Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #332
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Tuesday, November 5 1996       Volume 01 : Number 332

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 01:32:22 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: One More Frink

I am purchasing my third and final drink.  I'm not a lush, really!  I
poured one of my frinks into /dev/joe's so I've only actualyy drunk one :)

Anyway, I am ordering an "Exquisite Dead Guy" which is made of 2 parts
vodka, one part vermouth (shaken not stirred) and a small bit of
arsenic.

Yummy stuff.

snowgod
who is going to buy a Spiraling Shape at the net parade!

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 01:36:17 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial Question

A quick question...

Is the fact that the Church of the Markovian Dream now owns A$100(see my
donation a few days back) recorded anywhere or is it my sole duty as
Church Founder to record that fact?

snowgod
curious

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:34:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial Question

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> A quick question...
> 
> Is the fact that the Church of the Markovian Dream now owns A$100(see my
> donation a few days back) recorded anywhere or is it my sole duty as
> Church Founder to record that fact?
> 
> snowgod
> curious
>
I believe it is the Financier's duty to record all accounts. But it is
your duty as Church Founder to report to the Financier any trasactions
that involve the Markovian Church.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:43:48 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1392

>
>>I *think* it means that in a private auction, if only one item is being 
>>auctioned, and you bid A$50 and I bid A$75, I get the item for $A50.
>
>That's what I think it means, too, but more importantly, here's why it's
>worth the effort:
>
>If I'm willing to pay A$75 for something, but figure no one else would pay
>more than A$20 for it, I'd probably bid only A$25, so as not to waste
>A$50.  But if I'm wrong, and you think it's worth and bid A$50 for it, you
>get it, even though it's worth more to me and I'd have gladly paid more
>for it than you did, if I'd known.  This rule helps get entities into the
>hands of those who value them most.

This proposal means that if I really want something
being privately auctioned, then I just offer my entire
account.  Unless someone else tries the same ploy,
I get the item at a small fraction of my actual bid.
The difficult language is enough for me to vote against
the proposal, but I don't like the idea itself, either.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:45:21 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Grab-a-Donkey

>Malenkai and ThinMan regulated each others donkeys :)

ROFL

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 08:52:08 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Wanted to Buy

snowgod wrote:

>I disagree with your reading of the rules, though I have nothing to back up
>my case.  It seems that though the lands are under your control, they are
>not owned by you... hence the commonality.  I believe that R839 gives us a
>specific procedure, namely: Player A makes an offer.  This offer can only
>be acked by at least two of the senators.

I never meant to imply that the common lands were
owned by me.  I view it more as a stewardship sort
of thing.  Otherwise, what _does_ it mean that the
lands are "under the control of the Financier"?
>
>however, I agree that my case isn't the strongest in ackanomic, so I offer
>this:  In exchange for your Financierial (hehe, I like making up words)
>approval of this transaction, I will transfer to you 5% of all public lands
>gained in this venture.  If you were to then approve the deal in your
>capacity as senator (seat melvin -- a fine seat name by the way) you would
>recieve an additional 25% of the public lands (assuming you were one of the
>first two senators to ack).  I make this deal in the interest of
>friendship, regardless of whose case proves to be correct.

A very generous offer.  I am swaying... swaying... wait --
no, on second thought, I just don't think I can agree to
those terms.

>snowgod
>who notes that game custom and the spirit of the game are both very keen on
>bribery

What a cynical view :)

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:07:07 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1413

>	Oh, my ear.  I severely wish you'd brought this up 3 days ago.  
>I'm going to have to retract my Proposal (not yet; it looks like I'll 
>have to cut back on its ambition at least some though.)
>	Thanks for pointing it out instead of waiting for the paradoxen 
>to cut loose.
>
>> failure to specify the status of the non-entities that will result from 
>> 	this proposal
>
>	I'm going to have to change the requirement that entities must be 
>explicitly qualified as such.

What would be left that should not be an entity?  In
other words, this problem could potentially be solved
by making _everything_ that exists in Acka an entity.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:09:32 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Financial Question

>
>> A quick question...
>> 
>> Is the fact that the Church of the Markovian Dream now owns A$100(see my
>> donation a few days back) recorded anywhere or is it my sole duty as
>> Church Founder to record that fact?
>> 
>I believe it is the Financier's duty to record all accounts. But it is
>your duty as Church Founder to report to the Financier any trasactions
>that involve the Markovian Church.

I made note of the transaction.  However, I am no
longer Financier.  I will be forwarding all my records
to Malenkai.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:51:42 -0500 (EST)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Back and such.

I am returning from vacation as of now.  I, hereby, volunteer for the office
of Financier.  I would make no restrictions on how transactions are posted,
so long as it is clear that a transaction is taking place.

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:53:14 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1392

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, ThinMan wrote:
>
>This proposal means that if I really want something
>being privately auctioned, then I just offer my entire
>account.  Unless someone else tries the same ploy,
>I get the item at a small fraction of my actual bid.
>The difficult language is enough for me to vote against
>the proposal, but I don't like the idea itself, either.
>

Offering your entire account only makes sense if you are willing to pay
your entire account.  It doesn't make sense under either scheme to bid
more than you really want to pay, and this fix removes the incentive to
bid less than you are willing to pay.  (I'll grant the difficult language
objection.  It does admit of only one meaning, though, doesn't it?)

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:18:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal

Mohammed - True, your reasoning is more along the lines that snowgod
purchased the paper and it immediately returned to mr cwm. However,
you do note that even if snowgod does currently possess the newpaper,
mr cwm should (IYHO) still be the owner. This is the tack that fnord
took, and since I am appealing his judgement, that is what I focused
on.

But it's true that in focusing on that issue, I failed to touch on
that point in my reasoning. I guess I can only hope that the justices
will examine the situation on their own, and come to the same
conclusions that I did.

FWIW, I believe that the statement "A player who creates a paper is
said to own that paper" functions as an introduction of the term
"owner" to be used in the rule. The indirect wording does not enforce
the position of ownership for all time, nor should it be construed to
take precedence over the usual meaning of the phrase: "Newspapers are
Tradeable."

b

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:20:04 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1392

mr cwm wrote:

>Offering your entire account only makes sense if you are willing to pay
>your entire account.

Which is why the ploy is likely to work.  It is possible to
get stung for a lot more than you expected that way, but
as you say, one shouldn't make a bid greater than what
they are willing to spend.

>  It doesn't make sense under either scheme to bid
>more than you really want to pay, and this fix removes the incentive to
>bid less than you are willing to pay.

But why is such an incentive a problem?  And why is it
bad to pay what you are willing to pay?  The current
system calls for shrewd judgements, and makes for
better competition, IMO, than the proposed variation.

Moreover, the results of the only private auction to date
were quite close -- I managed to outbid the closest
competitor for the Purple Robe by only a few A$.  You
seem to be trying to solve a problem that I don't think
exists.

>ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:18:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1413

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> >	Oh, my ear.  I severely wish you'd brought this up 3 days ago.  
> >I'm going to have to retract my Proposal (not yet; it looks like I'll 
> >have to cut back on its ambition at least some though.)
> >	Thanks for pointing it out instead of waiting for the paradoxen 
> >to cut loose.
> >
> >> failure to specify the status of the non-entities that will result from 
> >> 	this proposal
> >
> >	I'm going to have to change the requirement that entities must be 
> >explicitly qualified as such.
> 
> What would be left that should not be an entity?  In
> other words, this problem could potentially be solved
> by making _everything_ that exists in Acka an entity.
> 
> ThinMan
> 

That's the view I've always had.  The problem I saw was that in his 
proposal, things are only entities if the rules say they are, which leads 
to the question, "What are they if they aren't entities?" especially if 
protection applies only to entities and not to the other "stuff".

Guy

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

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:28:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financier

ThinMan wrote to me privately:

Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> 
> >Ok, I am officially volunteering for the Financier job.  Mohammed
> >says he will have a bot ready sometime anyway.
> 
> Very well.  I appoint Malenkai assistant to the Financier.
> Nothing against CnH, but to prevent any kind of odd
> situation, I dismiss him from his post as assistant to
> the Financier.  Malenkai is now the only assistant.
> 
> I now resign as Financier, with heartfelt thanks to
> Malenkai.
> 
> ThinMan
> Ackanomic's second ex-Financier

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

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:30:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Back and such.

IdiotBoy wrote:
> 
> I am returning from vacation as of now.  I, hereby, volunteer for the office
> of Financier.  I would make no restrictions on how transactions are posted,
> so long as it is clear that a transaction is taking place.

You have to wait until ThinMan resigns (which he did privately and I
forwarded to the public forum) and then wait until snowgod conducts
the nomination.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:13:58 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Financier

>
>ThinMan wrote to me privately:

[...]

And ThinMan once again demonstrates that he is the
anti-snowgod.  Those comments were intended to be
public, at least by the time I finished writing them.  I
endorse Malenkai's reposting of them to the Ackanomic
list.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:05:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal

> Mohammed - True, your reasoning is more along the lines that snowgod
> purchased the paper and it immediately returned to mr cwm. However,
> you do note that even if snowgod does currently possess the newpaper,
> mr cwm should (IYHO) still be the owner.
	Not really.  I don't think snowgod possesses the newspaper, or 
can possess it (for any significant amount of time.)
	Both sides are visible.  When I saw this in the rule, I had to go 
ahead and push the CFCJ; the irony was too rich.  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:13:46 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1392

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, ThinMan wrote:

>
>>  It doesn't make sense under either scheme to bid
>>more than you really want to pay, and this fix removes the incentive to
>>bid less than you are willing to pay.
>
>But why is such an incentive a problem?  And why is it
>bad to pay what you are willing to pay?  The current
>system calls for shrewd judgements, and makes for
>better competition, IMO, than the proposed variation.
>

It's not bad to pay what you are willing to pay, but the current scheme
discourages bids of what one is actually willing to pay.  Instead, one
bids slightly more than what one thinks others think ... etc.  Currently
what should (in my opinion, I guess) be a mechanism allocating entities to
those who value them most, directs them, instead to those who prevail in a
psychological guessing game (which could be worse, I suppose).

>Moreover, the results of the only private auction to date
>were quite close -- I managed to outbid the closest
>competitor for the Purple Robe by only a few A$.  You
>seem to be trying to solve a problem that I don't think
>exists.
>

Actually, it was your inquiry into whether you'd grossly overbid that set
me thinking about this.  And we don't know if it was a problem - your
competitor may have been willing to pay considerably more than you, and
only submitted a lower bid because they misjudged how much you wanted it.
And we'll never know, because of the incentive to bid low that currently
exists.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:15:53 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1392

mr cwm wrote:

>It's not bad to pay what you are willing to pay, but the current scheme
>discourages bids of what one is actually willing to pay.  Instead, one
>bids slightly more than what one thinks others think ... etc.  Currently
>what should (in my opinion, I guess) be a mechanism allocating entities to
>those who value them most, directs them, instead to those who prevail in a
>psychological guessing game (which could be worse, I suppose).

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure I
agree.  You claim that the rules encourage people
to submit bids lower than what they are willing to
pay, but higher than they think others will bid.

That is a reasonable bidding strategy under the current
rules.  As you point out, however, a player who uses
that strategy risks losing the bid to someone whom
they might have been willing to outbid in a public
auction.  The way I see it, that's the cost of taking
such an approach.

An equally reasonable, and perhaps more robust,
strategy is to bid as high as you are willing to pay
in order to be assured of getting the item if you can
do so within your willingness to pay.  The cost of
using that strategy is the likelihood that you will
sometimes spend more than you have to.

There are also middle-ground strategies that mitigate
the risk of paying a premium by introducing some
risk of being outbid within the bounds of your
willingness to pay.  I do not think that the current
rule inherently favors any of those strategies over any
of the others, though individual players will be more
disposed towards one or another.  That, I believe,
is the heart of our disagreement.

Your proposed amendment, on the other hand, most
definately would reduce the risks associated with the
second strategy, and somewhat reduce the risks
associated with middle-ground strategies.  I don't see
the point, I don't particularly like the result, and I
especially don't like introducing convoluted language
into the ruleset to achieve that result.

All that being said, I grant that there is nothing
inherently wrong with the scheme that you are
advocating.  I just prefer things the way they
are, and I don't think that there is any real problem
now.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:47:31 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1392

> >>I *think* it means that in a private auction, if only one item is being 
> >>auctioned, and you bid A$50 and I bid A$75, I get the item for $A50.
> >
> >That's what I think it means, too, but more importantly, here's why it's
> >worth the effort:
> >
> >If I'm willing to pay A$75 for something, but figure no one else would pay
> >more than A$20 for it, I'd probably bid only A$25, so as not to waste
> >A$50.  But if I'm wrong, and you think it's worth and bid A$50 for it, you
> >get it, even though it's worth more to me and I'd have gladly paid more
> >for it than you did, if I'd known.  This rule helps get entities into the
> >hands of those who value them most.
> 
> This proposal means that if I really want something
> being privately auctioned, then I just offer my entire
> account.  Unless someone else tries the same ploy,
> I get the item at a small fraction of my actual bid.
> The difficult language is enough for me to vote against
> the proposal, but I don't like the idea itself, either.
> 
> ThinMan

The threat that somebody else *would* do the same should be enough to
prevent this from happening often.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 16:00:43 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1392

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, ThinMan wrote:

>
>I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure I
>agree.  You claim that the rules encourage people
>to submit bids lower than what they are willing to
>pay, but higher than they think others will bid.
>
>That is a reasonable bidding strategy under the current
>rules.  As you point out, however, a player who uses
>that strategy risks losing the bid to someone whom
>they might have been willing to outbid in a public
>auction.  The way I see it, that's the cost of taking
>such an approach.
>
>An equally reasonable, and perhaps more robust,
>strategy is to bid as high as you are willing to pay
>in order to be assured of getting the item if you can
>do so within your willingness to pay.  The cost of
>using that strategy is the likelihood that you will
>sometimes spend more than you have to.
>
>There are also middle-ground strategies that mitigate
>the risk of paying a premium by introducing some
>risk of being outbid within the bounds of your
>willingness to pay.  I do not think that the current
>rule inherently favors any of those strategies over any
>of the others, though individual players will be more
>disposed towards one or another.  That, I believe,
>is the heart of our disagreement.
>
>Your proposed amendment, on the other hand, most
>definately would reduce the risks associated with the
>second strategy, and somewhat reduce the risks
>associated with middle-ground strategies.  I don't see
>the point, I don't particularly like the result, and I
>especially don't like introducing convoluted language
>into the ruleset to achieve that result.
>
>All that being said, I grant that there is nothing
>inherently wrong with the scheme that you are
>advocating.  I just prefer things the way they
>are, and I don't think that there is any real problem
>now.
>

I can't argue with that.  :)

I hope the admittedly convoluted (but unambiguous) language does not
discourage those who might like to try a scheme with different incentives
from voting for it. 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 13:45:43 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal

Mohammed spake thusly
> 
> > 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.

Hmm... I really must brush up on my writing skills.  Perhaps I should
write my responses in rhyme?)  That is pretty much what I had intended
to say in my response (the fact that owning the newspaper is a continual
state, since the rule for Newspapers defined it so).  Secondary to that fact
was that the statement 'newspapers are tradeable' came second in the rule,
which by R210 took precedence, but did not define 'ownership' and therefore
did not actually have any bearing on ownership of the newspaper, i.e. the fact
that the newspaper's creator was the owner was not ruled out by a newspaper's
tradeability even though the tradeability did have precedence over ownership.

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

Of course, just because we "say" he owns the paper doesn't mean
he *does* own the paper.

fnord

> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 18:07:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 314 Verdict

CFJ 314 has been judged INVALID

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 314
  Subject: "What Do I Have To Lose?" Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Oct 29, 1996, 21:39h EDT)
Judgement: INVALID

Statement:

As of this writing, the legality of the Brass Monkey climbing
the Gaol following the acceptance of 10 consecutive proposals cannot be
determined with finality.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

If a TRUE verdict is returned, Guy Fawkes claims a win under Rule 219.

First, it needs to be noted that CFJ 312 has no bearing on this CFJ.
Whether or not the Senate approved the Tower of Bandwidth is irrelevant
to this matter -- snowgod has not yet paid for its construction, and so
it does not yet exist, regardless of the Senate's approval or lack thereof.

Rule 841 says that all buildings without towers are less than 35 meters
high; since no towers currently exist, this means that all buildings in
Acka, including the Gaol, are less than 35 meters high.

Rule 824 states that in the event of 10 consecutive accepted proposals,
the Brass Monkey shall climb the highest building in Acka.  If all
buildings in Acka are less than 35 meters high, yet an exact height
cannot be determined with finality for any of them.  It is possible that
the Gaol is the tallest building in Acka -- perhaps it is 34 meters tall
while the rest are only 33; on the other hand it is equally possible that
some other building is the tallest in Acka, or that are the buildings in
Acka are equally tall -- there is no way to determine it with finality.

In this light, the legality of the Brass Monkey climbing the Gaol in
these circumstances really cannot be determined with finality.

mr cwm's reasoning:

I find the statement to be empty, though interesting.  The Brass Monkey
climbing any building is not an "action" whose legality is questionable
under R219.  It is an event that occurs in accord with the Rules, as the
Brass Monkey, being a creation of the Rules, cannot do other than the
Rules direct.  Even if the Brass Monkey were directed by the Rules to do
two contradictory things, the two contradictory events would simply both
occur (the Monkey has both climbed and not-climbed the Gaol, for example),
since that is what the Rules direct.  It is only when our actions depend
on knowing that only one of these events has occurred that the question of
legality arises.  That question, however is one of the legality of our
subsequent actions, not one of the legality of the events directed by the
Rules.

[Note:  This decision was strongly influenced by the comments ThinMan
posted in a Public Message, and I suggest that, as a Bronze Torch holder,
he may wish to add his insightful comments to this decision in accord with
R563. Any flaws that may be present in this reasoning, however, are, of
course, my own.]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:41:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Monday, the 4nd 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* 17 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:50:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1392

> mr cwm wrote:
> 
> >It's not bad to pay what you are willing to pay, but the current scheme
> >discourages bids of what one is actually willing to pay.  Instead, one
> >bids slightly more than what one thinks others think ... etc.  Currently
> >what should (in my opinion, I guess) be a mechanism allocating entities to
> >those who value them most, directs them, instead to those who prevail in a
> >psychological guessing game (which could be worse, I suppose).

I don't know about that.  Really, it's almost impossible to predict what 
a given player will bid for a given item to any substantial degree of 
accuracy.  (Rest assured, you'll outbid everybody if you bid A$350 in 
most cases, but with more accuracy than that...  it's nearly 
impossible.)  The first Whamiol went for A$75.  The second went for over 
well over A$200.  You _can_ try to play this "psychological guessing 
game" in private auction, but it's awfully hard to do, so the best 
bidding strategy now is to bid what you're willing to pay for it -- 
others' bids are largely unpredictable.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 22:29:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Grab-a-Donkey R9

Round 9 of Grab-A-Donkey is beginning.  There was plenty of discussion
of the end game earlier, and here we are.  Unfortunately, we seem to
be left with a rather uninteresting situation.

Round Ends Thu, November 07 1996, 21:15 EST or so, or when all moves
are in, if at least 24 hours have passed since this has been posted.

Niccolo and CnH admired again.

Guy Fawkes grabbed /dev/joe's donkey; /dev/joe grabbed CnH's donkey,
/dev/joe and CnH are eliminated.

IdiotBoy grabbed Niccolo's donkey eliminating Niccolo.

Current GAL:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Fawkes (+1 grab) [[email-masked]]
IdiotBoy (+2 grabs) [[email-masked]]

Malenkai
Wrangler

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:38:53 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Yes I know about P1379!

Silly me.

I biffed big time on P1379.  I gave points to the NO voters instead of the
yes.  Additionally, I took too many points away from Guy Fawkes  for the
failure.  Sorry about that everyone.

I had originally intended to announce that this is my fault, and that It
won't happen again, however after consulting with my lawyers I am claiming
that aliens made me do it, and that I cannot control my actions when they
are inside my head.  blame them :)

snowgod
who will do the rest of his official work after class

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:35:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1392

> It's not bad to pay what you are willing to pay, but the current
> scheme discourages bids of what one is actually willing to pay.
> Instead, one bids slightly more than what one thinks others think
> ... etc.  Currently what should (in my opinion, I guess) be a
> mechanism allocating entities to those who value them most, directs
> them, instead to those who prevail in a psychological guessing game
> (which could be worse, I suppose).

I just want to point out that this is basically the point of an
auction, particularly a private auction.

> >Moreover, the results of the only private auction to date
> >were quite close -- I managed to outbid the closest
> >competitor for the Purple Robe by only a few A$.  You
> >seem to be trying to solve a problem that I don't think
> >exists.
> 
> Actually, it was your inquiry into whether you'd grossly overbid
> that set me thinking about this.  And we don't know if it was a
> problem - your competitor may have been willing to pay considerably
> more than you, and only submitted a lower bid because they misjudged
> how much you wanted it.  And we'll never know, because of the
> incentive to bid low that currently exists.

Actually, we will know. I was the one that bid only a few A$ lower. I
would have happily bid more, but my bid was nearly twice the last bid
reported. I was expecting that if I had undershot, the next public
report would tell me, but unfortunately there were no more.

Still, I wouldn't change the current setup. I like auctions. The
incentive to bid low, especially when coupled with the uncertainty, is
what keeps them fun.

b

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

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:09:25 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Poem for Elder Wayne

Although his visage will be seen no longer,
We strive to always think of Elder Wayne.
His hard work helped to make our nomic stronger,
To multiply our fun, and not for his own gain.

As Tabulator and Promoter did he work,
To keep our Ackanomic flowing smooth. 
His privileges and duties he would not shirk,
His desire was to see our nomic improve.

The Party of the Underworld he led,
To try to bring variety to our game.
Now he has gone, and left us his Undead,
And Ackanomic shall not ever be the same.

fnord
Ackanomic Poet Laureate

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #332
*******************************