Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #356
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest     Wednesday, November 20 1996     Volume 01 : Number 356

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:54:26 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1454

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> >It simply transplants some RL terms onto Ackanomic.  I oppose the
> >discrimination against same-gender unions.  
> 
> It is mocking the real-world discrimination against such unions. I've got my
> new slogan for this proposal: Vote for this or you're a bigot!

In this case I'll have to counter that the the medioun is the message, and
that having been distributed this proposal has played its role. I've had a
couple of proposals in the past which I proposed just to make a point. 
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> >We live with two gender outside Ackanomic, why have only two in ackanomic.
> >Why not three, or four?
> 
> Amend it if you like, but we should pass it now, amend it later.
> 
> Robert Sevin
> Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:23:20 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: G & C propsal 105

G & C proposal 105
Malenkai

Fictionary

Gist:  A player chooses an obsure word from a dictionary that hopefully
no one knows the definition of.  All other players anonymously submit
bogus definitions of the word.  All submissions are mixed in with the
real definition, and players vote on which definition is correct.
Scoring is based on voting for the correct definition among all the
chaff, or inticing others vote for your bogus definition.

I.  Equipment: none

II.  Number of Players:

minimum: 5; maximum: the number of active players when an
instance of Fictionary is initiated.  Referees: none.

III.  Starting an instance of the Game:

The game is started upon a required number of players
nofitying the GamesMaster of their intent to start a Game
of Fictionary, and the GamesMaster publically announcing the start
of the game, or as directed by other rules.

In the announcement of the start of the game, the GamesMaster shall
randomly assign each player a different integer ranging from
1 to N, where N is the number of players in the game

IV.  Rules of the game:

The game is composed of rounds; each round shall have one "Brainiac".
All players who are not the Brainiac shall be known as "Bluffers".
The game shall be scored with "Gamepoints", which have no scope
outside a particular instance of a game of Fictionary.

Player 1 shall be the Brainiac of the first round, and after that,
Brainiac duty shall be assigned in order of increasing player number
at the completion of each round.  Player 1 again assumes the duty
just after the completion of the round where the player with the
highest number was Brainiac.

A round is composed of the following steps, in order.  All steps
shall be completed within 3 days of the competion of the previous
step (or the start of the round in the case of the first step).
If a player(s) fails to perform the designated action by the end of
this time limit, the listed default action is deemed to have been
performed, and they lose 1 Gamepoint.

Steps (1 thru 5) of a Round:

1) The Brainiac shall choose a word (known as the "Ing Word" for
that round) from the Official Dictionary, whose definition is available
on-line in one of the extra-nomic dictionaries listed below
(Dictionaries), and publically post the word.  The Ing Word should
be as obscure as possible.  Words with Harfy definitions are encouraged.

The Brainiac shall also privately note the definition of the Ing Word.
This definition shall be a verbatim transcription of any of the
definitions provided by any of the Dictionaries.  (Part of speech and
similar details should not be transcribed).  This shall be known as the
"Actual Definition".

This step ends when the Ing Word has been publically posted.

Default Ing Word: "ing"; Actual Definition:  "A pasture or meadow;
generally one lying low, near a river."

2) All Bluffers shall submit a definition for the Ing Word to the
Brainiac via private e-mail.  Default: "" is submitted.

3)  The Brainiac shall compare the submitted defintions with the Actual
Definition and any other definitions in the Dictionaries (On-line
Definitions), and report how play proceeds based on the following cases:

3a) 2 or more Bluffers submitted a definition that is substantially
similar to an On-line Definition.  In this case, each such Bluffer
receives 3 Gamepoints, the Brainiac is sneered at for picking an easy
word, and the round ends.

3b) Exactly one Bluffer submitted a definition that is substantially
similar to an On-line Definition.  In this case, that Bluffer receives
4 Gamepoints, and their submitted defintion is removed from play.
The Brainiac publically announces that this has occurred, and play
proceeds without the submission as if case 3c) occurred, except that the
correct Bluffer does not participate.

3c) No Bluffer submitted a definition that is substantially similar to
an On-line Definition.  In this case, the Brainiac randomly sorts the
submitted definitions and the Actual Definition into a numbered list
(without the names of the associated Bluffers), and publically posts
the list for Bluffer voting.  This posting ends this step.

3d) Default: The Brainiac loses 4 Gamepoints, no other scoring occurs
this round, and play proceeds to the next round.

4) All Bluffers shall vote for one of the definitions on the list,
and publically post their vote.  Voting for the Bluffer's own definition
is permissible (and is called "sheeping").  It is good form to quote
the definition being voted for in this post.  This step ends when all
bluffers have voted.  Default: A Bluffer who did not vote is deemed to
have sheeped.

5a) The Brainiac shall score the voting and post this information, the
cumulative scoring for the game, and the actual definition.  Scoring
is as follows (in addition to any from section 3):

        i)   Each Bluffer receives 1 Gamepoint for every player other
             than himself who voted for his definition.

        ii)  A Bluffer receives 2 Gamepoints if he voted for the Actual
             Definition.

        iii) If no one voted for the Actual Definition, the Brainiac
             receives 2 Gamepoints.

5b) The game shall end when all players have been Brainiac the same
number of times, and one or more players has 25 or more Gamepoints.
The single player with the most Gamepoints wins, and receives 1 A$ for
each Gamepoint they have.  If there is no such player, all players
who are tied with the most Gamepoints recieve A$12.  There is no winner
declared, however.

5c) If the game does not end at this step, play continues to the next
round with a new Brainiac at step 1.

5d) Default: The GamesMaster or Acting GamesMaster becomes acting Brainiac
to adjudicate step 5.  If there is no such officer, the game ends with
no winner and no payoff.

5e) Players are permitted to ridicule any definition that is not
the same part of speech as the Ing Word.

V.  Permissible On-line Extra-Nomic Dictionaries

http://gs213.sp.cs.cmu.edu/prog/webster
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html

VI.  Errata

1)  Players on vacation are replaced by bots who perform the default
actions in their stead (but the players receive all scoring as a result
of the bot's play).  A player going on vacation may have a volunteer
play in their place if they can find such a person, however.

2) Players may resign at any time, although this is considered bad form.
Any player who resigns or leaves Acka is replaced by a bot until the
end of the round in which they resigned (unless they resigned after
the completion of step 5, and before the completion of step 1 in the next
round).  After that, their "spot" is removed from the game.

3) Players may not look up the Ing Word (or any of the definitions), in
any dictionary until its definition is disclosed, or until adjudication
of step 5 is required.

4) If any disputes arise, it shall be adjudicated by the GamesMaster,
who shall render judgement objectively.  If a player is dissatisified
with the GamesMaster's decision, a CFJ is their only recourse.  Calling
a CFJ is bad form, however, as it is only a game.  Play is suspended
for the duration of any adjudication.

5) If any of the Dictionaries become inaccessable for an extended
period of time, the GamesMaster may declare the game unplayable, and
end it with no winner.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:30:55 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: G & C propsal 105

>G & C proposal 105
>Malenkai
>
>Fictionary

Simply amazing.  Just the other day I was contemplating proposing this
very game.  I commend Malenkai on what appears to be a very complete
set of net rules.

And I endorse this proposal.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 06:12:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: G & C propsal 105

> >G & C proposal 105
> >Malenkai
> >
> >Fictionary
> 
> Simply amazing.  Just the other day I was contemplating proposing this
> very game.  I commend Malenkai on what appears to be a very complete
> set of net rules.
> 
> And I endorse this proposal.

As do I.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:15:08 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: G & C propsal 105

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> >G & C proposal 105
> >Malenkai
> >
> >Fictionary
> 
> Simply amazing.  Just the other day I was contemplating proposing this
> very game.  I commend Malenkai on what appears to be a very complete
> set of net rules.
> 
> And I endorse this proposal.
> 
> ThinMan
> 
As do I

snowgod

Did the bacon Game fail?

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 08:19:33 -0900 (AKST)
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Supreme Court Announement

I am hereby appointing Mohammed to the Suprem Court of Ackanomic, pending
senate approval.  The three candidates on my list were all so good, and
provided such thoughtful replies to my questions that it is a shame I have
to choose only one.  

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:09:07 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105

> G & C proposal 105
> Malenkai
> 
> Fictionary

I endorse this G&C submission.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:31:51 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: G & C propsal 105 (and 104)

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> As do I
> 
> snowgod
> 
> Did the bacon Game fail?
>
Due to the holiday, there are still a few hours before it fails.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:05:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> G & C proposal 105
> Malenkai
> Fictionary

This has my support.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:15:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1451

Guy Fawkes wrote:
 
> Proposal 1451 -- Tue 19 Nov 17:33 CST 1996
> King For a Day
> Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)

> Proposal 1453 -- Tue 19 Nov 17:34 CST 1996
> Don't Say the C-Word
> Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)

I am declaring these 2 proposals Harfy.

Malenkai
Harfmeister

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:17:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105

Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> >G & C proposal 105
> >Malenkai
> >
> >Fictionary
> 
> Simply amazing.  Just the other day I was contemplating proposing this
> very game.  I commend Malenkai on what appears to be a very complete
> set of net rules.

Thanks.

By my count G & C 105 is approved.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:30:18 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal Verdict

On the matter of CFCJ 118, The Supreme Court upholds the original
decision of TRUE.

The Court consisted of justice mr cwm.

Nov 20 18:30 EST: -25 breadbox: frivilously bothering the judges CFCJ 118

mr cwm -21 A$ tardy verdict of CFCJ 118

mr cwm is the owner of the newspaper "is".

Note that CFJ 320 and 321 are still out there.

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:  TRUE

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.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Supreme Court finds the Reasoning of the original Judge to be
sound.  Whatever Game Custom might have been for other entities, it
cannot override the wording of R891 (The Press), interpreted (in this
case) in accord with common usage.  While Game Custom may remain that
possession implies ownership for the many examples cited by the Appealer,
R891 makes Newspapers an exception to that Custom, much as R1323 (Rental)
does, thus weakening it. The Supreme Court suggests that the definition
of Entities in the future make explicit the link, or lack thereof,
between possession and ownership.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:35:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105 -approved

 G & C proposal 105 was approved. It was endorsed by the following
players:

Thiman
breadbox
snowgod
/dev/joe
Guy Fawkes

I don't remember if the ammendment to give points to the authoer passed or
not. I'll look it up, I'll put on the web page in a few hours.

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> > 
> > >G & C proposal 105
> > >Malenkai
> > >
> > >Fictionary
> > 
> > Simply amazing.  Just the other day I was contemplating proposing this
> > very game.  I commend Malenkai on what appears to be a very complete
> > set of net rules.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> By my count G & C 105 is approved.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:36:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105 -approved

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
>  G & C proposal 105 was approved.

> I don't remember if the ammendment to give points to the authoer passed or
> not. I'll look it up, I'll put on the web page in a few hours.

It didn't.  I almost submitted it as a proposal for that reason, as I
spent a good bit of time on it, but I've made alot of cheap points too,
so I guess it all evens out.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:43:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105 -approved

My proposed amendment did not pass. :(

Guy Fawkes 

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

>  G & C proposal 105 was approved. It was endorsed by the following
> players:
> 
> Thiman
> breadbox
> snowgod
> /dev/joe
> Guy Fawkes
> 
> I don't remember if the ammendment to give points to the authoer passed or
> not. I'll look it up, I'll put on the web page in a few hours.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> GamesMaster

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 01:45:53 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105 -approved

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> > 
> >  G & C proposal 105 was approved.
> 
> > I don't remember if the ammendment to give points to the authoer passed or
> > not. I'll look it up, I'll put on the web page in a few hours.
> 
> It didn't.  I almost submitted it as a proposal for that reason, as I
> spent a good bit of time on it, but I've made alot of cheap points too,
> so I guess it all evens out.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
I rather liked that one :(

Although that would mean a lot of easy points, not that there is anything
wrong with that.

How  about a Bonus Vote for anyone who manages to get 10 G & C proposals
passed. (scam potential? maybe) Bacon knows it's as not easy as it looks.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:50:25 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105 -approved

Uri Bruck wrote:

> How  about a Bonus Vote for anyone who manages to get 10 G & C proposals
> passed. (scam potential? maybe) Bacon knows it's as not easy as it looks.

10!!  I was thinking a bonus vote for each one passed.  I will be
impressed if one person authors 10 of these with any substance.  I guess
its possible over time, but given the average passed proposal nets its
author 8 points and A$16, there is less incentive to develop this part
of the game, although I do it just for the fun of it, which I guess is
the ultimate incentive.

Malenkai
how about one bonus vote for every 2 :)

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:56:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal Verdict

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Note that CFJ 320 and 321 are still out there.

By my count, 320 is due in the wee hours of Friday morning, and 321 is 
due tomorrow evening.  Otherwise, Niccolo and fnord deadbeat and it's off 
to the Praetor!

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:00:46 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G & C propsal 105 -approved

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > How  about a Bonus Vote for anyone who manages to get 10 G & C proposals
> > passed. (scam potential? maybe) Bacon knows it's as not easy as it looks.
> 
> 10!!  I was thinking a bonus vote for each one passed.  I will be
> impressed if one person authors 10 of these with any substance.  I guess
> its possible over time, but given the average passed proposal nets its
> author 8 points and A$16, there is less incentive to develop this part
> of the game, although I do it just for the fun of it, which I guess is
> the ultimate incentive.
> 
> Malenkai
> how about one bonus vote for every 2 :)

With self deleting text that will give a Bonus Vote to every player who
has two games/equipment on the page already (that would be you and me I
believe) and I'm for it.

Two sounds good to me .
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:02:47 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal Verdict

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Note that CFJ 320 and 321 are still out there.
> 
> By my count, 320 is due in the wee hours of Friday morning, and 321 is 
> due tomorrow evening.  Otherwise, Niccolo and fnord deadbeat and it's off 
> to the Praetor!
> 
> Guy Fawkes

I'm working on it even as I type. It's in my other window.

Niccolo Flychuck

ps-
Nobody said anything about my Runemaker's page yet.

If anyone wants to contribute any graphics to it, please do. I'm hopeless
with them.

> 

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:00:15 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 118 Appeal Verdict

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Note that CFJ 320 and 321 are still out there.
> 
> By my count, 320 is due in the wee hours of Friday morning, and 321 is
> due tomorrow evening.  Otherwise, Niccolo and fnord deadbeat and it's off
> to the Praetor!

The exact times are on the CotC page.  One of them was submitted by me,
so it will kick around some more if it goes deadbeat.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:12:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  New Blueprint

Blueprint for the
Orbital Mind Control Laser

- ---
An Orbital Mind Control Laser is a sneaky, rotten, mechanical device 
capable of forcing players into undesirable business transactions.  

A Player who has an unbroken Orbital Mind Control Laser may zap any
un-Sheltered Player with it, unless that Laser has been used to zap anyone
else within the past day.  In doing this he or she must send a public
message announcing which Player is the zap-ee, and which standing trade
offer he is being zapped for.  That particular trade must be one offered
by someone other than the owner of the Orbital Mind Control Laser doing
the zapping; it must also be one that the zap-ee may legally accept. 

At the time of the message announcing the zap, the entities offered and 
requested in the trade are transferred just as if the zap-ee had accepted 
the trade according to the rules.

However, should it be verified by judgement that a Player did not in fact
accept any such trade and was in fact the victim of an Orbital Mind
Control Laser, then the Orbital Mind Control Laser transfers each entity 
involved in the trade back to the Player who had it before the zap, and 
then promptly becomes broken.

Orbital Mind Control Lasers are indestructible.
- ---

A note about the next-to-last thing:  it would be nice to have the "undo" 
happen automagically, without having the Orbital Mind Control Laser do the
reverse transfer, but the only way for me to "do stuff" through the rules 
is by having a Gadget do it.  Ah, well.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 16:34:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Supreme Court Nomination

Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed your appointment of Mohammed
as our newest Justice of the Supreme Court.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:38:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 320 Verdict

CFJ 320 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 320
  Subject: Dilocation of the Little Lamb
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: IdiotBoy (relieved of duty to deliver verdict by R 962.2)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Nov 12, 1996, 00:43h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

More than one player may possess the Little Lamb simultaneously.

Guy Fawkes' Reasoning:

>From Rule 1046, which governs the Little Lamb:  "Any player may claimpossession of the Little Lamb, which will remain in effect until another
player claims possession of the Little Lamb, or for one week, whichever
is longer."  Let's say that Player A claims possession of the Little
Lamb, then four days later Player B does.  This clause guarantees that
Player A's claim will remain in effect for at least one week, but this does
not preclude the effectiveness of Player B's claim.  Indeed, Player B has
claimed possession of the Little Lamb, and according to Rule 1046, this
claim will remain in effect for at least one week.

Note that this is one of those cases where possession and ownership are
very different.  No one _owns_ the Little Lamb -- I believe it possible
that many players might possess it.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

My first instinct was to judge this false. Surely possesion was just as
exclusive as ownership. But then I looked through the rules, and found the
term posses, possesion, etc. were used many times, they were never
defined. Game custom might have suggested that possesion is exclusive.
However, game custom only has effect when the rules are completely silent
on an issue. This rule is far from silent on this issue, it explicitly
defines the terms of possesion of the Little Lamb, and the terms are as
Guy Fawkes has interpreted them to be.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:46:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Official - RuneMaker

I have created three Otzma Cards so far, they are all of type Go Fish

I am also anouncing the begining of a public Auction for the following
Cards

OCID 101 Go Fish
OCID 102 Go Fish
OCID 103 Go Fish

Since the date in the ackanomic time zone is even, I shall be conducting
the Auction.

I also note that the the Otzma Day is not over yet and I can still create
more Otzma Cards.

Niccolo Flychuck
RuneMaker

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:43:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1457

Proposal 1457 -- Wed 20 Nov 19:36 CST 1996
Unanimity Is Lovely (although not so lovely as it used to be)
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)

When a proposal passes, and had no votes other than YES votes cast, the
President shall publicly congratulate the author by giving a formal speech.
Also in celebration of this joyous occasion, the player with the lowest
score shall have their score increased by 2 points. If more than one player
is tied for lowest score, all of their scores change to 2. If this would
cause a player to lose points, that player will instead have their score
increased by 3 points.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:43:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1458

Proposal 1458 -- Wed 20 Nov 19:36 CST 1996
Undead (aka I didn't come back as a bag of groceries)
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)

Any player publicly that kisses an undead cannot cast votes for 4 days
following the kiss. The kiss will cause a scandal and an article about it
must be published in at least one newspaper within the next 10 days (i.e.
the newspaper, with the article, must be sent out within 10 days of the
kiss) or all players who own newspapers lose 3 points.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:43:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal 1459

Proposal 1459 -- Wed 20 Nov 19:36 CST 1996
Ackademy Awards Ceremony
Robert Sevin (Mitchell Harding)

Once every two months the Ackademy Awards Ceremony (hereafter referred to
as AAC) will be held. The AAC will begin on the 1st day of the month, and
will end on the 8th day of the same month. The AAC will take place in the
following months: December, February, April, June, August, October. At
least one newspaper must cover each AAC by containing an article about it.
Each AAC will be assigned a number. The number assigned to an AAC is equal
to the number of AACs that have ever occurred, including the AAC being
assigned a number.

The following awards will be given out at the AAC:

Most Valuable Player
Most Harfy Player
Most Dedicated Player
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Observer

In order to create new awards in the future, the above list should be amended.

Each award must be given out (unless there is no one eligible to receive
it), and awards may only be given to players or observers. A player or
observer may receive multiple awards. The following steps will occur for
each AAC:

1. On the 1st of the month, the Registrar must send a public message
announcing the beginning of the AAC. In this message the Registrar must
include a list of all current players and observers. This is the list of
people eligible to receive awards.

2. All non-vacationing players can vote in the AAC. These votes must be
sent to the Tabulator before the 8th day of the month. A player may cast up
to one vote for each award, and in this vote they must specify which player
or observer they are voting for. If an award's name contains the word
"player", votes cast for that award may only be cast for a player. If an
award's name contains the word "observer", votes cast for that award may
only be cast for an observer. If an award's name contains neither of the
above words, votes cast for that award may be cast for either a players or
an observer.

3. On the 8th of the month, the Tabulator will publicly announce the
results of the AAC.

3.1) If an award for a player had less than 5 votes cast on it, the award
goes to the player whose score is closest to 57. In case of a tie, the
player whose Ackanomic Name (hereafter called AN) comes last alphabetically
wins.

3.2) If an award for an observer had less than 5 votes cast on it, the
award goes to the observer whose name contains the least vowels (tie goes
to the observer whose name comes first alphabetically).

3.3) If an award has less than 5 votes cast on it, and it does not specify
whether a player or an observer must win it, then if an odd number of votes
were cast on the award (or if there are no observers), the player whose AN
comes first alphabetically will win, but if an even number of votes were
cast on the award, then the observer whose name comes first alphabetically
will win.

3.4) Otherwise, the person who receives the greatest number of votes for a
given award wins that award. In case of a tie, the Tabulator randomly
chooses the winner from among those who tied.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:44:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Proposal 1460

Proposal 1460 -- Wed 20 Nov 19:37 CST 1996
Games Bonus
Niccolo Flychuck (Uri Bruck)
 
1. Every Ackanomic player has a G&C Count.
2. When  a proposal is accepted for either the Games & Contests section
or the General Equipment section of the Games & Contests web-page, the G&C
Count of the the author of the proposal is incremented by 1
3. Whenever a player's G&C Count is incremented to an even number - a
Bonus Vote is created and given to that player.
 
{{All G&C Counts are set to zero. A Bonus is created and given to
Malenkai. A Bonus Vote is created and given to Niccolo Flychuck}}

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #356
*******************************