Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #92
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, July 6 1996        Volume 01 : Number 092

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 96 09:12:40 PDT
From: Marc <[email-masked]>
Subject: Please unsubscribe me.

Dear Chess Piece Face:

   This has been very interesting and it looks like with the proper 
investment of time I would be able to enjoy Ackanomic more, however, 
no time so:

Please unsubscribe me from this list.

Thanks ever so..

Marc.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 13:13:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 217 Verdict

The following, CFJ 217, has been judged FALSE. Stoke that bonfire,
BURN THE WITCH!

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 217
  Subject:  Burning the Witch in the Afterlife
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  Robin Hood (selected Jul 5, 1996, 15:37h New York Time)

Statement:

An player in the Ackanomic Afterlife cannot be burned as a heretic.

snowgod's Reasoning:

To set fire to a witch in the Afterlife, another player would have to enter
the afterlife to set said witch aflame.

R767 states that "A player that has 'entered' this palace can do so as per
another rule, not directly of his own decision."  Since no player can enter
the afterlife except as described in the rules, and currently the only way
to get into the afterlife is to commit heresy, a player in the afterlife
cannot be burned.

The penalties decribed in "Ackanomic Middle Ages" state that they take
effect only after a player is burned. Hence, regardless of the outcome of
the witch hunt against me, the penalties cannot be applied.

Robin Hood's Reasoning:

> To set fire to a witch in the Afterlife, another player would have to enter
> the afterlife to set said witch aflame.

Firstly this is not true so snowgod's reasoning is invalid. No rule
prohibits players throwing incendiary bombs into the afterlife.
Rule 729 says  that a simple majority shall determine if the heretic
has burned, but does not mention a method. When a majority can create land
by fiat it would not be unreasonable for them to be able to ignite
heretics by willpower alone.

[rest of snowgod's reasoning cut]

However I have to act only on the statement [ the court notes that 589
is misphrased, saying 'required only to consider' the statement and rules
literally means they need only be considered not acted upon which is
inconsistent with an earlier rule] Rule 767 does not claim precedence
over 729 but merely provides a definition a a term left undescribed
within 729. Therefore a player within the Ackanomic Afterlife
can be burned as an heretic but will immediately revive.

I therefore rule CFJ 217 FALSE

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 12:38:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Registrarness

Today, in the registrar's office, we find two of our observers.

Marc ([email-masked]) is leaving the game.

Niklas Mellin ([email-masked]) is becoming a player named Mellon.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 13:42:56 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 200 (snowgod)

Pascal failed to respond to this CFJ. By R691, he is a deadbeat judge.
R 691 also requires that a message be sent asking if Pascal wishes to
remain the game. He will have 4 days to respond. (Note that it seems
possible that he responded, and the response was lost in the CotC shuffle.)

It has been reassigned to snowgod, who has 3 days to accept or decline the
appointment.

Clerk of the Courts

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Call for Judgement 200
  Subject: Malenkai's Speakership
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Dr McSpong (left the game)
2nd Judge: Pascal (failed to respond to CFJ)
3rd Judge: snowgod (selected 06-Jul-96 13:42h New York Time)

Statement:

Malenkai ceased to be Speaker when R 110 was amended into its current form.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Until the most recent amendment of R110, Malenkai was both Speaker and
Justice.  R110 established that he was Speaker, and R507 prevented him
from being removed as Justice.  When R110 was amended, however, the clause
establishing Malenkai's continued Speakership was removed.  Rule 507
states that "[Justices] are neither President, Speaker, Senator, or
already Justice."  By definition, then, Malenkai, who was and is a Justice,
was not Speaker any longer.

[Although this case looks pretty sturdy to me, I don't really care what the
judgement is.  I just want an interpretation recorded.  Also, I have no
objection to Malenkai's Speakership -- I think he does a fine job.  I do,
however, insist that the Rules be obeyed.]

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 20:05:47 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Presentation of myself

1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
Hi all Ackanomians!

I have been observing this game for a week now, and concluded it is 
totally crazy. So I decided to join...

My real name is Niklas Mellin, I'm living in Stockholm, Sweden,
Europe, and have been doing so for almost 29 years now (before
that I wasn't living...). I have always been interested in games of
all kinds, and I spend a lot of time playing the ancient Chinese - 
Japanese game Go (Wei Qi in Chinese).

Unfortunatly I have a job (as a consultant - programmer), so I can't 
spend as much time as I wish on having fun, but on the other hand
I get some money so I don't have to starve to death.

The game I have choosen to take in this game, Mellon, is quite
close to my last name, but what is more important is that according
to a great language researcher (J.R.R Tolkien) it mean 'Friend' in
the language of the elves.

Your friend,
Mellon

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 96 14:29:06 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 935 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 935
  Proposal 935 - Sat Jun 29 13:16:38 EDT 1996
  Repealing R829
  /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 13 players cast votes

11 YES votes   2 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

/dev/joe gains 9 points.  16 -> 25

11 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   3               
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   5               
  Bascule                FUN                  =   2               
  Nobs Unity vote                             =   0               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =   7               
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 =  25               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   2               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   5               
  pTang1001001sos                             =   7               
  Wayne                  Underworld           = -55               
  Mohammed               Nobs                 =  10               

2 NO votes:  2 points each
  snowgod                (None Yet)             6 -> 8            
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             6 -> 8            

1 PRESENT votes:
  De'ghew                Underworld            =   5

5 ABSTENTIONS:
  Malenkai               FUN                  
  Brinjal                                     
  Niccolo Flychuck                            
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  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:
  Mellon                                      

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 935 - Sat Jun 29 13:16:38 EDT 1996
Repealing R829
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Repeal rule 829, "Handling Paradox Wins".
[[The rule has been judged to not work anyway, and if P915 passes, its idea
is incorporated into R219.]]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 96 14:41:56 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: score update

To the best of my knoweledge these are the current scores.
Malenkai was at -54, lost one point for retracting 949 and 5 points
for appealing the CFJ.  This put him at -60 and therefore went to 20.
Mohammed lost a point for retracting 957.

25	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
20	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
9	Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff) 
8	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
8	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
7	pTang1001001sos      A   (Mark Nau) 
7	Kelly Martin         A   (Kelly Martin) 
5	mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
5	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
5	De'ghew              A   (John Spickes) 
3	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
3	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
2	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
2	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
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	Mellon               N   (Niklas Mellin) 
0	Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain) 
0	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
- -55	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 17:21:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blue Cross

To all Ackanomians,

/dev/joe has had 20 proposals adopted. It is with great pleasure that I
now present him with a Blue Cross, "as recognition of merit and services
to Ackanomic". (The crowd goes wild). He can now begin working towards
that first silver stripe.

Blue Crosses are regulated by R 549:
http://wilma.chu.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/rule500.html#R549

Malenkai
ProConsul

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 19:09:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Scoring Note

I forgot to point out that Pascal should lose 10 points (R 588) for
failing to respond to CFJ 200.

Clerk of tge Courts

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:28:31 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Request: Finances 

I am unsure of the state of finances in Ackanomic.  Could the financeer
please post a current financial report?  Does anyone have any money?

Thank you,

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:32:13 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: announcement: new paper 

Once again, per R851, I am announcing the existance of my newspaper.  I
hereby create "The Ackanomic Steel Flea Gazette".  Would the appropriate
officer please deduct A$20 from my account?

The Steel Flea Gazette will offer an impartial review of ackanomic news.
It will also provide a space for opinion columns from any player who wishes
their voice to be heard!  The paper will accept submissions at
[email-masked] (and will pay 2 PFsnowgod for each submission that I
use).

I will distribute the paper via the mailing list, and I will maintain a web
based version.  The URL will be announced shortly.

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:35:40 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Vote NO on 950 

Bascule wrote:
>I urge a NO vote on 950. I would vote yes for the unanimity and
>voters part of the proposal. However, I think standardising the
>language to simply accepted or rejected would sterilise the ruleset
>of some interestingness, and I can see no benefits from this.

The benefit is that it removes ambiguities from the rules.

>Are we to allow only one word to describe something? What is wrong
>with synonyms? The use of "adopted" to mean "accepted" does not make
>the rules any harder to understand, and the use of a variety of
>words makes the rules more interesting to read. 

What is wrong with synonyms is the ambiguity involved in determining
whether two words are, in fact, synonymous.  Interesting to read rules
are good; however, clear, easy to interpret rules are more important to
me.  One has only to look at the recent paradox wins and other Ackanomic
controversies to see where interesting to read rules have gotten us.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:38:22 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 970

At 10:18 PM 7/5/96, [email-masked] () wrote:
>Proposal 970 - Fri Jul 05 22:18:48 EDT 1996
>Ackanomic/Internomic Interface
>Kelly Martin  (Kelly Martin)

As ambassador, I wholeheartedly support Kelly's interface proposal, and
urge all players to give it a vote of YES.  The provisions set forth in
this rule are exactly the way I was planning to run things.

>The following Rule shall be created:
>
>   As soon as it is possible to do so, Ackanomic shall petition to
>   become a member of InterNomic, with the Ambassador (or, in the
>   absence of an Ambassador, the Speaker) as Ackanomic's Liaison to
>   InterNomic.
>
>   Ackanomic's Liaison shall keep the Players of Ackanomic apprised in
>   a timely fashion of events in InterNomic of interest to Ackanomic.
>
>   Any Ackanomic Player may request the Liaison to make an InterNomic
>   Proposal by sending the Proposal to the Liaison, but may only do so
>   once per week.
>
>   Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in
>   Internomic, the Liaison shall initiate a vote in Ackanomic to
>   determine how he should cast Ackanomic's vote in Internomic.  The
>   Liaison shall establish reasonable procedures for such voting, and
>   shall cast Ackanomic vote in accordance to the results of the
>   vote.
>
>   Whenever Ackanomic is required to serve as a judge in Internomic,
>   the Liaison shall render that judgement, and shall do so in the
>   best interests of Ackanomic.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:52:42 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Vote NO on 950

>>Are we to allow only one word to describe something? What is wrong
>>with synonyms? The use of "adopted" to mean "accepted" does not make
>>the rules any harder to understand, and the use of a variety of
>>words makes the rules more interesting to read.
>
>What is wrong with synonyms is the ambiguity involved in determining
>whether two words are, in fact, synonymous.  Interesting to read rules
>are good; however, clear, easy to interpret rules are more important to
>me.  One has only to look at the recent paradox wins and other Ackanomic
>controversies to see where interesting to read rules have gotten us.
>

That, I believe, is where the members of the Nobs party and the devout
followers of the Church of the Markovian Dream differ.  Clear, easy to
interpret rules are indeed good, but do not provide for interesting
situations that can occur when eggs are left in the rules.  Paradox wins,
and other conroversies provide an interesting diversion to the monotony of
proposals en masse that serve no other purpose than to amend or repeal
existing rules.

You can have fun with this game with interesting to read rules.  With a
sterile ruleset, you can play a fast, clean monotonos (pardon my spelling)
game of nomic.

Case in point (non Nobs proposals) - The kill the rules I hate series went
down resoundingly, I believe, because they removed rules that provide
Charm, without adding anything constructive.  In addition, the arrogance of
those proposals was amazing.

Who thinks that there isn't any use to a church???

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:55:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official: Blue Cross 

Assembled citizens and dignitaries,

For his exemplary service to Ackanomic, as demonstrated by the acceptance
of 20 proposals of his authorship, I am both pleased and honored to award
this freshly minted Blue Cross to his Excellency /dev/joe, President of
Ackanomic.

[/dev/joe bows his head so that the medal may be hung around his neck.  The
ribbon just clears his prosthetic forehead.]

[The crowd reacts.]

Well done, /dev/joe.  I await the day when I may award you your first Silver
Stripe.

[/dev/joe is hereby awarded the Blue Cross.]

ThinMan
Senator

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:59:06 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official: Finances 

The state of everyone's personal account is unclear, pending the resolution
of the CFJs related to the recent possible wins.  As R666 has been determined
to not be redundant, I believe that people have money.  However, if R666 was
indeed invoked twenty-someodd times, then it may not be very much money.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 21:12:59 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Vote NO on 950 

[Bascule, I believe:]
>>>Are we to allow only one word to describe something? What is wrong
>>>with synonyms? The use of "adopted" to mean "accepted" does not make
>>>the rules any harder to understand, and the use of a variety of
>>>words makes the rules more interesting to read.

[Me:]
>>What is wrong with synonyms is the ambiguity involved in determining
>>whether two words are, in fact, synonymous.  Interesting to read rules
>>are good; however, clear, easy to interpret rules are more important to
>>me.  One has only to look at the recent paradox wins and other Ackanomic
>>controversies to see where interesting to read rules have gotten us.

[snowgod:]
>That, I believe, is where the members of the Nobs party and the devout
>followers of the Church of the Markovian Dream differ.  Clear, easy to
>interpret rules are indeed good, but do not provide for interesting
>situations that can occur when eggs are left in the rules.  Paradox wins,
>and other conroversies provide an interesting diversion to the monotony of
>proposals en masse that serve no other purpose than to amend or repeal
>existing rules.
>
>You can have fun with this game with interesting to read rules.  With a
>sterile ruleset, you can play a fast, clean monotonos (pardon my spelling)
>game of nomic.

I am not sure what snowgod means by "sterile" in this context.  The rule
set I envision does not meet any definition that I would apply to that
word.  Moreover, although I understand and accept the concept of an
individual player attempting to place eggs in the rules for his own
advantage, I cannot comprehend a _group policy_ of attempting to make
sure that there are as many eggs as possible in the Rules, just for the
sake of having buggy rules.  It goes against my concept of the game.

It is so much less fun to find or use a loophole if I know that there is
a group out there trying to make sure that loopholes are there to find.
It rather spoils the challenge.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 21:16:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Finances

> The state of everyone's personal account is unclear, pending the resolution
> of the CFJs related to the recent possible wins.  As R666 has been determined
> to not be redundant, I believe that people have money.  However, if R666 was
> indeed invoked twenty-someodd times, then it may not be very much money.

I note that if 666 was executed 25 times in succession (ThinMan & snowgod's
wins, and then everybody's wins) that this is enough to bring players from
the approximately A$1000 most players had down to less than A$10 each.
(exact amount depending on how much they started with, and the order of
wins, etc.)  If, as I suggested, the 23 executions of 666 for the multiple
win occur simultaneously, and each player simultaneously loses 10% once
and 20% 22 times, then we are all seriously in debt to the treasury.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 18:22:09 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Vote NO on 950

At 9:12 PM 7/6/96, John Bollinger wrote:
>[Bascule, I believe:]
>>>>Are we to allow only one word to describe something? What is wrong
>>>>with synonyms? The use of "adopted" to mean "accepted" does not make
>>>>the rules any harder to understand, and the use of a variety of
>>>>words makes the rules more interesting to read.
>
>[Me:]
>>>What is wrong with synonyms is the ambiguity involved in determining
>>>whether two words are, in fact, synonymous.  Interesting to read rules
>>>are good; however, clear, easy to interpret rules are more important to
>>>me.  One has only to look at the recent paradox wins and other Ackanomic
>>>controversies to see where interesting to read rules have gotten us.
>
>[snowgod:]
>>That, I believe, is where the members of the Nobs party and the devout
>>followers of the Church of the Markovian Dream differ.  Clear, easy to
>>interpret rules are indeed good, but do not provide for interesting
>>situations that can occur when eggs are left in the rules.  Paradox wins,
>>and other conroversies provide an interesting diversion to the monotony of
>>proposals en masse that serve no other purpose than to amend or repeal
>>existing rules.
>>
>>You can have fun with this game with interesting to read rules.  With a
>>sterile ruleset, you can play a fast, clean monotonos (pardon my spelling)
>>game of nomic.

[Him]
>I am not sure what snowgod means by "sterile" in this context.  The rule
>set I envision does not meet any definition that I would apply to that
>word.  Moreover, although I understand and accept the concept of an
>individual player attempting to place eggs in the rules for his own
>advantage, I cannot comprehend a _group policy_ of attempting to make
>sure that there are as many eggs as possible in the Rules, just for the
>sake of having buggy rules.  It goes against my concept of the game.
>
>It is so much less fun to find or use a loophole if I know that there is
>a group out there trying to make sure that loopholes are there to find.
>It rather spoils the challenge.

[Different Me]

I seek to publish a clarification.  The Church of the Markovian Dream does
not endorse the a "Group Policy" of placing eggs in the rules for the sake
of buggy rules.  The followers of the Church of the Markovian Dream support
and encourage the creation of tightly written rules.  What the Church
opposes however, are a stream of proposals that exist solely for the sake
of amending and repealing rules.  Encouraging future "watertight" rules
would seem a better pass time for the Nobs than the wholesale modification
of the existing ruleset.What will we do when the rules are all changed?
Will the Nobs have a purpose for living?  Basically, how the Church feels
on this issue is "What is the point of having tight rules, if there is
nothing fun to do _with them_?"

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 21:35:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vote NO on 950

[Snowgod:]
> I seek to publish a clarification.  The Church of the Markovian Dream does
> not endorse the a "Group Policy" of placing eggs in the rules for the sake
> of buggy rules.  The followers of the Church of the Markovian Dream support
> and encourage the creation of tightly written rules.  What the Church
> opposes however, are a stream of proposals that exist solely for the sake
> of amending and repealing rules.  Encouraging future "watertight" rules
> would seem a better pass time for the Nobs than the wholesale modification
> of the existing ruleset.What will we do when the rules are all changed?
> Will the Nobs have a purpose for living?  Basically, how the Church feels
> on this issue is "What is the point of having tight rules, if there is
> nothing fun to do _with them_?"

If there is at some time a condition where all the rules are "watertight"
then you may be right that Nobs will no longer have a reason to exist, but
new rules will always be created, and the new rules may need fixing, or
may create situations that the old rules didn't account for, causing the
old rules to need to be fixed again.

For example, a recent set of proposals by pTang1001001sos and myself
fills in a huge gap in the rules regarding what happens when players
leave and then rejoin the game.  We looked over these proposals several
times, and fixed many problems (and often it was found that some other
rule also needed to be fixed to make the whole thing work; that's why
so many rules are involved in that set of proposals).  However, it is
likely that there are still some problems in those rules, so if they
are accepted, there will be a need to fix them, eventually.

Besides, we could easily spend several months fixing the rules we have now,
especially when the forces of chaos unite to shoot down proposals which
fix problems that are already admitted to exist, and which have even been
exploited already (P915).

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 18:46:23 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Vote NO on 950

>Besides, we could easily spend several months fixing the rules we have now,
>especially when the forces of chaos unite to shoot down proposals which
>fix problems that are already admitted to exist, and which have even been
>exploited already (P915).

You are right.  We could easily spend several months fixing every little
thing we dislike in the rules.  Another plan would be to dedicate several
months to enjoying the rules, and having fun playing the game.  Hell, we
could even fix problems when they arise.  They are, after all, half the fun
of playing nomic.

I am announcing now that I will spend the next several months creating and
supporting new rules that create fun and interesting situations,
possiblilities, scenarios, and/or actions.  If they are watertight, so much
the better.  The Nobs won't have so much work to do later.  After all, it
seems that the Nobs may be the only ones qualified to fix the rules  and,in
doing so, protect us from ourselves, and I would hate to place a burden on
them.

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 23:21:56 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vote NO on 950

John Bollinger wrote:

[thread discussing the merits of changing the termology, and removing
eggs in the rules cut]

> 
> It is so much less fun to find or use a loophole if I know that there is
> a group out there trying to make sure that loopholes are there to find.
> It rather spoils the challenge.
> 

The Church of the Markovian Dream as no group adjenda to plant eggs in
the rules as a group. Each individual member, may, or may not. It has
already been admitted by both Malenkai and ThinMan that they, respectively,
planted eggs in the rules in an attempt to win. I consider that legit
nomic play, in both cases.

I believe there are 2 points being raised. 

One is the language. Personally, I believe "accepted" and "adopted" are
the same thing, and common sense indicates they are synonomous, therefore
there is no need to rewrite them. Furthermore, as players write more
rules, the terminology will continue to drift from this "standard", so,
unless the use of the standard is itself codified, it will have little
value over time.

The second point is Loophole Surfing. Its commonly pointed out what a
"problem" buggy rules are. The idealology difference is, IMHO, that some
of us don't see "problem" rules as a problem. They make the game fun
and interesting. The De'ghew's R666 recursive thing. ThinMan's loophole
surfing, all the Grapefruit juice, etc. Some would call them problems,
I call them fun. What kind of game would it be if the rules had no
problems?

So its not that people want to work as a group to write bad rules, but
loopholes are fun. I hope, at the very least, I have articulated the
position better. Personally, I enjoy loophole *discovery*. I enjoy surfing
more than fixing, but fixing can be cool. A "sterlie" (and I know the
term is overdone) ruleset would deprive me that joy.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 23:30:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vote NO on 950

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 

> Besides, we could easily spend several months fixing the rules we have now,
> especially when the forces of chaos unite to shoot down proposals which
> fix problems that are already admitted to exist, and which have even been
> exploited already (P915).

I voted NO for P915 for some very specific reasons, which I made public
before the voting results had been released. I also stated at the time
that I thought it was well written, and have since forwarded, at
Kelly's request, my reasons in private. Had the proposal, which made
substantial changes to the way we think about winning and ending the
game, gone through the RFC procedure in front of the entire field, or
at least on acka-research, my ideas may have been incorporated, and the
proposal may have gained broad based support. There are not "forces
of chaos", but, at least in my case, well thought out reasoning to every
vote.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 19:45:34 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Discussion: Mentors 

I have submitted my mentors proposal to Wayne.

Since I recieved several positive comments, and no negitive ones, I am
counting on everyones vote.  This rule would greatly ewase a new players
transition into the game, without increasing the burden on the existing
players, or slowing down the pace of gameplay.

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 23:47:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 218 (Bascule)

Bascule has been chosen to judge the following, and has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 218
  Subject:  Multiple Blue Crosses
Initiator:  Malenaki
    Judge:  Bascule (selected Jul 6, 1996, 23:50h New York Time)

Statement:

      /dev/joe has 2 Blue Crosses

Reasoning:

Malenkai, acting in his capacity as ProConsul, awarded him one for
having 20 proposals passed.

ThinMan, acting in his capacity as Senator, awarded him one for
having 20 proposals passed.

Therefore he has 2 of them. R 549 is quite clear:

> Blue Crosses and Silver Stripes are awarded by the President, the
> Proconsul, or a Senator. Each time one is to be awarded, it is created
> for the occasion by the Frobozz Magic Medal Company, Ackanomic Division.

I have both e-mails if the judge requires them for evidence.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 19:52:37 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: CFJ 217 Verdict (appeal)

As I feel is appropriate in cases that involve the possible exectution of
an individual, I am appealing CFJ 217 to the Supreme Court.

Additional Reasoning:

The Afterlife is a Classy Palace.  A "classy" palace is of considerable
size, and the act of firebombing it would not lead to the burning of the
witch inside, because there are many places (and per R115 flame resistant
places) to hide inside of such a large abode.

Furthermore the ability to create land by fiat is a legislative act, where
the ability to set fire to a witch by willpower (or any other method) alone
is an act that is beyond the scope of existing legislation.  May the
ackanomic afterlife protect me, the earth is round.

At 1:13 PM 7/6/96, Malenkai wrote:
>The following, CFJ 217, has been judged FALSE. Stoke that bonfire,
>BURN THE WITCH!
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Judgement 217
>  Subject:  Burning the Witch in the Afterlife
>Initiator:  snowgod
>    Judge:  Robin Hood (selected Jul 5, 1996, 15:37h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>An player in the Ackanomic Afterlife cannot be burned as a heretic.
>
>snowgod's Reasoning:
>
>To set fire to a witch in the Afterlife, another player would have to enter
>the afterlife to set said witch aflame.
>
>R767 states that "A player that has 'entered' this palace can do so as per
>another rule, not directly of his own decision."  Since no player can enter
>the afterlife except as described in the rules, and currently the only way
>to get into the afterlife is to commit heresy, a player in the afterlife
>cannot be burned.
>
>The penalties decribed in "Ackanomic Middle Ages" state that they take
>effect only after a player is burned. Hence, regardless of the outcome of
>the witch hunt against me, the penalties cannot be applied.
>
>Robin Hood's Reasoning:
>
>> To set fire to a witch in the Afterlife, another player would have to enter
>> the afterlife to set said witch aflame.
>
>Firstly this is not true so snowgod's reasoning is invalid. No rule
>prohibits players throwing incendiary bombs into the afterlife.
>Rule 729 says  that a simple majority shall determine if the heretic
>has burned, but does not mention a method. When a majority can create land
>by fiat it would not be unreasonable for them to be able to ignite
>heretics by willpower alone.
>
>[rest of snowgod's reasoning cut]
>
>However I have to act only on the statement [ the court notes that 589
>is misphrased, saying 'required only to consider' the statement and rules
>literally means they need only be considered not acted upon which is
>inconsistent with an earlier rule] Rule 767 does not claim precedence
>over 729 but merely provides a definition a a term left undescribed
>within 729. Therefore a player within the Ackanomic Afterlife
>can be burned as an heretic but will immediately revive.
>
>I therefore rule CFJ 217 FALSE

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 22:55:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vote NO on 950

[Malenkai:]
> So its not that people want to work as a group to write bad rules, but
> loopholes are fun. I hope, at the very least, I have articulated the
> position better. Personally, I enjoy loophole *discovery*. I enjoy surfing
> more than fixing, but fixing can be cool. A "sterlie" (and I know the
> term is overdone) ruleset would deprive me that joy.

Unfortunately, if we are to believe snowgod, a "sterile" ruleset is the
end result of this fun.  (Personally, I don't believe the process will
ever go that far.)  I certainly found it to be fun to write proposal 850.
It would not be as much fun to write P950 again, so I would like to see
P950 accepted, so we (meaning all the players of Ackanomic) can focus
our efforts elsewhere.  Note that by cleaning up the rule set, it both
becomes easier for players (new and old) to understand, and it may make
things possible which would have been so complicated under the old rules
that nobody would have even attempted them.  For example, the redefinition
of the terms "proposal" and "rule change" in proposals 948, 952, and 958
makes proposals possible (or simpler, anyway) which include a part that
may be totally unnecessary if some earlier change passes, but which would
be better by including it for completeness.  For example, there are two
rules which were omitted from P950 because other proposals threatened to
repeal them; I suppose I could have written "if Rule 379 exists, amend it"
but the game custom of allowing this kind of change is just being initiated
by proposal 956.  Proposals 948, 952, and 958 also eliminate the need for
proposals 948 and 952 to be done in separate proposals.

Incidentally, in addition to the terms mentioned in P950, the Web-Harfer's
proposal archives used the term "Defeated" to refer to rejected proposals;
this was left over from the previous Web-Harfer.  I have since changed all
those to "Rejected" in line with P950.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 96 23:59:57 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re:  Acka: Vote NO on 950

- ->
- ->Case in point (non Nobs proposals) - The kill the rules I hate series went
- ->down resoundingly, I believe, because they removed rules that provide
- ->Charm, without adding anything constructive.  In addition, the arrogance of
- ->those proposals was amazing.
- ->
- ->Who thinks that there isn't any use to a church???
- ->
- ->snowgod

But I accomplished my goal.  I now have firm control over the Voting Gnome.
I didn't expect any of the proposals to pass.  This last month has shown
that points don't mean anything.  The score has been reset 4 or 5 times.
I will use the Gnome to further the goalsof Underworld.

Wayne

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 23:57:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 200 Verdict

The following, CFJ 200, has been judged FALSE.
 
Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 200
  Subject: Malenkai's Speakership
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Dr McSpong (left the game)
2nd Judge: Pascal (failed to respond to CFJ)
3rd Judge: snowgod (selected 06-Jul-96 13:42h New York Time)

Statement:

Malenkai ceased to be Speaker when R 110 was amended into its current form.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Until the most recent amendment of R110, Malenkai was both Speaker and
Justice.  R110 established that he was Speaker, and R507 prevented him
from being removed as Justice.  When R110 was amended, however, the clause
establishing Malenkai's continued Speakership was removed.  Rule 507
states that "[Justices] are neither President, Speaker, Senator, or
already Justice."  By definition, then, Malenkai, who was and is a Justice,
was not Speaker any longer.

[Although this case looks pretty sturdy to me, I don't really care what the
judgement is.  I just want an interpretation recorded.  Also, I have no
objection to Malenkai's Speakership -- I think he does a fine job.  I do,
however, insist that the Rules be obeyed.]

snowgod's Reasoning:

Though the issue is now moot, I am returning a judgement of FALSE.  Though
rule 507 states that "[Justices] are neither President, Speaker, Senator,
or already Justice.".  It is the belief of the court that this rule could
force a resignation (an action by a player), but it claims no power to
immediatly remove a player from office (an action by a rule).

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 20:05:46 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Vote NO on 950

At 11:59 PM 7/6/96, [email-masked] () wrote:
>->
>->Case in point (non Nobs proposals) - The kill the rules I hate series went
>->down resoundingly, I believe, because they removed rules that provide
>->Charm, without adding anything constructive.  In addition, the arrogance of
>->those proposals was amazing.
>->
>->Who thinks that there isn't any use to a church???
>->
>->snowgod
>
>But I accomplished my goal.  I now have firm control over the Voting Gnome.
>I didn't expect any of the proposals to pass.  This last month has shown
>that points don't mean anything.  The score has been reset 4 or 5 times.
>I will use the Gnome to further the goalsof Underworld.

That is a valid game move, and of a type I support.  I have no problem with
the promulgation of bad proposals in an effort to become gnome buddy (LONG
LIVE THE GNOME!) though I must admit that I despised your proposals
particularly.  Challenging people to find a reason for the existance of
some rules seemed a bit arrogant, especially in the face of church
activity.

Long Live Gnome,
snowgod

BTW, Underworld may not have too much luck selling votes if everyone did
indeed win a cycle.

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #92
******************************