Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #151
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, August 2 1996        Volume 01 : Number 151

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 02:01:34 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

I am claiming possession of the Little Lamb and purchasing a Wool Sweater 
from the Treasury. Financier, please take note.

- --      Mike Epstein            
      [email-masked]          A Freudian slip is when you say
  *                      *      one thing but mean your mother.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 02:22:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IP results

Votes were accepted until Thu, Aug 01, 21:19

On the matter of Impeaching senator chess piece face:

At the end of the voting period, 21 players in the game:
R 613 stipulates that the conditions at the end of the voting
period hold sway:

12 players not on vacation, including Simon Marty Harriman
 8 players on vacation
 1 chess piece face, not counted

Per R 457,

> A player on vacation is not considered and "active player" while they
> are on vacation

R 457 claims precedence, so "active players" will not count towards
quorum in the IP vote.

8 out of 12 active players voted, quorum was reached
8 out of 8 voters voted in favor of impeachment, IP is accepted.

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

For Impeachment: (8)
	ThinMan
	Malenkai
	snowgod
	/dev/joe
	Bascule
	this is not a name
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus

Against Impeachment: (0)

The following IP has been filed by this is not a name:
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

I hereby call an IP on chess piece face in his role as Senator, giving
the same reasoning as the impeachment of fon (namely, leaving the game
for months while holding onto his office).

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

Assistant Tabulator
Its late, I apoligize in advance if I made an error (but I double
checked everything :)

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 02:34:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Offical

1) If you are on vacation, please announce that you want to not be on
vacation, assuming, of course, that you don't want to be.  The web
page has the list.

2) Due to the lateness here in Pennsylvania, I will not get to the
CFJs until tomorrow nite :(.  Hopefully people will take themselves off
vacation then.  Sorry for the inconvience, but I just got P 1043, and its
too late.  I'll make even more errors.

3) I am announcing my candidacy for the open senate seat.  I will not
campaign any more, unless snowgod enters the race :). 

My only campaign statement will be to look at my record as an officer
already, in the offices I hold, and the improvements brought.

4) I am now the Acting Gaoler, and acting officer for anyone else on
vacation, by R 457.  I don't know who else is on vacation who is an
officer.  Hopefully our real Gaoler will come back soon, and can describe
snowgod's cell.

Malenkai
Enlightened

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:41:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1048 Passes

> Here are the voting results for : 1048
>   Proposal 1048 - Thu Jul 25 02:04:22 EDT 1996
>   Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
>   Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
> Quorum met : 12 eligible voters -- 11 players cast votes
> 
> 8 YES votes   4 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
> Proposal PASSES

Note that this proposal was retracted.  Now, if ever, we need to decide
what really happens to retracted proposals.  What is the status on that
anyway?  Is it in the supreme court?  I'm too busy too try to find it
right now.

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 02:51:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1048 Passes

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Here are the voting results for : 1048
> >   Proposal 1048 - Thu Jul 25 02:04:22 EDT 1996
> >   Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
> >   Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> >
> > Quorum met : 12 eligible voters -- 11 players cast votes
> >
> > 8 YES votes   4 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
> > Proposal PASSES
> 
> Note that this proposal was retracted.  Now, if ever, we need to decide
> what really happens to retracted proposals.  What is the status on that
> anyway?  Is it in the supreme court?  I'm too busy too try to find it
> right now.

The status is that the following is game custom from CFJ 221:

1)
> A retracted proposal can fail due to quorum, and then penalties according
> to rule 207, 3rd paragraph shall be distributed. 

2) voting results on all retracted proposals should be distributed

In this case, it did not fail, therefore no penalties are assigned.
CFJ 221 is silent for other scoring on retracted proposals, therefore
none occurs, IMHO.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 02:06:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Official

Stuff from all my offices:

Acting Registrar:
1. As Malenkai noted, you may now take yourselves off vacation if you
so desire.  Simon Marty Harriman already did.  As a result, tinan is
no longer acting senator for Seat D.

Bascule, Brinjal, Calvin N Hobbes, chess piece face, fon, Mellon, Niccolo
Flychuck, Pascal, Robert Sevin, Robin Hood, and Techno are still on vacation.

2. chess piece face has been impeached from his senate seat.  As a
result, snowgod is no longer acting senator for Seat C, and the seat
is vacant.

3. I will add "Little Lamb #1" and "Little Lamb #2" to the pool of names
I choose from for the Potato, naming the player with the lamb if one
of these is drawn, and redrawing if one of these is drawn for any
other random choice.

4. If anybody wants to volunteer to be a Mentor I will start keeping a list.

Scorekeeper:
5. The scoring on the proposals depends highly on the validity of my
contract with tinan.  As a result, I will not be scoring them right away;
I will work on it over the weekend.  If the contract is Enforceable, then
various people are guilty of Noncompliance several times over, and
each such player loses 10 points for each incident like this; this may
change who was the gnome buddy and might affect the passage of other
proposals where the Contract does not dictate votes, but I doubt it.
The Contract did not change the results of any proposals where it
actually dictated the votes.

6. I hereby request that the appropriate votes on the proposals Wayne
distributed results for tonight be altered, per Rule 551 section (ii)c),
if the Contract is indeed Enforceable.

Web-Harfer:
7. I have added the Accepted/Rejected status of proposals through 1051 to
the proposal archives on the web pages, assuming Wayne's results are correct.
I will work on fixing up the rules later; I'm tired.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 09:32:12 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation 

I  hereby return from vacation

 Robin Hood

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:07:03 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Offical

>
>3) I am announcing my candidacy for the open senate seat.  I will not
>campaign any more, unless snowgod enters the race :).

Hey, Hey!  I was already to senators.  Maybe I should run again and make it
official?  Nah.  Not this time.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Stuck in the Gaol for a Week
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 02:32:21 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Gaoler

At 8:45 PM 8/1/96, this is not a name wrote:
>As Acting Gaoler, I 'ave just 'ad the privilege and delight of putting
>Malenkai where 'e belongs: be'ind bars, where all miscreants should go.

Why did Malenkai go behind bars?  Did the Supreme Court issue an Act of
Justice overturning his appeal for pardon?

>And where snowgod should stay. It'll teach 'im a lesson about Heresy.
>
>Malenkai is in the East wing, in cell number 3,492,391.
>
>snowgod is in the West wing, in cell number 8.
>
>(The Gaol, like the Earth, is Flat. Don't try rolling wadded-up messages
>to each other, guys.)
>
>It will be with great reluctance that I release snowgod at 14:04 tomorrow.

Hey! I don't get out tommorow (unless of course /dev/joe grants my AFP (now
that the supreme court has overturned CFCJ107)).  Of course, if the gaoler
wants to let me out, he's more than welcome to :)

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Stuck in the Gaol for a Week
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 02:32:28 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

>I proclaim that the earth is ROUND!!!!!!!!!
>
>Malenkai

Damn you Malenkai!  Your enlightenment scheme doesn't fool me.

I hope everyone notices that almost anyone can now become immune to
witchburning, except for of course me.  I may Ackanomic's only remaining
witch.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Stuck in the Gaol for a Week
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 02:34:09 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

>2. chess piece face has been impeached from his senate seat.  As a
>result, snowgod is no longer acting senator for Seat C, and the seat
>is vacant.

Actually, I ceased being acting senator as soon as the IP was called.
Immediatly following that, cpf became acting senator for himself in
accordance with the impeachment paper rules.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Stuck in the Gaol for a Week
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 09:35:11 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Official

{Not taking any chances}
I am running to the Church of the Markovian Dream.

Habeous Corpus
<definition of elephant:  a mouse built to government
specifications--R.A.Heinlein>

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 17:45:57 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I'm back from vacation (again)

Bascule

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:01:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 244 Verdict

On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> mr cwm wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> > 
> > [big snip]
> > 
> > > If I do not return a definitive verdict, it simply
> > > becomes someone else's, or the Supreme Court's whim.
> > 
> > [and more snipping]
> > 
> > I object to the Supreme Court being singled out for the use of whim. 
> 
> Once again where it is shown that Malenkai cannot read or write.  The gist
> of the verdict was that rules, facts, and game custom could not be used,
> or were indetermine.  Thus "spirit of the game", or "whim" to quote the
> infamous CFJ 228, was required unless facts to the contrary came to light.
> 
> All I was saying was that if I declined or made a bad verdict, it would be
> someone else's problem, so that was a poor option.  I mentioned the 
> supreme court as an entity whose problem it was more likely to become 
> than any others.
> 
> Please reread the entire reasoning.  I thought what was intended was clear,
> but I suppose it was not.

I thought the resoning as a whole was clear, too.  I only objected to the
idea of "whim" appearing to be directed solely at the Supreme Court.

> 
> I apologise to the Supreme Court or anyone else who was offended by my
> reasoning, it was unintended.
> 

Accepted.  (By me, anyway.)

> Malenkai
> needs to go to third grade :)
> 

Not at all.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:14:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeal For Pardon

On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, snowgod wrote:

> In light of the recent Supreme Court verdict overturning the original
> judges decision on CFCJ 107 I am asking the president of Ackanomic for an
> Appeal forPpardon.

I don't know ... depending on how we handle the whole "retract and do
over" issue, maybe you have nothing to be pardoned for.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:21:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gaoler

To:   Concerned Ackanomians
From: Justice mr cwm

There has not been an AOJ nullifying Malenkai's pardon.  Although the
matter isn't entirely settled here at the Supreme Court, I do not expect
that such an AOJ will be issued.

On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, this is not a name wrote:

> Malenkai wrote:
> >Also, I did not see the AOJ overturning the president's pardon.  Could you
> >please forward a copy to me?
> 
> There was an AOJ? I didn't get the pardon either, for that matter.
> 
> Is something wrong with the mailing list?
> 
> (cc to /dev/joe in case he's not getting list mail either)
> 
> >> It will be with great reluctance that I release snowgod at 14:04 tomorrow.
> >
> >snowgod's sentence was for seven days, starting two days
> >ago.  I did not see the president's pardon on that one either.  Am I 
> >having e-mail problems?
> 
> Whoops, that one's my mistake. I thought it was 3 days.
> 
> --      Mike Epstein            "You live and learn.
>       [email-masked]          	At any rate, you live."
>   *                      *             --Douglas Adams
> http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:28:23 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1043 Passes

I hereby take myself off vacation.
I believe I can now take up the reins as Gaoler again.
Thanks to this is not a name for looking after the Gaol in my
absence. Hope you've not been looking after the customers too well:)

Brinjal.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:27:19 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gaoler

> To:   Concerned Ackanomians
> From: Justice mr cwm
> 
> There has not been an AOJ nullifying Malenkai's pardon.  Although the
> matter isn't entirely settled here at the Supreme Court, I do not expect
> that such an AOJ will be issued.

Nope. Neither of us think it's very important.

Still, if I'd been President I wouldn't have pardoned Malenkai in the 
first place... :)

Bascule
Against Coke Users

 

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 13:32:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1045 Fails

> Here are the voting results for : 1045
>   Proposal 1045 - Thu Jul 25 02:03:16 EDT 1996
>   Just sillier
>   this is not a name  (Mike Epstein)
> 

[snip]

> ===========================================
> Tammany Action:
> A$25 for Yes by this is not a name
> A$25 for Yes by snowgod
> A$25 for Yes by mr cwm
> (note that (None Yet) accounted for 5 of the 8 Yes votes)
> 
> 
> ====================================================

Well, proposals that would create self-referential rules don't come up
very often.  We have to do what we can, and take what we can get :) 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:51:13 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Steel Flea Gazette: New Flash 

The Steel Flea Gazette interupts normal list services to bring you a
special report from a neighboring nomic:

Aug 1st 1996, (MNP): Pandemonium in MicroNomia! Pascal suddenly flooded the
proposal queue early this morning with over 300 proposals, all strikingly
similar except for the last. He voted for all of them, driving MicroNomic
General Stock prices thru the roof: trading had begun at 154 pts. that day,
but had finished, with incredible optimism from all the FOR votes, at a
record 1057 points! Pascal quietly then sold his single share of MNG,
amassing well over 1100 points himself.
        The pandemonium mentioned enters here: Pascal, by the rule 13 so
recently amended by the passage of proposal 46, claimed to change the votes
of three of his fellow players on proposal 351 (The one not so similar to
props 51-350) to FOR from having been uncast votes, thus causing it
(allegedly) to immediately pass. The old rule 13 had stated:

A player may spend 100 points to change another player's vote on any one
proposal. The vote it is changed to must still be a valid vote. A player
cannot change more than one vote on any one proposal using this rule.

and the new:

 A player may, the first time such an action is taken on a given proposal,
spend 100 points to change another player's vote on any one proposal. The
vote it is changed to must still be a valid vote. Successive vote changes by
a single player to a certain proposal double in cost. For example, the
second vote change on proposal XXX by Player YYY requires em to pay 200
points, the third costs 400, the fourth 800, etc. Even if a player has
enough points however, e may never change votes on one prop a number of
times exceeding half the number of players, rounded down. (eg if there are
twenty players, no more than ten vote changes on one prop.)

Proposal 351 did various things, including granting a Win to Pascal and Xae
(also this was further contested by Death), who coincidentally also voted
FOR 46 and 351. Xae was unavailable for comment on his rationale behind
voting for the two proposals, nor the meaning of Pascal transferring 300
points to em after the proposal's alleged passage..

Immediately and vehemently, however, Tivol protested:

"Isn't there a difference between "changing" and "creating" a vote? I don't
believe I had a vote for you to change since I hadn't ever registered one
[...] The only valid votes are "FOR", "AGAINST", and "WHATEVER"; you can't
argue that I had a "null" vote for you to change because that's not a valid
vote.)  The debate comes down to "change" versus "create"."

Death quickly agreed with Tivol, as did Mongrel, considering Pascal's
actions a truly "lame attempt at a scam", despite Pascal doing precisely
what Tivol claimed he couldn't do, namely arguing that e could change a null
vote into a valid one. Where Pascal's incredible quantities of points will
go instead and what will actually become of proposal 351 are still in
question due to MicroNomic's lack of any semblance of a judicial system,
left out for the sake of compactness of the initial set, which consisted of
only two rules - expect further updates from this reporter.

- ---Anonymous

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Stuck in the Gaol for a Week
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 09:56:08 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1043 Passes

[Banging on the walls with my little tin coffe cup]

Hey!  Hey hey! Mr Gaoler?

Can you let me out now?  Hey!  The supreme court overturned the verdict
that put me here in the first place!  Hey!  Mr Gaoler?  Can you hear me?
I'm innocent?  I already one solataire nomic, Mr Gaoler, and it's real nice
of you guys to provide stuff like that for your inmates (and I gotta admit
tinan was the best gaoler I ever had, but I'm sure you'll be even better
Brinjal).

Hey, Mr Gaoler?  Let me out!!  What d'ya want?  A little Bribe?  Hey, Im
trapped in here.  I'm innocent I tell you.  The same president that
railroaded me won't grant a pardon!  Mr gaoler?  the supreme court said I
was free!  Let me go.

What kinda bribe are we looking at here?

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Stuck in the Gaol for a Week
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:45:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  CSR 4 & 5

To:   Ackanomians
From: CSRR Officer mr cwm

It is with some pleasure that I note there were no objections to CSR 4
during the Official Voting Period.  Thus, the changes proposed in that CSR
shall be made.  Once again, I wish to thank Malenkai for suggesting the
changes proposed in CSR 4.  Additionally, I would like to remind all
Ackanomians that the door of the Office of CSRR is always open anyone who
has a suggestion for an improvement in the rules so minor that they would
be embarrassed to pick up 9 points for putting it through the proposal
process.

The following suggested change constitues CSR 5.  I thank Malenkai for
pointing out that the first paragraph of the newly revised R563 does not
make sense, thus putting it in the province of the Office of CSRR.  I do
not believe that the suggested change will change the way Ackanomic is
actually played.  Remember that a single published objection within the
Official Voting Period will prevent the suggested change from taking
place. 

CSR 5:

Amend the first paragraph of Rule 563 "Justices Are Keeper Of The Sacred
Laws," which currently reads:

      Before the result of a CFJ is made public, a Justice or Bronze Torch
owner can add their own reasoning to the official publication of the result 
by sending it either to the person in charge of CFJs, or to the public
forum. This reasoning can be made public by no one other than the author
of the reasoning.

to read:

      Before the result of a CFJ is made public, a Justice or Bronze Torch
owner can add their own reasoning to the official publication of the
result by sending it either to the person in charge of CFJs, or to the
public forum. Prior to its official publication, this reasoning can be
made public by no one other than the author of the reasoning.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:08:42 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: RFC Contracts 

Ackazens,

I submit the following RFCs for your perusal and comment.  I would personally
prefer to just repeal contracts entirely -- they are rather buggy, and went
unused from their passage until the recent scam -- but if you are interested
in keeping them around then I think these RFCs will patch them up relatively
well.  Please let me know either way.

ThinMan

%%%%%%%

RFC
Better contracts

Rule 514 shall be amended by
(1) replacing section (i) with the following:
- --
   (i) A contract is a document describing certain requirements on the actions
       of certain players.  Those players, and any others specified in the
       contract, shall be designated Parties to the Contract.
   (ii) A contract is formed as soon as the File Clerk has received an
        identical copy of the contract document and consent to abide by the
        provisions of that document from each party to the contract, and has
        sent notification of those receipts to all of the parties to the
        contract.  It is a duty of the File Clerk to send such notifications
        as soon as he possibly can after receiving all of the required
        documents.
- --
(2) replacing the original sections (ii) and (iii) with:
- --
   (iii) A contract is not Enforceable if its provisions call for any player
         to perform an illegal action or if any rule requires that it be not
         Enforceable; otherwise, a contract is Enforceable iff all actions
         upon which it places requirements are of one of the following types:

         (a) the transfer of currency between or among Players;
         (b) voting in a particular way on any proposal or proposals;
         (c) the transfer of an Ackanomic entity
          
- --
(3) deleting section (v) and then renumbering section (vi) as section (v).

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

RFC
White-collar crime

Rule 551 shall be amended in the following ways:
(1) its title shall be changed to "Contract violations"
(2) section (i) shall be replaced with the following:
- --
       i) Fraud

          a) If a party to an Enforceable contract is unable to satisfy the
             requirements of that contract because of a contradictory
             requirement under another Enforceable contract to which he is also
             a party, then he becomes guilty of Fraud.

          b) When a Player becomes guilty of Fraud the following shall
             occur:

             1) His score shall be reduced by 20 points or to 200, whichever
                results in the lower score.

             2) All contracts to which he is a party shall immediately be
                made not Enforceable.

             3) He shall not be eligible to become a party to any contract
                for one week; this takes precedence over rule 514.

             4) If he is the File Clerk, he is immediately removed from
                that office.

             5) He shall not be allowed to vote for 3 days; this takes
                precedence over rules 390 and 463.  During this period
                he shall not count for determining quorum; this takes
                precedence over rule 210.  During this period he shall
                not be allowed to bribe Tammany, nor to invoke rule
                566 to purchase extra votes.

             6) After three days the Player shall cease to be guilty of
                Fraud, but he will forever after be an ex-con.
- --
(3) section (ii) shall be replaced with the following:
- --
       ii) Non-compliance

          a) Performance of actions contrary to the requirements of an
             Enforceable contract by a party to that contract and failure by
             a party to an Enforceable contract to perform actions as
             required by that contract each constitute non-compliance.

          b) Each time a player commits an act of non-compliance he shall
             be penalized by

             1) reduction of his score by 20 or to 200, whichever constitutes
                the greater reduction, and

             2) forfeiture of 25 units of currency from his account to the
                Treasury.
- --

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

RFC
As long as I'm at it...

Rule 607 shall be amended in the following ways:
(1) Section (iv), parts (a) and (b) shall be replaced by
- --
     The right to demand a filing fee of 10 units from each party to an
     Enforceable contract when he notifies them of the receipt of all the
     contract documents required by rule 514.  If one or more of the parties
     to the contract cannot or will not pay the fee according to the proper
     rules for transactions then the contract ceases to be enforceable.
- --
(2) Section (v) shall be amended to read, in full, "An Acting File Clerk has
the same right to demand a filing fee that the File Clerk has, with the
same consequences.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 16:24:09 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

>{Not taking any chances}
>I am running to the Church of the Markovian Dream.
>
>
>
>
>Habeous Corpus

You can't. You're not a member of it.

- --      Mike Epstein            "If your parents never had children,
      [email-masked]           chances are you won't, either."
  *                      *                            --Dick Cavett
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 16:46:21 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: A New Contract

Malenkai and ThinMan have entered into the following Contract:

>--
>/dev/joe shall vote YES on every proposal by Malenkai.
>/dev/joe shall vote NO on every proposal by Malenkai.
>this is not a name shall vote NO on every proposal by Malenkai.
>this is not a name shall vote YES on every proposal by Malenkai.
>/dev/joe shall transfer all his currency to ThinMan as soon as this
>contract is formed and every time thereafter when he has a positive
>account balance. this is not a name shall transfer all his currency to
>Malenkai as soon as this contract is formed, and every time thereafter when
>he has a positive account balance.
>--

It is my position that this contract is non-Enforceable, and therefore
>     (iv) A Contract ceases to exist immediately upon being
>     non-Enforceable.
(R514).

My reasoning for this position is as follows:

If my contract with /dev/joe was legal, then Malenkai and ThinMan have no 
A$ with which to pay the filing fee. Therefore, according to R607, the 
contract is non-Enforceable. On the other hand, if my contract with 
/dev/joe was not legal, neither is this one, and therefore neither one is 
Enforceable.

ThinMan claims that R607 has no power to make contracts non-Enforceable 
because it does not claim precedence over R514. But the last part of 
R607, defining the Functional Office of File Clerk, reads:
>     (iv)  The Privileges are:
>
>           a) To receive the usual salary for a Functional Officer.
>
>           b) The right to demand receipt of a filing fee of 2 units
>              from each Player involved in an Enforceable Contract when
>              that Contract is submitted.  This transaction shall be
>              accomplished in the proper fashion.  If one or more
>              Players involved in the Contract cannot or will not
>              pay the fee, the Contract is deemed to be non-Enforceable.
>
>     (v)   An Acting File Clerk has the right to demand payment of the
>           filing fee.  This section takes precedence over all mutable
>           rules.

Paragraph (v) claims that "This section takes precedence over all mutable 
rules." It is my reading -- and as File Clerk, my reading is the 
game-custom-setter (cf. CFJ 244) -- that the word "section" does not 
refer only to paragraph (v) but rather refers to the parts of R607 
dealing with filing fees.

In addition, it would appear that R514 implicitly defers by making the 
Enforceability of a contract a quality that it possesses, which can 
therefore be manipulated as specified by any applicable rules without the 
need for rules to take precedence over R514.

It is therefore my considered opinion as File Clerk that this Contract is 
non-Enforceable and therefore ceases to exist. Unless any CFJ's rule 
otherwise, the Contract should be ignored.

- -- this is not a name, File Clerk

- --      Mike Epstein            "Order your summers suit. Because is big
      [email-masked]           rush we will execute customers in
  *                      *       strict rotation."
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/             --Sign in a Rhodes tailor shop

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:55:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Postmasterness

Mail sent to observer [email-masked] has been bouncing since late last
night due to a full mailbox.  By rule 832, I am exercising my right to
move him to the digest version of the mailing list.

If his mail continues bouncing for a period of one week, I will exercise
Rule 901 to remove the observer from the game.  He has long since passed
the requirement of the number of messages sent.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:11:46 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Official: A New Contract 

tinan wrote:
>Malenkai and ThinMan have entered into the following Contract:

[contract deleted]

>It is my position that this contract is non-Enforceable, and therefore
>>     (iv) A Contract ceases to exist immediately upon being
>>     non-Enforceable.
>(R514).
>
>My reasoning for this position is as follows:
>
>If my contract with /dev/joe was legal, then Malenkai and ThinMan have no 
>A$ with which to pay the filing fee. Therefore, according to R607, the 
>contract is non-Enforceable. On the other hand, if my contract with 
>/dev/joe was not legal, neither is this one, and therefore neither one is 
>Enforceable.

[tinan's summary of my reasoning deleted.]

[From Rule 607:]
>>     (v)   An Acting File Clerk has the right to demand payment of the
>>           filing fee.  This section takes precedence over all mutable
>>           rules.
>
>Paragraph (v) claims that "This section takes precedence over all mutable 
>rules." It is my reading -- and as File Clerk, my reading is the 
>game-custom-setter (cf. CFJ 244) -- that the word "section" does not 
>refer only to paragraph (v) but rather refers to the parts of R607 
>dealing with filing fees.
>
>In addition, it would appear that R514 implicitly defers by making the 
>Enforceability of a contract a quality that it possesses, which can 
>therefore be manipulated as specified by any applicable rules without the 
>need for rules to take precedence over R514.
>
>It is therefore my considered opinion as File Clerk that this Contract is 
>non-Enforceable and therefore ceases to exist. Unless any CFJ's rule 
>otherwise, the Contract should be ignored.

I refer all Ackazens to Rule 514, section (ii):
"A Contract is Enforceable _iff_ the behaviours it regulates are among the
following list: [...]" (emphasis mine).  The contract which Malenkai and I
formed is therefore Enforceable according to R 514.  I claim that no rule
claims precedence over R 514 with regard to Enforceability, so the contract
in question is Enforceable despite any language to the contrary in R607.

tinan claims that the precedence clause in section (v) of rule 607 applies to
both section (iv) and section (v), despite the fact that it explicitly says
"_This section_ takes precedence [...]" (emphasis mine).  I'm not sure how he
can make that argument with a straight face.  Even if you follow his line of
reasoning, the function of that precedence claim is to allow an acting
officer to receive a privilege of the office, so it should apply to all
language in the rule involving acting officers, which does not include section
(iv).  this is not a name is File Clerk, not acting File Clerk, so R 607,
section (v) does not apply to him; even if it did, it would only allow him
to demand payment of the fee -- it does not impose any conxequences for
non-payment.

this is not a name's later "implicit deference" argument is absurd, and should
be ignored.  The fact that a rule defines an attribute of an entity in no way
implies that otherwise lower precedence rules may freely manipulate that
attribute in contradiction of the original rule.

I will write this into a CFJ now.  Expect it soon.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 17:50:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official Senate

I note that last night I announced my candidacy for the Senate.

I now announce that I am not seeking the Senate seat.  The nomination
process for the seat shall begin when the Appointer announces that it
does.  I note that I probably could not retract my nomination had the
nomination been announced, but it has not been announced, so...

I officially endorse snowgod for the seat.  I'm too tired, and have
double digit CFJs in the queue to process to check if a single player
may hold 2 seats.  As I remember the rule, nothing prohibits it, but
it may have been rewritten.  Oh well...

Back to the Courthouse.

Malenkai
Enlightened

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:03:42 +0000
From: The Supreme Court <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict

The Supreme Court overturns the original verdict for CFCJ 108, 
returning a verdict of TRUE.
 
Reasoning:

From R729:
> If, in a public message, a player refers to the Earth being round,
> or implies that this may be the case, any other player may call for
> a Witchhunt, by publically posting that they are doing so. 
 
As the witchhunts called for by Calvin n Hobbes were called against
himself, not another player, the call for the witchhunts was
not permitted by the rules, and the witchhunts did not take place.

From R592:
> A Protected action may not be performed except as specified by the
> rules. An action's performance has no effect on the game other than
> those effects specified by the Rules.

The issue at the heart of this judgement is: Given that protected 
actions may not be performed except as specified by the rules, did
CnH break R101? The original judge, tinan, ruled that it was 
impossible to attempt an illegal action, and therefore CnH did not 
call for any witchhunts, because he couldn't.

Clearly, CnH did call for some witchhunts, 239 to be precise. 

R592 says that "a protected action may not be performed", implying
that extra-legal manipulation is possible, but not permissible under
the rules. A player who performs such manipulation, then, has
violated R101.  R592 then says that the protected entity has no
effect on the game other than those effects specified by the rules. 
So, the manipulation generally does not have the claimed effect.  One
effect, however, is specified.  That is the effect specified by
R710-4, providing the reasoning for a CFCJ. 

Penalty for the original judge: 1 point

Sentence for Calvin n Hobbes:
7 days in Gaol
A fine of A$24 (A$0.1 for each witchhunt, rounded up)

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

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 18:13:07 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Official: A New Contract

ThinMan wrote:
>tinan claims that the precedence clause in section (v) of rule 607 applies to
>both section (iv) and section (v), despite the fact that it explicitly says
>"_This section_ takes precedence [...]" (emphasis mine).

"section" is nowhere defined in the rules. There is no reason to claim 
that (iv) and (v) are sections rather than paragraphs, stanzas, or 
what-have-you.

- --      Mike Epstein            "I believe in luck: how else can you
      [email-masked]           explain the success of those you
  *                      *       don't like?"
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/                         --Jean Cocteau

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

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 18:12:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 245 Verdict

CFJ 245 has been judged FALSE. 

I note that the reasoning may have further reaching effects that
are obvious at first.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 245
Subject: Locations
Initiator: snowgod
Judge: Robin Hood (selected Jul 29, 1996, 19:20h New York Time)

Statement:

A player may exist in two "locations" at the same time.

snowgod's Reasoning:

I have no real opinion on this issue I just want a judgement inserted into
game custom.  If a judgement of true is returned it would indicate that a
player is able to reside in his ackanomic home and another location (such
as the afterlife or a hotel) at simultaniously.  A verdict of false should
indicate that a player will reside only in the "location" to which he was
most recently placed.

Robin Hood's Reasoning:

The rules neither explicitly prevent bilocation, nor permit it.
Game custom means that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, english
nouns retain their normal properties. People can only be in one place
at one time so I must rule false.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #151
*******************************