I could never really say
before. Everyone should have to say goodbye once in a while. It's neat!      : )

While I think of all of you as friends, I wish everyone the best of luck in
finding another unofficial target practice.    : )      Well, I did ask for
it all.       : \

In search of enlightenment.
Calvin N Hobbes.

[yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeha! free at last!]

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 11:05:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC - method for selecting Judges

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 May 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Uri Bruck wrote:
> > > 
> > > RFC
> > > Method for Selecting Judges
> > > Nicolo Flychuck
> > > 
> > 
> > I think this is much less straight forward than my method, and does not
> > quite deliver the benefits, but, be that as it may, I have the following
> > suggestion:
> 
> I agree that it is not as straight forward, but it's very complex either. 
Once again I type and not proof read, I meant NOT very complex.
The rest is snipped.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 05:46:54 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 780

T Joffrain wrote:
> 
> >> To interpret "a decision of the president" as was done by quite a few
> >> players is amazing, given the context. Thanks, that's the perfect example of
> >> pettiness I could have ever come up with. It is the perfect Star-Trekish
> >> work: quick, find a loophole Data!
> >> No. Just because some people didn't want Robert Sevin to win didn't mean
> >> that hey, let's use the Holy Texts to find which sentence we can take out of
> >> context, interpret for our own agenda and then blame it on who ever made
> >> that rule.
> >
> >By R400 I invoke the Politeness Moon on the above statement. Its rude,
> >insensitive, and worst of all, FALSE.
> 

> I do wish your memory was better than your rhetoric. If thou could only
> remember, when, in dire times of crisis and troubled hours, I stood by you
> oft, and publicly endorsed your action. An action you know I will not
> discuss here, and for what reasons. If thou could remember how I also
> privately supported you in those times.

Yes, this is true. But irrelevant in determining if THIS post was polite.
We're not talking about support, only politeness. The rest is rhetoric :)

> >I thoroughly enjoy mixing my own opinions with the words of the "devil's
> advocate". Please remember that all that's here is not my opinion, and let
> us continue forward on this theoretical discussion. There are many points we
> have brought up here than are interesting and whose solution would do much good.

I did not see this. I missed it. POP3 server ate my homework. I will
check into this.

> Even if what you quote is something I actually believed in, I see no reason
> for you to do a censorship act on it. So you want no one to talk about it?
> Huh? It may have been rude, but I say your email was rude and grotesque
> given all that you *knew*. "Insensitive"?? HA! Well guess what I think of
> your message. And as for being FALSE, who the h*** knows!

I intended no censorship. The whole post was huge, and I routinely edit
posts as per my RFE. I did not see the first paragraph quoted by CnH, or
at least its relavance.

Further checking reveals the paragraph in question was quite a distance
from the text I quoted. It was not clear, to me, anyway, that it indicated
the quote was not CnH's work. A misunderstanding, perhaps. I was just
sick of hearing "people did not want Robert Sevin to win". What people?
Reread the whole post, as I just have. I can still see how it was
impolite.

If I could, I would retract this politeness moon. But I can't. There was
no intent of censorship. I can send the original to anyone who cares.
I will abstain on the voting.

> 
> And will you call a politeness moon if I say that "all grass is blue" and it
> is false???
> No! No! No! You cannot, it's not what it's there for. Never should you have
> mentioned it.

I called it because it was rude. The FALSE is admittedly rhetoric.

> nothing aimed at you, all in the air.

I'm sorry. That was unclear. Reread your original post from a different
point of view. I have.

> I'm far from perfect.

Aren't I as well, obviously.

> I have become the unofficial target practice of Ackanomic, or people
> just don't like my arguments.

Its nice to have companionship :)

>I will resign from my position effective tomorrow. This is
> still unofficial. An official announcement is forthcoming.

C'mon, don't do that, just because of a misguided Politeness Moon. 
Reread the post and see where I'm coming from.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 05:55:33 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

T Joffrain wrote:

> So I will put myself on vacation for a few days, to think things through.
> 
> I _will_ be back.

Be back soon. I'll get bored just picking on snowgod :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 04:17:06 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

At 5:55 AM 5/21/96, Malenkai wrote:
>T Joffrain wrote:
>
>> So I will put myself on vacation for a few days, to think things through.
>>
>> I _will_ be back.
>
>Be back soon. I'll get bored just picking on snowgod :)

And I'll be bored with only Malenkai to oppose my plans :)

Okay, well, maybe not.  Malenkai is enough to keep my hands full (for now)
But do hurry back, please.  I'd love for you to be able to see my upcoming
series of commercials for my campaign.  And besides that, you make the game
more fun!

snowgod.

"He belongs to that race of men who are always their adversary's best
champions."

- - Umberto Eco
  The Name of the Rose

Visit http://www.alaska.net/~snowgod for the ultimate source
of Information on Thinumabobs and Whatchamacallits.

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion: Proposal Numbering

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> mr cwm wrote:
> 
> Every time I bring this up, someone *else* always responds that they
> have a fix. My plan is simple, just keep the part to the left of the
> slash static. I did see that /dev/joe had a fix, but I have not had time
> to read it yet. I will wait to see what that is about, then see if it
> passes, then propose mine if necessary.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

I'm not sure who wrote that -- it wasn't me.  Keeping the part to the left
of the slash static is, indeed, simple, and seems to be the point of the
whole "slash" system.  I think we should change our precedence rules if we
go that way.  Otherwise, rule 201/4096 (i.e., the 4096th time R201 is
amended) will still have precedence over R202/0 from the original rules.
(I suppose someone might actually want that, but I don't think I would.)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 15:40:06 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 795

From Calvin
> >Proposal 795 - Mon May 20 15:06:25 EDT 1996
> >Blatant Elitism
> >Bascule  (Matt Black)
> 
> I've never made it to Elite, but I got to "deadly".
> Will you make a proposal for military and nobility ranks?

I can't remember the military and nobility ranks, but this would
clash with the monarchy stuff from Oompapah. I hope Oompapah
think this proposal is consistent with their objectives and vote for
it, even if they are "resting" at the moment.

Bascule
Dangerous (if the rule passes) 

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 15:51:49 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: CFJ 164

> Judgement 164
>   Subject:  The Speaker and the Voters
> Initiator:  Simon Marty Harriman
> 1st Judge:  Bascule (selected at 1026h on 4 May 1996)
> Judgement:  (failed to respond)
> 2nd Judge:  Techno (selected at 1329h on 20 May 1996)
> 
> Statement:
> > Robert Sevin cannot vote on proposals according to rule 443/1

I did actually respond to this, however my mail server was 
misbehaving at the time so I presume the message failed 
to get through. I guess it's too late now, but for the record
I returned a verdict of FALSE. I've forgotten the complete
reasoning now, but there's a rule that says that all Players 
get a vote. 443 says that the speaker cannot be a voter, but
it has less priority than the other rule. If the other rule had 
said "all voters get one vote" I would have returned TRUE.
The slightly bizarre outcome would have been that Robert
Sevin would not be a Voter, but he could still vote.
All completely irrelevant now, of course

Bascule

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:05:40 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 790

mr cwm wrote:
> 
> My notes indicate that 110 has been made mutable.
> 
> -mr cwm

If so, then I take back my invalidity argument on P790. Its tough flying
without the web page. Sorry for any incoonvienence.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 96 14:28:58 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Disc: Reply-To address

To our wonderful list maintianer, /dev/joe, and others:

It might be easier on people (if it's possible) if mail sent out by the 
listserv had a "Reply-To" address of the list, since generally people 
should just repond to the list and otherwise they have to edit their 
To/CC lines every time they repond to a message.

this is not a name
Ackanomic Historian

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
              Neither a panhandler nor a Laplander be.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 96 14:29:52 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 796

Malenkai sez:
>> 
>> Proposal 796 - Tue May 21 00:13:57 EDT 1996
>> Make 452 mutable
>> this is not a name  (Mike Epstein)
>> 
>> The passage of this proposal would make Rule 452 mutable.
>> 
>
>So will CFJ 163 (I believe the number is), which will nuke R446.
>Will it nuke its past effects? That's a different can of worms, I
>suppose.

I see no reason why the CFJ could possibly change things retroactively. 
That's why I proposed 796. Vote yes, everyone! :)

this is not a name
Ackanomic Historian

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so long
 and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones
 which open for us."                   --Alexander Graham Bell
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:37:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Judgement 145

> I believe the CotC has an obligation under R691 for this and 
> CFJ 164. If the CotC believes he has fulfilled this obligation,
> (I personally do not, but its debatable) then the Speaker has an
> obligation. I suppose it is also debatable who is currently acting
> as Speaker...
	I have not; it's because I think Merlin has left the game.

	Merlin the Happy Pig is a deadbeat judge.

	I guess we'll have to decide whether or not Robert Sevin is on 
vacation sooner or later.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:59:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Disc: Reply-To address

> It might be easier on people (if it's possible) if mail sent out by the 
> listserv had a "Reply-To" address of the list, since generally people 
> should just repond to the list and otherwise they have to edit their 
> To/CC lines every time they repond to a message.

1. Different mailers handle such headers differently; I probably can't
make that work for everyone without obliterating the sender's address.
A pre-majordomo version of the list did this, and put the sender's name
and address at the top of the message body, but this was a hack.

2. Sometimes you do want to respond to the person privately.  As it is,
you have to change the To: address on a lot of mail, but you only have
to remember the one address for the mailing list.  What I mean is that if
the default is to reply to the list, you have to change the To: address
less often, but it takes more effort to do so since you have to look up
a perhaps-unfamiliar e-mail address.  The address for the mailing list
should be familiar to *everybody* by now.

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 14:00:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: CFJ 171

I apologize for the patchy CotC service of late.  Things are hectic; my 
car's in the shop; I've got a new job; my girlfriend is all sunburned, 
etc.  So, here's CFJ 171, the first judgement presented ASAP in ages.

Judgement 171
  Subject:  Speakership
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  mr cwm

Statement:
> Mohammed is the Acting Speaker.

Malenkai's reasoning:
> It comes down to vacation interpretation again. The facts may be
> different when the CFJ is filed from the time it is adjudicated. That
> is the Judge's problem :) Hopefully it will be irrelevant.

- --Mohammed, Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 14:06:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka:  politeness moon

> >By R400 I invoke the Politeness Moon on the above statement. Its rude,
> >insensitive, and worst of all, FALSE.
> 
> If anyone has an aversion to fireworks, stop reading this and move on.
	Hoo!
	I'll be voting Polite on this one, but I have to say it's no fun 
invoking the politeness moon on a truly rude comment; the outcome will be 
just the loss of a few points.  It's much more fun to get someone nicked 
"Jazz Jackrabbit" for three days.  Heh.  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 14:33:48 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Disc: Reply-To address 

"Joseph" == Joseph W DeVincentis <[email-masked]> writes:

Joseph> 1. Different mailers handle such headers differently; I
Joseph> probably can't make that work for everyone without
Joseph> obliterating the sender's address.  A pre-majordomo version of
Joseph> the list did this, and put the sender's name and address at
Joseph> the top of the message body, but this was a hack.

inserting a "Reply-To" in the headers is a standard majordomo option.
i suggest you reread the documentation.  in the version i have, 1.93,
instructions on how to insert a Reply-To on all list messages are
clearly given in the file Doc/majordomo.ora.

i would prefer reply-to to the list.

k.

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 15:36:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: re:  Ackanomic: Proposal 796

Malenkai:
>So will CFJ 163 (I believe the number is), which will nuke R446.
>Will it nuke its past effects? That's a different can of worms, I
>suppose.

this is not a name:
> I see no reason why the CFJ could possibly change things retroactively. 

	Many CFJs have had retroactive effects.  Otherwise they would be 
a poor method indeed for enforcing the rules.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 96 17:14:48 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 798

Proposal 798 - Tue May 21 17:14:48 EDT 1996
Palindromes are Inherently Amusing
mr cwm  (Eric Murray)

In this order, three point shall be subtracted from the score of mr cwm,
three points shall be added to the score of this is not a name, and this
paragraph shall be stricken from this Rule. 

Upon each creation of a Rule fulfilling all three of the following
conditions: 

(1) the Rule has a game effect in addition to its own addition to the 
    Ackanomic Rule Set and any effect claimed under this Rule
(2) each word in the Rule exists either in the Ackanomic Rule Set previous
    to the creation of the Rule, or in an electronically accessable
    dictionary of the English language selected by the Web-Harfer, should
    that office exist, provided that such dictionary is not under the
    control of any Player
(3) the text of the Rule is palindromic, that is, the text of the Rule
    would be the same, character by character, forward and backward if all
    alphabetic characters were lower-case, and anything other than
    alphabetic characters and numeric digits was removed.

the Player that submitted the Proposal that created the Rule shall: 

(1) have eight (8) points added to his or her score
(2) receive the honorific title "Sage o' Doe Gas" to hold until such time
    as another Player receives points under this Rule. 

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 00:59:26 GMT
From: [email-masked] (Stephen F Roberts)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 789

On Sat, 18 May 96 11:25:36 EDT, you wrote:

>Proposal 789 - Sat May 18 11:25:36 EDT 1996
>Another fool Proposal
>snowgod  (Phil Ackley)
>
>This rule acknowledges that you can fool all of the players some of the
>time, and some of the players all of the time, but you can't fool all of
>the players all of the time.
>
...But what if I did fool all the players all the time? This
rule specifically forbids it, but what if I've been doing it
all along? Do I have to stop fooling people?

SnafuMoose
Amazing AckaCitizen

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 96 22:24:00 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Score

Dan Marsh wrote to me:
>>So, the following:  I donate all of my Ackadollars to Mohammed.  I donate 
all 
>>of my PFBonds to Malenkai, and let him sort out what happens to them after I 
>>leave.  Any other ackaentities or offices I have, that I've forgotten about, 
I 
>>give to, hmm, "this is not a name".  And, I hereby leave the game.
>
>Although I'm not back, it just occurred to me that my score could be
>considered to be an ackaentity.  Claim it.

I claim his score under 115. Scorekeeper, please make the appropriate 
change.

this is not a name
Ackanomic Historian

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
   Look not to the windmill's turning while the ant still burrows.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:05:24 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 789 

"Stephen" == Stephen F Roberts <[email-masked]> writes:

Stephen> ...But what if I did fool all the players all the time? This
Stephen> rule specifically forbids it, but what if I've been doing it
Stephen> all along? Do I have to stop fooling people?

it would be very hard, if not impossible, for a Player to fool all of
the Players at any time, since in order to do so e would have to be
fooling emself, and it's very hard to fool others when you're fooling
yourself.

(cue to "Fooling Yourself", by Styx)

k.

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 96 0:44:52 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 750 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 750
  Proposal 750 - Wed May 15 00:30:24 EDT 1996
  Children, children...
  Bascule  (Matt Black)

Quorum met : 21 eligible voters -- 18 players cast votes

10 YES votes   8 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Bascule loses 10 points.  154 -> 144

10 YES votes:  3 points each
  Malenkai                                    142 -> 145          
  gnome                                                           
  De'ghew                                      64 -> 67           
  Bascule                                     144 -> 147          
  snowgod                (None Yet)            39 -> 42           
  Calvin N Hobbes                              14 -> 17           
  this is not a name     (None Yet)            65 -> 68           
  SnafuMoose                                   57 -> 60           
  Merlin the Happy Pig                         12 -> 15           
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)            81 -> 84           

8 NO votes:  
  Robin Hood                                                      
  Dr McSpong                                                      
  ThinMan                                                         
  Niccolo Flychuck                                                
  /dev/joe               Foozball                                 
  Techno                                                          
  Wayne                                                           
  Mohammed               (None Yet)                               

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Tera Ypsilon                                
  Brinjal                                     
  The Governor                                

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

New players who are not active:
  Meme Complex                                

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 96 0:49:21 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 751 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 751
  Proposal 751 - Wed May 15 00:34:36 EDT 1996
  Financial Contributions Equal Power
  Calvin N Hobbes  (Thierry Joffrain)

Quorum met : 21 eligible voters -- 18 players cast votes

8 YES votes   10 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Calvin N Hobbes loses 10 points.  17 -> 7

8 YES votes:  3 points each
  gnome                                                           
  Bascule                                     147 -> 150          
  snowgod                (None Yet)            42 -> 45           
  Calvin N Hobbes                               7 -> 10           
  SnafuMoose                                   60 -> 63           
  Techno                                       73 -> 76           
  Merlin the Happy Pig                         15 -> 18           
  Mohammed               (None Yet)            95 -> 98           

10 NO votes:  
  Malenkai                                                        
  Robin Hood                                                      
  Dr McSpong                                                      
  ThinMan                                                         
  Niccolo Flychuck                                                
  De'ghew                                                         
  this is not a name     (None Yet)                               
  /dev/joe               Foozball                                 
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)                               
  Wayne                                                           

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Tera Ypsilon                                
  Brinjal                                     
  The Governor                                

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

New players who are not active:
  Meme Complex                                

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #6
*****************************