Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #239
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Monday, September 16 1996      Volume 01 : Number 239

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:06:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 287 (Robin Hood)

Robin Hood has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
Life is an Over-simplificaton of Nomic
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 287
  Subject: Making Judgements in accordance with the Rules
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Robin Hood (selected Sep 16, 1996, 02:09h New York Time)
Judgement:

Statement:

If a CFJ is submitted, and before a verdict is reached, the rules
pertaining to making judgements are changed, the judgement must be made
in accordance with the new rules.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

This complements CFJ 279; that CFJ considered the rules pertaining to the
specific CFJ, while this one concerns the rules which govern making
judgements in general.  This would include rules 213, 214, 215, 489, 589,
and probably others.

This follows from rule 101, which also has a "then in effect" clause.
Although the judge must consider the rules in effect when the CFJ was
submitted in order to determine the truth of the statement, the
submission of the judgement must follow the rules when the judgement
is submitted.

Note that CFJ 279 and this CFJ can overlap; it is possible for two
different versions of the same rule to matter in this case.  Should
there ever be a paradox such that the legality of returning judgement
on a CFJ cannot be determined, and a paradox-win CFJ is submitted on
that, if the rules are then changed so as to eliminate the paradox
(and make it possible to return judgement) that CFJ can legitimately
be judged TRUE.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:08:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond Sales Update

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Matt Miller wrote:
> >
> > Selling:
> >
> > PFTechno (20 @ 1 of Malenkai's Prosthetic Foreheads)
> 
> I remove my prosthetic forehead I am wearing.
> 
> I confirm the trade of that prosthetic forehead, with the golden frog
> on, it for 20 PFTechno.

I'm not clear on the rules.  Did this transaction happen, Mr. Financier?

Malenkai
potential bond trader

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 03:36:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 288 (Mellon)

This had a date of around 15:30 on sunday, but i just got it, so I
don't know if someone's smtp is on the fritz?

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 288
  Subject: Pious Player Prosthesis Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Mellon (selected Sep 16, 1996, 03:38h New York Time)
Judgement:

Statement:

The legality of wearing a Prosthetic Forehead, if one is a member
of a Church whose Church policy contains both the lines, "Thou shalt wear a
Prosthetic Forehead at all times," and, "Thou shalt not wear a Prosthetic
Forehead," cannot be determined with finality.

Guy Fawkes Reasoning: The relevant rule sections are R775, 3c, which reads,

"All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as they are members 
of
the Church."

and R818, paragraph 3, which begins,

"A player may wear a Prosthetic Forehead that they own..."

Since neither rule makes relevant precedence claims, R775 takes
precedence, from which we can conclude that a Church's policy may both
limit the rights of its members to wear Prosthetic Foreheads and require
them to do so, and that such limitations or requirements are in this case
legally binding as long as a player is a member of that Church.  If a
Church policy both forbids and requires the wearing of a Prosthetic
forehead, since there is no means in the rules to establish precedence of
contradictory statements within Church Policy, R773 3c become a
self-contradictory statement, and the Church member's right to wear the
Prosthetic Forehead cannot be determined.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 03:51:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 288 (Mellon)

Malenkai wrote:
> 

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 288
>   Subject: Pious Player Prosthesis Paradox
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>     Judge: Mellon (selected Sep 16, 1996, 03:38h New York Time)
> Judgement:

We are starting to jump over each other to hammer this "Hypothetically"
and "Pseudo-rule" case.  Has many of the elements of CFJ 286 and to
some extent CFJ 256, another hypothetical/pseudo-rule case, although
may be stronger than 286.  

I'd say this one is pretty much the same as CFJ 256, but you have to
look at it from the right dimension.  Of course, from that dimension,
CFJ 286 is very similar as well.

I started thinking about all this hypothetically with the following CFJ
in my mind:

The legality of eating candy cannot be determined with finality, if the
proposal described in the reasoning is accepted.

Reasoning:

Proposal X: create a new rule reading:

It is permissible, and impermissable, to eat candy.  Candy is protected.

I'd get a short bonus :-)

R 101 mandates that R X be followed, if its accepted, similar to the
blueprint, contract, or church rules, which mandate their pseudo-rule
be followed.  I was thinking of a weaker case for party policy; its 
already game custom that party policy is enforceable (qv CFJ 130
something, ThinMan's first one).

The *hypothetical* angle of CFJ 256 opened some doors, I guess all this
may be different to a different judge, to me its all the same, hence
my comment in CFJ 286.  Mabye we can test that new "Invalid" language;
"in the Judgement of the Judge".

I guess someone could just *do* the hypothetical thing, in the case
of the blueprint, church, or contract, so mabye the whole hypothetical
angle goes away.  I ain't gonna want to read this in the morning.

Anyway, vote YES for the Chartreuse Goose.  Enhance paradox CFJs.

Malenkai
they shouldn't let me stay up this late

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:10:17 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: acka: mr cwm's hat

Uri Bruck uunet!actcom.co.il!bruck  (Uri Bruck) writes:
> 
> Bash has been chosen Mad Hatter for mr cwm
> 

Being new and all I haven't seen any designs for silly hats yet, so I
hope my design is reasonable:

 \\  /---------\
  \-| o         \ /
    /\---        |
  --  \----------- 
       || ||  || ||

(you can not really see the hat since the elephant has swallowed it).

BTW, rule Rule 937/2 says:
"The Mad Hatter will then have three days to publically announce a
design for the Silly Vacation Hat. If a player fails to submit a
design for the Silly Vacation Hat within the designated period, ..."

Isn't it a contradiction ? I mean, according to the first sentence,
all I had to do is:

" I am hereby announcing the design of the Silly Vacation Hat "

But according to the rest, I would actually have to design it.

Bash

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:44:51 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: POLL 

>Nothing really caught my
>fancy til I saw the Acka pages.  Plenty of controversy, and plenty of fun.
>Or so the Germans would have us believe!

Hey! I live in alaska (which did have a horrendos lack of snow last year),
but I just did not get that joke on SNL.  Will you explain it to me?

frozenwaterdiety
being led by the germans

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
IdiotBoy is The Authority on the PFBond market.  The mention or lack of mention
of a particular bond in IdiotBoy's quotes can send a bond up or down.  Get your
bond listed on IdiotBoy's latest quotes page, just ask him how.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:44:54 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm's hat 

>
> \\  /---------\
>  \-| o         \ /
>    /\---        |
>  --  \-----------
>       || ||  || ||
>
>(you can not really see the hat since the elephant has swallowed it).

Another lovely hat.  And quite original too :)

I cannot wait to hear mr cwm admire this one.  By the way, I am quite sure
that ackanomic has the finest Mad Hatters anywhere in existance.  Perhaps
we could start trading for hard currency ($ or Yen?) by designing hat's for
various Fashion Agencies...

Maybe I'll propose a rule requiring the Financier to look into the
possibility...

frozenwaterdiety
president
former Mad Hatter

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
IdiotBoy is The Authority on the PFBond market.  The mention or lack of mention
of a particular bond in IdiotBoy's quotes can send a bond up or down.  Get your
bond listed on IdiotBoy's latest quotes page, just ask him how.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:48:02 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: T-Shirts 

>I'll buy one.  Would the financier please transfer 10 A$ from my account
>to frozenwaterdiety's.

I accept and acknowledge this transaction.  Would the financier ple note?
And would the financier note the two other sales (Techno and IdiotBoy) if
the creating CFJ comes back False?

>By the way, I do hope frozenwaterdiety remembers this gesture when it
>comes time to hire a manager for his re-election bid.

Oh, but of course.  However, may have to work hand in hand with Bascule.
he did a wonderful job for me the last time, and if he still has the
desire, I will not hesitiate to hire him again.

frozenwaterdiety

Ackanomic Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - President
Inventor - Former Senator (seat a)  - Heretic (4 times!) - Former CSRR
Priest, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
IdiotBoy is The Authority on the PFBond market.  The mention or lack of mention
of a particular bond in IdiotBoy's quotes can send a bond up or down.  Get your
bond listed on IdiotBoy's latest quotes page, just ask him how.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:44:46 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Two new observer

We have two new observers:
 Jacob Alexander Glazeski
[email-masked]

Tino Breckling Deleuran
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:53:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar - Magic Potato

Malenkai has been selected as the bearer of the Magic Potato for this
week.

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:00:35 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Registrar - tinan mentor for new player

tinan has been chosen as mentor for the yet to be Ackanomic named 
Sam Peterson e-mail [email-masked]

Niccolo Flychuck

Registrar

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:56:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: RFC - Duels, with all the bells and whistles

This is the new and improved Duels RFC - the limitations and Vacations
thing just doubled its length, and perhaps complexity as well.

I believe this should cover everything. I'm gonna wait a few days before
actually submittin, to allow all bugs to surface.

Niccolo Flychuck

RFC
Duels
Niccolo Flychuck

1. Any player who feels offended by another player, or is engaged in a 
8heated discussion with another player, may challenge that player to a
duel

2. The procedure for challenging is as follows:
  The Challenging player finds another players who agrees to be eir
Second. The Challenger gives eir Second the name of the player e wishes to
Challenge, and the reason for the Challenge. The Second posts a public
message, which anounces the name of the Challenging player, the name of
the Challenged player, the reason for the Challenge, and the fact that a
Challenge has been made.
The Chalenged player has four days to find a player who agrees to
be eir Second and have the Second respond to the message publically. The 
message should contain the following information: The fact that that the 
post is a reply to a Challenge, the Challenge it is a reply to, and a
Contest chosen by the Challenged player for the Duel. If there is no
response to the Challenge within the four days,  or the Challenged 
player declines the Challenge, then he is considered
to have forefeit the Duel. In this case, the Challenged player loses 6
points, and the Challenging player gains 6 points.

The Game or Contest must be one listed on the Games &
Contests web page, or must be described in this rule; moreover, it must
be playable by two players and have definitive rules for determining a
winner.
The Challenged player may explicitly waive the privilege of choosing a
Contest, in which case the Challenging player may choose a Contest.
However, if the response to the Challenge message includes neither a
choice of Contest, nor an explicit message to the effect that the
Challenged player has waived the privilege of first choice, then the
Challenged player is considered to have forfeit the Duel. In this case e
loses 6 points and the Challenging players gains 6 points.

If the Challenged's Player has accepted the Duel, then the President has
the duty to anounce that a Duel will be taking place between the
Challenged player and the Challenging player who will be competing against
each other in the specified Game or Contest, and that the the winner of
the Game or Contest will be the winner of the Duel. If the Presidents is
invloved in the Duel, then this duty becomes the duty of a Senator who is
not involved in the Duel.

When the Duel is over, the winner of the Duel receives 6 points in 
addition to any rewards or penalties he may have received as part of the 
Contest itself. The loser of the Duel loses 6 points in addition to any 
rewards or penalties he may have received as part of the Contest itself.
The winner's Second receives 3 points, the loser's Second loses 3 points.

The results of the Duel have no other direct influence over Ackanomic. 
However if either the Challenger or the Challenged have committed 
themselves in a public message to a certain action depending on the 
results of the Duel, then they must perform that action. Should they fail 
to perform that action, it is the duty of the Second of the other player 
taking part in the Duel to call CFCJ against that player. Any other 
player may do so as well.

3. Contests:
A. Limerick Contest:
  Each of the participants in the duel writes a limerick about the other
participant. The limerick may be silly, funny, and even ridicule the other
participant in a good-humored manner, as long as it is not offensive. The
limericks no more than five days after the Challenge has been publically
anounced. If one of the participants fails to post a limerick, then the
other wins by default. Once both limericks have been posted, there is a
four-day voting period. During the voting period all Players may send
their votes to their tabulator, indicating which limerick is the better
one. The participant whose limerick got the most votes, wins the duel. In
case of a tie, the participant whose limerick was posted first wins the
duel.

B. Boolean tic-tac-toe: {{[I did not invent this one, so save your
praises]}}
(i) The game of Boolean tic-tac-toe, heretofore known as Bttt is played on
a 3x3 grid labeled in the following manner

a  b  c
d  e  f
g  h  i

(ii) At the begining of the game on participant is randomly chosen to
play the role of T, the other participant plays the role of F. The former
is known as the T-players, the latter is known as the F-player.
(iii)
  (a) The symbol ! is the NOT symbol.
  (b) The follwoing comma-delimited symbols are equivalent to T
       !F,!3F,!2T
  (c) The following comma-delimited symbols are equivalent to F
       !T,!3T,!2F
   (d) every symbol is equivalent to itself
(iv)Participants alternate turns. The T-player always goes first. The
first turn must be played no more than three days after the game has been
anounced. Every subsequent play must take place within 3 days of the most
recent play. A participant who misses this deadline loses by default.
(v) There are two possible plays Play and Anti-Play.
   Play - Participant places eir symbol, in an unoccupied square.
   A Particiapnt may not any of the equivalents of the symbol. The
T-player may only play T, the F-Player may only play F
 
  Anti-Play - An Anti-Play consists of adding the NOT symbol next to a
symbol already on the grid. If there is already a NOT symbol next to that
location, then the number next to the NOT symbol is incremented. If there
is no number then a 2 is inserted between the NOT symbol and T or F symbol
If the number next to a NOT symbol is 3 then it is illegal to Anti-Play in
that square. 
 It is illegal for a participant to Anti-Play on eir own Symbol or any of
its equivalents. Anti-Play is only permissible if the other Participant
has a winning move in eir next turn.

(vi) Winning - A player wins when three symbols in a single column,row or
diagonal are all equivalent to eir symbol.   
If no winner can be determined according to the criteria described in the 
previous sentence, the winner is the participant who has more symbols 
equal to eir own symbol in the grid.

4.
a. It is impermissible to Challenge an Untouchable Player to a Duel.

b. A Player who Challenged another Player to a Duel or a Player who has
been Challenged by another Player to a Duel is Untouchable until the Duel
procedures are over, for whatever reason.

c. A Player who was a Chalengee in a Duel, that is, was Challenged to a
Duel and accepted, continues to be Untouchable until 20 days after the
end of the Duel procedures.

d. Players on Vacation are Untouchable {{[Is this necessary?]}}

e. Players in Gaol are Untouchable.

f. A Player who anounces that e will be going on Vacation on a specific
future date is Untouchable starting on the date of the anouncement or four
days before the anounced date of the Vacation, whichever is later, until
the date he actually goes on Vacation or four days after the anounced
date of the Vacation, whichever is earlier.  If by that latter date the
Player still has not gone on Vacation, then he cannot be Untouchable for a
period of 14 days, this sentence is an exception only to this sub-section,
and not to the other sub-section of this rule.

g. If a player who is currently engaged in Duel procedures  goes on
Vacation that lasts more than 7 days e foreits the Duel.

h. If a Player who is currently engaged in Duel procedures goes on
Vacation that lasts 7 days or less, all Duel procedures are delayed by a
number of days equal to the number of days e was on Vacation. If a player
goes on a second Vacation during the same Duel he forfeits the Duel.

i. It is impermissible for a Player running for Office to Challenge
another Player running for the same Office.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:59:58 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: POLL

 From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
> Hey! I live in alaska (which did have a horrendos lack of snow last
year),
> but I just did not get that joke on SNL.  Will you explain it to me?
>
Actually this is just a Norm MacDonaldism.  It had nothing to do with that
joke in particular.  Last year or maybe a couple years ago, he ended alot of
his jokes with:  "Which just goes to prove my theory:  the Germans love
David Hassellhoff."  One of those goofy non sequitors.

Which reminds me: Norm is the only guy who can come anywhere CLOSE to Dennis
Miller in Weekend Update ability.
 
IdiotBoy

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 08:58:51 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Latest Bond Quotes

>[email-masked] wrote:
>> 
>> Buying 10 PFMalenka @ A$190.
>> 
>> Financier please make note.
>
>I acknowledge, and concur, with this transaction, Mr. Financier.
>
>Malenkai
>Bond trader

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:02:03 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: I'm leaving the game

To Registrar and everybody else,

Currently have to much to do at work, so I have almost no time to 
spend on Ackanomic play, so I invoke rule 111/1 and leave the game.
I might return some time in the future when things calm down.

There is a CFJ (288) in my name that has to be assigned to someone
else, and I guess I still have the Steel Flea... Otherwise I believe
I don't have any unfinished duties.

Good Luck to you all!

Mellon

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:21:19 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  acka: RFC - Duels, with all the bells and whistles 

>RFC
>Duels
>Niccolo Flychuck
>
>1. Any player who feels offended by another player, or is engaged in a 
>8heated discussion with another player, may challenge that player to a
>duel

Please add "subject to the limitations described below," or some similar
language.

>2. The procedure for challenging is as follows:
>  The Challenging player finds another players who agrees to be eir
>Second. The Challenger gives eir Second the name of the player e wishes to
>Challenge, and the reason for the Challenge. The Second posts a public
>message, which anounces the name of the Challenging player, the name of
>the Challenged player, the reason for the Challenge, and the fact that a
>Challenge has been made.
>The Chalenged player has four days to find a player who agrees to
>be eir Second and have the Second respond to the message publically. The 
>message should contain the following information: The fact that that the 
>post is a reply to a Challenge, the Challenge it is a reply to, and a
>Contest chosen by the Challenged player for the Duel. If there is no

I think you should acknowledge the possibility of waving the contest choice
here, directly in the response requirement.  You can spell out the details
later.

>response to the Challenge within the four days,  or the Challenged 
>player declines the Challenge, then he is considered
>to have forefeit the Duel. In this case, the Challenged player loses 6
>points, and the Challenging player gains 6 points.
>
>If the Challenged's Player has accepted the Duel, then the President has
>the duty to anounce that a Duel will be taking place between the
>Challenged player and the Challenging player who will be competing against
>each other in the specified Game or Contest, and that the the winner of
>the Game or Contest will be the winner of the Duel. If the Presidents is
>invloved in the Duel, then this duty becomes the duty of a Senator who is
>not involved in the Duel.

Which Senator?

>B. Boolean tic-tac-toe: {{[I did not invent this one, so save your
>praises]}}

[...]

>(vi) Winning - A player wins when three symbols in a single column,row or
>diagonal are all equivalent to eir symbol.   
>
>If no winner can be determined according to the criteria described in the 
>previous sentence, the winner is the participant who has more symbols 
>equal to eir own symbol in the grid.

You need to specify for the alternative winning condition that no further
plays are possible.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:23:57 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Moron 

IdiotBoy wrote:

>Oh boy, can I be the OFFICIAL moron of Ackanomic now, for not even THINKING
>about my reply-tos?

Well, if it's really important to you then I'm sure something can be
arranged.  :-)

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:47:12 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  acka: RFC - Duels, with all the bells and whistles

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> >RFC
> >Duels
> >Niccolo Flychuck
> >
> >1. Any player who feels offended by another player, or is engaged in a 
> >8heated discussion with another player, may challenge that player to a
> >duel
> 
> Please add "subject to the limitations described below," or some similar
> language.

R210 (Ithink it's the right number), provides for precedence within a
rule, but I agree that the above explicit statement is stronger.

> 
> I think you should acknowledge the possibility of waving the contest choice
> here, directly in the response requirement.  You can spell out the details
> later.

Fine.

> >the Game or Contest will be the winner of the Duel. If the Presidents is
> >invloved in the Duel, then this duty becomes the duty of a Senator who is
> >not involved in the Duel.
> 
> Which Senator?

It is certain tht if the President is involved in the Duel, then at least
one Senator won't be.  But some method should be specified, something like
"The Senator whose name comes first by alphabetical order, from among the
Senators not involved in the Duel" - I don't thins there should be a
problem with alphabetical order - at least I don't remember running into
one
 > 
> 
> >(vi) Winning - A player wins when three symbols in a single column,row or
> >diagonal are all equivalent to eir symbol.   
> >
> >If no winner can be determined according to the criteria described in the
> >previous sentence, the winner is the participant who has more symbols 
> >equal to eir own symbol in the grid.
> 
> You need to specify for the alternative winning condition that no further
> plays are possible.
Right.

> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
Niccolo Flychuck

If anyone feels that further restrictions are necessary, post, post ,post.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:01:22 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Discovery 

As I was digging in my garden, I discovered the following Ackanomic entity:

- --
Thermonuclear Divining Rod

The Thermonuclear Divining Rod (TDR) has always existed.  It allows anyone
who owns it to instantly change his score to the Magic Number.  This function
is activated by saying the word "Oppenheimer."  The TDR is slightly unstable,
however, and if it is used more than once within any 7-day period then it
will explode, destroying every entity then in existence, including itself,
not to mention all the rules.  If the TDR is ever destroyed, then it will
likewise explode.

The TDR has a sophisticated neural proximity circuit (NPC) which, when
activated, tunes itself to its then-owner's brainwaves.  The NPC can only
be activated once.  After the NPC has been activated, if the TDR is ever
transferred from its owner's possession in any way then the NPC will cause
the TDR to explode, with the same effects described above.

The TDR may also be used to find water.
- --

Intrigued, I picked it up and claimed it for my own.  Just to be sure, I
activated the Neural Proximity Circuit.  I then held the TDR and said
"Oppenheimer."  That done, I whistled a cheery little tune as I used the
TDR to help me decide where to dig my well.

Would the scorekeeper please note the relevant changes and publish the
end-of-cycle scores?

ThinMan
Ackanomic's only nuclear power

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:10:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery

John Bollinger wrote:

> Would the scorekeeper please note the relevant changes and publish the
> end-of-cycle scores?

Hey, I tried this with sushi once, along time ago (during that CFJ 227
Godelian no game custom business, as I recall).  No one updated my
score :(

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:13:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 289 (fnord)

Mellon declined, one could interpret, just as he left the game.

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 288
  Subject: Pious Player Prosthesis Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Mellon (declined to judge)
    Judge: fnord (selected Sep 16, 1996, 11:16h New York Time)
Judgement:

Statement:

The legality of wearing a Prosthetic Forehead, if one is a member
of a Church whose Church policy contains both the lines, "Thou shalt wear a
Prosthetic Forehead at all times," and, "Thou shalt not wear a Prosthetic
Forehead," cannot be determined with finality.

Guy Fawkes Reasoning: The relevant rule sections are R775, 3c, which reads,

"All Church members must abide by Church Policy as long as they are members
of
the Church."

and R818, paragraph 3, which begins,

"A player may wear a Prosthetic Forehead that they own..."

Since neither rule makes relevant precedence claims, R775 takes
precedence, from which we can conclude that a Church's policy may both
limit the rights of its members to wear Prosthetic Foreheads and require
them to do so, and that such limitations or requirements are in this case
legally binding as long as a player is a member of that Church.  If a
Church policy both forbids and requires the wearing of a Prosthetic
forehead, since there is no means in the rules to establish precedence of
contradictory statements within Church Policy, R773 3c become a
self-contradictory statement, and the Church member's right to wear the
Prosthetic Forehead cannot be determined.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:19:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 289 (Robin Hood)

Robin Hood has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 289
  Subject: Timeless Existance of Acka-Entities
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Robin Hood (selected Sep 16, 1996, 11:22h New York Time)
Judgement:

Statement:

No Ackanomic entities other than the initial Rules, and possibly the
initial players (if they are considered Ackanomic entities), existed
at the beginning of the game.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The rules do not say one way or the other, but it makes abundant sense
to me that everything started from the initial Rules and players alone.
Call it the spirit of the game.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:20:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 289 (fnord)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Mellon declined, one could interpret, just as he left the game.
> 
> fnord has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 288

The subject line is wrong.  This is indeed CFJ 288.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:25:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 282 Verdict

CFJ 282 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 282
  Subject: Proposal Bribery and Money Scrolls
Initiator: fnord
    Judge: Brinjal (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Bash (selected Sep 15, 1996, 11:09h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Proposal 1218 ("Scroll of Money") is an invalid proposal according to
Rule 793 ("No Proposal Bribery").

fnord's comments:

Rule 793 states that "a proposal is invalid if the rule change or resolution
discriminates in any way between players based on the way they vote on that
proposal."

Proposal 1218 creates an Ackanomic entity that would contain a list of
who "...voted for the proposal that created..." it.  The entity would then
transfer money from the Treasury to the players on that list.  This is most
certainly discrimination based on the way players may vote.

It may be pointed out by some that the phrase "vote for the proposal"
could be translated simply as any who voted on the proposal, whether
they voted "YES" or "NO".  This however, still discriminates against
those who abstain (either on purpose or through inaction) or chose not
to vote for Quorum reasons, both of which are certainly valid "ways
to vote".

Bash's Reasoning:

When talking about invalidating a proposal, Rule 793 talks about "the rule
change or resolution it contains". Well, I couldn't find any specific
definition for "rule change", so I must adopt the straight forward English
meaning, according to which creating a new rule is not a rule change
(furthermore, I found throughout the rules several times the phrase "new rule
or rule change" which supports my interpretation). Since Proposal 1218 is
about a new rule, not about a rule change, it is not invalid (according to
Rule 793).

However, the second half of rule 793 (which actually doesn't sit well with
the first half), means that even if Proposal 1218 passes, it won't have the
effect it states, which IMHO makes this proposal useless, and I would expect
Wayne to retract it.

Sorry if I was too "clever".

Bash (WOW ! It is tough being a judge !)

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 11:36:36 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1195 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1195
  Proposal 1195 - Sun Sep 08 00:25:16 EDT 1996
  Fixing Malenkai's Loophole for Titles
  Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 16 players cast votes

13 YES votes   5 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Guy Fawkes gains 10 points.  23 -> 33

13 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =  17               
  Malenkai               FUN                  = 163               
  Brinjal                                     =  10               
  gnome                                       =   0               
  Bascule                FUN                  =  15               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =   5               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  79               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 179               
  Techno                 Underworld           =  36               
  Guy Fawkes             FUN                  =  33               
  fnord                                       =   6               
  breadbox                                    = -13               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  12               

5 NO votes:  3 points each
  ThinMan                Vulcan                 8 -> 11           
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan                43 -> 46           
  Bash                   Underworld             9 -> 12           
  IdiotBoy               Underworld            19 -> 22           
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             3 -> 6            

0 PRESENT votes:

2 ABSTENTIONS:
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Robert Sevin                                
  Pascal                                      
  Geezer                                      

New players who are not active:
  Tim                                         
  Sam                                         

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 1195 - Sun Sep 08 00:25:16 EDT 1996
Fixing Malenkai's Loophole for Titles
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

Place the following amendment at the end of R609

(viii)  A player is forbidden to acquire any title or office unless the rules
explicitly allow em to do so.

{{[As long as P1193 is up for approval, why fix it only halfway?]}}

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 11:37:21 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1196 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1196
  Proposal 1196 - Sun Sep 08 00:25:27 EDT 1996
  Leash the Hounds of Hell!
  Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 17 players cast votes

15 YES votes   5 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Guy Fawkes gains 10 points.  33 -> 43

15 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =  17               
  Malenkai               FUN                  = 163               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  11               
  gnome                                       =   0               
  Bascule                FUN                  =  15               
  Bash                   Underworld           =  12               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =   5               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  29               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 179               
  Guy Fawkes             FUN                  =  43               
  fnord                                       =   6               
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   6               
  breadbox                                    = -13               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  12               

5 NO votes:  3 points each
  Brinjal                                      10 -> 13           
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan                46 -> 49           
  Habeous Corpus                               79 -> 82           
  Techno                 Underworld            36 -> 39           
  IdiotBoy               Underworld            22 -> 25           

0 PRESENT votes:

1 ABSTENTIONS:
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Robert Sevin                                
  Pascal                                      
  Geezer                                      

New players who are not active:
  Tim                                         
  Sam                                         

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 1196 - Sun Sep 08 00:25:27 EDT 1996
Leash the Hounds of Hell!
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

Amend R622 to read in full:

A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to all 
registered Players who subscribe to the official mailing list, and the 
subject line contains either "Ackanomic:" or "Acka:"

{{[Often, vacationing players unsubscribe from the official mailing list, 
and this is certainly allowed by R832.  However, since they are still 
registered players, the current R622 demands public messages be sent to 
them anyway.  Unable to work this into a paradox win (R622 has 
precedence), I briefly considered using this truth as grounds for a 
mass-impeachment since it almost certainly means most of the officials 
required to send public messages have been violating the "Speed" rule for 
the better part of the summer.  However, I then started to look at all 
the mentions of public messages in the rules, and I realized sticking 
this loophole to it could very well unleash the hounds of hell and crash the 
game, so I'm just trying to quietly fix it.]}}

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 11:38:12 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1197 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 1197
  Proposal 1197 - Sun Sep 08 17:20:48 EDT 1996
  What can Cows Eat?
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 17 players cast votes

10 YES votes   10 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

snowgod loses 7 points.  5 -> -2

10 YES votes:  3 point each
  Robin Hood                                   17 -> 20           
  Malenkai               FUN                  163 -> 166          
  gnome                                       =   0               
  snowgod                (None Yet)            -2 -> 1            
  this is not a name     (None Yet)            29 -> 32           
  Techno                 Underworld            39 -> 42           
  IdiotBoy               Underworld            25 -> 28           
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             6 -> 9            
  breadbox                                    -13 -> -10          

10 NO votes:  
  Brinjal                                     =  13               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  11               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  49               
  Bash                   Underworld           =  12               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  82               
  Vulcan Unity vote                           =   0               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 179               
  Guy Fawkes             FUN                  =  43               
  fnord                                       =   6               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  12               

0 PRESENT votes:

1 ABSTENTIONS:
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  Bascule                FUN                  
  Robert Sevin                                
  Pascal                                      
  Geezer                                      

New players who are not active:
  Tim                                         
  Sam                                         

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #239
*******************************