Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #25
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, June 3 1996         Volume 01 : Number 025

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 2:12:36 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 849

Proposal 849 - Sun Jun 02 02:12:35 EDT 1996
'Fixing a loophole the size of Montana'
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Amend rule 663 'Resolutions' by changing the first sentence to
"A proposal may state that it is a resolution."

[[
I'd heard someone mention that there was a loophole in this rule, but
I didn't look at it before.  Now The Great Old One has gone off and
exploited it.  The rule says:

"A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution.  A resolution may not
change, add, or delete any rules.  If a resolution is adopted, the effect
described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be
added to the rule set."
]]

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 2:13:09 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 850

Proposal 850 - Sun Jun 02 02:13:09 EDT 1996
Commending Robert Sevin
this is not a name  (Mike Epstein)

This is a Resolution.

Ackanomia wishes to commend former Speaker Robert Sevin for his 
distinguished service to the land. The day after this Resolution passes, 
a ceremonial parade will be held in his honor.

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 2:18:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 851

Proposal 851 - Sun Jun 02 02:18:59 EDT 1996
Constitutional Convention
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

There shall be a Constitutional Convention.

[[Sorry about the delay]]

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 10:36:52 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: I Win 

> From [email-masked] Sun Jun  2 00:26 BST 1996
> Sender: [email-masked]
> From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Ackanomic: I Win
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 18:28:16 -0500 (CDT)
> Content-Type> : > text> 
> Content-Length: 2097
> 
> > I am calling for a Judgement on the following statement:
> > 
> > The game is no longer playable because of Rule 663.  This rule gives
> > anyone the power to proclaim a proposal a resolution.  Therefore, no
> > proposals could become Rules or change rules, and the game in a stalemate.  
> 
> I contend that it is still possible to change rules via a Constitutional
> Convention, and thus the game is not in a stalemate.  (It just might be
> a little difficult to do anything for a while.)
> 
> Rule 629, 'Constitutional Convention, Procedure' begins:
> "(a) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention is not a "proposal" as
>     the word is used in any other rule.
> (b) (1) Any player may make a proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention.
>     (2) A proposal to hold a Constitutional Convention shall be made and
>         distributed in the manner that the rules specify that proposals
>         are to be made and distributed. ..."
> 
> Rule 663, 'Resolutions' states:
> "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution.  A resolution may not
> change, add, or delete any rules.  If a resolution is adopted, the effect
> described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be
> added to the rule set."
> 
> It seems to me that rule 629 prevents rule 663 from being applied to it, and
> even if it doesn't, I think rule 663 does not prevent a resolution from
> initiating a Constitutional Convention.

Any player can declare that they have 3 eyes. Not all declarations are
true. Rule 663 does nothing.

           Robin Hood

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:44:34 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Ackanomic: Common Sense Report 1 

Greeting from your newly appointed CSRR.  This will be the first in an
infrequent series of Comon Sense Reports (hereafter known as CSR's).
R663/1 has recently been exploited by a player who was attempting a paradox
win.  This CSR will change the first sentence of R663/1 from "A player may
declare that a proposal is a resolution" to "A proposal may state that it
is a resolution."

While this change will not affect the staus of those proposals that have
already been changed to resolutions, it will prevent further exploitation
of this rule.

[ Current text of the rule:

Rule 663/1 (Mutable)
Resolutions
The Governor (Dan Marsh)

     A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution. A resolution
     may not change, add, or delete any rules. If a resolution is
     adopted, the effect described in the resolution shall occur, and
     the resolution shall not be added to the rule set.]

"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: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:45:58 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: I Win

On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, R Shaw wrote:
> > Rule 663, 'Resolutions' states:
> > "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution.  A resolution may not
> > change, add, or delete any rules.  If a resolution is adopted, the effect
> > described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be
> > added to the rule set."
> > 
> 
> Any player can declare that they have 3 eyes. Not all declarations are
> true. Rule 663 does nothing.
> 
>          Robin Hood
I tend to agree with Robin Hood.  The rule only says that a player may 
declare that a proposal is a resolution, but does not state that this 
declaration has any effect on the proposal. Even with this in mind, I 
still voted for the ammendment that would make the wording clearer
Nicolo flychuck

 > 

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:49:05 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Common Sense Report 1

I think we need to amend the whole resolution rule further.  Proposals 
should be proposals, and resolutions should be resolutions. Resolutions 
should be distributed under a different subject line, perhaps even with a 
different numbering. 
Nicolo flychuck

On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Greeting from your newly appointed CSRR.  This will be the first in an
> infrequent series of Comon Sense Reports (hereafter known as CSR's).
> R663/1 has recently been exploited by a player who was attempting a paradox
> win.  This CSR will change the first sentence of R663/1 from "A player may
> declare that a proposal is a resolution" to "A proposal may state that it
> is a resolution."
> 
> While this change will not affect the staus of those proposals that have
> already been changed to resolutions, it will prevent further exploitation
> of this rule.
> 
> [ Current text of the rule:
> 
> Rule 663/1 (Mutable)
> Resolutions
> The Governor (Dan Marsh)
> 
>    A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution. A resolution
>    may not change, add, or delete any rules. If a resolution is
>    adopted, the effect described in the resolution shall occur, and
>    the resolution shall not be added to the rule set.]
> 
> 
> "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: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:50:26 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Ackanomic: Undoing Evil Deeds 

Hey, I thought you didn't really believe in all that Chaos talk, Great Old
One.  What a stunt you have pulled.

In accordance with rule 115 I am declaring that P835 and P837-848 will no
longer create resolutions.  There is no text in the ruleset defining the
process of changing a proposal which creates aresolution into a proposal
which creates a rule, therefore it is an unregulated act and my actions are
permissable in accordance with R115.  Or at least I hope they are, I
suppose a CFJ might be in order.

snowgod
Ackanomic Ambassador
CSRR
Candidate for Senate

"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: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:53:21 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: clarification (Common Sense Report 1)

Please note that this reply does not constitute an objection to the CSR

Nicolo Flychuck

On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> I think we need to amend the whole resolution rule further.  Proposals 
> should be proposals, and resolutions should be resolutions. Resolutions 
> should be distributed under a different subject line, perhaps even with a 
> different numbering. 
> Nicolo flychuck
> 

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 01:54:09 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Common Sense Report 1

At 12:49 PM 6/2/96, Uri Bruck wrote:
>I think we need to amend the whole resolution rule further.  Proposals
>should be proposals, and resolutions should be resolutions. Resolutions
>should be distributed under a different subject line, perhaps even with a
>different numbering.
>Nicolo flychuck
>

I completlely agree with you, but that would (moraly though not
technically) be out of the bounds of my position of CSRR.  I need to know
though, for the sake of clarity:

Does your response to this message constitute an objection to the Common
Sense Report?

"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: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 21:46:47 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 837

> Proposal 837 - Sat Jun 01 11:16:21 EDT 1996
> Undefined Link Error
> Calvin N Hobbes  (Thierry Joffrain)
> 
> If any entity or artefact is used or mentioned in a rule without being
> defined in the rule set (including that rule) or as a blueprint, then that
> rule is made dormant.

I urge a no vote on this, I think it's too far reaching, as it 
affects the whole rule. A rule might mention a non-existent
entity in a subsection, and the whole rule would be made dormant.

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:41:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  CFJ 175

mr cwm is judge on this one.  I pointed this out (albeit without first 
going and crashing the game) a week or two ago.  Saying the game is no 
longer playable is a bit of a stretch.  It can still be played, but it 
might cease to be amusing.  *frown*

Call For Judgement 175
  Subject:  I Win
Initiator:  The Great Old One
    Judge:  mr cwm (selected at 1939h on 2 June 1996)

Statement:
> The game is no longer playable because of Rule 663.  This rule gives
> anyone the power to proclaim a proposal a resolution.  Therefore, no
> proposals could become Rules or change rules, and the game in a stalemate.  

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:48:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: I Win

> Rule 663, 'Resolutions' states:
> "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution.  A resolution may not
> change, add, or delete any rules.  If a resolution is adopted, the effect
> described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be
> added to the rule set."
> 
> It seems to me that rule 629 prevents rule 663 from being applied to it, and
> even if it doesn't, I think rule 663 does not prevent a resolution from
> initiating a Constitutional Convention.
	Furthermore, we could pass a resolution to remove from the game
permanently all players who have ever declared proposals authored by other
players to be resolutions.  This can be done repeatedly until all 
troublemakers have been wiped out.  Then we can get on with it.
	If it has not already been done, I plan to propose that R663 be
repealed.  He who turns that proposal into a resolution might as well
remove himself from the mailing list right now, because that will mean
war.
	Hardball, anyone?

> Rule 219, 'Winning By Paradox' states:
> "If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the
> legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or if some
> action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may call for
> judgement on a statement to that effect.  If the statement is judged true,
> and the judgement is not overruled, then the player who called for
> judgement is declared the winner of the game.  This rule takes precedence
> over every other rule for determining the winner of the game."
>
> Further play is not impossible (but is difficult).
> There is no action whose legality cannot be determined.
> There is no action that appear equally legal and illegal.
	It's not even difficult.  It's just that much less amusing.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:52:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  CFJ 175

Call For Judgement 175
  Subject:  Paradox
Initiator:  The Great Old One
    Judge:  SnafuMoose (selected at 1951h on 2 June 1996)

Statement:
> Rule 663 allows any proposal to become a resolution.  This rule also
> states that a resolution cannot change or create a rule, but the effects
> of the resolution shall be applied.  This is, in my judgement (and of
> others) a paradox.

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 19:56:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  CFJ 177

End of game always makes the Clerk a little annoyed.

Call For Judgement 177
  Subject:  Constitutional Conventions
Initiator:  The Great Old One
    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected at 1955h CDT on 2 June 1996)

Statement:
> This rule states that Proposals, in Rule 629, are unlike Proposals
> mentioned in any other rule.  (b)(2) says that Proposals to hold a CC are
> to be distributed as the Rules specify.  But since the Proposals in this
> Rule are unlike any other, there are no rules that specify how Proposals
> to hold a CC are to be distributed, therefore there can never be a
> COnstitutional COnvention.

- --Mohammed, Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:18:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Official (offices and elections)

/dev/joe wrote:
> shouldn't the end of some nomination periods have been announced by now?
	Getting a bit testy, eh?  --Considering the Nomination Period 
only ended about thirty hours ago.  If you must know, my ISP developed 
some really great line noise, and as I do have other regular activities 
than nomic, this is the first time I've manage to get on and stay on.

The following positions will be filled by the Appointer.
. The Nomination Period for Publicist will extend until there is a 
volunteer or the Rule Ripper wipes out that position; or, I guess, until 
some other rule changes happens to cause it to end.
. The Nomination Period for Welcomer is over.  Bascule is the only 
Nominee and he is therefore appointed Welcomer.
. The Nomination Period for Web-Harfer is over.  /dev/joe is the only 
Nominee and he is therefore appointed Web-Harfer.

The following positions will be filled by Election for Office.  See Rule 
611 for details.  Note to the new Web-Harfer:  there is an error in the 
HTML for rule 611.  The < > symbols around the word "Officer" should be 
replaced with &lt; and &gt;.
. The Nomination Period for Speaker is over.  /dev/joe and Mohammed are 
the Nominees.
. The Nomination Period for Appointer is over.  The Nominees are this is 
not a name, Bascule, and Mohammed.
. The Nomination Period for NAP Swinger is over.  The only Nominee for 
that position is Brinjal.  Rule quirk:  there still must be an election, 
according to R611.  Maybe we should fix that.

A few positions aren't officially within the "Officers" scheme yet:
. The race for the open Senate seat is still on, but the only candidate is 
ThinMan.  The rules do not specify when that election ends.  Wayne holds 
the ball on that one.
. The race for the Presidency continues.  The eligible candidates are 
this is not a name and /dev/joe.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:26:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  discussion (Wayne:  please read)

> I think we need to amend the whole resolution rule further.  Proposals 
> should be proposals, and resolutions should be resolutions. Resolutions 
> should be distributed under a different subject line, perhaps even with a 
> different numbering. 
	This would involve our Promoter rather directly; I think we 
should gain his support first.
	Wayne:  how difficult would it be to modify the nomicbot to 
record votes on several categories of proposal separately?  e.g.

#vote p888 y
#vote p889 y
#vote a776 y
#vote ip22 n

This discussion should probably go to acka-research rather than the main 
discussion channel.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:34:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: CFJ 176 (correction) (for SnafuMoose)

This should be numbered J176.

Subject lines on CFJs will contain the Judge's name from now on, inasmuch 
as I remember to do it.

Call For Judgement 176
  Subject:  Paradox
Initiator:  The Great Old One
    Judge:  SnafuMoose (selected at 1951h on 2 June 1996)

Statement:
> Rule 663 allows any proposal to become a resolution.  This rule also
> states that a resolution cannot change or create a rule, but the effects
> of the resolution shall be applied.  This is, in my judgement (and of
> others) a paradox.

- --Mohammed, your Absent-Minded Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 21:43:13 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Official (offices and elections)

Mohammed writes:
>A few positions aren't officially within the "Officers" scheme yet:
>. The race for the open Senate seat is still on, but the only candidate is 
>ThinMan.  The rules do not specify when that election ends.  Wayne holds 
>the ball on that one.
>. The race for the Presidency continues.  The eligible candidates are 
>this is not a name and /dev/joe.

Continues? Does this mean that votes were already being accepted? Could 
someone state for everyone's benefit who receives votes for each 
election, since the whole acting officers thing is quite confusing? Is it 
Wayne, the Tabulator? Or is it Mohammed, the Acting Appointer?

In case the votes are already being counted and the period is due to 
expire soon, could the appropriate officer record my vote for myself for 
President?

Thanks.

this is not a name
Historian
File Clerk
Candidate for Appointer and President

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation."
                                       --H. H. Munro (Saki)
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 20:55:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC: Rule Ripper II (& discussion of P834)

> Despite this, I still see plenty of stuff for a "Return of the Rule Ripper"
> proposal. :-)
	There's a lot of material; I agree.  (This discussion should 
probably move into acka-research.)

> 3. Merge R576 into the rules defining the president, senate, and supreme
>    court.  Fix up R507 (supreme court) similar to how was done in this
>    proposal.
	I started to rewrite the rules about the Supreme Court but 
finally gave up.  It required more creativity than I cared to exert at 
the time.

> 4. Change all references to ARN's in the rules to rule numbers.
>    Rules 422, 691, and 709 (3 times) are affected by this; rules 792
>    and 794 will be handled as above. 
	Good idea.  My proposal to repeal the ARN rule should have done 
this in the first place.

> 5. Possibly do something with R579 'There can only be one', though I
>    like the title.  At the least delete the last sentence.
	Just wipe it out.  If we're going to steal the line we might as 
well steal some plot elements as well; in any case that can happen 
later.  Perhaps add a rule saying "Each Office is protected."

> 6. Now that 110 is mutable, delete the part about the winner of one game
>    becoming the speaker for the next game.
	This certainly needs to be done.
> [These maybe should be separate from the above.]
	Yes.  I'm strongly against including serious semantical changes 
with a huge proposal that is, otherwise, just laundry.  Rewording the 
Speaker succession clause in 110 so that it fits with the "Speaker is an 
Officer" rule is a job for the Rule Ripper.  Deleting it (which I 
prefer) is a job for... you?

[re:  changing the Magic Number]
	That should definitely be independent of the rest of this.
	I wouldn't object; I'd like to see the Magic Number up in the 
1000-3000 range.  A prime Magic Number is preferable to a composite one.

> 8. Change the last sentence of 452 'Rule Titles' to 'The title of a rule
>    may only be changed when a passed proposal amends the rule, or when
>    another rule changes the title.' so that 703 works.
	"Rule Titles are protected.  A proposal amending a rule can 
change its title." is shorter.
	I can't believe I just said that.  Wow.  You know you've spent too much 
time optimizing trivial assembly routines when...

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 21:15:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Registrar's report

A new observer has joined the game:
   Frank J. Perricone ([email-masked])

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 21:57:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Official (elections)

> >. The race for the Presidency continues.  The eligible candidates are 
> >this is not a name and /dev/joe.
	Correction follows below.

> Continues? Does this mean that votes were already being accepted? Could 
> someone state for everyone's benefit who receives votes for each 
> election, since the whole acting officers thing is quite confusing?
	Rule 504 describes the election for the Presidency.
	Cute, eh?
	Since it specifies very little, I'll go ahead and say the election 
for the Presidency starts now and ends three days hence (Wednesday, 5 June.)
	The rules don't appear to specify who is to hold the Elections for
NAP Swinger, Speaker, or Appointer.  As Acting Speaker, I'm taking on this
responsibility.  Those elections will last three days from this message.  
Send your votes for these offices to me:

President:  /dev/joe, this is not a name
Speaker:  /dev/joe, Mohammed
Appointer:  Bascule, Mohammed, this is not a name
NAP Swinger:  Brinjal

- --Mohammed, Acting Speaker and Appointer

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 23:31:08 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC: Rule Ripper II (& discussion of P834)

Mohammed writes:
>[re:  changing the Magic Number]
>	That should definitely be independent of the rest of this.
>	I wouldn't object; I'd like to see the Magic Number up in the 
>1000-3000 range.  A prime Magic Number is preferable to a composite one.

Wouldn't that make for ridiculously long games and seriously disadvantage 
new players?

this is not a name
Historian
File Clerk
Candidate for Appointer and President

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
        "Makes your fingers fall off." --Mistranslated KFC ad
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 0:27:38 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Official (offices and elections)

>>>>A few positions aren't officially within the "Officers" scheme yet:
>. The race for the open Senate seat is still on, but the only candidate is
>ThinMan.  The rules do not specify when that election ends.  Wayne holds
>the ball on that one.
>. The race for the Presidency continues.  The eligible candidates are
>this is not a name and /dev/joe.

Continues? Does this mean that votes were already being accepted? Could
someone state for everyone's benefit who receives votes for each
election, since the whole acting officers thing is quite confusing? Is it
Wayne, the Tabulator? Or is it Mohammed, the Acting Appointer?

========================
I'm really confused by this as well.  I've gotten votes for a senate seat.
I've been saving then in a file.  I don't have any idea when the election
is set to end.  If someone would please enlighten me?

Wayne

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #25
******************************