Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #32
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Wednesday, June 5 1996        Volume 01 : Number 032

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:43:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 826 Passes

> 11 YES votes   5 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
> Proposal PASSES

> Proposal 826 - Tue May 28 10:51:56 EDT 1996
> Acid Rain Dance
> Techno  (Jerome Herrman)

>       Any player whose proposal number, when having its digits added 
> together, equals exactly 28, may perform the Acid Rain Dance.  The 
> player performing the Acid Rain Dance shall post a public decription 
> of the dance.  Immediatly after the public description of the Acid 
> Rain Dance, the Acid Rain shall fall, destroying the Amber Banana 
> Tree owned by Techno, unless the Amber Banana Tree is protected by 
> the Bronze Umbrella.  If unprotected by the Bronze Umbrella, the 
> Amber Banana Tree shall wither and die, and no longer exist.
>         Only the Amber Banana Tree can be destroyed by Acid Rain 
> unless permitted by other rules.

I'm tempted to submit about 1200 blank proposals just so I can have
proposal number 1999, the first one allowing an Acid Rain Dance, just
so I can do the Acid Rain Dance, partying like it's 1999, and kill the
banana tree, but I'm not going to.

More likely, though, I'll submit a proposal to ban having events triggered
on submitting proposals with certain numbers, as they could provoke someone
to do what I described above.  Either that, or put some (high, but sane)
limit on the number of proposals a player may make in a given time.
Since it's now possible to do more than one thing in a proposal, the
second option seems more reasonable.  Any ideas on what a reasonable
limit is?  20 in a week?  10 in a week?  4 in a day?

By the way, I think I have the web page caught up again.  Today was a
busy day, due in part to my own actions.

In case proposal 829 is still a resolution, I un-resolution-ize it
by R115 as CFJ178 seems to indicate is allowed (although it is being
appealed).

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:19:38 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: proposal - I meant RFC

On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal
> > Creation of the game of Eleusis
> > Nicolo Flychuck
> 
> I respectfully request, when possible, that players submit proposals,
> CFJs, etc to the officer responsible for distributation thereof, rather
> than just send them to the public forum. It disrupts a temporal element
> in the game for those follow this game custom, and eats bandwidth. I know
> I'm a hypocrite, I did this today (but have a really good excuse :))
> 
> Sorry, bad bandwidth day,
> Malenkai
> 

My mistake , I meant to post this as an RFC, I posted a correction.

My apologies to everyone. 

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:53:24 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 860

At 12:11 AM 6/5/96, [email-masked] () wrote:
>Proposal 860 - Wed Jun 05 00:10:59 EDT 1996
>Neutering the CSRR (amending R695)
>Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
>

Man, You must be a sore loser :).  Don't get the office you want and you
get pissed!  In all seriousness, after you left I tried to postpone the
appointment for the Office of CSRR, and failing that, I tried to nominate
you, as well as me.  Apearantly this was not permissable under the current
rules, but I tried. Mohammed will back me up here.

As for this proposal, I urge everyone to vote no on it.  The same reasoning
you have with repealing hungry silly and poisenous (sorry about the
spelling tonight).  Put it up for a vote enough times, and it will go
through eventually.  Should people want the office though, I suppose it
will remain.  And besides what does redundancy have to do with gender
nuetrality?  Seems like just a way of confusing the rule set.  If you want
to do it, do it right and call for it's repeal.

snowgod
Ambassador
Still not gender nuetral CSRR
Candidate for senate
All around man with a huge advertising budget who is out to buy your votes :)

"If elected to the senate, I promise to legislate a stint in the Gaol for
anyone who makes excessive reference to the work 'Bandwidth'!"

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 01:52:32 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Ackanomic:  I'm Confused! 

Malenkai,

I'm confused.  Are you on vacation now or not?  All that switching back and
forth is gonna cause my brain to explode. I think I'll take a vacation
until my head stops hurting.

I am now placing myself on vacation.  Please disregard this sentence.  I am
returning from vacation.

snowgod
Ambassador
Gender Positive CSRR
Candidate for Senate!
All around man with a headache...

"If elected senator, I promise to resign from the Senate before even taking
a Micro-Vacation (should such a thing exist or not - Pending approval of
all appropriate proposals.  not valid Albania)!

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 07:17:38 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  I'm Confused!

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> Malenkai,
> 
> I'm confused.  Are you on vacation now or not?  All that switching back and
> forth is gonna cause my brain to explode. I think I'll take a vacation
> until my head stops hurting.
> 
> I am now placing myself on vacation.  Please disregard this sentence.  I am
> returning from vacation.
> 
> snowgod
> Ambassador
> Gender Positive CSRR
> Candidate for Senate!
> All around man with a headache...
> 
> "If elected senator, I promise to resign from the Senate before even taking
> a Micro-Vacation (should such a thing exist or not - Pending approval of
> all appropriate proposals.  not valid Albania)!

I am officially back. All the switching was caused by two things:

1) I wanted to reply while going through the 400 emails, but did not
want to officially return until all the email was digested, because I
would obstain on proposals coming up for vote, and could affect quorum.
I wish something could be done about this problem, but I see no easy
fix. Regretably I will not vote on a few upcoming proposals, because
I have still not got through everything.

2) I had to make sure I was not de-benched by a proposal in the queue
that would remove all vacationing officers. Fortunately this proposal
was late enough and was retracted.

I realise that the order email is sent is not the order it is receivced
by players, if it is sent one after the other, like I did. It could
cause for some bizarre temporal anomolies if someone wanted to get
really *anal*, but I suppose the time the message is sent would hold
sway.

Malenkai
Glad to be back

P.S: Neutering the CSRR was a proposal I wrote before I left, I just 
submitted it late (and I didn't want to get neutered!). Please consider
my argument, and consider your first action in the office, and objectively
come to the conclusion that the office is a negative for the game.

Obviously, if only a few of us believe that, you have nothing to worry
about, so don't be so paranoid (and why *does* your faction keep trying
to repeal Hungry, Silly, and Poisonous? Shotgun Approach?)

- -M

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 07:38:10 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Official - From the Supreme Court

Report from the Supreme Court:

Bu all the facts that I have, I am still the only Justice on the
Supreme Court. The CFJ I submitted May 13 to clear up the matter of
Bascule's appointment was lost, and I have resubmitted it. A swift
distribution and verdict of TRUE can clear up the matter.

The following appeals are in the queue. By R569, the Court has until
June 11 to deliver verdicts on the appeals, to avoid penalties. Given
that the matter of Bascule's conformation will probably not be cleared
up by June 11 (given typical CFJ speeds in the past), I will rule on
these swiftly, if possible. I still have alot of email to go through,
so I can't promise anything:

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

> 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)
> Judgement:  True

Appealed by: /dev/joe

Note that until this verdict is overturned, assuming it is, the Acting
Speaker or Speaker may not legally vote. Or can he? It brings up the
interesting issue of "grace period" on all actions, versus winning
actions and the imfamous CFJ 113. If the Acting Speaker is still voting,
I suppose they are either breaking R101 or establishing new grace period
game custom, or doing nothing wrong. CFJ, anyone? :) (I admit that I have
not looked at voting results in enough detial yet to see if the Speaker
is actually voting)

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

Judgement 170
  Subject:  Silliness
Initiator:  this is not a name
    Judge:  Brinjal (selected at 1430h CDT on 24 May 1996)
Judgement:  False

Appealed by: mr cwm

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

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

Appealed by: The Great Old One

Note that Bascule has already commented on this, and as he is Justice
Apparent, the Court will consider his reasoning, even though it is not
required to do so.

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

>Call for Judgement 178
>  Subject:  Resolutions
>Initiator:  snowgod
>    Judge:  Techno (selected at 2002h CDT on 3 June 1996)
>Judgement:  True

Appealed by: ThinMan

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 07:45:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  I'm Confused!

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> P.S: Neutering the CSRR was a proposal I wrote before I left, I just 
> submitted it late (and I didn't want to get neutered!). Please consider
> my argument, and consider your first action in the office, and objectively
> come to the conclusion that the office is a negative for the game.
> 
> Obviously, if only a few of us believe that, you have nothing to worry
> about, so don't be so paranoid (and why *does* your faction keep trying
> to repeal Hungry, Silly, and Poisonous? Shotgun Approach?)
> 

Actually, even if only one player believes that, you have nothing to worry
about.  All you have to do is object to each CSRR to prevent anything from
happening.  Without such an incredibly easy way to prevent exacty what you
are afraid of, I would have supported your "faction" to hold the office,
and might support its repeal.  But as it is, I believe the office can
help, and this very incident shows how abuse is nearly impossible.  (I
think a case can be made either way as to whether the resolution fix was
an abuse.)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 03:56:42 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  I'm Confused!

>I am officially back. All the switching was caused by two things:

Thank you for the clarification.  I really was not sure what your current
status was.
>

>1) I wanted to reply while going through the 400 emails, but did not
>want to officially return until all the email was digested, because I
>would obstain on proposals coming up for vote, and could affect quorum.
>I wish something could be done about this problem, but I see no easy
>fix. Regretably I will not vote on a few upcoming proposals, because
>I have still not got through everything.

Good thinking

>2) I had to make sure I was not de-benched by a proposal in the queue
>that would remove all vacationing officers. Fortunately this proposal
>was late enough and was retracted.

>I realise that the order email is sent is not the order it is receivced
>by players, if it is sent one after the other, like I did. It could
>cause for some bizarre temporal anomolies if someone wanted to get
>really *anal*, but I suppose the time the message is sent would hold
>sway.

I suppose a strict constructionist (and I have leanings that way) could
submit a few CFJ's that could really muck things up, concerning the order
in which your actions were taken (recieved).  I don't have a problem with
it though, and see no reason to suffer further confusion :)

>Malenkai
>Glad to be back
>
>P.S: Neutering the CSRR was a proposal I wrote before I left, I just
>submitted it late (and I didn't want to get neutered!). Please consider
>my argument, and consider your first action in the office, and objectively
>come to the conclusion that the office is a negative for the game.

My first action in the office of CSRR was done under the assumption that
The Great Old One woud continue to change evry proposal into a resolution.
That being the case, we had two options:

1) Call for a constitutional convention to fix the propblem.  There was a n
argument floating around that possible TGOO could change this proposal into
a resolution too.  No one was exactly sure weather a convention could be
called or not.

2) Publish a CSR that would make a very minor change to the rule set in the
interest of common sense.  I do not believe there is anything wrong with
this CSR.  It is identical to a proposal which was submitted, and I believe
that proposal will pass overwhelmingly.

It is nearly impossible for the CSRR to abuse his power.  If there is a
way, I havn't figured it out yet.  If I figure it out, I'm not going to
abuse it.  I'm going to fix it (with a proposal).

>Obviously, if only a few of us believe that, you have nothing to worry
>about, so don't be so paranoid (and why *does* your faction keep trying
>to repeal Hungry, Silly, and Poisonous? Shotgun Approach?)

I'm not paranoid, and I'm not worried.  I'm having a great time :)

As for my faction (what happened to minions?  that was a much more
derogitory word) trying to repeal Hungry, Silly, and Poisonous again, I can
honestly say that I have nothing to do with it.  Whoever submitted that
proposal did so of his own free will.  I will vote YES on it however!

snowgod
Ambassador
CSRR
Candidate for Senate!
All around Rule Protecting Dude!

"If elected to the senate, I promise to propose Gender Nuetrality for
anyone who desires it and Gender Positivity for everyone else!"

"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: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 08:26:33 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  I'm Confused!

mr cwm wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Obviously, if only a few of us believe that, you have nothing to worry
> > about, so don't be so paranoid

> Actually, even if only one player believes that, you have nothing to worry
> about.  All you have to do is object to each CSRR to prevent anything from
> happening.

Yes, but this doesn't address my complaints completly:

1) I may be on vacation when a CSR is published. In any case, opposing each
one will waste bandwidth and get annoying.

2) My original argument, way back, was that this technique compromises
the ability of players to plant eggs in the rules. My experience is that
planting eggs and dealing with them leads to enjoyable Nomic play.
Perhaps this is the heart of the battle, deep down, and it is a legitimate
battle.

3) I think people should write good rules, and know the rules when writing
rules. I do not like language like "this rule superceeds all mutable 
rules" (I know, I do this too). I do not like the idea of a single player
sitting back there as a safety net, to clean up the slop, and I like
historical quircks in the rules. Its just more fun.

You all know my arguments. I will be making one last attempt to eliminate
the office, via "Neutering the CSRR". I will be enlisting your support.
After that, I will gracefully drop the issue.

Malenkai
Neuter the CSRR, Protect the Rules

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 08:47:09 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Official: Recruiting for Party

My campaign for CSRR was defeated by 1 vote. That vote was mine, and 
was not submitted due to unavoidable travel requirements and the
logisics of the game. NOT BECAUSE OF THE IDEALOLOGY. snowgod got his
vote. The classy thing would have been for snowgod to abstain as well,
given the circumstances, and let the issue be decided by idealology 
alone. (actually, for all I know he did, but I do not know that, and did
not see a post).

Given this, and CSR 1, I have vowed to make one more attempt to 
eliminate this office, via the proposal "Neutering the CSRR". The office
simply makes the game less fun, and you know the rest of my arguments.
The veto power of the people does not address them (qv a seperate post).

I am thus recruiting all of my supporters, and those sitting on the fence
to quickly join with me to form the "Neuter the CSRR" Party. If 5 of
you join with me, we will form the "Neuter the CSRR Twice" Party as
well. I would also love to have the Gnome Buddy aboard.

The adjenda of the party will be to vote YES for the Proposal entitled
"Neutering the CSRR". It will have no other adjenda other than that, and
will disband after the voting is published.

Membership requirments will be forming a contract that you will vote YES,
or forfeit some large sum of A$. (No snowgod minions or turncoats allowed
(you know who you are :))

Please join with me to Protect the Rules and reverse the effects of this
dubious appointment.

Malenkai
Charming rules are more fun, and lead to interesting situations and
solutions. Protect the Rules.

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 08:51:41 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Rules Question

I hate to ask a rules question, but am so strapped for time, so please
bear with me:

Given the UnderWorld Party's published adjenda and inner workings, it
seems to me that transfers of money could occur between members of 
the party, and the party itself, and with other players using the
party's services.

Is it not true that all such transactactions must be published 
publically? I realy apologise that I do not have time to go through the
rules, and figure it out. I seem to remember that this would be true.

Thanks in advance,
Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 08:43:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Common Sense Report 1 

snowgod wrote:
>At 11:34 AM 6/4/96, John Bollinger wrote:
>>I officially object to CSR 1.
>[...] to make changes to the rules when it finds that the rules,
>>as written, do not make sense, are redundant, *do not conform _in fact_
>>to their interpretation in game custom*, or are redundant."
>
>Your objection to the CSR has been noted, and this common sense report goes
>down the tubes.  I would like to ask you if this will be a blanket
>objection to every CSR published, Or a specific instance of objection,
>particluar to this CSR.

I will consider each CSR on its own merits.

>as for yourreasoning, it's not sound.  Read what you quoted.  This CSR
>WOULD fix an instance in which "the rules do not conform _in fact_ to their
>iterpretation in game custom"

There _is_ no interpretation of the disputed rule established in game custom.
Even if you reject the argument that game custom is established only by CFJ,
the disputed rule was never invoked, to my recollection, before the recent
loophole scamming.  I refuse to accept anything so vague and undefined as
"the intentions of the author" as part of game custom.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 09:57:12 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Judgement 175 Appeal

Malenkai says:
>I need *quick* comment on this, because there is only a limited time to
>rule on the pending appeals in the queue, and I want it all to proceed
>legally.
>
>As I see it, by rule, I am still the only justice, unless there is some
>*consent* that Bascule has been confirmed. This is much uglier than my
>CFJ, which would clear it up.

/dev/joe earlier today quoted a rule (I believe it was the vacationing 
rule) which seems to indicate that Mohammed can now appoint acting 
Senators in order to confirm Bascule and anyone else waiting for Senate 
confirmation. I think this is the way to go. It could have everything 
settled today.

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

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"We expect them [Salvadoran officials] to work toward the elimination
 of human rights."                    --Dan Quayle
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/         Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:23:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Criminal Judgment 3

Call for Criminal Judgement 3:
  Subject:  (none yet)
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  this is not a name (selected at 1358h CDT on 4 June 1996)
Judgement:  False

Statement:
> Player The Great Old One hase violated R101

snowgod's comments:
> Reasoning:
> 
> The Great Old One declared that he had one the game in a message titled
> "Ackanomic: I win".  He claimed that the game is no longer playable due to
> R663.
> 
> R219 (winning by paradox) states that if the rules are changed so that
> further play is impossible the player may be declared the winner after a
> CFJ deciding the fact.   So long as we can pass resolutions we are still
> playing the game.  In addition CSRs can still be issued, as well as a call
> for a constitutional convention. I content that The Great Old One knew that
> further play was possible, though difficult, and yet submitted a CFJ to
> determine if he was the winner.   Therefore he violated R219 and in doing
> so violated R101.

Penalty:
> A sentence in the Gaol of 8 days for The Great Old One.

this is not a name's comments:
> Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 219 states that in the case of a paradox a player may call for 
> judgement. snowgod claims in his complaint that "The Great Old One knew 
> that further play was possible, though difficult, and yet submitted a CFJ 
> to determine if he was the winner," and thus he willfully violated rule 
> 101 by making his claim of a paradox win.
> 
> snowgod's argument rests on two premises:
> 
>   - that it is illegal to call a CFJ with a statement that one knows
>     to be untrue; and
> 
>   - that The Great Old One knew that his CFJ statement was false.
> 
> The first premise is clearly untrue. I could easily CFJ statements that I 
> believed or knew to be untrue; the major purpose of a CFJ is to establish 
> game custom formally. Many players have called CFJs that they hoped would 
> be judged false in order to clarify a point of debate. There is no 
> provision in the rules for penalizing authors of false CFJs. Apparently, 
> snowgod's argument is that R219 only permits paradox claims in the event 
> that they are true. Upon examination of the ruleset, I see no basis, 
> whether in R219 or elsewhere, to assume that calling a CFJ on a paradox 
> win that one knows to be invalid is any less valid than calling an 
> invalid CFJ. In light of the text and spirit of the rule set, I find that 
> claim invalid.
> 
> With regard to snowgod's second point, there is no evidence to suggest 
> that The Great Old One knew his CFJ statement was false. It is entirely 
> possible that he believed and continues to believe that he should rightly 
> win by paradox because further rule-changing is impossible according to 
> his view of the situation. Perhaps at the time The Great Old One had not 
> read the rules regarding Constitutional Conventions, Gadgets, and other 
> objects with potential powers to change rules. Perhaps he believes that a 
> Nomic game is pointless without the ability to change the rules. The mere 
> fact that snowgod evidently disagrees with The Great Old One is not 
> evidence that The Great Old One knows that he is wrong.
> 
> In addition, I find it necessary to add to snowgod's complaint by noting 
> that the belief that further play is impossible is not the only basis for 
> a paradox win. To quote rule 219: "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, [....]
> 
> I agree with snowgod that The Great Old One's CFJ is not true, and I am 
> sorely tempted to return true on this CFCJ and put The Great Old One into 
> Gaol for enough time to allow R663 to be modified. But this is not in 
> keeping with the ideals of a Nomic, which are to follow the rules 
> strictly and look for solutions within the rules. Upon examination of 
> snowgod's arguments, I find them to be invalid. I rule false on this CFCJ.

- --Mohammed, CotC

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 11:32:10 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Common Sense Report 1

"I refuse to accept anything so vague and undefined as
"the intentions of the author" as part of game custom."$^

	-ThinMan

I agree totally.  People should learn to write good Rules.  I'm having to
deal with "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution" or something
like that.  I know what that author was trying to say, but it says something
else.  Now I have to figure out what "declare" means and what our game
custom has to say about it.  

Wayne

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:54:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Official

I appoint this is not a name, Malenkai, and ThinMan to perform the duties 
of the various Senators now on vacation.

This is an abomination of the Senate rule, but those were the first three 
names that came to mind.  Enjoy!

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:40:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 826 Passes

> Since it's now possible to do more than one thing in a proposal, the
> second option seems more reasonable.  Any ideas on what a reasonable
> limit is?  20 in a week?  10 in a week?  4 in a day?
	Four in a day would be nice, although I expect Calvin N Hobbes 
would fight it.  :o)
	We *need* something like that to force people to make one 
multi-part proposal instead of eight separate but intricately related 
ones.  Using single proposals saves words, time, hard drive space, 
bandwidth, and grief, and it protects the rule set from the chaos that 
may occur when one of the proposals is accepted and the others are not.
	The only reason people still do it is to collect the points (I 
know CNH likes to gamble big.) ...

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:49:24 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Discussion P857, P858 

Both P857 and P858 are attempts at dealing with the protection problem,
though they approach it from opposite angles.  I would be happy enough
with either, but would prefer to not pass both.  I somewhat favor 858,
not because I authored it (though that helps), but because I still intend
to reintroduce the Power proposals.  Protection is essentially a special
case of power, and should power be enacted then it will be desirable to
fix all of the protection clauses so that they use Power instead.  Thus
I prefer to avoid introducing "protection" into any more rules.

Please comment.  If enough players favor P857 over P858 then I shall
withdraw P858.

I think that power will be much more robust than protection.  I have been
keeping it on the back burner for awhile, but I will get it going and
produce a new RFC on it within a few days.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 13:48:16 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Official

>I appoint this is not a name, Malenkai, and ThinMan to perform the duties 
>of the various Senators now on vacation.

Thanks, Mohammed. I suggest that you appoint the three of us to replace 
specific Senators temporarily so that when one comes back we know who 
will no longer be an Acting Senator.

I hereby vote to confirm Bascule as a Justice in accordance with Rules 
478 and 648.

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

If elected President, I will immediately resign my position as Acting 
Senator. Everyone please remember to vote. The deadline is fast 
approaching.

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"What I have to say is far more important than how long my eyelashes are."
                                       --Alanis Morissette, 1995
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 13:29:50 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

Mohammed writes:
>> I have sent several requests to the Scorekeeper, but I don't believe he 
>> has corrected my score. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Wayne. Since 
>> there is no legal basis for withholding the points, I respectfully 
>> request that they be added to my score.
>	I disagree.  Points are regulated (game custom).
>	See R113.

Yes. But transferring points among players is neither prohibited nor 
regulated. If you disagree, CFJ.

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

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality."
                                       --Jules de Gaultier
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:09:44 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Official 

I hereby vote to confirm Bascule as a Justice of the Supreme Court in
accordance with Rules 478 and 648.

ThinMan

Financier
Senate Candidate
Acting Senator

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:16:51 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official: Recruiting for Party

At 8:47 AM 6/5/96, Malenkai wrote:
>My campaign for CSRR was defeated by 1 vote. That vote was mine, and
>was not submitted due to unavoidable travel requirements and the
>logisics of the game. NOT BECAUSE OF THE IDEALOLOGY. snowgod got his
>vote. The classy thing would have been for snowgod to abstain as well,
>given the circumstances, and let the issue be decided by idealology
>alone. (actually, for all I know he did, but I do not know that, and did
>not see a post).
>

The CSRR turned out to be an appointed office.  My failing to volunteer
would have put Bascule in as the only nominee.  Mohammed listened to
everyones opinion on the issue, and made an appointment based on popular
opinion.

snowgod
Ackanomic Ambassador
Not-Yet-A-Eunuch CSRR
Candidate for Senate!
All around fair person!

"If elected to the senate, I promise to leave some things intentionally
vaugue, while making others excruciating clear, so that interesting
gumball-type situations may arise in the future!"

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:20:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Web-Harfer's report: Dictionary chosen

In accordance with rule 798, I have chosen a dictionary to be used in the
application of this rule.  I have chosen:

ftp://sable.ox.ac.uk/pub/wordlists/dictionaries/Unabr.dict.Z

This is a Unix-compressed file listing 213,557 words.  If anyone has trouble
with the Unix-compressed format I can help you with it.  I rejected some
other dictionaries on the basis that they were too inclusive (too many
abbreviations, etc.) or not inclusive enough.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:22:53 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Common Sense Report 1

At 11:32 AM 6/5/96, [email-masked] () wrote:
>"I refuse to accept anything so vague and undefined as
>"the intentions of the author" as part of game custom."$^
>
>        -ThinMan
>
>I agree totally.  People should learn to write good Rules.  I'm having to
>deal with "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution" or something
>like that.  I know what that author was trying to say, but it says something
>else.  Now I have to figure out what "declare" means and what our game
>custom has to say about it.
>
>
>Wayne

You are right, Wayne.  This is a vague rule that was poorly written.  In my
opinion it defies common sense.  That's why I issued a CSR.  People should
write good rules, and people should read the rules carefully before they
pass them.  Unfortuneatly, it doesn't always work that way, and I resent
being accused of trying to "magically" clear up a problem when a proposal
with an identical result is sure to pass overwhelmingly anyhow.  It's just
a matter of time. And before you say it, guys, I issued the CSR under the
belief that The Great Old One, would continue to turn every proposal into a
resolution, and a proposal to change the rules would be impossible.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 14:22:21 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Call for Judgement 179 (Wayne) (correction)

declare - "to make known formally or explicitly"
R660 - "Proposals are Protected Entities"
R592 - "Protected Entities cannot by altered except as allowed by the Rules"
R663 - "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution."

It is clear that any player may declare that a proposal is a resolution.  The
only question is whether the act of declaring that a proposal is a resolution
actually makes the proposal a resolution.

I've searched the RuleSet for other examples of "Declare".  Here is what
I have found"

Rule 219:
	"...the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the
	game...."
Rule 422:
	"...that player will be declared the Winner of the Cycle..."

In both examples, a player is declared the winner of the game/cycle.  

> > "Any player can declare that they have 3 eyes. Not all declarations are
> > true. Rule 663 does nothing." - Robin Hood

Does this mean that a player declared a winner is not actually a winner?
I think not.  Any player can declare anything that they want to.  And unless
it is regulated by some other rule, then it is allowed.  If I declare that
I have three eyes, then I shall have three eyes, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME.

We have a Rule that says the Earth is Flat.  It does not matter whether this
is true or not, we have passed a rule.  Truth does not affect anything.

Since Proposals are Protected Entities, normally we could not legally declare
them resolutions and transmute them.  But we have a Rule that allows us
to declare them Resolutions.  Therefore t shall be allowed.

I judge FALSE.

Wayne

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 14:45:35 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 828 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 828
  Proposal 828 - Wed May 29 08:54:47 EDT 1996
  What's Flat?
  Calvin N Hobbes  (Thierry Joffrain)

Quorum met : 19 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

7 YES votes   7 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Calvin N Hobbes loses 10 points.  -50 -> -60

7 YES votes:  3 points each
  Robin Hood                                  197 -> 200          
  Dr McSpong                                  170 -> 173          
  ThinMan                                     200 -> 203          
  Bascule                                     251 -> 254          
  /dev/joe               Foozball             173 -> 176          
  SnafuMoose                                  140 -> 143          
  Wayne                  Underworld           203 -> 206          

7 NO votes:  
  The Great Old One                                               
  Brinjal                                                         
  snowgod                (None Yet)                               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)                               
  (None Yet) Unity vote                                            
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)                               
  Mohammed               (None Yet)                               

1 PRESENT votes:
  De'ghew                Underworld          

5 ABSTENTIONS:
  Malenkai                                    
  Niccolo Flychuck                            
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Techno                 Underworld           
  Merlin the Happy Pig                        

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:

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 14:47:06 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 831 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 831
  Proposal 831 - Wed May 29 13:35:59 EDT 1996
  No Dead Politicos
  /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 13 players cast votes

8 YES votes   5 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

/dev/joe loses 10 points.  176 -> 166

8 YES votes:  3 points each
  Robin Hood                                  205 -> 208          
  Dr McSpong                                  173 -> 176          
  Brinjal                                     122 -> 125          
  ThinMan                                     213 -> 216          
  Bascule                                     254 -> 257          
  /dev/joe               Foozball             166 -> 169          
  SnafuMoose                                  143 -> 146          
  Mohammed               (None Yet)           203 -> 206          

5 NO votes:  
  De'ghew                Underworld                               
  snowgod                (None Yet)                               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)                               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)                               
  Wayne                  Underworld                               

0 PRESENT votes:

5 ABSTENTIONS:
  Malenkai                                    
  Niccolo Flychuck                            
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Techno                 Underworld           
  Merlin the Happy Pig                        

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

New players who are not active:

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

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #32
******************************