Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #78
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, July 1 1996         Volume 01 : Number 078

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 08:49:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 187 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 187 has been appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court has returned
an appeal verdict in agreement with the original verdict: FALSE.

The package is the original CFJ, the appealer's reasoning, the Court's
reasoning, (which is different from the original reasoning)
and verdict, and the penalty.

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

Call for Judgement 187
  Subject: Recursive rule
Initiator: De'ghew
1st Judge: Techno (Declined to Judge)
2nd Judge: Kelly Martin (selected 22-Jun-96 01:30h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE
A Verdict: FALSE

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.

Kelly Martin's Reasoning:

There are a number of arguments that can be made regarding the effect
of Rule 666's apparent self-invoking nature.  Some of them have been
made in other CFJs, and I leave those matters to be Judged by other
Judges.  However, I need not consider those arguments in order to find
this CFJ FALSE.

If the Statement is TRUE, then, at the time this CFJ was allegedly
made, Ackanomic play was not possible.  This is itself a
contradiction: both the making of a CFJ and its judging are aspects of
Ackanomic play, so if this CFJ is TRUE, then it was impossible for to
have been made, and it is impossible for it to be judged.  However, it
is my finding of fact that I am presently engaged in the process of
judging this CFJ, thus playing Ackanomic.  Clearly, therefore,
Ackanomic play is possible (even if, perhaps, illegal), and the
statement is FALSE.

It is possible that I am mistaken in believing that I am engaged in
Ackanomic play by writing this Judgement.  However, I am at a loss to
ascertain what activity this might be, if not Ackanomic play.

A Judgement of FALSE is hereby entered on CFJ 187 on this, the 23rd
day of June, 1996.

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

De'ghew's appeal reasoning:

        I hereby appeal this decision to the supreme court.  I would like
to add the following reasoning:

        Rule 219, "Winning by Paradox" states that if the rules are
changed so that play is impossible, then a player may call for judgement
on a statement to that effect.  This clause allows game play to continue
to the extent that a CFJ may be called to determine its unplayability.
This invalidates this judgement.
        If the Supreme Court believes that this is not true, that is, a
CFJ may not be called if the game is unplayable, then I suggest that they
must consider whether R219 can have any effect.

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

Supreme Court's reasoning:

It is true that the Court need only consider the actual statement in
reaching a verdict, but R589 does not *prohibit* the consideration
of context and reasoning in reaching a verdict. Furthermore, the Court
usually finds it constructive to consider such.

It is obvious that the statement was made in the context of R219. The
immediate question becomes does R219 have sufficient scope to allow
"gameplay" to continue past the statement claiming "Ackanomic play cannot
continue" enough to allow judgement of such a statement.

If the answer to that question is No, Kelly Martin's argument is valid,
and the Court must concur with the original verdict. If the answer to that
question is Yes, Kelly's argument is invalidated, but that does not
necessarily mean the verdict is overruled, the original statement must
be judged in a game context with allows it to be judged, that is all.

The Court thus finds it necessary to explore this issue, and attempt to
answer this question. The Court quotes the beginning of R219:

> "If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or
>  if the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or
>  if some action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may
>  call for judgement on a statement to that effect [...]"

The rule clearly allows a player to make a CFJ beyond the point of the
game where "further play is impossible". In fact, they may, in that CFJ,
make a "statement to that effect" (ie, play is impossible).

The contentious issue is whether or not this part of the rule has any
weight whatsoever. Should we follow what the rule says and allow a CFJ
after play has become "impossible", or should we say that that is bogus
and say the clause has no effect?

Good arguments have been made for both interpretations, by the initiator
De'ghew, and the first judge Kelly, and by several others in the public
forum, on both side of the rule. Space does not permit quotation of any
beyond what has been officially submitted to the Court. Is one school of
thought "right"? (any Platonists out there :))

The Court could throw its opinion into the mix, or just choose. The
interpretation is *unclear*. It is the weight of *opinion* and argument.
The Court will attempt to follow the rules for making judgements in
such cases. The Court quotes from R215:

> "All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules then in
>  effect. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the
>  statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider
>  currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in
>  reaching a decision."

This rule not only permits the Court to consider "game custom" and
"spirit of the game" in cases of unclarity; it *mandates* that it
do so. To *not* consider it would be a clear violation of the rules.

A similar situation occured with CFJ 157. At the time, the verdict of CFJ
157 declared that the game had ended before the CFJ was even called. Yet
it was allowed to be called, the verdict published, etc. Furthermore, an
appeal of that verdict, which claimed the game had ended, made after
the game had supposedly ended, was allowed. Both the verdict and the
appeal verdict were allowed to have retroactive application to the event
questioned.

This had built on the previous precedents of CFJ 113, CFJ 153, and
AOJ 101, solidifiying the concept of "grace period after events, allowing
for CFJs in response to those events, with the potential to retroactively
validate or invalidate those events".

The event in the case of CFJ 157 was Robert Sevin claiming enough points
to win, thus ending the game. The event in the case of this CFJ being
R 666 preventing play from continuing (or the statement "Ackanomic play
cannot continue" preventing play from continuing).

Thus this game custom applies to this case. Common sense, and "spirit of
the game" indicate that this must be so. Consider the following example:
"By R115, I wave the Wand of Zandor and cause the game to end, you
cannot CFJ this action, the game is over. Lets play chess now." Its
obvious that the "grace period responsive CFJ" custom originally
established by CFJ 113 is needed, and currently exists. Perhaps some
would feel more comfortable if it were codifed as its own rule, rather
than via R215 and R101. That is another issue.

The Court thus finds Kelly Martin's original argument invalid, and
therefore must get to the point of actually considering the statement
on which judgement was called, which is (in case we forgot):

> "Ackanomic play cannot continue"

The Court agrees with Argument 2 presented with CFJ 193. Furthermore,
CFJ 193 has been found TRUE, thus negating R 666 alleged recursiveness.
As R 666 is not recursive, there is no reason to believe, because of
R 666, that "Ackanomic play cannot continue", as the initiator claims.
There is also no other evidence presented to bolster such a claim, and
the Court sees no evidence on its own, thus necessitating a verdict
of FALSE.

Justice Bascule adds the following commentary on the truth of the
statement "Ackanomic play cannot continue".

I concur with Kelly Martin in a matter other than the verdict reasoning,
in that if further play was impossible, the adoption of proposals would
become completely impermissible, contrary to Rule 112. [I was intrigued
by De'ghew's argument that as "Rule changes may still occur due to
the rules", the adoption of proposals would still be permissible. I
disagree with this argument on the grounds that rules altering other
rules would still constitute game play.]

Therefore I conclude that further play must be possible, and must
concur with the original verdict of false.

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

Verdict: FALSE

Penalty: De'ghew must be fined 20 points for friviously bothering
the Judges. Additionally, he is charged 5 points for the appeal.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 08:42:34 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Hm: 

Pascal wrote:

>>From rule 457:
>
>A player shall be considered "on vacation" when he makes a public request that
>he desires to be on vacation. Players are only allowed to put themselves on
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>vacation. The Rules may specify other ways a Player may be put on vacation. 
>^^^^^^^^
>
>Three interperetations for this sentence:
>
>I. The only thing players can do is put themselves on vacation
>
>II. The only thing players can put on vacation is themselves
>
>III. The only thing that can put itself on vacation is a Player
>
>How is one supposed to decide among the three? Appealing to Game Custom here
>seems kind of weak... (The first is a slightly less than pleasant option...) 

Several Rules that have precedence over R457 specifically allow particular
Player actions other than players placing themselves on vacation.  Since
Rules must be interpreted according to game custom, and since game custom
may not supercede the Rules, interpretation (I) above is excluded.
Furthermore, because "only" modifies "allowed" rather than "Players," I think
interpretation (III) is not supported.  Interpretation (II) is consistent
with the wording of the Rule and with the remainder of the Rule set, so it
is the preferred interpretation.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 10:33:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 3: R362

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm, CSRR Officer

It has become apparent that R362/0 "do(es) not conform in fact to (its)
interpretation in game custom," namely, in that as the game has actually
been played, players who place themselves on vacation have not been
considered "dead."  Additionally, with the Speaker's announced intention
of delaying his message to the alleged dead players indefinitely, bringing
this rule into conformity with that game as actually played will have no
effect on the actual play of the game.  

I wish to remind everyone that any player may publish an objection within
the official voting period (whatever that may be) to prevent the following
change from taking place:

CSR 3:

R362/0 (No Dead Players Allowed) shall be ammended by appending the
following as its final sentance:  "This Rule shall not apply to any player
who is on vacation, provided that player has placed himself or herself on
that vacation." 

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:37:15 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Financial turmoil 

Ackanomians:

The OotF has just discovered massive accounting errors on its books.  Revised
figures will be released as soon as they can be computed.  For this purpose
I require the player scores at the time of each of the recent wins.  The
account updates will be delayed until Wayne has a chance to determine the
relevant scores.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:58:52 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 206 Verdict 

>The following, CFJ 206, has been judged FALSE.
>
>Statement:
>
>It is possible to change the text of immutable rules by any means a player
>would like to use, so long as that mean is not a proposal.
>
>Robin Hood's Reasoning:
>
>Rule 115 says rules may only be changed when explicitly
>or implicitly permitted.
>Rule 491 does not limit itself to proposals and explicitly
>lists all possible categories of rule changes.
>The statement contradicts rule 491.
>No rule of higher priority than 491 overrrules it.
>So by 115 and 491 I must rule FALSE

I am thankful that the reasoning attached to a judgement does not form part
of the judgement itself.  Rule 115 is entirely sufficient grounds on which
to judge the statement FALSE.  In my opinion, R491 has no applicability to
anything other than proposals.  I will refrain from calling for judgement
on that matter until it becomes an issue.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 08:05:28 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict 

[...]
>3) Follow the rules, as "strictly written". That seems to have come in
>vogue over the last month, so I might as well join the crowd. R 362 says:
> 
>"then the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent.",
>
>and I shall do so, when I have the time. The rule does not indicate a
>deadline by which such a message must be sent. Certainly there is no 
>"custom" on indeterminate or unspecifed durations, heck, the Fat Lady is
>still singing from /dev/joe's win. There is a Witchhunt and Politeness
>Moon that have still not been announced, and they were called over 2
>weeks ago, and they even have time limits on them. Certainly we are all
>over the map on interpreting time, especially when it is not specified.
>All the Speakers have been all over the map on the time taken to comply
>with R 362, and that is irrelevant anyway, as we don't really need to rely
>on custom.

Now we see the true meaning of "game custom."  It is really "whatever Malenkai
wants it to be."  There is a MUCH stronger game custom that exists for officers
to discharge their duties in all due haste.  Most of the Rules make no
specification as to when the actions of Officers should happen, on the quite
reasonable assumption that it is clear that when mandated to do something, the
Officer should do so at first reasonable opportunity.

I should like to see your reaction if the Tabulator sat on voting results for
a few weeks (no mention of time period in R414), or if the Registrar sent the
new Players their information packet 1 year after they joined (same for R424),
or if the Scorekeeper were to update scores only when there was a winner
(R425), or (and I hesitate to give Malenkai another way to abuse his power)
if the CotC decided to "sit on" those CFJs he didn't like (see R588 - no time
frame for picking the Judge on a CFJ)... geez, you get the picture.

This was an outstanding abuse of power.  Your flexible interpretation of the
importance of "game custom" is instructive as well.  We know how much credence
to lend such claims in the future.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 10:15:25 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

>Call for Judgement 205
>  Subject:  Immutable Rules
>Initiator:  Calvin N Hobbes
>    Judge:  mr cwm (selected Jun 29, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>The text of immutable rules cannot be changed by a proposal. The only way to
>alter them is via power granted by rules that specifically and directly
>allow entities to do so.

As has been elsewhere noted, the statement here is actually two statements,
thus the CFJ should not be considered.  If one imagined that the first period
was, in fact, intended to be a semicolon, then I would argue that the statement
must be judged FALSE.  The problematic portion of the statement would be
phrase beginning with "that".  Rule 115 permits the Rules to be changed if
the Rules explicitly _or implicitly_ allow it.  This is in opposition, in my
opinion, to the "specifically and directly" of this CFJ.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 12:03:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: pTang1001001sos has joined Nobs

Nobs has accepted its fifth member, pTang1001001sos.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 12:32:01 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 3: R362 

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

cwm> I wish to remind everyone that any player may publish an
cwm> objection within the official voting period (whatever that may
cwm> be) to prevent the following change from taking place:

cwm> CSR 3:

cwm> R362/0 (No Dead Players Allowed) shall be ammended by appending
cwm> the following as its final sentance: "This Rule shall not apply
cwm> to any player who is on vacation, provided that player has placed
cwm> himself or herself on that vacation."

let it be known that i object to this CSR, if for no other reason than
that it would facilitate Malenkai's continued egregious malfeasance as
Speaker with respect to Rule 362/0.

k.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:06:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  retracting P933

I retract Proposal 933.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:09:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Inventor (scroll of crumble)

The Scroll of Crumble built a few days ago seems to, indeed, have been 
sold for A$160 to Niccolo Flychuck.  Congratulations to the good Mr. 
Flychuck on his purchase.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:50:53 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 936

Proposal 936 - Mon Jul 01 16:50:53 EDT 1996
Lazy II
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Replace the text of R 213, which currently reads:

      Having accepted the appointment, a Judge has exactly one week in
which to post an official Judgement. A Judge who fails to deliver Judgement
within that period is penalized 10 points.

with:

      Having accepted the appointment, a Judge has exactly one week,
starting from the time they were initially selected, in which to post an
official Judgement. A Judge who fails to deliver Judgement within that
period is penalized 10 points, and the appointment is reassigned.

[[this makes the CotC bookkeeping alot easier, and, admittedly, speeds
up the CFJ process. Presumably, though, the judge designate is thinking
about the verdict anyway when deciding whether or not to accept 
appointment. It also clarifies a small loophole about what to do with
the CFJ if the judge is tardy.]]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:52:15 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 938

Proposal 938 - Mon Jul 01 16:52:15 EDT 1996
Rewarding the good
Robin Hood  (R Shaw)

 At the end of every week the Tabulator shall publish a list of all
proposals which have passed during that week ranked by the number of
yes votes they received.
 If all the proposals ranked in first place are by the same
player that player shall be proclaimed  'the supreme legislator' 
by the president and immmediately receive a 10 point bonus.
 They shall keep the title 'the supreme legislator' until
such time as another player gains it. While they hold it their
name must always be preceeded by this title. [e.g the supreme
legislator Malenkai] Failure to do this is impolite.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:53:07 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 939

Proposal 939 - Mon Jul 01 16:53:07 EDT 1996
Party Hall party
pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)

The 7th day of every month shall be known as the Day of the
Party Hall party.

If Party Hall is in session:
Sometime during this day, each Swinger shall send one message
each to the other Swingers.  These messages shall be generally
friendly, and must include at least one complimentary statement
about the recipient, a member of eir Party, or eir Party as a
whole.  In the case of messages sent to the NAP Swinger,
statements that praise the independence of non-party-affiliated
Players also qualify.

Otherwise:
The Gaoler shall compose a depressing and awfully-written
8-line poem, and will post it publicly.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:51:38 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 937

Proposal 937 - Mon Jul 01 16:51:38 EDT 1996
Silly Vacation Hat, Creation of
snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

There shall exist a type of nomic entity known as Silly Vacation Hats.
Silly Vacation Hats cannot be owned or controlled except as allowed by this
rule.  A Silly Vacation Hat can do nothing but be worn, admired, removed,
and disintegrate.

Whenever a player has remained "on vacation" for a period exceeding 14 days
(and is not already wearing a Silly Vacation Hat), the registrar shall
randomly select an active player (hereafter known as a Mad Hatter) to
design a Silly Vacation Hat for the vacationing player.  The Mad Hatter
will then have three days to publically announce a design for the Silly
Vacation Hat.  If a player fails to submit a design for the Silly Vacation
Hat within the designated period,  that player shall have 3 points deducted
from his score, and the registrar shall select a new Mad Hatter.

When a player who has been "on vacation" for more than fourteen days
returns he is required to:

a) Post a message to the public forum admiring his silly vacation hat.
b) Thank his Mad Hatter for designing him a hat.
c) Wear the hat for a period of 14 days.
d) include in the closing of every message he posts to the public forum the
text string "Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat."

After 14 days have elapsed since the vacationers return, the vacationer
shall remove his hat.  Upon a hat's removal, it will immediatly
disintegrate and be removed from the game.

This rule shall not apply to vacationers who are wearing a Prosthetic
Forehead, as it is well know that a Silly Vacation Hat will not fit over a
Prosthetic Forehead.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:54:02 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 940

Proposal 940 - Mon Jul 01 16:54:02 EDT 1996
Posion Word, Creation of
pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)

The protected acka-entity known as the "Poison Word" now exists.

The Poison Word must be some string of lower-case English letters,
and is initially "legume."  The Poison Word can be changed only
if there is a process for doing so explicitly delineated in the
Rules.

If, when it is time for the vote on a Proposal to be resolved,
that Proposal contains a word that, when converted to lower-case,
is the same as the Poison Word, that Proposal shall fail.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:55:24 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 942

Proposal 942 - Mon Jul 01 16:55:24 EDT 1996
Security
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

R 491 shall be amended to read, in full:

      A rule change is valid if it calls for one or more of these effects, 
and no other effects: the creation
      of a new mutable rule; the amendment of an existing mutable rule; the 
repeal of an existing mutable
      rule; a change of the mutability of any rule; a change of a rule's
number. 

      When a valid rule change is adopted, the effect or effects called for 
by its text shall be carried out.

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

R 709 shall have its number changed to 300.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:54:48 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 941

Proposal 941 - Mon Jul 01 16:54:48 EDT 1996
Spelling Moon
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

      Any Player A sending a public message (a message to all Players) 
must spell all words in the said message correctly. If some Player B 
feels that A misspelled any word(s), Player B may call a hearing, and
in so doing, must state the number of words allegedly misspelled 
(hereafter known as X). In this hearing, all Players will send their
votes to the Assistant Tabulator and vote either "Yes, he misspelled X
words", or "No, he's an A student, just passed third grade", or abstain.

	Players have 3 days from when the hearing is called in order to
vote. At the end of that time the votes will be counted by the Assistant 
Tabulator and a simple majority (50% or more) will determine the outcome.
The Assistant Tabulator will then publicly announce the outcome of the 
hearing. If the verdict shows that a person misspelled X words, he 
is immediately sent to the Gaol for a sentence of X days, with no
grace period (this clause superceeds any mutable rule which would
otherwise give the player a grace period). 

	If the verdict shows any other result, he gets the nickname
Heavy Metal Hare for the next 3 days.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:55:38 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 943

Proposal 943 - Mon Jul 01 16:55:38 EDT 1996
Show Some Respect
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 362 to append the following paragraph after the existing text:

The term "player", as used above, specifically means "a player who is
not on vacation". This clause takes precedence over any other mutable
rule which would define the term differently. This paragraph also has
retroactive effect to Jun 25, 1996, 03:51 hrs New Your Time. This clause
takes precedence over R 106 and any other Mutable rule which would deny
retroactive change or effect.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:56:18 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 945

Proposal 945 - Mon Jul 01 16:56:18 EDT 1996
Protecting The Rules
Calvin N Hobbes  (Thierry Joffrain)

Any change to the rules must be voted upon by the players of Ackanomic. Any
change that is not voted upon is void and illegal.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:56:04 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 944

Proposal 944 - Mon Jul 01 16:56:03 EDT 1996
Respect the Dead II
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

[[I didn't think of some things on this the first time around]]

Amend R 570 to replace the phrase which reads:
 
"A new player may not choose the name of previous player"

With the phrase:

"A new player may not choose the name of previous player, or the
previous name of a current player"

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

Amend R 571 to wholly relpace its current text with the following:

           A player may change it's Official Ackanomic Name if all of the
following conditions are met: 

           a) The player anounces the new Name publicly with a short 
		explanation to all the players.

           b) The player sents the old name, the new name and the real name 
              of the player to the Registrar.

	   c) The new name complies with all other rules as if the name
	      were being chosen by a new player, including, but not limited
              to, R 570.

[[old text of R 571:

           A player may change it's Official Ackanomic Name if  

           a) The player anounces the new Name publicly with a short 
explanation to all the players.

           b) The player sents the old name, the new name and the real name 
              of the player to the Registrar.
]]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:56:31 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 946

Proposal 946 - Mon Jul 01 16:56:31 EDT 1996
Word Limit.
Calvin N Hobbes  (Thierry Joffrain)

There cannot be more than 50000 words in the rule set. If adding a passed
proposal (as a new rule or by its effect) to the rule set would result in
the rule set having more than 50000 words (whether or not it was already
over the limit to begin with), then that passed proposal is declared void
and not added to the rule set.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:57:50 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 948

Proposal 948 - Mon Jul 01 16:57:50 EDT 1996
Making Some Rules Mutable Temporarily
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Transmute Rule 104 to Mutable.
Transmute Rule 105 to Mutable.
[[ See next proposal. In order to be a valid rule change, this must be
a separate proposal from the amendment.  See rule 491.]]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:58:00 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 949

Proposal 949 - Mon Jul 01 16:58:00 EDT 1996
Spelling Moon
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

      Any Player A sending a public message (a message to all Players) 
must spell all words in the said message correctly. If some Player B 
feels that A misspelled any word(s), Player B may call a hearing, and
in so doing, must state the number of words allegedly misspelled 
(hereafter known as X). In this hearing, all Players will send their
votes to the Assistant Tabulator and vote either "Yes, he misspelled X
words", or "No, he's an A student, just passed third grade", or abstain.

	Players have 3 days from when the hearing is called in order to
vote. At the end of that time the votes will be counted by the Assistant 
Tabulator and a simple majority (50% or more) will determine the outcome.
The Assistant Tabulator will then publicly announce the outcome of the 
hearing. If the verdict shows that a person misspelled X words, he 
is immediately sent to the Gaol for a sentence of X days, with no
grace period (this clause superceeds any mutable rule which would
otherwise give the player a grace period). 

	If the verdict shows any other result, he gets the nickname
Heavy Metal Hare for the next 3 days.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:57:34 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 947

Proposal 947 - Mon Jul 01 16:57:34 EDT 1996
Pizza
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

A new rule shall be created, reading:

1) Five Slices of Pizza are hereby created. They are initially unowned. 
Once the 5 Slices are created, no more may ever be created.

2) The Slices are Protected. Once owned by a player, a Slice may be
transferred or traded amongst players for currency, as permitted by the
rules for transactions, on the FM or otherwise.

3) Upon there existing 1 or more Slices which are unowned, there will be
an auction for the unowned slices. The Assistant Tabulator shall be the
auctioneer, and he or she is not permitted to bid in the auction.

4) The Auction shall be conducted as follows:
     4a) All players are permitted to submit one bid of an amount of
currency equal to or less than the amount they possess. Anyone who submits
more than one bid, or a bid in excess of what they have is disqualified,
and their bid is disqualified. Bids may not be retracted.

     4b) Let N be the number of Slices unowned. The players who made the
N highest qualified bids shall each receive a Slice. If the number of 
players who made qualified bids is less than N, then the Assistant
Tabulator shall receive all the the remaining Slices. If the bids are
tied such that the Assistant Tabulator cannot determine who gets Slices,
the Assistant Tabulator shall resolve the tie(s) via random means.

     4c) All funds successfully bid will be transferred from the bidder's
account to the Treasury. The successful bidders shall take possession of
their Slice(s), as shall the Assistant Tabulator, if appropriate.

5) Once owned, a player may eat their Slice by publically announcing that
they are doing so. This act destroys the Slice; it may not be eaten again.

6) Upon a Slice being eaten, one of the following random effects happens.
The Speaker is responsible for determining which random effect occurs, and
any other random events associated with the effect. This section, and the
effects described by this section, takes precedence over any other mutable
rule with which there is conflict, or would prevent the specified effect
from occuring (in other words, the effects take precedence over any other
mutable rule which would prevent them from occurring). List of possible 
effects:

	1) The eater may choose any proposal in the proposal archive,
which previously failed, and make that proposal a mutable rule as if it
were Adopted at the time the Slice was eaten.

	2) A random proposal in the proposal archive, which previously
failed, is applied as if had been Adopted at the time the Slice was
eaten.

	3) The the Great Trombone of Ackanomia shall instantly be 
transferred to the eater, from wherever it is, or from whomever has it.

	4) The eater may take any proposal currently being voted on,
and make it a mutable rule. The proposal must have been submitted before
the Slice was eaten. Such action removes the proposal from consideration.

	5) The eater is sent to the Gaol for 5 days, with no grace period.

	6) A random mutable rule is repealed.

	7) The eater receives A$ 300 from the Treasury.

	8) The eater may choose a mutable rule to repeal.

	9) The eater's score is set to -59.
	
	10) The eater may choose any office, and kick the current holder
out of that office. The eater then holds that office.

	11) The eater's score is set to 2112.

	12) The eater's Ackanomic name is changed to George. This name
may not be changed for 30 days.

	13) The eater may specify any gadget or artifact to be destroyed.
Upon such specification, the entity specified is destroyed.

	14) same as 2) above

	15) same as 4) above

	16) The eater may swap the text of any 2 mutable rules, including 
titles (numbers remain unswapped).
	
	17) The eater's score is set to the Magic Number, if and only
if they were wearing a Prosthetic Forehead when this rule was Adopted.
 
	18) The eater may compose and add a mutable rule to the ruleset,
so long as that rule is approved by 50% or more of all "Party Hall 
Swingers". The eater has 5 days to compose and get such a rule approved.
If Swingers do not exist, or the eater cannot compose or get approval in
the time limit, the eater is given a Chartreuese Goose Egg instead.

	19) The eater may remove any three words from the ruleset, so
long as such removals come from mutable rules.

	20) The eater realizes, simply by the fact that that they are
here, and that this rule is a rule, that an Ackanomic Miracle has
occurred, and True Wisdom has been seen. Given that insight, they 
automatically receive Phoebe's matchbox from where ever it may be, and 
they must report what Phoebe says, as per the rules for doing so. 
Additionally, they may choose any effect on this list (except this
one of course, we don't need 7 CFJs :)) to occur. They must make such
choice immediately upon receipt of notification that this option was
chosen.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 17:02:12 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 950

Proposal 950 - Mon Jul 01 17:02:11 EDT 1996
Terminology Check
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

[[ Currently the rules refer to YES, NO, FOR, IN FAVOR, and AGAINST votes.
   The result of a proposal vote is referred to as accepted, adopted,
   passed, rejected, and failed.  This proposal would reduce this to 
   just YES and NO votes and "accepted" and "rejected" proposals.  It also
   eliminates the now-unnecessary concept of unanimous votes, and the 
   outdated term "Voters."

   Rules 104, 105, 379, 491, 516, and 706 are handled by other proposals.]]

1. Amend Rule 207, "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Period Ends":
   Change "passes" to "is accepted".
   Change "voted against it" to "voted NO on it"
   Change "fails" to "is rejected".
   Change "voted for it" to "voted YES on it"

2. Repeal Rule 447, "Definition of Unanimous".
   [[This is no longer needed.]]

3. Amend Rule 452, "Rule Titles".
   Change "passes" to "is accepted".

4. Amend Rule 463, "Voting Options".
   Change:

    "Players may vote either for or against a proposal, they may vote
     Present, or they may abstain, during the prescribed voting period."

   to:

    "Players may vote YES, NO, or PRESENT on a proposal, or choose not
     to vote on a proposal, which is called abstaining."

   and delete " and Unanimity" from the last sentence.

5. Amend Rule 549, "The Blue Cross":
   Change "adopted" to "accepted", twice.

6. Amend Rule 554, "Tammany, Creation of":
   Change the beginning of part (ix) from:
      "Tammany shall vote FOR a Proposition"
   to:
      "Tammany shall vote YES on a Proposal"

   Change the beginning of part (x) from:
      "Tammany shall vote AGAINST a Proposition"
   to:
      "Tammany shall vote NO on a Proposal"

7. Amend Rule 581, "Required Number of Votes", to read, in full:
   "The required number of YES votes for a proposal to be accepted is
    two-thirds of the total number of YES and NO votes legally cast
    within the prescribed voting period."

   [[It now says:
   "The number of votes required to pass a proposal is two-thirds of the total
    of the YES and NO votes legally cast within the prescribed voting period."
   ]]

8. Amend Rule 589 by replacing "Voters" with "Players".
   [[The "Speaker and Voters" rule is long gone.  Get rid of its legacy.]]

9. Amend Rule 728, "That's just silly":
   Change "adopted" to "accepted".
   Change "proposer who proposed the change" to
   "player who submitted the proposal".

10. Amend Rule 761, "Parades":
   Change "adopted" to "accepted".
   Change "adoption" to "acceptance".

11. Amend Rule 797, "Festival of Torkola":
   In part 5a, change "passage of a Resolution or Proposal" to
     "acceptance of a Proposal".
   In part 5c, change "failure of 3 consecutive proposals/resolutions"
     to "rejection of 3 consecutive proposals",
     and change "failures" to "rejections" two more times in this section
     and change "fail" to "are rejected".

12. Amend Rule 824, "Consecutive Passages":
   Change "pass" to "are accepted" 
   and change "passed" to "were accepted".

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 17:04:46 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 951

Proposal 951 - Mon Jul 01 17:04:46 EDT 1996
Amend 362
pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)

A Proposal to Amend R362, which currently reads:

"If any player does not vote or communicate publically with all of the
Ackanomic players for a time period of one week, and this fact is pointed
out to the Speaker by any player (other than the said player), then the
Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent. In this
message the Speaker must ask the player if he wishes to continue playing
the game, and points out why the message is being sent. If the player
does not reply within two days, then the player is no longer a player
in the game. The ex-player may rejoin the game later, if he desires, with 
the same score he had when he left."

to insert the phrase "who is not on vacation" between the third and forth
words.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #78
******************************