Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #404
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, December 15 1996       Volume 01 : Number 404

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 18:45:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: G&C Proposal 106

Games and Contests Game:  Battle of Britain

Author:  Habeous Corpus

General Equipment Required:  None

Specific Equipment Required:
1.  Playing board:  two imaginary grids (Home and Enemy) with a minimum
ten (10) rows by ten (10) columns each and a maximum of twenty (20) rows
by twenty (20) columns each.  The rows are labeled alphabetically,  with
the top row labeled "a" and ascending downward.  The columns are labeled
numericly,  with the left most column labeled "1" and ascending toward
the right.
2.  Playing pieces representing aircraft (fighters and bombers). 
Fighters occupy two (2) adjacent grid squares on the playing field. 
Bombers occupy five (5) adjacent column or row grid squares.  Pieces are
not allowed to be placed diagonally on the board,  only horizontally or
vertically.  The game begins with nine (9) fighters and one (1) bomber. 
Additional pieces are generated and awarded to Players as required in the
game's rules.
3.  Tokens,  awarded by the referee at the end of each Round in
accordance with the game rules.

Minimum/Maximum number of Players:  Two (2).  Either individual Players
or Teams.

Referee:  One (1).  Known as the Commander in Chief (CIC).  Chosen by
volunteer;  paid A$5 from the Treasury for eir service upon conclusion of
game.

Rules:
1.  The game of Battle of Britain (Game) is played in Rounds made of
Turns which consist of Moves by each Player.  Legal Moves consist of
Shoot,  Pass and Forfeit.  Players may only Move when it is eir turn to
Move.  One Player is designated as the Germans,  the other as the
British.  At the beginning of the Game,  the British start with five (5)
fighters;  the Germans start with three (3) fighters and one (1) bomber.
2.  A Game is initiated by one Player or representative of a Team posting
a public message announcing the intention of starting a Game.  The
posting must contain the following information:
a.  Whether the Game is to be played by individuals or Teams.  In case
the Game is being played as a Duel,  only individuals may play.
b.  Which side is Taken.
c.  Any side bets or additional issues are at stake (i.e. a Duel, 
Trinket prizes,  etc.)
d.  A request for a CIC.
e.  The number of Rounds to constitue a Game (minimum 1,  maximum 15). 
In case of a Duel,  only one (1) Round is played.
3.  If the Game is to be played between Teams,  each Team is required to
have a representative (Group Commander or GC) to act as spokesman for the
team.  All communication between the Team and CIC must be accomplished by
the GC.
4.  Once all Players have responded and a CIC is chosen,  play moves from
the public forum to the private,  except as required by these rules.  All
Game Moves are sent by the CG to the CIC,  and all information from the
CIC is sent to the CG's (who then inform the rest of eir Team as
necessary).  For the remainder of these rules,  the term Player refers to
either an individual Player or the Group Commander in case of Team play.
5.  At the begining of each Round,  each Player places eir pieces on the
Home grid in no particular order.  The coordinates of the pieces'
locations are sent to the CIC using standard row/column format (i.e. b7).
 Fighters will contain both coordinate pairs occupied.,  and bombers (if
used) will conatin all five (5) coordinate pairs.  A sample submission at
the start of the Round may look like:  German:  b7b8,  d3d4,  f1g1, 
i3i4i5i6i7.  Once both Players have submitted a complete list of
coordinates,  the CIC shall announce publicly and privately that the
Round begins.
6.  On Turn consists of British Move,  Resolution,  German Move, 
Resolution.  If either Move phase contained Shots,  during the
Resoliution phase,  the CIC will determine any enemy hits,  the number of
pieces left on the board,  and the number of shots allowable for the next
Move phase.
7.  For each fighter on the board,  one (1) Shot is allowed for the
Player owning the piece.  For each intact bomber three (3) Shots are
allowed;  after being hit at least once,  but still left on the board, 
bombers are allowed two (2) Shots each.  A Shot consists of a single
coordinate pair marked on the Enemy grid submitted to the CIC.
8.  If a Player fails to respond to the CIC's notification that it is eir
Move within forty-eight (48) hours,  the Move is recorded as a Pass.  If
the message containing a Move is sent to the public forum,  the Move is
recorded as a Pass and all Shots contained in the Move are ignored.  A
Player may Forfeit the Game whenever it is eir Move.  The Current Round
ends,  as does the Game with the oppsing Player declared the Winner.
9.  If at any time,  all of a piece's coordinates are hit,  that piece is
removed fromn the board and the CIC reports this fact to both Players
immediately.  When calculating hits,  only the number and coordinate
pair(s) of the hits are reported to the shooting Player,  not the type of
aircraft hit.  Both the number of hits and type of aircraft hit are
reported to the opposing Player.
10  If all pieces belonging to one Player are removed from the board, 
the Round is declared over.  The CIC shall count the remaining pieces
still on the board for the winning Player and award two (2) Tokens for
each remaining piece,  regardless of type or condition.
11.  If further Rounds are to be played,  each Player recieves the same
number of pieces in eir possession at the start of the previous Round. 
Additionally,  either Player may trade back to the CIC all eir existing
Tokens for one (1) fighter.  Also,  any three (3) fighters may be traded
for one (1) bomber.  The playing field grids are increased by one (1) row
and one (1) column each (to a maximum of 20X20).  Once all pieces have
been assigned and awarded,  the next Round begins with the placement of
the pieces on the Home grids.
12.  After the conclusion of the last Round,the Player with the most
Tokens is declared the winner of the Game and awarded one (1) Point in
exchange for each two (2) Tokens in eir possession at the end of the
Game.  In case of Team play,  each winning Team member is awarded one (1)
Point for each two (2) Tokens in the Team's possession at the end of the
Game.

Respectfully,
Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:38:00 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Super-User)
Subject: Acka: *ping* 

Today is Saturday, the 14th day of December, 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.

Malenkai
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:52:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Secret Decoder Ring

I am giving the Secret Decoder Ring to /dev/joe.

It should be noted that the few-minutes-off timestamp of that "Hubert" 
message does not apply to all my mail.  The vast majority of my mail is 
timestampted within three seconds of the correct time.  (The central 
students cluster from which I do most of my mailing is on the correct 
time.  I was not logged on that evening when I saw the clock on my local 
station hit 10:59, and so I quickly drew up a mailto screen and shot it 
off using Netscape, which used the time on the local machine.)

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:58:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Secret Decoder Ring

> My apologies; I hadn't considered that. I would, of course, have been
> happy to mail it directly to anyone who wanted to see it. (Or I could
> have just mailed it to the list, if no one had any objections.) Of
> course, as it turns out, /dev/joe decoded my map in less time than it
> took me to create it. (Just how long DID it take you, /dev/joe?)
	Bah.  I tried the other decoding program on it, and when that 
didn't work I rigged it to give me a histogram, and when that gave 
results with lots of x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 characters I figured the high and low 
nybbles were reversed, but there were only two 02s and I thought there 
couldn't be all that text with just 2 spaces.  But I wrote the program 
anyway, realized what went wrong, wrote the program to reverse the whole 
mess, reversed it, decoded it, uudecoded the result.
	I also found a bug in the rot13 program that I wrote in the first 
month I knew C.  So that's fixed.
	After a certain point, though, it wouldn't uudecode any further.  
:o(  uudecode complained that it was a "short file".  I dunno what I did 
wrong (never used uuencode before this week), but since I don't know 
EBCDIC I wouldna gotten it anyway.
	Once I was stumped I came back and found out /dev/joe had checked 
his mail a few hours before I did anyway.  :o)
	This was a neat little hunt, breadbox.  Thanks.

- --Mohammed (feeling very green behind the ears)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 11:05:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Ghost

I challenge the Ghost word "ysy".  Blah.

- --Mohammed (capitulating early)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:28:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Mohammed)

Mohammed has found Phoebe's matchbox.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:36:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: OK -- try this one

Utterly boggled by breadbox's latest treasure hunt, I create a Trinket 
(value A$100) called the Golden Frinking Straw.  It is a slender hollow 
tube made of thin gold, its outer surfaces exquisitely molded into a 
bas-relief depicting the creation of the earth.  (How odd, depicting the 
creation of a flat object upon a cylinder.)  It is guaranteed to 
make its owner totally conspicuous at any public frinking binge.

I am burying the Golden Frinking Straw as Treasure.  I am not releasing 
any part of the treasure map at this time, although the following 
interesting sequence of characters may be somehow related to it.

4F 3D 22 42 25 06 74 14 7A 63 51 35 55 49 31 16 36 7D 6C 58 3C 21 0F 2F 
75 67 50 3E 29 12 00 67 07 5A 4E 40 21 18 38 27 15 01 7A 1A 7C 75 15 05 
7A 5C 48 31 14 75 61 4D 46 66 56 45 38 2C 15 03 6A 0A 6B 0B 77 60 4D 32 
24 0D 70 5B 7B 5E 4D 3B 2F 10 79 67 50 3E 25 45 39 21 06 26 1D 0C 7E 60 
53 73 15 05 6A 58 3F 34 1D 0B 37 59 79 1B 09 78 67 4B 37 1C 48 6A 0A 6B 
59 3D 5D 7F 59 3A 28 22 0B 6D 4E 40 6E

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:45:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Treasure

No, not a Treasure Map, sorry, but there are a few unsolved treasures
out there.

As many of you know, and for those of you who don't,
the treasure web page is at:

http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackabta.htm

I have collated all of the treasure hunt info and history I have
(except Guy's latest treasure), there.  One thing I have changed
is moved "clues, riddles, and guesses" for specific treasures into
a file linked from that specific treasure, if and only if it is clear
that those c,g's, and r's apply to that treasure.  So, some will be
in the general treasure section at the bottom, and some, for these
encryption treasures especially, will be under the treasure.

A note about breadbox's treasure.  I have included /dev/joe's analysis,
but have only provided a link to the original encryption on breadbox's
server.  If he moves that map.txt file, it will break, if anyone cares
about the historical preservation of this.  

Also, for those who do not have web access, all of this information,
except breadox's stuff linked to, is available in the FTP archive on
wilma, although not as well distilled.  I can also mail you the raw
html if you want, assuming you have a browser and can read it as a
file, or can weed through the code.

If you have suggestions for better organization of the page and the
clues, let me know, it really has not changed that much.

Happy treasure hunting!

Malenkai
whose treasures are safe

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:43:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> I challenge the Ghost word "ysy".  Blah.
> 
> --Mohammed (capitulating early)

polysyllabic

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:51:13 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Problem with P1559 - Summaries

Mitchell Harding wrote:
> 
> >1) The paragraph allowing the Senate to revoke the title of expert is
> >too vague for me to support in its present form. Expert commentary
> >should have a concrete number of summaries allowed per calendar month.
> 
> Please elaborate on your first statement. What would you suggest?
> 
What I mean by that is, the way the proposal is worded now, there is in
no guideline for the Senate to follow in determining whether or not
summaries are being abused other than a subjective one. The guideline
should be objective, with definite lines not to cross.  

. 
> >2) The expert should be asked to summary of the proposal, not recieve
> >points for an summary unasked for. 

> I disagree. If an expert is commenting on proposals that have no need of
> summary, they will most likely have their title revoked, or at least be
> warned by the Senate.

That is still too subjective. When would that line be crossed? It would
only in obvious cases be clear.

The more I think about it the more I like having the expert recieve
points or whatever only when a summary is asked for. Let me put it in
these terms: If an expert was asked for his explanation of the proposal,
then he should benefit. I see no reason to have someone benefit if no
one asks for an opinion. 
 
> >3) Some players could, from my point of view, be called experts in
> >almost all fields. There should be a limit of 2 fields to which a player
> >can be a summarizing expert.
> 
> Again I disagree. Being an expert is a service to others, it is not intended
> to be something to benefit a player in any major way. If a player can be an
> expert in many areas, good for them -- they can be that much more help to
> other players.

I see your point here, and retract that objection.
> 
> Robert Sevin, who may or may not be...
> Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

I like the concept of the proposal, don't get me wrong. It just seems a
little vague in the areas that I addressed.

Lestrade, who without his glasses cannot tell if Robert Sevin is or is
not...
Wearing his Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:57:00 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Auctions

As soon as somebody tellsd me definitively WHO the Chief Cheese is for
the Otzma and OMCL Auctions,  I will cease sending my bids to the public
forum.

We Definitely need to straighten out Auctions soon

Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:28:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Auctions

[email-masked] wrote:
 
> As soon as somebody tellsd me definitively WHO the Chief Cheese is for
> the Otzma and OMCL Auctions,  I will cease sending my bids to the public
> forum.

Niccolo Flychuck is Chief Cheese for the Otzma Auctions.  They are private
auctions, although it is permissable for players to say publically what
they are bidding.  These auctions end Sunday, December 15th, 08:11 EST,
accourding to my records.

I believe Mohammed is Chief Cheese for the OMCL, but it does not matter,
as the highest publically knowable bid posted before it ends will hold
sway.  This is the same thing as the Hubert situation since the rule
was modified.  My records indicate this auction ends Sunday, December
15th, 22:08 EST.

Auction information can generall be found on the current events page
at http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackace.htm

The only thing that needs to be "fixed", imho, is the end of a public
auction.  There are at least 3 possibilities:
	a) put it back the way it was in the original R 1023
	b) add "the auction ends after 3 days or x hours after the last
bid in that auction".
	c) make all auctions private

I like b), as public auctions are fun, and some other auctions are 
private anyway.

Malenkai
long-winded

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:37:25 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G&C Proposal 106

Uri Bruck wrote:
 
> Games and Contests Game:  Battle of Britain

I will endorse this.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 18:35:22 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Problem with P1559 - Summaries 

>> Please elaborate on your first statement. What would you suggest?
>What I mean by that is, the way the proposal is worded now, there is in
>no guideline for the Senate to follow in determining whether or not
>summaries are being abused other than a subjective one. The guideline
>should be objective, with definite lines not to cross.  

>> I disagree. If an expert is commenting on proposals that have no need of
>> summary, they will most likely have their title revoked, or at least be
>> warned by the Senate.
>That is still too subjective. When would that line be crossed? It would
>only in obvious cases be clear.

I would have to disagree with you in both of these cases. It would be a
great undertaking to make an explicit algorithm that determines when an
Expert has gone too far. I think the concept behind the Senate was to have a
group of players who represent the popular will. I think it is important to
leave this up to their wisdom. I would agree that perhaps I should add a
clause to the proposal that forces the Senate to issue a warning before they
remove an Expert, or perhaps give a reasoning when they remove an Expert
(that could be contested by the players, perhaps).

>The more I think about it the more I like having the expert recieve
>points or whatever only when a summary is asked for. Let me put it in
>these terms: If an expert was asked for his explanation of the proposal,
>then he should benefit. I see no reason to have someone benefit if no
>one asks for an opinion. 

The only reason no one would ask for an opinion would be because everyone
understands the proposal, and in this case the proposal would be too simple
to require a summary, which would mean that the Expert was wrong to post it
in the first place. If this occured too often, then the Senate would warn
and eventually remove the title of Expert from the player.

>I like the concept of the proposal, don't get me wrong. It just seems a
>little vague in the areas that I addressed.

Well, I want to work out any problem with the proposal, and get it in a form
that would be acceptable to everyone.

Robert Sevin, who may or may not be...
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 18:36:25 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otters and platapi 

Hey!

I'm going to be gone until Monday night!

I don't think I'll put myself on vacation, due to the brevity of my absence,
but I wanted to let everyone know in advance.

Robert Sevin, who may or may not be...
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:11:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Traveling 

>On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:
>
>> I am climbing to the top of the tallest Tower in Ackanomic (Oh, but I can't
>> remember it's name) and awaiting the arrival of the Brass Monkey.  All
>> assuming I have the tower owner's permission, of course :)
>>
>> snowgod
>
>You have my permission, of course, but I really don't see why you'd want
>to be there, getting incinerated by the the eternally-lit
>not-quite-Bronze Torch that's on top :)
>
>Guy Fawkes

I am now officially climbing to the top of Guy Fawkes tower to await the
Arrival of the Brass Monkey.  I shall be extra careful of the not quite
bronze torch at the top.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:27:11 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G&C Proposal 106 

>Uri Bruck wrote:
>
>> Games and Contests Game:  Battle of Britain
>
>I will endorse this.
>
>Malenkai

As do I.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:05:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Debate 

>The Presidential Debate questions follow.  I had decided to limit it
>to eight questions beforehand, I do not know if that is a good number.
>I only had to eliminate 2 quesions.  I will announce the election
>within the next 5 minutes.  I apologize if I missed anyone's questions.
>Questions are in random order.

And one other question that we all forgot to ask!!!! Do you plan on
building a Bomb Shelter?  The next tornado is just a few days away!

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:09:48 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka CSR 111 

Common Sense Report 111 has been accepted.

snowgod
acting CSRR

>   Common Sense Report 111 - Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:44:15 -0900
>   snowgod (Phil Ackley) Result:
>
>     Amend R423 by adding the following text to the end of the Rule:
>     {{renumber this rule to 450.}}
>

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:22:36 EST 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: RFC: Internomic Justice

RFC: Internomic Justice Take Two
Habeous Corpus
(Ed Graham)

Ammend Rule 588 (Selecting a Judge) by replacing the second paragraph
with:

If the "remaining Pool" is ever reduced to 0 eligible active Players, 
and a judge needs to be selected,  the Clerck of the Court (CotC) shall
send a public message to the Ambassador containing the following:

1.  A request for Internomic Judgement,  with the reason for the request
(i.e. no available judges).
2.  A copy of the CFJ or CFCJ responsible for the request.
3.  The initiator's comments.
4.  Any extenuating circumstances that might require Judgement before the
default Internomic Judgement.

Prior to submitting the CFJ or CFCJ to Internomic for Judgement,  the
Ambassador shall request in a public message for additional FOR and
AGAINST comments on the CFJ or CFCJ from Players.  The iniator of the CFJ
or CFCJ shall be given priority in adding to the FOR argument,  Any
number of Players may submit arguments AGAINST,  but in cases of a CFCJ
or any CFJ aimed at a particular Player,  the concerned Player shall be
given priority.

The Ambassador shall pick one or more AGAINST arguments to accompany the
FOR argument (even in cases where the only argument is the CFJ Statement)
 when submitting the CFJ or CFCJ to Internomic.  

Any Player providing an argument either FOR or AGAINST should be prepared
to defend eir argument if queried by the Internomic Judge.  

Internomic Judgements may not be appealed either to Ackanomic nor
Internomic.  This takes precedence over any Ackanomic Rule governing
appeals of CFJ's or CFCJ's.

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

Ammend Rule 569 (Overturning Judgements) by replacing the seventh (7th)
eighth (8th) and ninth (9th) paragraphs with the following:

In the event that any Player opposes the verdict of the Supreme Court, 
they may appeal for Internomic Justice as along as they do not exceed any
appeal limiots specified by this or other Rules.  An Internomic Court of
Justice appeal is initiated by submitting a statement to the Praetor
containing the following information:
1.  A request for Internomic Judgement,  with the reason for the request
(i.e. opposition to an appeal verdict).
2.  A copy of the CFJ or CFCJ and/or appeal responsible for the request.
3.  The initiator's and all Judges' comments.
4.  Any extenuating circumstances that might require Judgement before the
default Internomic Judgement period.

  The Praetor shall forward the message to the Internomic Liason in a
public message,  who shall submit the appeal to the Internomic Court of
Justice for Ackanomic. 

Prior to submitting the appeal to Internomic for Judgement,  the
Ambassador shall request in a public message for additional FOR and
AGAINST comments on the appeal from Players.  The Supreme Court Justices
shall be given priority in adding to the FOR argument,  Any number of
Players may submit arguments AGAINST,  but in cases of a CFCJ or any CFJ
aimed at a particular Player,  the concerned Player shall be given
priority.

The Liason shall pick one or more AGAINST arguments to accompany the FOR
argument (even in cases where the only argument is the CFJ Statement) 
when submitting the appeal to the Internomic Court of Justice.  

Any Player providing an argument either FOR or AGAINST should be prepared
to defend eir argument if queried by the Internomic Judge.  

Internomic Judgements may not be appealed either to Ackanomic nor
Internomic.  This takes precedence over any Ackanomic Rule governing
appeals of CFJ's,  CFCJ's or Supreme Court Rulings or Judgements.

Supreme Court Justices may not appeal Supreme Court Rulings or Judgements

- ----------

Ammend Rule 589 (Invoking Judgement) By inserting between the fourth
(4th) and fifth (5th) paragraphs the following:

Any Player who believes that a pending CFJ is either too controversial or
too important to the existing Ruleset to be Judged by any single Player
in Ackanomic,  may request that the CFJ be judged by the Internomic Court
of Justice.

A request for Internomic Justice on an existing CFJ is made by posting a
message to the Clerk of the Courts containg the following information:
1.  A request for Internomic Judgement,  with the reason for the request
(i.e. impact on ruleset).
2.  A copy of the CFJresponsible for the request.
3.  The initiator's comments and any additional comments FOR or AGAINST.
4.  Any extenuating circumstances that might require Judgement before the
default Internomic Judgement period.

The Clerk of the Court shall post to the public Forum a summary of the
reasoning for requesting Internomic Justice,  and commence a Hearing to
determine if the CFJ will be heard by the existing Ackanomic Judge,  or
be forwarded to Internomic.  Valid responses are "No,  our Judge is good
enough" and "Yes,  Internomic needs to hear this".  If fifty percent (50)
plus one (1) of the votes are for "Yes,  Internomic needs to hear this", 
then the Liason shall  forward the CFJ to Internomic;  otherwise,  the
case goes back to the original Judge.

Prior to submitting the CFJ  to Internomic for Judgement,  the Liason
shall request in a public message for additional FOR and AGAINST comments
on the CFJ from Players.   Any number of Players may submit arguments FOR
or AGAINST.

The Liason shall send all arguments both FOR and AGAINST  when submitting
the CFJ to Internomic.  

Any Player providing an argument either FOR or AGAINST should be prepared
to defend eir argument if queried by the Internomic Judge.  

Internomic Judgements may only be appealed either to Ackanomic nor
Internomic if there was a demonstrable violation of Ackanomic Rules in
the Judgement delivered.  This takes precedence over any Ackanomic Rule
governing appeals of CFJ's or CFCJ's.

CFJ's that would result in a Rule 219 Win are not elligable for
submission to the Internomic Court of Justice.

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

Ammend Rule 1374 (Praetor) by adding to Section IV the following
paragraph:

The Praetor shall review any appeals to Supreme Court Rulings or
Judgements submitted by a Player.  If the Praetor finds that the Player's
complaint does not meet the required Format,  nor canotains a valid
argument for opposoing the appeal,  the complaint shall be deemed Invalid
and returned to the Player with an explanation as to why it was Invalid. 
The Player must resubmit the complaint within three (3) days or forfeit
the right to submit compaints on the particular CFJ,  CFCJ or Supreme
Court Ruling or Judgement.  The Praetor may not judge the complaint for
content,  only form.  If any Player believes a complaint was judged
Invalid for content or personal bias,  e may call for the impeachment of
the Praetor,  challenge the Praetor to a Duel,  sneer at the Praetor,  or
resubmit the complaint with no time limit.

Respectfully Submitted:
Habeous Corpus

{{[I included identical language in a few places to make it easier to
rewrite incase some sections were objected to.  The Final Proposal should
be a little leaner,  and a lot tighter in language.  Of course,  this
whole thing assumes Internomic passes InCJ.
HC]}}

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:37:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure

> I thought I had it, but
	[garbage snipped]
> Means nothing to me!This looks like it might be a bit of code, but it is
> too garbled up for me to translate!  Wanna give me a hint?
	Got the documentation for uudecode?  Sure you do.  Look up the
- -please option.  That should help.

- --Mohammed
considering a new name, maybe (char*)lie
wasting bandwidth

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:41:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost

> polysyllabic
	Most excellent.  

- --Mohammed
ugh, dey got me

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:56:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Internomic Justice

1.  I don't want to see important issues go to an outside judge.  No one 
out there has the same outlook as we have in here.
2.  I don't want internomic justice to be an extraordinarly rare course 
of events that never comes into play.

	This being the case:

	I would like to request comment on the idea of changing the 
appeals process for CFCJ's only.  It would go like this:
	Just after the normal process for a CFCJ is completed, if any
party wishes to appeal it, he or she shall request the appeal publicly. 
(At this point I think it'd be neat to go to an adversarial system... by
default, the defendant takes up his side of the argument, and the person
who leveled the charges takes up the other side, but either side may hire
a lawyer.  But how to work it?)  The appeal goes to the Supreme Court,
who then sends back its decision as normal.
	If the Supreme Court's decision is appealed, the complete history
of the CFCJ goes to Internomic for final judgement, along with a few
helpful words from the Ambassador (i.e. where to start).
	This has the advantage of (a) actually possibly happening from 
time to time and (b) not putting the insanely crucial Rule of Law 
decisions in the hands of a possibly unsympathetic court.
	Thank you for your time.

- --Mohammed
wasting bandwidth again

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:23:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel/Ghost Start 

>Mitchell Harding wrote:
>
>The ghost word is now
>
>gub

My play: gube

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 21:22:48 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duel/Ghost Start

snowgod played "gube"

The ghost word is

gube

It is Robert Sevin's turn.

Malenkai
referee
feeling silly

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 21:59:14 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: acka-priv

Forwarded message:
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:30:45 +0200 (EET)
> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> To: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections vote

> I can vote now. 
 [...]

Many mail programs have an option (in addition to a normal reply and
forwarding) called "group reply" (or something similar).  The group
reply sends copies of the mail to everyone listed as a recipient,
except yourself.  Group-replying to a message sent to acka-priv
defeats the purpose, because your mailer will see the acka-priv on
the To: line and send a copy there (as shown in the cc: line above).

In case you missed the announcement or didn't understand it, the
address [email-masked] sends mail to everybody on the
ackanomic list (and ackanomic-digest) but does not set the reply-to
address, so a normal reply will just go back to the author, instead
of going back to the list.  This address is appropriate for sending
out announcements for elections, parts of some games, announcements
of private auctions, and any other public message you might send which
you want people to reply privately to.

Digest readers will still get the messages sent to acka-priv, but they
won't look any different than the messages sent to ackanomic.

I could make -priv addresses for some of the other lists, but I
don't see a need -- such messages are already restricted to a
presumably interested subset of players.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:09:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Secret Decoder Ring

Mohammed wrote about breadbox's treasure map:
> 	Bah.  I tried the other decoding program on it, and when that 
> didn't work I rigged it to give me a histogram, and when that gave 
> results with lots of x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 characters I figured the high and low 
> nybbles were reversed, but there were only two 02s and I thought there 
> couldn't be all that text with just 2 spaces.  But I wrote the program 
> anyway, realized what went wrong, wrote the program to reverse the whole 
> mess, reversed it, decoded it, uudecoded the result.
> 	I also found a bug in the rot13 program that I wrote in the first 
> month I knew C.  So that's fixed.
> 	After a certain point, though, it wouldn't uudecode any further.  
> :o(  uudecode complained that it was a "short file".  I dunno what I did 
> wrong (never used uuencode before this week), but since I don't know 
> EBCDIC I wouldna gotten it anyway.

Some of the uuencoded files had a "comment" line inserted in the middle
of the uuencoded text that had to be removed before the file could be
decoded (in addition to being rot-13'ed).  One of these said "(exquisite
dead guy)"; I don't remember what else there was.

BTW, on any Unix system, the command
  tr "A-Za-z" "N-ZA-Mn-za-m" < inputfile > outputfile
suffices as a rot-13 program.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:29:57 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Acka: Vacation

The holdays are upon me (ack get them off, get them off!!)
so I am going to be away from my computer for most of next week.
Therefore I wish to go on vacation from Mon Dec 16, until Wed Dec 25.

Merry Solstice,
Swann

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:50:48 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*

> Today is Saturday, the 14th day of December, 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.
> 
> Malenkai
> Scholar of *ping*

I would like to buy a magic letter: r

/dev/joe

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #404
*******************************