Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #60
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, June 22 1996        Volume 01 : Number 060

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:00:25 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187 (Techno) 

"Clerk" == Clerk of the Courts <[email-masked]> writes:

Clerk>         Upon the execution of step c, a winner is declared and
Clerk> R666 must be invoked.  R666 is therefore recursive.  Ackanomic
Clerk> play has never been resumed and is therefore still suspended.

i must categorically disagree with the Caller's argument.  no
provision of the Rules may suspend play with no possibility of
resumption; any provision which does is in conflict with Rule 112, in
that suspending the game with no possibility of resumption would serve
to make the adoption of rule changes impermissible.  thus 666(a) is in
conflict with Rule 112, and, as 112 takes precedence over 666, the
latter is not permitted to suspend play.  rule 666 is an infinite
loop, and this has some rather strange and interesting consequences,
but play is not actually suspended.

a rule which causes terminal suspension might also be in conflict with
Rule 104, by preventing voting upon proposals made in the proper way.
if this is in fact the case, such a rule is wholly void, per Rule
108.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 02:47:18 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Request: News and Comment 

Greetings from the would-be-editor!

I have tentatively decided on a name for the new acka newspaper.  How does
the "Ackanomic Steal Flea Gazzette" sound to everyone?  I am still
accepting submissions for news and commentary.  I have recieved a couple of
good ones, so far.  I would be especially interested in a commentary on
game issues from a member of each political party.  Some general news
pieces would be great too.  Go ahead, pick a game occurance, and write an
article.

SPECIAL LIMITED TIME OFFER!!  I will give 2 PFsnowgod to each player who
submits a piece of news or commentary that I use in the premiere issue of
the paper.

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
The Witchfinder General never declared me a heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:46:27 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Request: News and Comment

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> Greetings from the would-be-editor!
> 
> the "Ackanomic Steal Flea Gazzette" sound to everyone?  I am still

This spelling is inconsistent with the acka-entity Steel Flea, I
believe.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 187

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

Here's an idea:  If Ackanomic play is suspended under R666/2(a), but does
not resume until R666/2(m), then procedures R666/2(b) through R666/2(k),
including R666/2(c), are not part of Ackanomic play.  The phrase "Whenever
there is a winner declared" can only mean "Whenever there is a winner
declared in Ackanomic play," otherwise R666/2 would have been invoked two
nights ago when I was declared winner of a late-night cribbage match :)
So, the declaration in R666/2(c), being outside Ackanomic play, cannot
trigger the invokation of R666/2.

What do you think?  D'ghew has a neat argument, very attractive to me as a
member of (None Yet), but I suggest that Techno rule this one FALSE.

Hmmm ... (now I'm just thinking out loud) ... perhaps R666/2(b) through
R666/2(k) are procedures inside the game of Ackanomic, but outside of
Ackanomic play.  Are there parallels to this we can look to in other
games?  What about the initial placement of pieces in ... chess?  Might
one say setting up the pieces is part of chess, but not part of chess
play?  That would weaken my cribbage example, I think, but not too
severely - could procedures in Ackanomic but outside Ackanomic play
trigger the invokation of a rule?  I don't think so, since invokation of
rules IS Ackanomic play.  Are there other procedures inside Ackanomic but
outside Ackanomic play?  Giving Wayne a valid address for submissions to
the nomicbot, perhaps?

(One might argue, alternatively, that R666/2(c) draws a distinction
between being declared "winner" and being declared "winner of the cycle." 
If that card game protoposal (that I must admit I haven't paid much
attention to) ever gets going, I trust R666/2 will not be invoked each
time there is a "winner of the card game.")

*****************************************************************

Call for Judgement 187
  Subject: Recursive rule
Initiator: De'ghew
    Judge: Techno (selected 20-Jun-96 1800h New York Time)

Statement:

Ackanomic play cannot continue.

De'ghew's reasoning:

        Rule 666 must be invoked "Whenever there is a winner declared".
Because a winner has been declared, the procedure outlined in R666 must
have been executed.  The first several steps of R666 read as follows:

a)  Ackanomic play is suspended.
b)  All Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right-Handed Grapefruit are eliminated.
c)  The winner is declared the winner of the current cycle . . .

        Upon the execution of step c, a winner is declared and R666 must
be invoked.  R666 is therefore recursive.  Ackanomic play has never been
resumed and is therefore still suspended.  Ackanomic gameplay cannot
continue.
        I contend that this constitutes a Win by Paradox.  I win this
cycle.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:17:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jerome Herrman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187 (Techno)

I must decline judgement on this CFJ.  I feel there is a personal 
conflict on interest for myself on this one.

Techno

On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, Clerk of the Courts wrote:

> Techno has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days
> to except or decline the appointment:
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
>  
> Call for Judgement 187
>   Subject: Recursive rule
> Initiator: De'ghew
>     Judge: Techno (selected 20-Jun-96 1800h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Ackanomic play cannot continue.
> 
> De'ghew's reasoning:
> 
>         Rule 666 must be invoked "Whenever there is a winner declared".
> Because a winner has been declared, the procedure outlined in R666 must
> have been executed.  The first several steps of R666 read as follows:
> 
> a)  Ackanomic play is suspended.
> b)  All Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right-Handed Grapefruit are eliminated.
> c)  The winner is declared the winner of the current cycle . . .
> 
>         Upon the execution of step c, a winner is declared and R666 must
> be invoked.  R666 is therefore recursive.  Ackanomic play has never been
> resumed and is therefore still suspended.  Ackanomic gameplay cannot
> continue.
>         I contend that this constitutes a Win by Paradox.  I win this
> cycle.
> 

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:28:31 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Official 

Malenkai wrote:

>Given the verdict of CFJ 186, it seems we are in the thread that
>distributed CFJ 186, thus invalidating the Con-Con thread. Therefore
>Ackanomic play can continue under "normal" rules, except for the 
>possibility of CFJ 187's effects hanging out there.

With CFJ 186 judged true, I note that we will have a real problem should
CFJ 187 be judged true.  In fact, I think we had better try to speed through
a reform before the judgement is finalized; otherwise the game crashes.  In
fact, I can see an argument for the game crashing in the case of a TRUE
verdict, whether we pass reforms or not.

>Therefore all proposals that "were in the queue" should still be there,
>votes and all, I suppose.

We insist upon making it hard on Wayne.  Sigh.  Well, I had better do my
part.  Wayne, I need the scores at the end of each of two wins just past
in order to calculate the Financial effects.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:44:27 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official 

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

John> We insist upon making it hard on Wayne.  Sigh.  Well, I had
John> better do my part.  Wayne, I need the scores at the end of each
John> of two wins just past in order to calculate the Financial
John> effects.

not necessarily.  the infinite spin in 666 has, amongst its effect, a
draining of all Ackadollar accounts containing more than A$4 to A$4,
and the transfer of all PFBonds to their issuer.  the exact number of
repetitions of 666 required to do this will vary from Player to Player,
but as the events mandated by 666 take almost no time at all, 666 has
certainly looped enough times such that 666(e), 666(f), and 666(g) are
now doing nothing.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:14:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187

> Here's an idea:  If Ackanomic play is suspended under R666/2(a), but does
> not resume until R666/2(m), then procedures R666/2(b) through R666/2(k),
> including R666/2(c), are not part of Ackanomic play.  The phrase "Whenever
> there is a winner declared" can only mean "Whenever there is a winner
> declared in Ackanomic play," otherwise R666/2 would have been invoked two
> nights ago when I was declared winner of a late-night cribbage match :)
> So, the declaration in R666/2(c), being outside Ackanomic play, cannot
> trigger the invokation of R666/2.

	You have a good point, but I think there may be a problem.  If 
you preclude the invokation of rules while play is suspended, do you not 
also preclude the execution of rules?  That is, if you can't start 
executing R666 while play is suspended, who's to say that you can 
continue executing the occurance of R666 that stopped play?  Seems that 
there's not much difference between beginning the execution of rules and 
continuing the execution of rules outside gameplay.  At least, there's no 
legally defined difference..
	Maybe if R666 isn't recursive, it's still unable to resume 
gameplay because play is suspended.
	More along the lines of my original argument:  My interpretation
of "gameplay is suspended" is that players can perform no game actions. 
Rule 666 seems to intend that suspension of gameplay does not keep rules
from performing game actions.. Indeed, it lists certain game actions 
which are to be performed while the game is suspended.  I think your 
distinction between continuation of executing rules and invokation of 
rules is one that hasn't been legally made before..  Kind of a stretch.. 
:)  But that's up to a judge to decide..
	
> (One might argue, alternatively, that R666/2(c) draws a distinction
> between being declared "winner" and being declared "winner of the cycle." 
> If that card game protoposal (that I must admit I haven't paid much
> attention to) ever gets going, I trust R666/2 will not be invoked each
> time there is a "winner of the card game.")

	Hmm..  It would be nice to be able to make this argument, but I 
don't see how you can.  R666 simply says "Whenever there is a winner 
declared".  I have always thought that someone being declared "winner of 
the current cycle" was also to declare them a winner.  

	De'ghew
	Having more fun than ever..  :)

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official 

Doesn't the supposed infinite spin in R666 only run from (a) through (c)?
If this is really happening, we never reach (d) through (m).  (That is,
(e), (f), and (g) haven't occurred at all.)

- -mr cwm

On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Kelly  wrote:

> 
> not necessarily.  the infinite spin in 666 has, amongst its effect, a
> draining of all Ackadollar accounts containing more than A$4 to A$4,
> and the transfer of all PFBonds to their issuer.  the exact number of
> repetitions of 666 required to do this will vary from Player to Player,
> but as the events mandated by 666 take almost no time at all, 666 has
> certainly looped enough times such that 666(e), 666(f), and 666(g) are
> now doing nothing.
> 

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:55:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187 (Techno)

> i must categorically disagree with the Caller's argument.  no
> provision of the Rules may suspend play with no possibility of
> resumption; any provision which does is in conflict with Rule 112, in
> that suspending the game with no possibility of resumption would serve
> to make the adoption of rule changes impermissible.  

	Hmmm..  Let's see..  R112 says "the adoption of rule changes must 
never become completely inpermissible"[sic].  One might argue that the 
adoption of rule changes is still permissible, though unlikely.  The 
suspension of play, at least as it is apparently intended by R666, 
disallows player actions.  It doesn't disallow game actions by the 
rules.  At least, R666 intended this, since it tries to perform some game 
actions while the game is suspended.  This is the critical point.  Rule 
changes may still occur due to the rules.  It would support my argument 
if I could find a rule that repeals itself or has a time-bomb clause, but 
I can't right now..  
	Even if rule changes DON'T or WON'T occur, they are still 
permissible since nothing is prohibiting the rules from changing the 
rules.  Suppose that all players went on vacation.  Rule changes wouldn't 
occur, but they would still be permissible.  The permissibility of 
something is not a requirement that it occur.

> thus 666(a) is in
> conflict with Rule 112, and, as 112 takes precedence over 666, the
> latter is not permitted to suspend play.  rule 666 is an infinite
> loop, and this has some rather strange and interesting consequences,
> but play is not actually suspended.

	What do you suppose these consequences are?  Looks to me like a 
righthanded grapefruit is being created and destroyed over and over...  
And if the recursion loop ever stops then certain player(s) will receive 
an infinite number of goose eggs.  Hmmm..

	De'ghew

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:15:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187

On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, De'ghew wrote:

> 
> 	You have a good point, but I think there may be a problem.  If 
> you preclude the invokation of rules while play is suspended, do you not 
> also preclude the execution of rules?  That is, if you can't start 
> executing R666 while play is suspended, who's to say that you can 
> continue executing the occurance of R666 that stopped play?  Seems that 
> there's not much difference between beginning the execution of rules and 
> continuing the execution of rules outside gameplay.  At least, there's no 
> legally defined difference..

... unless "game custom" is that "play" is constituted of the invokation
of rules.  (That's so weak I'm almost embarrassed to say it.)

> 	Maybe if R666 isn't recursive, it's still unable to resume 
> gameplay because play is suspended.

Maybe.  Then the effect of R666 would be: "(a) Ackanomic play is
suspended" and we'd be right back where we were in the first end-of-game
crisis.

> 	More along the lines of my original argument:  My interpretation
> of "gameplay is suspended" is that players can perform no game actions. 
> Rule 666 seems to intend that suspension of gameplay does not keep rules
> from performing game actions.. Indeed, it lists certain game actions 
> which are to be performed while the game is suspended.  I think your 
> distinction between continuation of executing rules and invokation of 
> rules is one that hasn't been legally made before..  Kind of a stretch.. 
> :)  But that's up to a judge to decide..
> 	

You make good points, too.  I hadn't realized it until you pointed it out,
but essentially I've argued that invoking rules is "play," while executing
them is not.  Hmmm.  Not very impressive when put that way, is it?  I'll
have to think more on that.

> > (One might argue, alternatively, that R666/2(c) draws a distinction
> > between being declared "winner" and being declared "winner of the cycle." 
> > If that card game protoposal (that I must admit I haven't paid much
> > attention to) ever gets going, I trust R666/2 will not be invoked each
> > time there is a "winner of the card game.")
> 
> 	Hmm..  It would be nice to be able to make this argument, but I 
> don't see how you can.  R666 simply says "Whenever there is a winner 
> declared".  I have always thought that someone being declared "winner of 
> the current cycle" was also to declare them a winner.  
> 

Hmmm, again.  What about winners of elections?  When ... whoever our
president is (sorry, I can't believe I forgot!) was declared "a winner" of
an election, nobody suggested we invoke R666.  I have always thought that
"whenever a winner is declared" meant a winner of the game under R110,
R219, etc., and that one of the points of R666 was to transform a winner
of the game into a winner of the cycle - something explicitly different,
so there would be no question of the game ending.

> 	De'ghew
> 	Having more fun than ever..  :)
> 

This has picked up quite a bit from a few days ago, hasn't it?

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:25:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Inventor (auction continues)

	The auction of the Scroll of Crumble ends Saturday morning at 
8:26 A.M.  The current high bid is A$107.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:14:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Inventor:  two Blueprints

These two blueprints will replace the two I threw away earlier.  I made 
one real change to the PMW; it is now slightly more expensive to fix a 
broken gadget.

Blueprint:  Pyraic Frobnotzer
=====
A Pyraic Frobnotzer has two nodes (positive and negative.)  They are made 
of titanium (+) and green jumblium (-), and never wear out.

The owner of a Pyraic Frobnotzer may attach one of its nodes to any noun
phrase anywhere in the rule set, by announcing the action publicly.  The
identity of the noun phrase in question must be clear and unconditional,
though.  This can be done repeatedly, and a node can be moved from one 
noun phrase to another in this way.

The owner of a Pyraic Frobnotzer may also set it off by announcing that 
action publicly-- unless the Pyraic Frobnotzer is broken.  When a Pyraic 
Frobnotzer is set off, it starts to hum.  It will stop humming the next 
time it is broken or destroyed.

When a Pyraic Frobnotzer has been humming for five days, the following
happens:  If the Pyraic Frobnotzer's two nodes are attached to two
noun phrases which are both plural or both singular, then those two noun
phrases trade location within the rule set, and the Pyraic Frobnotzer is 
destroyed in a magnificent gout of golden flame.  Otherwise, the Pyraic 
Frobnotzer chokes, sputters, whines, and dies; it is then broken.

A Pyraic Frobnotzer is a mechanical Gadget.  When it is first created, it
is not broken. 
=====

Blueprint:  Plunky Monkey Wrench
=====
The owner of a Plunky Monkey Wrench may throw it into any mechanical
gadget by publicly announcing the action.  However, the identity of the
mechanical gadget must be clear and unconditional.  When this happens, the
mechanical gadget is broken, and the Plunky Monkey Wrench is destroyed. 
For the purposes of this blueprint, a gadget is mechanical if, and only
if, its blueprint says so. 

The owner of a Plunky Monkey Wrench may also use it to try to fix a broken
gadget, if he or she has enough money.  To do this, the player must 
announce the attempt publicly, name the broken gadget he or she is trying to 
fix (this gadget must be identified clearly and unconditionally), and
announce his willingness to pay A$25 to the Treasury for the chance.  
When all three conditions have been met and the Plunky Monkey Wrench's 
owner has at least A$25, A$25 is transferred from the player's ownership 
to the Treasury.  Then, there are two possibilities:  the gadget is 
fixed (i.e. it is no longer broken), or nothing happens.  The likelyhood 
that the gadget is fixed is 1/3.  The likelyhood that nothing happens is 
2/3.  (The Inventor may sort this out, according to any applicable rules.)
=====

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:57:44 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official 

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

cwm> Doesn't the supposed infinite spin in R666 only run from (a)
cwm> through (c)?  If this is really happening, we never reach (d)
cwm> through (m).  (That is, (e), (f), and (g) haven't occurred at
cwm> all.)

all (c) requires is that the winner be declared and that he be given a
RHG.  this triggers 666 again, but i see no reason why the initial
invocation of 666 cannot continue onward to (d) even as a new
invocation of 666 begins concurrently at (b) [(a) being restrained
from application by its conflict with 112].

k.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 14:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official -- Temporal Difficulties

> not necessarily.  the infinite spin in 666 has, amongst its effect, a
> draining of all Ackadollar accounts containing more than A$4 to A$4,
> and the transfer of all PFBonds to their issuer.  the exact number of
> repetitions of 666 required to do this will vary from Player to Player,
> but as the events mandated by 666 take almost no time at all, 666 has
> certainly looped enough times such that 666(e), 666(f), and 666(g) are
> now doing nothing.

	I hadn't thought of parallel execution of the infinitely recursing 
rule.  You say that the events in 666 take almost no time at all?  I 
think I disagree here.  I think 666 mandates that all its actions take 
place at the instant a winner is declared.  
	This would have some pretty strange effects..  I can feel time
merging into space now..  What we have is a rule which executes in an
infinitessimal amount of time and spawns another execution of itself.  So
we have an infinite amount of processes executing in parallel, each taking
an infinitessimal amount of time (or perhaps no time) to finish.  If it
takes no time, wee have the impulse function of nomic.  (The integral of
the step function.. As my Circuit theory professor put it, "Nothing,
nothing, OH MY GOD!, nothing, nothing.." :)
	I think there's a good argument to be made that all of the 
infinite number of R666 executions have completed, since they all take an 
infinitessimal amount of time to execute.  
	I think I may have just screwed my win attempt.  My last argument 
would mean that each execution of R666 not only suspended the game, but 
also resumed play.  <sigh>  
	Now there are a few hopes for me, which depend on how the rule is
interpreted.  If execution of R666 waits until its child task completes
before continuing past (c), and suspension of the game doesn't make rule
changes impermissible, then I have probably won.  If R666 executes in
parallel with its child in NO time, then play has been resumed and the
effects Kelly described have taken place.  If R666 takes time to execute,
then its children are still executing.  If we suppose R666 takes
infinitessimal time to execute, which I am inclined to believe, then it is
rather unclear, at least to me, whether R666 is still executing.  (What's
infinite times infinitessimal?  Is it zero, or is it infinity, or is it
infinitessimal?  If it's zero or infinitessimal then play is resumed, if
it's infinity then R666 is still running..)

	De'ghew

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 14:25:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official 

On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Kelly wrote:

> 
> all (c) requires is that the winner be declared and that he be given a
> RHG.  this triggers 666 again, but i see no reason why the initial
> invocation of 666 cannot continue onward to (d) even as a new
> invocation of 666 begins concurrently at (b) [(a) being restrained
> from application by its conflict with 112].
> 

Perhaps.  But it seems to me that the new invocation of 666 (whether at
(a) or (b) is debatable and beside the point, here) IS the continuation of
the original invocation of 666.  R666 seems to describe a sequential
process, and "Whenever" seems to cause it to be inserted between (c) and
(d).  If there were some way to limit the recursion to, say, 12 times,
would we go through the whole thing 12 times, or just (a) or (b) through
(c)?  Actually, this might be suitable for a CFJ.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 14:40:06 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Official

]>Therefore all proposals that "were in the queue" should still be there,
]>votes and all, I suppose.
]
]We insist upon making it hard on Wayne.  Sigh.  Well, I had better do my
]part.  Wayne, I need the scores at the end of each of two wins just past
]in order to calculate the Financial effects.
]

One day I'll figure out what the scores will be.  Also,  if it is to be
determined that the proposals that were in the queue should still be there,
and the results sent out, that is not a problem.  I felt that something
like this might happen so I purposely left all the proposals untouched.

Whenever I get the word, I'll return from vacation and distribute
to 50 or so proposal results  :)

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 15:36:48 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: all the scores

OK, this is it.  The complete score update.  There are three score reports
in this message.  The first report is from when Bascule reached 257 points.
The second report is when the paradox win happened.  Then the last report
is the current score.

SCORES at the time of Bascule's win:

257	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
245	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
238	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
215	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
212	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
211	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
211	Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff) 
185	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
185	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
173	Dr McSpong           A   (Julian Richardson) 
171	mr cwm               V   (Eric Murray) 
137	SnafuMoose           A   (Stephen Roberts) 
133	De'ghew              A   (John Spickes) 
121	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
96	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
96	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
47	Merlin the Happy Pig A   (Stephen Wilson) 
36	Simon Marty Harriman V   (Andy Swan) 
35	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
15	Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain) 
8	Robert Sevin         V   (Mitchell Harding) 
0	Pascal               A   (Jason Reed) 
0	Kelly Martin         A   (Kelly Martin) 
- -2	chess piece face     V   (Paul Swan) 
- -22	The Great Old One    V   (Sean Crystal) 

SCORES at the time of the paradox win:

47	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
42	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
40	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
39	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
32	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
30	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
24	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
21	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
19	Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff) 
13	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
13	De'ghew              A   (John Spickes) 
8	mr cwm               V   (Eric Murray) 
6	SnafuMoose           A   (Stephen Roberts) 
0	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
0	chess piece face     V   (Paul Swan) 
0	The Great Old One    V   (Sean Crystal) 
0	Simon Marty Harriman V   (Andy Swan) 
0	Robert Sevin         V   (Mitchell Harding) 
0	Pascal               A   (Jason Reed) 
0	Merlin the Happy Pig A   (Stephen Wilson) 
0	Kelly Martin         A   (Kelly Martin) 
0	Dr McSpong           A   (Julian Richardson) 
- -12	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
- -14	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
- -35	Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain) 
8	mr cwm               V   (Eric Murray) 

SCORES for right now:  (this one was easy)

0	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
0	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
0	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
0	chess piece face     V   (Paul Swan) 
0	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
0	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
0	The Great Old One    V   (Sean Crystal) 
0	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
0	SnafuMoose           A   (Stephen Roberts) 
0	Simon Marty Harriman V   (Andy Swan) 
0	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
0	Robert Sevin         V   (Mitchell Harding) 
0	Pascal               A   (Jason Reed) 
0	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
0	Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff) 
0	Merlin the Happy Pig A   (Stephen Wilson) 
0	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
0	Kelly Martin         A   (Kelly Martin) 
0	Dr McSpong           A   (Julian Richardson) 
0	De'ghew              A   (John Spickes) 
0	Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain) 
0	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
0	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
0	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 14:57:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: all the scores

Wayne wrote:
> SCORES for right now:  (this one was easy)
> 0	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 

Techno lost 3 points Thursday at 00:21 CDT due to
not posting What Phoebe Says, so the above is incorrect.

Niccolo Flychuck may have also lost 3 points in this cycle;
let me check the dates:

He found Phoebe at Wed, 5 Jun 1996 23:40 CDT
So he lost 3 points at Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:40 CDT

CFJ 184 was returned, giving Malenkai a win by paradox,
at Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:42 -0700
which is Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:42 -0500 (CDT).
This is the time when the result of CFJ 184 was distributed by the CotC;
I'm assuming that this is when an effect like a win by paradox occurs.

It looks like Niccolo Flychuck lost 3 points 2 minutes before the
previous cycle ended.  Please ensure that this is accounted for
in the score report.

 = other business =

Techno is currently the Gnome Buddy, that is, until 50-odd voting
results are returned.  Heh, we might have even repealed the Gnome
already and don't know it.

I want people to realize that with players able to score 3 or 5 points
on a proposal just for voting on it, plus 10 when their own proposals
pass, plus a handful of other points (short bonus, etc.), that it is
possible that we already have another winner.
It's too late to vote for 'making game cycles last longer', but anyway...

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

	As much as I'm enjoying the current discussion, I'll be out of 
town this weekend so I'm going on vacation.  I'll be back Sunday or 
Monday.

	De'ghew

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:25:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: more on the score report, and a short registrar's report.

More on the score report:

> SCORES at the time of the paradox win:
 [...]
> 8	mr cwm               V   (Eric Murray) 
 [...]
> 8	mr cwm               V   (Eric Murray) 

mr cwm appears twice on this report, and not at all on the one below;
I assume that he should appear on the report below with 0 points and not
on vacation.

> SCORES for right now:  (this one was easy)

> 0	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 

Wayne is still on vacation. :-)

> 0	SnafuMoose           A   (Stephen Roberts) 

SnafuMoose is no longer a player.

> 0	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 

Niccolo Flychuck is on vacation.

 = = = = = = = = =

And now, here's a....  short registrar's report.

I believe that this list includes the Ackanomic Names, real names,
and current email addresses of all players, and has (on vacation) marked
after all players who are on vacation, including De'ghew's vacation that
was just announced.  Please report any errors to me (/dev/joe, the acting
registrar) at [email-masked]

Bascule = Matt Black = [email-masked]
Brinjal = Simon Clarke = [email-masked]
Calvin N Hobbes = Thierry Joffrain = [email-masked]
chess piece face = Paul Swan = [email-masked] (on vacation)
De'ghew = John Spickes = [email-masked] (on vacation)
/dev/joe = Joseph DeVincentis = [email-masked]
Dr McSpong = Julian Richardson = [email-masked]
fon = Adrian Smith = [email-masked] (on vacation)
Kelly Martin = Kelly Martin = [email-masked]
Malenkai = Randy Hall = [email-masked]
Merlin the Happy Pig = Stephen Wilson = [email-masked]
mohammed = Jason Orendorff = [email-masked]
mr cwm = Eric Murray = [email-masked]
Niccolo Flychuck = Uri Bruck = [email-masked] (on vacation)
Pascal = Jason Reed = [email-masked]
Robert Sevin = Mitchell Harding = [email-masked] (on vacation)
Robin Hood = Robert Shaw = [email-masked]
Simon Marty Harriman = Andy Swan = [email-masked] (on vacation)
snowgod = Phil Ackley = [email-masked]
Techno = Jerome Herrman = [email-masked]
The Great Old One = Sean Crystal = [email-masked] (on vacation)
ThinMan = John Bollinger = [email-masked]
this is not a name = Mike Epstein = [email-masked]
Wayne = Wayne Sheppard = [email-masked] (on vacation)

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

Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 01:28:00 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 187 

At 09:46 AM 21/06/96 -0400 , mr cwm  wrote:

>(One might argue, alternatively, that R666/2(c) draws a distinction
>between being declared "winner" and being declared "winner of the cycle." 
>If that card game protoposal (that I must admit I haven't paid much
>attention to) ever gets going, I trust R666/2 will not be invoked each
>time there is a "winner of the card game.")
>

I imagine you mean the adaptation of Eleusis.
No need to worry, it does not employ the concept of winner for single games,
which is what had been suggested.  
Nicolo Flychuck

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #60
******************************