Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #330
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, November 3 1996       Volume 01 : Number 330

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 22:08:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RFC -- preemtive strikes

> > Ackan mathematics are identical to standard mathematics in all respects
> > except as follows:
> > 
> > The indeterminate form 0/0 shall be considered to have a value of zero.
> 
> If you are going to do this, make 0^0 = 1 as well.  It always bothered
> me that this is undefined.

Ugh, no! If you're going to collapse 0^0, make it equal to 0.

But actually, I'd prefer it if you left it alone. I happen to like the
indeterminate forms.

May I suggest that you reword the proposal slightly? Viz:

  If a rule requires the evaluation of the indeterminate form 0/0, it
  shall be considered to have a value of 0 for the purposes of that
  rule.

As it stands, it's a little too much like the senators that considered
passing a law making pi equal to 3.

On the other hand, the Hearing proposal would also make this
unnecessary.

b

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

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 01:07:24 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rental

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I hereby ack snowgod's offer on my first Whamiol
> 
> Habeous Corpus

OK, could someone please unambigiously post the terms of this rental
agreement.

Sorry, I seem to have a block on this.  It seems to me the terms are:

snowgod rents Habeous Corpus's first Whamiol for A$15, term 7 days,
beginning Sun Nov 03, 00:56 EST.

Is this correct?

Thanks
Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 22:22:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Internomic

> The following information has come across the wire:
> 
> Internomic Proposal 309 passed.  Ackanomic, Thring, and Agora vote FOR.
> Ackanomic gains two points for the passage of this proposal.
> 
> Standings:
> Agora, Thring and Imperial Nomic 14 have zero points
> Ackanomic has 2 points.  Let's celebrate!

I am so very happy that this Internomic proposal has been approved.
I wish to publically thank our esteemed ambassador, who rewrote my
first draft and encouraged its submission.

Ackanomians, we are the first nomic to have a positive Internomic
score! An appropriate time for a parade. Can we start getting drunk
yet?

b

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

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 22:42:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: suction cups

> In accordance with R 1349, Calvin N Hobbes's house has lost its
> suction cups, and is now dangling.

I leave my home to stand outsider near where Calvin N Hobbes house
used to be attached, in order to gawk and to make myself useful, such
as shouting out: "Calvin! Are you in there! Can you hear me! Are you
all right!"

b

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 01:39:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: suction cups

> > In accordance with R 1349, Calvin N Hobbes's house has lost its
> > suction cups, and is now dangling.
> 
> I leave my home to stand outsider near where Calvin N Hobbes house
> used to be attached, in order to gawk and to make myself useful, such
> as shouting out: "Calvin! Are you in there! Can you hear me! Are you
> all right!"

Three players without extra heads will have to buy wings before his
house can be re-attached.  I'm willing to help if Calvin N Hobbes
pays me the cost of my wings, but otherwise I'd rather not -- I'm
waiting for the extra arm mutation so I can have one of those and
an extra head, a la Zaphod Beeblebrox, and having wings will preclude
the possibility of someday having an extra head.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 11:35:08 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: G & C 103

I've got four endorsements for this one, and according to my calculation
there are apporx. four hours till the deadline.

Here's the list of endorsement I've got:
Malenkai
Bascule
Niccolo Flychuck
Snowgod

Let me know if I've missed anyone, or post to the list. Only takes one
more name to make this into a game
Niccolo Flychcuck
GamesMaster

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 02:38:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: G & C 103

> I've got four endorsements for this one, and according to my calculation
> there are apporx. four hours till the deadline.
> 
> Here's the list of endorsement I've got:
> Malenkai
> Bascule
> Niccolo Flychuck
> Snowgod

I endorse G & C 103.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:44:35 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: PartyChess colors

I've replaced the color scheme on the PartyChess web-page with the
previously alternate color scheme, so now the earlier color scheme is on
http://www.actcom.co.il/PartyChess/index6.html 
and the new one (no greens) is on the PartyChess web-page

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:02:48 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: G & C 103 - Financier

Proposal G & C 103 has been accepted.

In my opinion this game is suitable for a Duel, and I am giving  A$20
to Guy Fawkes for having authored it.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > I've got four endorsements for this one, and according to my calculation
> > there are apporx. four hours till the deadline.
> > 
> > Here's the list of endorsement I've got:
> > Malenkai
> > Bascule
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > Snowgod
> 
> I endorse G & C 103.
> 
> breadbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 03:05:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: I love a parade

I hate being the first one to start drinking - it makes me feel like
a lush - but hey, I'm in a mood to celebrate, and I'm tired of
waiting.

Bartender! Get me, please, one King Alphonse, one Harvey Wallbanger,
and one Internomic Proposal, a drink that I have just invented
(probably after the Harvey Wallbanger), which consists of ginger beer
with a shot of pepper vodka. (My bar tab for this gathering is thus
A$9.)

Since the ability to create R115 entities may be short-lived, I am
going to use this event as an excuse to create a stack of
commemorative coasters, suitable for placing glasses on during a
public gathering. Each coaster depicts a non-Tradeable Ackanomic
entity, upon a background of an Ackanomic building. It is impossible
to see what a given coaster depicts until it is taken from the
stack. My coasters also have the property that they will dissolve into
nothing at the end of the Parade, thus preventing them from becoming
litter. (And also somewhat nullifying their commemorative ability, but
hey. The best things in life are ephemeral.)

I hereby take a coaster from the stack to set my drinks upon. It shows
the Ackanomic Gumball and Calvin n Hobbes' newly-dangling house.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 08:46:58 -0600 (CST)
From: shimmin robert gene <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Sunday, the 3rd day of November, 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* 16 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:37:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 316 Verdict

CFJ 316 has been judged TRUE.

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: TRUE

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.)

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

I started a very long text as why this is true. I like writing those
texts. Then I noticed that my reasoning is essentially the same as
/dev/joe's.  So I'm just going to agree with him.

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

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:40:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal

CFCJ 118 has been appealed by breadox to the supreme court.  His
appeal reasoning is attached to the end.  I must commend him for
putting it in my format exactly :)

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 118
  Subject:  More Illegal Publishing
Initiator:  Mohammed
    Judge:  fnord (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:32 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE
   Appeal:

Statement:

snowgod has broken the rules.

Mohammed's Reasoning:

snowgod published an article in a paper he does not own:  "is".

Rule 482 ("Office of the Financier and Free Market") reads, in part:
- ---
2) An entity is Tradeable if and only if the rules specify that it
is, otherwise it is non-Tradeable. The rules may specify specific
conditions or mechanisms for non-Tradeable entities to be traded or
transferred; this rule defers to any such rules where there is a
conflict. Tradeable entities may only be transferred by methods
described in the rules.
- ---

Rule 891, "The Press", reads:
- ---
     The player that creates a newspaper is said to own that newspaper.
     No player may own more than three newspapers at any one time.
     Newspapers are tradeable. An owner of a newspaper may close it down

[...]
     
     No player may publish articles in a paper she does not own without
     the express permission of the owner.
- ---

Although R891 says that newspapers are tradeable and R482 specifies
how Tradeable entities can be transferred, Rule 891 also says that the
player who creates a newspaper is its owner.

Since snowgod is not the creator of "is", he does not own it, and it
is illegal for him to publish articles in it without permission.

snowgod supposedly managed to purchase the paper from mr cwm, but I
believe that purchase was ineffectual.  Regardless of whether the deal
was legal (and that's a trickly legal point, I guess) it can't have
changed the owner of the newspaper permanently: R891, I believe, would
transfer it right back to mr cwm.

Suggested Penalty:

I recommend a FINE of A$31 from snowgod to the Treasury and a SENTENCE
of 1 day in Gaol for our beloved President.

fnord's Reasoning:

Going by game custom (which I always consider first, though not
necessarily more important), whenever anyone trades something
'tradeable', we have been going on as if the persons in possession of
the items are now the owners of those items.  However, checking the
Rules, most especially R482, it never actually defines that the
players OWN the items they were transferred, merely that they are in
possession of them.

Secondly, from what I have seen throughout the rules, in any instance
where an entity is created, it was created unowned, except in the case
of a newspaper.  In the case of newspapers, it states explicitly who
owns it: the creator.  Later on in the rule it may say that newspapers
are tradeable, but as outlined above, trading does not imply owning.
It then goes on to say that only that owner can write in the
newspaper.

As a result of these Rules, snowgod may currently be in possession of
'is', but he does not own it.  Therefore, he can not publish an
article in it without permission from mr cwm.  Therefore, he indeed
broke the rules, and this CFCJ is ruled TRUE.

Actual Penalty:

snowgod is Fined A$19, payable to the Treasury, and Sentenced to 1 day
in Gaol.  His Fine was reduced A$12 from the Suggested Penalty because
he has already paid mr cwm A$12 for a newspaper he cannot publish.

breadbox's Appeal Reasoning:

fnord and Mohammed have outlined the situation for which ownership and
possession might not be considered to be equivalent. I appreciate
their careful work in examining the rules, but I feel that game custom
essentially requires that we consider the possessor of an object to be
the owner, with renting currently being the sole exception to this (as
per Rule 1323).

fnord points out that objects traded on the Free Market change their
possessor, but the rules do not explicitly specify that the new
possessor also becomes the owner. If we wish to construe this to mean
that the owner in fact does not change, then we need to consider the
case of Rule 1023 as well, which governs Auctions. Section 4 states:

  The Auction shall last for 3 days, after which time the Auctioneer
  shall announce the results, and all A$ and items shall be transferred
  to their new owners.

Note that this sentence does not attempt to alter the ownership of any
items. If possession does not grant ownership, then this sentence only
confers possession of items, specifically to "their new owners."
However, this is the only reference to ownership that appears anywhere
in this rule (besides section 1, which refers only to ownership prior
to an Auction). Now, section 5b does state:

  Let N be the quantity of items up for Auction. The players who
  made the N highest qualified bids shall each receive an item in
  exchange for the amount of A$ they bid.

I think that, again, we can agree that "receiving" an item does confer
"possession." But if possession does not grant ownership, then the
ownership of the auctioned items still has not changed. Ownership is
never explicitly transfered anywhere in this rule. So the previously
quoted sentence of section 4 would seem to indicate (if it would
indicate anything meaningful at all) that the items are transferred to
their current owners, which would be the players that owned them at
the start of the auction - assuming that the items were owned to begin
with.

Taking an interpretation of possession as not being a part of
ownership would thus seem to indicate, for example, that most gadgets
are still in fact unowned, as ownership has never been granted to
their current possessors.

Furthermore: a quick perusal of the rules will show that the only
items in Ackanomic whose rules specifically describe a change of
ownership (as opposed to a change of possession) are the Purple Robe
of Justice, Treasure, and Trinkets. That is, not only are all
Tradeable objects assumed by the rules to confer ownership along with
a change of hands, but nearly all Entities, such as the Chartreuse
Goose, also change possession without the governing rules also
specifying a transfer of ownership.

And yet, despite this, game effects are quite frequently noted as
occuring with respect to the owner of an item. In fact, "owner" and
"possessor" are used interchangeably everywhere in the rules. To use
the Chartreuse Goose as an example, I quote from Rule 1243:

  Let the Chartreuese Goose exist, it is a unique entity.... It may only
  be possessed by one player at a time.... The player possessing the
  Chartreuse Goose is responsible for feeding it. At such time that
  officers' salaries are paid, 4 A$ shall be deducted from the account
  of the player then possessing the Chartreuse Goose.... If this payment
  would force a player to go into debt, the 4 A$ is not paid, but
  instead the Goose becomes grumpy and bites its owner, inflicting a
  2-point penalty.... A player possessing a Chartreuse Goose Egg may
  take the Goose off the hands of any player who possesses it, provided
  the Goose owner agrees to the transaction, and pays a mutually agreed
  upon amount of currency (of at least A$50) to the Treasury. The Egg
  owner will receive from the Treasury the same amount that the Goose
  owner payed in, as compensation.

Since the Goose was originally unowned, if possession of the Goose
does not make one the owner, it would seem that the Chartreuse Goose
does not and has never had an owner (and never will, under the current
ruleset). Such an interpretation renders the consistency of some of
the above sentences as rather debatable. In any case, it certainly
means that we have not being observing the rules correctly.

These same types of problems are present in the rules governing nearly
all of the Gadgets (Whamiols, Electronic Potatoes, etc, confer game
effect upon their owners, not their possessors), many of the entities
defined by the rules (Prosthetic Foreheads, for example, may only be
worn by their owners), and really just about anything that is
Tradeable (including PFbonds)!

Obviously, it would be almost impossible to go back and reconstruct
the game wherein all items were still being owned by their original
owners (or unowned, as the case may be), and tally up all the game
effects to occur with respect to their owners instead of their
possessors. I submit that the weight of this fact is enough to clearly
establish a game custom, such that wherever the rules grant possession
of an items, they should be interpreted as granting ownership
alongside it (except where explicitly differentiated, as in the case
with the Rental rule).

I would like to point out that it is true that in common English usage
possession does not necessarily imply ownership. But Ackanomic runs
under a different set of constraints than the outside world.
Specifically, it is not possible to steal. (At least, not at the
moment.) Our ruleset, including Rules 482 and 891, has been written
with the assumption that the possessor and owner of an item are one
and the same, and this ancient assumption is the basis for a game
custom.

Given this, I claim that the only reason to find this CFCJ true would
be if snowgod did not in fact purchase the newspaper "is" from mr cwm.
This transaction did in fact occur; it is recorded by a series of
three messages sent to the public forum on October 21. For the sake of
documentation I shall quote the last of these:

  Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:08:56 -0400 (EDT)
  From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
  Subject: Re: Acka: Newspaper for sale, like new, CHEAP!

  I ack this transaction, trading is for A$12 with snowgod.

  - -mr cwm

  On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, snowgod wrote:

  >On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, mr cwm wrote:
  >
  >> For Sale:  One Newspaper, never published.  Has trendy 90's name, "is",
  >> and slight historical significance.  A$20 new, will sacrifice for A$12, 
or
  >> will take two authentic snowgod second presidential election campaign
  >> Prosthetic Foreheads in trade.  Contact mr cwm at [email-masked].
  >
  >Heck, for a price like A$12, how can you go wrong.  Assuming newspapers
  >are tradeable (and I don't have the rules in front of me at the moment) I
  >will gladly purchase your paper.  I'd trade you the foreheads, but I
  >would prefer to keep them as a set until I auction them off (which
  >reminds me - the whamiol was completed yesterday.  Either malenkai or I
  >need to auction it.)
  >
  >snowgod
  >acking the transaction assuming mr cwm does

On the basis of these observations, I humbly request that the Supreme
Court overturn the verdict of CFCJ 118.

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

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:57:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Mhoammed)

Brinjal did not report what Phoebe said.  Her matchbox has
been found by Mohammed.

Oct 03 11:59 EST: -3 Brinjal: did not report what Phoebe said

Malenakai

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

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 11:59:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (Mhoammed)

Malenkai wrote:

> Oct 03 11:59 EST: -3 Brinjal: did not report what Phoebe said

Yeah, that should be Nov.  Sorry.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 12:10:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: G & C 103 - Financier

Uri Bruck wrote:

> In my opinion this game is suitable for a Duel, and I am giving  A$20
> to Guy Fawkes for having authored it.

Alright, last word and example on this subject by me.  This could have
been logged, after your message as:

niccolo -20 misc transfer
guy +20 misc transfer

The format should be different enough from pointlog that A$ is not needed.

Malenkai
pretending to be a financier

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:29:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1409

Proposal 1409 -- Sun 3 Nov 12:27 CST 1996
Praetor Bugfix
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

Amend R 1374, so that section III reads:

"
     III. If a judge or judge-designate should ever be declared a
     deadbeat, the CotC shall select the Praetor as the next Judge for
     the deadbeat's CFJ. If, however, the Praetor's seat is vacant,
     or the Praetor is ineligible to receive the CFJ in the first place
     [e.g., because they initiated it, or it is a CFCJ and the Praetor is
     the defendant], it shall be reassigned as if the deadbeat had actively
     declined judgment.
"

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:30:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1410

Proposal 1410 -- Sun 3 Nov 12:28 CST 1996
Bad Pointer Reference
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

This is a Modest proposal.

Create a new rule reading:

{{
     1) If proposal 1399 was accepted, amend R 1206 to remove all
occurrances of the following sentence:

     "This sub-section has precedence over R 906."

     2) If proposal 1401 was accepted, amend the third paragraph of 
R 1243 as follows:

        a) replace all occurrances of "4 A$" with "18 A$".
        b) replace all occurrances of "2 point" with "9 point".
     
     3) If proposal 1401 was accepted, amend the fourth paragraph of
R 1243 as follows:

        Replace all occurrances of:

        "If he has paid for the Goose's food or been bitten since the
last time he has treated the Goose to a luxury"

         with:

	"Once per calendar week"

     4) Amend R 1243 to replace all occurrances of "post that he is
spending an additional" in the fourth paragraph with "spend".

}}

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:30:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1411

Proposal 1411 -- Sun 3 Nov 12:28 CST 1996
Taking off the Training Wheels
ThinMan (John Bollinger)

The first sectence of the fifth paragraph of R 592 shall be amended to:

"A manipulation of a protected entitiy is permissable if it is not
explicitly regulated by the rules and would not have a material effect
on the game."

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:30:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1412

Proposal 1412 -- Sun 3 Nov 12:28 CST 1996
More Consolidations
Malenkai (Randy Hall)

Amend R 201 so that its title is "Quorum and Active Players", and
so that its text is:

"
      In a vote on a proposal, the quorum required is that at least 50%
of the active players cast their one vote allowed by rule 390. 

      A player is defined as "active" only if said Player has voted on
a proposal.  Vacationing players who do not vote, however, are not
considered active for the purpose of determining quorum. 
"

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

Repeal R 587,  "Definition of Active Player"

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

Amend R 390 so that its title is "Voting" and so that its text is:

"
      Players may vote either YES, NO, or PRESENT on each proposal, or
choose not to vote on a proposal, which is called abstaining.  Players
who do not vote within the prescribed voting period shall be deemed
to have abstained.  Players may change their vote up until the end of
the prescribed voting period, but in any case are limited to one vote
per proposal.

      The required number of YES votes for a proposal to be accepted
is two-thirds of the total number of YES and NO votes legally cast within
the prescribed voting period.  If that value is 0, however, the required
number of YES votes for acceptance is 1. 

      The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting
from the moment that the proposal is publicly distributed as specified
by the rules.

      Entities may vote only as specified by the rules.  Non-entites may
not vote.
"
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal Rule 463 "Voting Options"
Repeal Rule 485 "The Prescribed Voting Period"
Repeal Rule 581 "Required Number Of Votes"

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

Amend Rule 422 "Required Number Of Points To Win" as follows:

1) Replace the first paragraph with the following text:

"
The Magic Number is the number of points needed to win a cycle by points.
The base value of the Magic Number is 257.  The Magic Number, and its
base value, may only be changed as specified by the rules. 
"

2) Add the following paragraph at the end of the rule:

"
If the score of any player becomes greater than the Magic Number, then
the Magic Number is increased by 16, or to 11 points above the highest
player score, whichever is greater.
" 

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

Amend R 666 so that section k) reads:

"
k) The game cycle number is incremented, and the Magic Number is reset
to its base value.
" 

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

Repeal Rule 866 "No Overshooting"

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

Amend R 423 so that its title is "Retractions", and so that its text
is:
"
      A player may retract their own proposal by publically posting
that they are doing so, so long as the voting results on that proposal
have not been publically announed.  All votes cast on a retracted proposal
shall be ignored.  The player retracting the proposal loses 2 points.
      
      A player may retract their own Call For Judgement (CFJ) by
publically posting that they are doing so, so long as a verdict on
that CFJ has not been delivered.  The player retracting the CFJ
loses 1 point.

      A player may retract their own Miscellaneous Submission by
publically posting that they are doing so, so long as a decision on
the acceptance or rejection of the submission in question is not
publically knowable.  The player retracting the submission loses
1 point.  This section takes precedence over any mutable rule which
would prevent retraction of these entities.  Instances of following,
and nothing else, are Miscellaneous Submissions:
            a) Impeachment Papers
            b) Common Sense Reports
            c) New Games and Contest submissions as described by Rule 1206
"
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal Rule 578, "Retracting CFJ's"

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

Amend R 609 to append the following text at the end of the rule:

"
      (xi)  Effeciency

             Officers have 3 days to complete the tasks and duties they
             are responsible for, not counting any time the officer
             is on vacation or in Gaol, unless other rules unambigiously
             specify a different finite amount of time for these things.
             This section takes precedence over any other mutable rule
             which specifies an unlimited amount of time, does not specify
             an amount of  time, or is unclear in its time specifications
             with regards to the amount of time officers have to
             complete tasks and duties. 

             Officers, in good faith, shall do all tasks and duties
             as quickly as feaseable to keep the game moving along.
"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal Rule 971, "Speed"

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

Create a new rule entitled "I wish renumbering rules was a valid rule
change" which reads:

{{
	Renumber Rule 1365, "Crime" to 713. 
 
        [I was also going to consolidate R 1315 into the FM or A$
         rule as part of this proposal, but it looks like Mohammed is
         going to do that.  I know, this comment has nothing to do with
         renumbering crime, except that I want to renumber crime to be
         with the Gaol/CFCJ stuff]
}}

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

Amend R 491 so that its second sentence reads:

"A rule change is valid if it describes the creation of a new mutable
rule, the amendment of an existing mutable rule, the repeal of an
existing mutable rule, the renumbering of an existing mutable rule,
or a change of the mutability of any rule."

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:31:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1413

Proposal 1413 -- Sun 3 Nov 12:29 CST 1996
No Blind Thomas' Newspapers
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend the first sentence of Rule 891, paragraph 2, to read, "The player 
that creates a newspaper is said to own that newspaper until such time as 
it is legally traded, at which point the player to whom it was traded owns 
it."

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:37:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Promotion errata

Upon accessing my account today, I found a large slew of two and three 
day old mail that had just arrived.  I have distributed all proposals I 
have received at this time.  If one of yours is missing, let me know -- 
if the duplicate copy pops up soon (some of the old mail is still coming 
in), I'll send it out; otherwise, I'll have to ask for another copy.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 12:44:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: suction cups

I believe that by observing the motion of Calvin's house as it dangles 
far below, we should be able to determine whether or not the earth 
rotates (whatever shape it is).  Unfortunately, the AckaPhysicist 
is IN the dangling house, making such observations rather more difficult

Guy Fawkes
been too long since I took physics myself

> > > In accordance with R 1349, Calvin N Hobbes's house has lost its
> > > suction cups, and is now dangling.
> > 
> > I leave my home to stand outsider near where Calvin N Hobbes house
> > used to be attached, in order to gawk and to make myself useful, such
> > as shouting out: "Calvin! Are you in there! Can you hear me! Are you
> > all right!"

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:13:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: I love a parade

breadbox wrote:
> Bartender! Get me, please, one King Alphonse, one Harvey Wallbanger,
> and one Internomic Proposal, a drink that I have just invented
> (probably after the Harvey Wallbanger), which consists of ginger beer
> with a shot of pepper vodka. (My bar tab for this gathering is thus
> A$9.)

I'm ordering a coke, and an Acid Rain (a mixed drink, which consists of
equal parts of Jack Daniels and coke, saturated with sulfur dioxide).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 14:59:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I love a parade

Now that the latest frinking binge has begun, I am ordering one 
Malenkai's Loophole for each of my heads.  A Malenkai's Loophole is a 
mixed drink, the imbibing of which causes the imbiber to feel wholly loopy.

Guy Fawkes
wishing he could buy a Frinking Straw

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:22:29 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rental

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > I hereby ack snowgod's offer on my first Whamiol
> > 
> > Habeous Corpus
> 
> OK, could someone please unambigiously post the terms of this rental
> agreement.
> 
> Sorry, I seem to have a block on this.  It seems to me the terms are:
> 
> snowgod rents Habeous Corpus's first Whamiol for A$15, term 7 days,
> beginning Sun Nov 03, 00:56 EST.
> 
> Is this correct?

Yes
snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:38:20 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Frinks

I am purchasing a Lye Zinger and a Cup O' Suction.

I immediatly pour my Lye Zinger into /dev/joe's acid rain, which creates a
huge mess (and possibly some caustic burning) as it nuetralizes the drink.
I think drink my Cup O' Suction before wandering away from the parade (man
these things last a long time) and heading over to CnH's house to watch it
dangle.  I volunteer my winged services to help re-attach his house, but
only after the physicist has given us some insight into the rotation of
the earth!

snowgod
quenched

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:44:58 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Frinks 

>I am purchasing a Lye Zinger and a Cup O' Suction.
>
>I immediatly pour my Lye Zinger into /dev/joe's acid rain, which creates a
>huge mess (and possibly some caustic burning) as it nuetralizes the drink.
>I think drink my Cup O' Suction before wandering away from the parade (man
>these things last a long time) and heading over to CnH's house to watch it
>dangle.  I volunteer my winged services to help re-attach his house, but
>only after the physicist has given us some insight into the rotation of
>the earth!
>
>snowgod
>quenched

Hey Bartender!

Both of these are mixed drinks!

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:30:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal

> fnord and Mohammed have outlined the situation for which ownership and
> possession might not be considered to be equivalent. [...]
> I feel that game custom essentially requires that we consider the
> possessor of an object to be the owner [...] .
	I must add to this that fnord's reasoning is not really all that
similar to mine.  I do interpret the transfer of an entity from one player
to another as a transfer of ownership.  However, just as a recent CFJ
ruled that Enlightenment is a state continually enforced by the rules, I 
believe that the ownership of a newspaper is continually enforced by the 
rules.
	Therefore, just as Enlightenment can't be undone except by taking 
precedence over the appropriate rule, I believe the ownership of a 
newspaper can't be effectively transferred except by taking precedence 
over the newspaper rule.

> In fact, "owner" and
> "possessor" are used interchangeably everywhere in the rules.
	I agree.  This is not the point I made in my argument, though.  I 
think the game custom established by CNH's ruling against Holy Water 
pretty much seals this case, as Malenkai's reasoning (upheld there) was 
very similar to my reasoning here.

- --Mohammed
"The player who creates a newspaper is said to own that newspaper."

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:43:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1413

Please retract this, Guy.  The change is part of my monolithic Entities
fix already and if 1413 is accepted, part of the Entities proposal (which
amends the same rule in other ways) will crash.

> Proposal 1413 -- Sun 3 Nov 12:29 CST 1996
> No Blind Thomas' Newspapers
> Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

sorry,
- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:52:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Entities

> No, but sometimes when creating entities as just a touch of style, it's 
> nice not to have to pay for them;  on the other hand, sometimes you feel 
> like blowing two-thirds your cash on some tower... :)
	I'm going to propose something to make this possible.

	They'll be called illustrative entities, or imaginary entities (I 
haven't decided which I like better) and they'll be totally unprotected 
with a maximum lifetime of the existence of one message (not long enough 
to crash the game, one would hope, and certainly not long enough to 
create work for the Officers.)

	I had originally hoped to make it part of the Entities proposal 
but I came to the realization that that proposal had to go out *now*.  
People are proposing fixes to the rules I'm fixing at an alarming rate 
(three in the past three days; 2 ThinMan and 1 Guy Fawkes I believe.)
	So it'll be coming along in a little while.  Later.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:57:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Entities

> 	They'll be called illustrative entities, or imaginary entities (I 
> haven't decided which I like better) and they'll be totally unprotected 
> with a maximum lifetime of the existence of one message (not long enough 
> to crash the game, one would hope, and certainly not long enough to 
> create work for the Officers.)
	In case you didn't get the point of this message, it was "Don't 
vote NO on the Entities proposal just because you are going to miss your 
R115 entities" ...  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 15:13:05 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Inventorness

In the interests of fairness to all players I am stepping down from the
office of Inventor.  I don't have much time lately to invent (or do much
else it seems :) and it only seems fair to hand the office to someone who
will put it to more use than I have lately.

However, I still support Malenkai's second option and I would love to see
it RFC'd.  By the way, assuming Mohammed nominates himself for the office
of inventor I am endoresing him for the position!

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:39:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1413

Nov 3 6:36 PM CST: -2 Guy, retraction 1413

Fine, I'll retract it for the sake of your Entities proposal, even though 
I wrote and distributed it before I knew yours existed :), and even though 
my efforts in finding a suitable clever name for the newspaper phenomenon 
will go to waste :), and even though I will probably vote against it for the 
various reasons listed below

destruction of R115 entities
specification that things are only entities if the rules say they are, 
	and then applying Protection only to entities -- there's got to 
	be a good scam in there somewhere
failure to specify the status of the non-entities that will result from 
	this proposal

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Please retract this, Guy.  The change is part of my monolithic Entities
> fix already and if 1413 is accepted, part of the Entities proposal (which
> amends the same rule in other ways) will crash.
> 
> > Proposal 1413 -- Sun 3 Nov 12:29 CST 1996
> > No Blind Thomas' Newspapers
> > Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)
> 
> sorry,
> --Mohammed
> 

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #330
*******************************