Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #50
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, June 14 1996         Volume 01 : Number 050

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:31:08 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: End of Cycle

Mohammed:
> Which rule, if any, dictates that all pending proposals are nuked upon 
> end of cycle?

829, win by paradox, rather than end of cycle.

Bascule 

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 20:33:01 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Creation of Nobs party

> Announcing the formation of a new political party:  Nobs
> 
> The initial members of Nobs are:
> /dev/joe, Mohammed, and ThinMan

Is the title for this party a self-derogatory joke?

Here in England, the word "nob" is a euphemism for something else.
(As is "member", for that matter.) 

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:04:53 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Creation of Nobs party 

Bascule wrote:
>> Announcing the formation of a new political party:  Nobs
>> 
>> The initial members of Nobs are:
>> /dev/joe, Mohammed, and ThinMan
>
>Is the title for this party a self-derogatory joke?

No.

>Here in England, the word "nob" is a euphemism for something else.
>(As is "member", for that matter.) 

The original name proposed for the party was "No Crap."  You figure it out
from there.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:34:57 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 835 

"Matt" == Matt  <[email-masked]> writes:

Matt> I presume that kelly is arguing that rule 105 means that
Matt> contents of square brackets cannot be ignored when applying
Matt> rules. I don't agree with this argument

good.  it is not the argument i am making.  i am arguing that there is
no substantial game custom for ignoring text in square brackets; any
game custom to do so that may exist exists on the basis of the illegal
application of the wholly void Rule 545.

Matt> R545 does not seek to claim
Matt> precedence over R105. It defines game custom.

the second paragraph of Rule 545 seeks precedence over Rule 105 by
deleting portions of Proposals.  thus, by Rule 108, _all_ of Rule 545
is voided, including any part of it which legislates game custom.  i
argue that, were R.545 properly ignored as required, there would be no
such game custom.  you can't create game custom by pulling it out of a
hat.

k.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:40:12 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: End of Cycle 

"John" == John Bollinger <[email-masked]> writes:

John> Unfortunately, Kelly's argument above depends upon R110 being
John> immutable, when, in fact, it is mutable.

yes, i inexplicably missed that detail; for some reason i assumed that
a 100-series rule would be immutable, even though there is no good
reason to do so. :)

k.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:57:31 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Creation of XXXX party 

>	"Well written" means having all the following qualities:  a single
>meaning, brevity, proper spelling and grammar, and a good
>industrial/techno beat (optional but it helps.)

Nope. "Well written" means, "that will produce fun".
This is a _game_ remember?

>	"Useful" means having some game effect which is either well
>integrated with the rest of the game, or very intereseting.  [Contrast: 
>Vacation (integral), Eleusis RFC (interesting), and Party Hall (neither.)]
>A useless rule is easy to spot because it is marginal to the rest of the
>game.

Nope. "Useful" means, "that will produce _more_ fun.
Now, try and argue me out of _those_ interpretation... _if_ I believe them.

>> Player who abhors vagueness as long as it is other people's, yet
>> enjoys his own.
>	Not so.  Vagueness is useful.  However, I do have this odd 
>conviction that the rules should be interpreted as written.

Good case in hand, thanks.
Just in case you weren't kidding:
"Interpreted as written" means nothing since players interepret the _same_
rules differently. Therefore there is no unique "interpretation as written".
That's so incredible anyone could think so, I must assume you where being
ironic.

>	You, Calvin, having written a huge number of proposals (but not having 
>proofread an equal number, unfortunately), frequently find yourself in the 
>position of having written a rule that doesn't do what you intended.  You 
>usually take the position that the rule should be interpreted as you 
>meant it, not as you wrote it.

Huh? What? Is this really Mohammed or forged mail?
The same guy to whom I argued for a dozen messages that as soon as one of my
rules was passed, I didn't care what the interpretation was, that it was up
to the players????

As for proof reading, just because you're not part of the readers doesn't
mean they are not proof read. Just say _you_ don't like them. Geez. And
anyway, I'm very proof of every single one of "my" rules. They have all be
interesting, all given us something to talk about, all contributed to this game.

I though you were above making cute remarks to score a vague point.
Obviously not.

>	Some of us object on the grounds that the whole point of Nomic, 
>or any game, is to play by the rules.

Eh? In Nomic we _make_ the rules. And I have yet to be convicted of not
obeying the rules, so that would be _slander_ if directed at me (would be
since you say "you, Calvin" at the top). "some of us" indeed...

Since no rule says "make rules according to Mohammed's criterion, he shall
be judge, he shall be jury; obey to Mohammed", then I am free to make rules
that you don't like. And if they pass: tough luck.

Oh, and I believe I pointed out to you at least once how _your_ rules could
be more carefully worked. I mean, sure, deny that if you want.

>> Player willing to abuse any loopholes, real or imaginary, for
>> personal gains, whatever the risk to the Game or the other players.
>	I resent that; I managed to point out the loophole in resolutions
>without abusing it.

Where did you see that this message was about you??? (me, me, me... not the
usual Mohammed). I never heard you claim to be SC, on the contrary (if I
remember right, but then I am sure you will correct me). So not having
attacked any entity in the rules, no player can claim "recognition" through
that entity, therefore... what are you talking about?

>> Synonym:
>> New-Age Bureaucrat and Sewer-Politics Utilitarianist in one.
>	Four slurs in seventy characters!  A record.  Plus you've labeled 
>me generally clueless, hypocritical, amoral, and careless.  I'm impressed.

Is that what self-absorbed means? Say, tell me where I said it was about
_you_? Don't you like satires? If it has that effect on you, then maybe you
should ask "why", not lash out. Maybe? As for "Clueless", nope, never
thought of you that way. "Hypocritical"... didn't used to think so.
"Amoral", never though that of you [read Nietsche!]. "Careless", neither.
I'm certain you know exactly what you are doing.

And anyway, "new-age" isn't a slur. Neither is "bureaucrat", neither is
"sewer-politics", since that's just a vision of political systems (whose
opposite is called "shining city on the hill-politics") and is therefore
"neutral". Neither is "utilitarianist". Well, that's zero out of a
possible... zero? Better luck next time.

Oh, just in case you do call me out on the "utilitarianist" one, saying it
can be considered a slur, then I must respectfully disagree. As John Stuart
Mill cleary defines the term (he is it's father) in his book
"Utilitarianism", it is something good and worth seeking. The only threat is
the (usual) slip up that occurs, where individuals fail to acknowledge the
real good (that mazimizes good, for the good of the most, for the longest
time) and instead choose the more tangible "self"-good, which isn't _really_
good. According to him. At that point, it's all po, imho. [personal opinion,
in my humble opinion]   :-)

So, in conclusion, you may _interpret_ "utilitarianism" as being a slur
(given current post 80's life) but that would be _yours_. What's mine? Who
am I to argue with JS?

CnH
With all due respect.

Ycnega
Who has a legitimate right to resent _your_ unwarranted attack.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:00:48 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Creation of Nobs party 

At 08:33 PM 13-06-96 +0000, Matt wrote:
>> Announcing the formation of a new political party:  Nobs
>> 
>> The initial members of Nobs are:
>> /dev/joe, Mohammed, and ThinMan
>
>Is the title for this party a self-derogatory joke?
>
>Here in England, the word "nob" is a euphemism for something else.
>(As is "member", for that matter.) 

Bascule, don't!
I liked that little side joke!     ;-)

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:04:47 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Worthless Currency 

>What we need is a SHOP!

I agree.

>What should it stock?
>
>Coke (it IS our official drink, after all)
>Souvenir teeshirts emblazoned with "Torkola - June '96"
>Prosthetic Foreheads, although space restrictions in the
>  storeroom might have to limit the selection to heads whose
>  description starts with the phrase "Carrot-juice".
>Beer. If any player drinks more than 10 bottles of beer
>  in 24 hours, she would be referred to as "extremely drunk"
>  and be incapable of any game activity for the next 48.
>
>etc etc
>
>But what CAN it sell? A load of old junk for the most part
>I expect. Any ideas? 

Hum. I wonder if we pass through legislation of that kind.
If the android rule passes, then I think we should have a rule that says
each android can manufacture one "shop artifact" per week. So we could have
a steady flow of t-shirts, coke, beers, whatever.

Once the industrial base is in place, shops are bound to start up.

CnH

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:07:02 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Inventor 

>The current high bid for the Electronic Potato is A$30.

I bid A$57

CnH

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:24:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jerome Herrman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Amber Banana

I acknowledge that Malenkai has purchased an Amber Banana and eaten it. I 
will vote yes on 894.

Techno
Owner, Amber Banana Tree
Member, Underworld
Party Hall Swinger, Underworld

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Randy Hall wrote:
> > 
> > >Proposal 894 - Mon Jun 10 00:25:03 EDT 1996
> > >Map, Creation Of
> > >Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> > 
> > By R 827 I claim that I am spending A$10 to acquire an Amber
> > Banana from Techno's tree. Upon Techno completing the purchase,
> > by acknowledging this, I will decide if I will eat it, and how
> > Techno will vote, should I decide to do so.
> 
> Techno has not responded to the following, at least I have not 
> gotten it. It may be at the other ISP.
> 
> In any case, I will do what is explicitly permitted by R 827.
> 
> I will purchase an Amber Banana from Techno. The Financier should
> debit my account by A$10, and credit A$10 to Techno.
> 
> Next, I shall eat the banana, as "cows eat grass".
> 
> I shall now specify that Techno vote Yes on P 894. Would Techno, and/
> or the Tabulator, please make sure this occurs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 22:52:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 835 

> the second paragraph of Rule 545 seeks precedence over Rule 105 by
> deleting portions of Proposals.  thus, by Rule 108, _all_ of Rule 545
> is voided, including any part of it which legislates game custom.  i
> argue that, were R.545 properly ignored as required, there would be no
> such game custom.  you can't create game custom by pulling it out of a
> hat.
	There are plenty of people here who would beg to differ with you 
on that, based on the amusing circular logic that game custom dictates 
that game custom can come and go based on the opinion of a majority of 
the players.
	It's a different world, isn't it?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:53:32 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Winning and Scores

R Shaw wrote:

I shall accept this as a TRUE on CFJ 180, and assume it came in before
the paradox situation and got lost in the CotC shuffle. It is now
"game custom", and I ask the Web-Harfer to mkae the appropriate change.

The CotC is now closed. Please send CFJs, but they will be buffered,
pending R829.

Clerk of the Courts

>  I have sent a judgement in, but it may have gone astray.
> 
> I judged True.
> 
> I'm satisfied with Thinman's reasoning.
> In addition if /dev/joe/ were right then
> prosthetic foreheads would  conflict with rule 108
> since by his reasoning an endless variety is not endless
> unless there exist foreheads that transmute immutables, so
> 108 would immediately annul the rule rendering him wrong.
> Judgeing false would therefore make  the statement true

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:03:52 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC Senate purge

Mohammed wrote:
> 
> > I see no problem with the Acting Senators.
>         Problem is, they were given their powers based on a rule that
> needs to be revised a little.  You yourself objected to the transfer of
> powers when you first saw it.  It's sneaky; I don't like it.

I object more to eliminating the senators.

> 
> > senators) helped build the game we are playing. I was personally
> > shocked when I came back from a 10 day trip to Europe to see myself
> > almost booted out of office by a rule.
>         Big difference there.  You went on vacation with a note saying
> when you'd be back.  These people have been gone for a month, no advance
> warning, and there's no reason to believe they will ever return.  Missing,
> Presumed Fed.  Let's get on with it.

Fon stated he would be back in September. Why don't you ask the others,
or someone who knows the others, when they will be back? I have.

What matter is it that the acting senators act. The real senators may
never be back, in which case it matters not.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:06:44 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Amber Banana

John Bollinger wrote: 

> failure to do so would be a Rule violation, subject to CFCJ.

I guess I'll have to wait :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:09:17 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Has anybody seen CFJ 156

Mohammed wrote:
> 
>         Anyway, I meant to get you that "care package" with all the
> judgements in it a little sooner.  Everything's in there.
> 

That "care package" hosed my ISP :). Anyway, the CotC docket is clear,
and the CotC is satisfied that a verdict has been delivered and 
recorded for CFJ 150 to present (185), and requests the Web-Harfer
to indicate if he disagrees with that statement.

Closed Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:22:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Has anybody seen CFJ 156

Malenkai wrote:
> That "care package" hosed my ISP :). Anyway, the CotC docket is clear,
> and the CotC is satisfied that a verdict has been delivered and 
> recorded for CFJ 150 to present (185), and requests the Web-Harfer
> to indicate if he disagrees with that statement.

This is correct.  With a verdict for CFJ 180, this leaves only CFJ 149
to fall prey to Rule 829.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:21:55 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: End of Cycle 

Kelly Martin wrote:
>  
> yes, i inexplicably missed that detail; for some reason i assumed that
> a 100-series rule would be immutable, even though there is no good
> reason to do so. :)

Culture shock. That is only the beginning :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:26:17 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Amber Banana

Jerome Herrman wrote:
> 
> I acknowledge that Malenkai has purchased an Amber Banana and eaten it. I
> will vote yes on 894.
> 
> Techno
> Owner, Amber Banana Tree

I ask the Financier if this transaction has been officially agreed
upon and posted, as both players hame made public posts to the
effect; or is more "red tape" needed?

In any case, Techno will probably vote yes if the thing ever gets back
in the queue.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 00:49:03 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Unintended Consequences of R829

Malenkai wrote:
>The CotC is now closed. Please send CFJs, but they will be buffered,
>pending R829.

This means that there is no way to CFJ on things relating to the process 
of paradox, Constitutional Convention, etc.

ThinMan, did you intend this? How can this be fixed?

this is not a name
[email-masked]
Historian
File Clerk
Candidate for Delegate: vote now to [email-masked]

- --
      Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge
 where there is no river."         --Nikita Khrushchev
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/      Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:51:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

	It appears that there is some routing problem between here and 
the university, so all my mail has been stopped up.  Hopefully it will be 
back within a day or two.  Until then, I'm hereby on vacation.  I'll be 
on vacation until further notice.  If things aren't working by Monday or 
so, I'll have my address changed, and I'll be back.

	De'ghew

- -- 
  John Spickes - Undergraduate - UMCP - http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jspickes
   PGP encrypted email preferred - finger [email-masked] for key

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #50
******************************