Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #314
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, October 27 1996       Volume 01 : Number 314

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:00:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 117 (fnord)

Today is Saturday, the 26th 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* 8 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

PS -- I believe the number 8 is the proper number here; I hold that the 
Machine did indeed go *ping* on that fateful Thursday, since the rules 
say it did; I simply failed to report the occurrence of the *ping*.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:09:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 117 (fnord)

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> PS -- I believe the number 8 is the proper number here; I hold that the 
> Machine did indeed go *ping* on that fateful Thursday, since the rules 
> say it did; I simply failed to report the occurrence of the *ping*.
> 
I think this is the only reasonable way to approach the machine.  It always
*ping*s when it is supposed to, it's just waiting for you to discover it,
and turn it into wealth.

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

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:33:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Report

Scoring this cycle:

Bascule, /dev/joe, Mohammed, Robert Sevin, and ThinMan started with -15
  points, due to having won past cycles, and Malenkai started at -45.
Proposal scoring for P1338-1340: 1339 and 1340 were modest
Guy Fawkes lost 2 points for retracting P1371
Proposal scoring for P1342 (modest) and P1344 (harfy)
snowgod lost 2 points for retracting P1377
Proposal scoring on P1345-1350, 1352: 1345 and 1347 were modest, 1348 was
  harfy, and snowgod scored 2 extra points for the Magic potato on 1349.

Malenkai's Victory Eggplant is destroyed.

Current scores:

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
18      Guy Fawkes           Ag  (Robert Shimmin)
12      Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
8       Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall)
8       Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
6       Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke)
3       breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
2       snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
0       Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
0       fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
0       IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
0       mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
- -3      /dev/joe             Av  (Joseph DeVincentis)
- -12     Mohammed             Av  (Jason Orendorff)
- -12     ThinMan              Av  (John Bollinger)
- -15     Bascule              Av  (Matt Black)
- -15     Robert Sevin         Nv  (Mitchell Harding)

Status:
A=Active, N=Nonactive, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice,
D=Dead, v=Victory Eggplant, g=Chartreuse Goose

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 14:18:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1347 Passes

Uri Bruck wrote:

> This phrasing allows for a cry-wolf style abuse.
> I can just anounce that I am going on vacation in three days, not go on
> vacation, and keep doing so every three days, thus remaining Untouchable
> for as long as I don't lose count. This was not possible under the
> original phrasing of the rule.

The original phrasing of the rule was indecipherable by me, who had
to do the work to manage it.  This phrasing makes less work for me,
and gives me more time to enjoy the nomic.  

You have the same problem in Synod.  The way it is worded makes more work
for me than necessary.  I pointed out both problems in RFC, yet none of
the changes made it into the final version.

If you really think someone is going to do this, and I don't think 
anyone will, just to avoid a 6 point duel, propose an amendment.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 15:44:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial

For anyone who cares, this is my unofficial financial log for the
current bond cycle.  Report any errors or ommissions to me or 
ThinMan

Malnenkal
R 115 accountant
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Log started as of ThinMans oct 17 accounts

snowgod -23 frinking tab

snowgod +25 mentor for Loony

snowgod +10 
Guy Fawkes +10
Malenkai -20 Harfy bounty

Bascule -2 SC penalty
mr cwm -2 SC penalty

Malenkai +6 EP P 1324-1326

mr cwm -20 CFCJ fee

Malenkai -10 P 1327-1335
Bascule -10 R 1331 (here and below)
Brinjal -10 
breadbox -10
CnH -10
fnord -10
fon -10
Habeous -10
IdiotBoy -10
Mohammed - 10
Pascal -10
Robert -10
snowgod -10

snowgod -12 newspaper
mr cwm +12 newspaper

Malenkai -20 newspaper

salaries
/dev/joe +12
Guy Fawkes -1 (salary - goose)
Malenkai +11
mr cwm +3
Niccolo +9
ThinMan +3

Guy +4 e-potato P 1327-1337
Malenkai +4 same

scores at end of cycle 8:
212     Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
152     Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
152     Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
93      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
83      /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
73      mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
72      IdiotBoy             A   (Matt Miller)
63      snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
63      Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
57      fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
55      Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
53      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
29      Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff)
17      Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
5       breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
0       fon                  I   (Adrian Smith) 
0       Pascal               I   (Jason Reed) 
- -16     Robert Sevin         N   (Mitchell Harding) 

Malenkai -3 P 1338 (Tammany + el potato)
Guy Fawkes +2 el potato 1340

Guy Fawkes -180 +30 IdiotBoy
IdiotBoy +180 -30 IdiotBoy

snowgod -10 wool sweater
Malenkai -10 little lamb

snowgod +10 harfy bounty P 1377
Malenkai -10

breadbox -10 magic letter

habeous -360 + 1 whamiol
Malenkai +36 commission

Malenka +2 ep P 1342
Guy +2 ep P 1344
snowgod -10 tammany p 1344

ThinMan -20 CFCJ 117

snowod -30 tammany P 1346-1352
malenkai -10 tammany P 1346-1352
malenaki +8 ep P 1346-1352

snowgod +216 -8 foreheads
mr cwm -216 +8 foreheads

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 15:15:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1378

Proposal 1378 -- Sat 26 Oct 15:10 CDT 1996
Cat Fight
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest Proposal

Append the following text after the first sentence of section 3 or R985.9:
"
A CopyCat can Capture another CopyCat only by using the move described in
section 2 of this rule
"

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 15:16:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1379

Proposal 1379 -- Sat 26 Oct 15:11 CDT 1996
Patron Saints
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

The House haunted by an Elder's Undead is called their Shrine.

An Elder may post a public message from beyond the dead stating that he 
is becoming the Patron Saint of a given type of proposal.  It should be 
easily determinable whether a proposal is of this type. [Harfy props, 
short props, props creating new entities, props involving the return of 
the Voting Gnome, etc. are good examples of this; creative props, props 
centralizing power, props that should be retracted, etc. are not.]  Upon 
so posting, that Elder shall be considered the Patron Saint of that type 
of proposal.

The author of a proposal that is an example of a Patron Saint's patronage 
may enter that Elder's Shrine and enter a period of solemn prayer and 
silent remembrance of that Elder on behalf of that proposal.  If they do not 
post any public messages within the next three days (36 hours), they will be 
considered to have found favor with that Patron Saint, and if the voting 
period for the proposal has not yet expired, the Patron Saint's Shrine 
will cast one vote in favor of it.

A Patron Saint may have only one class of patronized proposals.  They may 
change it by posting a public message from beyond the dead.

A player may enter any Patron Saint's Shrine only once for any given 
proposal. 

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 15:17:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1380

Proposal 1380 -- Sat 26 Oct 15:12 CDT 1996
Gee Wally, That's a Lot of Different Places to Check (aka LESS WORK FOR FO'S)
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest Proposal.

Perform the following actions in the order in which they appear.

Create a new rule entitled "Telepathy, Telekinesis, and Side Effecs" 
containing text identical to that portion of Rule 1329 that begins with
"When a player's score is a prime number..." and continues to the end of 
the rule.

- ----

Append the following to the end of Rule 1380:

{{Renumber Rule 1380 to 1330.  Calvin N Hobbes shall be listed as the 
originator of this rule in the official copy of the official rules.  This 
takes precedence over any other mutable rule's crediting convention.}}

- ----
Amend the second paragraph of Rule 1330 to read:

Any player that correctly publically reports that her stars are aligned when 
put in the Ackanomic Afterlife will gain the ability to use telepathy.  If this 
is not the first occurrence of this, and the previous time was at least 
one month before, then the player also gains the use of Telekinesis.

- ----

Delete the text "Title: Telepathy, Telekinesis, and Side Effects" and all 
text that follows from Rule 1329.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:02:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, especially not this

> Thinking up algorithms is not creating wealth, it's just another way of
> shifting it around. 
	I don't understand.  From whom is the wealth shifted when a new idea 
appears?  It seems to me that an idea is a form of wealth, whereas a 
headache is not.  So when a person spends an hour thinking up or refines a 
new idea instead of hitting himself in the forehead with a hammer, 
doesn't that person end up with wealth that he wouldn't have otherwise?
	It seems to me like you're saying that the person who spends his
hour thinking is transferring the wealth inherent in the new idea from
someone else (from whom?); and the person who ends up with a headache is
transferring wealth to someone else (to whom?). 

> Has any of you ever told your wage generators that you are being paid way
> too much?  You could make a real contribution to the economy:)
	*blink blink*

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:07:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Winning, Wealth, etc

People have mentioned the need for more winning conditions.
IdiotBoy mentioned the idea of "tradeable" points leading to a win.
Others have talked about an excess of A$.

Create a new rule which reads:

Upon a player obtaining Trinkets whose values sum to A$5000 or more (or
some other value), they may bribe the gods of winning by donating said
items to the Treasury.  Upon doing so, they win the cycle.

I don't love it, in fact, I don't really like it that much, but would
probably vote for it.  If I start treasure hunts, or rule-based treasure
hunts start, another way to acquire cash via skill will exist.

The bottom line is that cash somehow has to be translatable into either
fun or winning conditions.  Some of my recent proposals have tried to
translate cash into fun.  We'll see if it works.

As for translating cash into winning conditions, the above is an attempt;
someone brighter than me might be able to think of something cooler.

Also, Inventions and Otzma cards that can be bought for cash and give
a player an advantage in terms of winning or fun can be created.   That
was the idea of the Purple Robe (fun), and the Whamiol (winning), which
can translate A$s back to points.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:14:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Winning, Wealth, etc

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Also, Inventions and Otzma cards that can be bought for cash and give
> a player an advantage in terms of winning or fun can be created.   That
> was the idea of the Purple Robe (fun), and the Whamiol (winning), which
> can translate A$s back to points.

Speaking of the Whamiol, when was the last time we had a new player that 
actually joined the game?  Was it Uncle Sam?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:22:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 117 (fnord)

Malenkai wrote:

> Call for Criminal Judgement 117
>   Subject:  Illegal *pinging*
> Initiator:  ThinMan
>     Judge:  fnord (selected Oct 26, 1996, 00:13 EDT)
> Judgement:

> Recommended Penalty:
> 
> 1 day in Gaol

If this is judged TRUE, hopefully the judge can find a more lenient
penalty than a stay in Gaol.  Those of us who have been attempting
to decipher the Truth would not wish it revealed over a technicality
such as this, as will occur, of course, when the scholar is placed in
gaol.

Failing that, perhaps the president can pardon our esteemed Scholar.

I wonder about calling this sort of CFCJ in the first place.  Functional
officers break the Speed rule all the time, and it is not called.  Should
it be?  This CFCJ seems akin to that.

It is unfortunate, but we do break the rules from time to time.  The 
ultimate question is, how does a group handle it?  Do we ignore certain
violations as we have been, and prosecute other, similar ones?  It seems
inconsistent, but may not be bad, whatever "bad" means.  Things to explore.

Malenkai
who does not want the Truth revealed

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:23:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Winning, Wealth, etc

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Also, Inventions and Otzma cards that can be bought for cash and give
> > a player an advantage in terms of winning or fun can be created.   That
> > was the idea of the Purple Robe (fun), and the Whamiol (winning), which
> > can translate A$s back to points.
> 
> Speaking of the Whamiol, when was the last time we had a new player that
> actually joined the game?  Was it Uncle Sam?
> 
> Guy Fawkes

That information is on the speaker page.  I do not know it off the
top of my head, but it is less than 30 days.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:26:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 312 (Bascule)

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

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 312
  Subject: Tower
Initiator: snowgod
    Judge: Bascule (selected Oct 26, 1996, 18:26h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

snowgod's plan to build the Tower of Bandwidth was approved by the senate.

snowgod's Reasoning:

[none - CotC]

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:51:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Programming question

I know this isn't the forum for it, but how exactly should a non-priveleged 
user on a UNIX go about sending mail from a script -- portably?  I can

	crank out garbage | mail user

but I would like to be able to include a Subject line in the outgoing 
message, and mail has no flag for setting the subject field.

I can fix this so it'll work from a Digital UNIX box, but would prefer a 
portable solution if it's out there.  Thanks.

- --Mohammed  (*grin*)

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:57:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 117 (fnord)

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Call for Criminal Judgement 117
> >   Subject:  Illegal *pinging*
> > Initiator:  ThinMan
> >     Judge:  fnord (selected Oct 26, 1996, 00:13 EDT)
> > Judgement:
> 
> > Recommended Penalty:
> > 
> > 1 day in Gaol
> 
> If this is judged TRUE, hopefully the judge can find a more lenient
> penalty than a stay in Gaol.  Those of us who have been attempting
> to decipher the Truth would not wish it revealed over a technicality
> such as this, as will occur, of course, when the scholar is placed in
> gaol.

Unfortunately, a TRUE verdict, regardless of sentence, will result in the 
Truth beign revealed.  The Machine rule states:

Should a CFCJ ever find that the current Scholar has violated any part of 
this rule during the current Scholar's term, the Machine immediately 
randomly teleports itself to another active player's Home.

Really, I can see two ways to keep this Truth alive.
1) CSR -- although this would be a very unorthodox use of that office
2) Stonewalling the CFJ until a proposal comes along to change the rule 
concerning a malfeasant Scholar

Personally, I am perfectly comfortable going to Gaol; I did fail the 
duties of the Scholar.  I do, however, believe the rule needs to be 
tweaked to be more lenient in situations like this.  A little sub-game 
shouldn't require a player to pay more attention to his computer than a 
functional office.  Perhaps expanding the period in which a *ping* can be 
posted?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 19:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Programming question

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> I know this isn't the forum for it, but how exactly should a non-priveleged 
> user on a UNIX go about sending mail from a script -- portably?  I can
> 
> 	crank out garbage | mail user
> 
> but I would like to be able to include a Subject line in the outgoing 
> message, and mail has no flag for setting the subject field.
> 
Your version of mail doesn't have an -s switch?

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

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 19:06:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 117 (fnord)

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Malenkai wrote:
> >
> > > Call for Criminal Judgement 117
> > >   Subject:  Illegal *pinging*
> > > Initiator:  ThinMan
> > >     Judge:  fnord (selected Oct 26, 1996, 00:13 EDT)
> > > Judgement:
> >
> > > Recommended Penalty:
> > >
> > > 1 day in Gaol
> > 
> Unfortunately, a TRUE verdict, regardless of sentence, will result in the
> Truth beign revealed.  The Machine rule states:
> 
> Should a CFCJ ever find that the current Scholar has violated any part of
> this rule during the current Scholar's term, the Machine immediately
> randomly teleports itself to another active player's Home.
> 
> Really, I can see two ways to keep this Truth alive.

A third way is to retract the CFCJ.  This CFCJ adds less value to the
game, IMO, than the machine sub-game does, especially for something
this petty.

I believe if we start calling CFCJs every time an officer is late with
something, it will detract from the game.

> Perhaps expanding the period in which a *ping* can be posted?

I believe this is one of those things that cannot be legislated.  If
you want, I can start calling CFCJs every time someone breaks the rules,
and you will see my point.  I does bother me (not that people break the
rules so much, as there is alot of work to do) that we do not have a
solution.  Perhaps finding one will be fun.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:13:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Programming question

> Your version of mail doesn't have an -s switch?
	*scowl*  I -knew- it was supposed to have an -s switch!  That's 
the way I wrote the script the first time:

	$bot < infile.$$ | mail -s "Bot Reply"

But the DEC version of mail doesn't have an -s switch.

1 - ~/nomic/c > mail -s puree
usage:  binmail [-epqbhr] [-f file]
    or  binmail [-d] [-r name] [-h N] user ...
64 - ~/nomic/c >

Freakish.

- --Mohammed
(loves unix; hates dec)

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:00:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1347 Passes

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > This phrasing allows for a cry-wolf style abuse.
> > I can just anounce that I am going on vacation in three days, not go on
> > vacation, and keep doing so every three days, thus remaining Untouchable
> > for as long as I don't lose count. This was not possible under the
> > original phrasing of the rule.
> 
> The original phrasing of the rule was indecipherable by me, who had
No due to poor writing skills, though.

> to do the work to manage it.  This phrasing makes less work for me,
> and gives me more time to enjoy the nomic. 
> 
> You have the same problem in Synod.  The way it is worded makes more work
> for me than necessary.  I pointed out both problems in RFC, yet none of
> the changes made it into the final version.

Not so. I explicitly assigned the duties related to the Synod to the
Yor-Delegate. This means _no_ work for you.
Since this is the case, what ever duties exist should matter very little
to you, since they are not the Speaker's duties, and certainly no one can
force to become a Delegate, should the proposal pass, and if there ever is
a sufficient number of Churches.
 > 
> If you really think someone is going to do this, and I don't think 
> anyone will, just to avoid a 6 point duel, propose an amendment.

Acka voted. This is not a significant enough matter for me.
> 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:17:29 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Thinking up algorithms is not creating wealth, it's just another way of
> > shifting it around. 
> 	I don't understand.  From whom is the wealth shifted when a new idea 
> appears?  It seems to me that an idea is a form of wealth, whereas a 
> headache is not.  So when a person spends an hour thinking up or refines a 
> new idea instead of hitting himself in the forehead with a hammer, 
> doesn't that person end up with wealth that he wouldn't have otherwise?
> 	It seems to me like you're saying that the person who spends his
> hour thinking is transferring the wealth inherent in the new idea from
> someone else (from whom?); and the person who ends up with a headache is
> transferring wealth to someone else (to whom?). 

I'm not saying anything of the kind. There is one form of cost which you
all seem to be avoiding. The cost of personal maintenance. 
One would not be able to sit in one's couch and think up new algorithms,
if one were not investing energy and capital in one's maintenance. 
Surely, you might counter, one who is also thinking of nothing at all also
invests in one's own maintenance, should not that person be rewarded for
eir empty thoughts as much as Thinker-of-Algorithms. No. That is where
supply and demand come in to play, there are many more who think of
nothing significant than there are Thinkers-of-Algorithms (someone should
put that on their business cards), and that is why more capital is shifted
towards Thinkers-of-Algorithms than towards those who do not think of
algorithms.

There is yet another investment which you are ignoring. The time and money
required to acquire the skill necessary to become one who gets paid for
thiking of algorithms. That is an initial investment, which is paid back
long before one's usefulness as Thinker-of-Algorithms expires. However, in
order for one to keep one's self in the market, one must stay up to date,
a set of activities which require further investment.

Niccolo Flychuck
Thinker-of-Algorithms

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:57:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Not even an RFC, thinking of algorithms

> I'm not saying anything of the kind. There is one form of cost which you
> all seem to be avoiding. The cost of personal maintenance. 
	I think I see.  However, even if it is the laws of supply and 
demand that actually create the wealth here (the algorithm-thinker is 
rarer and more in demand than the masochist), the fact remains that 
wealth is created where there was a comparatively insignificant amount of 
it before.
	The only way I can see out of the argument I just made is to say
that no wealth is generated in either case; it is simply converted from
one type to another.  In the algorithm-thinker's case, it is converted
from time and money into algorithms (with the catalysts of shelter and
peace).  In the masochist's case, it is converted from time into pain
(with the catalyst of a hammer). 
	To that counter-argument I would reply that pain is a relatively
worthless kind of wealth (to put it wryly).  A theory of economics based
on the belief that pain is equal in worth to a new idea is, as far as I
can see, hopelessly abstract.

	To say that wealth is conserved is to use the word "wealth" in a
way that doesn't match with it's normal English definition.
	To me, it seems analogous to saying that energy is conserved to a
runner who doesn't know Newtonian physics.  The runner will respond, "So
when I'm full of energy at noon and then run ten kilometers and am
exhausted, where does the energy go?"  At which point you can reply that
it is converted to kinetic energy (which is then quickly dissipated 
through friction), but it won't mean anything to the runner, because to 
her the energy is simply used up (after all, it won't come back.)  You 
take a formal definition of "energy"; she takes a colloquial one.
	Is "wealth", as used in economics, generally used to represent 
the mere existence of a resource, regardless of how much humans in an 
economy consider it to be worth?  If so, then my misunderstanding comes 
from the fact that I was taking a colloquial definition of "wealth" while 
you took a formal one.  If not, I must continue to take issue with the idea 
that wealth is conserved.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 23:23:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Winning, Wealth, etc

Malenkai wrote:
> Guy Fawkes wrote:
> > 
> > Speaking of the Whamiol, when was the last time we had a new player that
> > actually joined the game?  Was it Uncle Sam?
> 
> That information is on the speaker page.  I do not know it off the
> top of my head, but it is less than 30 days.

I disagree.

According to my records, skinny did become active, and joined the game
on Sep 16, 12:40 EDT.  Uncle Sam joined on Sep 14, 04:06 EDT.

Dagny joined on Sep 22 and PapaSmurf on Oct 2, but neither ever became
active.

My first record of skinny having voted is on P1207, which was reported
on Sep 18, 11:08 EDT.  Uncle Sam also first voted on that proposal.
Both were still marked as new players on P1206 at Sep 17, 9:49 EDT.
This narrows it down to a little more than a day.  Not having any
better knowledge, I am going to call Sep 18, 11:08 EDT the time that
the last new player became active.  Thus, the first Whamiol hit
Habeous Corpus for a point on Oct 18, 11:08 EDT, and again on Oct 20,
22, 24, and 26 at that time.

When the second Whamiol was auctioned, no players had become active for
30 days, so it immediately hit Habeous for a point at Oct 24, 23:33 EDT,
and did so again on Oct 26 at that time.

The score changes in this message all occurred within the last 14 days,
so they can be applied retroactively as per Rule 1089.2 section 6c.
The first three points deducted by the first Whamiol were deducted
during the previous cycle.  

On October 16th, the blueprint for the Whamiol was changed to:

      Whenever a new Player enters the game and becomes an active player,
      the Whamiol will increase the score of it's owner by fifteen points
      (effective the time it is publically knowable the new player is an
      active player). If no new players become active for a period equal
      to or exceeding 30 days, the Whamiol will become anxious and
      subtract one point from it's owners score once every two days until
      such time as a new player joins the game and becomes active.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #314
*******************************