Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #85
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Wednesday, July 3 1996        Volume 01 : Number 085

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 01:14:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

I am invoking R 111 and leaving the game of Ackanomic.

I wish all of you the best.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 01:50:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Acka: CFJ 212 (CnH)]

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:41:00 -0500
To: <[email-masked]>
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 212 (CnH)

>Calvin N Hobbes has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
>to accept or decline the appointment.

I accept and rule upon it.

>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Judgement 212
>  Subject:  Interpreting R 111
>Initiator:  Malenkai
>    Judge:  Calvin N Hobbes (selected Jul 2, 1996, 23:14h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>A player who invokes R 111 does not necessarily quit the game; they merely
>have the option of ceasing to play, or losing.
>
>Malenkai's Reaoning:
>
>Rule 111 is rather clear on the matter:
>
>> A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue
>> to play or incur a game penalty.
>
>Certainly they can lose: They may "forfeit the game rather than
>incur a game penalty". This means you forfeit your right to win (ie, lose),
>in exchange for incurring the game penalty.
> 
>Certainly they can cease to play: They may "forfeit the game rather than
>continue to play", the key phrase being "continue to play". Note that
>forfeit still means to lose, but you are invoking your right to not
>play, so the fact that you are losing doesn't really matter.

Reasoning

Since R111 says the player "forfeits" the game, then this cannot be
restricted in meaning to simply "quitting" although it does have (imply)
that as one of its options. Hence it is true it does not _necessarily_ make
a player quit.

Decision

I rule this CFJ to be TRUE.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:04:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

Malenkai wrote:
> I am invoking R 111 and leaving the game of Ackanomic.

As Registrar, I note that non-players cannot hold offices, so the
offices of Assistant Tabulator, Clerk of the Court, Speaker,
and one Justice seat are now vacant.

By section (iv) of rule 612, the Appointer (currently Mohammed) is
Acting Clerk of the Court.  Until that office is filled, I will be
sending him my CFJ's and judgements (BTW, I accept judgement on CFJ 211,
and a judgement will be returned shortly.)  The Appointer should
conduct a Nomination to find a permanent CotC.

Speaker is not a functional office, so the above doesn't apply to it.
There is no provision for an acting Speaker when the office of speaker
is vacant (there is only one when the Speaker goes on vacation), so
currently there is no speaker.  The Appointer should conduct a
Nomination and Election to fill this office.

The Office of Assistant Tabulator is vacant; its duties fall on Wayne
until he appoints a new one.

One Justice seat is vacant; as President I should appoint someone to
that seat, but I have not done so yet.  When I do so, the senator
and acting senators should vote on confirming him.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 210 (mr cwm)

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I accept, and will get right on it.

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> mr cwm has been chosen to judge the following, and has
> 3 days to accept or decline the appointment.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call for Judgement 210
>   Subject:  Recycled players
> Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>     Judge:  mr cwm (selected Jul 2, 1996, 21:36h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The term "new player" used in the rules
> applies only to those players who have never before
> been a player of Ackanomic;  it excludes returning
> players.
> 
> pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:
> 
> This will clear up a number of things
> about my current game position.  I don't necessarily
> think that I am entitled to the money and PFBonds
> and land given to new players.  On the other hand,
> R570 uses "new player" in a sense that seems to include
> returning players.  (Otherwise, can I pick Fon_Amimnorsty
> as my name?)
> 

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:32:32 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: official: I win 

pTang1001001sos wrote:

>Since R666 only executes when someone wins a CYCLE according to CFJ193, I 
>submit that you have indeed won the game, but that there is no consequence
>whatsoever of that fact.  I'm going to change n (explicitly permitted by 
>R110, by the by) now to oh, each integer from -200 to 200 in rapid sequence.
>
>Everybody's a winner!  :)

I wish you hadn't done that.  Rule 904, which I wrote specifically to cover
this situation, states that "If a Player wins the game according to the
Rules, then the same procedure shall occur as if he had won a cycle [...]."
I was careful to get this passed before exploiting R110 for my win.

Moreover, I note that since the scores are reset at cycle's end, snowgod
is the only player who achieved a singular win from your procedure, and
everyone won when you set n to zero.  In fact, that may indeed have caused
a recursion, since there is no provision for n to be changed other than R110.

I know it was intended in good fun, but you may just have made a _big_ mess.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:35:02 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: official: I win 

pTang1001001sos wrote:

>>Since R666 only executes when someone wins a CYCLE according to CFJ193, I 
>>submit that you have indeed won the game, but that there is no consequence
>>whatsoever of that fact.  I'm going to change n (explicitly permitted by 
>>R110, by the by) now to oh, each integer from -200 to 200 in rapid sequence.
>>
>>Everybody's a winner!  :)
>
>Just saw R904.  In the words of Rosanne Rossana-Danna:  "never mind."

I wish I could dismiss it so easilly.  It would save alot of mess, but I
don't think it is legal.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:41:04 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed)
Subject: Never? 

>- --Mohammed
>
>P.S.  Your application of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to Ackanomic
>has been called into question on the grounds that Ackanomic is not, and
>never will be, a formal system.  Would you care to comment?

What prevents it from becoming a formal system?

- ---Pascal

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:17:39 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Proposal 956 

>Proposal 956 - Tue Jul 02 23:27:58 EDT 1996
>Amending 355
>pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)
>
>1) amend R355, iff it exists, so that it reads, in whole:

[Modified Gnome Rule]

>2) create a new rule, iff R355 does not exist, with the full text
>given between the quotes above.

I am doubtful of the legality of conditional Rule changes such as those of
P 956.  Also, though I approve of part (1), I object to part (2).

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:47:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Official

> I am invoking R 111 and leaving the game of Ackanomic.
	That leaves the office of Clerk of the Courts open.  It is a 
functional office and is filled by appointment.  Any player may nominate 
emself for this job; the nomination period begins now and ends two days 
from now.  In the interim, I am the Acting CotC.
	The Nomination Period for Speaker is also now open; the only 
difference is that that is an elected office.
	Wayne may appoint an Assistant Tabulator; /dev/joe has the job of 
appointing a Justice.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:57:31 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 211 (/dev/joe) 

>Call for Judgement 211
>  Subject:  Oh no, not more Fruit Juice!
>Initiator:  Malenkai
>    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jul 2, 1996, 22:45h New York Time)
>
>Malenkai's claim: By R219, I claim a win by paradox pending a verdict of
>TRUE on the following CFJ: 
>
>Statement:
>
>The legality of Malenkai making Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice cannot
>be determined with finality.
>
>Malenkai's Reasoning:
>
>The following has occurred:
>
>1) ThinMan has changed n to 6, which happened to be his score, and thus 
>has won by R 110.
>
>2) Upon that occurring, R 666 applied, because winning the game applies
>the same process as winning the cycle (qv R 904).
>
>3) At that point, all scores were set to 0 (qv R 666)

After which several of them changed, but that is beside the point.

>4) Then pTang1001001sos changed n to every integer between -200 and 200,
>causing everyone to win, as everyone's score was in that range (0).
>Thus everyone has won, invoking R 666 for every player.

Well, first snowgod when he set n to -8.  Then everyone when n hit 0.

>The problem arises in that we do not know the order in which R 666 was
>invoked with respect to the players, and hence we do not, indeed cannot,
>know who happens to possess the Right-Handed Grapefruit. Note that not
>everyone can have one, as R 867 is rather explicit about the quantity of
>such fruit:
>
>> Only one may exist at any time.
>
>(Nor can such fruit be divided amongst the winners, as R 867 is rather
>explicit about the ways such entities may be manipulated (see below))

The Rules regarding winning do not apply differently to different players,
so the timing must be identical for each win, thus everyone won
simultaneously.

>Thus it cannot be determined with finality whether Malenkai has the 
>Right-Handed Grapefruit. Since that is the case, it cannot be determined
>whether it is legal for him to make the Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice.

[rest deleted]

There are two possibilities: (1) R 867 and R 666 conflict, (2) they do not
conflict.  If (1) is the case, then R 666 takes precedence, and everyone
has a right-handed grapefruit.  For (2) to be the case, an interpretation
must be found that is consistent with both rules.  I suggest that all players
_jointly_ own the one right-handed grapefruit.  It is not clear in case (2)
whether any individual player may legally make RHG juice, but the matter
can be determined with finality by calling for judgement on the question.

Whether one adheres to (1) or (2) above, the statement submitted for
judgement is FALSE.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:58:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Never?

> >P.S.  Your application of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to Ackanomic
> >has been called into question on the grounds that Ackanomic is not, and
> >never will be, a formal system.  Would you care to comment?
> 
> What prevents it from becoming a formal system?
	Good question.
	I'm not a seer, but unless you want to introduce some very
sophisticated set theory to Ack (something I think will never happen; do
you want to be the Officer in charge of infinite sets?), the game will not
be a formal system in Godel's definition of the term.
	Right now there are contradictions in the rule set.  That means
the system isn't even -correct-, much less formal.
	The goal of strict constructionism as I see it is to have a
correct system-- one that runs without self-destructing.  This bears no
relation to a Godelian formal system, not even in Leibniz' nightmares.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:08:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  CFJ 215 (Brinjal)

Hi there!  Brinjal has 3 weeks to accept/decline this.

Call for Judgement 215
  Subject:  Justice Lives on
Initiator:  mr cwm
    Judge:  Brinjal (selected at 1105h EDT on 3 Jul 1996)

Statement:
> A second Judge must be selected for CFJ 201.

mr cwm's comments:
> The first judge selected for CFJ 201 refused appointment.  According to
> R588, the Officer assigned to select judges must select a further,
> second in this case, judge.  The fact that the first selected judge
> explained his refusal by claiming CFJ 201 was invalid under R589 is
> irrelevant - no provision is made in R588 for particular explanations for
> refusal preventing further selection.

- --Mohammed, Acting CotC

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 11:46:11 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 957

Proposal 957 - Wed Jul 03 11:46:11 EDT 1996
Notes fix
Mohammed  (Jason Orendorff)

Rule 545 shall be amended to read:
- -----
{{ The symbol [[ in rules other than this one begins a temporary note, 
which ends with the next following symbol ]].  All temporary notes shall 
be removed from the rules herewith. }}

A left square bracket in a rule or other text begins a note, which ends
with the next following right square bracket, or the end of the rule or
body of text, whichever comes first.  [This means that notes do not nest.]
In the Ackanomic language, notes have no semantic meaning, whatever their
lexical content.
- -----

(The double-braced part will get rid of temporary notes that weren't really
temporary... there was a teeny problem with that, as Malenkai pointed out 
with his paradox win, and so the first paragraph will clean up the mess.)

(If someone wants a temporary note from here on out, {{ [ notes can be
embedded in Malenkai braces. ] }} )

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:50:23 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 105 (Techno) 

At 12:34 AM 7/3/96 EDT, you wrote:
>] As pTang1001001sos wishes to remove 5 players, including 2 former 
>] Speakers, and the founder of the game, an a player honored, by rule,
>] the removal of one player seems to pale in comparison.
>
>] I, however, call for a penalty of EXPULSION of pTang1001001sos anyway.
>
>] Note that the judge may adjust the penalty. Note that he may also rejoin,
>] and probably be in better shape, due to some loopholes. That is not the
>] point.]
>
>
>This has gotten way out of hand.  If someone is EXPELLED from the game
>for doing what the rules allow for you to do, I will quit immediately.

Wayne:

I appreciate your comments, and the attempt to reign in what you percieve to
be a situation out of control.

HOWEVER, I disagree.  Malenkai has made quite a clever argument that I am in
violation of the Rules.  I think everyone tends to take the "penalties" that
are inherent to the game FAR too seriously.  So what if someone is expelled or
impeached?  It's a part of the game.  A very fun part, in my view.

As Malenkai has expressed, this is not a permanent lock-out.  It merely bumps
me out of the game.  I'll need to rejoin.  I personally have a great respect
for the ingenuity of the argument.  _I_ consider it well in-bounds, and will
enjoy seeing it play out.

_PLEASE_ do not quit over this, Wayne.  I want to see you stay.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:54:34 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: official: I win 

>>Just saw R904.  In the words of Rosanne Rossana-Danna:  "never mind."
>
>I wish I could dismiss it so easilly.  It would save alot of mess, but I
>don't think it is legal.

I don't think the situation is completely screwed.  I'm looking at it as
well.  I think the process terminates, and fairly cleanly.

I do apologize for acting before I had researched the rules (R904!)

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:55:54 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Proposal 956 

At 09:17 AM 7/3/96 -0500, ThinMan wrote:
>
>>Proposal 956 - Tue Jul 02 23:27:58 EDT 1996
>>Amending 355
>>pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)
>>
>>1) amend R355, iff it exists, so that it reads, in whole:
>
>[Modified Gnome Rule]
>
>>2) create a new rule, iff R355 does not exist, with the full text
>>given between the quotes above.
>
>I am doubtful of the legality of conditional Rule changes such as those of
>P 956. [...]

Yes, that's the entire point.  I don't think anything forbids it, though.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:04:05 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 958

Proposal 958 - Wed Jul 03 12:04:05 EDT 1996
Fixing the Retroactivity Ban
Mohammed  (Jason Orendorff)

[ This has been in the works for a while now.  It strengthens the 
retroactivity ban.  Also, it changes R491 so that if one rule change 
falls on R106's bad side, that doesn't mean the whole proposal gets 
nuked. ]

1.  Rule 106 is hereby amended to read:
=====
No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
before the generation of the effect.  A rule change may not have any
effects retroactive to before its adoption.  A statement verified by
judgement, however, applies retroactively to any past game situation
it may concern.
=====

2.  Rule 491 is hereby amended to read, in whole:
=====
A rule change is a description of a game effect.  A rule change is valid
if it describes the creation of a new mutable rule, the amendment of an
existing mutable rule, the repeal of an existing mutable rule, or a change
of the mutability of any rule.  Otherwise, the rule change is invalid. 

When a valid rule change is adopted, the effect described by the rule
change happens.  The adoption of an invalid rule change has no effect.

A proposal is any collection of text designated as a proposal, submitted
in the proper manner.  When a proposal is accepted, any rule changes
in the proposal are adopted, one at a time, in the order in which they
appear.
=====

3.  Rule 516 is repealed.

4.  Rule 106 is transmuted from Mutable to Immutable.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:04:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Judgement 211

Judgement 211
  Subject:  Oh no, not more Fruit Juice!
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jul 2, 1996, 22:45h New York Time)
Judgement:  False

Statement:
> The legality of Malenkai making Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice cannot
> be determined with finality.

Malenkai's comments:
>     Malenkai's claim: By R219, I claim a win by paradox pending a
>     verdict of TRUE on the following CFJ:
>     
>     The legality of Malenkai making Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice cannot
>     be determined with finality.
>     
>     The following has occurred:
>     
>     1) ThinMan has changed n to 6, which happened to be his score, and
>     thus has won by R 110.
>    
>     2) Upon that occurring, R 666 applied, because winning the game
>     applies the same process as winning the cycle (qv R 904).
>
>     3) At that point, all scores were set to 0 (qv R 666)
>     
>     4) Then pTang1001001sos changed n to every integer between -200 and
>     200, causing everyone to win, as everyone's score was in that range
>     (0). Thus everyone has won, invoking R 666 for every player.
>     
>     The problem arises in that we do not know the order in which R 666
>     was invoked with respect to the players, and hence we do not, indeed
>     cannot, know who happens to possess the Right-Handed Grapefruit.
>     Note that not everyone can have one, as R 867 is rather explicit
>     about the quantity of such fruit:
>    
>    > Only one may exist at any time.
>     
>     (Nor can such fruit be divided amongst the winners, as R 867 is
>     rather explicit about the ways such entities may be manipulated (see
>     below))
>     
>     Thus it cannot be determined with finality whether Malenkai has the
>     Right-Handed Grapefruit. Since that is the case, it cannot be
>     determined whether it is legal for him to make the Right-Handed
>     Grapefruit Juice. Note that there is no *other* legal way to make
>     such Juice, R 867 is again clear:
>
>    > (a) Chartreuse Goose Eggs, Right-Handed Grapefruits, and
>    > Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice may only be created, destroyed, or
>    > manipulated as the Rules specify.
>
>     The only way the rules specify to make (manipulate/create) the Juice
>     is R 867, and that requires a RHG, which we cannot determine if
>     Malenkai has.
>     
>     Of course, if any of the premises of this argument, namely 1-4
>     above, are shown FALSE, this CFJ must be judged FALSE. Otherwise, it
>     must be judged TRUE.

/dev/joe's comments:
> If part 1 of the reasoning is incorrect, i.e., if setting n to your score
> does not result in you winning the game, then nobody else won from pTang's
> action, either, and Malenkai cannot make RHG Juice.
> 
> If part 1 of the reasoning is correct, then it follows that parts 2, 3,
> and 4 have also occurred.  Malenkai's logic in these steps is unarguable.
> Indeed, it has been declared that all players won the game, simultaneously.
> By rule 904, all players have won the cycle.
> 
> Now what remains to be determined is what rule 666 does.
> 
> Rule 666 begins: "Whenever there is a winner declared, the following
> process shall be conducted:"
> 
> The phrase "Whenever there is a winner declared" seems ambiguous in
> the case when more than one player wins simultaneously.  It could mean
> any of:
>   (a) 666a-m isn't done at all, because it only occurs when _a_ (precisely
>       one) winner is declared.
>   (b) 666a-m is done once, during which time all players are considered
>       winners (i.e., at any time one or more winners are declared)
>   (c) 666a-m is done many times simultaneously, once for each player
>       declared to be a winner
> 
> In this situation, by rule 215, I should consider game custom and the
> spirit of the game.  We've never had multiple winners at the same time,
> so there is no custom for that, but let's consider other events occurring
> in multiples, simultaneously.
> 
> In rule 612, part (vi) begins: "Whenever a Functional Office has a vacant
> Seat, the Appointer shall conduct a Nomination for that Seat."  We've had
> multiple functional offices vacant before, and the appointer has conducted
> multiple nominations, simultaneously, for those offices.
> 
> Rule 665 says "Whenever the Rules specify that a Player should receive A$,
> and do not indicate where those A$ should come from, they shall come from
> the Treasury."  Rule 565 (which gives out dividends on PF bonds) doesn't
> say where the A$ players get comes from, so this part of rule 665 is in
> effect in these cases, and generally multiple players get A$ simultaneously
> in these cases, and all the A$ were simultaneously taken from the treasury.
> 
> Given this game custom, I judge interpretation (c) to be the correct one.
> 
> Note that there should not be any reason for one invocation of the rule to
> occur faster or slower than any other, so in the spirit of the game, I
> interpret all 23 invocations of each step to happen simultaneously.
> 
> So what happens when the procedure in Rule 666 parts a-m is carried out,
> several times, simultaneously?  
> 
> a) Ackanomic play is suspended.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you do this once, or 23 times together, it has the
> same result.
> 
> b) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right-Handed Grapefruit are eliminated.
> 
> Ditto here.  Now there are no CGE's or RHG's.
> 
> c) The winner is declared winner of the cycle, and given a Right-Handed
>    Grapefruit, should such an entity be defined by the Rules.
> 
> OK, this claims to give each winner a RHG.  This part is in conflict with
> rule 867 which says there may be only one RHG at any time, but rule 666
> has precedence, by the numerical method, since neither claims precedence.
> Therefore, everybody gets a RHG.
> 
> d) All players who have zero or fewer points are given a Chartreuse
>    Goose Egg, should such an entity be defined by the Rules.
> 
> _Each_ invocation of the rule gives _each_ player a CGE.  Now everybody
> has 23 CGE's.  I hope an egg fight doesn't start. ;-)
> 
> e) 20% (round down) of each Player's A$ balance is transferred to the
>    Treasury.  The winner shall pay only 10% (round down), however.
> 
> Oops.  Each player loses 20% (rounded down) of their A$ balance 22 times
> simultaneously, as well as 10% rounded down once.  If no rounding occurred,
> this is 450% of their A$ balance.  Unless somebody had so little A$ that 20%
> rounded down was zero, this just put everybody into debt.  See rule 511.
> 
> f) In every instance where a Player owns Bonds issued in another Player's
>    name, 25% (round up) of such Bonds will revert back to the Player in
>    whose name the Bonds were issued.
> 
> All players get all their own bonds back.
> 
> g) Each Player is awarded A$ equal to his point total, not to exceed
>    the number of points required to win.
> 
> This is zero.  Nothing happens.
> 
> h) Bond payments are held in suspension.
> i) All Players' points are set to zero.
> j) Bond payments are reinstituted and a new two-week bond cycle begins.
> 
> Nothing happens here either.
> 
> k) The game cycle number is incremented.
> 
> The game cycle number is incremented 23 times.  ThinMan's win was in cycle 5,
> so everybody won cycle 6, and then this brings us up to cycle 29.
> 
> m) Ackanomic play resumes.
> 
> And so it does.  And in this case, Malenkai does in fact gave a RHG, so
> he can make RHG Juice.
> 
> All that is left to be determined is whether ThinMan won the game.
> Whether he did or didn't doesn't matter, as long as it can be decided.
> I believe that he didn't, because R110 says:
>  "The state of affairs that constitutes winning the game may not be changed
>   from achieving n points to any other state of affairs."
> The state of affairs that consistuted winning the game was having exactly
> 100 points when the game started, and later it was having exactly 257 points,
> and finally it became having The Magic Number of points.  It was never
> "achieving n points" so, in my opinion, that sentence of R110 has never had
> an effect on the game.
> 
> Regardless, rule 110 is not written in such a way that it cannot be
> determined with finality whether ThinMan has won.  Given that this can
> be determined, whether Malenkai could have made RHG Juice can be
> determined, as above.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:12:04 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 920 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 920
  Proposal 920 - Wed Jun 26 00:22:19 EDT 1996
  fixing rule titles again
  /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

15 YES votes   1 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

/dev/joe gains 9 points.  0 -> 9

15 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   0               
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   0               
  Niccolo Flychuck                            =   0               
  De'ghew                Underworld           =   0               
  Bascule                                     =   0               
  Nobs Unity vote                             =   0               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =   0               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =   0               
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 =   9               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   0               
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   0               
  pTang1001001sos                             =   0               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =   0               
  Mohammed               Nobs                 =   0               

1 NO votes:  2 points each
  snowgod                (None Yet)             0 -> 2            

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Pascal                                      

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

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 920 - Wed Jun 26 00:22:19 EDT 1996
fixing rule titles again
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Amend rule 452 by changing the second paragraph to:
   If the Proposal passes and the Proposal creates a New Rule, then the
   New Rule shall have the Title indicated by the proposal, or if none is
   specified, the New Rule shall have the same Title as the Proposal.
   If the Proposal amends or transmutes a Rule, the Title of the Rule shall 
   remain unchanged, unless the proposal explicitly amends the name of the
   Rule.

{{[ This will allow proposals to create rules with titles different than
the proposal's title; this is particularly useful for proposals which
create more than one new rule.
Rule 452 now says:
Each Rule shall have a Title.  Each Proposal shall also have a Title.
When a Proposal is submitted, the player that submits it may indicate
the Title for the Proposal.  If the player doesn't indicate a Title
for the Proposal then the Promoter shall select a Title.

If the Proposal passes and the Proposal creates a New Rule, then the
New Rule shall have the Title of the Proposal.  If the Proposal amends or
mutates a Rule, the Title of the Rule shall remain unchanged.

The title of a rule may only be changed when a rule change amends
the rule, or when a rule changes the title.]}}

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:12:37 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 921 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 921
  Proposal 921 - Wed Jun 26 00:22:36 EDT 1996
  What?
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

5 YES votes   10 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Malenkai loses 9 points.  0 -> -9

5 YES votes:  1 point each
  snowgod                (None Yet)             2 -> 3            
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             0 -> 1            
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             0 -> 1            
  Mohammed               Nobs                   0 -> 1            

10 NO votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   0               
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   0               
  Niccolo Flychuck                            =   0               
  De'ghew                Underworld           =   0               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =   0               
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 =   9               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   0               
  Underworld Unity vote                        =   0               
  pTang1001001sos                             =   0               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =   0               

1 PRESENT votes:
  Bascule                                      =   0

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Pascal                                      

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

New players who are not active:

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:13:07 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 922 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 922
  Proposal 922 - Wed Jun 26 00:22:49 EDT 1996
  Lazy
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

7 YES votes   4 NO votes   3 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Malenkai loses 9 points.  -9 -> -18

7 YES votes:  1 point each
  Niccolo Flychuck                              0 -> 1            
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             1 -> 2            
  /dev/joe               Nobs                   9 -> 10           
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             1 -> 2            
  pTang1001001sos                               0 -> 1            
  Wayne                  Underworld             0 -> 1            
  Mohammed               Nobs                   1 -> 2            

4 NO votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   0               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =   3               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =   0               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   0               

3 PRESENT votes:
  ThinMan                Nobs                  =   0
  De'ghew                Underworld            =   0
  Bascule                                      =   0

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Pascal                                      

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

New players who are not active:

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:13:33 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 923 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 923
  Proposal 923 - Wed Jun 26 00:23:09 EDT 1996
  Gimme that Gnome
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

6 YES votes   8 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Malenkai loses 9 points.  -18 -> -27

6 YES votes:  1 point each
  De'ghew                Underworld             0 -> 1            
  Bascule                                       0 -> 1            
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             2 -> 3            
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             2 -> 3            
  pTang1001001sos                               1 -> 2            
  Mohammed               Nobs                   2 -> 3            

8 NO votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   0               
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   0               
  Niccolo Flychuck                            =   1               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =   3               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =   0               
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 =  10               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   0               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =   1               

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Pascal                                      

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

New players who are not active:

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:14:29 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 925 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 925
  Proposal 925 - Wed Jun 26 00:24:08 EDT 1996
  This is a GAME, not third grade
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

3 YES votes   12 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Malenkai loses 9 points.  -36 -> -45

3 YES votes:  1 point each
  snowgod                (None Yet)             4 -> 5            
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             4 -> 5            
  Techno                 Underworld             0 -> 1            

12 NO votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   1               
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   0               
  Niccolo Flychuck                            =   1               
  De'ghew                Underworld           =   2               
  Bascule                                     =   2               
  Nobs Unity vote                             =   0               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =   0               
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 =  11               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   4               
  pTang1001001sos                             =   3               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =   1               
  Mohammed               Nobs                 =   3               

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Pascal                                      

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

New players who are not active:

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:13:55 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 924 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 924
  Proposal 924 - Wed Jun 26 00:23:35 EDT 1996
  Required Reading
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

9 YES votes   5 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Malenkai loses 9 points.  -27 -> -36

9 YES votes:  1 point each
  Robin Hood                                    0 -> 1            
  De'ghew                Underworld             1 -> 2            
  Bascule                                       1 -> 2            
  snowgod                (None Yet)             3 -> 4            
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             3 -> 4            
  /dev/joe               Nobs                  10 -> 11           
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             3 -> 4            
  pTang1001001sos                               2 -> 3            

5 NO votes:  
  Niccolo Flychuck                            =   1               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =   0               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   0               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =   1               
  Mohammed               Nobs                 =   3               

1 PRESENT votes:
  ThinMan                Nobs                  =   0

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Pascal                                      

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

New players who are not active:

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

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #85
******************************