Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #439
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Sunday, January 5 1997        Volume 01 : Number 439

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 22:00:24 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka: RFC reorg version A 3.0

This is to inspire, hopefully, discussion
Well I got discussion.

This reflects most of comments I read 

Reorg

Section A: Organization of Rules
A rule number is in the form Rule xx-9999 where xx is
an ascii expression and 9999 denotes a real number.

The xx value denotes the catagory of a rule and must come form the list 
of expressions contained on section A.1 of this rule.  This takes
precednece over
any rule that assigns a number to the a Rule.

A.1)  {Some possible catagories}

	A = organizing principles 
	B = defining terms {Wherein are definitions of players land, entiities
etc.}
	C = Players and player interface {to include new players, vacation, undead
etc}
	Offices and Officers
	E = Land and buildings {to include land, hotels etc}
	3 = Meta rules
{Yes,  the 300's still can be meta rules by calling 3 the catagory, but it
is clearer to assign 
a descriptive phrase to each catagory. As an example this rule could be
numbered
"Meta-3 or 3-03 anything else we select.}
{this also allows the number of catagories to expand as needed}.

The 9999 value denotes a seriel number within each catagory.  This
explicitly does not limit the maximum number of rules with a catagory.

Section B:  Precedence: 
 
Precedence goes in numeric order within a catagory and physical order
listed in Section A.1
unless explicitly stated in a rule.
{I'm not wild about the way I stated it}

Section C: Tranfering existing Rules to new ruleset order.

1. The president shall appoint a committee to catagoriize existing rules
and to relate precedence and references.
2. The committee shall create a document showing the organization and
complete text of the proposed rule Reorganization showing within two weeks 
of its formation
3. The sample Rorg shall be available to all active members, and after a
period of two 
weeks shall be introduced as a proposal
4.  Although the reorginization is treated as a proposal, any rules
relating
to gain or loss of points or Processing chips are specifiacaly waived.
D:  Any rule passed during the period while the committee is working
shall be given a two week grace period to be catagorized

Section D:  Ammendments
The individual proposing a rule shall determine what catagory the proposal
shall be in
and post it in the announcement.
If there is a diagreement as to what catagory a trial shall be held
according to the aplicable rules
Proposals shall be numbered as a straight serial based of order 
recieved by the Promoter or person designated to serve in the promoter's
capacity.
Any Proposal that is accepted shall be assigned a rule number one greater
current newest rule in a catagory and it shall be the newest rule in the
catagory.
The Number of the proposal shall be included within the text of 
any proposal that is accepted as a Rule.

Section E: Housecleaning

1)  Upon the approval of the reorg and after any rules approved during the
period have been
put into catagories, the entirety of Section C of this rule shall be
deleted, and Section D
shall be relabled section C
2.)  Upon complition of Part 1 of Section E of this Rule. Section E of this
rule shall be deleted.
{Section E was never renumbered so this is it.}

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:25:59 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC reorg version A 3.0

On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, John Martin Lotz wrote:

> This is to inspire, hopefully, discussion
> Well I got discussion.
> 
> This reflects most of comments I read 
> 
> Reorg
> 
> Section A: Organization of Rules
> A rule number is in the form Rule xx-9999 where xx is
> an ascii expression and 9999 denotes a real number.
> 
> The xx value denotes the catagory of a rule and must come form the list 
> of expressions contained on section A.1 of this rule.  This takes
> precednece over
> any rule that assigns a number to the a Rule.

I think it would prefereable to propose this par as an ammendment to the
rule about Rule Numbers (still dazed from the re-org)

> 
> A.1)  {Some possible catagories}
> 
> 	A = organizing principles 
> 	B = defining terms {Wherein are definitions of players land, entiities
> etc.}
> 	C = Players and player interface {to include new players, vacation, undead
> etc}
> 	Offices and Officers
> 	E = Land and buildings {to include land, hotels etc}
> 	3 = Meta rules
> {Yes,  the 300's still can be meta rules by calling 3 the catagory, but it
> is clearer to assign 
> a descriptive phrase to each catagory. As an example this rule could be
> numbered
> "Meta-3 or 3-03 anything else we select.}
> {this also allows the number of catagories to expand as needed}.

What about rules that can belong to more than one category?

> 
> The 9999 value denotes a seriel number within each catagory.  This
> explicitly does not limit the maximum number of rules with a catagory.
> 
> Section B:  Precedence: 
> 
> Precedence goes in numeric order within a catagory and physical order
> listed in Section A.1
> unless explicitly stated in a rule.
> {I'm not wild about the way I stated it}

So the order of Categories is significant to predence. That is, all rules
of category C, have default precedence over all rules of Caegory E. 

I don't like this part, Ackanomic is far from being a one dimensional
game.  

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 01:31:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Reorg II

John Martin Lotz wrote:

> BTW where is The size of things?

I believe its R 1519.  My RFC does not touch every rule.  There are
exactly 6 rules I'm still thinking about (Hearings, Crisis Resolution,
Experts, 1519, and 1330).  I wasn't sure where to put
it, I think its fine where it is until a compelling place for it
becomes obvious to me.  Anyone else can propose a place for it, as
part of Reorg II or a seperate proposal.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:38:54 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC G&C Fascist 

>> You don't state who is the next Emeror,  I would say the winner should.
>	There is no "next Emperor"; the game just ends.  I tried to write 
>it in such a way that it would be suitable for duels; in that case 
>a neverending game isn't what is wanted.

It doesn't seem to be an appropriate game for dueling... One emperor and one
peasant would not make for a terribly interesting game. I like the concept
of making this game a "sub-Nomic" of Acka, but I'm not sure of it's utility
in dueling situations... It would serve better as an amusing side-game, I
should think. Did you have some plan to modify it to work as a dueling game?

>> Join Inter Nomic?
>	Perhaps.

I don't support this idea. While interesting, I wouldn't like a sub-game of
Acka to become an equal of Acka. In effect one player in Acka (the Emperor)
would have equal standing with Acka in Internomic, which may not be a
desirable thing.

>> Get a Trinket ? or import/export ruleset items :) ?
>	I dunno.  Perhaps.

I think this might only lead to trouble. I think it would be best to
carefully regulate interaction between these sub-Nomic and Acka...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 21:46:09 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Grab-A-Donkey III - Are you ready for some Donkey Business? 

Haviong finally completed my proposal to modify grab-a-donkey in accordance
with my status as wrangler/belt holder, I am planning on beginning a new
game of grab-a-donkey when the current game of fictionary ends.

If anyone does not wish to play, or if you believe I should begin the game
sooner, please let me know.

snowgod
Master of the Donkeys

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 22:42:39 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC reorg version A 3.0

Uri Bruck wrote on  Saturday, January 04, 1997 10:25 PM
>
> 
> On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, John Martin Lotz wrote:
> 
> > This is to inspire, hopefully, discussion
> > Well I got discussion.
> > 
> > This reflects most of comments I read 
> > 
> > Reorg
> > 
> > Section A: Organization of Rules
> > A rule number is in the form Rule xx-9999 where xx is
> > an ascii expression and 9999 denotes a real number.
> > 
> > The xx value denotes the catagory of a rule and must come form the list

> > of expressions contained on section A.1 of this rule.  This takes
> > precednece over
> > any rule that assigns a number to the a Rule.
> 
> I think it would prefereable to propose this par as an ammendment to the
> rule about Rule Numbers (still dazed from the re-org)
> 
> > 
> > A.1)  {Some possible catagories}
> > 
> > 	A = organizing principles 
> > 	B = defining terms {Wherein are definitions of players land, entiities
> > etc.}
> > 	C = Players and player interface {to include new players, vacation,
undead
> > etc}
> > 	Offices and Officers
> > 	E = Land and buildings {to include land, hotels etc}
> > 	3 = Meta rules
> > {Yes,  the 300's still can be meta rules by calling 3 the catagory, but
it
> > is clearer to assign 
> > a descriptive phrase to each catagory. As an example this rule could be
> > numbered
> > "Meta-3 or 3-03 anything else we select.}
> > {this also allows the number of catagories to expand as needed}.
> 
> What about rules that can belong to more than one category?
> 
Pay your A$ take your chances.  It would seem logical to 
assume that there would be some catchall catagory for dificult
cases.  
Also if it were a big concern someone could write language stating
that a rule existed in one catagory could have a palce in other
caagoties
See Below
> > 
> > The 9999 value denotes a seriel number within each catagory.  This
> > explicitly does not limit the maximum number of rules with a catagory.
> > 
> > Section B:  Precedence: 
> > 
> > Precedence goes in numeric order within a catagory and physical order
> > listed in Section A.1
> > unless explicitly stated in a rule.
> > {I'm not wild about the way I stated it}
> 
> So the order of Categories is significant to predence. That is, all rules
> of category C, have default precedence over all rules of Caegory E. 
> 
> I don't like this part, Ackanomic is far from being a one dimensional
> game.  
> 
As we have things currently we use rule order to determine precedence
unless a rule specifically takes precedence.  This is a default state that
is easily 
altered in either case. As I said I'm not wild about the way I stated it.

As stated the Proposal would, assuming it were done this way, allow rules
to 
have local pecedence and extended precedence

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 09:19:18 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Grab-A-Donkey III - Are you ready for some Donkey Business?

I do not wish to play Grab a Donkey.
Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Haviong finally completed my proposal to modify grab-a-donkey in accordance
> with my status as wrangler/belt holder, I am planning on beginning a new
> game of grab-a-donkey when the current game of fictionary ends.
> 
> If anyone does not wish to play, or if you believe I should begin the game
> sooner, please let me know.
> 
> snowgod
> Master of the Donkeys
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:17:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Reorg II

On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, John Martin Lotz wrote:
> BTW where is The size of things?
	There are a bunch of sizing proposals in queue now; if they pass, 
all the sizing stuff will be in one place (in the 1600s).  They won't 
need to be reorganized.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 22:34:58 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More Assistant Web-Harfering 

Web Harfer willing, I plan to assistant-web-harfer a page dedicated to
towers.  I believe I have colleted all messages discribing towers and would
be more than happy to maintain a list using /dev/joes entity pages as a
template.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 09:39:49 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Otzma Cards - Auction

On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> I have chosen to use the Probablistic method for all the Otzma Cards.
> 
> Here are the Otzma Cards I'm creating
> 
> 
> 
> 108 Share Your Income
> 109 Go Fish
> 110 Tactical Retreat
> 111 Share My Expenses
> 112 Go Fish
> 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> RuneMaker
> 
I'm declaring seperate Auctions. One for each of these Otzma Cards.

I believe the Chief Chees for these would be the Speaker. 

Niccolo Flychuck
RuneMaker

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 22:43:20 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Automation 

For ackanomic to become truly grandiose would most likely require more
functional officers, but what about automating what we can?  I mean, we
have a bunch of talented programmers here (or so it seems) so what if we
were to create the Wwll Paid office of the Programmer (with as many seats
as volunteers, but an easy impeachment procedure) who's job it would be to
invent methods of automation for other officers?

Could something like this work?  Could we have a bunch of bots?  Would we
have to hide thiese guy behind curtains at the end of the tellow-brick
road? I don't know, but it is something to look at for sure.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 09:45:17 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Otzma Cards - Auction

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I have chosen to use the Probablistic method for all the Otzma Cards.
> > 
> > Here are the Otzma Cards I'm creating
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 108 Share Your Income
> > 109 Go Fish
> > 110 Tactical Retreat
> > 111 Share My Expenses
> > 112 Go Fish
> > 
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> > RuneMaker
> > 
> I'm declaring seperate Auctions. One for each of these Otzma Cards.
> 
> I believe the Chief Chees for these would be the Speaker. 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> RuneMaker
> 
> 
I believe the current rules still make these Auctions private.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:11:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: email glitch

I went back and checked the original message and it's very definitely 1724
bytes ending with "must".  If the proposal passes, a Common Sense Report 
can fix it.

- --Mohammed

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:45:16 -0800
From: John Martin Lotz <[email-masked]>
To: "Jason \"AKA Mohammed\" Orendorff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal

Title:  Just the FAQ's
Author:  Jammer (AKA John-Martin Lotz)

[snip]

If the !0th days of the month falls on a festival or a holiday,
Just the FAQs must 

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:41:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC G&C Fascist

> It doesn't seem to be an appropriate game for dueling... One emperor and one
> peasant would not make for a terribly interesting game. I like the concept
> of making this game a "sub-Nomic" of Acka, but I'm not sure of it's utility
> in dueling situations... It would serve better as an amusing side-game, I
> should think. Did you have some plan to modify it to work as a dueling game?
	No; I was thinking in the instance of a duel, some uninvolved 
player would serve as the Emperor and both duelists would be peasants.

> >> Join Inter Nomic?
> >	Perhaps.
> I don't support this idea. While interesting, I wouldn't like a sub-game of
> Acka to become an equal of Acka. In effect one player in Acka (the Emperor)
> would have equal standing with Acka in Internomic, which may not be a
> desirable thing.
	I don't support it either; I just didn't see anything in
particular preventing it from happening, the way the rules are written. 
Any restriction I plant in the ruleset ("This game may not be a member of
Internomic, no matter what.") can simply be repealed. 
	But to be realistic, the Emperor would have to find a way to get
the Internomic nomics to *unanimously* agree to allow Fascist to join.  I
don't see it happening.  Other nomics will likely object for the same 
reason you and I object.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 23:35:22 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Web-harfering 

The Internomic Web page is now current, and should stay so (I hooked it to
a frontier script that will automatically update it from a pulldown menu).
Anyhow, let me know what you think... I simplified the design some.

Also, I am hereby volunteering to make logo's for all of the acknaomic web
pages.  I have already done Niccolo's Pages and my own, but I think it
would be kind of neat if we could have unified graphic images on all the
web pages.  You know, a certain font and color or size or icon or
whatever...

I'm rambliong, so goodnight.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 03:10:54 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Automation 

At 10:43 PM 04-01-97 -0900, Phil Ackley wrote:
>For ackanomic to become truly grandiose would most likely require more
>functional officers, but what about automating what we can?  I mean, we
>have a bunch of talented programmers here (or so it seems) so what if we
>were to create the Wwll Paid office of the Programmer (with as many seats
>as volunteers, but an easy impeachment procedure) who's job it would be to
>invent methods of automation for other officers?
>
>Could something like this work?  Could we have a bunch of bots?  Would we
>have to hide thiese guy behind curtains at the end of the tellow-brick
>road? I don't know, but it is something to look at for sure.

I had looked into a pearl script for the financier that would do all the
cash flow for him. A few technical problems exists. I can write things for
the web, but I cannot open email accounts that will do things as the
nomicbot [teary eyes] once did.

Since this is an email game, problem. I'm willing to hear suggestions from
the field.

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:48:00 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rejections 

Okay, so maybe I'm not really the most rejected player, but certainly the
most recently rejected player :)

Wayne has 39 Proposals Rejected
Robert Sevin has 41 Proposals Rejected
Niccolo Flychuck has 42 Proposals Rejected
I have 51 Proposals Rejected
Malenkai has 58 Proposals Rejected
CnH has a whopping 78 Rejected Proposals

snowgod
third in line for the crown

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 04:14:34 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rejections 

At 12:48 AM 05-01-97 -0900, Phil Ackley wrote:
>Okay, so maybe I'm not really the most rejected player, but certainly the
>most recently rejected player :)

lol!

>CnH has a whopping 78 Rejected Proposals

whopping? whopping!?!... well excuse me if I get picky on that.   :)

Note how the Church just takes the prize.
I think there is religious discimination going on.
That's it!      ;)

>snowgod
>third in line for the crown

I really should get a prize for that, shouldn't I...   :)

Calvin N Hobbes
going for first to 100 failures

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:27:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New Trinket 

I am creating a Trinket called the Crown of Ultimate Failure (and I mean
that in a good sense) with a value of A$100.  It is a crown of the roman
style (Corona Civicus?) made from the shells of Chartruese Goose Eggs.  It
is worn on a players head just above the ears with the ends of the crown
residing upon a players temples. This crown should always be worn by the
player who has the highest number of failed proposals.

I am giving it to Calvin N. Hobbes with the hope that he passes it back
along to me when I beat him to 100 failed :)

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 04:40:09 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Hunting

There once was a penguin from Zanzibar
Who was on vacation in Shandalar
When he used his noodle
And asked a green poodle,
"Why do my limerick lines sometimes go too far?"

/dev/joe
Still doesn't know what Malenkai's numbers mean.

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:52:15 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hunting 

>There once was a penguin from Zanzibar
>Who was on vacation in Shandalar
>When he used his noodle
>And asked a green poodle,
>"Why do my limerick lines sometimes go too far?"
>
>/dev/joe
>Still doesn't know what Malenkai's numbers mean.

LOL, but I'm still clueless as to the treasure map :)

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 09:29:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hunting

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
 
> There once was a penguin from Zanzibar
> Who was on vacation in Shandalar
> When he used his noodle
> And asked a green poodle,
> "Why do my limerick lines sometimes go too far?"

/dev/joe has found Treasure 114.  The map read in full:

- --
One can find the Golden Frinking Straw only by publically posting a
limerick cotaining the words, "penguin," "noodle," and "Zanzibar."
- --

I'm sure the crowd would like to know the secret.  Since my web pages are
down, I have attached T 114 to the end of this message.  The crowd is
also awaiting /dev/joe burying a piece or two of that large treasure
hoard :)

Malenkai
Map Custodian for T 114
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treasure 114 (Guy Fawkes, Dec 14, 1996): 

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

Malenkai became a Map Custodian for this Treasure on December 19th, 1996

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 09:57:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma Auction

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I believe the Chief Chees[e] for these would be the Speaker.

That would be Count Tabula, actually.  There will be exactly 4
auctions, as both Go Fishes would go in a single auction, being
identicial entities.  The auctions end three days from the date of
this post.  Note that R 1023 may change during the life of this auction.
  
If you would like to bid on any or all of these Otzma cards, send bids
to [email-masked]

They are private auctions:

Auction 1: Share Your Income [108]
Auction 2: 2 Go Fishes [109,112] 
Auction 3: Tactical Retreat [110]
Auction 4: Share My Expenses [111]

Chief Cheese

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 10:00:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Trinket

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> I am creating a Trinket called the Crown of Ultimate Failure (and I mean
> that in a good sense) with a value of A$100.  It is a crown of the roman
> style (Corona Civicus?) made from the shells of Chartruese Goose Eggs.  It
> is worn on a players head just above the ears with the ends of the crown
> residing upon a players temples. This crown should always be worn by the
> player who has the highest number of failed proposals.

To the headwear master and creator, can it be worn over an SVH or a PF?

Malenkai
headwear is an important part of one of his treasures

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:28:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling

> The following buildings start dangling as a result.
> 
> Mellon's House
> breadbox's House
> Sherwood Castle
> 23 Skidoo's House
> De'ghew's House

Oh, no. I'm never going to get anything done now. Help.

> Malenkai
> randomly ** * ******** ****** ****

"randomly is a unwisely chosen word"? (I know, not grammatically correct.)

breadbox
called conservative for the first time in his life

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:40:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (breadbox)

> I have no play and resign from ghost.
> 
> snowgod

I am forced to admit that I accidentally deleted the Ghost email
previous to this one. May I sheepishly request that the Referee inform
me as to the current state of the game (when it's convenient, that is).

breadbox
the dangling conservative

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 11:04:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling

Brian Raiter wrote:

[about dangling]

> Oh, no. I'm never going to get anything done now. Help.

I'll be building another grav. monopole soon.  Perhaps you can rent
HCs.
 
> > Malenkai
> > randomly ** * ******** ****** ****
> 
> "randomly is a unwisely chosen word"? (I know, not grammatically correct.)

I honestly do not remember, but I don't think it was 'G' rated :)  I
was in a particularly grumpy mood last night, or whenever I wrote that,
at my ISPs incompetence.
 
Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 11:06:02 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ghost (breadbox)

I play "anytim". It is now [breadbox]'s turn.

Robert Sevin

>> Turn order
>> ----------
>> Robert Sevin
>> breadbox

Malenkai
referee

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:58:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping* Magic Letter Request

>> After I double-checked my work, I got on-line and posted
>> my guess. /dev/joe's guess arrived in my mailbox soon afterwards. (If
>> I hadn't stopped to double-check it, we might have had another Hubert
>> situation...)
>
> I double-checked mine too, so we're even on that one (and I wrote
> all that other stuff).

Of course I did not mean to imply that you didn't check your work, nor
even that it took mean eleven minutes to check mine - just that if I
*had* been reckless, it might have been difficult to sort out who was
first. I don't know if muppetlabs.com is synched with the atomic
clock. As it was, it was obvious that yours was sent first.

> Lately it seems I've become breadbox's evil twin, who solves every
> puzzle only a few minutes before he does. :-)

I would be honored to have you as an evil twin, /dev/joe, but in
reality the few times we've come close is dwarfed by the number of
puzzles you solved that I never came close to working out.

breadbox
the conservative dangler

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 09:03:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ghost (Robert Sevin)

> I play "anytim". It is now [breadbox]'s turn.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Malenkai
> referee

Thank you, referee.

I play "manytim". It is now Robert Sevin's turn.

Turn order
- ----------
Robert Sevin
breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:12:20 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic CFJ 

 There is a new internomic CFJ.  It is submitted by Agora, who is also
judging it.  I will forward along any comments you may have.

snowgod

>An Internomic Statement for Judgement has been issued by Agora.
>Agora has also been randomly picked to judge it...
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Statment for Judgement:
>
>The proposals 301 till 318 have all passed
>
>Arguments of caller:
>
>>
>>Rule 109 says:
>>
>>109.  All proposals shall be voted on.  They will be adopted if and only if
>>      they receive the required number of votes.
>>
>>Remark that this rule does not specify what KIND of votes (in favor,
>>against or abstaining) the proposal has to receive, it just has to
>>receive the required NUMBER of them. It takes precedence over rules 110
>>and 209, so their attempts to make proposals pass or fail for other
>>reasons automatically fail.
>>
>>So a proposal passes if and only if it receives the required number of
>>votes. Did proposals 301 till 318 do so? The rules do not give a
>>required number of votes, so any such requirement is trivially met, and
>>thus proposals 301 till 318 passed.
>>
>

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:17:23 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Trinket 

>Phil Ackley wrote:
>>
>> I am creating a Trinket called the Crown of Ultimate Failure (and I mean
>> that in a good sense) with a value of A$100.  It is a crown of the roman
>> style (Corona Civicus?) made from the shells of Chartruese Goose Eggs.  It
>> is worn on a players head just above the ears with the ends of the crown
>> residing upon a players temples. This crown should always be worn by the
>> player who has the highest number of failed proposals.
>
>To the headwear master and creator, can it be worn over an SVH or a PF?

Worn over a PF, sure... Under an SVH.

snowgod

>Malenkai
>headwear is an important part of one of his treasures

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:34:46 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Happy Birthdays 

Happy birthdays to whoever may be having a birthday today.  For some reason
I have it in my head that Breadbox, the dangling conservative and Habeous
Corpus, first time liberal, are both getting older.  But what do I know?

Anyway, if it's your birthday, have a good one.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 13:26:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Jammer)

Jan 05 13:30 EST: -3 Clairence: did not report what Phoebe said

Jammer has found Phoebe's matchbox.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:06:10 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Trinket 

At 01:27 AM 05-01-97 -0900, Phil Ackley wrote:
>I am creating a Trinket called the Crown of Ultimate Failure (and I mean
>that in a good sense) with a value of A$100.  It is a crown of the roman
>style (Corona Civicus?) made from the shells of Chartruese Goose Eggs.  It
>is worn on a players head just above the ears with the ends of the crown
>residing upon a players temples. This crown should always be worn by the
>player who has the highest number of failed proposals.
>
>I am giving it to Calvin N. Hobbes with the hope that he passes it back
>along to me when I beat him to 100 failed :)

I accept this dubious -- although touching -- honor.   :)
And I place it on my head myself, saying "aut caesar, aut nihil".

Calvin N Hobbes
about to send half a dozen messages

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 11:19:28 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Oh, Silly me 

IF Mohammed takes the job of tabulator from me,
AND if Habeous Corpus does not want the job of Registrar,
and IF you guys can put up with me in yet another functional office :)
THEN I will volunteer for the office of Registrar.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:36:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Machine that goes *ping*

While I was admiring the Whamiol that the machine just produced for me,
I fell into a deep sleep.  I had a weird, wild dream, in which I met
a giant multi-colored flea (which looked to be a relative of Phoebe,
but somehow I recognized it as a manifestation of the Machine).
It spoke to me only one thing:

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

/dev/joe
Scholar of *ping* once again

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:41:47 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Automation 

>Could something like this work?  Could we have a bunch of bots?  Would we
>have to hide thiese guy behind curtains at the end of the tellow-brick
>road? I don't know, but it is something to look at for sure.

The NomicBot was evidence of the feasibility of automated Tabulation.
Automated Promotion should be easy as well. In fact, we ought to be able to
set it up such that when a proposal is sent out by the Promoter, it is sent
to the NomicBot also, who will then automatically update it's records to
include that proposal as one being voted on. It could check the date to
determine when the voting period is up, and automatically send out the
results at the appropriate time. Proposal retraction and voting period
extentions would have to be done manually, but that's not a big problem.
Actually, we could program NomicBot to allow the author to retract their own
proposals by sending a message. Perhaps an automated Scorekeeper. Someone
would probably have to send it messages telling it how to adjust scores for
most things, but the NomicBot could automatically send it the scoring for
proposals... I can see how many of these things could work together...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:41:50 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ghost (Robert Sevin) 

>I play "manytim". It is now Robert Sevin's turn.
>
>Turn order
>----------
>Robert Sevin
>breadbox

I challenge this word. I do not believe the Ghost word is contained in any
word in the Official dictionary.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:41:45 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC G&C Fascist 

>	No; I was thinking in the instance of a duel, some uninvolved 
>player would serve as the Emperor and both duelists would be peasants.

Interesting. It would seem like you'd have to find some very uninvolved
player to serve as Emperor, though, lest they take sides. Further, a 3
player game of Fascist might be a bit stale... I'd like to try and find a
way to have more players yet still have it remain a duel... I suppose that
would require re-working the duel rule, however...

>	I don't support it either; I just didn't see anything in
>particular preventing it from happening, the way the rules are written. 
>Any restriction I plant in the rule set ("This game may not be a member of
>Internomic, no matter what.") can simply be repealed. 

Yes, but you could always plant something in the rule set that says "The
GameMaster of Acka may veto any suggestion" or something, and then the GM
could veto any suggestion to alter that.

>	But to be realistic, the Emperor would have to find a way to get
>the Internomic nomics to *unanimously* agree to allow Fascist to join.  I
>don't see it happening.  Other nomics will likely object for the same 
>reason you and I object.

True, so I don't imagine this would be a big problem...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:46:33 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oh, Silly me 

At 11:19 AM 05-01-97 -0900, Phil Ackley wrote:
>IF Mohammed takes the job of tabulator from me,
>AND if Habeous Corpus does not want the job of Registrar,
>and IF you guys can put up with me in yet another functional office :)
>THEN I will volunteer for the office of Registrar.

bus error
segmentation fault (core dumped)

Unix>Calvin N Hobbes

Command not found

Unix>

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 12:56:58 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: Automation

 Robert Sevin wrote:
> 
> >Could something like this work?  Could we have a bunch of bots?  Would
we
> >have to hide thiese guy behind curtains at the end of the tellow-brick
> >road? I don't know, but it is something to look at for sure.
> 
> The NomicBot was evidence of the feasibility of automated Tabulation.
> Automated Promotion should be easy as well. In fact, we ought to be able
to
> set it up such that when a proposal is sent out by the Promoter, it is
sent
> to the NomicBot also, who will then automatically update it's records to
> include that proposal as one being voted on. It could check the date to
> determine when the voting period is up, and automatically send out the
> results at the appropriate time. Proposal retraction and voting period
> extentions would have to be done manually, but that's not a big problem.
> Actually, we could program NomicBot to allow the author to retract their
own
> proposals by sending a message. Perhaps an automated Scorekeeper. Someone
> would probably have to send it messages telling it how to adjust scores
for
> most things, but the NomicBot could automatically send it the scoring for
> proposals... I can see how many of these things could work together...
> 
It could also figure out Processing chips

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

Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 16:28:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Automation

John Martin Lotz wrote:

> [bots] could also figure out Processing chips

That is not true.  Processing Chips are based, in part, on whether
the rule created a new entity, and there are certain restrictions on
the sort of entities that qualify.  A bot cannot figure that unless we
go to a formal nomic, which, although I'd like to try, is not for
Acka, IMHO.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 23:38:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC G&C Fascist

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> >	No; I was thinking in the instance of a duel, some uninvolved 
> >player would serve as the Emperor and both duelists would be peasants.
> 
> Interesting. It would seem like you'd have to find some very uninvolved
> player to serve as Emperor, though, lest they take sides. Further, a 3
> player game of Fascist might be a bit stale... I'd like to try and find a
> way to have more players yet still have it remain a duel... I suppose that
> would require re-working the duel rule, however...

Actually I have something in the works about that. Perhaps still won't be
suitable for Fascist.
I'd like to ammend Duels to allow games that require either four players,
or two teams of two players. This would allow greater involvement on the
part of the Seconds. Right now they are just messengers. Originally I
thought Duels would be a bit more involved.
Other than that, I just don't see how to involve more players while
keeping the spirit of the Duel.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 12:39:39 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Automation 

>John Martin Lotz wrote:
>
>> [bots] could also figure out Processing chips
>
>That is not true.  Processing Chips are based, in part, on whether
>the rule created a new entity, and there are certain restrictions on
>the sort of entities that qualify.  A bot cannot figure that unless we
>go to a formal nomic, which, although I'd like to try, is not for
>Acka, IMHO.
>
>Malenkai

I suppose that the promoter could put in codes if it mattered at the end of
a proposal for the bots... more work, less fun, but it takes it away from
the speaker.

##mod
##enti
##etc.

you get the idea

Oh well,
snowgod

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #439
*******************************