Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #115
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, July 16 1996        Volume 01 : Number 115

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:35:11 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Hotels

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> At 12:15 PM 7/14/96, this is not a name wrote:
> >Mellon wrote:
> >>Within limits of course, otherwise the owner could change the fee to infinity
> >>any time he wants to get rid of someone.
> >
> >What do you think about having the fee "lock in" for each guest at the
> >fee that it was when the guest began staying at the hotel?
> 
> Yeah, that works.  Or at least have the fee locked in for 29 days, after
> which the hotel owner can change it again.  Perhaps the president could put
> a cap on hotel fees if he sees unfair business practices.

If I own a hotel, and realize I'm going to lose it to someone else tomorrow,
I can change the fee to nil (or perhaps one) A$ per night and encourage all
other guests to leave the hotel, and come back with a much lower fee. That
way it won't be as attractive for someone to take over business, since it
can't at any time be known if there is any money in it or not.

/Mellon

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 01:35:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Game State

I assert the following is true, if anyone cares:

1) The game may or may not have crashed. All the CFJs that will decide
that are in the Supreme Court, except CFJ 235. I believe CFJ 234 will
ultimately come back TRUE, indicating no crash. As for the game custom
thing, we'll see.

2) We thus have 2 threads; we can choose to play the crashed thread, or
the non-crashed thread. Since /dev/joe has come up with a bona-fide 
argument indicating TRUE for CFJ 234, it makes sense to play the non-crash
thread.

3) There are those that want to start with a new IRS, and those who don't.
Myself in the latter camp, its tough to be objective. Its been stated many
times, that due to idealogical polarization, it will be difficult to find
a ruleset we can all agree on. I like to look for a compromise here, but
can find only the following (in the non-crash thread):
	Continue playing, with an emphasis towards proposals which remove
the alledged problems (protection of game custom, etc), and towards
proposals which remove unneeded clutter, but not delightful quirks from
the rules. All players should be open minded to these changes, but the
normal voting process should guide their adoption.

4) Any other structures which people think should be removed, such as the
Roman style political system, should be dismantled through the normal
voting process.

5) I see no reason not to release the voting results for the proposals
in the queue, and update the finances and scores. It seems that all the
complicated n-win stuff has collapsed, so we can do that now.

6) One barrier to releasing the proposal results seems to be CFJ 220
(now in appeal), now that the evil ballot stuffer has come back false.
False on 220 seems like a no-brainer to me, but thats why I'm not on the
Supreme Court anymore. So it seems we can play that thread as well,
and release the results, giving us something to look at while we're
waiting for the Supreme Court.

7) The CotC is clear right now, for the most part. We can just continue
gameplay waiting for the Court.

8) This gives us a cross-product, leaving 4 threads:

	crash-CFJ 220 true: This leads to an out of game solution. I
		suggest fixing the condition leading to the crash and 
		to true on 220, then going with the outline above. This
		will lead to throwing some proposals in the queue away.

	crash-CFJ 220 false: same as above, really, except for voting 
		stuff.

	no crash-CFJ 220 true: Issue a CSR to fix R 390. I hate that rule,
		and don't think it will be necessary, but it is the
		easiest way to get back on track to the senario above

	no crash-CFJ 220 false: The recommended thread to play now, 
		outlined above (assumes CFJ 234 or 235 ultimately true)

	there is also another dimension, leading to 4 more states, based
		on the game custom thing. Its late here...

9) Thus I request comments or opposing points of view. Any reason why we
cannot continue normal gameplay based on the outline above?

10) /dev/joe now has to deal with the Magic Potato, not me :)

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:50:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Magic Potato (Robin Hood)

This week the Magic Potato goes to Robin Hood.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 00:48:11 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Hotels

At 7:35 AM 7/15/96, Niklas Mellin wrote:
>Phil Ackley wrote:
>>
>> At 12:15 PM 7/14/96, this is not a name wrote:
>> >Mellon wrote:
>> >>Within limits of course, otherwise the owner could change the fee to
>>infinity
>> >>any time he wants to get rid of someone.
>> >
>> >What do you think about having the fee "lock in" for each guest at the
>> >fee that it was when the guest began staying at the hotel?
>>
>> Yeah, that works.  Or at least have the fee locked in for 29 days, after
>> which the hotel owner can change it again.  Perhaps the president could put
>> a cap on hotel fees if he sees unfair business practices.
>
>If I own a hotel, and realize I'm going to lose it to someone else tomorrow,
>I can change the fee to nil (or perhaps one) A$ per night and encourage all
>other guests to leave the hotel, and come back with a much lower fee. That
>way it won't be as attractive for someone to take over business, since it
>can't at any time be known if there is any money in it or not.

Okay, I see your point.

 I'm finding this hotel proposal to be fascinating, and really an ideal way
to introduce some economic incentives into the game.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 02:44:10 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: VOTE! 

This, the first sentence of a post to the maillist at
[email-masked], reminds you that there are currently two
impeachment papers that have been submitted.  The second sentence, if that
is indeed what this is, serves only as a segway to the thirs sentence which
will remind you to vote.  Remember to vote.  This the fourth sentence exist
solely for the purpose of telling you that your vote is valuable no matter
how you feel about the issue and serves no other purpose (not even to tell
you that apathy is a disdainful thing, and non voters should have silly
quorum hats, thhough in a better revision of this message it may have
aspired to tell you just that.

This, the first sentence of the second paragraph of this (obviously
convoluted by now) post seeks to tell you who is up for impeachment, but
suddenly fails.  As does the second sentence, but not the third which shall
tell you... One IP seeks to remove fon from office in a goodfaith attempt
to fix the senatorial-vacation problem, the other seeks to remove ThinMan
from the office of the Financier due to non-preformance of job duties.
This sentence request that you read the previous sentence again, to let it
sink in real good.

This, the final sentence of this entire message (which by now has gone on
for far too long) directs you to IMMEDIATLY send your votes to Malenkai
<[email-masked]>

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 10:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Vacation

On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, /dev/joe wrote:

> Now I know where Armstrong State College is.
> (Never bothered to find out, before.)

Strangely enough, Armstrong just went through a highly politicized
struggle to add, amongst other things, "geographic identification" to its
name.  So now its "Armstrong Atlantic State University."  I suppose that
rules out Asia and Australia.

> mr cwm is on vacation.

By this message I return from vacation. I'm about 1/3 of the way through
my (rather interesting) accumulated messages. 

> I hope the hurricane doesn't tear the place up too badly.  

Thanks.  It missed and made landfall quite a bit north of here.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 11:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Disc: CFJ220

	I would first like to say that I am hurt by so many apparent 
accusations that I desire to crash the game.  This is not the case.  I 
gave the only verdict on CFJ220 that I thought could legally be given.  
As a judge I am required to consider the rules first and game custom 
second.  I believe this is what I did.
	Some of you have argued that the R390 uses the definition of the
word 'vote' to mean 'the right to vote, suffrage', as in the phrase
"giving women the vote".  I cannot interpret 390 this way.  The phrasing 
of the rule seems to preclude the use of this definition.  (One does not 
say "I hereby give each player one suffrage." or ". . . one right to 
vote".  It doesn't make sense.  Either you have it or you don't.)  
	I contend that when a player votes more than once, that player 
has had more than one vote.  When I vote on two proposals, I have had two 
votes.  Your arguments seem to claim that I can vote on multiple 
proposals but still only have one vote.  I find this rather 
contradictory.  
	I have little doubt that the CFJ220 verdict will be overturned by 
the Supreme Court.  Indeed, I hope it is.  I also hope that the Supreme 
Court will hand down satisfactory reasoning with its verdict.  I'm sure 
their verdict will be in accordance with the rules, whether or not it is 
best for the game.    
	Finally, let me apologize to any I have offended.  I have no 
intent to destroy the glorious game of Ackanomic that I have enjoyed for 
several months now.  I have no intention to knock over the chessboard.  
If I wanted out of the game I would merely leave.  Please do not assume 
that I have malicious intent.  

	De'ghew

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:07:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Vacation

mr cwm wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, /dev/joe wrote:
> > mr cwm is on vacation.

> By this message I return from vacation. I'm about 1/3 of the way through
> my (rather interesting) accumulated messages. 

Welcome back, Supreme Court Justice mr cwm.  I note that Robert Sevin is no
longer an Acting Justice.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 96 12:57:34 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: Disc: CFJ220

CFJ220 will be overturned.  R463 allows players to cast votes on each
proposal.  R390 defers to R463.  I am confering with the other justice
on this right now.

Wayne

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:25:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Disc: CFJ220

> CFJ220 will be overturned.  R463 allows players to cast votes on each
> proposal.  R390 defers to R463.  I am confering with the other justice
> on this right now.

	This is the main rule I was looking at when I was deliberating
CFJ220.  R463 says "Players may vote YES, NO or PRESENT on a proposal..." 
It would be nice to interpret this as giving permission for players to
vote on each proposal, but I'm not sure you can.  At best there are
several interpretations to choose between.  It doesn't say "Players may
vote YES, NO or PRESENT on each proposal".  
	I interpret the rule to mean that the votes of YES, NO and 
PRESENT shall be considered legal for proposals.  I don't think the rule 
really says what you want it to say about the number of times a player 
can vote.  I don't think the sentence "Players may vote on a proposal" 
equates to "Players may vote on each proposal".  
	Having said this, it's pretty obvious that you construe the rule 
text (paraphrased) "Judgements shall be in accordance with the rules 
interpreted according to current game custom" to let you interpret R463 
in the manner you want to.  However, although game custom is pretty clear 
about players being allowed to vote on each proposal, I don't think it 
interprets R463 to mean this.  I think game custom interprets R463 to 
mean that the only legal votes are Yes, No, Present and abstention.  
	It's probably best that you interpret R463 as you have and 
overturn CFJ220, though it would be difficult for me to do so.  I suppose 
that's why I'm not a Justice.  :)  

	SuDo'jaj [Good luck to you all]
	De'ghew

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:04:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Misc: What Phoebe Says

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I had this strange dream the other night, which I report in violation of
the rules of etiquette (only tell your dreams to the person you're next to
while having them), as it seems to be What Pheobe Says:

I dreamed I was on some other world, which, unlike Ackanomia, was clearly
round, as I was on the beach attempting to see two sunrises.  As I lay
down in the sand to see the second one, I found a red and blue matchbox,
very pretty, if a little battered, next to my head.  Curious, I opened it,
and found within something that looked like a tiny ball-bearing. Actually,
it was microscopic, but as this was a dream, I had no trouble seeing it. 
It was very pretty and shiny, and it rolled around a bit in the box, until
it cracked open, and from it emerged what appeared to be a tiny armored
train.  It, too, was very pretty and shiny, and wondrous to behold as it
moved about in the matchbox.  Soon, however, it stopped, and unseen hands
constructed over the armored train what I can best, but poorly, describe
as a tiny Quonset hut, pretty and shiny as ever a Quonset hut could be,
which soon completely hid the tiny train from view.  The Quonset hut was
rather inactive, and so was not very interesting, but soon it split along
the peak of its roof, and Phoebe the Steel Flea, pretty, shiny, and as
marvelous an entity as could be imagined, crawled out and flew away over
the sea.  Then I knew that it had been her all the time, in the various
forms a Steel Flea might have in different stages of existence.  Whatever
her form, though, she was always pretty and shiny, beautiful and amazing,
and I felt privileged to have seen her.

I did, however, lose track of the red and blue matchbox, very pretty, if a
little battered, as I watched Phoebe disappear into the second sunrise,
and although I searched the beach until I woke up, I never found it. 

When I saw the Registrar's Report that I'd found Phoebe's Matchbox, I
thought that she might have induced the dream, and that she might still be
with me in The Revolving Shed, so I searched it from top to bottom, and in
every orientation, but I couldn't find any sign of Phoebe or her Matchbox. 
(Well, I did find my can of WD-40 leaking all over the inside of my
toolbox from a tiny puncture.)  I can only conclude that Phoebe imparted
her wisdom to me through a dream, and that my dream is What Phoebe Says. 

I wish I'd seen her while awake. 

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 15:22:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Malenkai)

Phoebe's Matchbox was just found by Malenkai.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:04:38 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Vacation 

>Welcome back, Supreme Court Justice mr cwm.  I note that Robert Sevin is no
>longer an Acting Justice.

And believe me, that is a relief... :)

Robert Sevin,
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:46:56 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Coke is it! (ThinMan) 

To snowgod, and any other interested Ackanomian,

>Mr. Financier,
>
>I (along with several other players) have been anxiously awaiting word on
>the coke is it situation for several months now.  Could you please give us
>a capsule history of any and all communications you have had with
>coca-cola, as well as transcripts if you have them?  It has also occured to
>me that the act of stating that "coke is it" may not be enought to satisfy
>the corporate bigwigs.  Perhaps the Web-Harfer ought to place a clickable
>banner add (linked to www.coke.com or whatever it is) on the ackanomic main
>page to speed up payment.

Calvin and Hobbes was Financier at the time the "Coke Is It" was enacted,
and he contacted Coca Cola.  He did not forward any transcripts or records
of that communication to me.  According to R 706, it is incumbent upon me
to take "any legal measures [I deem] appropriate to recover this sum."

Each and every measure that I deem appropriate to recover the some is listed
below, on the lines between the pair of "--" symbols:

- --

- --

I have taken each and every measure listed, according to the rules.  The
Web Harfer is at liberty to follow your suggestion should he so desire.  It
is my considered opinion, however, that such action would not speed up
payment in the slightest.

ThinMan
Financier, for now

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 17:58:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Disc: CFJ220

John Spickes wrote:
> 
>         I would first like to say that I am hurt by so many apparent
> accusations that I desire to crash the game.  This is not the case.  I
> gave the only verdict on CFJ220 that I thought could legally be given.
> As a judge I am required to consider the rules first and game custom
> second.  I believe this is what I did.

I was very upset about the game crashing. I in no way blame you, or
anyone else, as I believe everyone has been making a good faith attempt
to follow the rules. My comments, specifically, were in response to
/dev/joe's dormancy action, not to CFJ 220. I also apologize for all
those comments to /dev/joe.

As for the verdict itself, I can only say that R 390 is "unclear". One 
vote per game, per year, per proposal?? You don't know how to render it,
thererfore you must rely on game custom and spirit of the game by R 215
to find a rendering of "per proposal". My opinion, seperate issue.

>         Finally, let me apologize to any I have offended.  I have no
> intent to destroy the glorious game of Ackanomic that I have enjoyed for
> several months now.  I have no intention to knock over the chessboard.
> If I wanted out of the game I would merely leave.  Please do not assume
> that I have malicious intent.

You offended me not, and I know what you are going through, having been
the pin cushion for that AOJ business myself. Please stay in the game.
Everyone pisses people off once in a while, I more so than anyone, I
suppose. If you make a good faith attempt to follow the rules, as we all
do, you cannot offend anyone, really.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 96 18:21:16 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Disc: CFJ220

Wayne wrote:
>CFJ220 will be overturned.  R463 allows players to cast votes on each
>proposal.  R390 defers to R463.  I am confering with the other justice
>on this right now.

Well, actually...

>Rule 463/5 (Mutable)
>Voting Options
>
>     Players may vote YES, NO, or PRESENT on a proposal, or choose not
>     to vote on a proposal, which is called abstaining. Players who do
>     not vote within the prescribed period shall be deemed to have
>     abstained. A vote of Present shall count neither for nor against
>     the proposal, but it shall count as a vote cast for the purposes
>     of determining Quorum.

Players may vote yes, no, or present on ___A___ proposal.

Thus 463 just reinforces the idea that players can only vote once in the 
entire game.

- --tinan
Devil's Advocate

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
                 A rolling stone gathers momentum.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 19:22:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

This post includes 3 separate parts:
1) IP results against fon
2) Nomination for his senate seat (I guess the suspense is gone)
3) Nomination for office of Appointer

I decided to move these things up, while the Court is deliberating. I
see nothing in the rules against 3 nominations going simultaneously
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the matter of Impeaching senator fon:

Votes were accepted until Mon, Jul 15, 11:40

22 active players in the game (24 players, less fon and Habeous Corpus)
14 votes cast. Quorum was met.

More than 2/3 of votes in favor of Impeachment. IP is accepted. Malenkai
may not issue another for 1 week.

For Impeachment: (13)
	ThinMan
	techno
	Malenkai
	pTang1001001sos
	snowgod
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	Kelly Martin
	De'ghew
	Wayne
	Mellon
	Robin Hood
	Brinjal

Against Impeachment: (1)
	this is not a name

Assistant Tabulator

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

A nomination for 1 senate seat now starts. It lasts for 2 days. If you 
want to compete for this seat, send your nomination to [email-masked].

Nominations will be accepted until Jul, 17, 19:30 New York Time

Malenkai
Acting Appointer

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

A nomination for Appointer (1 seat) now starts. It lasts for 2 days. If you 
want to compete for this seat, send your nomination to [email-masked].

The Appointer can be a powerful position, and is regulated by R 614
directly, and others indirectly.

Nominations will be accepted until Jul, 17, 19:31 New York Time

Malenkai
Acting Appointer

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #115
*******************************