Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #197
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, August 28 1996      Volume 01 : Number 197

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:40:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 112 (Niccolo)

Niccolo Flychuck has been selected to judge the following, and has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment. Would the Financier please
note tinan's A$20 Court Fee.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 112
  Subject:  Gumball
Initiator:  this is not a name
    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected Tue, Aug 27, 1996, 19:40 EDT)

Statement:

snowgod has broken the rules.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

On 27 Aug 1996, snowgod posted a message reading in part:

>I am placing the gumball in my armpit, hoping to soften it up
>so that I may chew it more easily when the proper time comes.

This constitutes illegal manipulation of the gumball, which is a
Protected entity.

Suggested Penalty:

I recommend a penalty of A$20.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:43:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador; Official

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry to report that Ackanomic's interest in the game of internomic
> appears to be non-existant.  During the Voting period for the first two
> proposals, I recieved 4 votes.  So far for the second one, I have recieved
> two.
> 
> I have recieved no votes for the third set of proposals.

I believe I have just sent you some material.  I am also conducting
a vote on P 303 thru 306, which was initiated yesterday, and ends in 2
days.  What exactly do you mean by the 3rd set of proposals?

> Solutions:  
> #3) Make internomic votes a political decision by allowing the bored
> senators to be the only ones able to cast votes on internomic matters.  In
> the event of a tie, the proconsul could vote.  If the president disagrees
> with the senates decision, he may VETO it and submit it to the general
> populace for a vote.

I would vote for solution 3.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:47:41 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 112 (Niccolo) 

Ah,

Only A$20?  I was hoping for an excuse to go down to Cow Town :)

>Niccolo Flychuck has been selected to judge the following, and has
>3 days to accept or decline the appointment. Would the Financier please
>note tinan's A$20 Court Fee.

>Suggested Penalty:
>
>I recommend a penalty of A$20.

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: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:51:41 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador; Official 

>Phil Ackley wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry to report that Ackanomic's interest in the game of internomic
>> appears to be non-existant.  During the Voting period for the first two
>> proposals, I recieved 4 votes.  So far for the second one, I have recieved
>> two.
>>
>> I have recieved no votes for the third set of proposals.
>
>I believe I have just sent you some material.  I am also conducting
>a vote on P 303 thru 306, which was initiated yesterday, and ends in 2
>days.  What exactly do you mean by the 3rd set of proposals?

I missed the message calling for votes... Sorry.  It probably got lost in
the hoardes of Ackamail from my vacation.  As for the third set of
proposals, I meant to one that Andre most recently distributes (a set with
one proposal???).  Please accept my apologies.

snowgod

>
>> Solutions:
>> #3) Make internomic votes a political decision by allowing the bored
>> senators to be the only ones able to cast votes on internomic matters.  In
>> the event of a tie, the proconsul could vote.  If the president disagrees
>> with the senates decision, he may VETO it and submit it to the general
>> populace for a vote.
>
>I would vote for solution 3.

How bout it?  Anyone else interested in this solution?  It would give the
senators something to do, and allow for a system of checks and balances.
Plus it would be fairly easy to write a system like this into the rules.

Anyone opposed?

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:01:16 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Presidential 

As president, I urge the judge of CFCJ 112 to return a verdict of TRUE on
this CFCJ.

We can't allow people to go around sticking protecting entities in their
armpits willy-nilly.  Who knows where that will lead us?  And we thought
Coke manipulation was a dangerous thing...

snowgod
president

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:01:25 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 112 thoughts 

In my capacity as a player, I urge the judge of CFCJ 112 to return a
verdict of FALSE.  We need to put an end to unnesaccary protection of
certain acka-entities.  Especially the mimsy ones.

Such simple manipulation of these entities can lead to no harm, unless of
course we are talking about frinking Coke.  We all no where th=E5t leads

snowgod
smiling

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:25:13 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ambassador; Official

On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> 
> #3) Make internomic votes a political decision by allowing the bored
> senators to be the only ones able to cast votes on internomic matters.  In
> the event of a tie, the proconsul could vote.  If the president disagrees
> with the senates decision, he may VETO it and submit it to the general
> populace for a vote.

I'd rather see either all players vote on internomic proposals (I know I
haven't done so yet, I was going to, really)
or at least all Institutions. I know we only have two of those now, but
this need not remain the case.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:31:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Potato

> Did I miss something, or should snowgod actually have the magic potato.
> I pointed this out before, and nothing happenend; just trying to get it
> right in case Netscape ate more of my mail.

Yes, snowgod had the potato when 1130 passed and I adjusted the scores.

> If the magic potato has been unlawfully non-distributed, it possibly
> brings up points in Steve's essay again; I find that stuff cool.

It appears that the potato has been unlawfully non-distributed.
Our new registrar should do it, even though it is late, as I and
some of the previous potato-distributors have done on occasion.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:43:12 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: REgistrar: Magic Potato

Robin Hood has been selected to hold the Magic Potato this week.

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:46:34 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar - home page

The new registrar list of players is now up. It has been shamelessly
plagiarized from /dev/joe's page, complete with cute little images. In
time, this page may change to reflect the change of office. Other
registrar pages will be opened up within the next few hours.

The URL is
http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/players.html

/dev/joe please update the apropriate link

Niccolo Flychuck

getting the hang of the Registrar's office.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 20:49:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: REgistrar: Magic Potato

Uri Bruck wrote:
 
> Robin Hood has been selected to hold the Magic Potato this week.

There is something interesting here, I just haven't figured out what it
is or if I care; thats why I've been pressing the magic potato thing.

The only thing R 306 says about Monday is when the *first* magic potato
is to be distributed.  It seems like Niccolo has all week to distribute the
potato, and perhaps "week" as used in R 306 means the 7 days following
its previous distribution, meaning we are on a tuesday cycle now.

Otherwise, perhaps its deemed that the magic potato is retroactively 
distributed as of monday, or its an uncorrectable error.  I prefer a
reading of the rules that does not lead to an error, but I'm not sure
what game custom has to say about when the potato actually *should* be
distributed, as /dev/joe has pointed out, people have distributed it
on days other than monday in the past.

Malenkai
Too much time on my hands

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:57:44 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Registrar - home page -correction

On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> The URL is
> http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/players.html
The correct URL is 
http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/acka/players.html

> 
> /dev/joe please update the apropriate link
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> getting the hang of the Registrar's office

> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 21:35:45 -0500
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Postmasterness 

I have been doing some fixing up of the mailing lists tonight.
I created a new acka-chess list, and subscribed all the swingers and
myself to it.  I hereby announce my intent to be a Spectator for
Party Chess.
I converted the old acka-nobs list to acka-vulcan, since it still had
me and ThinMan on it, and added Niccolo Flychuck.
I deleted the old acka-foozball list.
If the FUN party wants a mailing list, let me know.
The acka-senate list, which apparently isn't really used, was completely
out-of-date; I subscribed the current senators and proconsul and
unsubscribed everybody else.
I also unsubscribed some old players who have left the game but were
still on some mailing lists and maybe didn't even know it -- mainly
the Swan brothers.

/dev/joe
Postmaster

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

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 21:56:46 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Internomic

On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 snowgod wrote:

>I'm sorry to report that Ackanomic's interest in the game of internomic
>appears to be non-existant.  During the Voting period for the first two
>proposals, I recieved 4 votes.  So far for the second one, I have
recieved
>two.

>I have recieved no votes for the third set of proposals.

>I would like to fix this problem, and below I will outline a copuple of
>possible solutions.  But first I would like to rewust that the assistant
>tabulator immediatly begin soliciting votes on all of the current
proposals.

>Solutions:

>#1) Continue on as we are now, letting a small minority determine Acka's
>votes in Internomic.

>#2) Adopt scoring changes on internomic proposals similar to the way
that
>we do with Acka proposals (as well as incentives for players to submit
or
>comment on internomic proposals)

>#3) Make internomic votes a political decision by allowing the bored
>senators to be the only ones able to cast votes on internomic matters. 
In
>the event of a tie, the proconsul could vote.  If the president
disagrees
>with the senates decision, he may VETO it and submit it to the general
>populace for a vote.

>#4) Allow the liason to vote however he chooses (this is what Imperial
14
>does).

>#5) Withdrawl from internomic.

>I personally like number three, but before submitting any proposals to
make
>these changes, I would like to solicit other peoples opinion.  Any
comments?

I personally would hate to see option #5 excercised,  and #4 is totally
out of the question;  we are _not_ a Fascist Nomic,  Malenkai's attempt
notwithstanding.  Option #2 would add to the complexity of an already
impossible to fathom scoring system.  That leaves #1 and #3.  #1 is fine
by me,  and as a senator,  I don't believe it my place to lobby for
option #3.  But I do think it would give us senators something to do
while waiting for a new Supreme Court Justice to come along.

Oh, yes.  snowgod;  I just read the ruleset for Internomic and I _do_
have a couple of suggestions for Proposals.  Been waiting for you to get
back.

Habeous Corpus
<A radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.- FDR>

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

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:43:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 266 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 266 has been judged TRUE on appeal, upholding the original verdict.

Aug 28 00:44 EDT: -25 Habeous Corpus: Frivolous appeal of CFJ 266

Clerk of the Courts
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 266
  Subject: Scoring question
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Mellon (selected Aug 20, 1996, 11:26h New York Time)

Statement:

If a short, harfy, modest proposal containing the words "cows eat grass"
is accepted, then the points for the proposal being short, harfy, and
containing "cows eat grass" are halved, by rule 1109.

/dev/joe's reasoning:

        [none - Cotc]

Mellon's reasoning:

The issue here is a conflict between some rules (R207 scoring,
R1112.2 - harfy, R728 - silly) stating how much an author of a
proposal is going to score, and another rule (R1109 - modest) that
states only e shall only score half as much if the proposal is modest.

The conflict is solved by R210:
R1109 states that it takes precedence over the other rules in the
conflict.

R207 does not state anything about precedence, so R1109 wins over
this one.

Same for R728.

R1112.2 states it takes precedence over rules that "would deny
such a bonus" which includes R1109, but since R1109 has a lower
number, so it wins over R1112.2 according to R210.

The verdict of this CFJ is True.

Habeous Corpus's Appeal Reasoning:

The Judgement on CFJ 266 was based on which Rules had Precedence over the
others;  this should have been immaterial.  Rule 1109 (Modesty) only
addresses Proposal scoring  "as a direct result of authoring an adopted
proposal".
 
While categorizing a Proposal as "Modest" or silly are definitely " a
direct result of authoring an adopted proposal",  and I admit there might
be currently or in the near future other categories that would fit this
description,  "Hary" is _NOT_ one of them.

Proposals are determined to be Harfy not as a direct result of
authorship,  but in the judgement of another party.  Points awarded as
such should be subject to the limitation of Rule 1109,  regardless of
Precedence;  Precedence is not relevant:  categorization determines the
applicability of R1109.

Therefore,  CFJ 266 should be overturned and a Judgement of FALSE
rendered.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court agrees with Habeous Corpus that precedence does not matter,
except to establish that R 1109 does what it claims to do, when
appropriate.

>From R 1109:

> Whenever a Modest Proposal is adopted, the number of points scored by
> its author as a direct result of authoring an adopted proposal shall
> be half the number of points they would otherwise have scored
> (rounded down).

As Habeous Corpus points points out, this CFJ boils down to whether the
qualities of the proposal mentioned in the CFJ statement (short, harfy,
and contains "cows eat grass") are "points scored [...] as a direct result
of authoring [...]".

The Court finds that they are.  Habeous Corpus, justifiably so, questions
whether or not "harfy" should fall into this category.  While the Court
can see the reason for this opinion, R 1112.2 says:

> [The Harfy Bonus] is considered a score change based on the content
> of the proposal.

The Court renders "direct result of authoring" to be score changes based
on the content of authored proposals, as opposed to other types of score
changes applied when a proposal is adopted.  Had the above clause not
been in R 1112.2, the Court probably would have found for Habeous Corpus'
position.

The Court thus finds the statement on which judgement was called is TRUE.

The Court also notes that the bonus for a palidromic, modest proposal would
also be halved, by similar reasoning, although don't expect to see that
soon, especially one with the phrase "cows eat grass".

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #197
*******************************