Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #263
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Friday, September 27 1996      Volume 01 : Number 263

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:20:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 293 (Mohammed)

ThinMan failed to deliver a verdict in time.

Sep 26 16:22 EDT: -10 ThinMan: Failed to deliver verdict on CFJ 293

Mohammed has been chosen (welcome back), 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)
2nd Judge: Mohammed (selected Sep 26, 1996, 16:22h 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: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 22:48:30 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:Official - GamesMaster

The following players have endorsed the G&C 101 ADM

Habeus Corpus
Niccolo Flychuck
Malenkai
snowgod
Uncle Sam

although not necessarily in that order. If I missed anyone else, I
apologize. But we've got five and that's enough, the ADM is now officialy
part of the general equipment section

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster

The number of messages I received today is measured in three digits, and
the first of these is not 1 !!

Gonna dive into that now.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 22:49:44 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:Official - GamesMaster

y

On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> The following players have endorsed the G&C 101 ADM
OOPS!. That should be AMD

> 
> Habeus Corpus
> Niccolo Flychuck

> Malenkai
> snowgod
> Uncle Sam
> 
> although not necessarily in that order. If I missed anyone else, I
> apologize. But we've got five and that's enough, the ADM is now officialy
> part of the general equipment section
> 
> 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> GamesMaster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number of messages I received today is measured in three digits, and
> the first of these is not 1 !!
> 
> Gonna dive into that now.
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:54:59 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 293 (Mohammed)

Malenkai wrote:

>ThinMan failed to deliver a verdict in time.

Argh!  First time that's ever happened.  My apologies for gumming up the
works.  It just got lost in the shuffle somewhere as I had relatives
over to
visit, changed mail clients (I'm still trying to get over that one),
celebrated
my daughter's first birthday, and got swamped with work.  Among other
things.

Sorry,

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:03:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal

ThinMan has appealed CFJ 299 to the Supreme Court.  [ThinMan has got
to get that mailer fixed, I had the same problem with netscape 3.0,
its a hassle :)].

ThinMan's Appeal Reasoning:

The question of the existence of a paradox in R682 depends upon
whether or not section (c) claims to abridge its own authority.  I will
attempt to demonstrate that it does not.

First, however, I point out that Rule 105 requires that rules guide play
in the form in which they were distributed for voting.  It is this
provision that makes the paradox claim in question be at all
feasible -- without such a provision we would be free to ignore the
typographical error and interpret R 682 in the way it was intended.

That being the case, it is appropriate that I ask the Court to
scrutinize the language of R 682.  Section (c) says that in some 
circumstances the _requirements_ of section (c) do not have to apply.
Although Sections (a) and (b) both place requirements on the text of
the official copy of the rules, section (c) makes no requirements
whatsoever -- rather, it makes allowances.  As only the requirements
of section (c) "do not have to apply," and there are no such
requirements, there is also, therefore, no paradox.

I also bring to the Court's attention CFJ 240, the reasoning of which
established implicit game custom, which has since been adhered to by 
the Court, that an interpretation of the Rules which does not produce a
paradox is preferrable to an otherwise similarly reasonable one that does.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:39:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Home!

On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> IdiotBoy wrote:
> > 
> > I'm leavin' Cow Town, heading to FunkyTown!
> 
> The transfer of A$25 to the Gaoler has been noted.
> 
> I believe you also owe A$25 to Malenkai's Loophole Service for
> legal fees.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
Pay it!  Also, I will be posting a chronicle of my very psitive expereicnes
with Malenkai's legal services soon.

IB

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:46:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:Official - GamesMaster

Just for the record, I endorsed them, too.
Guy Fawkes

came back from lunch to find 80 messages in the brief time he was gone

On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> y
> 
> On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The following players have endorsed the G&C 101 ADM
> OOPS!. That should be AMD
> 
> 
> > 
> > Habeus Corpus
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> > Malenkai
> > snowgod
> > Uncle Sam
> > 
> > although not necessarily in that order. If I missed anyone else, I
> > apologize. But we've got five and that's enough, the ADM is now officialy
> > part of the general equipment section
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > GamesMaster
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The number of messages I received today is measured in three digits, and
> > the first of these is not 1 !!
> > 
> > Gonna dive into that now.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Religious Pluralism...

I personally like the idea of belonging to only one Church.
There is some possibility for interesting things, though, if
*some* polytheism is allowed, but with additional restrictions or
other penalties attached.
For example, some people can be allowed to become polythestic, but
they would have to either pay a fee of some sort, or become
registered as Polytheists.  Then, add stuff.  My thoughts were
along the lines of:

- -They would suffer additional penalties if burned as a witch
- -They could be less likely to receive good gadgets (potato)
- -They could be more likely to receive bad gadgets (goose)

and any other persecutions you can think of...

on a similar topic, Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> I point out the the Church of the Markovian Dream has accomplished alot
> *without* the rules giving it any power, so I personally see no need to
> give Churches any of this extra baggage.

No offense intended against Ackanomic's oldest religious institution,
but what has the Church of the Markovian Dream done?

> Under that definition, "Freedom of Religion" makes sense.  Under 
> definitions which would make churches bureaucratic or economic powers,
> it may not.  I'm happy with churches the way they work now.  I'd like
> to participate in all of them where I share common ground with the
> dogma and thoughts of their members, just as I would in the real world.

How do you see Churches working?  Right now, the only thing
I see them doing is a way to get out of being burned as a 
heretic.

My only other concern about Churches right now is that they don't
have the ability to hold assets.  Right now, I'm not so concerned
about gadgets and such, but more with money.  I would love to
be able to start a tithing system, if my Church gets going.

fnord

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:05:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal

> ThinMan's Appeal Reasoning:
> 
> That being the case, it is appropriate that I ask the Court to
> scrutinize the language of R 682.  Section (c) says that in some 
> circumstances the _requirements_ of section (c) do not have to apply.
> Although Sections (a) and (b) both place requirements on the text of
> the official copy of the rules, section (c) makes no requirements
> whatsoever -- rather, it makes allowances.  As only the requirements
> of section (c) "do not have to apply," and there are no such
> requirements, there is also, therefore, no paradox.

Normally, I have come to associate ThinMan with sound reasoning, and not 
semantic flibbertyjibbet.  This is an exception.  In the absense of semantic 
rules to guide this, it could just as easily be argued that (c) *requires* that 
allowances be made.  In fact, it could be argued that it *must* require 
them to be available if they are to be available at all. If anyone wants to 
appeal this on logical rather than philosophical grounds, I'd love to hear it.

Furthermore, CFJ 240 (which may even no longer be games custom -- I have 
heard it argued that it is falling out of use, and I believe it is game 
custom that game custom can and does change) is really a blunt piece of game 
custom.  After all, it only comes into effect if the Court feels that two 
pieces of reasoning are equally valid.  Not to instruct the court, but  
given a choice to deicide between the validity of reasoning and semantics, I 
think the reasoning should win out.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:08:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 282 Appeal Verdict

> The Supreme Court has overturned CFJ 282 to TRUE, with a penalty of
> 3 points to the original judge.
> 
> Some scores need to be retroactively updated as a result of P 1218.
> The financal balances on the speaker page already account for this.

For the record, the retroactive score changes are +4 for Wayne,
and -3 each for Malenkai, Bash, Techno, Guy Fawkes, IdiotBoy, skinny, and 
Uncle Sam.

The new, updated end-of-cycle 7 scores are:

Score	Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----	--------------      ---  -------------
294	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
194	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
119	Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
87	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
75	IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
74	Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
70	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
48	Bash                 A   (Erez Bashan)
41	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
38	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
22	mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
21	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
21	Uncle Sam            A   (Sam Peterson)
18	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
18	skinny               A   (Shlomi Bernthal)
13	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
13	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
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)
- -28	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:48:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1278

On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> BTW, where are my legal fees?
> 
> Malenkai

I was unaware I owed you any.  Or were you referring to IdiotBoy?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:07:36 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Prop 1253 Passes 

>> Here are the voting results for : 1253
>>   Proposal 1253 - Wed Sep 18 11:21:13 EDT 1996
>>   Tornado
>>   Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
>
>> 16 YES votes   4 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
>> Proposal PASSES
>
>I congratulate Malenkai on having the only proposal to pass (so far) today.
>
>This is a bigger occasion, however, because it is Malenkai's 100th
>accepted proposal.  As his three Silver Stripes blink out of existence,
>I award Malenkai his second Gold Stripe.
>
>/dev/joe
>Senator, /dev/senate3

Congratulations to Malenkai!

It is truly a time of merriment and Mirth in ackanomia.
Let's just beware of tornados!

snowgod

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
Amazing things happen when great minds work together.

That's why IdiotBoy is working closely with the underworld party to insure
that your investments will provide you with maximum cash flow and minimum
risk.  Only IdiotBoy actively promotes Waynenomics as part of his
investment package!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 15:11:49 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Official: Ambassador 

The following internomic proposal has been distributed:

Proposal 307
Proposed by Thring.

Amend Rule 205, so that it reads:

For any proposals whose voting period has not ended, their voting
period shall end one week after this rule is enacted.

One week after this rule is enacted, it shall amend itself to read:

"The voting period for a proposal shall be one week, beginning at the
time the moderator distributes the proposal to all nomics."

snowgod
ambassador
liason to internomic

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:02:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1278

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> I was unaware I owed you any.  Or were you referring to IdiotBoy?

IdiotBoy, he has paid.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 18:43:26 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Home!

IdiotBoy wrote:
> I'm leavin' Cow Town, heading to FunkyTown!

A funny thing happened to IdiotBoy on the way to FunkyTown.
He was waylayed by a bunch of quasi-judicial lackeys and taken
to the Gaol and put into a cell.
IdiotBoy`s cell is number 6,349.
Chalked on a board outside the cell is the legend:
"IdiotBoy. 4 days. Pending Appeal."
The cell itself resembles nothing so much as the sort of box in
which hammers might be kept. However, it contains no hammers or 
tools of any sort, but there is a coin slot in the door with a 
little notice attached. The notice explains that if the correct
amount of A$ are inserted into the slot the door will automatically
swing open. At the end of the notice is the following sentence:
"To discover the number of A$ required, contact the Gaoler."

Brinjal
Gaoler.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:27:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Religious Pluralism...

Michael J. Thomas wrote:

> > I point out the the Church of the Markovian Dream has accomplished alot
> > *without* the rules giving it any power, so I personally see no need to
> > give Churches any of this extra baggage.
> 
> No offense intended against Ackanomic's oldest religious institution,
> but what has the Church of the Markovian Dream done?

We organized, developed, promoted, and implemented an adjenda of 
pushing Acka back towards its Harfy roots.  I personally do not believe
we would have been as successful without the umbrella of the Church.
Of course, I have no idea if we were actually successful at all, sometimes
I feel we are.
 
> How do you see Churches working?  Right now, the only thing
> I see them doing is a way to get out of being burned as a
> heretic.

Organizations of people with the same goals and ideals without the baggage
of party politics, swingers, and unity voting and other noise.  Its
also nice to have our own mailing list for discussion :)
 
Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:35:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Current Scores

I seem to remember snowgod making a comment about this list the last time
it was posted...

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
57      snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
41      Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
39      Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
34      Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall)
33      Uncle Sam            A   (Sam Peterson)
30      Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke)
30      fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
29      Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard)
26      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
24      Bascule              A   (Matt Black)
24      Bash                 A   (Erez Bashan)
23      mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
20      /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
20      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
18      breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
18      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
14      Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw)
6       skinny               A   (Shlomi Bernthal)
5       IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
0       Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
0       this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein)
0       Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff)
0       Dagny                N   (Wendy Peterson)
0       "Tim"                N   (Tim Carter)
0       fon                  I   (Adrian Smith)
0       Pascal               I   (Jason Reed)
0       Robert Sevin         I   (Mitchell Harding)

fnord scored 6 points for posting what Phoebe said.
Bash was penalized 3 points for CFJ 282.
ThinMan was penalized 10 points for CFJ 293.
Only one proposal passed, and it wasn't Harfy, short, modest, or anything.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:39:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Current Scores

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: 

> Only one proposal passed, and it wasn't Harfy, short, modest, or anything.

Actually, it was Harfy, but the Harfmeister is hogging the Harf.  With
CSR 7 accepted, there are a total of *zero* proposals which are
currently Harfy.  Time for a hog the harf hearing ... ?

Of course there may be nothing currently in the queue which is Harfy,
and even if P 1253 wasn't harfy, it was cool :)

Malenkai
heckeling the Harfmeister

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:46:19 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Current Scores

Okay! Okay! Call me a liar.  Who would have ever expected me to have the 
High Score two reports in a row!  Wow!  This is evcen more startiling 
than if it were to happen to cpf :)

snowgod
who would like to remind everyone that the fugitive has the best damn 
bnond deals around.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:50:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: harf

All right, enough already!

I declare P1274 to be harfy, since it is, even though it's been tried before.
I declare P1276 to be harfy, since it's at least creative even if not 
totally imbued with harf.
I declare P1273 to be harfy because it's downright insane.

Guy Fawkes
heckled harfmeister

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:50:56 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 299 Appeal 

>Normally, I have come to associate ThinMan with sound reasoning, and not 
>semantic flibbertyjibbet.  This is an exception.  In the absense of semantic 
>rules to guide this, it could just as easily be argued that (c) *requires*
that 
>allowances be made.  In fact, it could be argued that it *must* require 
>them to be available if they are to be available at all. If anyone wants to 
>appeal this on logical rather than philosophical grounds, I'd love to hear it.

Second the motion.

>Furthermore, CFJ 240 (which may even no longer be games custom -- I have 
>heard it argued that it is falling out of use, and I believe it is game 
>custom that game custom can and does change) is really a blunt piece of game 
>custom.  After all, it only comes into effect if the Court feels that two 
>pieces of reasoning are equally valid.  Not to instruct the court, but  
>given a choice to deicide between the validity of reasoning and semantics, I 
>think the reasoning should win out.

Again, I agree.

As I said in my reasoning, R219/1 specifies that a paradox occurs when "the
legality of some action cannot be determined with finality". Amazingly
enough, ThinMan does not attempt to say there is finality. He simply tries
to argue that even though there isn't, some judge could give it some. This
is a poor argument. The job of the judge is to obey the rules and R219
claims precendence against any CFJ or later rule that might be brought up.

The statement of the CFJ brings to light something which is not definitive.
It is unclear. More: it is a paradox win.

CnH

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:41:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Home!

If the Gaoler can do this, I want my A$25 back!

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:41:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

Niccolo Flychuck has been appointed acting Justice in Bascule's
stead.

CFJ 288, 297, and 299 are all in appeal.  They all claim something
cannot be determined with finality.  If CFJ 297 is upheld, the others
will not generate a winner.

Also, the speaker page has been updated to reflect the latest
cash balances, bond holdings, and other player entity state info.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 21:45:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Home!

IdiotBoy wrote:
> 
> If the Gaoler can do this, I want my A$25 back!

IdiotBoy is right. Our agreement was "if the ploy worked".  I
believe, unfortunatly, that it worked.  This is what I disliked about
the Cow Town; it subverts the whole Gaol and CJ system.

If I'm wrong, let me know.  I'd like to see the Cow Town fixed so that
it is an unattractive, or equally attractive, alternative.  The Goose
penalty is a step in that direction, but may not be enough.

I do note, however, in this case, that the Gaoler did receive A$50
in lodging fees, which isn't bad.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 96 23:22:12 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1281

Proposal 1281 - Thu Sep 26 23:22:11 EDT 1996
Section 6 Voting Restrictions
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

{{All Section 6 Voting Restrictions (S6VRs) are removed from all players,
except for those Section 6 Voting Restrictions explicitly bestowed
upon players as specified in the rules.}}

Any player who was a member of the Underworld Party on September 25,
1996, 11:02 EDT shall have "Section 6 Voting Restrictions" placed
on them (hereafter known as S6VRs).  S6VRs may only be bestowed and
removed as specified in the rules.

All players with S6VRs must vote Present on all proposals.  If a player
with S6VRs fails to vote Present on a proposal, their vote is immediately
changed to Present (or recorded as such in the case of an abstention),
and the vote is retabulated to determine the results of the proposal
where the voting error occurred.  Furthermore, the player with S6VRs who
failed to vote Present is placed on vacation with an expected duration
of 2 days.

This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #263
*******************************