Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #200
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Saturday, August 31 1996       Volume 01 : Number 200

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 12:23:52 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:registrar: New Player

Fellow citizens of ackanomia
we have a new player

Matt Miller 
e-mail : [email-masked]
Ackanomic name   IdiotBoy

We welcome him to Ackanomic

Niccolo Flychuck 
Registrar

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 06:49:52 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: P1171

On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 Malenkai wrote:

>R 115 *implicitly* defers to mutables.  A CFJ I submitted a long time 
>ago established this, and it was a very important result.  Be very, very
>careful with your tinkering in this area, especially with R 108 around
>(then again, we are due for another crash attempt...)

I'm not attempting to crash the game, honest.  I just think that there
should be some "substantial" difference between mutable an immutable
Rules.  If my previous attempt to define the difference had not failed, 
I wouldn't have even thought of this.  When this one fails,  thereby
establishing extant custom as to the treatment of immutable Rules, 
effectively declaring no "significant" difference,  I will probably
propose something to remove Immutability altogether. 8-0

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:27:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: P1171

[email-masked] wrote: 

> I'm not attempting to crash the game, honest.  I just think that there
> should be some "substantial" difference between mutable an immutable
> Rules.  If my previous attempt to define the difference had not failed,
> I wouldn't have even thought of this.  When this one fails,  thereby
> establishing extant custom as to the treatment of immutable Rules,
> effectively declaring no "significant" difference,  I will probably
> propose something to remove Immutability altogether. 8-0

I RFC'ed removing immutability altogether awhile back, because it is
useless, vestigial baggage, IMHO.  The answer I got at the time was to
*replace* it with something like power, which seems reasonable, so I
dropped it.

As far as what you are doing now, if you somehow eliminate the fact that
R 115 defers to mutables, and leave R 108 basically unchanged, the game
will crash at that time, I believe.  That is why I say be very, very,
careful.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:47:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:registrar: New Player

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> Fellow citizens of ackanomia
> we have a new player
> 
> Matt Miller
> e-mail : [email-masked]
> Ackanomic name   IdiotBoy

Cool.  Don't forget to assign a mentor, Mr Registrar.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:22:26 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  acka:registrar: New Player 

IdiotBoy is alotted A$ 553 from the Treasury to start his financial account.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 08:29:01 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Re: P1171 

Habeous Corpus wrote:

>I'm not attempting to crash the game, honest.  I just think that there
>should be some "substantial" difference between mutable an immutable
>Rules.  If my previous attempt to define the difference had not failed, 
>I wouldn't have even thought of this.  When this one fails,  thereby
>establishing extant custom as to the treatment of immutable Rules, 
>effectively declaring no "significant" difference,  I will probably
>propose something to remove Immutability altogether. 8-0

We have been moving in the direction of no difference between mutables
and immutables for the entire lifetime of this game.  I have been asked
to reintroduce the "Power" material, which was RFC'd to a tepid response
before you joined.  Power will, among other things, do away with
mutability / immutability as such, but it will replace it with a much
more flexible and (I think) useful concept.  I am working the material
over; expect to see it soon.

ThinMan
Innovator

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 06:02:05 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:registrar: New Player 

>Uri Bruck wrote:
>>
>> Fellow citizens of ackanomia
>> we have a new player
>>
>> Matt Miller
>> e-mail : [email-masked]
>> Ackanomic name   IdiotBoy
>
>Cool.  Don't forget to assign a mentor, Mr Registrar.

Welcome to the game, IdiotBoy.  I'm glad to see we've been getting some new
players lately.  Perhaps Habeous Corpus has been recruiting to gain points
:)?

Which reminds me.  The score keeper ought to add 15 points to HC's score
for the Whamiol.

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: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 06:02:14 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Re: P1171 

>Habeous Corpus wrote:
>
>>I'm not attempting to crash the game, honest.  I just think that there
>>should be some "substantial" difference between mutable an immutable
>>Rules.  If my previous attempt to define the difference had not failed,
>>I wouldn't have even thought of this.  When this one fails,  thereby
>>establishing extant custom as to the treatment of immutable Rules,
>>effectively declaring no "significant" difference,  I will probably
>>propose something to remove Immutability altogether. 8-0
>
>We have been moving in the direction of no difference between mutables
>and immutables for the entire lifetime of this game.  I have been asked
>to reintroduce the "Power" material, which was RFC'd to a tepid response
>before you joined.  Power will, among other things, do away with
>mutability / immutability as such, but it will replace it with a much
>more flexible and (I think) useful concept.  I am working the material
>over; expect to see it soon.
>
>

I'm ready to see the end of Mutable Rules.  Let's role out power.  Besides
it's usefullness and flexibility, it oughta add a little fun to the game as
it will revise the strategies many of us use in regards to proposals.

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: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:17:20 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Vacationing

As I will be without access to email for the next few days I am
going on vacation as from now. Expected return next Thursday.

Brinjal.

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

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 00:58:17 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: registrar - mentor for IdiotBoy

Niccolo Flychuck has been chosen as Mentor for IdiotBoy

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 01:06:34 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: registrar - mentor for IdiotBoy

On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> Niccolo Flychuck has been chosen as Mentor for IdiotBoy
> 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> Registrar

I accept the appointment

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 01:14:47 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar

On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Simon Clarke wrote:

> As I will be without access to email for the next few days I am
> going on vacation as from now. Expected return next Thursday.
> 
> Brinjal.
> 
So noted. 
Brinjal has gone on vacation as of his message.
Since Brinjal is NAP Swinger, a political officer, an acting NAP Swinger
should be appointed.

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 02:16:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: PartyBoard beta another version

I'm working on another version of the PartyBoard
this one is at
http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/PartyChess/PartyBoard1.html

It seems that 21 column tables just can't be done. So I'm trying here for
nested tables. Any suggestions for improvemnts are more than welcome

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 19:55:45 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rules and the like.

Thanks for the warm welcome.  I have spent a great deal of time (ok, 3 days
on and off) reading the rules and the last 50 or so CFJs.  I managed to
read ALL of the CFCJs.  Quite nomic you guys have built here.  I didn't
think I was going to have to ask any questions, but I guess I should (just
so I project that humility, if nothing else).

Which is the offical set of rules?  I started by looking at the numeric
listing.  I read most of the way through those, noticing one problem.  In
order to begin to explo^H^H^H^H^H point out that hole again, I looked it up
under the categorized rule set.  In those rules, the hole is fixed and the
section is better, IMHO.  So, can I not count on the uncategorized rules? 
(WHich is the official set?)  I'd rather not have to slog thru all the
proposals to find the ones which apply to specific sections?

On a more philospohical note, is the ruleset considered to be these things
which ARE written down, or an ethereal essence?  (I.E. If a proposal passed
which said that if a tree falls in the woods it makes a noise, and noone
updated the written ruleset as such.. would it make a noise?)

Oh yeah, I'm looking for a political party which seeks to assert the
superiority of  Ackanomic in Internomic.  I'm thinking we could refuse to
recognize some other nomic.

I don't usually write this much-
IdiotBoy

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:59:53 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Invoking R115 

I am invoking R115 to create a new nomic entity called a BMW.

My BMW is blue, with leather apolstery.  It is a mid 80's model, low
milage, reasonably worn, but still looking pretty good.  It never breaks
down.  When not being driven up and down Acka's one road (Yellow Roosevelt
Avenue) it resides in the driveway of La Casa Del Dio Nieve (which has
suddenly started to resemble a small beach cottage.

I will offer rides up and down Yellow Roosevelt Avenue (which currently
only contains Cow Town Hotel) for A$1 a ride.

snowgod
driving

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 16:01:52 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Vacationing 

>As I will be without access to email for the next few days I am
>going on vacation as from now. Expected return next Thursday.
>
>Brinjal.

Why is it that the Gaoler is always on vacation when I'm sent to Gaol?

snowgod
bad boy

PS - If I got 6 days in the Gaol, tinan should get at least 18 :)

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 96 20:08:47 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Vacationing

>PS - If I got 6 days in the Gaol, tinan should get at least 18 :)

Huh? What about all those heathen Coke-frinkers?

Hmmm...can I be Acting Gaoler and in Gaol at the same time?

- --      Mike Epstein            
    [email-masked]        Not a single byte of Microsoft software
  *                      *      was used to create this message.
http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/   

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

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 03:39:33 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rules and the like.

On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> 
> Which is the offical set of rules?  I started by looking at the numeric
> listing.  I read most of the way through those, noticing one problem.  In
> order to beginto explo^H^H^H^H^H point out that hole again, I looked it up
> under the categorized rule set.  In those rules, the hole is fixed and the
> section is better, IMHO.  So, can I not count on the uncategorized rules? 
> (WHich is the official set?)  I'd rathernot have to slog thru all the
> proposals to find the ones which apply to specific sections?
I think the way /dev/joe set it up is that rules by categories refference
the same files you would read as if you read them by hundreds ( that is
the numeric listing you were looking at, right?)
Those two lists should be in synch, and official.

1 - if you remeber which rule it was, let /dev/joe know.
2 - the number after the / is the revision number. Whenever a rule is
ammnded the revision number is incremented, so the higher revision number
is the more up to date version.

 > 
> On a more philospohical note, is the ruleset considered to be these things
> which ARE written down, or an ethereal essence?  (I.E. If a proposal passed
> which said that if a tree falls in the woods it makes a noise, and noone
> updated the written ruleset as such.. would it make a noise?)
Yes, it is indeed a philosophical note.
Generally we assume that if someone publically declares that he is doing
something, then he is doing that thing he has publically declared to have
been doing. The declaration either makes the deed happen, or reports of
its having happened, and time it happens is the time the message reaches
the public forum. Sometimes the order of messages is significant.

 > 
> Oh yeah, I'm looking for a political party which seeks to assert the
> superiority of  Ackanomic in Internomic.  I'm thinking we could refuse to
> recognize some other nomic.
Off-hand, I can't think of one. I suggest you read the charters of
existing political parties and if you can't find one, try to form your
own.

There was some talk of setting up a nomic war. Back in March/April, and
more recently a couple of weeks ago. It never amounted to anything. I
believe that the majority of players agreed that Ackanomic is not designed
for war.

 > 
> I don't usually write this much-
> IdiotBoy
That's fine. We are alla  bunch of graphomaniacs here:)

Niccolo Flychuck

> 

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #200
*******************************