Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #362
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Monday, November 25 1996       Volume 01 : Number 362

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 03:10:23 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: Ready or Not, Here I come 

I'm back from my self imposed exile.  Ohio is hell.

Sorry for all the trouble I made while I was gone.  I apologize for not
posting Phoebe's wisdom (which I had all written and ready to send any one
care to read some (now counterfeit) wisdom?).  I apologize for holding up
ghost.  I apologize for not distributing the voting results and internomic
proposal.  I would have had my ducks together but I was not planning on
having to take a three day mid-week trip to ohio!  Oh yeah, and right
before I left I bought a new computer, so I've been having fun switching
everything over :)

Did you miss me?

snowgod
repentant

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 03:12:28 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: New Internomic proposals 

The following have come across the internomic wire.  I am hereby initiating
a senate vote on them.

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

Proposal 315 by Agora:

Amend rule 207 to read:
      Voting members may vote either for or against any proposal by
      sending their vote to the moderator by the end of the voting period
      on that proposal. A voting member that votes against a proposal may
      send a veto on the proposal with their vote. The moderator may not
      reveal any votes until the end of the voting period. Any voting
      member who does not vote has abstained.

Amend rule 209 to read:

      A proposal passes if and only if it has more votes in favor than
      votes against, and there is no veto sent on the proposal.

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

Proposal 316 by Agora:

Amend rule 203 to read:

A proposal is made by submitting it to the moderator. All members may
make proposals, as well as the moderator. Upon receiving the proposal,
the moderator shall assign it a number and distribute it to all nomics.

Amend rule 306 to read:

Whenever a proposal from a member nomic is accepted, that nomic gains
two points.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 03:14:55 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: New Agora Liasion Person 

Agora Nomic has selected a new liasion to internomic.  Unfortunately, I do
not have his name or email addess in front of me.  I believe he is elJefe,
but I may be incorrect.

>Due to internal Problems in Agora I have left its Liaisonship. The new Liaison
>is Agora's Speaker (temporarily). I seem to have lost the records of who that
>is, sorry...
>
>Andre

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 03:18:43 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: New Agora Liasion Person 

>Agora Nomic has selected a new liasion to internomic.  Unfortunately, I do
>not have his name or email addess in front of me.  I believe he is elJefe,
>but I may be incorrect.
>
>>Due to internal Problems in Agora I have left its Liaisonship. The new Liaison
>>is Agora's Speaker (temporarily). I seem to have lost the records of who that
>>is, sorry...
>>
>>Andre

Here it is:

The Agora Speaker and temporary Liaison is

Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso <[email-masked]>

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 03:22:14 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: The things I find myself doing 

In the absense of Nicolo Flychuck I find myself Acting Gamesmaster,
Registrar, and Chess-Umpire.  Did I miss anything?  It is my understanding
that all prospective new players have been notified to send their
information to me, so that shouldn't be a problem at least.

snowgod
suddenly overwhelmed :)

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:19:04 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: Votes 

The following Votes have been logged:

1444 y
1445 y
1446 y
1447 n
1448 n
1449 y
1450 y
1451 p
1452 y
1453 n
1454 n
1455 p
1456 n
1457 y
1458 y
1459 n
1460 y
1461 n
1462 n
1463 p
1465 n

Sorry about the delay.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:19:07 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: Violating Speed 

I had originally intended to release all voting results through 1449 (? or
is it 1448) tonight when I got home, but the act of logging three days
worth of votes has taken me (get this) two hours! You guys were busy while
I was gone.

I know I am violating speed, and I apologize.  I swear to the gods of the
upcoming finals week (oh no!) that I shall release them sunday night, even
if it means pulling an all-nighter!!

snowgod
apologetic, possibly a criminal (again!)

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:23:16 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka:  otzma cards and gadgets 

>Agora, on the other hand, has a tiered system, I believe.  I'm sort of
>neutral here now.  My preference would be for a convoluted system where
>a simple majority is needed to *add* to the ruleset, but a super-majority
>is needed to *remove* from the ruleset. :)
>
>Malenkai

I would not prefer to see a tiered system (though I admit that I liked
power).  I would be perfectly happy is a proposal passes with 50 or 55% of
the votes.  I do like the idea of keepoing the 2/3 for proposals that
retract rules.

snowgod
who is up way past his bedtime, but glad to be home from ohio

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:26:12 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Votes 

>The following Votes have been logged:

 [ BIG SNIP]

>Sorry about the delay.
>
>snowgod

I apologize for sending this to the list instead of in person.  Luckily, I
did not say who's votes they are!  In any event, you know who you are
(attn: reciept getters) .  Sorry once again, Phil

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:26:52 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Acka: Votes 

>Sender: [email-masked]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>X-Sender: [email-masked] (Unverified)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 04:19:04 -0900
>To: [email-masked]
>From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
>Subject: Acka: Votes
>
>The following Votes have been logged:
>
>1444 y
>1445 y
>1446 y
>1447 n
>1448 n
>1449 y
>1450 y
>1451 p
>1452 y
>1453 n
>1454 n
>1455 p
>1456 n
>1457 y
>1458 y
>1459 n
>1460 y
>1461 n
>1462 n
>1463 p
>1465 n
>
>Sorry about the delay.
>
>snowgod

sorry about sending that to the list.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 07:59:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (Guy Fawkes)

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> The current ghost word is: amnem

I'm going to protest this one, too, on the grounds that no word in the 
official dictionary contains it.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:38:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ready or Not, Here I come

Acting Tabulator wrote:
> 
> I'm back from my self imposed exile.  Ohio is hell.

What part of Ohio were you in.  I particularily like southeastern Ohio,
I also like the Cincinnnati/Adam's County area (where Serpent Mound is).
 
> Did you miss me?

Not really :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 09:49:39 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Go Fish Auction

For the 2 Go Fish Cards I was auctioning, the following bids were
received:

Niccolo A$10
Guy Fawkes A$8
Habeous Corpus A$2

Thus Niccolo gets one for A$8, and Guy gets one for A$2, if I
am doing this right.

The commission is aggregate, or A$1.

Chief Cheese
guy -2 +1 gf otzma
niccolo -8 +1 fg otzma
malenkai +1 gf otzma auction

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 11:02:22 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic

I ask the senate to consider a vote of NO on both of these proposals.
Reasoning is below.

Malenkai

snowgod wrote:
> 
> Proposal 315 by Agora:
> 
> Amend rule 207 to read:
>       Voting members may vote either for or against any proposal by
>       sending their vote to the moderator by the end of the voting period
>       on that proposal. A voting member that votes against a proposal may
>       send a veto on the proposal with their vote. The moderator may not
>       reveal any votes until the end of the voting period. Any voting
>       member who does not vote has abstained.
> 
> Amend rule 209 to read:
> 
>       A proposal passes if and only if it has more votes in favor than
>       votes against, and there is no veto sent on the proposal.

I urge the senate to vote no on this proposal.  First of all, we do not
have the voting rules to submit the veto vote, secondly, I find the
idea clumsy and cumbersome, especially in a game who currently has 3
active members, and will probably not have more than 4 for a long time.

In short, I find it does not add enough value to the game to be worth 2
points for its proposer.
 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Proposal 316 by Agora:

I am also urging a vote of no on this one as well.  Internomic is a game
of member nomics, not member nomics and an individual or individuals.
 
> Amend rule 203 to read:
> 
> A proposal is made by submitting it to the moderator. All members may
> make proposals, as well as the moderator. Upon receiving the proposal,
> the moderator shall assign it a number and distribute it to all nomics.
> 
> Amend rule 306 to read:
> 
> Whenever a proposal from a member nomic is accepted, that nomic gains
> two points.
> 
> ======================================================================
> 
> The Voting Period for Proposals 313 and 314 will end next Wednesday.
> 
> Andre,
> Moderator

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 12:40:03 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Ghost (snowgod)

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > The current ghost word is: amnem
> 
> I'm going to protest this one, too, on the grounds that no word in the 
> official dictionary contains it.

OK, ThinMan, you have 3 days to post a word in the official dictionary
containing the sequence of letters:   amnem

The resolution of this protest will end this game of Ghost.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 12:41:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (ThinMan!)

The subject line was wrong on this message -- with all that stuff snowgod
posted, I had his name on my mind and wrote it in instead of ThinMan's.

> Guy Fawkes wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > 
> > > The current ghost word is: amnem
> > 
> > I'm going to protest this one, too, on the grounds that no word in the 
> > official dictionary contains it.
> 
> OK, ThinMan, you have 3 days to post a word in the official dictionary
> containing the sequence of letters:   amnem
> 
> The resolution of this protest will end this game of Ghost.
> 

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:58:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

> This concept isn't so hard to grasp.  There's plenty of precedent for 
> similar things in RL.  For example, exactly when does a bomb take effect 
> -- it can't until it ceases to be a bomb.
	*nod*  You are right.
	It's my weird interpretation of the word "destroy", brought on by
too much C++.  The way I see it, destruction is complete and permanent. 
E.g. in your example, the bomb ceases to be a bomb, but then it isn't the
bomb that does the destruction.  The explosion and fire do that.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 17:04:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: chat

re:  replace all "Tabulator" with "Assistant Tabulator"
	That's very cute.  I don't know how I'd judge that (probably 
erring on the side of normalcy.  Emacs' replace-string doesn't recurse.)

re: Publicly Knowable
	I meant to say when I came back that Publicly Knowable (along 
with Loophole-free Contracts and the Notes Proposal that you got passed) 
was one of the proposals I really liked.

Malenkai:
> Agora, on the other hand, has a tiered system, I believe.  I'm sort of
> neutral here now.  My preference would be for a convoluted system where
> a simple majority is needed to *add* to the ruleset, but a super-majority
> is needed to *remove* from the ruleset. :)
	I'd prefer just the opposite.  :o)  Players are reluctant to cut 
stuff from the ruleset anyway (although I wish we hadn't gotten rid of 
Coke Is It... was that repeal a rider on something big?  I don't 
remember; I was a member of Nobs at the time so I voted for it.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 17:13:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: otzma cards and gadgets

> I RFCed nuking the immutables awhile back and just going with one class.
> In my mind, the only effect being immutable has is the powerful 2-edged
> sword of R 108, which is 1 for 2 (caused one crisis, bailed us out of
> one).  If that were folded into the 200 series precedence
> rule instead, I believe some of the immutable fluff could be vaporized,
> then all immutables could be transmuted to mutable, all occurrances of
> the word mutable could be removed from the ruleset, some self-deleting
> clause could say all rules have mutability of type "Rule", and there
> would be no change in the way the game is played, except it would appear
> more straightforward to a newbie.
	We should outlaw precedence.  Only deference would be legal; I
think several of the grossest (and most confusing, and least well
thought-out) sentences in the rule set could be removed this way, and the
only further upkeep we'd need would be a little renumbering and possibly
some promotions. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:33:04 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         It's my weird interpretation of the word "destroy", brought on by
> too much C++.  The way I see it, destruction is complete and permanent.
> E.g. in your example, the bomb ceases to be a bomb, but then it isn't the
> bomb that does the destruction.  The explosion and fire do that.

Yes, but in this case its the card (one could argue), *not* the fire
or explosion.  Does it say the card has effect X, or the effect of the
card has effect X.  My memory of the rule is that it says:

> Each Otzma Card can only be used once. Once it has been used, it
> is destroyed. 

> An Otzma Card which is used in the public forum takes effect immediately

The clause about it being destroyed comes before the clause about when
it takes effect.  Is there any game custom that things execute sequentially
in rules (like C++) ;)

This would probably come down to the game custom that a non-paradoxicial
interpretation is preferable to a paradoxical one, but I claim it *could*
be judged as a paradox, and that it is catagorically different than a
bomb and similar mechanical devices.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 14:37:12 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Acting Tabulator)
Subject: Re: Acka: Ready or Not, Here I come 

>Acting Tabulator wrote:
>>
>> I'm back from my self imposed exile.  Ohio is hell.
>
>What part of Ohio were you in.  I particularily like southeastern Ohio,
>I also like the Cincinnnati/Adam's County area (where Serpent Mound is).

I was in Cleveland.  never been there before.  Found it was snowier than
alaska and real drab and dreary.  If it was baseball seaon I coulda gone to
an Indians game (go indians!) but that is about the only thing I really
have to look forward to there!

>> Did you miss me?
>
>Not really :)

Aw, shucks.

>Malenkai

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:01:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1472 (or what ever it's gonna be numbered now)

> > Each Otzma Card can only be used once. Once it has been used, it
> > is destroyed. 
> 
> > An Otzma Card which is used in the public forum takes effect immediately
> 
> The clause about it being destroyed comes before the clause about when
> it takes effect.  Is there any game custom that things execute sequentially
> in rules (like C++) ;)
	Actually, I think normal usage suggests that the effect goes off
before the card is destroyed, all aesthetics aside.  The word
"immediately" implies some urgency, compared to "Once it has been used".
	An alternative view is that the card's being used and its taking 
effect are different aspects of the same event, whereas its destruction 
is a distinct event (which happens immediately after.)

- --Mohammed  (sleepy)

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #362
*******************************