Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #176
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, August 14 1996      Volume 01 : Number 176

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 14:48:30 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1089 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1089
  Proposal 1089 - Tue Aug 06 00:33:56 EDT 1996
  Publically Knowable
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 13 eligible voters -- 11 players cast votes

12 YES votes   1 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Malenkai gains 9 points.  237 -> 246

12 YES votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  = 246               
  Robin Hood                                  =  27               
  Brinjal                                     =  26               
  ThinMan                                     =  72               
  Niccolo Flychuck                            =  53               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =  12               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  75               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  30               
  /dev/joe                                    = 178               
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =  32               
  Wayne                  Underworld           = -15               

1 NO votes:  2 points each
  Techno                 Underworld            66 -> 68           

0 PRESENT votes:

2 ABSTENTIONS:
  Bascule                FUN                  
  Geezer                                      

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Mellon                                      
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  De'ghew                Underworld           
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Foozball Unity vote                         
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             
  Pascal                                      

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 1089 - Tue Aug 06 00:33:56 EDT 1996
Publically Knowable
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

{{[The proposal is complicated, but I believe it will simplify the game.
The idea here is that proposals are applied and score
changes are effective the time of the post announcing them.  So there is
none of this pseudo thread splitting where we have to wonder if P 1043
passed.  It has no effect until Wayne distributes it, and no pseudo-
retrocative effect.  Also score changes basically happen in the order
of the email that announces the effect that generated the change.

The idea is simple, but the implementation is complex.  I, along with
input from /dev/joe, spent alot of time on it, so if you're going to
vote no, please indicate why from the RFC and I'll try to fix it.

To /dev/joe, I made it work like R 793 does, or at least tried :)

I added one thing from the final RFC version.  That was to make sure the
Tabulator maintained temporal order of proposal result reporting.]}}

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Create a new rule entitled "I'd never be able to sort it out", which reads
in full:

No player shall receive any points based on the way they voted for
the proposal which created this rule as specified by R 207. The author
of the proposal that created this rule shall gain no points by the
application of R 207.

If, however, any score changes happened as a result of the proposal
which created this rule before the rule first takes effect, then
equal but opposite score changes to all such score changes are applied
to all players who received such changes.

This rule has precedence over all other mutable rules. This rule shall
repeal itself 1 week after it is adopted.

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

Transmute R 106 to Mutable.

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

Amend R 106, "When Proposals Can Take Effect" to read, in full:

      An accepted rule change is applied, or accepted new rules take
effect, at the time their tabulated voting results are officially
reported. This is considered the "when a rule change is applied", or
"time of application".

      No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
before the generation of the effect. A rule change may not have any
effects retroactive to before the time of its application.

      A statement verified by judgement, however, applies retroactively to
any past game situation it may concern.

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

Transmute R 106 to Immutable.

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

Amend R 414, "The Office of the Tabulator" replace section (c) under
"Duties of the Tabulator", to read in full:

"(c) to report the acceptance or rejection of each proposal. Proposal
results must be reported in the time order in which their voting 
periods ended."

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

Amend Rule 491 "What Is A Rule Change?, to replace the second and
third paragraphs with the following text"

      "When a valid rule change is takes effect, at its time of
application, the effect described by the rule change happens. The
adoption of an invalid rule change has no effect.

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

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

Amend Rule 207 "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Period Ends" to make
the following changes numbered 1 thru 4:

1) Change its title to "Scoring When A Proposal's Voting Results are
Reported"

2) Add the following text before the current text:

"All the following scoring changes are applied at the time the Proposal's
tabulated voting results are officially reported, unless the new rule or
rule change calls for an instantaneous change to 1 or more players' score,
in which case the score changes detailed in this rule are applied an
infintesimal amount of time after those effects are applied."

If more than one Proposal's tabulated voting results are officially
reported at the same time, the scoring changes are applied in numerical
order of the Proposals, with an infintesimal amount of time separating
each application."

3) Replace all occurrences of the word "When" with the word "If".

4) Add the following sections at the end of the current text:

"If a proposal is accepted which contains less than five lines of text
 in the body of the proposal (excluding whitespace and furniture), the
 player who submitted it is awarded 5 extra points."

{{[this is moving R 379 in, it will be easier]}}

"All of these score changes are deemed to occur simultaneously per
proposal with respect to each player."
 
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal Rule 379, "Short is Good".

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

Create a new rule entitled "When Score Changes Take Effect", reading
in full:

Score changes take effect as specified below, depending on the category
of the score change.  If the category cannot be determined for some
reason, the score change is deemed to take effect when it is publically
knowable.

1) Score Changes Managed by Officers

  a) All score changes take effect when the officer in charge of managing or
reporting on an activity which could produce a score change, announces the
effect which results in the score change.

  b) [For example, if a player fails to deliver judgement in a certain
time, the penalty for that failure is not scored until the officer
responsible for managing and reporting CFJs announces this fact.
Another example is polls taken where the result of the poll dictates
a scoring change. That change occurs when the results of the poll are
publically released.]

  c) Players, acting in their capacity as officers, must announce all score
changes they are responsible for notification of in the order which they
are made aware the occurrance. They must do so in a timely manner.

  d) The Scorekeeper is not considered an office for the purpose of this
section (1). This section (1), defers precedence to R 207.

  e) [Examples of current rules in this category are: 213, 400, 588,
593 (-20), 613, 729 (-10), 730 (-12, -3), 761 (-10 only), 937.]

2) Score Changes Triggered by Player Actions and Public Announcements
 
  a) If a score change is due to some other effect, such as the result of a
public posting, proposal retraction, or CFCJ penalty, etc, the score
change is said to occur at the time of the public post.

  b) [Examples of current rules in this category are: 423, 569, 578,
593 (-5 only), 730 (+6 only).]

3) Rule Based Triggered or Mandated Score Changes

  a) If the score change is due to an event occurring (such as a player
reaching a certain score, or the adoption of a proposal), this score
change is said to occur an infintesimal amount of time after it is
possible for the public to be aware of the event occurring.

  b) [For example, if there exists a trigger whereby a player has 80
points added to their score if they reach -60 points, and they have -58
points, and make a public proposal retraction which causes a loss of 2
points, they gain 80 points an infintesimal amount of time after that post.
The public may not actually know this at the time, but it is possible for
them to know it].
  
  e) [Examples of current rules in this category are: 207, 306, 339,
761 (except the -10), 824, 866, 962.2]

4) Scoring Changes Based on the Content of an Adopted Proposal

  a) If a Score change is called for based on the content of a Proposal, or
a rule change created by that proposal, it is deemed to have occurred
simultaneaouly with any score changes mandated by R 207. It is the duty
of the Scorekeeper to announce such score changes.

  b) [Examples of current rules in this category are: 728, 798]
 
5) Scoring on Changes to Rules Which Cause Score Changes
  
If a score change is due to a rule or entity (e.g. Magic Potato), and
a rule change is adopted that affects how that rule or entity causes
score changes (including, but not limited to, destroying the entity),
then no score changes are generated by that rule or entity for the
adoption of the specific rule change in question. This paragraph
has precedence over sections 2), 3) and 4) where there is a conflict.
This rule defers precedence to R 793 where there is a conflict.
[This is to handle the "Potato Paradox" when a Proposal passes to repeal
the Magic Potato, or the 10th proposal passes that repeals the Brass
Monkey, no scoring is generated by those entities for the proposal
which passed.]

6) Exceptions, Errors, and Omissions

  a) No score changes can occur simultaneously for a given player, except
where the rules explicitly say they can. If it appears that they do, they
shall be categorizied into the above categories, and occur in the order
the above categories occur in this rule. If that still leaves any apparant
simultaneous score changes, the score changes will occur in the order of
largest absolute value first. If that still leaves a tie, however, the
tied score changes shall occur at the same time.

  b) Score changes can occur retroactively if an event in the past which
caused a score change is altered or nullified due to a Judgement verdict.

  c) Score changes can occur retroactively if an error or omission in
scoring is discovered, and that error or ommission occurred within the
14 days preceding the public announcement of the error or ommission.
This clause defers to R 106 where there is a conflict.

  d) Except as specified in b) or c), retroactive score changes are not
possible or permitted, except as permitted by R 106.

  e) This section (6) has precedence over sections 1 thru 5, where there
is a conflict

7) Rule Precedence

This rule has precedence over all other Mutable rules dealing with
scoring, except that it defers precedence to R 207, and except where
specific clauses above defer precedence.

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

Amend Rule 422 "Required Number Of Points To Win" to
replace all occurrances of the word "privilege" with the word "duty".

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

Amend Rule 762 "The Great Trombone of Ackanomia" to replace the
second paragraph with the following text:

        "Whenever the Great Trombone is Somewhere Else, the first player
to make a valid public claim will take possession of it. A claim is only
valid if the player concerned has had a publically knowable score of
exactly 76 points at any time within the past 2 days."

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

Amend Rule 901 "No E-mail, No Game" to append the following at the
end of the current text:

"If possible, all players must configure their e-mail software to
correctly report the current time for the time zone specified. Otherwise,
they must make public notification of what corrections need to be applied
to compensate for erroreneous time stamps indicated on their posts. All
posts are deemed to have occurred at the corrected time, if the time stamp
of a post is erroreneous."

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

Amend Rule 1022, "Spelling Bee", to replace section 3) with the following:

      3) Its flight may be initiated at any time, including immediately
after the Application of a Rule change, or the publication of a CFJ verdict.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:27:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial

As outgoing Acting Financier, I put together a final package of everyting
I did while in that office.  The balances are at the bottom, as are the
logs of all transactions.  This includes the salaries of 8/13, and
everything up until the Whamiol auction.

Malenkai
ex-Acting Financier (its now someone else's problem)

This is an attempted accurate figuring of our account balances as of
the time of the post, including Tammany for results released today.
I believe it is accurate, assuming the baseline I used is accurate.
I have shown in detail how the results were derived, so they can be
verified or corrected (I wish ThinMan would do this from time to time :)).

The final results are at the bottom, please notify me of any errors or
ommissions.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was calculated by figuring the delta between the correct score on
22 and 8, then taking the delta ThinMan arrived at, and then taking
the delta of the deltas, which is "fix", the value needed to be added
to everyone's balance on the 22nd to correct.  Next we take the delta
from 22 to 5, to figure the yield for this cycle, yielding 22->5
figure.  Next we add the two to get what we must add to the balances.
(And yes, in each delta, I accounted for the fact that debt was 1/2
the real delta).

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Acka Name   22 (ThinMan)  22 (actual)  fix   5 (act)  22->5 yld [fix+yld]
      /dev        140           147        7      164       17        24
    Bascule        29            24       -5       47       23        18
    Brinjal         9             4       -5       15        9         4
     Calvin       -19           -23       -2      -33       -5        -7
     chess          0             0        0      -10       -5        -5
    De'ghew        11            10        1       11        1         2
      fon           0             0        0        0        0         0
    Habeous        23             12     -11       14        2        -9
     Kelly         32             37       5       41        4         9
    Malenka        35             71      36      146       75       111
     Mellon        28             25      -3       15       -5        -8
       mr          18             17      -1       28       11        10
    Niccolo       -14             -9       2        0        9        11
     Pascal       -19            -24      -2      -24        0        -2
    pTang10        31             36       5       36        0         5
     Robert         0             -3      -1       -3        0        -1
     Robin         27             19      -8       21        2        -6
     Simon          0              0       0        0        0         0
    snowgod       -51            -34       9       22       56        65
     Techno        40             37      -3       49       12         9
      The           0             -4      -2       -4        0        -2
    ThinMan         2              4       1       28       24        25
      this         56             59       3       60        1         4
     Wayne        -42            -43      -1      -24       22        21 
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next we assume that ThinMan's player balances were correct on 7/24,
when published.  This was a wednesday:

/dev/joe             962
Bascule              815
Brinjal              567
Calvin N Hobbes      459
chess piece face     463
De'ghew              633
fon                  530 
Habeous Corpus       923 
Kelly Martin         488
Malenkai             943
Mellon               928 
mr cwm               549 
Niccolo Flychuck     507
Pascal               503
pTang1001001sos      933 
Robert Sevin         514 
Robin Hood           782
Simon Marty Harriman 491
snowgod              427
Techno               759
The Great Old One    448
ThinMan              791 
this is not a name   783
Wayne                790 

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
leaving salaries due for 7/30 and 8/6.

Salaries:

(assumes Financier is a Functional office, assistant thereto is not)
(assumes Ambassador and Inventor and Appointer are not functional)

chess piece face:  3
/dev/joe:          6
Malenkai:         10
mr cwm:            3
S. M. Harriman:    3 (8/6 only)
ThinMan:           3
tinan:             4
Wayne:             4

These salaries were used for 7/30 and 8/6, and were found to be in
error.  The corrections were placed in the log.  The salaries used for
8/13 were:

/dev/joe:          6
Malenkai:         10
mr cwm:            3
S. M. Harriman:    4
ThinMan:           4
tinan:             7 (historian, file clerk, appointer twice, senator)
Wayne:             4

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

Log of all credits and debits since ThinMan's last account post:

7/25 /dev/joe     -20   CFCJ 107
7/25 /dev/joe     -20   CFCJ 108
7/29 snowgod      -25   Tammany P 1015
7/29 snowgod      -25   Tammany P 1016
7/29 tinan        -25   Tammany P 1018
7/29 Robert Sevin -20   CFCJ 109
7/30 Malenkai      -5   Tammany P 1033
8/02 snowgod      -25   Tammany P 1045
8/02 tinan        -25   Tammany P 1045
8/02 mr cwm       -25   Tammany P 1045
8/02 CnH          -24   CFCJ 108 Penalty
8/02 tinan        -10   Little Lamb (note that this does not go to the 
Treasury)
8/02 tinan        -10   Wool Sweater
8/02 snowgod      -20   CFCJ 110
8/02 snowgod      -20   CFCJ 111
8/06 snowgod       +8   electronic potato
8/08 Bascule     -275   Blue Thing
8/06 Malenkai     +28   Blue Thing Comission
8/09 Malenkai      -5   Tammany P 1056
8/09 mr cwm       -15   Tammany P 1056
8/09 tinan        -25   Tammany P 1053
8/11 tinan         +4   correction
8/11 cpf           -6   correction
8/11 /dev/joe      +1   correction
8/11 smh           +1   correction
8/11 ThinMan       +2   correction
8/12 Malenkai     -10   Tammany P 1071
8/12 Malenkai      -5   Tammany P 1075
8/12 snowgod       +2   electronic potato
8/13 Habeous Corp -75   Whamiol
8/13 snowgod       +8   Whamiol commission

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

We now have to calculate balances as of 8/4, as that is when Geezer
joined.  That is unfortunate, as the bond yields are as of 8/5, and
I have done correction + bond yield, which means I must add correction
now, then on the fifth, add the total and subtract out the correction.

This calc includes the correction, one batch of salaries, and the
log up until 8/4

/dev/joe             935
Bascule              810
Brinjal              562
Calvin N Hobbes      433
chess piece face     466
De'ghew              634
fon                  530 
Habeous Corpus       912 
Kelly Martin         493
Malenkai             984
Mellon               925 
mr cwm               526 
Niccolo Flychuck     509
Pascal               501
pTang1001001sos      938 
Robert Sevin         493 
Robin Hood           774
Simon Marty Harriman 491
snowgod              321
Techno               756
The Great Old One    446
ThinMan              795 
this is not a name   720
Wayne                795 

Sigma all non dead players = 13872
21 non dead players => 13872/21 = 660.57 => 661 for Geezer

Note that the dead players can be removed now.  The value above should be
close, (and I believe exact), to the amount that their undead are
haunting.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, add in the 8/5 bond yields, 8/6, 8/13 salaries, and the last entries
on the log + corrections.  Balances as of 8/13 19:00:

/dev/joe             965
Bascule              558
Brinjal              553
Calvin N Hobbes      427
chess piece face     458
De'ghew              635
fon                  530
Geezer               661 
Habeous Corpus       839 
Malenkai            1087
Mellon               920 
mr cwm               528 
Niccolo Flychuck     518
Pascal               501
Robert Sevin         493 
Robin Hood           776
Simon Marty Harriman 499
snowgod              395
Techno               768
ThinMan              829 
this is not a name   711
Wayne                825 

Total:    14476.00
Average:    658.00
Treasury: 60514.00
Orkatass Lawn Care Company and Motor Inn: 10.00

All players have 100 PFblah in their name

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:39:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Using Rule 901 on Bascule

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> A whole big batch of bounce mail came in from Bascule's mail server this
> morning; it seems even the bounces were a little delayed.  This completes
> the 3-day period of bounced mail necessary for me to use Rule 901 to put
> Bascule on vacation, so I am doing so, which will prevent him from losing
> any more points like he did with the CFJ.  This also allows Malenkai to
> appoint an acting Justice to handle the appeals, I think.

I have received private e-mail from Bascule.  I have also received
notification of bouncing mail.  Bascule accepted appointment for CFJ
262 and 263 before /dev/joe placed him on vacation.  262 was after he
was deadbeated, however.

I shall hold off handling the justice seat until his status is clarified.
In other words, I shall be the acting Justice.  I believe this is
permissable, as R 457 claims precedence over R 507.  I do not intend to
do anything as acting justice until:
	a) mr cwm requests that I do, or
	b) its clear that Bascule's server is hosed, and he will be gone
for a while.  

If someone thinks I am reading R 457 wrong, I shall appoint an acting
Justice post haste.  This was a real hassle last time, however, and it
looks that Bascule is sort of back.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:51:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 262 Verdict

CFJ 262 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 262
  Subject: Absentee legislation
Initiator: Wayne
    Judge: Bascule (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (selected Aug 13, 1996, 09:22h New York Time)

Statement:

A player on vacation cannot submit proposals to be distributed.

Wayne's reasoning:

[none provided - CotC]

Malenkai's reasoning:

From R 457:

> The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off
> vacation, or perform any action permitted by an Immutable Rule.

This rule claims precedence over all mutable rules, except that it
defers to rules pertaining to acting functional officers, in certain
specific circumstances.  There is no mutable rule which allows proposal
submission and has precedence over this clause.

I find no Immutable rule that explicitly allows proposal submission by
a player on vacation either.  R 115 does not apply here as well.

Thus a player on vacation may not submit proposals, and thus the
statement I was asked to judge is TRUE.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:48:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 261 Verdict

CFJ 261 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 261
  Subject: Scientific Inquiry
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Brinjal (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: snowgod (decliend to judge)
3rd Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Aug 10, 1996, 20:30h New York Time)

Statement:

If a Blueprint is judged to create a Gadget who's behaviour could
*potentially* break the Rules (or it could *possibly* be used to break
the rules), the Blueprint is destroyed in accordance with R 594.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

R 594 is not clear. I think it should be. In particular, the rendering
of "conflict" in R 594 (ii) should be clarified.

Habeous Corpus' Reasoning:

Malenkai is right in eir reasoning,  Rule 594 _is_ unclear in it's
wording of paragraph (ii).  However,  from that wording,  it can be
reasonably implied that the purpose of the paragraph is to cover
Blueprints that ,  as their main purpose or unavoidable side effect,
WILL violate a Rule or set of Rules.

Unfortunately there is currently no protection against any Player using
Gadgets to viloate the Rules if,  as a byproduct of the Blueprint's
design,  the designed behavior of the Gadget allows for such a use.  This
has the potential to lead to more than a few Paradoxes.

It is therefore _my_ interpretation that while the implicit meaning of R
594 (ii) is to cover the _designed_ behavior of a Blueprint,  *potential*
behavior may be used to invoke R 594 (ii) and destroy the Blueprint.
Therefore Malenkai's Statement is TRUE.

I note,  however,  for the record that merely because a Blueprint is
destroyed as a result of judgement on this issue,  any Gadgets previously
created based on the Blueprint are not destroyed at the same time.
Gadgets themselves are Protected and governed by other Rules and do not
even necessarily require a Blueprint to be created.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:55:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: PFBonds for sale

I'm offering some PFBonds for sale. 

If anybody's interested, contact me.

Will trade for A$ of for PFBonds

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:09:28 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC (was P 1065)

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> I do not presume that just because and RFC receives no comments, that it
> will pass.  The fact of the matter is that about 80% of my RFCs receive
> no comments.  It was a simple question to see if people actually want them
> to continue.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
It could also mean that the topic is not interesting enough for players to
comment on. Then there is the more rare occasion, that an RFC which has
been hashed out for days on the days public forum, by several players,
eventually fails. The main benefit I got from posting RFCs are some of the
private discussions that followed.  
I don't think we should do away with RFCs entirely, some proposals just
don't need them, in some cases it's just a way of saying "I've got this
idea, you see", and any response they generate, whether public or private,
is worth reading. Even an like it/ don't like it, is a response one can
use.

Back when the multiple lists were created (as part of the commission idea
that never really got off the ground), I thought the idea was to make one
list dedicated only to official messages, proposal, voting results etc.
and put the discussion on another list, so that people who are not as
interested in the discussion can read just the official stuff.  But we are
a fairly small group, and it appears that no one wants to completely out
of the discussion, and some discussions are not limited to a single
subject.  
I don't know if such a scheme is necessary or even desirable for
ackanomic, and personally I don't mind which way it goes, since I'd
probably stay on most lists anyway.

Perhaps other players would like to see such a change
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 19:22:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Mail Server is up again

Yesterday, somebody sent so much mail to wilma all at once that
sendmail ran out of memory and crashed.  Ever since then, attempts
to send mail to wilma have failed, probably with a "connection refused"
type of response.  I was busy yesterday all day (and during the day
today) but I noticed the lack of mail.  I still got the message
majordomo sends me every night at midnight (to tell me it compiled
and sent out a digest) but majordomo calls sendmail directly to do this,
so this still worked (and I believe people on the ackanomic-digest list
should have gotten a digest last night).  Thus, at that time I mistakenly
believed it was just a quiet night in Ackanomia.  After still not
getting any mail today, I investigated the problem, and found no
sendmail running as well as the "out of memory - sendmail" error in the
kernel log.

Some people apparently tried mailing me, but of course I didn't get it.
If this ever happens again, send mail to [email-masked]
which should still be working (although it has been down at times as
well).

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 10:18:55 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: getting caught up on my reading

On Friday,  9 Aug 96,  Malenkai wrote:

>I did not realise that blueprints could "regulate"?  Are they rules?
>I actually believe there is language to the contrary in the rules.
>There is no reason why what I did was not legal.  The term "Vending
>Machine" appears once in the rules (R 1036) and it is not regulated,
>or even defined there, all it needs to do is exist, by any way, shape,\
>or means (qv CFJ 229)

I beg to differ with Malenkai,  but according to Rule 786 ("Gadgets")
Blueprints _DO_ regulate.  snowgod's Blueprint named and described
"Vending Machines" which makes them Protected by R786.  R786 does allow
you to creat one of your own,  but only by Proposing a Rule that does so,
 and of course you have to get it passed.    8-/

E also wrote:

>The electorate is confused and undecided.  I think the candidates should
>state the shape of the earth.

>It is round.  What do you guys think?

>Malenkai

Even though I know the election is already over {congrats,  again, 
snowgod}  eir final comment is exactly the reason I have submitted my
RFC.  If the Proposal fails and Duels passes,  I may have to challeng
Malenkai.  8-)

Habeous Corpus
<Any child can tell you that the sole purpose of a middle name is so that
he can tell when he's really in trouble.  Dennis Fakes>

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 10:19:45 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: getting caught up Part 2

In CFJ 263,  snowgod wrote:

>#2 -     R703 tells us that "Nothing in Ackanomic shall have the name or
>title as any other thing in Ackanomic, with the exception that a Rule
title
>may be the same as the name of an Entity that rule defines. Rules,
Players,
>Offices, Organizations, Political Parties, and Entities defined in the
rules are specifically covered by this rule, but other things may be
>covered as well. Proposals are specifically not covered.  "

>This rule does not exclude entities created by R115, so by inference we
may
>conclude that they are covered.  Since there already exists a blueprint
>with the a name of "Vending  Machine" it seems clear the Malenkai may
not
>create an item with the same name.

Unfurtunately,  This reasoning is flawed.  If we do apply R703 to these
entities (Gadgets),  then we have a problem with Gadgets having the same
name as their Blueprints.  Even though Rules 594 and 786 reference each
other,  and specify that Gadgets have the same name as their Blueprints, 
if we apply R703,  these Rules are clearly invalidated.  I beleive
Malenkai also brings up this issue.  By _NOT_ applying R703,  we avoid
invalidating Blueprints,  but the Gadgets Rule may require tightening to
prevent R115 being invoked.

I personally don't believe this to be the case;  Rule 786 seems to
clearly regulate Gadgets,  as stated in snowgod's first argument,  but
we'll have to see if the judge agrees.

Habeous Corpus
<Any child can tell you that the sole purpose of a middle name is so that
he can tell when he's really in trouble.  Dennis Fakes>

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:48:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: getting caught up on my reading

Ed Graham wrote: 

> I beg to differ with Malenkai,  but according to Rule 786 ("Gadgets")
> Blueprints _DO_ regulate.  

Blueprints are not rules and only "regulate", and I use the term
loosely, Gadgets themselves.  The entity I created by R 115 was not
a gadget.

The Inventor/Blueprint stuff is rife with loopholes and problems,
IMHO, the first of which was CFJ 261, the next of which is "Malenkai's
Loophole" with respect to blueprinted gadgets and R 703.  There are
others...

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 23:30:45 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Whoa!

I return from vacation

(I never knew I'd gone away)

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:05:59 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1056 Fails

> Here are the voting results for : 1056
>   Proposal 1056 - Tue Jul 30 12:44:51 EDT 1996
>   I Should Be Allowed to Think
>   /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> Quorum met : 10 eligible voters -- 10 players cast votes
> 
> 6 YES votes   9 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes

> Proposal FAILS
> 9 NO votes:  
>   Malenkai               FUN                  = 165               
>   Brinjal                                     =  15               
>   Bascule                FUN                  =  47               
>   snowgod                (None Yet)           =  14               
>   this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  62               
>   Habeous Corpus                              =  16               
>   (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
>   Tammany                                     =   0               
>   mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =  29               

I thank all those True Believers who voted against this proposal, 
particularly Malenkai and me cwm (who bribed Tammany)

Bascule

 

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:52:51 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1112

> Proposal 1112 - Sun Aug 11 23:42:48 EDT 1996
> The Harfy Stuff
> snowgod  (Phil Ackley)
 
> 3) Create a new rule entitled "Let those who are without Harf cast the
> first stone." with the following text:
> 
> If any player feels the Harfmeister is hogging the Harf [that is, sitting
> on the title of Harfmeister with no intent to designate any proposals as
> Harfy], they may call for a Inquistition by publically announcing they
> are doing so.
> 
> During the Inquisition, which lasts 3 days, players send their votes to
> the Assistant Tabulator (hereafter referred to as the Assistant Tabulator)
> containing the name of the alleged Harf Hogger. Players can vote either
> "No! He's going to share the Harf!", or "Yes! He is Hogging the Harf!"

Is someone taking the piss?

> After the Inquisition is over, a simple majority will determine whether
> or not the alleged Harf Hogger has been hogging the Harf. The Assistant
> Tabulator will publicly announce the outcome.
> 
> If a majority agree that the Harfmeister is hogging the Harf, the person
> who called for the Inquisition becomes the Harfmeister.

This is a wonderful proposal. I was in the Biochemistry computer 
cluster when I first read it, surrounded by serious people writing up 
papers and PhDs and the like, and I got some funny looks because of 
my uncontrollable laughter

It's probably a bit late now to go in the rule, but the Harfmeister
might like to designate proposals as either "A nice, sensible
proposal", or "Harfier than a very Harfy thing with extra Harf"

Bascule

 

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:17:52 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Debate Cancelled

> Bascule, I was hoping, was going to moderate a presidential debate between
> Niccolo Flychuck and myself, this afternoon.  It appears though, that this
> won't be happening.  I have recieved a few "Mail Delayed" messages from his
> SMTP server.

:(

I would have *loved* to moderate a live televised Presidential 
debate. 

Next time! We'll do it.

Mail is getting through again. It's those people up at our Computing 
place, they shut machines down and "improve" the system over weekends 
sometimes. They don't bother to tell anybody though. And I've yet to 
see any improvements.

Bascule

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:11:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial Transfer

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I hearby transfer A$12 to Malenkai, because he is such a swell guy.
> 
> Wayne

I hereby accept said transfer.  Would the acting financier please 
approve, and note the change.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:33:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial (ThinMan)

ThinMan should be back soon.  The following additional transactions
need to be logged to my latest list:

tinan: -A$1: (file clerk repealed before salaries paid; publically
              knowable had not yet passed)
Wayne: -A$12
Malenkai: +A$12

Malenkai
Acting Financier

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 21:47:09 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: WAR

On Wed,  14 Aug 96,  snowgod wrote:

>stuff...
>(PS: It could have been worse: I could have given in to the great
temptation to 
>insert references to _Dune_'s Great Convention and thus create a Dune
Nomic. ;) )

I don't see why not,  then we would have someone to go to war with.  O
rmaybe you want to turn Internomic into a war zone.     Sounds like fun. 
8^\

Habeous Corpus
<How many ants would have to fart simultaneously before anyone noticed?-
Harry Harrison>

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #176
*******************************