Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #248
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, September 18 1996     Volume 01 : Number 248

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 136 01:07:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: d*mn time servers

Forwarded message:
> From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
> Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1211 Passes
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 136 00:48:38 -0600 (CST)

I *thought* I had my system fixed so that when a time server flaked out
and reported some ridiculous time, it ignored it, but I see that the problem
can still occur.  I have fixed wilma's time now and I will try to keep this
from happening again.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:39:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: robert gene shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1211 Passes

This proposal does exactly what it says it does -- which can't be done.  
I, for one, voted for the proposal because it had no game effect whatsoever.

Guy Fawkes

On Thu, 7 Feb 136, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > Proposal PASSES
> > ====================================================
> > Proposal 1211 - Wed Sep 11 10:57:52 EDT 1996
> > Repeal 432
> > IdiotBoy  (Matt Miller)
> > 
> > This proposal, if enacted, will repeal R432 ("Consecutive NO Votes").
> > 
> > {{[<-- Them brackets are COOL!  R432 is an archaic rule, which merely serves
> > to subjugate the will of the players]}}
> 
> Somebody asked what the effect of such a proposal would be, if it passed.
> Now it has passed.
> 
> Rule 451, the spelling rule, applies to proposals.
> I believe this spelling error (that "R432" should be "R431") is
> unambiguous, because there is no R432, and the rule is identified by
> its name.  It's a little bit of a stretch to apply this to the "spelling"
> of numbers, but IMHO it is a reasonable application of the rule.
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:03:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBond Trader's Page 

Guy Fawkes wrote:
>I don't see the 14 Sep 1996 transaction 
>Guy Fawkes -25 PFGuy, +25 PFsnowgod
>frozenwaterdiety -25 PFsnowgod, +25 PFGuy
>
>Please check your records.

I found that transaction in list of "things to do."  It somehow never got
posted to the log or applied to the accounts, but I have now corrected
that.

My apologies,

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 136 00:53:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1220 Fails

> Here are the voting results for : 1220
>   Proposal 1220 - Wed Sep 11 14:25:02 EDT 1996
>   Inflation
>   /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

> 9 YES votes:  3 point each
>   Malenkai               FUN                  254 -> 257          

One of malenkai's proposals (1209) which passed in today's batch was
short, so in all likelihood Malenkai has not won yet, and the Magic
Number has been increased.  I will send out a full score report when
I get it done.

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 136 00:51:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1213 Fails

> Here are the voting results for : 1213
>   Proposal 1213 - Wed Sep 11 12:05:18 EDT 1996
>   #proposal
>   Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)
> 
> Quorum met : 19 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes
> 
> 6 YES votes   11 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
> Proposal FAILS

These results were sent out out-of-order *and* before the 7 days was up.
Unless wayne says otherwise, I will assume the votes shown are correct
and that the results apply immediately after 1212's results were sent out.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:04:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Proposal 1249

Thanks.  I'll wait a day to withdraw and re-submit, in case anything else
that slipped by the RFC process six weeks ago is discovered.

- -mr cwm
 wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, ThinMan wrote:

> 
> >Proposal 1249 - Wed Sep 18 10:51:04 EDT 1996
> >Patent Infringement
> >mr cwm  (Eric Murray)
> >
> >When a Player is Guilty of Patent Infringement they shall:
> >
> >1)  deliver the item described in the preceeding paragraph to the Gaoloer,
> >    to be placed in the Gaol's Evidence Room.
> >2)  obtain a Prosthetic Forehead in accordance with the Rules, and present
> >    it to the Inventor, as a symbolic apology to the intellectual
> >    community.
> >3)  be said to be Guilty of Patent Infringement until an Appeal For Pardon
> >    is GRANTed them by the President.
> 
> This section is flawed; it would require the Player in question to
> continuously perform these actions until they are pardoned.  It should
> be something like "When a Player becomes Guilty of Patent Infringement
> [...]."
> 
> I have to vote NO on this in its present form, even though I like the
> idea.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:08:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1249

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> I like the concept, though the loophole could have been fixed much more 
> succinctly, but this is a more fun way of doing it.
> 
> The whole condition of being Guilty of Patent Infringement until pardoned 
> by the President seems a bit excessive to me.  If the entity is safely 
> locked away, and they have submitted a Forehead as a means of apology, 
> the Guilty etc. thing seems to me a pointless addition.
> 

Thanks.  As you have realized, "more fun" is one of the points of this,
and the Guilty Until Pardoned thing allows for a notation on the Players
Page or in .sig files, but not necessarily forever.

- -mr cwm
 wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:53:45 -0700 (MST)
From: David Chapman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scores 

:q
Please deregister me as a player . This new kid of mine
is too timeconsuming!

Geezer

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:05:53 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

I hereby return from vacation/am no longer on ice

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:26:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Bascule wrote:

> I hereby return from vacation/am no longer on ice
> 
so noted.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:45:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jacob Alexander Glazeski <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Enough's enough.

I am regretful to announce that I shall no longer be an observer of 
this Nomic game...
I thought it would be fun, and it looks like fun, but I can't keep up 
with the massive onslaught of messages that I get..I just don't have 
the time.  
If others have found a way to handle the matter without spending 
several hours a day on it, please let me know.  Otherwise, I would 
like to ask the Registrar or whoever is in charge of the matter to 
remove me from the mailing list.
I may return.

Jacob Glazeski
[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:38:24 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enough's enough.

> I am regretful to announce that I shall no longer be an observer of 
> this Nomic game...
> I thought it would be fun, and it looks like fun, but I can't keep up 
> with the massive onslaught of messages that I get..I just don't have 
> the time.  
> If others have found a way to handle the matter without spending 
> several hours a day on it, please let me know.  Otherwise, I would 
> like to ask the Registrar or whoever is in charge of the matter to 
> remove me from the mailing list.
> I may return.
> 
> Jacob Glazeski
> [email-masked]

Erm... hide on vacation?

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:53:21 -0600
From: "Sam Peterson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enough's enough.

Could we have a second mailing list for players who don't have the time to
read all of the comments and less important messages.  We could have a list
for official messages only such as proposals, cfj, cfcj, elections..   I
don't know I'm new, but it was very had for me to keep up with all of the
email for a while.

UncleSam

- ----------
> From: Jacob Alexander Glazeski <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: Enough's enough.
> Date: Wednesday, September 18, 1996 4:45 AM
> 
> I am regretful to announce that I shall no longer be an observer of 
> this Nomic game...
> I thought it would be fun, and it looks like fun, but I can't keep up 
> with the massive onslaught of messages that I get..I just don't have 
> the time.  
> If others have found a way to handle the matter without spending 
> several hours a day on it, please let me know.  Otherwise, I would 
> like to ask the Registrar or whoever is in charge of the matter to 
> remove me from the mailing list.
> I may return.
> 
> Jacob Glazeski
> [email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:02:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1220 Fails

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Here are the voting results for : 1220
> >   Proposal 1220 - Wed Sep 11 14:25:02 EDT 1996
> >   Inflation
> >   /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> > 9 YES votes:  3 point each
> >   Malenkai               FUN                  254 -> 257
> 
> One of malenkai's proposals (1209) which passed in today's batch was
> short, so in all likelihood Malenkai has not won yet, and the Magic
> Number has been increased.  I will send out a full score report when
> I get it done.

I also may have had something modest in there as well, and don't forget
the potato.  There will be a *full audit* :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:12:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Enough's enough.

Sam Peterson wrote:
> 
> Could we have a second mailing list for players who don't have the time to
> read all of the comments and less important messages.  We could have a list
> for official messages only such as proposals, cfj, cfcj, elections..   I
> don't know I'm new, but it was very had for me to keep up with all of the
> email for a while.

This has been suggested twice previously, the idea being all official
mail goes to ackanomic@wilma... with a default reply to of acka-discussion
or something.  I'm not sure how much I like that; better ideas anyone.

I would ask that *all* RFCs and comments thereto go to acka-research, until
the blizzard subsides.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:46:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: computer problems, mailing list load

Wilma crashed earlier today, probably a result of the A/C problems we're
having here today.  Wilma could crash again; I will try to keep things
running as much as possible.

After I rebooted after that crash, sendmail died within a few minutes.
This was also when wilma had the weird time; I only take the time from
the time server when I reboot.  I don't know if it was due to the heat,
or due to sendmail being confused as to why the incoming mail was as such
a different time.  In any case I fixed the problem that allowed wilma to
believe the wacky time server, and rebooted again to clear up any
problems that the massive time change may have caused.

Anyway, I will also be adding memory to wilma whenever I get the chance
to go out and buy it.  Memory is cheap now, so I am considering buying
32 megs to bring wilma up to 48; the idea is to not have to use the
swap space at all, for anything I do on wilma.

As far as the mailing list load goes, having a separate mailing list
for "discussion" will not help if people don't use it.  Please use
acka-research for RFC's and discussion of proposals; please use
acka-finance for buying and selling bonds and other entities; please
use acka-chess for party chess stuff.

One of the problems with the current structure is that replies go back
to the same list, so responses to posted proposals go to the main list
by default.  I think I can set up an alternate address which Wayne could
use for distributing proposals which looks, for most purposes, as if it
came from the ackanomic list, and goes to the same people, but has the
reply-to set to acka-research.  Maybe people could also use this for
sending RFC's.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:16:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: computer problems, mailing list load

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> One of the problems with thecurrent structure is that replies go back
> to the same list, so responses to posted proposals go to the main list
> by default.  I think I can set up an alternate address which Wayne could
> use for distributing proposals which looks, for most purposes, asif it
> came from the ackanomic list, and goes to the same people, but has the
> reply-to set to acka-research.  Maybe people could also use this for
> sending RFC's.
> 
Since this is discussion about discussions, I suppose it could be viewed
as semi-official. I agree with /dev  here. There have been requests to
setup a list for bond sales, acka-finance has not been used in months for
its original purpose, no reason it couldn't be used for that.  And
acka-research is the proper place for RFCs, that's where I'll be posting
them in the future.  I believe the PartyChess stuff has been confined to
pchess, except for some discussions. I don't know if discussions about
PartyChess related rules should go to research or to chess, we'll probably
reach some custom soon.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:22:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

I believe this is a somewhat complete list of stuff people should do:

1) A mentor needs to be chosen for skinny.  The Financier should note
the A$25 at that time.

2) Pascal is on ice, and should have a Mad Hatter assigned.

3) The Supreme Court should penalize Habeous Corpus for CFJ 269 (1-10 pts).

4) The Appointer should start a nomination of for GamesMaster.

5) The Scorekeeper should note the Whamiol for skinny
Sep 16 12:40 EDT: +15 Habeous Corpus: Whamiol for skinny

6) Malenkai should shut up and do his own jobs, which include a couple
of CFJs, and Phoebe, and stuff forgotten

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:30:27 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> I believe this is a somewhat complete list of stuff people should do:
> 
> 1) A mentor needs to be chosen for skinny.  The Financier should note
> the A$25 at that time.
> 
> 2) Pascal is on ice, and should have a Mad Hatter assigned.
> 

I believe these two refer to me. In a couple of hours. post. post. post.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:26:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 287 Verdict

CFJ 287 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: TRUE

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.

Robin Hood's Reasoning:

I agree with /dev/joe's reasoning and therefore give a verdict of
TRUE

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:34:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 276 Appeal Verdict

The original verdict of TRUE on CFJ 276 was upheld by the Supreme Court. 

Sep 18 19:37 EDT: -25 Wayne: Frivilously bothering the Judges on CFJ 276

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 276
  Subject: Acting Justices
Initiator: Wayne
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 04, 1996, 21:38h New York Time)

Statement:

An Acting Justice is not a Justice, but is a player who performs
the duties of a Justice.

Wayne's Reasoning:

Rule 507 states that the Supreme Court "will be composed of two players
(called Justices)..."

It would be a violation of R507 if we had three Justices.  Unless one of
the Regular Justices was removed from office, the Acting Justice could not
be considered a Justice.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

For the case of players appointed to perform vacationing officers' jobs
by Rule 457, that rule specifies that the appointments must be made in
accordance with rule 609, section (i), which states, in part:

  "A Seat is either held by one Player or it is vacant."

Therefore, an acting justice by rule 457 does not hold a seat in the
supreme court, and is therefore not a justice.  The case of appointing
one justice to be acting justice for the other seat is also disallowed,
by another part of rule 609, section (i):

  "No player may hold more than one seat for a given Office, including
   any seat held in an acting capacity"

I note that rule 609, section (iv) states that there can only be an
Acting Officer for a seat when that seat is vacant; however, rule 457,
which allows for the appointment of acting officers for officers on
vacation, has precedence over this part of rule 609.

All other cases where the rules allow for an acting justice (as far as
I can see, this occurs only when a justice is being impeached) agree
with the definition in rule 609, section (iv).  Again it is made clear
that the acting officer does not hold a seat in the office.

Thus the first part of the statement is true.

The second part of the statement says that an acting justice is a player
who performs the duties of a justice.  Rules 457 and 609 agree on this
issue; this part of the statement is also true.

Wayne appealed without comment.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court concurs with the original Judge.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:43:28 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official(Niccolo Flychuck mentor for skinny)

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> I believe this is a somewhat complete list of stuff people should do:
> 
> 1) A mentor needs to be chosen for skinny.  The Financier should note
> the A$25 at that time.
> 

Niccolo Flychuck has been selected mentor for skinny.

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:39:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 291 Verdict

CFJ 291 has been judged FALSE.  Long live the Gnome (for now, anyway) :)

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 291
  Subject: Gnomic
Initiator: Wayne
    Judge: Habeous Corpus (selected Sep 18, 1996, 01:16h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

There is no such entity as the Voting Gnome.

Wayne's Reasoning:

Rule 355 only proposes to create the Gnome.  It does not actually create
the Voting Gnome.

Habeous Corpus's Reasoning:

Before coming to any conclusion,  I did a lot of research and soul
searching.  I will admit that I was predisposed to finding this FALSE,
but only because I feared (and still fear) that a TRUE would cause a
temporary,  if not permanent,  game crash.

I first considered if this might be a "non retractable error";  but going
through the ruleset,  I find that Rules and game custom provide for a way
to make this a retractable error,  if indeed it turns out to be such.
The various effects of the Gnome's votes over the months can be
determined and undone.  To merely repeal or invalidate the Gnome and
ignore the changes to numerous Proposals affected by the Gnome would be a
violation of R101.  However,  the thread lines caused by such an action
would inevitably lead to a crash.  How serious a crash is yet to be
determined.  I leave that to better minds than mine.

I next considered ThinMan's argument about "game custom".  Unfortunately
game custom and the spirit of the game may only be used when the Rules
are unclear ,  inconclusive,  or contradictory.  This did not appear to
be the case here.

I was certain I would have no choice but to vote TRUE,  and let the
threads fall where they may when two thoughts thrust themselves on me.

The first was the realization that Rule 355 had been ammended,  by Prop
983.  This amendment makes no reference to "if and when the Gnome
exists".  It states that "the Gnome will" do something.  This amendment
was voted upon and passed in this form in accordance with R105,  and
therefore gives some precedent that the Gnome  actually existed.

The second was the wording of the Proposal (and subsequent Rule) itself.
The personal pronoun "I" precedes the word "propose",  indicating the
intent and wording refer to the author,  not the Rule.  This
interpretation may draw some fire based on  Rule 105,  but I do believe
that that personal pronoun makes a significant difference.
Coupled with this thought was another:  there is not now,  nor at the
time Rule 355 was accepted,  a specified wording for proposal headings,
so using the phrase "I propose" to start a Proposal is not prohibited.

Game custom (and R105) has only stated that the wording must remain
intact,  and that the original meaning of the wording controls the effect
of the Rule.  How the original meaning of the exact wording is guided by
a) the official dictionary,  b) extant game custom,  and c) common
English usage.

a) does not apply,  because there is no disagreement on the meanings of
the words "I" or "propose".  b) is unclear,  because,  as far as i know,
this is the only Rule that starts with a personal pronoun. [If I'm wrong,
 keep it to yourselves,  or svaer it for anothr CFJ.]  c)  allows us to
attribute the word "propose" to the subject "I" and not the Rule itself.

So now,  we have three (two and a half) areas that are open to
interpretation,  and NOT explicitly dictated by a Rule. Using the spirit
of the game to interpret a lack of prohibition to word a Proposal in the
manner it was,   the plausible (even likely) interpretation of the use of
the word "propose"  and a de facto precedent establishing the existence
of the Gnome (P983)  this CFJ is judged FALSE.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:46:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official (IdiotBoy hatter for Pascal)

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> 
> 2) Pascal is on ice, and should have a Mad Hatter assigned.

IdiotBoy has been selected as mad hatter for PAscal

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

Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:52:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official(Bascule mentor for skinny) (fwd)

It has been communicated to me that I have finished mentoring Guy Fawkes.

Flipping a coin <flip-flip-flip-flip>

Bascule has been selected mentor for skinny

Niccolo Flychuck
Registrar whose wallet was nicked today and is lucky to have any coins
left at all.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 289 (fnord) (actually CFJ 288)

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> 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)

I accept this judgement-ship-thingy

fnord

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:57:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 293 (ThinMan)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 293
  Subject: P 1211
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Sep 18, 1996, 20:00h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Proposal 1211 was accepted, and had exactly one valid rule change, whose
effect was to repeal R 431, thus that rule change shall be applied, to
repeal R 431.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The fact that I worded the CFJ in the positive does not mean I feel
that way.  I saw an interpretation posted by /dev/joe that would 
indicate true, and what appeared to be an opposing point of view.
My attitude is to ignore, and accept, "questionable" interpretations,
unless they are "questioned", or obviously bogus.  As the effects of
P 1211 have been debated somewhat, a CFJ seems in order, as I can see
the case for TRUE or FALSE (how about "it cannot be determined with
finality" ? :-)).

I have taken the liberty of quoting the /dev/joe and Guy Fawkes.

/dev/joe:

> Somebody asked what the effect of such a proposal would be, if it passed.
> Now it has passed.
>
> Rule 451, the spelling rule, applies to proposals.
> I believe this spelling error (that "R432" should be "R431") is
> unambiguous, because there is no R432, and the rule is identified by
> its name.  It's a little bit of a stretch to apply this to the "spelling"
> of numbers, but IMHO it is a reasonable application of the rule.

Guy Fawkes:

> This proposal does exactly what it says it does -- which can't be
> done.  I, for one, voted for the proposal because it had no game
> effect whatsoever.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 20:44:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (fnord)

fnord has found Phoebe's matchbook.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: name change

Guy Fawkes spake thusly
> 
> Would fnord please change his name?
> 
> For some reason, he's making me anxious ;)
> 

*evil grin*  I was wondering if anyone would
catch the reference.

fnord

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 20:40:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Confusion

Malenkai pointed out something to me privately that I would have missed
otherwise.  One of the odd details of Rule 1089.2 is that it doesn't
necessarily make all score changes from the same proposal happen
simultaneously.  Section 4 of this rule requires that score changes due
to the content of an accepted proposal happen simultaneously with any
R207 changes.  (I *think* this also forces all the R207 changes to be
simultaneous, even if there are no section 4 changes).  However, section 3
of the rule does *NOT* make all the score changes due to an accepted
proposal happen simultaneously.  As a result, score changes which appear
in rules other than R207 and which are not due to the content of the
proposal happen either before or after the R207 changes (as specified by
part 6a).  There aren't many such score changes (I think just the
parades in rule 761, the consecutive proposal points in rule 824, and
the potato points in rule 306), so this rarely happens.  It has happened
with some of Malenkai's recent proposals.  I will propose an amendment
to add "all score changes due to the same event occur simultaneously"
to the end of section 3a in rule 1089.2.

I thought that this would have caused Malenkai's score to reach the
magic number exactly, between applying the 10 and 5 point scores
from Proposal 1209 passing and being short and adding the 2 points
from the potato, but when I fed the "final" pointlog through my script
to verify the scores, they didn't add up right.  The previous scores
I reported, with Malenkai at 227, were in error; I had been adding those
scores by hand to watch for winners and gnome buddies, and I apparently
subtracted the score for Malenkai retracting proposals 1226 and 1227
twice.  He had 231 when that score report was sent out.  The second
list of scores in that message, for the end of the bond cycle, was
correct because it was automatically generated by my script from the
pointlog up to the appropriate time; it showed Malenkai with 186 points
after proposal 1199's results, and these score changes for Malenkai
happened between that and P1209:

Sep 16 14:07 EDT: +12 Malenkai: p1200 (author,potato)
Sep 17 09:46 EDT: +12 Malenkai: p1202 (author,potato)
Sep 17 09:48 EDT: +12 Malenkai: p1203 (author,potato)
Sep 17 09:48 EDT: +6 Malenkai: p1204 (author,modest,potato)
Sep 17 09:49 EDT: +3 Malenkai: p1206 (no)
Sep 18 11:08 EDT: +3 Malenkai: p1207 (yes)
Sep 18 11:09 EDT: +12 Malenkai: p1208 (author,potato)
Sep 18 11:11 EDT: +17 Malenkai: p1209 (author,short,potato)

So Malenkai had 246 points before P1209 passed, and 261 after just the
+10 and +5 were applied.  Because of the conditions I described at the
beginning of this message, the Magic Number increases by 16, to 273, at
this time.  Then Malenkai scores the two points from the potato and his
score goes up to 263.  If all the score changes from P1209 had occurred
simultaneously, the Magic Number would have risen to 274 (11 above
Malenkai's score), by rule 866.

I believe that no player score has yet reached 273, so this is still
the Magic Number.  I will put out a full score report when I am finished
with it.  And I will check the scores with my script before posting!

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:15:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: SVH for Pascal.

Pascal's silly vacation hat is quite impractical, for it doesn't even cover
his head.  It consists of a Kevlar headband which fits snugly around
Pascal's formidable skull.  On the back of this headband are attached a set
of guy wires, designed to be firmly connected to the belt loops on Pascal's
pants.  This will be quite necessary if Pascal wishes to view anything
besides eir feet for, you see, hooked to the front of this headband is a 6
foot wide LED marquee sign.  This sign scrolls messages, such as "cannot be
determined with finality" and "more fun proposals", intended to bring more
color into the life of Malenkai, should Pascal happen upon em.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:15:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Buying + Selling

All buy/sell bids from this point on from me shall be on acka-finance,
so subscribe, if you are into the bond market.

My Prosthetic Forehead bidding shall continue in the main forum, though,
until complete, I guess.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Buying: 1 Electronic Potato @ 10PFTechno
        1 Whamiol @ 10 PFTechno

Selling: 10 PFTechno @ A$90
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
As I cannot honor all three transactions, they shall only occur
if I confirm them.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:24:00 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: PFBonds Latest quotes. 

>PFsnowgod (10 @ A$45)

>http://slack.net/~idiot/acka/
>IB
>--
>IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
>[email-masked]

I accept this transaction.  Will the Financier please note?

frozenwaterdiety

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 21:44:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Current Scores

With the correction of the error in Malenkai's score, the 15 points to
Habeous Corpus for the Whamiol for skinny, my 2 point penalty for
retracting P1222, and Wayne's 25 point penalty for the frivolous CFJ, the
current scores are:

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
268     Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall)
192     /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
124     Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
87      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
69      IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
64      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
62      Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
45      Bash                 A   (Erez Bashan)
41      Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw)
38      this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein)
21      mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
21      Uncle Sam            A   (Sam Peterson)
18      skinny               A   (Shlomi Bernthal)
17      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
15      Bascule              A   (Matt Black)
15      Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke)
7       snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
6       fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
0       Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
0       fon                  I   (Adrian Smith)
0       Robert Sevin         I   (Mitchell Harding)
0       "Tim"                N   (Tim Carter)
- -5      Pascal               I   (Jason Reed)
- -7      breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
- -31     Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard)

Status:
A=Active, N=New, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice, D=Dead

The Magic Number is 273.

Malenkai scored extra points for the potato on P1208 and 1209, and 1209
was short.  P1211 was short.  P1215 was modest.

Geezer was gnome buddy through all the recent proposals and he did not vote.
When he quit the game, breadbox became gnome buddy, but before any proposals
passed, Wayne's CFJ penalty made him the gnome buddy.

Is it correct, as shown above, that the only vacationing players now are
three players On Ice?

I note that Tim is now past the time limit on choosing his Ackanomic name.
He is holding up the process of getting his house, PF bonds, score entry
on the scores page, etc. properly named.  If he does not choose a name
soon I may CFCJ to have him expelled from the game.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 18:46:27 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Tim 

>
>I note that Tim is now past the time limit on choosing his Ackanomic name.
>He is holding up the process of getting his house, PF bonds, score entry
>on the scores page, etc. properly named.  If he does not choose a name
>soon I may CFCJ to have him expelled from the game.
>
>/dev/joe
>Scorekeeper

I note that Tim has not voted nor communicated publically for a period of
one week.  Furthermore, he has non-communicated with me, his mentor.  I
would love for tim to stay in the game (it only takes one message tim), but
see no point in keeping around someone who is "dead weight"

frozenwaterdiety
hoping tim still wants to play

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
IdiotBoy can give you more "Bang For The Buck"when it comes to matters
financial becuase he does not just follow the trends, he creates them!  Ask
IdiotBoy for a quote on your bonds today, or subscribe to the Hot TIps
newsletter for the latest word on everything financial!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:57:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: scores

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
 
> With the correction of the error in Malenkai's score, the 15 points to
> Habeous Corpus for the Whamiol for skinny, my 2 point penalty for
> retracting P1222, and Wayne's 25 point penalty for the frivolous CFJ, the
> current scores are:

In this thread.  I believe there may be another thread, in which CFJ 282
is overturned to TRUE.  In that thread, it is my reading of the rules
that there are no score changes as a result of P 1218 (scroll of money).

You did not have the pointlog updated on the web page yet, perhaps I
have won in that thread :)

I point out that this does *not* apply to P 1211, if CFJ 293 is judged
FALSE, as one is a case of an invalid proposal, and the other a case of
an invalid rule change.

> Is it correct, as shown above, that the only vacationing players now are
> three players On Ice?

My records indicate that is correct.  Updated on the speaker page.

Malenkai
regretting writing that keep track of threads rule

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: snowgod ads

I wish to continue my advertising relationship with snowgod in his .sig
file.  I agree to pay A$30 to snowgod for 7 more days of advertising with
him composing the ads.  If snowgod wishes to continue this mutally
benificial arrangement, he need only acknowledge and confirm this message.

IB
still the best darn bond trader this game has ever seen
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 23:37:28 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1254

Proposal 1254 - Wed Sep 18 23:37:28 EDT 1996
Sanity in triggered scoring
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

This is a modest proposal.

Amend rule 1089.2 by adding the following sentence to the end of section 3a:

  All score changes due to a single event occur simultaneously.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 23:37:41 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1255

Proposal 1255 - Wed Sep 18 23:37:41 EDT 1996
No Double Jepoardy
Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal.

Add the following to the end of Rule 710:

9) No more than one CFCJ may be brought against a single player for a 
single instance of allegedly breaking the Rules.  No one may be tried 
more than once for the same alleged instance of violating the Rules (an 
appeal is considered a continuation of the original trial). 

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

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:41:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1255

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1255 - Wed Sep 18 23:37:41 EDT 1996
> No Double Jepoardy
> Guy Fawkes  (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Add the following to the end of Rule 710:
> 
> 9) No more than one CFCJ may be brought against a single player for a
> single instance of allegedly breaking the Rules.  No one may be tried
> more than once for the same alleged instance of violating the Rules (an
> appeal is considered a continuation of the original trial).

I wish this had been RFCed first.  It would have been better, IMHO,
to bring this under the 'Invalid'/'in the judgement of the judge'
framework.

I mention this because I was considering the exact same thing, but in
that framework.  Unfortunately, that is more work, and I never got to
it.  This amendment makes such implicit, which is ok, I suppose.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #248
*******************************