Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #240
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Monday, September 16 1996      Volume 01 : Number 240

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 11:38:36 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1198 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1198
  Proposal 1198 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:03 EDT 1996
  Working to Reduce Work
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

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

17 YES votes   2 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Malenkai gains 10 points.  166 -> 176

17 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =  20               
  Malenkai               FUN                  = 176               
  Brinjal                                     =  13               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  11               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  49               
  Bash                   Underworld           =  12               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =   1               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  32               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  82               
  Vulcan Unity vote                           =   0               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 179               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =  28               
  fnord                                       =   6               
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   9               
  breadbox                                    = -10               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  12               

2 NO votes:  3 points each
  Techno                 Underworld            42 -> 45           
  Guy Fawkes             FUN                   43 -> 46           

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
====================================================
Proposal 1198 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:03 EDT 1996
Working to Reduce Work
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 1051, "Mentors (Take II)", as follows:

1) replace all occurrance of

"It is the privilege of a mentor to receive A$25 from the treasury at
the completion of his mentorship."

with:

"The mentor receives A$25 from the Treasury at the start of his or her
mentorship.

{{[the intent is to give the mentor pay when the mentor is selected, so
that no one need remember to do any work at the end of the mentorship]}}"

2) add the following section at the end of the rule:

{{all extant mentors who became mentors via application of this rule 
receive A$25 from the Treasury.}}

3) add the following text at the end of the first paragraph:

"No one may become a mentor except as specified by the Rules." 

4) Change the title of the rule to "Mentors".

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 11:39:55 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1199 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1199
  Proposal 1199 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:20 EDT 1996
  Discouraging Party Splits
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

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

13 YES votes   4 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Malenkai gains 10 points.  176 -> 186

13 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =  20               
  Malenkai               FUN                  = 186               
  Brinjal                                     =  13               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  11               
  Bash                   Underworld           =  12               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =   1               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  82               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 179               
  Guy Fawkes             FUN                  =  46               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =  28               
  fnord                                       =   6               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   9               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  12               

4 NO votes:  3 points each
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan                49 -> 52           
  this is not a name     (None Yet)            32 -> 35           
  Techno                 Underworld            45 -> 48           
  breadbox                                    -10 -> -7           

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
====================================================
Proposal 1199 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:20 EDT 1996
Discouraging Party Splits
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend R 391, "Rewarding Party Unity", to read:

      If on any proposal every member of a political party votes in the
same way (either Yes or No) then one extra vote is cast on the proposal
for every three distinct members of that party.  These vote(s) will be
Yes vote(s) if the party voted Yes unanimously. The vote(s) will be No
vote(s) if the party voted No unanimously.  The extra vote(s) are not
considered to have been cast by any players.

       Party membership and how players voted are determinded based on
the facts in force at the end of the prescribed voting period for each
proposal.

       {{[yeah, it will still make some sense for parties of 6 to split,
but it will be less of a disadvantage if they don't.  If I were in a
party of 6, I would not *want* to split because it would be less FUN.
Under the current system, it really makes no sense for them to not split.
Why now, when no party is close to 6?  I don't know, I've been wanting to
do this since March.]}}

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:36:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 289 Verdict

CFJ 289 has been judged TRUE.  I guess snowgod is out of business.

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.

Robin Hood's Reasoning:

I agree entirely with ThinMan's reasoning, and pass a verdict of TRUE

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:45:17 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds New Quotes 

>> Buying:
>> PFTechno  (20 @ A$120)
>>
>> IdiotBoy
>SOLD!
>
>20 PFTechno @ A$120
>
>Techno

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 11:46:14 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: P1197 recount

I forgot to include a vote from the Tammany on Proposal 1197.  This makes
it 11 FOR and 10 against, still failing.

this is not a name bribed the Tammany for A$25.

Wayne

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:47:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond Sales Update

>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.
>
>Malenkai

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:47:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1198 Passes

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Here are the voting results for : 1198
>   Proposal 1198 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:03 EDT 1996
>   Working to Reduce Work
>   Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
> Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 17 players cast votes
> 
> 17 YES votes   2 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
> Proposal PASSES

The Financier should update all extant mentors with their cash.  Let
me know if you need the list again.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:51:45 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka:  PFBond Sales Update

Malenkai wrote:
>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?

I interpret the rules to allow IdiotBoy's earlier notice of a blanket
policy for PF trading to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for
transactions in cases such as this one.

ThinMan
Financier
"Oppenhei... -- oops!"

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:54:32 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1199 Passes

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Here are the voting results for : 1199
> Proposal 1199 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:20 EDT 1996
> Discouraging Party Splits
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

One thing that I find kinda ironic about the results of this proposal, is
that there was not a single Party Unity Vote cast either way.
It is quite amusing to note the Party Affiliation of the nayers.
I suppose the four of us could start a Church :)
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 17 players cast votes
> 
> 13 YES votes   4 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
> Proposal PASSES
> 
> Malenkai gains 10 points.  176 -> 186
> 
> 13 YES votes:  
> Robin Hood                                  =  20               
> Malenkai               FUN                  = 186               
> Brinjal                                     =13               
> ThinMan                Vulcan               =  11               
> Bash                   Underworld           =  12               
> snowgod                (None Yet)           =   1               
> Habeous Corpus                            =  82               
> /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 179               
> Guy Fawkes             FUN                  =  46               
> IdiotBoy               Underworld           =  28               
> fnord                                     =   6               
> mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   9               
> Wayne                  Underworld           =  12               
> 
> 4 NO votes:  3 points each
> Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan              49 -> 52           
> this is not a name     (None Yet)            32 -> 35           
> Techno                 Underworld            45 -> 48           
> breadbox                                    -10 -> -7           
> 
> 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
> ====================================================
> Proposal 1199 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:20 EDT 1996
> Discouraging Party Splits
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
> Amend R 391, "Rewarding Party Unity", to read:
> 
>     If on any proposal every member of a political party votes in the
> same way (either Yes or No) then one extra vote is cast on the proposal
> for every three distinct members of that party.  These vote(s) will be
> Yes vote(s) if the party votedYes unanimously. The vote(s) will be No
> vote(s) if the party voted No unanimously.  The extra vote(s) are not
> considered to have been cast by any players.
> 
>      Party membership and how players voted are determinded based on
> the facts in force at the end of the prescribed voting period for each
> proposal.
> 
>      {{[yeah, it will still make some sense for parties of 6 to split,
> but it will be less of a disadvantage if they don't.  If I were in a
> party of 6, I would not *want* to split because it would be less FUN.
> Under the current system, it really makes no sense for them to not split.
> Why now, when no party is close to 6?  I don't know, I've been wanting to
> do this since March.]}}
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:02:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: registrer

Sam Peterson has chosen the Ackanomic name Uncle Sam.
He has also replied to the poll question, however, when I first sent him
the questions I neglected to mention that the reply it to be made public.
I think it would be common courtesy to let him know that. 

As soon as Uncle Sam acknowldges this, his replies will be made public.

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 17:02:22 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 289 Verdict 

> 
> CFJ 289 has been judged TRUE.  I guess snowgod is out of business.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 289
>   Subject: Timeless Existance of Acka-Entities
> 
> 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.
> 
> Robin Hood's Reasoning:
> 
> I agree entirely with ThinMan's reasoning, and pass a verdict of TRUE
> 
     
Of course, this judgement doesn't prevent the existance of other 
entities which predate the game. Rules can not be retroactively
changed but nothing prevents other game effects from preceeding their
cause. CFJ's do change the state of the game retroactively. 
 Once rules create timeless entities they have always existed
although they hadn't before. The Rules are actually
atemporal unlike us, I see no paradox here.

     Robin Hood

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:16:14 -0400
From: "Matt Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Forehead Wearing.

I didn't even have to hammer on my piglet, but I have a slightly used
prosthetic forehead which I now place on my head.

IdiotBoy
- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:23:15 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Too much time on my hands 

Malenkai wrote:

>The following needs to be done:
>
>3) ThinMan: why is Tim's starting money so far below the average?

I appear to have divided by the wrong number of players -- possibly
I included undead by mistake.  The correct starting balance should be
A$ 481.

>4) ThinMan: Sam's starting balance
"Sam"'s starting balance is also A$ 481.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:40:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 282 Verdict

> CFJ 282 has been judged FALSE.

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

> 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).

"Rule change" is defined in rule 491.
"Resolution" is really no longer meaningful in rule 793; rule 870 defines
what it means now, which is not what it originally meant (for that matter,
the definition of a rule change has also changed since R793 went into
effect).

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:40:43 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: new player

We have a new player, his name is Shlomi Bernthal
He chose the ackanomic name  skinny

His e-mail is
[email-masked]

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:42:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 288 (Mellon)

I've heard the protest that the Pious Player Prosthesis Paradox is too 
much akin too CFJ 256 to count.  While I leave that to the courts to 
decide, I offer these arguments.

1) Rule 1160 (maybe, I don't have Web access at the moment, whichever 
rule establishes precedence within rules, then)  was supposed to fix CFJ 
256-style paradoxes.  It has no effect on the PPP Paradox.

2) CFJ 256 found two statements within a rule to be contradictory, while 
this one states that a single statement in the rule contradicts itself.  
As far as I know, this is the first instance of a single statement being 
self-contradictory in the rules.  Unless, of course, someone passed "This 
statement is false," as a proposal and I don't know about it.

As for it being based on a hypothetical case, I agree that it's cheap -- 
I just want to see if it's legal.  And it's not quite so bad as the 
utterly generalized case of the "if this hypothetical proposal were to 
pass," then it would create a situation whose legality could not be 
determined with finality.  All references to the ruleset in my CFJ are to 
rules that actually exist.  The only thing that has a chance of being 
hypothetical is the church policy, and how do the non-believers out there 
know that the CoMD doesn't have such a policy?  Also, the 
ultra-generalized hypothetical proposal paradox depends on an "if" being 
true.  CFJ 288 doesn't even contain the word "if."

I don't think the case of a hypothetical church policy should doom the 
CFJ.  After all, contracts were deemed paradoxical by a hypothetical 
contract, though once again, the fact that this is a single 
self-contradictory statement makes this CFJ substantially different.  
Above all, the argument that the CFJ is cheap bears no legal force as to 
its validity.  Would you prefer I create a Church with that doctrine and 
open up such a can of worms?  How do you handle the believers who were 
both in violation and not in violation of the rules?  Do we toss them in 
Gaol or what?  The hypothetical case is much more neat, and points out 
the need for change before a problem truly does arise.

We need to stop giving the authority of Rules to things other than Rules.  

Guy Fawkes
if we don't correct paradoxes before they happen, what happens?

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:52:05 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 282 Verdict 

I hereby appeal CFJ 282 to the Supreme Court.  (Thanks, Wayne.)

I note to Bash that if he has a web browser available then /dev/joe's
list of the Rules by categories is extremely useful.  In particular,
under the "Proposals and Rule Changes" category you will find rule
491, "What is a Rule Change?"

You can find the link to the afforementioned list of the Rules by
categories on the main web page.

You are right, though, it _is_ tough to be a judge.

ThinMan
Bronze Torch holder
acting Justice
had delusions of thermonuclear grandeur

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:16:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Auction Result 

frozenwaterdiety wrote:
>The auction for the Vending Machine has been completed, but the results are
>unclear.  It appears that the High Bid belongs to Guy Fawkes, who has bid
>H+1 A$, where H is the magnitude, in A$, of the highest bid less than 305
>A$ submitted by a player other than Guy Fawkes.  I have submitted a CFJ on
>this bid to determine it's legality.  The total bid in this case would have
>been A$146 because...
>
>Habeous Corpus bid A$145 and will be the proud owner of the Vending Machine
>should the court find that Guy Fawkes is not.
>
>In any event, wll the financier please not my A$15 commission on this sale?

So noted.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm's hat

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 Bash wrote:

> 
> 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).
> 
> 

It's more than reasonable, it's terrific!  Surely a Silly Vacation Hat
that has been swallowed by an ascii-graphic elephant is the Silliest, the
Vacationest, and if I may go so far as to say, the Hattest, Silly Vacation
Hat ever devised!  I shall wear it with pride for as long as I am legally
able, and remember it forever with fondness and admiration.

- -mr cwm
 wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: mr cwm's hat

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 Bash wrote:

> 
> 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).
> 
> 

It's more than reasonable, it's terrific!  Surely a Silly Vacation Hat
that has been swallowed by an ascii-graphic elephant is the Silliest, the
Vacationest, and if I may go so far as to say, the Hattest, Silly Vacation
Hat ever devised!  I shall wear it with pride for as long as I am legally
able, and remember it forever with fondness and admiration.

- -mr cwm
 wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:47:10 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: Re: Duals

3. Contests:
On Monday,  16 Sep 96,  Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>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.

It might be better to specify that the limericks be sent to the Tabulator
(Assistant Tabulator?,  who then posts the limericks annonomously,  so
people will vote for the better (worse???) limerick,  rather than the
Player.

Also,  what happens if the Tabulator is involved in the dual?

Otherwis,  a god Rule.

Habeous Corpus
Anxious to challenge someone or be challenged

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 14:07:58 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 1200 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 1200
  Proposal 1200 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:37 EDT 1996
  Random Things
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

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

18 YES votes   1 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

Malenkai gains 10 points.  186 -> 196

18 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =  20               
  Malenkai               FUN                  = 196               
  Brinjal                                     =  13               
  ThinMan                Vulcan               =  11               
  Niccolo Flychuck       Vulcan               =  52               
  Bash                   Underworld           =  12               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =   1               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =  35               
  Habeous Corpus                              =  82               
  Vulcan Unity vote                           =   0               
  /dev/joe               Vulcan               = 179               
  Guy Fawkes             FUN                  =  46               
  IdiotBoy               Underworld           =  28               
  fnord                                       =   6               
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   9               
  breadbox                                    =  -7               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =  12               

1 NO votes:  3 points each
  Techno                 Underworld            48 -> 51           

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                                         
  skinny                                      
  Uncle Sam                                   

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 1200 - Sun Sep 08 17:21:37 EDT 1996
Random Things
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Amend Rule 615, "Speaker", to read:

      {{[this comes about from P 1194 specifying gadgets to be randomly
         distributed when certain conditions are met, but not specifying
         who is to do so.  Thus it falls to R 490 and the Speaker.  I
         figured I'd bring 490 into this rule, and while I was here, 
         define the "Officer in Charge of Random Things" as used
         elsewhere in the rules.  Thus writers can use that phrase without
         the extra clutter, and we can move it, or create a new office
         later.  I also brought keeping track of unspecified stuff, such
         as locations and thread splits (along pTang's ref idea) in.
	 I actually only added sections (v) on, and changed the precedence
         claim, (i) thru (iii) are unchanged, (iv) has a quasi-paradox
         thats been there for a while removed.]}} 

      This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules, except that it
      defers to R 779.

      (i)   The Office of Speaker is declared to have one Seat.

      (ii)  Whenever this Office is vacant, it shall be filled by
            an Election for Office. The specifications for the
            Election for Office are:
               a) Nomination Period: 3 days.
               b) Voting Period:     3 days.
               c) Tie Resolution:    New Election.

      (iii) As an additional Privilege of Office, the Speaker shall
            receive a weekly salary of A$10.

      (iv)  Whenever the Speaker goes on vacation, he is considered
            to be temporarily vacating the Office until he returns
            from vacation.  No action shall be taken to fill the office.
            The Speaker shall appoint a volunteer to be Acting Speaker
            for the vacation period immediately prior to going on vacation.
            If there are no volunteers, then the Clerk of the Court shall
            be Acting Speaker for the duration.  This section takes
            precedence over section (ii) of this Rule.

      (v)   Performance of tasks required by Sections (vi) thru (viii) are
            duties of the Office of Speaker.

      (vi)  The Speaker is the Officer in charge of random things,
            and shall make random determinations when the rules require
            such, and those rules do not specify another officer or
            procedure for making the random determination, or it is not
            possible for the specified officer to do so.

      (vii) If, in any rule, an action is required to be carried out, and
            the rule does not either specify who is to carry it out or
            define a mechanism for choosing someone to do so, the Speaker
            is required to carry out the task.

      (viii) If any game state information or data needs to be tracked, and
            the rules do not specify who is to track it, the Speaker is
            required to do so, and is required to make it available to
            any player on request or as needed [e.g. player locations and
            thread splits].

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

Repeal R 490.

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

Amend R 779 to replace all occurrances of "490" with "615".

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:10:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Duals

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Habeous corpus wrote:

> 
> It might be better to specify that the limericks be sent to the Tabulator
> (Assistant Tabulator?,  who then posts the limericks annonomously,  so
> people will vote for the better (worse???) limerick,  rather than the
> Player.
> 
> Also,  what happens if the Tabulator is involved in the dual?
> 
> Otherwis,  a god Rule.
> 

It will be difficult for the limericks to be anonymous if each may
ridicule the other player. 

- -mr cwm
 wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:21:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: mr cwm's SVH

Although I have admired my SVH, it being a truely admirable design, I
wish, in addition (and in accord with R937/2), to thank Bash for putting
forth such a wonderful effort and providing me with a Silly Vacation Hat
beyond compare.

- -mr cwm
 Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:46:47 cst
From: [email-masked] (Ed Graham) 
Subject: Acka: RFC

This _might_ fix the current dilema over R115 entities.

RFC:
Fixing Entities

This is a modest Proposal.

Create a Rule titled Entities,  with test:

Entities may fall into three categories:  
Acka-Entities
Extronomic Entities
all others

Acka-Entities are entities created by or in accordance with Ackanomic. 
All Acka-Entities are Protected in accordance with Rule 592 unless
specifically exempted from Protection by the Rule(s) creating them.

Extranomic Entities are entities that exist outside of Ackanomic.  Their
Protection (or lack of)  is controlled by their Original State.

All other entities are inherently un-protected unless specifically
Protected by Rules.  Un-protected entities may not directly affect
game-play or the gamestate unless specifically and explicitly permited by
Rules. 

{{Respectfully Submitted,
Habeous Corpus}}

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:02:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discovery

Your point is more than made clear.  However, I point that while 
frozenwaterdiety's t-shirts fall well within the scope of R115, the TDR 
does not.  The function of the t-shirts is merely that they may be sold, 
and the transfer of A$ is very much a legal action under the rules.

However, the TDR performs several functions that are outside the bounds 
of R115.

	1) it creates points
	2) it destroys rules
	3) it destroys protected entities

All of these are regulated actions, and therefore fall very much outside 
the scope of R115.  I think one of the early CFJ's (was it 184?) covered 
this very neatly.  If the TDR has any legal authority other than R115, 
let me know.  

I'm not saying it's against the rules to possess the TDR -- it's just 
that all of the functions you have given it are not under the R115 
auspices I assume you claim for it.

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> 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 14:04:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 289 Verdict

frozenwaterdiety may not be out of business after all.  Did he say the 
t-shirts were *Ackanomic* entities.  I see nothing against the rules 
against selling extranomic entities.

Guy Fawkes
pretty sure he is wearing something

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 289 has been judged TRUE.  I guess snowgod is out of business.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Robin Hood's Reasoning:
> 
> I agree entirely with ThinMan's reasoning, and pass a verdict of TRUE
> 

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:05:26 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 289 Verdict

> > CFJ 289 has been judged TRUE.  I guess snowgod is out of business.
> > 
> > Clerk of the Courts
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Call For Judgement 289
> >   Subject: Timeless Existance of Acka-Entities
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Robin Hood's Reasoning:
> > 
> > I agree entirely with ThinMan's reasoning, and pass a verdict of TRUE
> > 
>      
> Of course, this judgement doesn't prevent the existance of other 
> entities which predate the game. Rules can not be retroactively
> changed but nothing prevents other game effects from preceeding their
> cause. CFJ's do change the state of the game retroactively. 
>  Once rules create timeless entities they have always existed
> although they hadn't before. The Rules are actually
> atemporal unlike us, I see no paradox here.
> 
>      Robin Hood

I agree with Robin Hood's rather clever response completely. However, 
were I not a Justice, I would appeal this verdict sooner than I would 
accept a gift of many ackadollars, and maybe sooner, since rule 730 
says: "Phoebe is a nomic entity that was created thousands of years 
ago by Acka-scientists ...", and I believe that Acka exists for only 
one year, or maybe two, but definately not thousands. Furthermore, a 
judgement must be in accordance with the rules "then in effect", and 
rule 730 was most definately in effect at the time of this verdict, 
unless your watch is broken.

Any ordinary citizen can see that ThinMan must have lost his marbles
to submit such a CFJ, since only a fool and a liar would claim that
Phoebe has not existed for so long as we can remember, and maybe
longer. Furthermore, ThinMan says that his CFJ "makes abundant
sense", and yet many things that seem to make plenty of sense make
no sense whatever in this game, such as CFJ 181, and CFJ 207.  

Bascule

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:08:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: Duals

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> > Otherwis,  a god Rule.
> 
> -mr cwm
>  wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

I wouldn't go that far.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:15:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: RFC - Duels, with all the bells and whistles

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

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

Why not?  If debates for office get a little out of hand, a duel seems 
the perfect way to cool off.  As for worrying about the duel results 
affecting the voting, under the system you have proposed, odds are that 
the election would be over before the duel.

Guy Fawkes

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #240
*******************************