Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #335
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, November 7 1996      Volume 01 : Number 335

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 09:59:55 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1416

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > > 	A Seat of an Office is an unownable entity.  [Seats are held,
> > > 	not owned.]
> > No. This should the default behavior, however, allowances should be made
> > for other rules to explicitly make Offices ownable and tradable.
> 	Now that you mention it,I think allowances should be made.  But 
> it's not like this proposal will be set in stone once it passes.  There 
> are currently no ownable or tradeable Offices.  But the rule is still 
> mutable.  Changing it is as simple as making a modest proposal.
> 	If it'll sway your vote, I'll make the proposal right now.

Please do. 

> 
> > > 18a.  Rule 721 ("Organizations") is amended by changing
> > > ---
> > > 	1. Let a new class of entities be created called
> > > 	Organizations.  Organizations may only be established or
> > > 	disbanded according to the rules.
> > > ---
> > > to
> > > ---
> > > 	1.  Organizations are unownable, named entities.
> > > ---
> > I don't see what purpose this serves.
> 	The new rules make entities nontradeable by default, so it made
> sense to specify that Organizations are unownable.  (They're also named,
> so it made sense to put that in the same place.) I know you spent a lot of
> time writing that rule and don't want to see it needlessly hacked.

My concern has more to do with all those other rules that depend on it.
I'll have to look into in a little more.

> may well be; there were before) it makes much more sense to pass it anyway
> and then go back and correct them later than to reject the entire 31Kb of
> changes on the basis of a handful of truly tiny flaws.

Granted. But is it just a handful of tiny flaws. I see a couple, someone
else may see a couple of others, and all those tiny flaws may sum up to is
real problems. One of the things I dislike is people screaming bloody
paradox and how obvious some error are, over something they voted for in
the first place.

> 	If I sound frazzled, it's because of what else is going on around 
> here, not Ack.  You can vote against 1416 if you want to.  I'll be 
> unhappy, though.
I won't vote against it, but I'm not sure I can vote for it.

> 
> 	*laugh*  If R1416 fails, I'm going to hit my sister in the 
> head!  You hadbetter vote for it!  I'm kidding, of course (for all you 
> FBI agents out there.)
How long have you been engaging in this kind of behavior (pay no attention
to the wire I am wearing)

> 
> > > 28a.  Rule 1206 ("Games & Contests") is amended by removing the word
> > > "Protected" wherever it appears [in section 9, near the middle of that
> > > paragraph].
> > ??
> 
Fine.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 00:36:28 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: Wayne 

Could someone please post Wayne's email adress for me?

I can't seem to find it.

Thanks,
snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 01:12:07 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Voting Results, Etc

I will post the voting results as soon as I get home from work wednesday.
I got caught up in watching the election results (there goes that pesky
real life again) tonight and now it's 1 AM and I'm falling asleep.  Sorry
guys.

snowgod
who is counting down the days untill the first tornado

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 07:33:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

Well, /dev/joe, here you go:

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

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I name L as the magic letter.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 09:20:52 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

The Scholar wrote:
> If AND ONLY IF today *o*s *o* l** ****** ***** o* **l*, THEN the Machine 
> That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.

Pat, I'd like to solve the puzzle. :-)

Is the Machine's Truth:

  If AND ONLY IF today does not lie within march or july, THEN the Machine 
  That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.

?

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:38:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

> Is the Machine's Truth:
> 
>   If AND ONLY IF today does not lie within march or july, THEN the Machine 
>   That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.
> 
> /dev/joe

/dev/joe, your knowldege of the calendar astounds me.  Any man can know 
what month it is, but you alone of all Acka possess that special genius 
to know what month it is not.  It is with great pride that I bestow upon 
you the title of Scholar of *ping*.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:54:55 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1404

Mohammed wrote:
>
>> Proposal 1404 -- Sat 2 Nov 8:11 CST 1996
>> The FM Revisited
>> ThinMan (John Bollinger)
>	If Entities passes, that it'll steamroll over all the changes this
>proposal makes.  I guess that doesn't make much of a difference; you 
>might as well pick up the points.  Also:

Yes, if Entities passes (and I support it) then it will steamroll
this change, but will have an equally good result.  If Entities
doesn't pass, then this proposal is still valuable on its own.
>
>>    3) The FM is a conceptual tool, physically realized in the public fora
>>    and the Financier's log of transactions.  There is also an AckaNomic
>>    building named the Free Market.

>	Does this run afoul of R703 (" ")?  Earlier in that rule the 
>words "Free Market (FM)" appear, strongly suggesting that Free Market and 
>FM are the same thing and thus that the Free Market is "a conceptual 
>tool"... That would give these two things (the tool & the building) the 
>same Name.
>	Also I think the Free Market should be open to the air (a 
>-market-) rather than a building, if it's going to be a location.

I don't _think_ that this runs afoul of R703, as I don't consider
a conceptual tool to be "in Ackanomic."  If a R703 conflict were
judged to exist, then there are provisions to change one name or
the other.

>> first sentence, and adding the following sentences to the end: "The
>> Financier should keep a record of each transaction, preferrably in his
>> log.  Failure to keep a record of a legal transaction is a Crime."

>	Failure to do your Duty as an Officer is already a Crime
>(R1365, "Crime").

Yes, but by my reading, the Financier is not required to log
_all_ transaction, rather only A$ transactions.  Perhaps it
would be better to just make this a duty, I'm not sure.  If
this passes and entities does not, then feel free to amend it
again.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:05:22 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1416

>
>> 
>> Proposal 1416 -- Tue 5 Nov 12:52 CST 1996
>> Entities
>> Mohammed (Jason Orendorff)
>
>> 
>> 15.  Rule 609 ("Offices, Commonalities") is amended by adding
>> ---
>> 	Offices are named, unownable entities.
>> ---
>> at the beginning, and by adding
>> ---
>> 	A Seat of an Office is an unownable entity.  [Seats are held,
>> 	not owned.]
>
>No. This should the default behavior, however, allowances should be made
>for other rules to explicitly make Offices ownable and tradable.

Amending R609 in this way _makes_ this the default behavior.
It does not prevent other rules from superceding these
provisions.  In other words, I don't see the problem you
describe.
>
>> 18a.  Rule 721 ("Organizations") is amended by changing
>> ---
>> 	1. Let a new class of entities be created called
>> 	Organizations.  Organizations may only be established or
>> 	disbanded according to the rules.
>> ---
>> to
>> ---
>> 	1.  Organizations are unownable, named entities.
>> ---
>I don't see what purpose this serves.

It simplifies the language of the rules, a goal that I hope
we, as Vulcan members, both support.  Indeed, that is the
function of a great deal of the Entities proposal, and a 
great deal of simplification will be achieved if it passes.
In conjuction with other parts of the proposal, the legal
implications of this particular change are nil.
>
>> 28a.  Rule 1206 ("Games & Contests") is amended by removing the word
>> "Protected" wherever it appears [in section 9, near the middle of that
>> paragraph].
>??
>> 

What is the problem with this?  Part of the point of this
proposal is that _all_ entities will be protected by default,
to the extent that protection is no longer an attribute that
entities have or require.  To that end, it is necessary to
remove all instances of the rules claiming that an entity is
protected.

>I can't vote for this. I have other comments which I may post tomorrow.

I hope you will change your mind.  I see no problems with the
proposal, but many benefits.  I strongly support this proposal,
and I urge everyone to vote YES.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:13:58 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1415

Malenkai wrote:

>Is removing the word "valid" sufficient.  What other "concerns" are you
>referring to?

As "rule change" has a specific meaning in Acka-speak, I would
prefer something like: "[...] a list of changes to be made in
the ruleset.  These changes will be applied [...]."  I didn't
specify any other concerns in my message, and the above
modification would be sufficient to earn my support.  It occurred
to me later that we would still have problems if the offices of
Speaker and President were not both occupied, but that doesn't
bother me as much.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:15:19 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 314 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:

>It seems a bit pedantic to point this out, but R 563 says:
>
>> *Before* [my emphasis] the result of a CFJ is made public, a Justice
>> or Bronze Torch owner can add their own reasoning to the official
>> publication of the result by sending it either to the person in
>> charge of CFJs, or to the public forum
>
>Now, one could possibly argue that this is not a protected action, but
>I would argue that it is, inasmuch as it is game custom that CFJ reasoning
>is implicit game custom, thus adding such is an effect on the game
>state.

Okay, fine.  No skin off my nose.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:45:48 -0500 (EST)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> > Is the Machine's Truth:
> > 
> >   If AND ONLY IF today does not lie within march or july, THEN the Machine 
> >   That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.
> > 
> > /dev/joe
> 
> /dev/joe, your knowldege of the calendar astounds me.  Any man can know 
> what month it is, but you alone of all Acka possess that special genius 
> to know what month it is not.  It is with great pride that I bestow upon 
> you the title of Scholar of *ping*.
> 

Hmmm, I have a small problem with this truth.  It does not guarantee that
the Machine will *ping* at least once every 7 days as required by the rules.
Am I missing something?

BTW, I'd like to thank /dev/joe/ for stopping that incessant *ping*ing

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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 19:51:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1416

On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> >
> >No. This should the default behavior, however, allowances should be made
> >for other rules to explicitly make Offices ownable and tradable.
> 
> Amending R609 in this way _makes_ this the default behavior.
> It does not prevent other rules from superceding these
> provisions.  In other words, I don't see the problem you
> describe.

You're probably right. If there's no problem, other then possibly, but not
necessarily precedence, which one will have to explicitly claim, then no
problem.

> >> 	1.  Organizations are unownable, named entities.
> >> ---
> >I don't see what purpose this serves.
> 
> It simplifies the language of the rules, a goal that I hope
> we, as Vulcan members, both support.  Indeed, that is the
> function of a great deal of the Entities proposal, and a 
> great deal of simplification will be achieved if it passes.
> In conjuction with other parts of the proposal, the legal
> implications of this particular change are nil.

I looked it up, you're correct.

> >
> >> 28a.  Rule 1206 ("Games & Contests") is amended by removing the word
> >> "Protected" wherever it appears [in section 9, near the middle of that
> >> paragraph].
> >??
> >> 
> 
> What is the problem with this?  Part of the point of this
none at all.
> >I can't vote for this. I have other comments which I may post tomorrow.
> 
> I hope you will change your mind.  I see no problems with the
> proposal, but many benefits.  I strongly support this proposal,
> and I urge everyone to vote YES.

I still need to go over the finer points. 
I will not vote against this rule.

In principle, I am in favor of this kind of ammendment.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> ThinMan
> 

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:58:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

> On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> > > Is the Machine's Truth:
> > >   If AND ONLY IF today does not lie within march or july, THEN the
> > >   Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.
> > > 
> > > /dev/joe
> > 
> > /dev/joe, your knowldege of the calendar astounds me.  Any man can know 
> > what month it is, but you alone of all Acka possess that special genius 
> > to know what month it is not.  It is with great pride that I bestow upon 
> > you the title of Scholar of *ping*.

> Hmmm, I have a small problem with this truth.  It does not guarantee that
> the Machine will *ping* at least once every 7 days as required by the rules.
> Am I missing something?

The rule says:
> The truth must be such that the Machine shall not fail to go *ping* for 
> any seven consecutive calendar days during the current Scholar's term.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But it also says:
> VIII.  If the Machine has gone *ping* thirty times during the current 
> Scholar's term, the Scholar must, within three days of the 30th *ping*, 
> publically post the Machine's truth in its undisguised form.

Since the nature of this truth limits the scholar's term to 30 days
(or I guess 33 days, actually), this truth does not violate the rules.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 09:58:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

> >  If AND ONLY IF today does not lie within march or july, THEN the Machine 
> >  That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.
> 
> Hmmm, I have a small problem with this truth.  It does not guarantee that
> the Machine will *ping* at least once every 7 days as required by the rules.
> Am I missing something?

Yes, you are. The Machine would have stopped *ping*ing long before
March ever arrived. The Scholar must reveal the truth within six
days after the 30th *ping*, if no one has guessed the Truth (IIRC).

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:04:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Wayne

> Could someone please post Wayne's email adress for me?

Presuming it hasn't changed since his passing:

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:24:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1404

> Yes, but by my reading, the Financier is not required to log
> _all_ transaction, rather only A$ transactions.  Perhaps it
> would be better to just make this a duty, I'm not sure.  If
> this passes and entities does not, then feel free to amend it
> again.
	Okay, I read you correctly now.  The Entities proposal will do 
pretty much the same thing (require the Financier to track all 
transactions.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:48:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

> Hmmm, I have a small problem with this truth.  It does not guarantee that
> the Machine will *ping* at least once every 7 days as required by the rules.
> Am I missing something?
> 
> BTW, I'd like to thank /dev/joe/ for stopping that incessant *ping*ing
> 
> IB

The rule only states that it must guarantee those conditions during the 
current scholar's term.  My term as scholar would never have lasted until 
March even if no one had ever guessed, so it is acceptible.

Guy Fawkes
no longer Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:33:41 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Wilma upgrade

I have upgraded wilma's kernel to version 2.0.24.
Let me know if anything breaks -- if you can't get mail to me
at wilma, send it to [email-masked].

This kernel version has networking patches to prevent two different
types of denial-of-service attacks (TCP SYN attacks and ping bombs).
I haven't had any problems with such attacks, but this preventative
measure should ensure that I don't in the future.

/dev/joe
[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 18:10:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: retraction

Nov 6 6:06 CST: -2 Guy Fawkes, retract 1413

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 22:20:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> The rule only states that it must guarantee those conditions during the
> current scholar's term.  My term as scholar would never have lasted until
> March even if no one had ever guessed, so it is acceptible.

I disagree.

The truth of the second sentence above cannot be guaranteed with
finality, so this all hinges on how strictly a judge may render
"guarantee".

We have a rule that says earth is flat.  We could add a rule that
says the calendar month of March starts 30 days after Wayne's day,
and lasts for 120 days. ;)  Of course, this could be said of any
truth.  Perhaps I'll submit such a proposal.

Malenkai
just being a pain

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 22:37:56 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1415

Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> 
> >Is removing the word "valid" sufficient.  What other "concerns" are you
> >referring to?
> 
> It occurred
> to me later that we would still have problems if the offices of
> Speaker and President were not both occupied, but that doesn't
> bother me as much.

Nov 06 22:40 EST: -2 Malenkai: I retract P 1415

That occurred to me also, when I wrote it.  We could just make it 
Speaker :).  Actually, I have a revised Succession Proceedings proposal
in the back of my mind which will clean up the rather clunky version I
wrote initially, be reuseable for things like this, and provide that
there is always an acting speaker, unless everyone is on vacation or
in Gaol (there's a paradox CFJ in that situation somewhere).

Unfortunatly, I have been pressed for time lately, so I have not been
able to hammer it out.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 18:40:26 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: P1381 Fails 

Quorum achieved on P1381: 16 Eligible voters - 13 Players cast votes
5 YES votes - 3 NO votes - 5 PRESENT votes - Proposal FAILS
P1381 was Modest.

Proposal 1381 - Mon 28 Oct 7:19 CST 1996
Synchronized Whamming
snowgod (Phil Ackley)

snowgod loses 7 points:                        10 -> 3

YES Votes:
- ---------
Guy Fawkes                   (None Yet)          = 49
snowgod                      (None Yet)          = 3
ThinMan                      Vulcan              = 1
Brinjal                                          = 13
Niccolo Flychuck             Vulcan              = 62

NO Votes:
- --------
fnord                                            = 6
/dev/joe                     Vulcan              = 21
Mohammed                                         = 8

PRESENT Votes:
- -------------
IdiotBoy                                         = 1
breadbox                                         = 16
Malenkai                     FUN                 = 41
Habeous Corpus                                   = 14
mr cwm                       (None Yet)          = 7

Abstentions:
- -----------
Robert Sevin                                     = -14
Calvin N Hobbes                                  = 1

Players On Vacation Who Didn't Vote:
- -----------------------------------
Bascule                                          = -14

Text of Passed Proposal:
- -----------------------
NONE

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:45:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Magic Letter

On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

Of course, in the event of such a proposal, the Scholar could always go 
on vacation, thereby shifting the Machine onto someone else before the 
Truth became illegal.

Guy

> We have a rule that says earth is flat.  We could add a rule that
> says the calendar month of March starts 30 days after Wayne's day,
> and lasts for 120 days. ;)  Of course, this could be said of any
> truth.  Perhaps I'll submit such a proposal.
> 
> Malenkai
> just being a pain
> 

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

Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:53:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: New Truth from the Machine

While I was admiring wonderful Machine that popped into /dev/house today,
I fell asleep while wondering what type of Gadget was going to pop out of it.

I had a wild, vivid dream, and in this dream, many thoughts came to mind.
Some of them were quite obviously not the Truth, for they were too long
or would allow the Machine to go too long between *ping*s.

After eliminating the impossible, one statement remained.  However
improbable, this must be the Truth!  Unfortunately I don't remember it
very well.  All that I can recall is:

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

/dev/joe
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 23:02:10 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gaol

My records indicate that snowgod went to Gaol Nov 05, 23:24 EST,
and will remain there until 23:24 today. 

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 23:25:19 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 312 Appeal Verdict

Supreme Court's Decision:  Uphold the decision of FALSE [on CFJ 312].

Thus snowgod's tower was not approved, unless it was approved after
when the retroactivity of the CFJ's statement applies.  I do not believe
the tower exists, but I have to check the rules, if I have time.
Assuming the tower does not exist, I must back out its cost from the
finances, as the senate *did* announce its approval at some point,
and I debited it then.

Nov 06 23:26 EST: -25 snowgod: friviously bother the judges on CFJ 312

snowgod +120 tower backout (questionable)
mr cwm -4 tardy appeal verdict CFJ 312
Bascule -4 tardy appeal verdict CFJ 312

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 312
  Subject: Tower
Initiator: snowgod
    Judge: Bascule (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Oct 27, 1996, 18:11h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

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

snowgod's Reasoning:

[none - CotC]

2nd Judge's Reasoning:

Rule 841, which govers towers states in part, "A player is said to be
permitted to build (or extend) a Public Tower provided they submit a plan
to the Senate, and the Senate votes approval of that plan within 3 days
of its submission."

>From this, one can infer that the Senate approves a plan to build aPublic Tower if they vote approval of that plan within 3 days of its
submission.

I don't know the exact date when the Tower of Bandwidth plan was
submitted, but I do know that it was more than three days ago, since it
has been at least three days since this CFJ was made public, which was
after the Tower's plan being submitted.  During that time, the public
forum has heard nothing from the Senate regarding the approval or
disapproval of the Tower of Bandwidth plan.  I see know way in which
this absence of communication constitutes approval.  Applying the spirit of
public knowability, it seems that whatever the Senate's decision (if
any) was, it did not occur (has not yet occurred?) within the three days
imposed by R 841, and therefore cannot constitute the approval required
by that rule.

Note that while the rules state how the Senate is to vote, they are
silent as to when the results of that voting are to take effect, which is
why is feel justified in invoking the spirit of the game and the
"publically knowable" criteria.

Also note that Rule 841 does not require the Senate to vote at all on the
submitted plan -- it merely requires their approval _if_ the plan is to be
implemented.  It leaves open the possibility of their killing the plan
simply by not responding for three days, which it what I feel has happened
here.

Thus, I judge FALSE.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:  

The Supreme Court finds the Reasoning of the Original Judge to be sound.

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 23:31:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 118 Verdict

CFCJ 117 has been judged TRUE.  The actual penalty is a fine of A$50.

guy -50 CFCJ 117 [3 days from 11/6 23:59]

(to do, apply penalties from CFCJ 118 [sorry, note to myself])

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 117
  Subject:  Illegal *pinging*
Initiator:  ThinMan
    Judge:  fnord (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Oct 31, 1996, 22:05 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE

Statement:

Guy Fawkes has broken the rules.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The judge need only consider Guy Fawkes' own words:

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

I respect Mr. Fawkes, and appreciate his contributions to the game.
It is particularly ironic that he has run afoul of a rule of his own
creation.  I think it very good sportsmanship that he admitted his
error at this time, and urge the judge to go easy on him.

Recommended Penalty:

1 day in Gaol

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Now that the Machine's Truth is known, it is (even more than before)
obvious that Guy Fawkes' own admission of guilt was true.

Guy Fawkes now stands to gain A$50, provided that nobody submits
another CFCJ against him in the next three days.  Since he handled
the situation very well, in a way that did not disrupt the game,
I feel a fair penalty is to simply take that A$50 away.

Actual Penalty:

A FINE of A$50.

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 23:46:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Truth from the Machine

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> While I was admiring wonderful Machine that popped into /dev/house today,
> I fell asleep while wondering what type of Gadget was going to pop out
> of it.

I pray to every god that I can count that it is not an electronic 
potato, as long as I am acting as a financier.  Unfortunately, the
Blueprint pool has been reduced.

It turns out that it is a Scroll of Crumble.

Malenkai
in charge of random things.

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

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 00:25:35 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Grab-a-Donkey

Round 9 is over (more than 24 hours have passed, and all players
have submitted moves).

Guy Fawkes grabbed IdiotBoy's donkey, who covered.

This causes application of R 1276, clause D, and Guy Fawkes wins the
game.  Guy successfully grabbed 3 donkeys during the game.  This
causes the following to happen:

Nov 07 00:24 EST: +6 Guy Fawkes: wins Grab-a-Donkey

Guy is given the titles of Belt Holder and Wrangler.
The Wrangler may call another game at this time, if he wishes, as GaD
has not been called this calendar month.
The Belt-Holder may propose a change to the way GaD is played.

The $$ clause at the end of R 1276 is deleted.

Malenkai
one time Wrangler

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #335
*******************************