Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #323
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, October 31 1996      Volume 01 : Number 323

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:31:23 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 316 (Niccolo)

Niccolo Flychuck has been picked for CFJ 316.  

What ever happened to that poll question from April that asked
where our acka names came from?

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 316
  Subject: Creating Rule Suites
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Oct 31, 1996, 01:31h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Proposal 1369 created three new rules, numbered 1369, 1369.1, and 1369.2.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

The statement that the rule is to become part of a Rule Suite is a
method of assigning that rule a number, and thus the proposal only
created one rule that it did not assign a number to, and thus
the third paragraph of Rule 642 did not kick in.

(If this is false, then rule 1369 just created three rules, numbered
1369.1, 1369.2, and 1369.3, and did not succeed in creating a rule suite,
and rule 642 needs to be fixed.  There are actually two ways it can be
false -- either stating a new rule is to be part of a rule suite does
not count as numbering it, or that R642 will still number a rule as X.1
if it is the only rule that a proposal did not specify a number for,
but the proposal created other rules.)

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 08:43:10 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 316 (Niccolo)

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck has been picked for CFJ 316.  

I Accept this one. Looks interesting.

> 
> What ever happened to that poll question from April that asked
> where our acka names came from?

Before the deadline on that poll, the poll rule was repealed.
You can conduct it informally, though.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 08:43:10 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 316 (Niccolo)

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck has been picked for CFJ 316.  

I Accept this one. Looks interesting.

> 
> What ever happened to that poll question from April that asked
> where our acka names came from?

Before the deadline on that poll, the poll rule was repealed.
You can conduct it informally, though.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:22:26 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New Blueprint

Blueprint for Holy Water

When sprinkled upon an Enlightened player, Holy Water manipulates said
player by stripping them of their enlightened status.  However, it may not
be used by just anyone. The person using it must

1) be it's owner
2) be unEnlightened
3) be wearing a prosthetic forehead of rightousness (which is a prosthetic
forehead created for the specific purpose of wearing while using Holy
Water.  It's description must note the fact that it is a prosthetic
forehead of rightousness).

or the holy water will simply fizzle and Phhht!.  Holy Water may only be
used once.  After its use (succesful or not) it will be destroyed.

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:24:37 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Wings

I am spending some my hard earned A$ to purchase a set of wings.  May I
never dangle.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:31:34 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Tabulator stuff 

ThinMan was concerned that I may have miscast his vote on P1370.  I checked
my votes file and found the following:

>#vote 1370 y

so the voting results for P1370 remain unchanged.  I have been sending
reciepts on votes to a couple of players.  Would it be best if I sent
reciepts to everyone upon logging eir votes? If you would like a reciept
upon my logging your of your votes, please request it with your next votes
(and I'll make a note of it).

Also Bribes:

Malenkai was correct.  He did not bribe A$5.  Instead Guy Fawkes bribed
A$10, as did I.  This was my mistake.  I had opened Guy Fawkes sealed bribe
before heading off to the funeral but didn't get around to marking it.
When i returned I opened up the wrong bribe (but was still thinking of the
right proposal).  Sorry for the confusion.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:43:54 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Tower

Do the rules require me to post this?

I thank the senate for approving my plan for the Tower Of Bandwidth.  I
feel they have made the correct decision and I hope that all ackanomians
will look proudly upon this fine wool tower.

I am spending A$120 to build the Tower of Bandwidth, as described in my
pan submitted to the senate.  Come January, in year two of our nomic, I
hope to add another 40 meters.  

I gaze proudly upon my tower, and read in it's wool the text of my first
words uttered upon enetering ackanomic.  Boy have we come a long way.

snowgod
proud

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:49:29 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Wanted to Buy

I would like to purchase all the common land in ackanomic.  I will pay
A$250 for this land.  This deal will be accepted upon the aproval ofat
least two senators. 

And of course, I am offering a substantial gift of land to any senator who
aproves this transaction (upon acceptance of course).

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:53:20 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Wanted to Rent

I would like to rent a Whamiol from Habeous Corpus.

Terms are negotiable

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:07:22 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Forheads away

Rently I began recieving anonymous mail.  The notes were criptic but they
often contained overt threats against my original (I palindrom I)
forehead. "Give me A$1,000,0 or your forehead get's it!" they said.

Well, my initial reaction was to ignore the extortionist.  After all, how
can you harm a forehead?  But then my cautious side kicked it... what if
they know something i don't?  What if they can harm my prized forehead?
Just to be on the safe side, I decide to bury my forehead where no one
will find it and it can't be harmed.

So I create a treasure map, but being absent minded I immediatly forget
almost all of it.  All of it except for the bit about how the forehead
absolutly cannot be found as long as heretics can become enlightened.  The
forehead will remain safe until such time as there is no more
enlightenment and, umm, I can't remember.

snowgod
who has safely buried his forehead

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:12:33 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 315 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:

>> CFJ 315 is judged TRUE

[...]

>I'm very tempted to appeal this, but rather, since my case is not
>airtight, and does not merit the risk of 25 points, perhaps ThinMan
>or the Supreme Court (or anyone) could comment on the following
>reasoning:

Gladly.
>
>The game of Grab-a-Donkey, its equipment (the donkeys), and the act
>of playing Grab-a-Donkey are protected entities and actions, respectively.

No argument there.
>
>The first 2 paragraphs of R 592 prohibit the manipulation described in
>the CFJs statement, but then there is the "Trombone" clause of R 592:
>
>> Manipulation of a protected entitiy is permissable if such manipulation
>> is not explicitly regulated by the rules, and such manipulation would
>> not have a material effect on the game. In other words, the game state
>> must be the same after the manipulation as it would have been had the
>> manipulation not occurred.
>
>The first sentence is clear.  In this case, manipulation of donkeys
>*is* explicitly regulated by R 1276, therefore the Trombone clause
>does not apply to grabbing ones own donkey, thus grabbing ones own
>donkey is a protected action (or manipulation of a protected entity),
>and prohibited by R 592, thus R 115 does not apply.

And there's the problem.  According to my reading, the
manipulation of donkeys is not in the slightest regulated
by R1276.  Please read it carefully.  R1276 defines what
manipulations of the donkeys constitute grab-a-donkey
moves (Section B).  The rest of R1276 defines the results
of the combination of donkey manipulations.  R1276 never
says that a player must perform one of the specified
manipulations, nor that a player is forbidden from performing
any other manipulation.  I see no way to characterize the
provisions of R1276 as explicitly regulating donkey
manipulation; in fact, with the wording actually used in
R1276, section B, I don't even think there's a good case
for implicit regulation.

As I pointed out in my judgement, grabbing one's own
donkey is not a grab-a-donkey move.  It therefore has no
material effect on the game, and does, in fact, come under
the "Trombone clause" of R592.
>
>Somehow I feel the case for FALSE would be stronger if the CFJs statement
>were "It is legal to grab one's own donkey in the Game of Grab-a-Donkey",
>but I still think FALSE was warranted in this case as well, as there is
>no reason to believe that R 1276 donkeys do not scope to beyond R 1276,
>leaving open the possibility of R 115 donkeys for those who R 1276 
>doesn't happen to apply at any moment in time :)

The best CFJ statement that I can think of for this situation is:
"To grab one's own donkey is a legal Grab-a-Donkey move."
The differences between this and Malenkai's suggested statement
are purely cosmetic.  If the statement had been either of those,
then FALSE would have been indicated, as I hope I made clear in
my reasoning.  As for the scope of R 1276, I think you are focusing
on the wrong thing.  Certainly R 1276 donkeys have scope beyond
R 1276, but R 1276 does nothing to regulate donkeys except giving
them (default) protection.  It is carefully, and perhaps deliberately,
phrased so that almost all it does is define the results of various
actions.

ThinMan
Bronze Torch Holder
wearing the Purple Robe of Justice

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:37:57 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financier's Job

It is with some sadness that I realize that I really don't have the time
to do a good job of taking care of the Financier's office.  Even with
Malenkai's very substantial help, I have trouble finding the time to
handle things.  I refuse, however, to simply resign and stick Malenkai
with
everything.  Therefore, if anyone volunteers to fill the position then I
will
first appoint them as an assistant and then resign; presumably the
President
will appoint the volunteer to fill the job.

If there are no volunteers, then I will continue as I have been.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:28:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Thursday, the 31st 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* 13 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

Get those magic letter guesses in!

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:30:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1388

Proposal 1388 -- Thu 31 Oct 9:26 CST 1996
New Bribing World Order
/dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)

{{[ This is an attempt to rewrite Rule 793 in a way that works better,
while changing the effect when a proposal changes the proposal-triggered
rules to a 1089.2-like form in all cases, including those which do not
involve points.

The Underworld is gone, but the idea is still interesting, IMHO. ]}}

{{ [In memory of Wayne, without whom I would never have thought of
    this idea, and whose undead is currently penniless.]
    A$1 is transferred from /dev/joe to the Treasury, and the undead
    named Wayne begins haunting it. }}

Amend rule 793 by changing its name to "Proposal Bribery", and changing
its text to read, in full:

I. The Right to Fair Voting
A proposal is invalid if it contains one or more rule changes that
discriminate in any way between players based on their voting actions
on that proposal, or any other specific proposal or proposals
identified in the proposal.  Effects that depend on the way players
vote are allowed if they apply to all proposals, or to all proposals
in one or more classes previously defined by the rules. [This would
be modest proposals, harfy proposals, etc.]  This section defers to
section IV of this rule.

II. Voting Actions
The following are voting actions:
  A.  Casting a YES, NO, or PRESENT vote by rule 390.
  B.  Bribing Tammany by rule 554.
  C.  Being part of a political party that gets a unity vote.
Other actions may be designated by the rules to be voting actions.

III. Effects Triggered on Changing the Triggering Rules
If a proposal adds, changes, or repeals rules that generate effects
or cause some entity to generate effects (including but not limited
to score changes) based on the way players vote, then those rules
generate no effects based on the way players vote on that particular
proposal.  This section of this rule takes precedence over all other
mutable rules which generate effects based on the way players vote
on proposals, but defers to the following paragraph.

IV. Bribes
  A. A proposal may include a Bribe section, which must be in a separate
     paragraph before any of the rule changes in a proposal, beginning with
     the word "Bribe" and a colon [as in "Bribe: A$1"].  Any Bribe which
     violates any of the rules regarding Bribes is invalid.

  B. Bribes may only cause the transfer of tradeable entities from the 
     author of the proposal to players who voted YES on the proposal;
     a Bribe need not specify that the entities come from the author of
     the proposal, since it is assumed.

  C. If a proposal does not specify a condition for receiving its Bribe,
     then every player who votes YES on the proposal is eligible to receive
     the Bribe.  A Bribe may specify further conditions, and may offer
     different amounts to different players, or based on different conditions
     [I.e., extra bribes can be given to players whose parties generate
     unity votes], but any conditions in the Bribe must be determinable when
     the voting results are posted.

V. Processing Bribes
  A. When the voting results for a proposal containing a Bribe section are
     posted, if the amount(s) specified by the Bribe cannot be transferred
     from the proposal's author to all eligible players, based on the
     conditions stated in the Bribe, the Bribe is invalid.

  B. The required number of YES votes for a proposal containing an invalid
     bribe to be accepted is one more than the total number of YES and NO
     votes legally cast within the prescribed voting period.  This
     paragraph takes precedence over rule 581.
     {{ [This ensures that they will fail.  Other ways that I wanted to
         do this would have conflicted with an immutable rule.] }}

  C. When the voting results for a proposal containing an invalid Bribe
     are posted, the author of that proposal loses 15 points, and no other
     mutable rules that generate score changes or other effects when a
     proposal is rejected trigger any effects for that proposal; this
     takes precedence over any such rules.

  D. When the voting results for a proposal containing a valid Bribe are
     posted, the amount(s) specified by the Bribe are transferred from
     the proposal's author to all eligible players, based on the
     conditions stated in the Bribe.

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:30:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1389

Proposal 1389 -- Thu 31 Oct 9:27 CST 1996
One more thing about Otzma
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest Proposal.

Ammend R1369.1 "Defintion of Otzma Cards" in the following ways:

Section V 8 shall read in full:
" A Player can only use an Otzma Card that e owns. "

The first sentence of section V 10 shall read:
" When a player has used an Otzma Card in a public forum, e may        
     not use another Otzma Card in a public forum for three days."

Append the following text to section V:
"
11.
a. An Otzma Card which is used in the public forum takes effect
immediately if and only if there a Counter-Action defined for a Card of
that type. If a Card is Countered within three days of its having been
played in the public forum, then the Counter-Action is performed.
b. An Otzma Card which is used in the public forum and has no
Counter-Action defined for its type, takes effect three days after its uss
has been anounced, unless it is Countered within those three days. In the
latter case the Countered Card has no effect at all.
c. An Otzma Card can only be Countered by an entity which is explicitly
allowed by the rules to Counter an Otzma Card of that type.
"
- ---------------------------------------
Ammend the fule "Otzma Card Type Go Fish to read in full:
"

     1. This rule defines an Otzma Card type called 'Go Fish'
     2. An Otzma Card of type 'Go Fish' can be used in the following
     ways:
     a. In a public forum it can be used to Counter any other Otzma
     Card, in accordance with the rules.
     The player who plays the Go Fish Card
     plays the Card by anouncing that e is playing it, and which Card
     it is being used on. The anouncement must non-ambigous.
     b. When used on proposals. A player can use a Go Fish card on a
     proposal by sending a message to that effect to the tabulator.
     When a Go Fish Card is used on a proposal, all other Cards used on
     that proposal have no effect, but they are destroyed anyway. If
     more than one Go Fish Card is used on a proposal, then the effect
     is the same as if one Go Fish Card has been used on a proposal.
     When a Go Fish Card has been used on a proposal, the date of the
     end of the Voting on that Proposal is considered to the date it
     has been used.
     c. A Go Fish Card can be used over another Go Fish Card only if the
     Go Fish Card it is used on has not been used on a Go Fish Card.
     3. Counter-Action: 
	a. If a Go Fish Card was used on a Card that has no Counter-Action
	   defined for it, then the Counter-Action is identical to the
	   effect of the Card is was used on.
	b. If a Go Fish Card was used on a Card that has a Counter-Action
	   defined for it, then the Counter action is as follows:
  	   A new Card is created, its is identical to the type of the 
	   Card the Go Fish Card has been used to Counter, and it is given
	   to the player who played, the Card that was Countered by the 
	   Go Fish Card.
     4. This rule takes precedence over all the rules in the Otzma Card
     Rule Suite.

{{[As Mohammed pointed out, this should make for very 
interesting Otzma Cards]}}

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:31:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1390

Proposal 1390 -- Thu 31 Oct 9:27 CST 1996
Encouraging New Players to Participate
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

Add the following to the end of Rule 207.

For the first three weeks of being a new player (as opposed to a 
returning player) in Ackanomic, a player shall lose only 4 points if one 
of their proposals fails; they shall receive 12 points if one of their 
proposals passes.

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:31:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1391

Proposal -- Thu 31 Oct 9:28 CST 1996
Is Something Missing?
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend the rule entitled ""Definition of Otzma Cards" to add the following
at the end of section I:

"3. The optional office of RuneMaker exists."

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 17:41:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: P1389,1391

These are the reasons I didn't propose more Card types right away :(
Niccolo Flychuck

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal -- Thu 31 Oct 9:28 CST 1996
> Is Something Missing?
> Malenkai (Randy Hall)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Amend the rule entitled ""Definition of Otzma Cards" to add the following
> at the end of section I:
> 
> "3. The optional office of RuneMaker exists."
> 
> 
> 

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Proposal 1389 -- Thu 31 Oct 9:27 CST 1996
> One more thing about Otzma
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:42:43 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Tabulator stuff

snowgod wrote:

>ThinMan was concerned that I may have miscast his vote on P1370.  I checked
>my votes file and found the following:
>
>>#vote 1370 y
>
>so the voting results for P1370 remain unchanged.  I have been sending
>reciepts on votes to a couple of players.

But you recorded the vote as a NO on the report.  This doesn't
affect the Rule's passage, but it does change my score.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:51:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1363 Fails

> 6 YES votes - 4 NO votes - 2 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS
> Proposal 1362 - Sun 20 Oct 7:03 CDT 1996
> In Which We May Be Hearing Things
> Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
	Whoa!  That's funny; I expected this to pass, somehow.
	Does anyone want to comment on this?  HC? mc? NF?  Malenkai did 
point some stuff out and I know he doesn't like changing old rules... 
*shrug* anyway.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:11:00 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Old Poll

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

>
>What ever happened to that poll question from April that asked
>where our acka names came from?
>

I think the answers disappeared with Simon Marty Harriman.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:36:59 -0500 (EST)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Blueprint

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Blueprint for Holy Water
> 
> When sprinkled upon an Enlightened player, Holy Water manipulates said
> player by stripping them of their enlightened status.  However, it may not
> 
Isn't this stuff Unholy Water?  Or are you making some vieled reference to
your feelings on the shape of the Earth? ;)

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:39:26 -0500 (EST)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacating.

I am going on vacation starting now, I reckon.  I will probably still be
reading my mail, but I'm actually leaving town, so I want to cover my bases.

Expected return Tuesday Nov. 5.

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:38:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 315 Verdict

Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> And there's the problem.  According to my reading, the
> manipulation of donkeys is not in the slightest regulated
> by R1276.  Please read it carefully.  R1276 defines what
> manipulations of the donkeys constitute grab-a-donkey
> moves (Section B). 

And there is the difference in reading.  My reading indicates
covering ones donkey is a manipulation that is explicitly
regulated by R 1276.  Furthermore, this manipluation can have
a material effect on the game state.

Given these two facts, R 592's Trombone clause does not enter
into the picture.

Malenkai
Bronze Torch holder
ex-Justice
has a longer sig file than ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:38:56 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> Today is Thursday, the 31st 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* 13 times.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> Scholar of *ping*
> 
> Get those magic letter guesses in!

Give me an "S" please

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:41:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1363 Fails

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > 6 YES votes - 4 NO votes - 2 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS
> > Proposal 1362 - Sun 20 Oct 7:03 CDT 1996
> > In Which We May Be Hearing Things
> > Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
>         Whoa!  That's funny; I expected this to pass, somehow.
>         Does anyone want to comment on this?  HC? mc? NF?  Malenkai did
> point some stuff out and I know he doesn't like changing old rules...
> *shrug* anyway.
> 
> --Mohammed

I did not like that a hearing ended at the end of a cycle.  Its
more work for me, oddly enough.  I like everything to be 3 days.

The end of the cycle generally creates more work for the speaker
anyway, I did not want 3 hearings ending at the same time.

Also, I like the way the rules are worded currently in this area.
Had it not been for the first objection, I would have voted present,
though.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:48:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financier's Job

Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> It is with some sadness that I realize that I really don't have the time
> to do a good job of taking care of the Financier's office. 

I will probably volunteer, but I have to think about it, as it is
alot of work.

If someone else who does not have a F.O. has the time to do the job,
then I would ask them to consider volunteering.  I will wait three days
to see if someone else can do it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 13:01:57 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 315 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:

>And there is the difference in reading.  My reading indicates
>covering ones donkey is a manipulation that is explicitly
>regulated by R 1276.  Furthermore, this manipluation can have
>a material effect on the game state.

Can you expound on that a little?  I really don't understand
how you are reading regulation into the situation.  The fact that
the action in question has an indirect game effect is not sufficient
for me to call it regulated.
>
>Malenkai
>Bronze Torch holder
>ex-Justice
>has a longer sig file than ThinMan

ThinMan
Bronze Torch Holder
wearing the Purple Robe of Justice
Supreme Court second-stringer
playing "Dueling sig files"

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 13:22:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 317 (Calvin N Hobbes)

Calvin N Hobbes has been picked for CFJ 317.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 317
  Subject: Nice try, snowgod
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Oct 31, 1996, 13:21h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

The Blueprint for "Holy Water" made public on Oct 31, 1996, is in 
conflict with R 729.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The Blueprint seems to imply that "Enlighenment" is an attribute that
is conferred to a player upon a particular event occurring, much like
receiving points or the title of Belt Holder, and as such, is detached
from the actual event that conferred it.  Therefore, so the Blueprint's
rationale goes, it can be removed, much as points or the title of 
Belt Holder could be.

In the case of R 729, however, I am going to argue that Enlighenment is
a condition held in force continiously by rule, and is *not* detached
from the rule-based condition that holds it in sway, and thus the action
of the blueprint that claims to remove Enlightenment is in conflict with
R 729.

From R 729:
 
> Any player who has been burned as a heretic exactly once is considered
> Enlightened

This rule does not confer an attribute or title of Enlightenment, it
continiously says, as long as the condition remains true, that the
player is Enlighened.  Thus, by rule, a player who has been burned 
exactly once as a heretic (and as long as this truth remains so) has
this condition of Enlightenment continuosly imposed upon them by the
rules, whether they want it or not.

The Blueprint in question does not remove this condition, therefore its
attempt to remove the resultant Enlightenment is in conflict with R 729.

Were rule 729 worded

> Upon being burned as a heretic for the first time, the player is
> conferred the title of Enlightened One.

the Blueprint would not be in conflict (on this count, anyway).  It is
a fine distinction, and I ask the judge to consider it.

I note on a verdict of TRUE, the Blueprint and all Gadgets made from
it are destroyed in accordance with R 594.

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 13:47:49 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official: Bond Yields 

Here are the bond yields for the cycle that ended at noon 10/28/96:

Yield per bond:

PFdev      .12
PFBreadbo  .06
PFBrinjal  .12
PFfnord    .03
PFGuy      .21
PFHabeous  .10
PFMalenka  .71
PFMohamme  .06
PFmr       .03
PFNiccolo  .15
PFsnowgod -.01
PFThinMan  .09
(all others zero)

Dividends:

/dev/joe            +12 = +12
breadbox             +6 = +6
Brinjal             +12 = +12
fnord                +3 = +7
Guy Fawkes +16 +3 +5 -0 = +24
Habeous Corpus       +7 = +7
IdiotBoy       +1 -0 +6 = +7
Malenkai         +57 -0 = +57
Mohammed          +5 -0 = +5
mr cwm               +3 = +3
Niccolo Flychuck     +8 = +8
snowgod     -0 +2 +3 +8 = +13
ThinMan           +9 +8 = +17

Only those players who earned dividends are listed.  The sums sake into
account only those PFBonds that yielded dividends (or losses).

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:13:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tabulator stuff

ThinMan wrote:
> snowgod wrote:
> >ThinMan was concerned that I may have miscast his vote on P1370.  I checked
> >my votes file and found the following:
> >
> >>#vote 1370 y
> >
> >so the voting results for P1370 remain unchanged.  I have been sending
> >reciepts on votes to a couple of players.
> 
> But you recorded the vote as a NO on the report.  This doesn't
> affect the Rule's passage, but it does change my score.

ThinMan is correct.  Therefore I have retroactively undone the scoring change
(of +3 points to ThinMan) for his vote on P1370.  His score remains -3,
and he still has his Victory Eggplant.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 17:11:04 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

O masterful Scholar

Does the Truth contain the letter i ?

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:52:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 315 Verdict

Anybody want to make this G&C prop 104?

> >Malenkai
> >Bronze Torch holder
> >ex-Justice
> >has a longer sig file than ThinMan
> 
> ThinMan
> Bronze Torch Holder
> wearing the Purple Robe of Justice
> Supreme Court second-stringer
> playing "Dueling sig files"

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:04:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

Malenkai's magic letter guess was the first valid one submitted.  
IdiotBoy did beat him by a few minutes, but he did so by private mail 
rather than to the public list, and R 1240 stipulates that magic letter 
guesses must be posted publically to be considered.  Please deduct 10 A$ 
from Malenkai's account.

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

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Give me an "S" please
> 
> Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:11:40 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I'm off to Bermuda

(that's not exactly true) (well it's a complete lie actually)

Expected duration of vacation: 7 days

Nobody is allowed to determine the Truth in my absence :)

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:17:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*: RFC

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

Thank you, Malenkai.  I already figured *that* s went there.

RFC: Razzing the Magic Letter Picker

Add to the end of section VII of rule 1240:
"For three days after the scholar posts the updated version of the machine's
truth, any player who feels the player who picked the magic letter chose
poorly may publicly razz that player for his decision, and no politeness
moon may be called in this case.  This takes precedent over rule 400."

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 17:18:12 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: *ping*: RFC

>
>Thank you, Malenkai.  I already figured *that* s went there.

I second that!

>RFC: Razzing the Magic Letter Picker
>
>Add to the end of section VII of rule 1240:
>"For three days after the scholar posts the updated version of the machine's
>truth, any player who feels the player who picked the magic letter chose
>poorly may publicly razz that player for his decision, and no politeness
>moon may be called in this case.  This takes precedent over rule 400."

I'm on board for that.  To be fair to Malenkai, though, this does show
that
there are no _other_ S's.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 17:41:35 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1363 Fails

My primary reason for responding to this is to say that I find
abbreviating a six-keystroke name a bit excessive :) 

But to the point at hand, it didn't seem so bad, but it didn't really seem
like a standardization, as all of the hearings still had different votes
to be submitted.  As long as we were going to have to list "No, e wasn't
polite" somewhere to distinguish it from "BURN THE WITCH!" I figured we
might as well keep the separate listings of procedures, too.  (And I like
the different responses, so trying to remove this objection would probably
make things worse.) 

- -mr cwm

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

>> 6 YES votes - 4 NO votes - 2 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS
>> Proposal 1362 - Sun 20 Oct 7:03 CDT 1996
>> In Which We May Be Hearing Things
>> Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
>	Whoa!  That's funny; I expected this to pass, somehow.
>	Does anyone want to comment on this?  HC? mc? NF?  Malenkai did 
>point some stuff out and I know he doesn't like changing old rules... 
>*shrug* anyway.
>
>--Mohammed
>

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:43:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

Matt wrote:
> 
> O masterful Scholar
> 
> Does the Truth contain the letter i ?
> 
> Bascule

The timestamp on my magic letter guess was 12:38 -0500, but it hit the
forum first.  Could the unofficial timekeeper :) verify which e-mail
was actually first.  As I recall, Bascule is in +0100, thus his mailer
not configured properly, and it should be 13:11.  The Scholar should wait
until this is sorted out.

This stuff is important, ya know.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:35:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 315 Verdict

Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> 
> >And there is the difference in reading.  My reading indicates
> >covering ones donkey is a manipulation that is explicitly
> >regulated by R 1276.  Furthermore, this manipluation can have
> >a material effect on the game state.
> 
> Can you expound on that a little?  I really don't understand
> how you are reading regulation into the situation.  The fact that
> the action in question has an indirect game effect is not sufficient
> for me to call it regulated.

I think we've agreed that if R 1276 explicitly regulates donkey
manipulation, FALSE was indicated, and it boils down to haggling over
"explicit regulation" and whether the Trombone clause kicks in, which
is the difference in opinion, hence the difference in verdict.

To my reading, covering your donkey does not have an "indirect"
effect on the game state, but a "possible" effect.  Covering my
donkey *may* lead to three points for a player.  Failing to do so
*may*, as well.  It seems a cop out to say it is explicitly
regulated in any thread where manipulation or non-manipulation in the
way specified by the rules actually changes the game state.  The playing
of Grab-a-Donkey necessarily affects the game state of Acka, even if
the game is a draw, so to distinguish exactly which instances of
donkey manipulation affect the game state seems like too much hair
splitting for me, thus I find that manipulations of the donkeys
are explicitly regulated by R 1276, therefore by R 592 no others are
permitted, even if those others, such as feeding the donkey a piece
of cheesecake, have no effect on the game state.

This last point, which is unfortunate, I suppose, comes about because
of the wording of the first sentence of the Trombone clause of R 592.
The distinction here is not that the manipulation need have no effect
on the game state, but that if the thing is explicitly regulated,
even these null manipulations are illegal.  I believe we agree on that,
just rehashing for the audience, (which may be as null as the 
manipulations).

I worded it that way because of the Gumball, all of whose manipulations
have no effect on the game state, yet some are permitted, and some 
are not.

I must say, I prefer CFJ 315 as unambigiously true, perhaps I will
look into the wording of R 592 again, unless I come to an agreement that
that is not necessary.
  
> ThinMan
> Bronze Torch Holder
> wearing the Purple Robe of Justice
> Supreme Court second-stringer
> playing "Dueling sig files"

Malenkai
Bronze Torch Holder
ex-Justice
Supreme Court second-stringer
Clerk of the Courts
Has never had a verdict overturned (I don't think, anyway)

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

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 20:16:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

It's entirely possible that his mailer _is_ correctly configured, and his 
mail daemon just had an incredible backlog at the time.  However, 
Malenkai's submission was the first valid one I _received_, which is the 
criterion specified in the rules, not the first one sent out.

Guy Fawkes

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> The timestamp on my magic letter guess was 12:38 -0500, but it hit the
> forum first.  Could the unofficial timekeeper :) verify which e-mail
> was actually first.  As I recall, Bascule is in +0100, thus his mailer
> not configured properly, and it should be 13:11.  The Scholar should wait
> until this is sorted out.
> 
> This stuff is important, ya know.
> 
> Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #323
*******************************