Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #179
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, August 16 1996        Volume 01 : Number 179

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 14:22:47 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Electronic Potato 

Would the financier please trnasfer A$4 into my account?  (A$2 each for the
passage of P1096 and P1098)

Thank you,
snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 18:37:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1093 Fails

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Here are the voting results for : 1093
> >   Proposal 1093 - Wed Aug 07 15:03:22 EDT 1996

> Who bribed Tammany and for how much?

A$10 Malenkai.  Did anyone else :) ?

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:42:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Report

Geezer did not post what phoebe said and carelessly lost the matchbox; he
loses 3 points.  I believe that this now happens at the time I post this,
rather than at the end of the 7 days.  Anyway, Wayne has now found the
matchbox.

After that last batch of proposals, and the change for Geezer above,
these are the current scores.  Note that Malenkai's score did not pass
the Magic Number; Wayne has some erroneous scores in the bot due to
counting at least one retracted proposal, and proposal 1089.  The Magic
Number is still 257.

Score	Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----	--------------      ---  -------------
247	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
178	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
80	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
74	ThinMan              V   (John Bollinger) 
74	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
56	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
38	Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
37	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
34	mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
32	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
20	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
15	Mellon              IV   (Niklas Mellin)
12	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
8	De'ghew              V   (John Spickes) 
0	Simon Marty Harriman A   (Andy Swan) 
- -3	Geezer               A   (David Chapman)
- -3	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
- -3	Robert Sevin         V   (Mitchell Harding) 
- -10	chess piece face     V   (Paul Swan) 
- -11	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
- -24	Pascal               V   (Jason Reed) 
- -33	Calvin N Hobbes     IV   (Thierry Joffrain)

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:44:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Phoebe (Wayne)

Just in case it was missed, I put the Phoebe stuff in the message with the
score report.  Geezer didn't post what phoebe said and now Wayne has found
the matchbox.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:57:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1096 Passes

> Proposal 1096 - Wed Aug 07 15:05:30 EDT 1996
> Portraits II
> snowgod  (Phil Ackley)
> 
> It is a Duty of the Web-Harfer to maintain a gallery of portraits.
> 
> This gallery shall be linked to the Official Ackanomic Web Page and must
> contain every portrait of a player that the Web-Harfer has recieved.  If a
> player has no portrait the Web-Harfer shall place an empty picture fram in
> the gallery containing the words "This space reserved for x" (where x is
> the name of the player without a portrait.)
> 
> If the Web-Harfer can think of a feasible way of doing so, he may charge
> admission to the gallery.  However, the price of Admission must never
> exceed A$2. Charging admission is a privlige of the Web-Harfer.

A really lame version of the gallery is up; I will make a version
which uses frames when I have more time, and when I have some portraits
to put in it.  You may submit your portraits.  I have submitted a proposal
to fix some of the minor defects I pointed out in the proposal.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:00:49 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1096 Passes 

>A really lame version of the gallery is up; I will make a version
>which uses frames when I have more time, and when I have some portraits
>to put in it.  You may submit your portraits.  I have submitted a proposal
>to fix some of the minor defects I pointed out in the proposal.

Would you prefer we submit our portraites by email or ftp?

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:09:11 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Portraits For Sale! 

Now that we have that fancy gallery, with a spot reserved just for you,
what are you going to put in?  Another boring photograph of yourself?

NO!

For A$25 I will create a portrait of you, specially designed to your
preferences.  Send me an existing photograph, or failing that a description
of how you would like your portrait to appear, and I will custom create
your new portrait (which will be hung proudly in the gallery).

Take advantage of this amazing offer now!  Don't delay.  Limited
Quantities.  Offer may end any time.  Money back  if you are not satisfied.
Not available in any store.

snowgod

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - President
Inventor - Former 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: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 19:33:35 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: Harfy

On Thursday,  15 Aug 96,  Bascule wrote:

>What about an Acka-Harfy mailing list, for the development of harfy 
rules?

>Bascule

Sign me up.

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 19:33:35 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 1119

I urge all Ackazens to vote against this Proposal.  No matter how it is
pronounced,  Ackanomic is OUR name,  and dsoes not deserve to be tinkered
with.  

What would happen if,  all of a sudden,  people started calling tomatoes
"Pam" because ey couldn't decide if the "a" was long or chort?  Besides, 
what does it matter how it's pronounced,  in a print media?

And simpler is not always better.  Other games have much shorter names
than Ackanomic,  like craps,  Go,  and even bridge.  If they were better,
 how come we're not all out playing them instead of this?

I think Ackanomic is a wonderful name for a wonderful game;  its phonetic
uncertainty even helps define us.  Please help me defeat this longwinded,
and unnecessary legislation.   8-P

Also,  I'm not sure yet,  but one clause of this Proposal seems to be on
very shaky ground:

>Create a new rule entitled "Bob Harfer" with the following text:

>{{[It is recognized that some omisions or mistakes may have been made
>during the process of transforming Ackanomia to Bobdom, therefore]}}

>The CSRR is given the tile of Bob Harfer.  It shall be considered >good
form
>for the Bob Harfer to make any changes to the ruleset that he deems
>apropriate to eas the transition from Ackanomic to Bob.

>When the Bob Harfer is finished making nescessary changes, players are
>allowed to cheer and congratulate the Bob harfer on a job well done.

_CAN_ an official have two Titles for the same position?

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 18:42:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1096 Passes

> >A really lame version of the gallery is up; I will make a version
> >which uses frames when I have more time, and when I have some portraits
> >to put in it.  You may submit your portraits.  I have submitted a proposal
> >to fix some of the minor defects I pointed out in the proposal.
> 
> Would you prefer we submit our portraites by email or ftp?

E-mail your portraits to me; I can handle uuencoded, binhexed, and MIME mail.
Do not reply to this message, as it will go out to the entire list.

- --
/dev/joe   Joseph DeVincentis   [email-masked]
Web-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 20:20:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Proposal 1119

[email-masked] wrote:

[about "Bob" cut]
 
> I urge all Ackazens to vote against this Proposal.  No matter how it is
> pronounced,  Ackanomic is OUR name,  and dsoes not deserve to be tinkered
> with.

I believe snowgod is up there too close to those Northwest Territories
of Canada, which, in all seriousness, have a proposal on the table, or
a referendum or something, to change their name  to "Bob" once they
split into two.  Some of the arguments used by snowgod are being used 
by the pro Bob faction there.  It will be  interesting to see how
both turn out.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 20:38:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 263 Verdict

CFJ 263 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 263
  Subject: Vending Machine
Initiator: snowgod
    Judge: Malenkai (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Bascule (selected Aug 12, 1996, 21:24h New York Time)

Statement:

Malenkai may not create a vending machine by invoking R115.

Reasoning:

I have two sets of reasoning.  Either one should be sufficient to require a
verdict of TRUE.

#1 - R115 states that "Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated
by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing
the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly
or implicitly permits it."  At first this would seem to indicate that
Malenkai could indeed create a Vending Machine, per R115.  However, there
already exists a blueprint for an item called a vending machine, which is
regulated by the rules.  R593, R594 and R786 in full or in part regulate
blueprints, and therefore regulate the vending machine.

However, even if the judge finds fault with that argument, please consider
the following...

#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.

First Judge's Comments:

Again, the conflict of interest question.  As ThinMan once pointed out, a
predisposed opinion on the issue does not necessarily indicate a
conflict of interest.  Furthermore, if the statement can be decided by
*fact*, as opposed to opinion or interpretation, conflict of interest
is meaningless.

I shall thus explore the issue, and determine if it can be decided by
fact.  If not, I shall decide whether or not to decline.

snowgod's first argument is fallacious.  R 115 allows Malenkai to create
a Vending Machine.  It does not allow Malenkai to create a gadget or
a blueprint, as blueprints and the act of creating a gadget are
protected.  Malenkai did neither of these things, although the Vending
Machine he instantiated has *similar* properties to a gadget described
by an extant blueprint.

snowgod claims in argument one, that because the rules regulate blueprints,
they regulate vending machines.  He does not give us any reason to take
that leap of faith, however.  Thus, by implication, snowgod is claiming
that blueprints are rules.  Are they?  I quote from R 594:

>[A Blueprint is not a legally binding document except where the Rules
> say that it is.]

A quote in notes brackets.  Certainly indicates that blueprints are not
rules.  When R 594 passed, the text in square brackets was defined by
rule to be game custom.  I see no evidence that that statement is no
longer game custom (i.e., blueprints have not recently become rules).

Thus the rules (as blueprints), do not regulate Vending Machines.

snowgod's second argument is fallacious.  snowgod quotes R 703 in
attempting to establish a claim that because an entity exists called
"vending machine", Malenkai may not instantiate such, similarly named,
via R 115.

This claim falls apart on 2 counts, either of which is sufficient to
sink it.

First, there is no other extant entity called "vending machine".
snowgod claims the "blueprint for vending machine" is called "vending
machine".  Game  custom indicates otherwise:  For example:

Blueprint for Electronic Potato/Electronic Potato
Blueprint for Scroll of Crumble/Scroll of Crumble
Blueprint for The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Much, Really/
   The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Much, Really
Blueprint for Whamiol/Whamiol

If snowgod's second argument was true, none of these gadgets could have
been created either.  This is pretty strong factual evidence that the
blueprint for an entity is prefixed with the word "blueprint", thus
avoiding the R 703 name conflict.

Secondly, even if there is a conflict, R 703 provides a remedy; it does
not prevent the creation of the entity:

> 3. If two names are discovered to be identical, the procedure below is
> followed to resolve the problem:
> a. If a name chosen by a player (such as a player name, party name,
> church name, etc.) conflicts with a name previously in use, the player
> choosing the name may not use that name and must choose a new name.

It is clear that the object may still be instantiated.

If snowgod's second argument is true, then all extant gadgets must be
destroyed, effective the time they were built.  It is obviously false.

I do note, however, that because of Malenkai's extant vending machine,
no other  entity of that name may continue to exist without a name
change per R 703.

I thus have shown that a verdict of FALSE is necessary.  Back to the
conflict of interest thing.  If my argument is solid, it should not matter
if I decline and let another judge have at it.  If my argument has
overlooked something, it would be a conflict of interest to render the
verdict.

Thus I decline to judge, but ask the next judge to consider my reasoning.

Bascule's reasoning:

Firstly, Malenkai's vending machine is not a gadget as defined by
rule 786, since it does not satisfy conditions given in that rule.
Thus it is not regulated by the rules in the same way as if it were a
gadget built by the inventor, and therefore this judge rejects the
initiator's first argument.

This judge accepts snowgod's second argument, however I differ
regarding the conclusion. I concur with Malenkai that a Vending
Machine is differently named to the Blueprint for a Vending Machine.
Moreover, there is no gadget called a Vending Machine yet in
existence. However, Rule 703 section 3a says:

> If a name chosen by a player...
> conflicts with a name previously in use, the player choosing the
> name may not use that name and must choose a new name.

The name "Vending Machine" is already in use; it appears several
times in the document Blueprint: Vending Machine. Therefore, although
no actual Vending Machine gadget has yet been produced, the name
Vending Machine is already in use.

Therefore, the procedure in rule 703 must be used to rename
Malenkai's thing.

This judge would have ruled true if this CFJ had read "Malenkai must
rename his Vending Machine", or "Malenkai may not create a Vending
Machine gadget by invoking R115".

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 96 20:45:06 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1120

Proposal 1120 - Thu Aug 15 20:45:06 EDT 1996
Portrait Sanity
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Amend Rule 1096 by replacing the 1st sentence of the second paragraph with:
"This gallery shall be linked to the Official Ackanomic Web Page and must
 contain a portrait of every player who has submitted one.  The Web-Harfer
 may resize potraits in order to keep them uniform."

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 16:49:22 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Proposal 1119 

>[email-masked] wrote:
>
>[about "Bob" cut]
>
>> I urge all Ackazens to vote against this Proposal.  No matter how it is
>> pronounced,  Ackanomic is OUR name,  and dsoes not deserve to be tinkered
>> with.
>
>I believe snowgod is up there too close to those Northwest Territories
>of Canada, which, in all seriousness, have a proposal on the table, or
>a referendum or something, to change their name  to "Bob" once they
>split into two.  Some of the arguments used by snowgod are being used
>by the pro Bob faction there.  It will be  interesting to see how
>both turn out.
>
>Malenkai

Aha.  Yep.  The secret is out.  Those silly Canadians in the NorthWest
territories are doing the same thing, and using some of the same
arguements.  It amused the hell out of me, and I thought I would try it
here.

By the way, one of alaska's congressmen was caught on camera the other day
saying  that he is in favor of NW territories changing their name to bob.

There is a web-page dedicated to Bob on the internet, but i don't have the
URL.  A search for NW territories and Bob ogutha find it.

VOTE YES ON BOB!!

snowgod
would-be President of Bob

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 96 20:50:25 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1093 Fails

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Here are the voting results for : 1093
> >   Proposal 1093 - Wed Aug 07 15:03:22 EDT 1996

> Who bribed Tammany and for how much?

A$10 Malenkai.  Did anyone else :) ?

Malenkai
===================
Malenkai was the only player to make a bribe.  I forgot to include that information

Wayne

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 20:50:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 263 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> CFJ 263 has been judged FALSE.
> 
> Call For Judgement 263
>   Subject: Vending Machine 
> Bascule's reasoning:
>  
> however I differ regarding the conclusion [...] However, Rule 703
> section 3a says:
> 
> > If a name chosen by a player...
> > conflicts with a name previously in use, the player choosing the
> > name may not use that name and must choose a new name.
> 
> The name "Vending Machine" is already in use; it appears several
> times in the document Blueprint: Vending Machine. Therefore, although
> no actual Vending Machine gadget has yet been produced, the name
> Vending Machine is already in use.
> 
> Therefore, the procedure in rule 703 must be used to rename
> Malenkai's thing.

Fortunately, the reasoning of CFJs has no legal force whatsoever, and I
will not rename my Vending Machine until a CFJ verdict or rule specifically 
requires that I do so.

This reasoning, IMHO, puts a rather severe spin on CFJ 113esque reasoning.
I note, for example, if this reasoning is upheld, all extant gadgets 
created from blueprints which mention the name of the gadget must be
renamed (presumably by their owners).  Thereafter, the renamned entity
could not operate as specified in its blueprint, as blueprints specify
how gadgets named X behave, and no such gadget named X could be derived
from blueprint for X, if said blueprint puts the word X in use.

On the other hand, you could argue that X must be renamed, but it still
retains its Xness properties.  For example, the Whamiol would have to be
renamed, say to a Fungle-Wungle, but it would still be a "Whamiol".  If
that reasoning holds sway, I could rename my Vending Machine a Machine
of Vending, but it would still be a "Vending Machine", and could be used
as I have used it.

Where is that Chartreuse Goose!  I can feel the paradox CFJ coming.

This problem of R 115 vs Gadgets has been brewing for a long time, and
its my opinion that only handwaving will prevent what applies to gadgets
from applying to R 115 entities which are similar.  (ie, you cannot make
a gadget called Vending Machine, and deny a R 115 entity of the same
name; or any handwaving that applies to gadgets applies to R 115 entities).

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 20:22:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1120

> Proposal 1120 - Thu Aug 15 20:45:06 EDT 1996
> Portrait Sanity
> /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> Amend Rule 1096 by replacing the 1st sentence of the second paragraph with:
> "This gallery shall be linked to the Official Ackanomic Web Page and must
>  contain a portrait of every player who has submitted one.  The Web-Harfer
>  may resize potraits in order to keep them uniform."

This fixes the problem in the original rule that would have required me
to put all portraits in the gallery, even more than one by the same player,
even if the player wanted me to put up his new portrait in place of an
older one.

This also fixes the problem that could be caused by an overly large portrait
(for example, if snowgod submitted the picture of his forehead which used to
be on his own web page as his portrait.)

The "proper" gallery is now in place; it is a table with 120-pixel-wide
cells, and 5 cells per row.  Snazzy background to be added later.

By the way, when you send pictures to me, please don't StuffIt! them.
It is pointless for gifs and jpegs anyway, and I had to go to an actual mac
to decode tinan's picture, since my executor isn't working since my upgrade
(the last time the mailing list broke, before yesterday).  I can handle the
binhexing from a Linux utility and I *thought* I had an un-StuffIt!-er
around here somewhere but I can't find it.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 02:41:07 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 263 Verdict

Malenkai wrote: 
> Fortunately, the reasoning of CFJs has no legal force whatsoever, and I
> will not rename my Vending Machine until a CFJ verdict or rule specifically 
> requires that I do so.
> 
> This reasoning, IMHO, puts a rather severe spin on CFJ 113esque reasoning.
> I note, for example, if this reasoning is upheld, all extant gadgets 
> created from blueprints which mention the name of the gadget must be
> renamed (presumably by their owners).  Thereafter, the renamned entity
> could not operate as specified in its blueprint, as blueprints specify
> how gadgets named X behave, and no such gadget named X could be derived
> from blueprint for X, if said blueprint puts the word X in use.
> 
> On the other hand, you could argue that X must be renamed, but it still
> retains its Xness properties.  For example, the Whamiol would have to be
> renamed, say to a Fungle-Wungle, but it would still be a "Whamiol".  If
> that reasoning holds sway, I could rename my Vending Machine a Machine
> of Vending, but it would still be a "Vending Machine", and could be used
> as I have used it.

This is it. If a gadget has been created from a blueprint, surely it 
has those properties, even if it is renamed. I don't think you can 
create a gadget called a vending machine, because gadgets are 
protected etc etc

> Where is that Chartreuse Goose!  I can feel the paradox CFJ coming.
> 
> This problem of R 115 vs Gadgets has been brewing for a long time, and
> its my opinion that only handwaving will prevent what applies to gadgets
> from applying to R 115 entities which are similar.  (ie, you cannot make
> a gadget called Vending Machine, and deny a R 115 entity of the same
> name; or any handwaving that applies to gadgets applies to R 115 entities).
> 
> Malenkai

I don't think this is handwaving; then again, it was my verdict so I
suppose I would say that. I have yet to return any verdict I thought
was handwaving, even though I've been sorely tempted once or twice :)

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 96 21:44:58 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1120

/dev/joe wrote:

>By the way, when you send pictures to me, please don't StuffIt! them.
>It is pointless for gifs and jpegs anyway, and I had to go to an actual mac
>to decode tinan's picture, since my executor isn't working since my upgrade
>(the last time the mailing list broke, before yesterday).  I can handle the
>binhexing from a Linux utility and I *thought* I had an un-StuffIt!-er
>around here somewhere but I can't find it.

Using a Mac will do you good. :)

Sorry. My email software does the stuffing and binhexing automatically, 
and I didn't think to turn the stuffing off. Guess I'm a turkey. :)

- --      Mike Epstein            "There used to be a real me,
      [email-masked]           but I had it surgically removed."
  *                      *                       --Peter Sellers
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/   

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 22:13:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 263 Verdict

Bascule wrote:
> 

> I don't think this is handwaving; then again, it was my verdict so I
> suppose I would say that. I have yet to return any verdict I thought
> was handwaving, even though I've been sorely tempted once or twice :)
> 

I am not saying your reasoning is handwaving.  I'm saying your reasoning
has potentially dreadful consequences.  The comment about handwaving 
meant that if handwaving was used to allow gadgets to be renamed, and
still function in accordance to their blueprints (something *I* will
CFJ, if allowed), then I can call my thing a Machine of Vending and
still loophole surf R 1036.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 23:49:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 264 (Wayne)

Simon Marty Harriman failed to respond and is a deadbeat judge.

Aug 15 23:49 EDT: -10 Simon Marty Harriman: failed to respond to CFJ 264

Wayne has been selected, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 264
  Subject: InterNomic Proposal Submissions
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Wayne (selected Aug 15, 1996, 23:49h New York Time)

Statement:

All players, including the Liaison, may make only one InterNomic Proposal
per week.

Malenkai's reasoning:

>From R 970:      
> Any Ackanomic Player may request the Liaison to make an InterNomic
> Proposal by sending the Proposal to the Liaison, but may only do so
> once per week.

Certainly the Liaison is a player (either Ambassador or Speaker).  I see
no rule giving the Liaison the priviledge of submitting more than one
per week themself.  InterNomic proposal submission is protected, of
course.

The Liaison is a collator, similar to the Witchfinder General or the
Tabulator, or the Clerk of the Courts.  Those offices do not get extra
votes (or whatnot) just because they are the collator and distributor
of such.  Why is the Liaison any different?  Are we saying the Liaison
would get more votes, also, when tabulating the "will of Ackanomic"?

I bring this up because the entity AckaNomic is the player in InterNomic,
not the Liaison.  The InterNomic world sees our proposal submissions as
the work and will of AckaNomic, not as the work and will of a single player
of AckaNomic, hence the once per week clause.

I have nothing against allowing a single player to submit multiple
proposals to InterNomic per week.  If that is the will of AckaNomic,
the rules  should be changed to reflect that will, however, and the
priviledge should be available to all players, not just one.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 23:51:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 265 (Geezer)

Simon Marty Harriman failed to respond and is a deadbeat judge.

Aug 15 23:53 EDT: -10 Simon Marty Harriman: failed to respond to CFJ 265

Geezer has been selected, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 265
  Subject: Tabulating Votes for InterNomic Matters
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Simon Marty Harriman (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Geezer (selected Aug 15, 1996, 23:53h New York Time)

Statement:

The Assistant Tabulator is the officer responsible for tabulating votes
for the purposes of how Ackanomic will vote upon any matter in
Internomic.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

>From R 970:

> Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic,
> the Liaison shall initiate a vote in Ackanomic to determine how he
> should cast Ackanomic's vote in Internomic. The Liaison shall establish
> reasonable procedures for such voting, and shall cast Ackanomic's vote
> in accordance to the results of the vote.

The key phrases are "initiate a vote" and "establish reasonable
procedures".

"Initiate a vote" can be rendered 2 ways, "reasonably".  First would be
to initiate the process of voting within Ackanomic, in accordance with the
rules of Ackanomic, second would be to announce and conduct such vote.

Either rendering leads to the Assistant Tabulator actually conducting
and reporting the vote.

I quote from R 414:

> The Duties of the Assistant Tabulator are:

> (a) to handle solicitation, tabulation, and reporting of votes on all
> Ackanomic matters, excluding Proposals and Resolutions. This includes,
> but is not limited to: [actual list cut]

> This clause (a) and its subsections (a.x), take precedence over any
> other mutable rule which denies the Assistant Tabulator these duties,
> or would define an alternate procedure or officer (including Tabulator),
> to perform them.

Given the first rendering, it falls to the Assistant Tabulator, as that
is the officer which handles "tabulation, and reporting of votes on
all Ackanomic matters, excluding Proposals and Resolutions".  Determining
how Ackanomic should vote in Internomic matters is not a "Proposal"
or "Resolution".

The second rendering indicates that it falls to the Liaison, but R 414
explicity claims precedence: "...or would define an alternate procedure
or officer".  See the quote above.

Having the Assistant Tabulator tabulate and report on these votes is
"a reasonable procedure".  Furthermore, it is what our rules require.
A verdict of TRUE is necessary.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #179
*******************************