Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #108
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, July 12 1996         Volume 01 : Number 108

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 1:04:37 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 233 (ThinMan)

> There is no reason that my votes should not have been counted, and applied
> to the results. I note that I left the game very close to that time, and
> in doing so, probably caused the confusion, and apologize. The date of
> the e-mail  announcing that I was leaving the game is Wed, 3 Jul 1996
> 01:23:57 EDT. (I have that one too, if the Judge needs it). Note that
> this is after the voting period on the proposals ended. Furthermore,
> I note that I didn't officially leave the game until the Registrar
> announced the fact, although this is not really relavant.
> 

I can confirm that Malenkai did cast votes on the proposals.  I also
can say that I cannot be logged in whenever a voting period ends.  When I 
calculated and distributed the results of the proposals, Malenkai was not
a player.

This is another one of those grey areas that need to be fixed.

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 1:23:27 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: Creation of the Magic Doormat

As allowed by Rule 115, I hearby create an entity called "The Magic Doormat".
The Magic Doormat shall have the following properties:

- - can fly like a Magic Carpet, but only can carry one player at a time.

- - can clean any dirt or mud from the bottom of your shoes.

As allowed by Rule 558, the Magic Doormat is also granted the power to
make proposals, rules and CFJs dormant.

====================
I hearby use the Magic Carpet to make Rule 219 dormant.

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 1:31:15 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: Creation of the Magic Doormat

I almost forgot something.

The Magic Carpet shall also make Rule 115 dormant as e  well.
I don't want anybody doing the same thing.  :)

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:18:17 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Creation of the Magic Doormat 

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

Wayne> I almost forgot something.  The Magic Carpet shall also make
Wayne> Rule 115 dormant as e well.  I don't want anybody doing the
Wayne> same thing.  :)

making Rule 115 dormant will not necessarily have that effect.

Rule 115 is a construction clause: it tells us how to construe the
Rules.  in Rule 115's absence, we can not determine with finality the
legality of performing actions completely unmentioned by the Rules.
so, if Rule 115 is really now dormant, it cannot be determined with
finality if i am allowed to send this message, except by appealing to
"game custom" or "the spirit of the game".

Malenkai may need to hire a temp to keep the Courts running
efficiently, at this rate.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:19:41 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Creation of the Magic Doormat 

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

Wayne> As allowed by Rule 558, the Magic Doormat is also granted the
Wayne> power to make proposals, rules and CFJs dormant.

gee, i was wondering when someone would take advantage of this glaring
loophole.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:24:55 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: what happens now? 

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

Wayne> According to R390, each player has exactly one vote.  Since
Wayne> everyone has already used their vote, then no player can vote
Wayne> on any proposals.  

i don't see how this follows.  how is my vote consumed by the act of
using it?  i only have one ratchet drive for my socket set, but i can
use it over and over.

furthermore, if Rule 390 says that every player has exactly one vote,
then there's no way that a Player could consume or lose that vote.
Rule 390 prohibits that.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:39:41 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion CFJs 

"Phil" == Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> writes:

Phil> Custom, by definition cannot be created or destroyed by rules,
Phil> but instead _evolves_ based on the actions of players, CFJs,
Phil> etc.  If we have rules that state otherwise, than we don't
Phil> really have game custom, we have game procedure, and the rules
Phil> should be changed to reflect that fact.

what we have is procedure under the name "game custom", and in fact
"game custom" is not custom at all.

this is, of course, one possible reading.  another is to hold that
game custom is in fact a custom.  but this reading requires that
several Rules that seek to dictate elements of game custom are
powerless to do so, which is not an appealing conclusion, in my
opinion.

Rule 660 is the worst offender in this case; a meritorous argument can
be made that neither Rule 216 nor Rule 545 regulate _all_ of game
custom, leaving the remainder of game custom subject to change.

i further point out that game custom (in the customary sense, not the
braindamaged sense used in the Rules) does not (generally) change as
the consequence of any single action.  no single Player can _declare_
that "X is Game Custom".  however, a Judge may (and, in fact, often
must) _determine_ that "X is Game Custom", and then use that
determination in forging a Judgement.

the concept of game custom has been badly misunderstood in Ackanomic
almost from the beginning, and i fear that the single best solution
would be to strike it entirely from the Rules, replacing it only in
Rule 215 with "the traditions of the game" or some other similar
phrase.

Phil> I am not so much complaining about these things, as am just sick
Phil> of their occurance.  They are not the fault of the rules, but
Phil> the "fault" (I use that term loosely) of the players.  Ackanomic
Phil> has recently switched from a substanative game (where players
Phil> attempt to win by rule change and magic number) to a procedural
Phil> game (where players try to win by loophole surfing and legal
Phil> action).  I guess it is this game turn I object to, more than
Phil> anything else.

the reason the game has switched to the latter is because it is far
easier to win by finding one of the innumurable loopholes in the Rules
than by slogging one's way toward the Magic Number.  why waste time
trying to get 257 points when you can get a quick win by pointing out
a loophole?  there's plenty of loopholes to go around, and you can
even legally use the same loophole more than once, if you like.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:05:44 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: confirmation vote 

In the event that my vote means anything, I vote YES on the matter of the
confirmation of mr cwm

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:08:42 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

>I point out in both threads, fon is an acting senator by R 613 (iii).
>
>That means in one thread, there are 2 acting senators for that seat.
>I don't remember which one. R 613 is a pTang rule, which means it
>claims precedence over everything, but can it claim precedence over
>Mohammed's previous appointment to that seat? I think not.

I noticed this while researching the impeachment process. I believe that
fon is acting senator (which seat?) in place of himself, removing the
appointee entirely.  Until such time as fon is impeached, he will remain
acting senator.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 01:19:45 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Reminder to Vote 

This is a reminder for everyone to vote on the matter of the impeachment of
fon from office, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

It takes 1/2 of the players votes for quorom to be reached on an IP, and
2/3 of the 1/2 must vote yes.  So regardless of if you want fon in office
or note, please send in a vote.

send your votes to the assistant tabulator - Malenkai <[email-masked]>

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:34:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 232 Verdict

The following, CFJ 232, has been judged TRUE. Would the Judge of CFJ 227
please take note of this verdict; this explicit game custom may cut
down slightly on the CotC workload.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 232
  Subject:  Halting Problem
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  snowgod (selected Jul 11, 1996, 21:16h New York Time)

Statement:

If CFJ 227 is judged TRUE, its verdict may not be delivered.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

To prove the Truth of the above statement, I must demonstrate
how Judging CFJ 227 TRUE leads to the impossibility of delivering its
verdict. In such case, it would also be impossible to deliver the verdict
on any CFJ (including 222), but that fact would not be known, in general.

CFJ 227 asserts the Truth of the following statement:

>It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond
>that explicitly defined by rule 545 and by the judgements of CFJs
>which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)
>and in making judgements when the rules are unclear (as in Rule 215).

For this demonstration, I need not accept the Truth of the above statment,
only *assume* that it is judged TRUE, by its Judge, for the purposes of
discussion.

Assuming it is Judged TRUE, how does the Judge deliver Judgement? I quote
from R 213, Delivering Judgement:

> 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.

The key phrase is "in which to post an official judgement". Post it to
whom? The CotC? The Supreme Court of Uruguay? Post it how? Via snail
mail to Austin, or to the CotC in Pennsylvania? An international datagram
to Uruguay? email??

The rules are "silent", and "unclear" on the issue. R 101 gives a method
to interpret the rules; namely "in accordance with currently existing
game custom".

Yet the Judge has the Truth of CFJ 227's statement, assumed above:

"It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom [...]
which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)."

The Judge cannot legally interpret how to "post" as in above. He or she
cannot determine whether to send it to Uruguay. He or she sits there
forever, unable to figure out how to deliver judgement, and thus cannot.

I note that this argument could not be applied to CFJ 222 directly,
because you cannot assume the Truth of the reasoning from the Truth of
the verdict :(. Compliments to ThinMan.

snowgod's reasoning:

Malenkai's arguement is solid and this judge sees no flaws in it.  I am
therefore returning a judgement of true.

The judge would like to state that it is his personal belief that game
custom cannot be solely regulated by the rules, as it evolves on it's own
accord, but since currently it seems to have evolved into a form of itself
that can be controlled by the rules it exists in that form.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:37:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Reminder to Vote

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> This is a reminder for everyone to vote on the matter of the impeachment of
> fon from office, regardless of your opinion on the matter.
> 
> It takes 1/2 of the players votes for quorom to be reached on an IP, and
> 2/3 of the 1/2 must vote yes.  So regardless of if you want fon in office
> or note, please send in a vote.
> 

Also, my reading of the rules indicate that the vacationers count towards
quorum in this type of vote; R 457, or any other, seems not to apply.

It seems like "common sense" that "active player" be rendered to mean a
player not on vacation, but the rules to not seem to allow such. Common
sense, of course, is out :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 04:43:48 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion CFJs

Kelly writes:

[a bit of intelligent discussion about procedure maserading as game custom
snipped]k>

k>the reason the game has switched to the latter is because it is far
k>easier to win by finding one of the innumurable loopholes in the Rules
k>than by slogging one's way toward the Magic Number.  why waste time
k>trying to get 257 points when you can get a quick win by pointing out
k>a loophole?  there's plenty of loopholes to go around, and you can
k>even legally use the same loophole more than once, if you like.

It's not often I find myself agreeing with you, Kelly, but in this case I
feel you are absolutley correct.

But what is the value of a win, if it's so easy to obtain that every can
get one?  Wins by this mean have no value, or at least less value then a
magic number win. If wins become such a common occurance that any player
can obtain one any time he wants just by jumping through a loophole, who
care who wins and who loases?  I mean, think about it.  If we all had A$
10,000, or $900, or any other sum of money, what would it matter.  Wealth
is reletive, and wins are too if anyone can obtain one at any time.

At least when Malenkai claimed his (and showed the rest of us how it's
done) he was exhibiting a bit of creativity.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:42:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Dormancy

Didn't someone just make R 115 and R 219 dormant via R 115?

Isn't making rules "dormant" a regulated activity? R 558. It seems
like we've been through this. If this regulated activity is permitted
to be compromised by R 115, then I insist that I be credited with a 
win myself, from a couple of nights ago, when I used R 115 to adjust 
my points. :)

Mabye I'll call CFJ 113 again. :)

Malenkai
Confused, long day at the courthouse

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:36:37 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Official 

Robert Sevin wrote:
>I am back... Please remove me from vacation. And also, please direct me to
>the new web page that I might reacquaint myself with the rules...

Welcome back!  You return to a time of turmoil.  The new web page is at
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/

Be sure to check the Silly Vacation Hat archive and rule 937.   :)

Cheers,

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 9:39:01 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

- -] 
- -]Didn't someone just make R 115 and R 219 dormant via R 115?
- -]
- -]Isn't making rules "dormant" a regulated activity? R 558. It seems

You are correct.  Making rules dormant is a regulated activity.  But
Rule 558 allows an entitiy to be granted the power of making rules (and
other stuff) dormant.

- -]like we've been through this. If this regulated activity is permitted
- -]to be compromised by R 115, then I insist that I be credited with a 
- -]win myself, from a couple of nights ago, when I used R 115 to adjust
- -]my points. :)

I used 115 to create an entity.  Normally such an entity could not
affect protected items such as rules.  But 558 allows entities to be granted
this power.

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:41:42 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: house 

Perhaps kelly (or someone else) has been waiting for me to let down my guard,
but what the heck -- snowgod was burned twice already and he doesn't seem
much the worse for wear.

I hereby rename my house ThinHouse.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:48:13 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion CFJs 

snowgod wrote:
>At 9:32 AM 7/11/96, John Bollinger wrote:
>>(4) Anyone who is sick of multiple threads and "stupid little arguments"
>>might wish to subscribe to Nobs' agenda to clean up and clarify the rule set.
>>I find it hard to believe that snowgod is complaining about these things
>>when just days ago he was advocating leaving the rules vague and ambiguous.
>
>I am not so much complaining about these things, as am just sick of their
>occurance.  They are not the fault of the rules, but the "fault" (I use
>that term loosely) of the players.  Ackanomic has recently switched from a
>substanative game (where players attempt to win by rule change and magic
>number) to a procedural game (where players try to win by loophole surfing
>and legal action).  I guess it is this game turn I object to, more than
>anything else.

I see your point, but I still maintain that rather than complaining about
the recent trend in player actions it is more constructive to fix the rules
so that the trend is reversed.  To tell you the truth, I would be happier
too if we went back towards more of a focus on points.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 08:51:50 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  acka: Electronic Potato (ThinMan) 

snowgod receives A$2 from the Treasury because as a result of the passage
of P937 and his ownership of a magic potato.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 09:14:55 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 232 (snowgod) 

>Call for Judgement 232
>  Subject:  Halting Problem
>Initiator:  Malenkai
>    Judge:  snowgod (selected Jul 11, 1996, 21:16h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>If CFJ 227 is judged TRUE, its verdict may not be delivered.
>
>Malenkai's Reasoning:
>
>To prove the Truth of the above statement, I must demonstrate 
>how Judging CFJ 227 TRUE leads to the impossibility of delivering its
>verdict. In such case, it would also be impossible to deliver the verdict
>on any CFJ (including 222), but that fact would not be known, in general.
>
>CFJ 227 asserts the Truth of the following statement:
>
>>It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond
>>that explicitly defined by rule 545 and by the judgements of CFJs
>>which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)
>>and in making judgements when the rules are unclear (as in Rule 215).
>
>For this demonstration, I need not accept the Truth of the above statment,
>only *assume* that it is judged TRUE, by its Judge, for the purposes of 
>discussion.
>
>Assuming it is Judged TRUE, how does the Judge deliver Judgement? I quote
>from R 213, Delivering Judgement: 
>
>> 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.
>
>The key phrase is "in which to post an official judgement". Post it to
>whom? The CotC? The Supreme Court of Uruguay? Post it how? Via snail
>mail to Austin, or to the CotC in Pennsylvania? An international datagram
>to Uruguay? email??

One might argue that any of those would be legal by R115.  Even CFJ 113,
to whatever extent it might or might not be applicable to this matter,
does not necessarilly prevent any of those -- the manner of posting is
nowhere regulated by the rules, though the posting itself is mandated.

>The rules are "silent", and "unclear" on the issue. R 101 gives a method
>to interpret the rules; namely "in accordance with currently existing
>game custom".

>Yet the Judge has the Truth of CFJ 227's statement, assumed above:
>
>"It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom [...]
>which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)."

Even if CFJ 227 is judged true, I argue that the Rules are not at all silent
or unclear about how the judgement may be posted; R 115, in combination with
the lack of any other regulation whatsoever, makes any manner of posting the
judgement legal.

This is a good argument, and I'm not sure how sturdy my rebuttal is.  Anyone
else care to weigh in?

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 09:16:40 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official: Confirmation 

I hereby vote YES to confirm mr cwm as Justice in any and all threads where
he is up for confirmation.

ThinMan
Senator

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 10:24:33 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Dormancy 

>Didn't someone just make R 115 and R 219 dormant via R 115?
>
>Isn't making rules "dormant" a regulated activity? R 558. It seems
>like we've been through this. If this regulated activity is permitted
>to be compromised by R 115, then I insist that I be credited with a 
>win myself, from a couple of nights ago, when I used R 115 to adjust 
>my points. :)

Rule 558 says, in part: "As a special power, entities can be granted the
power to make proposals, rules, and CFJs dormant."  No rule restricts
this permission to entities created by rules, so Wayne's action appears
to be quite legal.  I note also that rule 558 does _not_ allow entities
to be granted the power to reawaken dormant entities.

Wayne used R115 to create an entity.  He then used R 558 to give it the
power to make things dormant.  As far as I can see, it is entirely on the
up and up.  I think that making R115 dormant was a mistake, however.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 10:35:28 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: dormancy 

I have just submitted two "proposals" to Wayne that will make R 219 and R 115
awake again.

Note to Wayne: according to R 558, these proposals pass if more than 50% vote
for them, so you may have to calculate the results manually.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 11:29:21 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official: House 

My apologies, Ackazens, and particular apologies to /dev/joe.  I have decided
that my recent choice of a new name for my house is too lacking in
originality.  Therefore, I now rename it "Ackanomic House of Pancakes."

Come by any time for a full stack of Pancackes with plenty of syrup.  The
fact that it may not be possible to determine whether or not it is legal
for me to make pancakes won't stop me.

Remember, its always just AHOP, skip and a jump away.  (Sorry, I couldn't
resist. :)

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 12:36:56 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: message request

Does anyone have a copy of pTang1001001sos's public message(s) announcing 
the Evil Ballot Stuffer and its properties? I need it to judge CFJ 225.

Thanks,

tinan

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
              I think animal testing is a terrible idea;
           they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 11:37:19 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: dormancy 

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

John> I have just submitted two "proposals" to Wayne that will make R
John> 219 and R 115 awake again.

under the authority of what Rules do you make such a Proposal?  Rule
558 grants that it is possible for the Players to vote to make a
dormant entity awake, but specifies no process for calling for or
conducting such a vote.  in the absence of Rule 115 to permit the
calling of such a vote, and in the absence of any specified procedure,
i argue that it cannot be determined if you can legally initiate such
a vote.  there's certainly no reason to believe that Wayne should
distribute a call for such a vote, or collect the votes cast in such a
vote (if casting votes is legal, which may also be something that
cannot be determined with finality).

what a pretty pickle.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 11:41:51 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy 

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

Malenkai> Didn't someone just make R 115 and R 219 dormant via R 115?
Malenkai> Isn't making rules "dormant" a regulated activity? R 558.

R.558 generally permits entities to be given the right to make other
entities dormant.  no Rule regulates doing so, and thus by R.115 it is
permitted without regulation.

in my opinion, it wasn't even necessary to create the Magic Doormat;
Wayne could have granted himself the power to make things dormant (a
Player is an entity, after all), and then run rampant through the
Rules.  /dev/joe and i discussed this some weeks ago, and expunging
dormancy from the Rules has been a Nobs agenda item for some time.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:29:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 232 (snowgod)

> >Call for Judgement 232
> >Statement:
> >
> >If CFJ 227 is judged TRUE, its verdict may not be delivered.
   [...]

> Even if CFJ 227 is judged true, I argue that the Rules are not at all silent
> or unclear about how the judgement may be posted; R 115, in combination with
> the lack of any other regulation whatsoever, makes any manner of posting the
> judgement legal.
> 
> This is a good argument, and I'm not sure how sturdy my rebuttal is.  Anyone
> else care to weigh in?
> 
> ThinMan

If the judge of CFJ 227 considers it true, then game custom is indeterminate.
There are threads for every possible interpretation of game custom (at least
two threads -- one with only the results of CFJ's & the notes rule as game
custom, and another where all the game custom before rule 660 still exists.
In the thread where game custom exists, he returns his judgement as is
usual (by e-mailing it to the clerk of the court).  In the other thread,
maybe ThinMan's argument applies, or maybe there is no valid way to post
the judgement.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:45:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

By rule 558, I give the entity /dev/joe the power to make rules dormant.

I use that power to make ALL the rules, proposals, and CFJs dormant.

- --
/dev/joe
"If you're going to crash the game, crash it REAL HARD!"

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 13:48:57 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy 

/dev/joe wrote:
>By rule 558, I give the entity /dev/joe the power to make rules dormant.
>
>I use that power to make ALL the rules, proposals, and CFJs dormant.
>
>--
>/dev/joe
>"If you're going to crash the game, crash it REAL HARD!"

Nice tagline.

In my opinion, /dev/joe's action was legal.  If someone can come up with
an argument to the contrary, then let's hear it.  If the action was legal,
then we have no choice but to resolve the situation outside of the game,
for there is essentially no game left.

My recommendation is to take the current rule set, work out a few of the
more glaring bugs, and start a new game with it.  We could call it Ackanomic:
The Next Generation.  Or, to appease all those Dr. Who fans out there,
Ackanomic: The Next Regeneration.

I am firmly in the camp that believes that we shouldn't "just make it
better" when we have problems, so I suggest that we "start fresh," albeit
with a monstrosity of a starting rule set.  Get rid of items, officers,
bueprints, CFJs, queued proposals, etc..  This will have many advantages:
(i) a solution to the vacationing officer problem; (ii) a new chance with
"game custom" (if we tinker with the rules a bit); (iii) initial clarity
concerning the state of the game; (iv) a brief respite for the Scorekeeper,
Clerk of the Courts, and Financier, whether they are the same or different
players in the new game; and perhaps others that I have not thought of, too.

If it were desired, then Wayne could be asked to continue tabulating the
currently queued proposals until the ends of their respective voting periods,
as defined by the now dormant rules, and we could incorporate any resultant
"Rule Changes" into the new initial set.  All of that is outside of the Rules,
of course.

ThinMan
Senator
Financier
Mad Hatter
Mad Hatter
Nobs member

ThinMan, the voice of reason.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 15:17:34 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

- -] By rule 558, I give the entity /dev/joe the power to make rules dormant.
- -] 
- -]I use that power to make ALL the rules, proposals, and CFJs dormant.

There may be a case that immutable rules cannot be made dormant.  Let's
look at that possibility first, before we restart.

- -]--
- -]/dev/joe
- -]"If you're going to crash the game, crash it REAL HARD!"

Wayne
"I didn't crash the game, but I SHOULD HAVE!"

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 15:59:57 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

OK, immutables are not protected from being made dormant.  I don't know
where I was on that one.  But It let me try another way.  

When R558 becomes dormant, then the rule defining dormant is no longer
in effect.  Therefore all rules are dormant, but dormant is not defined.
But then if dormant rules are in effect, 558 makes them ineffective again.
Oh well, that's that.

Who wants to start over with a brand new rule set?

Wayne

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:40:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Bascule's mail again

I have been receiving bounces from Bascule again since 11:26 AM (CDT)
this morning.

Not that it means much if the whole nomic has crashed, but anyway...

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:48:43 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy 

Wayne wrote:
>When R558 becomes dormant, then the rule defining dormant is no longer
>in effect.  Therefore all rules are dormant, but dormant is not defined.
>But then if dormant rules are in effect, 558 makes them ineffective again.
>Oh well, that's that.

I was thinking about a paradox CFJ on that matter, but with R219 possibly
dormant, there was no point.

>Who wants to start over with a brand new rule set?

That is one option that I would be willing to consider.  My fear there is
that we will spend alot of time reintroducing many of the things that are
already in the current rule set.  Of course, it may take a complete wipe
to thoroughly rid ourselves of all of the problems in the current rule set.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 00:05:57 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, John Bollinger wrote:
> My recommendation is to take the current rule set, work out a few of the
> more glaring bugs, and start a new game with it.  We could call it Ackanomic:
> The Next Generation.  Or, to appease all those Dr. Who fans out there,
> Ackanomic: The Next Regeneration.
> 

I don't believe that /dev/joe's action was legal, however, the tradition
we have developed, is an action should be considered legal, until a CFJ
decides otherwise. But if we do that, then the mechanism to post a CFJ, no
longer exists, or at least is dormant. A thread-split is not the answer
here, nor am I certain it ever was. Currently, it appears that further
game is impossible, however, for the reasons mentioned above, whether or
not further play is possible can no longer be determined either.

IMO, Ackanomic has been in a constant of crash for a long time. There have
been admirable attmepts to save it. But recently we have been on such
uncertain grounds, that I began to doubt we could handle another thread
split.

The downfall of Ackanomic has been the introduction of the idea of
Protection. On the one hand, it served to patch up some rules, which might
have otherwise been more decisive, even at the price of using some
redudant phrasing, and on the other hand, it implied, that unless
specified, we can do what we we damn well please, up to and including
aboliishing the rule-set entirely.

We got bogged down in a multitude of entities, rather than create and
maintain the structural frameworks in which they could exist and interact.
The initial rule-set, as lacking as it may be, is such a framework, and we
have barely attempted to depart from it, we kept experimentation to a
minimum. Small bonuses here and there, and a few amusing rules.

While Snowgod's suggestion sounds appealing,  it has foreboding
familiarity to it. We've done that before, when many felt that the game
might just end too soon. So we "fixed" it, and then found out that the fix
just caused more problems than it fixed. Sure, we can weed out what we
don't like from the rule-set, except that there is very little agreement
concerning what we don't like. Personally I'm impartial about cute
entities. As to my prefferences, several proposal of mine are currently on
the queue, and some of my past ones represent my prefferences pretty well.
Other players differ. So what do we do, vote on the whole thing again? How
any proposals would we be voting on. Agreeably, there is no assurance that
the same proposals that passed once, would receive the same support again,
especially since, any vote we would be taking now would not allow for any
bonus votes.

Another option is to start off with a new initial rule-set. /dev/joe has a
pretty good one lying around, I'm sure Kelly, or any other player, could
comeup with something. 
If I didn't have other obligations, I would have made an attempt myself.

There is another option.
I argue that further play is possible, and I'm going to demonstrate how.
You see, currently, the end of the game can't be announced, so we must
assume that we are still playing. There are no rules about making rules,
and sepcifically, there are no rules that prohibit anyone from making
rules.
So I am hereby creating a rule. 
Rule 1+i
All players must abide by the rules at all times

I can make more rules this way, it's perfectly legal for me to do so.
I can make a rule that says:
"Any rule that has been dormant for two weeks is automatically repealed"
I think I'll call that 3+i, mostly because I want to put more rules into
the 1+ni 

I'll make one more rule, and present the new rules by which we play.
this isnot a full rule-set, mind you, just a begining. but it whould keep
us at bay.

Rule 1+i
All players must abide by the rules at all times

Rule 1+2i
Rules, 1+i,1+2i,3+i can only repealed by a unanimous vote of all of the
players of ackanomic

Rule 3+i
Any rule that has been dormant for two weeks is automatically repealed

OK, that's the rules people. Let's play

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 00:41:04 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: dormancy 

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Kelly Martin wrote:
> dormant entity awake, but specifies no process for calling for or
> conducting such a vote.  in the absence of Rule 115 to permit the
> calling of such a vote, and in the absence of any specified procedure,
> i argue that it cannot be determined if you can legally initiate such
> a vote.  there's certainly no reason to believe that Wayne should
> distribute a call for such a vote, or collect the votes cast in such a
> vote (if casting votes is legal, which may also be something that
> cannot be determined with finality).
On the contrary, now that there are no rules, there is no need to permit
things anymore. There is no rule against doing anything. In fact, there is
no rule against waking up proposals, and anyone could do just that. It no
longer takes any special power to perform such an action. 

As I pointed out in my previous post, there is no legal way to declare the
game over, even if we all decided to quit this game, which is not
prohibited either. One could argue that the game still goes on, in a
stable state. A rather boring game. Back to the point, since there is no
legal way to end the game, then must be still playing. We can perfom any
action we like. I'm not suggesting that we do. 

I believe the best thing to do would be to start over with a fresh, small,
initial rule-set, and create a different game (although I would have liked
to see Party Chess being played, well, go that's life, I got my best work
in the queue and the game crashes)

Nicolo Flychuck

btw Kelly, TAG - you're it    :) :)  :)

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:45:03 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy 

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
>IMO, Ackanomic has been in a constant of crash for a long time. There have
>been admirable attmepts to save it. But recently we have been on such
>uncertain grounds, that I began to doubt we could handle another thread
>split.

I agree.

>The downfall of Ackanomic has been the introduction of the idea of
>Protection. On the one hand, it served to patch up some rules, which might
>have otherwise been more decisive, even at the price of using some
>redudant phrasing, and on the other hand, it implied, that unless
>specified, we can do what we we damn well please, up to and including
>aboliishing the rule-set entirely.

I disagree here.  Rule 115 allowed players to do as they please, and rightly
so.  In fact, I think that CFJ 113 was bad law and bad precedent; the
actions allowed by R 115 should have been even more broad.  It is true that
protection was not strictly necessary, but the rule that defined it had
nothing to do with the style of play that Mr. Flychuck condemns.

In my opinion (and this will come as no surprise to some) the downfall of
Ackanomic was too many poorly-written rules.  A few loopy rules would
have been sufficient to provide plenty of fun, but we ended up with
enough of them that we just went from crisis to crisis until /dev/joe
put us out of our metaphorical misery.

It did not help matters any that we developed a very warped concept of
"game custom."  This was underscored by the recent paradox-win attempts
based on "game custom," but I think that strange definitions of that term
were used from very early on.

>We got bogged down in a multitude of entities, rather than create and
>maintain the structural frameworks in which they could exist and interact.
>The initial rule-set, as lacking as it may be, is such a framework, and we
>have barely attempted to depart from it, we kept experimentation to a
>minimum. Small bonuses here and there, and a few amusing rules.

That's quite true.

>While Snowgod's suggestion sounds appealing,  it has foreboding
>familiarity to it. We've done that before, when many felt that the game
>might just end too soon. So we "fixed" it, and then found out that the fix
>just caused more problems than it fixed. Sure, we can weed out what we
>don't like from the rule-set, except that there is very little agreement
>concerning what we don't like. Personally I'm impartial about cute
>entities. As to my prefferences, several proposal of mine are currently on
>the queue, and some of my past ones represent my prefferences pretty well.
>Other players differ. So what do we do, vote on the whole thing again? How
>any proposals would we be voting on. Agreeably, there is no assurance that
>the same proposals that passed once, would receive the same support again,
>especially since, any vote we would be taking now would not allow for any
>bonus votes.

I guess you're talking about _my_ suggestion, which you had quoted but
which I deleted.  To tell you the truth, I think you're right.  So I'm
with Wayne (and you?): let's start from scratch.  

>There is another option.
>I argue that further play is possible, and I'm going to demonstrate how.
>You see, currently, the end of the game can't be announced, so we must
>assume that we are still playing. There are no rules about making rules,
>and sepcifically, there are no rules that prohibit anyone from making
>rules.
>So I am hereby creating a rule. 
[etc.]

This neglects the paradox inherent in R558 being dormant.  In combination
with everything else being dormant, this creates a mess that I see no way
out of.  If /dev/joe had excepted R 558 from dormancy then you could do
what you are attempting, but now the legality of your attempt is
indeterminate, just like the legality of everything else.

OK, who has a new initial ruleset to suggest?

ThinMan

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #108
*******************************