Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #55
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, June 17 1996         Volume 01 : Number 055

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 02:06:35 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Where the **** is the Fat Lady

Would the Speaker please follow the rules and have the Fat Lady
sing? Alot is up in the air at this point, but one thing that is
not is the requirement that the Fat Lady sing now.

If I come with a solution to the situation, and I'm trying to now,
it could not take effect until she does so. I'd hate to have to wait
to publish something really cool because she has not sung :(. Of course,
I can't guarentee I will find it; R 829 needs to be nuked, not just
superceeded, and although I have found the latter argument, I cannot 
find the former, at least not yet.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:24:13 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong problems 

Players,

I present to you: Nicolo Flychuck

He has been trying to tarnish the reputation of a great player, Malenkai, by
slander and character attacks. He is of course incapable of backing up any
arguments, and I will vouch for Malenkai to discredit those attacks.
Actually, those were not even arguments, but just garbage. The very
definition of slander.

The character in question is also guilty of breaking all netiquettes and
publishing a private mailing list document to the public forum (which was my
own work and effort). Then when confronted, running away from the said
mailing list by unsubscribing. The least I could expect was an apology for
such a grotesque behavior or explaination of this as a simple error. I guess
even the minimum is too much to expect.

Such a rude behavior is not tolerated anywhere in usenet nor on any other
public forum. I see no reason why it should be tolerated here.

My apologies for wasting bandwidth about this, but if I am to be the only to
see this as wrong, then I see it as a duty to set the record straight. That
is all. Hopefully, now that the air has been cleared, we can just put this
behind us and not have a repeat incident.

Thank you for your patience.
Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 01:26:54 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong  problems 

Please disregard this paragraph. The situation has been remedied. Just bad
timing, I guess.

>The character in question is also guilty of breaking all netiquettes and
>publishing a private mailing list document to the public forum (which was my
>own work and effort). Then when confronted, running away from the said
>mailing list by unsubscribing.

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 10:12:26 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong  problems

First of all,
 I apologize for qouting a private Church message in public. This was a
mistake.
I also think I should have been given a chance to respond before this
message was posted.

I posted an apology to the Church in question even before I know which
message they were reffering to. 

On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, T Joffrain wrote:

> Players,
> 
> I present to you: Nicolo Flychuck
> 
> He has been trying to tarnish the reputation of a great player, Malenkai, by
> slander and character attacks. He is of course incapable of backing up any
> arguments, and I will vouch for Malenkai to discredit those attacks.
> Actually, those were not even arguments, but just garbage. The very
> definition of slander.

The only one who has been a victim of slander was myself. If anyone has
any doubt of that, just go back and read those messages.
> 
> The character in question is also guilty of breaking all netiquettes and
> publishing a private mailing list document to the public forum (which was my
> own work and effort). Then when confronted, running away from the said
> mailing list by unsubscribing. The least I could expect was an apology for
> such a grotesque behavior or explaination of this as a simple error. I guess
> even the minimum istoo much to expect.

This is taken completely out of context. My leaving the Church is my own
buisness, and has nothing to do with my qouting anything. 
I think the public message presenting me as a criminal is rude.

If you look at the headers on my messages you will see that the events of
the the past 10 hours for me looked like this.

I reply to Malenkai that I don't wish to discuss a disagreement in a
public forum.
I post a long message, where I erroneously qoute a message that was not
intended for public.
I get in the morning, less than 10 hours later. I'm suddenly Public Enemy
no.1

> 
> Such a rude behavior is not tolerated anywhere in usenet nor on any other
> public forum. I see no reason why it should be tolerated here.
> 
> My apologies for wasting bandwidth about this, but if I am to be the only to
> see this as wrong, then I see it as a duty to set the record straight. That
> is all. Hopefully, now that the air has been cleared, we can just put this
> behind us and not have a repeat incident.

In order to completely clear the air I suggest that next time you point
this out by private e-mail first, and give someone at least a day to
respond.

Were I prone to make war I might have contented that you took advantage of
my different time zone, and different workdays in order to sling mud on
me.

However, I do NOT contend that. I'm sure that this has been an oversight
on your part, just as my qouting your message, was an oversight on my
part.  So I am NOT demanding any apologies. I'm just pointing out that a
little patience could have contributed to a much calmer conclusion of this
incident.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 03:17:33 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong problems

T Joffrain wrote:
> 
> Players,

> Hopefully, now that the air has been cleared, we can just put this
> behind us and not have a repeat incident.

I'd like to do the same. As far as I can see, the issues between Nicolo
and myself are over some complicated referential language in a post
I made in response to a post Kelly made in response to a post made by
Nicolo. I have all the relavent e-mail in my "TRASH" folder (no pun
intended, I didn't write netscape), if anyone cares.

I can say that either my material was poorly written, or it was
misinterpreted, or both. In any case, in the absense of a well-reasoned
argument to the contrary, I shall drop the issue.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 10:25:01 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Disc. Malenkai

Citizens of Ackanomia - 

I did not call Malenkai a cultural bigot.

I do believe that he is hasty at times.

I don't mean that as a bad thing. It is simply my subjective observation,
which or may not be true.

If Malenkai is offended by this, he should let me know, and I promise I'll
never call him hasty again.

( Just Now my screen flashed, showing another message from Malenkai,
responding to my previous post, I'll read it momentarily)
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 03:26:24 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Hi there

After much distraction, back to my story.

Can anyone help me nuke R 829, via R 108? I can make R 666 happen 
before R 829, but all that does is promote the flow of citrus fruit
in a different order.

I might have to resort to my argument that causes R 108 to nuke any
rule it dislikes. I do not want to do that.

There is one other way, but it is too hideous to describe. I should 
only resort as depeeration.

Malenkai
Working into the night to fix the "crisis", and I don't even think there
is a crisis :)

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:26:47 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fat Lady again

Is precedence temporal?

The Fat Lady claims precedence over all end of game rules. Therefore,
until the Fat Lady sings, it would be impossible to apply R 666, then
R 829 (I've just discovered that 666 has precedence, mabye, unless
"before 666" is an explicit claim of precedence. It actually doesn't
matter, I suppose). It is acually quite interesting, and not cut-n-dry,
if you get into it.

Given that, it would seem that until the Fat Lady sings, the prohibitions
in R 829 against proposals and CFJs could not kick in.

The problem being that the Fat Lady is not singing because the Speaker
is not following the rules, mabye, at least in the strictist sense, 
although there is a grace period. Is that sufficient rationale to allow a
CFJ to be slipped before the Speaker gets around to it?

Weak argument, still hacking.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:44:58 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: vacation

I am placing myself on vacation effective immediately.
I will be returning from vacation on June 23rd

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 96 11:39:41 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hi there

>Can anyone help me nuke R 829, via R 108? I can make R 666 happen 
>before R 829, but all that does is promote the flow of citrus fruit
>in a different order.

Malenkai,

I don't see how 108 applies. None of the relevant rules (as far as I can 
see) are immutable. 110, 219, 666, and 829 are all mutable.

And in any case, since CFJs are suspended, you'd have a hell of a time 
making any difference in the actions that are required by 829 and 666.

I think the best we can do is be sure that Markovians are elected as 
Delegates and that they don't drastically overhaul the rules.

this is not a name
[email-masked]
Historian
File Clerk
Priest, Church of the Markovian Dream
Party Hall Swinger for (None Yet)
Candidate for Delegate: vote now to [email-masked]

- --
       Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"It is better than ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent
 suffer."                           --William Blackstone
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/       Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 11:43:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Official

The Fat Lady is singing.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 11:53:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong problems

(Calvin N Hobbes attacked Niccolo Flychuck's exceedingly polite and
conciliatory message as being slanderous against Malenkai.)

	I'm baffled, Calvin.  All I remember from that message is that 
Niccolo said one of Malenkai's messages was "harshly worded".  What are 
you talking about?

> The character in question is also guilty of breaking all netiquettes and
> publishing a private mailing list document to the public forum (which was my
> own work and effort). Then when confronted, running away from the said
> mailing list by unsubscribing.
	That's rather harshly worded.  *duck*
	If I may ask, what "private" message was this?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:02:02 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong probl

Nicolo wrote, on badly written rules, fun rules, and the Nobs party:
> 'Fun rules are OK...'  - they're not against fun, as long as its well written.
> One example I can think of right of the top of my head is Prosthetic Foreheads.
> IMO, it was a badly written fun rule, which served no purpose whatsoever.
> Which is the reason I voted against it. 
> Nigh two days have passed after it has been adopted, and it has already
> produced a a near crisis and a CFJ.

I beg to differ. I was tickled at /dev/joe's attempt to win the game, 
and enjoyed reading the arguments for and against it. Writing the CFJ 
was fun too. Was the rule badly written? I don't know, or care. In my
opinion it was fun. CFJs are good - they're what the game is all 
about. If all rules were written so tightly that no CFJ were ever
required, the game would be duller than a burnt-out lightbulb in a
black box underground in the dead of night with no moon. 

> As you can clearly see, there is very little contradiction between the Dogma
> of the Church of the Markovian Dream and the charter of the Nobs party. They
> differ on some minor points, but as far as the major issues, I find some
> part I can support in either one. 

I think you have misunderstood the bases for these two organisations.

I quote the Nobs charter: " The goal of the Nobs party is to repeal
or rewrite poorly written rules in the existing rule set, and prevent
more such rules from being added." [Correct me if I'm wrong] It is my
impression that the members of Nobs enjoy having a tightly worded
ruleset for it's own sake. The Church of the Markovian Dream has a
very different raison d'etre, that the game should be fun. Members of
the Church do not believe that an ambiguity-free ruleset would fun in
it's own right, furthermore they suspect that such a ruleset would be
sterile and uninteresting.

Another fundamental area of conflict is over game custom. At least
one member of Nobs seems to find the idea of game custom abhorrent
(paradoxically, since game custom derives it's power from R101, a
strict constitutionalist _should_ embrace it wholeheartedly).
Members of the Church of the Markovian Dream want to enjoy
themselves, and find game custom a useful tool to that effect. They
think that trying to legislate unambiguously for all possible
circumstances is not fun. They feel that their time and energy would
be better spent doing other things that contribute to enjoyment of
the game.

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:04:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady again

> The problem being that the Fat Lady is not singing because the Speaker
> is not following the rules, mabye, at least in the strictist sense, 
> although there is a grace period. Is that sufficient rationale to allow a
> CFJ to be slipped before the Speaker gets around to it?
	Hmm.  No, I think what has to happen is that either (a) the win 
is avoided, or (b) the Fat Lady sings and rule 666 comes into effect.
	I don't think 790 conflicts with 666.  Does it?
	If they don't conflict, the Fat Lady sings first, then the 
effects in 666 go off.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 12:29:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong probl

> opinion it was fun. CFJs are good - they're what the game is all 
> about. If all rules were written so tightly that no CFJ were ever
> required, the game would be duller than a burnt-out lightbulb in a
> black box underground in the dead of night with no moon. 
	I don't want to avoid all paradoxes, just the boring ones.  Most 
of the uh-ohs in the rule set seem to be normal, garden-variety 
problems.  Snore.
	The deep ones, and the original ones-- those are great! 
/dev/joe's attempted win with the foreheads was weak, but I enjoyed a
quiet laugh at least.  Our point is, what is the point of a paradox if
it's out in the open?  It's the surprise of a hidden loophole that makes
them fun.  That's no reason to cling to old loopholes like holy writ.
	We're going around picking up the Easter eggs that are lying
around on the ground.  And suddenly everyone's whining and complaining: 
"*sob* Now we have to -look- for our chocolate!"  The game is more fun
when you have to work a little.

> Another fundamental area of conflict is over game custom. At least
> one member of Nobs seems to find the idea of game custom abhorrent
> (paradoxically, since game custom derives it's power from R101, a
> strict constitutionalist _should_ embrace it wholeheartedly).
	This is a cheap shot.  A Strict Constructionist will uphold the
law, but he doesn't have to like it.  Further, I'd challenge you to name
that party member, please.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 18:43:41 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 904

From Kelly Martin:
> "Matt" == Matt  <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> Matt> Well, no. The changes described above would not remedy any
> Matt> problem.  The changes will happen instantaneously whether the
> Matt> rule says "if" or "when". 
> 
> i don't see any particular reason for assuming this to be the case.
> what in the Rules establishes this principle of immediate causation?
> i don't see a Rule that says "When an Entity is required by the Rules
> to do something, it does so immediately upon being so required."  (of
> course, such a Rule would be terribly dangerous, as it would require
> instantaneous compliance with the Rules by Players, which would be
> draconian and rather silly).
> 
> k.

From R101: "All players must always abide by all the rules". So if a
condition in a rule is satisfied, then that rule must be obeyed by
R101. The ruleset should be obeyed whenever it says it should be.
Changing "if" to "when" makes no difference to when a rule should be
obeyed. 

Example 1:

 R216:
  "If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be
  true... It merely becomes an explicit part of currently accepted game
  custom." 

 If this were reworded to:
  "When a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be
  true... It merely becomes an explicit part of currently accepted game
  custom." 

 it would have identical effect.

Example 2:

 R207:
  "When a proposed rule change is adopted, those players who voted
  against it receive 5 points each. A player whose proposed rule change
  is adopted also receives 10 points.

 if reworded to:
   "If a proposed rule change is adopted, those players who voted
   against it receive 5 points each. A player whose proposed rule change
   is adopted also receives 10 points.

 would again have identical effect.

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 20:45:05 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong probl

On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Mohammed wrote:

> 	The deep ones, and the original ones-- those are great! 
> /dev/joe's attempted win withthe foreheads was weak, but I enjoyed a
> quiet laugh at least.  Our point is, what is the point of a paradox if
> it's out in the open?  It's the surprise of a hidden loophole that makes
> them fun.  That's no reason to cling to old loopholes like holy writ.

My point in bringing up (again) Prosthetic Foreheads was a bit of
nit-pick.
The thing is, it was a rule that received a large majority, and then lots
of complaining. If it had received  a closer to minimal required majority,
and less complaining, the response would have been more consistent. My
point was really not about the Prosthetics Foreheads rule at all ( I found
a rather useless one myself - though I haven't checked to see that all the
appropriate places have been updated ), but about those who vote FOR a
rule and then complain about it.

Nicolo Flychuck
on vacation

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 14:19:17 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady again

Mohammed wrote:
 
>         I don't think 790 conflicts with 666.  Does it?

I think 666 conflicts with 829, and 666 goes first. I also do not
think is matters. I do think the CFJ that denys the fruit and eggs
may have been in error, as those entities are "defined" (mentioned??)
by R666. Ie, they are defined as entities given at end of cycle, 
based on end of cycle facts. That doesn't matter either, though.
 
>         If they don't conflict, the Fat Lady sings first, then the
> effects in 666 go off.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 19:37:38 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady again

Malenkai wrote: 
> I think 666 conflicts with 829, and 666 goes first. I also do not
> think is matters.

Wouldn't 829 go first, since it claims precedence over 666, while
666 does not claim precedence? There is a slight difference with the
sequence of execution, since 829 says "No proposal to hold a
Constitutional Convention may be made for the remainder of the
current cycle.", and 666 is the rule that changes the number of the 
cycle.

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 14:11:49 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong  problems 

>I also think I should have been given a chance to respond before this
>message was posted.

Let me explain how the timeline worked on this. I read your message (in a
public forum). I reply to you in the _private_ forum to ensure we could have
a fair discussion while not annoying everyone else. Hours later, I get a
message saying you had resigned your account on that mailing list. Now to me
that meant you were online, but rather than discussing the problem you just
left.

I'll admit I was quite in a rough mood from the situation and probably
should have tried to hear your side first, but like I said, things had just
been building up to this.

>I think the public message presenting me as a criminal is rude.

Yes, quite. I'll be the first to admit that. However, from my side at the
time, it was actually quite friendly, relatively speaking.

>I get in the morning, less than 10 hours later. I'm suddenly Public Enemy
>no.1

I had forgotten about the time difference. At that point it was certainly
the last thing on my mind. However, like I said your resignation from the
private list came while I was online. It seemed like a clear indication you
were also online and had not bothered to respond to my mail.

I remember now that there are certain server delays which make this
assumption a false one.

>In order to completely clear the air I suggest that next time you point
>this out by private e-mail first, and give someone at least a day to
>respond.

That is usually how I proceed, and hence my first try with the private list.

>I'm just pointing out that a
>little patience could have contributed to a much calmer conclusion of this
>incident.

I agree. I will send you a private message giving you some more details.
Last thing I want is this coming back later, better to settle this
misunderstanding.

Calvin N Hobbes
Now not quite sure where Ycnega is... inside of me?!

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 14:19:19 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Against Federal Schism - solutions to the wrong problems 

>	I'm baffled, Calvin.  All I remember from that message is that 
>Niccolo said one of Malenkai's messages was "harshly worded".  What are 
>you talking about?

I do not wish to discuss this any further, I have outlined my thoughts to
Nicolo privately. Let it just be said that no one should ever refuse anyone
else the right to settling a problem in a public forum if they so wish.

>	That's rather harshly worded.  *duck*
>	If I may ask, what "private" message was this?

The message that was responded to by the original message with the current
subject line. About 50% of it was quoted to the public forum.

Individually, I would probably have just taken them quite casually. However,
they and other events contributed to blowing this out of proportion, all of
them misunderstandings.

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 19:43:48 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady again

Matt wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> > I think 666 conflicts with 829, and 666 goes first. I also do not
> > think is matters.
> 
> Wouldn't 829 go first, since it claims precedence over 666, while
> 666 does not claim precedence? There is a slight difference with the
> sequence of execution, since 829 says "No proposal to hold a
> Constitutional Convention may be made for the remainder of the
> current cycle.", and 666 is the rule that changes the number of the
> cycle.

I wasn't sure if the first sentence of 829 explicitly claimed 
precedence. I guess it does. I used to languge like "I claim precedence",
not "I go before". I guess its just custom.

Given that, both 666 and 829 both claim to happen upon a win. As does 790.
790 explicitly claims precedence through it language. Perhaps I am
misinterpreting 829's precedence claim.

I agree with this is not a name's eariler post to reduce the C.C approval
period. That is something that could be added in the C.C to speed the
game up.

Ad a delegate, I am really loathe to make any change without the broad
based support of the rest of the players. Is their broad based suport
from the players to shorten the ratification period to 3 or 4 days?

Malnkai

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 96 21:10:56 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Convention: Reminder to VOTE!

If you haven't voted for Delegate yet, please do so NOW!

Each player is allowed one nomination. Nominations should be sent to the 
Tabulator, Wayne, at [email-masked].

I am a candidate for Delegate. My platform is that I do not seek 
far-reaching changes to the rule set by the few delegates (certain other 
candidates have advocated completely rewriting and revising the rule 
set). I support the normal democratic process of passing proposals.

I think the convention should just strike any potentially paradoxical 
language in the rule set and (maybe) clear up the distinction between 
winning a game and winning a cycle. That's what I'll work towards during 
the Constitutional Convention if I'm elected Delegate.

this is not a name
[email-masked]
Historian
File Clerk
Priest, Church of the Markovian Dream
Party Hall Swinger for (None Yet)
Candidate for Delegate: vote now to [email-masked]

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
  No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 96 21:11:01 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady again

>Ad a delegate, I am really loathe to make any change without the broad
>based support of the rest of the players. Is their broad based suport
>from the players to shorten the ratification period to 3 or 4 days?

I don't think this should be done as part of the convention. I think it 
should be done as a normal proposal.

this is not a name
[email-masked]
Historian
File Clerk
Priest, Church of the Markovian Dream
Party Hall Swinger for (None Yet)
Candidate for Delegate: vote now to [email-masked]

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Q. What should I do if I find a rock in a bag of potatoes?
 A. Simply return the rock to your grocer, who will give you the rock's
    weight in potatoes."
                                       --US Dept. of Agriculture flyer
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 23:22:17 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady again

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> >Ad a delegate, I am really loathe to make any change without the broad
> >based support of the rest of the players. Is their broad based suport
> >from the players to shorten the ratification period to 3 or 4 days?
> 
> I don't think this should be done as part of the convention. I think it
> should be done as a normal proposal.

I agree, especially because it would be stupid. My original idea
was to change the ratification period to get the game going faster, but
I stupidly didn't think it through enough that it would not apply to
*this* ratification anyway.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #55
******************************