Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #219
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Tuesday, September 10 1996      Volume 01 : Number 219

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:20:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I don't feel threatened by any specific Gadget. The Gadget rules don't
> have enough internal checks and balances.

You don't consider impeaching the Inventor, which requires the same power
as repealing a rule, a check/balance.  Furthermore, the Inventor stands
to lose his job, which is a fun job, thus has added incentive to keep it
clean.

Both of our Inventors have done excellent jobs at increasing the fun
of the game, and I see no reason why that should not continue.

The Machine distributing a random gadget is also fun.  Look at our 
gadgets.  Having it distribute A$ or points is tiresome.  

Perhaps it should distribute a Swing Vote instead.  There is nothing
in the Blueprint library nearly as powerful as a Swing Vote, and the
reward is distributed much less frequently.

Both games are wholly untested.  I am much more confortable having 
50 Blue Things or Whamiols come out the other end if its broke, than
50 Swing Votes if Party Chess is broke.

Malenkai
Pro Machine, anti Party Gravity

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:25:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time

Matt Miller wrote:
> 
> I'm sure this has been covered in a CFJ at some point in Ackanomic's storied
> history, but what is the official "time" of Ackanomia?  If the proposed
> Machine is to go *ping* based on a day of the week (as in the example), does
> that mean the wilma timestamp day?  This doesn't apply to most things
> (because within 3 days means within 72 hours, irrespective of timezones).

A proposal a *long* time ago failed to establish Austin Texas time as
the official time zone.  I forget the P number.

I would like an official time zone.  The defacto standard has been Eastern
Time, as the Promoter, Tabulator, Speaker, and CotC are all in that
zone, and they generate alot of official stuff.

Any comments?

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:20:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I don't feel threatened by any specific Gadget. The Gadget rules don't
> have enough internal checks and balances.

You don't consider impeaching the Inventor, which requires the same power
as repealing a rule, a check/balance.  Furthermore, the Inventor stands
to lose his job, which is a fun job, thus has added incentive to keep it
clean.

Both of our Inventors have done excellent jobs at increasing the fun
of the game, and I see no reason why that should not continue.

The Machine distributing a random gadget is also fun.  Look at our 
gadgets.  Having it distribute A$ or points is tiresome.  

Perhaps it should distribute a Swing Vote instead.  There is nothing
in the Blueprint library nearly as powerful as a Swing Vote, and the
reward is distributed much less frequently.

Both games are wholly untested.  I am much more confortable having 
50 Blue Things or Whamiols come out the other end if its broke, than
50 Swing Votes if Party Chess is broke.

Malenkai
Pro Machine, anti Party Gravity

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:27:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PF BONDS

robert gene shimmin wrote:
> 
> I offer 50 A$ for 30 PFHabeus
> 
> Guy Fawkes

Please note, anyone call an auction to unload those unwanted
PFBonds (R 1023).

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:54:13 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Missing proposals

What happened to proposals 1202 and 1203?

Mellon

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:13:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

John Bollinger wrote:

[about the length]

> if it were possible to break the rule up into distinct, modular rules
> then I would be happier about it.  Party Chess is
> an example of this approach.

An a very poor example to support this argument.  R 990 and R 991 are
both longer than R 1194 would be, in fact, R 991 is almost twice as
long, and no one complained about these.

Furthermore, splitting it up into several rules subtracts value, IMHO.
Look at party chess.  The rules needed to play the game are at least in
3 different sections of the ruleset, 4 if you count party gravity.

I'm not sure how breaking the sections of the machine into seperate small
rules adds any value at all.  You still have to read the whole thing,
no matter how you slice it.  Its nice to know its all in one rule.  Perhaps
section headers would add value.

As for the modular argument, the roman numeral sections, or individual
sentences, for that matter, are just as modular as long rules.  Anything
can be amended.  Obviously, the party chess pieces should be modular,
but I believe they should be in one rule, for ease of reference.  A
section of a rule, seperate rules, no difference.
 
> "It can be cleaned up later" is no excuse for submitting problematic
> proposals.

On the contrary.  Party Chess went through several RFCs, and look how
it came out.  I don't remember public comment on it near to the extent
of the problems that were, and will continue to be, found and exploited.
It took until it became rule before anyone bothered to look at it and
start cleaning it up.  

Virtually every one of my RFCs goes to proposal or rule form before
anyone bothers to comment on them or start cleaning them up.  Honestly,
given your time, would you have read or commented on an RFC of the
machine.  You have yet to comment on one of my lengthy RFCs.  In fact,
of all my long RFCs, only one, Publically Knowable, has had constructive
feedback in RFC form.

> Again, you miss the point.  The Gadget and Inventor rules are carefully
> written so as to prevent the Inventor from creating any Gadgets that
> Ackanomians at large think are too powerful, too unbalancing, or for
> some other reason bad for Ackanomic.  The Machine would short-circuit
> part of that system of checks.

This is easy to fix.  Limit the pool of Blueprints to those which it is
permissable for gadgets to be created from (R 786, clause (iii) (c)),
and those which were created by rules.  Constructive criticism of how
to fix the problem may have been a better approach.

> Also, you dismiss too quickly the problem of no blueprints.  The rule you
> propose would require that a blueprint be randomly selected.  If there
> were no blueprints, then this would be impossible.  I think I could
> wring a paradox win out of this situation.

I could not wring one out of being forced to select a party chess piece
when no PCPD rules existed, and hence no pieces, existed.  Perhaps game
custom has changed.  Why do we insist on finding the *most* unreasonable
interpretation of the rules, when a perfectly reasonable one exists?

Malenkai
Done flaming now

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:41:24 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> Both games are wholly untested.  I am much more confortable having 
> 50 Blue Things or Whamiols come out the other end if its broke, than
> 50 Swing Votes if Party Chess is broke.
> 
> Malenkai
> Pro Machine, anti Party Gravity
>
I suggest that you re read the Law of Party Gravity again before you label
it as the Flaw of Party Gravity. SwingVotes have very strict
self-limitations, and throwing them around too much would just casue a
Party to lose them.

Just to paraphrase a phrase often used by Malenkai. I've shown my version
of Party Gravity, what's yours?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:34:30 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  PFBond market

I am looking to buy 50 of any of the following PFBonds:

PFMalenkai (will pay up to A$130)
PFbreadbox (will pay up to A$80)
PFThinMan  (will pay up to A$100)

Also I have for sale the following PFBonds:

30 PFNiccolo @ A$75 
[A recent report from an inside source suggested these were undervalued,
could be worth up to A$3 each in the very near future.  These are
practically firesale prices. Risk rated AA by IdiotBoy]

50 PFIdiotBoy @ A$100
[This is the initial public offering of these bonds.  I believe the
potential of these PFIdiotBoys has yet to be explored.   Risk rated B by
IdiotBoy] 

Please contact me via the public forum, if you are interested in any of
these great deals.

IdiotBoy
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:46:22 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> An a very poor example to support this argument.R 990 and R 991 are
> both longer than R 1194 would be, in fact, R 991 is almost twice as
> long, and no one complained about these.
> 
> Furthermore, splitting it up into several rules subtracts value, IMHO.
> Look at party chess.  The rules needed to play the game are at least in
> 3 different sections of the ruleset, 4 if you count party gravity.

This argument is flawed. R990, R991, R992 are all at the same part of the
ruleset. The consecutive numbers are a give away. The PartyChessPieceDef
rules are plug-in rules, and there is no reason for them to have numbers
consecutive to the rules defining the game. There is nothing to stop
anyone from proposing such rules now.
The fact that they are in different sections is simply a symptom of the
way we organize rules - chronologically. look at any other group of rules,
they are also distributed all over the rule-set. The fact is, that the
Ackanomic rule-set doesn't have sections as such, and therefore Malenkai's
argument makes a null point.
Party Gravity is on entirely different level. It uses the results of
PartyChess to create other effects. It is the next module in the chain,
and not an integral part of the game. 

> 
> As for the modular argument, the roman numeral sections, or individual
> sentences, for that matter, are just as modular as long rules.  Anything
> can be amended.  Obviously, the party chess pieces should be modular,
> but I believe they should be in one rule, for ease of reference.  A
> section of a rule, seperate rules, no difference.
I see no advantage in that. The refference problem is one plagues
the entire rule-set. /dev/joe created the list by categories, which is a
great help. Do you feel that we need to legislate this structure?

> 
> > "It can be cleaned up later" is no excuse for submitting problematic
> > proposals.
> 
> On the contrary.  Party Chess went through several RFCs, and look how
> it came out.  I don't remember public comment on it near to the extent
> of the problems that were, and will continue to be, found and exploited.
> It took until it became rule before anyone bothered to look at it and
> start cleaning it up.  
That's a comment on the Players rather than on on Party Chess. I estimate
PartyChess to be larger than the entire initial rule-set.  Was that
rule-set so flaw-less?
However, had it been submitted prior to the RFC process, I doubt it would
have ever survived a single CFJ.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:11:12 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds - Financier Please note 

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> please Trnasfer 30 PFNiccolo to IdiotBoy, and A$45 from
>IdiotBoy's account to mine.
>(The total amount is an integer avalue, so the transaction is quite legal)

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:29:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Time

Malenkai wrote:

>I would like an official time zone.  The defacto standard has been Eastern
>Time, as the Promoter, Tabulator, Speaker, and CotC are all in that
>zone, and they generate alot of official stuff.

I am all for an official time zone.  Eastern time is acceptable to me, as
would be Austin, Texas time (mountain?), or just about any other.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:44:43 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond market

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:

> I am looking to buy 50 of any of the following PFBonds:
> 
> PFMalenkai (will pay up to A$130)
> PFbreadbox (will pay up to A$80)
> PFThinMan  (will pay up to A$100)

I think you are seriously undervaluing those PFThinman. 

> 
> Also I have for sale the following PFBonds:
> 
> 30 PFNiccolo @ A$75 
> [A recent report froman inside source suggested these were undervalued,
> could be worth up to A$3 each in the very near future.  These are
> practically firesale prices. Risk rated AA by IdiotBoy]

This part is fascinating. IdiotBoy raising the price PFNiccolo. If he does
a good job, I might even clean up myself.

> 
> 50 PFIdiotBoy @ A$100
> [This is the initial public offering of these bonds. I believe the
> potential of these PFIdiotBoys has yet to be explored.   Risk rated B by
> IdiotBoy] 

I'll pay A$20 for 20 PFIdiotBoy, I have no desire for anymore than 20 and
that's the price I'm offering.

Niccolo Flychuck

amused

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:18:19 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: Re RFC

I have submitted a RFC on a Proposal for extranomic entities.  It
pertains in this form to entities being brought into Ackanomic from
Outside;  IRL,   Agora,  etc.

I also have a Proposal very,  very similar for Internomic.  It is
identical except for the references to Ackanomic.  Rather than waste
bandwidth with two copies of a long proposal,  I hereby request comments
on both uses of the Proposal,  in Acka and Internomic.

Thanks to the whamiol,  I can afford to lose points on a bad Proposal, 
but I would prefer to submit a good one.  Pleae help.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:31:45 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: Re: CFJ269 Appeal

Thank you,  breadbox.  You were much more elequent and thourough than I
in your dissection of CFJ 269.  I'm glad to see I'm not alone in how I
percieve the Rules.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:04:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: where are 1202 and 1203?

I don't know if I accidently cleaned them from my mailbox or if I never 
received them, but I have P1201 and P1204 and nothing in between.

Were they ever distributed?

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:55:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194

	ThinMan and I can categorically refute each other till Ragnarok and 
beyond, and having stated our respective points, any further argument 
will probably just get us ticked off at each other.  If you want an 
apology from the new guy, I admit I probably should have RFC'd the thing 
before submitting it, and will do so in the future for any other complex 
proposals I may think of, and I have learned my lesson.  Malenkai did 
make one good point in that very few good things can be put out right the 
first time.  Heck, I don't know how long the Party Chess rules have been 
around, and I assume they were RFC'd at least once, and people still are 
digging the problems out of them even as the game begins.
	I do, however, caution him against making snide remarks based on
assumptions on the state of other people's mail servers.  At school, 
I have the very nice one which I am using now, which does indeed have an 
editor.  Elsewhere, however, I am forced to use 1980's software that not 
only lacks a "sent mail" folder, but won't even let you correct mistakes 
once you press "enter" on the line unless you want to retype the whole 
message.
	As for the fate of P1194, that will be decided by the vote.  If 
it passes, I once again welcome anyone to help me fix it.  If it fails, 
we can all move on.  As for not RFCing it, I again apologize, but 
please don't tell me you've never had a similar experience -- please don't 
tell me you have never awoke in the morning utterly inspired, never
been caught up in the ecstasy of an idea that won't release you, won't 
let you go until you have put every last word of it down, that possesses 
your mind until you memorialize it, the idea that you become as it 
becomes you until you carry it to fruition.  If you honestly can say 
you've haven't, my sincere apologies.  But in the end, if this game of 
rules comes down to nothing but anally-tight constriction of rules, it 
will have lost the fun of the game.  And if it must crush all enthusiasm 
to make things more neat and orderly, it will have lost the very 
silliness that distinguishes it from other nomics (don't think I didn't 
join this crazy game without tracking down all the other nomics I could 
and checking out their rules, too.)  And if everything must be right the 
first time, this game will be reduced to nothing but the firing back and 
forth of minute amendments, an illusion of innovation in a realm utterly 
devoid of creativity, sitting in a dungheap and calling moving a turd 
from one's right hand to one's left progress.  Even its worst critics 
call P1194 cool in concept, and unless they're just pretending to 
partially agree in order to get people who genuinely like the idea to 
listen to them, I think there's some amount of approval for it in 
everyone.  I'll confess, and already have, that I should have RFC'd it, 
but don't kill a good idea because of a mortal's oversight.  I call 
upon all Acka to answer this question, to yourselves alone, because only 
to yourselves does it really matter:  Do you like P1194 enough to improve 
it, or is Acka really mob rule in the guise of democracy, where only the 
perfect and the unscrupulous can survive?

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:21:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: pf bonds

IdiotBoy has offered 30 PFNiccolo for $75

I accept his offer.  Would the Financier please take note.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:23:09 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: Re: PFBonds

On  10 Sep 1996,  Guy Fawkes wrote:

>I offer 50 A$ for 30 PFHabeus

>Guy Fawkes

Habeous Corpus accepts.  I'm not as greedy as Niccolo,  nor as confident
in the maintenance of my score.  I've got a couple of Proposals coming up
that may drastically change my fortunes.  8-0

Financier,
 please Trnasfer 30 PFHabeous to IdiotBoy, and A$50 from
IdiotBoy's account to mine.

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:23:25 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: RFC

RFC:Proposal:  Extranomic Entities

Amend Rule 683 by replacing all text with the following:

1)  This Rule takes Precedence over all other mutable and immutable Rules
concerning the creation,  destruction,  ownership,  Protection,  use
and/or manipulation of Extranomic Entities.

2) For the duration of this Rule,  Extranomic Entities shall be referred
to as EE's.
Definitions of terms used in this Rule:
   a.  Original State - the place,  condition,  location,  or legislative
authority originally creating or controlling the EE.
   b.  Nomic State - any other Nomic game,  its variants or any other
activity with legal access to Ackanomic.
   c.  Manipulate - any legislative act,  physical law,  game rule,  or
other term for governance or regulation.
   d.  "Specific EE" - the entity in its actual form.
   e.  "Generic EE" - the entity's concept,  governing or controlling
authority and/or all copywrited or uncopywrited reference to the entity.
{{ e.g. A pawn is a Specific Entity,  the Game of Chess is a Generic
Entity.}}

3)  EE's exist.  They originally exist outside of Ackanomic.  They may or
may not exist in one or more Nomic States.  EE's may only be created, 
destroyed,  owned,  manipulated,  or used as defined by this Rule and/or
any rules specified in their Original States. This Rule always defers to
regulations,  rules and other controls in the EE's Original State.

{{The following are specific rules for regulating EE's.  They should take
care of any loopholes or conflicts like in that "official soft drink"
fracas.}}

4)  Specific EE's may be taxed or otherwise regulated by other Rules as
long as those Rules defer precedence to this Rule.  Rules that tax or
otherwise regulate EE's shall have no effect unless and until the
Specific EE is actually introduced into Ackanomic.

5)  Generic EE's may not be regulated or controlled by Ackanomic Rules
UNLESS there exists a specific and explicit treaty or contract with the
extranomic agency responsible for regulating or owning the EE.

6) All Players in Ackanomic will make a concerted effort to abide by any
existing copywrites existing in the EE's Original State.

7)  a.  Specific EE's may only be created in Ackanomic in accordance with
rules governing their creation in the Original State.  Such Rules must
implicitly apply to Ackanomic.  If the Specific EE exists solely in
another Nomic State,  the rules governing its creation must specifically
apply to Ackanomic.
    b.  Specific EE's may only be destroyed in Ackanomic in accordance
with rules governing their destruction in the Original State.  Such Rules
must implicitly apply to Ackanomic.  If the Specific EE exists solely in
another Nomic State,  the rules governing its destruction must
specifically apply to Ackanomic.

{{The above means that EE's may be created and destroyed in Acka IF their
original Rules allow creation or destruction.  e.g.  "chess" is a game
existing IRL;  its extant game custom allows the playing of chess in
other forms than just two players with a board and pieces.  Therefore, 
it implicitly allows Ackanomic to create a chess game.  However,  if the
"vending machine"  invented by our esteemed snowgod were created
originally in Agora,  Agora's rules would need to be such that they fit
the rules for creation of Gadgets or entities in Acka before anyone in
Acka could create one.  It also states that the vending machine could
only be destroyed in accordance with the rules in Agora for destroying
one.  Note that the Rule states "specifically",  not "explicitly". 
Ackanomic does NOT need to be mentioned by name,  only that the rules are
compatible for the purpose of creation or destruction.}}

8)  Specific EE's may only be owned,  bought,  sold,  or used in
accordance with rules existing in their Original State.

9)  Additional Rules may specify ways to manipulate Specific EE's if the
Rules implicitly apply to their Original State.  If the EE's Original
State is another Nomic State,  then the Rules must specifically apply to
that Nomic State.

10)  Any activity involving EE's not explicitly regulated by this Rule is
permissible when the following conditions apply:
  a.  The EE was legally introduced into Ackanomic.
  b.  Rules in the EE's Original State do not implicitly or explicitly
prohibit the activity.

{{ The above deals with moving existing entities into Ackanomic.  It also
essentially limits the permissibility rule to force conformity with the
Original States rules.}}

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:53:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1194 problems

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Just to paraphrase a phrase often used by Malenkai. I've shown my version
> of Party Gravity, what's yours?

I said if its broke.  Obviously its not intended to work that way.
  
As for my version, I was actually going to neuter the swing votes for a
period of time to see how their accumulation worked, and see if party
chess was playable and playtest it a little before giving something like
a vote as a reward.  I cannot find an amendment I can live with, so I
am going to propose its repeal.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:51:08 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond market -- Financier, lookit this one, too.

> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond market
> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 3:44 PM
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Matt Miller wrote:
> 
> > I am looking to buy 50 of any of the following PFBonds:
> > 
> > PFMalenkai (will pay up to A$130)
> > PFbreadbox (will pay up to A$80)
> > PFThinMan  (will pay up to A$100)
> 
> I think you are seriously undervaluing those PFThinman.
 
What are you offering, then?  I'm sure those who own PFThinman would like to
hear from you. ;)

> I'll pay A$20 for 20 PFIdiotBoy, I have no desire for anymore than 20 and
> that's the price I'm offering.
>
 
Considering your standing as my former mentor, I will, in fact, cut you the
deal you suggest.  The Financier will, kindly,  report a transfer of 20
PFIdiotBoy from IdiotBoy to Niccolo Flychuck, and a transfer of A$20 from
Niccolo Flychuck to IdiotBoy.

BTW, given the brisk pace of sales in the PFBond Market, I now have a mere
30 PFIdiotBoys remaining for sale at the bargain basement price of A$50 (a
slight market correction from earlier quotes, get ready to ride the bull to
the top).  I also have a similarly sized supply of PFNiccolo, as these are
bonds with a proven track record, they are for sale as a lot at A$75.

> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> amused
> 
> 

IdiotBoy
amusing

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:55:04 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: PFBonds

I'm sure the Financier is wise enough to note the actual sale is to Guy
Fawkes.

Just making sure-
IdiotBoy

Advertisement:

Be sure to check with IdiotBot for the latest market prices, don't get taken
in by some flim-flam artist.  IdiotBoy has been in this business since the
first exchange.

- ----------
> From: Ed Graham <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: Re: PFBonds
> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 5:23 PM
> 
> On  10 Sep 1996,  Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> >I offer 50 A$ for 30 PFHabeus
> 
> >Guy Fawkes
> 
> Habeous Corpus accepts.  I'm not as greedy as Niccolo,  nor as confident
> in the maintenance of my score.  I've got a couple of Proposals coming up
> that may drastically change my fortunes.  8-0
> 
> Financier,
>  please Trnasfer 30 PFHabeous to IdiotBoy, and A$50 from
> IdiotBoy's account to mine.
> 
> Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:52:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 281 (Habeous Corpus)

Habeous Corpus has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 281
  Subject: Party Gravity Paradox I
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Sep 10, 1996, 19:50h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The legality of a Swinger trading a SwingVote after the Round Count is
incremented to a number that, when divided by RoundFreq, results in an 
integer, for the first time, cannot be determined with finality.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

SwingVotes are protected, therefore can only be acquired in accordance
with the Rules.  Therefore, before the first time the Round Count is
incremented to a number that, when divided by RoundFreq, results in an 
integer, all swingers have 0 swing votes (or at least did in this case,
as no used Malenkai's loophole acquire any, as we are good sports).

The first time (and each subsequent time) such incrementation and division
occur, the following is relavent, per R 1116: 

> a. When ever the Round Count is incremented to a number that, when
> divided by RoundFreq, results in an integer, SwingVotes are distributed
> according to the following scheme 

> The number of SwingVotes received by each Swinger= the largest integer
> smaller than [(the Swinger's SwingScore / (RoundFreq * number of
> Swingers)) +0.4]

The condition in the paragraph labelled a. is met, thus SwingVotes are
distributed in accordance with the schedule in the next quoted paragraph.
But what is that schedule?  I quote from R 545, in full:

> A left square bracket in a rule or other text begins a note, which ends
> with the next following right square bracket, or the end of the rule or
> body of text, whichever comes first. [This means that notes do not nest.]
> In the Ackanomic language, notes have no semantic meaning, whatever
> their lexical content.

Thus the content in the schedule in [brackets] has no semantic meaning.
Therefore the swinger receives swing votes in accordance with the following
schedule:

> The number of SwingVotes received by each Swinger= the largest integer
> smaller than

Smaller than what?  It is indeterminate.  They receive, by rule, some 
integral number of SwingVotes smaller than [?].  It may be 10, it
may not be 10, who the heck knows?.  Thus the number of SwingVotes received
by the Swinger is indetermine.  Thus we do not know if they have zero
or a non-zero quantity, thus we do not know if they have any to trade.
Thus we do not know the legality of the swinger trading one, because we
cannot know if e has any!  A verdict of TRUE is indicated.

I note that SwingVotes are explicitly tradeable, in accordance with R 1116,
so that is not a counter argument.

The initiator wins the game in accordance with R 219 on a verdict of TRUE.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:56:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: PFBonds

Matt Miller wrote:

> Be sure to check with IdiotBot for the latest market prices, don't get 
> taken
> in by some flim-flam artist.  IdiotBoy has been in this business since the
> first exchange.

This is false advertising.  The first exchange occurred in april.  Back
then, they were traded in units of 1!

Malenkai
history buff

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:17:33 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond market

> 
> Also I have for sale the following PFBonds:
> 
> 30 PFNiccolo @ A$75 
> [A recent report from an inside source suggested these were undervalued,
> could be worth up to A$3 each in the very near future.  These are
> practically firesale prices. Risk rated AA by IdiotBoy]
> 
> 50 PFIdiotBoy @ A$100
> [This is the initial public offering of these bonds.  I believe the
> potential of these PFIdiotBoys has yet to be explored.   Risk rated B by
> IdiotBoy] 
> 
> Please contact me via the public forum, if you are interested in any of
> these great deals.
> 
> IdiotBoy
> --
> Matt Miller
> [email-masked]
> 
I will purchase both offering in full at the asking price.  Also I 
am offering 25 PFTechno at $A75.

Techno 
"Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:20:17 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: PFBonds

> This is false advertising.  The first exchange occurred in april.  Back
> then, they were traded in units of 1!
> Malenkai
> history buff

Oh sure, there may have been an exchange of a PFBond or two here or there
throughout Ackanomia, but certainly not on the scale that could be
considered an "exchange".  I stand behind the veracity of all of my
advertisements.

Sales continue to be brisk.  Currently I am offering 30 PFIdiotBoy @ A$60.  
If your position in PFBonds is a bit too strong and you'd like some
liquidity,  I am still paying cash for your bonds.

Or my name's not-
IdiotBoy

Advertisement:

Nobody is more willing to work to increase the value of your investments
more than IdiotBoy.  Inquire about my guaranteed rates of return and
personalized investment counselling today!  Ask Niccolo Flychuck, the value
of the PFNiccolos in his portfolio increased 100% in LESS than one day.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 20:21:25 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Cashing in on bondmania

I am offering 3 lots of 20 PFthis each to the highest bidder(s) within 
the next day or so.

tinan

- --      Mike Epstein            "If you're not part of the solution,
    [email-masked]         you're part of the precipitate."
   [email-masked]                        --Henry J. Tillman
http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/   

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:21:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Party Gravity

I have proposed the repeal of R 1116, Party Gravity, and encourage a
YES vote for the following reasons:

The Party Gravity/Party Chess system seems to be built on the assumption
that Party Chess is a competetion between parties.  I submit that this
foundation is perhaps fallacious.  Given the discussion over P 1199, and
some of the rather vocal opposition, it seems that party splits may
occur anyway, such as in the case of Underworld 1 and Underworld 2.
Thus your competition premise may be compromised.  Could the parties
cooperate in Party Chess, one throwing pieces to the other in order
to manipulate swing score?  I did not find any checks or balances that
would *prevent* such abuse, and while abuse in itself isn't necessarily
bad, this potential, IMO, is not fun or good for the game, especially
with votes as the reward.  It can take some of the competitive fire out
of the game of chess.

Furthermore, Party Chess itself is complex and untested, and has had 
some deficiencies.  Again, I personally do not want the reward for
play of such a game to be votes.  

Also, it contains at least one minor paradox, and is currently unuseable
anyway, at least as I read the rules.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:25:50 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond market -- Financier, you know the drill.

> > 30 PFNiccolo @ A$75 
> > [A recent report from an inside source suggested these were
undervalued,
> > could be worth up to A$3 each in the very near future.  These are
> > practically firesale prices. Risk rated AA by IdiotBoy]
> > 
> > 50 PFIdiotBoy @ A$100
> > [This is the initial public offering of these bonds.  I believe the
> > potential of these PFIdiotBoys has yet to be explored.   Risk rated B
by
> > IdiotBoy] 
> > 
> > Please contact me via the public forum, if you are interested in any of
> > these great deals.
> > 
> > IdiotBoy
> > --
> > Matt Miller
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> I will purchase both offering in full at the asking price.  Also I 
> am offering 25 PFTechno at $A75.
> 
> Techno 
> "Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

Techno learns the harsh reality of the ever changing market.  I no longer
have any PFNiccolos, at any price. 

However, I will sell the 50 PFIdiotBoys @ $100.  In addition, I wish to
purchase the 25 PFTechno @ $75.

To summarize for the Financier:
A$25 & 25 PFTechno transfer from Techno to Idiotboy 
50 PFIdiotBoy transfer from IdiotBoy to Techno.

I am no longer selling any PFIdiotBoy.

IdiotBoy
No advertisement

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:36:46 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: PF BONDS

I offer 50 A$ for 30 PFHabeus

Techno

"Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:29:36 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cashing in on bondmania

I offer a $100 for all three lots.

If I am not able to purchase all 3, I will pay A$28 for each lot I am able
to purchase.

IdiotBoy

Advertisement:
IdiotBoy is your best choice for quality investment advice.  I don't just
follow market trends,  I create them.

- ----------
> From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
> To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: Cashing in on bondmania
> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 8:21 PM
> 
> I am offering 3 lots of 20 PFthis each to the highest bidder(s) within 
> the next day or so.
> 
> tinan
> 
> --      Mike Epstein            "If you're not part of the solution,
>     [email-masked]         you're part of the precipitate."
>    [email-masked]                        --Henry J. Tillman
> http://www.bozosoft.com/mike/   

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:27:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC PFBonds

RFC - repeal the reversion of PFs.

I've always wanted to do this, but the PF market never took off:

Is there any interest in removing the 25% reversion clause on PFs
in R 666?  I've never liked it, how do the traders feel?

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:32:48 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: No It's Not Bonds or Advertisements

Sorry if my messages have been a bit funky looking.  Similar situation to
Malenkai's, working with uncharted software, and still working out the
idiotsyncracies.

IdiotBoy
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:43:16 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Cashing in on bondmania

> I am offering 3 lots of 20 PFthis each to the highest bidder(s) within 
> the next day or so.
> 
> tinan
> 

I offer A$40 per lot.  Willing to purchase all 3 for a total of 
$A120.

Techno
"Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:43:16 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond market -- Financier, you know the drill.

>However, I will sell the 50 PFIdiotBoys @ $100.  In addition, I wish to
>purchase the 25 PFTechno @ $75.

>To summarize for the Financier:
>A$25 & 25 PFTechno transfer from Techno to Idiotboy 
>50 PFIdiotBoy transfer from IdiotBoy to Techno.

>I am no longer selling any PFIdiotBoy.

>IdiotBoy
>No advertisement

This is to show the Financier my acceptance of the above transaction.

Techno
"Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:34:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: No It's Not Bonds or Advertisements

Matt Miller wrote:
> 
> Sorry if my messages have been a bit funky looking.  Similar situation to
> Malenkai's, working with uncharted software, and still working out the
> idiotsyncracies.

If you are using netscape 3.0 for windows 16 bit (don't laugh, I have
real toys at work), then you must click on "don't wrap long lines"
under "view" *every* time you send a message.  This was too much of
a hassle for me, so I went back to 2.0.

Malenkai
unix user trapped by microsoft

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:49:27 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC PFBonds

> RFC - repeal the reversion of PFs.
> 
> I've always wanted to do this, but the PF market never took off:
> 
> Is there any interest in removing the 25% reversion clause on PFs
> in R 666?  I've never liked it, how do the traders feel?
> 
> Malenkai
> 
As IdiotBoy and I are currently very active in the bond market, I 
think you can count on 5 yes votes for this repeal.  

Techno 
"Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 269 Appeal

> Iff it matters, and it may not (its tough playing this game over 
> breakfast before work), I must point out that "iff" must be rendered
> as the English word "if", not as discussed above, per R 451, as "iff"
> is not in the official disctionary, and is a misspelling of "if".

True enough. And yes, it doesn't matter. Thankfully, we have already
fixed the rules that contained "iff," and the none of the above
weakens my argument. Reading ex-Rule 541 with "iff" rendered as "if"
still results in an inconsistency, and in any case none of that
affects the rendering of Rule 1112.1 (et al).

b

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #219
*******************************