Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #311
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, October 25 1996       Volume 01 : Number 311

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 03:08:40 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1342 Passes 

Quorum achieved on P1342: 16 Eligible voters - 11 Players cast votes
12 YES votes - 0 NO votes - 1 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES
P1342 was Modest

   Proposal 1342 - Wed Oct 16 21:57 EDT 1996
   Money, Cigarettes, and Bicycles
   Malenkai (Randy Hall)

Malenkai gains 5 points:                      -35 -> -30

YES Votes:
- ---------
Guy Fawkes                  (None Yet)            = 0
ThinMan                     Vulcan                = -15
breadbox                                          = 0
/dev/joe                    Vulcan                = -12
Niccolo Flychuck            Vulcan                = 0
Vulcan Unity Vote
snowgod                     (None Yet)            = 0
mr cwm                      (None Yet)            = 0
(None Yet) Unity Vote
Malenkai                    FUN                   = -35
Habeous Corpus                                    = 6
Brinjal                                           = 0

NO Votes:
- --------
NONE

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy

Abstentions:
- -----------
Fnord
Robert Sevin
Bascule
Calvin N Hobbes
Mohammed

Text Of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------

     This is a Modest proposal.

     Amend R 1046 as follows:

     1) Place the following text at the end of the rule:

     {{All A$ owned by the Orkatass Lawn Care Company and Motor Inn are
     transferred to the Treasury. [this amendment is because it will be
     one less thing to track, yet keep the flavor of the rule.]}}

     2) Replace the period at the end of the third paragraph with the
     following text:

     " (which is then immediately transferred to the Treasury, as the
     OLCCaMI is a not-for-profit entity)."

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 03:08:44 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1344 Passes 

[Sorry about the delay... I hate my ISP :)  BTW, I haven't recieved any
comments at all about the format I am using for voting results, so I will
assume it is acceptable to everyone. It really makes things much easier for
me.]

Quorum achieved on P1344: 16 Eligible voters - 11 Players cast votes
7 YES votes - 3 NO votes - 3 PRESENT votes - Proposal PASSES
P1344 was Harfy

   Proposal 1344 - Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:09:30 -0500 (CDT)
   Round Earth Restoration Society
   Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Malenkai gains 15 points and becomes Harfmeister. 3 -> 18

YES Votes:
- ---------
Guy Fawkes                  (None Yet)            = 18
Niccolo Flychuck            Vulcan                = 5
snowgod                     (None Yet)            = 0
mr cwm                      (None Yet)            = 0
(None Yet) Unity Vote
Mohammed                                          = -15
fnord                                             = 0

NO Votes:
- --------
/dev/joe                    Vulcan                -12 -> -9
Habeous Corpus                                      3 ->  6
Tammany (A$10 snowgod)

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy
ThinMan
Malenkai

Abstentions:
- -----------
Robert Sevin
Bascule
Calvin N Hobbes
Brinjal
breadbox

Text Of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------

     Create a new rule reading:

     At some time in the distant past, the Earth was indeed round, and
     through a great cataclysm, it became flat when two massive roughly
     hemispherical chunks broke off of it, one from the north, and one
     from the south. Like all things which fall off the Earth, these two
     fragments of the Earth now dangle from emergency tethers.

     The Round Earth Restoration Society exists. Its goal to restore a
     round shape to the Earth by building enormous winch-like machines to
     reel in these two dangling fragments. Unfortuantely, the cost of
     such machines is very high -- 15,000 A$. At any time, a player may
     make a contribution to the Round Earth Restoration Society by
     posting a public message containing a non-negative amount of A$ less
     than that player's current balance that they wish to transfer to the
     Treasury on behalf of the Round Earth Restoration Society. If taxes
     should ever exist in Acka, such contributions are tax-deductible.
     The first player to make such a contribution becomes Chairman of the
     Round Earth Restoration Society, and it is his duty to keep track of
     how much money has been transferred to the Treasury on the Society's
     behalf. Should this player ever go on vacation or leave the game,
     the next player to contribute shall take over this title and duty.

     Once the Round Earth Restoration Society has raised 15,000 A$, a
     large machine shall be built, and the northern fragment joined to
     the earth, giving it a roughly hemispherical shape. Once an
     additional 15,000 A$ has been raised, the southern fragment will be
     likewise joined, restoring a spherical shape to the Earth.

     If the earth should become hemispherical, saying such is not Heresy,
     and this takes precedence over Rule 729. If the Earth should ever
     become a sphere, all occurrences of the words "flat" and "round" in
     Rule 729 shall become "round" and "flat," respectively, and this
     paragraph shall then be repealed.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 03:21:23 -0800 (AKDT)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More Forehead Business

The Current High Bid for the lot of 8 original snowgod for president
campaign foreheads is A$68, bid by the honorable mr cwm.  The auction
began on  Wed, 23 Oct 1996 at 01:07:54 and will end on 27 Oct 1996 at
01:07:54.

I feel that the value of these collectors items can only increase with
time (and future elections).  Future campaign gifts may include trinkets,
etc, but none will have the originality of these, the originals :)

So bid now, and bid high... With careful bidding and a strong folowup
strategay a careful investor could one day own the whole set!

snowgod
who would so much like to sign himself as Chief Cheese

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:54:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1344 Passes

Acting Tabulator wrote:

>    Proposal 1344 - Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:09:30 -0500 (CDT)
>    Round Earth Restoration Society
>    Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> Malenkai gains 15 points and becomes Harfmeister. 3 -> 18

Actually that would be Guy Fawkes.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 05:00:40 -0800 (AKDT)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1344 Passes

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Acting Tabulator wrote:
> 
> >    Proposal 1344 - Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:09:30 -0500 (CDT)
> >    Round Earth Restoration Society
> >    Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> > 
> > Malenkai gains 15 points and becomes Harfmeister. 3 -> 18
> 
> Actually that would be Guy Fawkes.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

OOPS! 

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 05:04:56 -0800 (AKDT)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1344 Passes

> YES Votes:
> ---------
> snowgod                     (None Yet)            = 0

> NO Votes:
> --------
> Tammany (A$10 snowgod)

Before anyone calls me on it, yes, this was intentional!

snowgod
who has a reason for voting this way :)

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:24:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1344 Passes

Seems like a failed attempt to grab three points, to me.

Guy Fawkes

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> > YES Votes:
> > ---------
> > snowgod                     (None Yet)            = 0
> 
> > NO Votes:
> > --------
> > Tammany (A$10 snowgod)
> 
> Before anyone calls me on it, yes, this was intentional!
> 
> snowgod
> who has a reason for voting this way :)

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:27:45 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: P1344 Passes

>
>Before anyone calls me on it, yes, this was intentional!
>
>snowgod
>who has a reason for voting this way :)

I suspected as much.  After all, it was snowgod who
tabulated the thing in the first place.

ThinMan
>
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 08:38:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

According to the rules, a message like this should be posted:

Today is Friday, the 25th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord 
1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I 
have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 6 times.

However; I should have posted this message yesterday:

Today is Thursday, the 24th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord 
1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I 
have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 6 times.

Making today's message:

Today is Friday, the 25the day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 7 times.

Alas, I have broken the rules.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:14:16 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: *ping*

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>According to the rules, a message like this should be posted:
>
>Today is Friday, the 25th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord 
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I 
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 6 times.
>
>However; I should have posted this message yesterday:
>
>Today is Thursday, the 24th day of October, in the Year of Our Lord 
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I 
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 6 times.
>
>Making today's message:
>
>Today is Friday, the 25the day of October, in the Year of Our Lord
>1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I
>have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 7 times.
>
>Alas, I have broken the rules.

It is with mixed feelings that I have called a CFCJ against
Guy Fawkes.  It will be distributed presently.  In my opinion,
it is not in the spirit of Ackanomic to let rule violations just
"slide by."  I have recommended a light penalty, and hope that
the judge will agree to such, if he finds the CFCJ TRUE.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 07:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: *ping*

> >Alas, I have broken the rules.
> 
> It is with mixed feelings that I have called a CFCJ against
> Guy Fawkes.  It will be distributed presently.  In my opinion,
> it is not in the spirit of Ackanomic to let rule violations just
> "slide by."  I have recommended a light penalty, and hope that
> the judge will agree to such, if he finds the CFCJ TRUE.

That brings up an interesting point. How does one actually "judge"
this?  The rules specifically forbid premature disclosure of the
truth. So, will the judge have to accurately guess the truth before e
can honestly return a judgement?

b

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:04:49 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: *ping*

breadbox wrote:

>> >Alas, I have broken the rules.
>> 
>> It is with mixed feelings that I have called a CFCJ against
>> Guy Fawkes.  It will be distributed presently.  In my opinion,
>> it is not in the spirit of Ackanomic to let rule violations just
>> "slide by."  I have recommended a light penalty, and hope that
>> the judge will agree to such, if he finds the CFCJ TRUE.
>
>That brings up an interesting point. How does one actually "judge"
>this?  The rules specifically forbid premature disclosure of the
>truth. So, will the judge have to accurately guess the truth before e
>can honestly return a judgement?

I considered that before I submitted the CFCJ.  In my
opinion, the judge is entirely within his rights to take
Guy Fawkes word for it, especially since if Guy goes
to Gaol, he will have to reveal the truth anyway (in time
for the case to be appealed).

On the other side of the coin, we could all make it easier
on the judge by guessing the truth before he delivers
judgement.

ThinMan
Author of a judicial conundrum

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:12:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: *ping*

I entirely expected this; indeed, had I time to do more than write out 
the fact I had violated the rules, I would have CFCJ'd myself (Is that 
legal?)  I believe that I am obliged to continue posting *ping*'s, 
respond to magic letters, and respond to guesses up until the CFCJ 
is returned (almost certainly TRUE, I hope; not that I want to go to 
Gaol, but that a FALSE verdict could confuse the situation even more).
So, if you have any guesses, fire away!

Guy Fawkes
malfeasant Scholar of *ping* 

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> breadbox wrote:
> 
> >> >Alas, I have broken the rules.
> >> 
> >> It is with mixed feelings that I have called a CFCJ against
> >> Guy Fawkes.  It will be distributed presently.  In my opinion,
> >> it is not in the spirit of Ackanomic to let rule violations just
> >> "slide by."  I have recommended a light penalty, and hope that
> >> the judge will agree to such, if he finds the CFCJ TRUE.
> >
> >That brings up an interesting point. How does one actually "judge"
> >this?  The rules specifically forbid premature disclosure of the
> >truth. So, will the judge have to accurately guess the truth before e
> >can honestly return a judgement?
> 
> I considered that before I submitted the CFCJ.  In my
> opinion, the judge is entirely within his rights to take
> Guy Fawkes word for it, especially since if Guy goes
> to Gaol, he will have to reveal the truth anyway (in time
> for the case to be appealed).
> 
> On the other side of the coin, we could all make it easier
> on the judge by guessing the truth before he delivers
> judgement.
> 
> ThinMan
> Author of a judicial conundrum
> 

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Not even an RFC

I've been comtemplating a second currency, with an exchange rate fixed by
some official, in Ackanomic, much as both gold and silver circulated in
the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century.  Is there any
interest in or comments on such a thing before I look at what it would
require?

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Magic Letter is O

"I'd like to buy a vowel, please."

Scholar of *ping* - did the Machine's truth contain any O's?

b

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:26:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Magic Letter is O

Why yes, breadbox, it does:

IF AND ONLY IF today *o** *o* *** ****** ***** o* ****, THEN the Machine 
That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:

> "I'd like to buy a vowel, please."
> 
> Scholar of *ping* - did the Machine's truth contain any O's?
> 
> b
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:38:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC

Such a thing might be interesting if we could make its value stable; then 
use it as sort of a "Gold standard" to adjust the value of the A$ against 
inflation.

The one problem with trying to create a realistic ackonomy is, like 
someone else has pointed out, our production is based on creation of 
goods from nothing.  There is not really an easy way to fix this within 
the existing rule structure: we have no lasting scarcity -- we can't 
create a resource that we can't create in whatever quantity we desire.  
In fact, the only resource I can think of for the acka-economy is time, 
which transcends the game.

Using time as the primary resource we might be able to make an economy 
that works like... everyone has seven days a week.  Those days can be 
converted into production as follows...

Guy Fawkes

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> I've been comtemplating a second currency, with an exchange rate fixed by
> some official, in Ackanomic, much as both gold and silver circulated in
> the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century.  Is there any
> interest in or comments on such a thing before I look at what it would
> require?
> 
> -mr cwm
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:46:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harfmeister

I am declaring proposal 1377 harfy.

Guy Fawkes
harfmeister

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael J. Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1377

A proposal went out thusly
> 
> Proposal 1377 -- Thu 24 Oct 18:41 CDT 1996
> The Old Lightbulb Bit
> snowgod (Phil Ackley)

Over all, this proposal is one of the funniest I have ever seen,
perhaps even better than Silly Vacation Hats.  However, I have
a concern or two.

> ...  The options include recomending that one or more players are
> hired to fix the light bulb, brining in outside help (in the form of the
> Frobozz Magic Maintenance Company, Ackanomic Division), or having one of
> the senators attempt to change the lightbulb himself.

Further down, you refer to 'the three options'.  I assume these options
are the three things listed above.  If so, it might have been easier
to put them in a numbered list.

> The senate has seven days to issue a report stating their recomendations
> for lightbuld repair, or they shall be held In Contempt.  A public hearing
> will then be held, lasting three days.  Players may send their votes to
> Count Tabula indicating which of the three options they prefer.  When the
> hearing has finished, whichever option recieves the most votes shall be
> excecuted.  In the event of a tie, the recomendation of the senate report
> shall be followed.

Here's where a problem enters.  When will the public hearing be held?

a) After the senate has issued a report, or
b) After the senate has been held in contempt?

Aha!  Having re-read it, I think it becomes a bit clearer.  I think.

My first reading of the rule made it appear as if the voting would
only occur if the Senate was held in contempt, but wasn't clear about
it.  On a second reading, it appears that what you meant was that
even after the Senate makes its report, we still vote on it, and
if the vote is a tie, then we go with the Senate report.  Another
now surfaces, what if the Senate doesn't make a report and the vote
is a tie.  What happens then?  (I could have tried to hold
out on a PWCFJ for that, but didn't expect to be lucky enough
to have the Senate go my way).

Of course, now that I've raged on the proposal, I'd like to
reiterate that I think it is a *hilarious* idea, and would
love to see this idea become a Rule.

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:16:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

>
>Such a thing might be interesting if we could make its value stable; then 
>use it as sort of a "Gold standard" to adjust the value of the A$ against 
>inflation.
>

I was thinking it might be more interesting if its value was not stable,
that is, if it was set by some official with some goal in mind (what goal,
I'm not sure ... what disaster would occur if the Treasury was depleted of
A'$ because everyone had turned in their A"$?).

>The one problem with trying to create a realistic ackonomy is, like 
>someone else has pointed out, our production is based on creation of 
>goods from nothing.  There is not really an easy way to fix this within 
>the existing rule structure: we have no lasting scarcity -- we can't 
>create a resource that we can't create in whatever quantity we desire.  
>In fact, the only resource I can think of for the acka-economy is time, 
>which transcends the game.
>

It was the authentic snowgod second presidential election campaign
Prosthetic Foreheads that got me thinking about this.  There are only 20
or so, and although we can make more prosthetic foreheads, we can never
make any more AsSPEC Prosthetic Foreheads.  (If snowgod wasn't auctioning
them off as a lot, I'd try to make AsSPEC Prosthetic Foreheads the second
currency, but one player starting off with half the second currency seems
like a bad idea.)

>Using time as the primary resource we might be able to make an economy 
>that works like... everyone has seven days a week.  Those days can be 
>converted into production as follows...
>
>Guy Fawkes
>

We *have* fixed the total amount of currency at A$75,000, not that it
seems to have had much impact on the game, so far. 

>
>
>
>On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, mr cwm wrote:
>
>> I've been comtemplating a second currency, with an exchange rate fixed by
>> some official, in Ackanomic, much as both gold and silver circulated in
>> the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century.  Is there any
>> interest in or comments on such a thing before I look at what it would
>> require?
>> 
>> -mr cwm
>> 
>> 
>

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:25:59 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Not even an RFC

mr cwm wrote:

>We *have* fixed the total amount of currency at A$75,000, not that it
>seems to have had much impact on the game, so far. 

This is, in part, because the balance outstanding from the
Treasury has never exceeded A$20000.  The A$75000 cap
might as well be A$75000000, for all that it affects the game
right now.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 108

To:   Ackanomians
From: CSRR Officer mr cwm

In the interest of Common Sense, and in accord with R695 I submit the
following as CSR 108. I remind you that two public objections in
three days will prevent these changes from taking place. 

- --------

Amend R1276 by replacing "round" with "game" in the last sentance of the
first paragraph of section G.

- --------

Amend R1099 section 3 to insert "days" after "3" in the first sentance of
section 3.

- --------

Amend R1099 section 3 by appending to it "{{The nomination period of Wayne
and this is not a name ends now, if it has not already done so.}}"

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 12:26:09 -0800 (AKDT)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC

> someone else has pointed out, our production is based on creation of 
> goods from nothing.  There is not really an easy way to fix this within 

I just wanted to point out that time is the resource that we in ackanomic
use for production... However, upon further reading of Guy Fawkes post I
see that he has pointed out just the same thing so I best stop now before
I really embarrass myself.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:41:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Harfmeister

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> I am declaring proposal 1377 harfy.

I give snowgod A$10.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:01:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RRFC Winning

There was alot of talk on acka-research (I believe), about the
winning conditions, specifically the point for proposal writing
winning condition.

Does anyone have any ideas for alternate winning conditions?  The
only thing I have thought of which will not require an immense
amount of development was the idea I proposed a long time ago
where you qualify for a win if you have achieved a diverse number
of titles, or obtained diverse collection of entities, etc.  I may
propose that again with a completely different list, but I am certainly
not what I consider a killer idea.

Even if the idea requires lots of development, I'm interested.  To me,
sub-games seems to be the way to go, but I am probably missing something.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RRFC Winning

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Even if the idea requires lots of development, I'm interested.  To me,
> sub-games seems to be the way to go, but I am probably missing something.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
I would like alternate winning conditions to hang on tradeable scare
entities.  We already have a win from non-tradeable (points), but I think it
would be much cooler if it required cooperation and double dealing to amass
the "Winning Set"

Ok, so this wasn't profound-
"Ib

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

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:28:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RRFC Winning

Actually, it reminded me of a wonderful little party game called Haggle; 
it's like a card game where you try to amass certain point values in your 
hand, but there's a catch -- you don't know all the scoring rules.  
Generally, you are dealt out a portion of the ruleset along with your 
cards, and during the course of play, you can trade both cards and 
information freely; in a game like ours, when you toss things like A$, 
PF's foreheads, etc. into the mix, it has true craziness potential.

Downside -- one player has to sit of the action to tend to the scoring rules.

Guy Fawkes

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:

> I would like alternate winning conditions to hang on tradeable scare
> entities.  We already have a win from non-tradeable (points), but I think it
> would be much cooler if it required cooperation and double dealing to amass
> the "Winning Set"
> 
> Ok, so this wasn't profound-
> "Ib
> 
> --
> IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
> [email-masked]
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:38:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RRFC Winning

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> Actually, it reminded me of a wonderful little party game called Haggle;
> it's like a card game where you try to amass certain point values in your
> hand, but there's a catch -- you don't know all the scoring rules.
> Generally, you are dealt out a portion of the ruleset along with your
> cards, and during the course of play, you can trade both cards and
> information freely; in a game like ours, when you toss things like A$,
> PF's foreheads, etc. into the mix, it has true craziness potential.
> 
> Downside -- one player has to sit of the action to tend to the scoring rules.

As speaker, that is certainly one of my potential jobs, and I don't
mind doing it.  Besides, I do not need any more eggplants :).  Perhaps
the duty could rotate, the speaker gets it first, then the next person
to win by this method gets it.

I work on it with you if you want.  I want it to be big though, not
something that can be won every week.  If it is like that, it should be a 
sub-game.  

It may be something that can be tied into treasure hunts.
One part of the map can go to every player in the game.  I had planned
to sponsor a treasure hunt like that if the rule passed anyway, and if
I had the time.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:00:58 -0800 (AKDT)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Auction

Guy Fawkes has bid A$75 for the lot of foreheads.  Perhaps, if our
currency is moved to a forehead base, Guy Fawkes will become a very
prosperous man indeed.

One more note (and I apologize to anyone who is affected by this) - The
auction ends early on the morning of the 26th, and not the 27th as I had
previously posted.  don't ask what I was thinking when I wrote that.

snowgod
who can't even do propoer aritmithic (nor spell it)

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:07:20 -0800 (AKDT)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retracting P1377

I am retracting P1377 and will resubmit a corrected version shortly.
Thank you to fnord for pointing out some possible problems with the
proposal... To tell you the truth, I never intended for it to pass (I was
just feeling silly), but now that I see how well loved it is (cheesy grin
here) I will certainly work to do it right.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:26:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Not even an RFC

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> mr cwm wrote:
> 
> >We *have* fixed the total amount of currency at A$75,000, not that it
> >seems to have had much impact on the game, so far. 
> 
> This is, in part, because the balance outstanding from the
> Treasury has never exceeded A$20000.  The A$75000 cap
> might as well be A$75000000, for all that it affects the game
> right now.
> 
> ThinMan
> Financier
>
Which is the reason I believe that creation of entities.
But perhaps I was on the wrong track last time I suggested this. Then I
suggested that it should cost the players, now that I think of it again,
there might be some instances when the cost should be deducted from the
Treasury, specifically when  an entity is initially created with no owner.
Natrually destroying entities could cause some cash to return, but the
total amount of A$ should never be more than aa fixed amount, the current
A$75000 is as good as any.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 19:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Not even an RFC

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> Which is the reason I believe that creation of entities.
> But perhaps I was on the wrong track last time I suggested this. Then I
> suggested that it should cost the players, now that I think of it again,
> there might be some instances when the cost should be deducted from the
> Treasury, specifically when  an entity is initially created with no owner.
> Natrually destroying entities could cause some cash to return, but the
> total amount of A$ should never be more than aa fixed amount, the current
> A$75000 is as good as any.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
>  
> 
This is the first of have heard of this notion, but I like it.  When new
entities are being created,, we should always ask "who is going to pay for
this.  I do believe the money supply should be contstant.  Therefore,
someone must receive the money as well, when entities are created.

This could work well within my Corporations idea.  Each Corporation could
have a "Permit" to market a certain type of entity.  These permits would
cost money and perhaps have other requirements.  When an entity is created,
a provider must be sought.  ANyone posessing a permit to make "Garments"
could bid on the job.  

This sounds rather complex, but I think I can smooth it out, if it is
worthwhile.

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

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:30:38 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Something to pick a Duel about

I'd like some more games on the G & C page which are suitable for Duels.

The author of the next G & C proposal to be accepted will receive A$20
from me.

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 01:49:51 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Not even an RFC

On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Which is the reason I believe that creation of entities.
> > But perhaps I was on the wrong track last time I suggested this. Then I
> > suggested that it should cost the players, now that I think of it again,
> > there might be some instances when the cost should be deducted from the
> > Treasury, specifically when  an entity is initially created with no owner.
> > Natrually destroying entities could cause some cash to return, but the
> > total amount of A$ should never be more than aa fixed amount, the current
> > A$75000 is as good as any.
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> >  
> > 
> This is the first of have heard of this notion, but I like it.  When new
> entities are being created,, we should always ask "who is going to pay for
> this.  I do believe the money supply should be contstant.  Therefore,
> someone must receive the money as well, when entities are created.

I was thinking of using the money as the resource to create entities, in
which case it would not be constant. If someone receives the money, then
we've just created more entities out of thin air.
I know it doesn't work this out of ackanomic, but then out there, money
merely represents resources. My suggestion is that money be the resource.

I shall have to draw some flow diagrams to see how money might flow as a
result of different actions.  
Money would not really disapper, it would be "stored" in the entity, so to
speak.
Work, such as creating one thing out of another, should also cause money
to transform somehow, or be displaced elsewhere.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> This could work well within my Corporations idea.  Each Corporation could
> have a "Permit" to market a certaintype of entity.  These permits would
> cost money and perhaps have other requirements.  When an entity is created,
> a provider must be sought.  ANyone posessing a permit to make "Garments"
> could bid on the job.  
> 
> This sounds rather complex, but I think I can smooth it out, if it is
> worthwhile.
> 
> IB
> --
> IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
> [email-masked]
> 
> 

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

Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 20:01:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malenkai's newspaper.

'Round the Earth, Issue 2:
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
'ROUND THE EARTH RESPONDS TO FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF PUBLISHING FALSEHOODS
malenkai, managing editor

The Honorable Guy Fawkes lodged the following complaint with 'Round
the Earth.  After careful review of the copy in question, the
facts, and consultation with legal consul, 'Round the Earth publishes
the following correction, which follows the complaint.

Guy Fawkes complained:
 
> In the first edition [of 'Round the Earth], on at least two occasions
> [the paper] flat-out said the earth is round, and implied it in
> several others.
> 
> I consider these statements untrue, and in accordance with Rule 892, I
> hereby ask that a correction be printed.

Guy Fawkes's complaint mentions two instances and several implications.
We have found zero instances that "flat-out [say] the earth is round",
however.  As for what is "implied", even Mr. Fawkes will admit that
"implication" is a far cry from what may be "untrue".

In the interest of Journalistic Intergrity, however, we will address
3 passages from the issue at question that Mr. Fawkes apparently
misconstrued into "flat-out [saying] the earth is round", since we 
cannot determine with finality which "two" he is referring to.

[Quoted text is from the issue of 'Round the Earth in question]

> 'Round the Earth will initially be comitted to objectively reporting
> the truth of the Earth's Roundness

The Truth in question here is that the paper is committed to 
objectively reporting the truth of a certain issue, not the actual
truth of the issue at hand.  It is a fine, but important distinction,
and conflicts with Mr. Fawkes's allegation.  Events change, and it
is acknowledged that in the *objective* pursuit of this truth, the
null truth may have to be reported.  We do not anticipate this, but that
is the whole point of investigative reporting.  If it were known with
finality to all, for all time, we would have no reason to research and
report on it.  If we had "flat out said the earth is round", we would
neither be objective nor be reporting.  We flat out said were going to
objectively pursue and report the Truth.

> General consensus, of course,  has it that the Ancients proved the Earth
> was Round

The key distiction here is a temporal one.  This statement uses the
word "was".  Guy Fawkes's allegation uses the word "is".  "General
consensus" may be a tad strong, but a super-majority approved R 1344,
which flat out states "At some time in the distant past, the Earth was
indeed round".  So we have that truth by rule.  Moreover, we also have
R 1335 establishing the fact the Ancients transcribed all that is known
about the physical world in the Codex of Kra.  We know the earth was
round, and we know the Ancients transcribed everyhing.  Perhaps
"General consensus" should have been replaced with "super-majority", or
"has" be replaced with "believes" or "has passed rules that imply",
but such constructs are much less literary, and don't make good copy.

> We, of course, envision a brigther future for Acka, when
> Enlightenment isn't necessary because we all know and agree the Earth
> be Round.

The Truth here is that we envision a brigther future.  Again, it is 
a temporal issue.  Where the last passage was concerned with the past,
this one speaks of the future.  Again I refer the curious to R 1344.
We, of course, believe strongly that the earth will never be made round
by those machines, but that is not the point.  The point is that the
temporal language in the copy is inconsistent with Mr. Fawkes's complaint.

'Round the Earth thus acknowledges no wrongdoing, and believes it has
reported the truth, as discussed above.  As for the actual word choice
as discussed above, we have offered alternatives with substantially
similar meaning that you may use as a correction.  Our copy editor,
however, believes these changes are picayune, and make the copy read
poorly.

As a gesture of goodwill however, we will offer Mr. Fawkes free ad
placement in the upcoming issue of 'Round the Earth, and will let him
publish an editorial piece which we will not edit (but which we reserve
the right to reject in full).  We will pay for such copy if it is a
Treasure Map.

[the law firm of malenkai's loophole service contributed to this article]

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT

Any legal problems?  Consult Makenkai's Loophole Service.  Our rates
are cheap, and with inflation, getting cheaper.  Rates and references
available upon request.

[this ad space could be yours!! Ad rates are cheap]
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN N HOBBES FRONTRUNNER IN ACKAPHYSICIST RACE
bruce goose, politcial correspondant

We have learned that Guy Fawkes has dropped out of the race for 
AckaPhysicist, leaving Calvin N Hobbes as the sole contender, and
winner apparent.  'Round the Earth can think of no one better for the
complex task of extracting the Ancient's wisdom from the twisted passages
of the Codex of Kra, and formally endorses CnH.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
'ROUND THE EARTH TO PAY FOR TREASURE MAPS

Assuming R 1348.2 is created, 'Round the Earth is willing to publish
Treasure Maps. In fact, we will pay A$10 for all bona-fide submissions,
and intend to keep all such submissions on our corporate web pages.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #311
*******************************