Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #459
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, January 17 1997       Volume 01 : Number 459

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:12:52 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule)

>> Red Barn, when attempting to change his name to "Chess nuts boasting
>> in an open foyer" broke the Rules.
>> 
>> To be specific, Red Barn broke Rule 251 ("Player Names").  Rule 251
>> clearly states that this name must be a string of name characters
>> from three to twenty characters in length.  Obviously, the name Red Barn
>> chose for eirself is more than 20 characters.  It is in fact, 36
>> characters.
>
>In my opinion, CFCJ 120 must be judged False.  The part of Rule 251
>that Red Barn is alleged to have broken is definitive, not regulatory,
>and thus it is impossible to break it.  Moreover, Red Barn did not

  However, this makes it an attempt to perform an action that is
not expressly permitted; ie, in this case, prohibited (I hope).

>follow the correct procedure for changing his Ackanomic name, thus
>his Ackanomic name would never have become "chess nuts boasting in an
>open foyer" even if that were a legal name.  (He did not provide an
>explanation of the change.)  Finally, the Registrar has the duty and
>right to reject name changes which would produce otherwise illegal
>names, which implies that no name change can be official until the
>Registrar approves it.  The Registrar did not approve the name change
>in question.  I quote Rule 251:

  I did provide an explanation of the change.  I explained that I was
changing my name to "Chess nuts boasting in an open foyer".  This is
probably not what was meant by the rule, but it does fit it.
  Has the Registrar approved past name changes?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:16:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 123 (Swann)

Swann has been chosen.  Again this could possibly be disqualified on
technical grounds.

Red Barn -20 CFCJ 123

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 123
  Subject:  Breaking the rules
Initiator:  Red Barn
    Judge:  Swann (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:15 EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

  Bascule, Jammer, Red Barn and Calvin N Hobbes have broken the rules.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

At 1:23 AM on 1/17/97, T Joffrain wrote:

> >  I call for a witch hunt against Jammer.
> >
> >-Red Barn
> >Thoroughly enjoying this.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> When the flame get too high, who ya gona call?
> Flaaamebuster!
>
> That's right ladies and gentlemen, you have here one of the priestest priest
> at your disposal, ready to make your life pure and perfect again.
>
> So as priest of the Church of the Markovian Dream, I issue four SOS as per
> R1315 for Bascule, Jammer, Red Barn and Calvin N Hobbes.
>
> Guys, all we have to do is stay silent for 27 hours and we'll be saved! of
> course, there will be the small matter of an A$11 fee for those not member
> of the church...   :)
>
> I'll see you all on Saturday.
>
> Calvin N Hobbes
> having a ball

  But rule 1329/0 reads:

> Rule 1329/0 Church Sanctuary
> Calvin N Hobbes  (Thierry Joffrain)
>
> If a player is declared a Heretic or otherwise threatened to be burned, then
> any priest can grant the player a "Sanctuary Of Salvation", even if the
> priest is the player herself, by making a public statement to that effect.
>
> That player is said to have taken refuge in solemn meditation and may not
> send any public messages for 27 hours. Any witchhunt against the player is
> canceled.
>
> If the player breaks her vows of silence, then the SOS is annulled and all
> proceedings (as Heretic) against the player can resume.
>
> If the player is not a member of the church that gave her sanctuary, and did
> stay silent for 27 hours, then she must pay A$11 to the priest of that church.
>
>
>  Created by Proposal 1329, Oct 21 1996
>  Amended by Proposal 1380, Nov 3 1996, by Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

  Note the use of the feminine pronoun.

Suggested Penalty:
  A fine of A$20

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:14:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule)

>> >Call for Criminal Judgement 120
>> >  Subject:  Illegal Name Change
>> >Initiator:  fnord
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> > Red Barn, when attempting to change his name to "Chess nuts boasting
>> > in an open foyer" broke the Rules.
>> > 
>> > To be specific, Red Barn broke Rule 251 ("Player Names").  Rule 251
>> > clearly states that this name must be a string of name characters
>> > from three to twenty characters in length.  Obviously, the name Red Barn
>> > chose for eirself is more than 20 characters.  It is in fact, 36
>> > characters.
>> 
>> In my opinion, CFCJ 120 must be judged False.
>
>Yeah, I knew it was weak to begin with, but all the mail he generated
>went right to my head.

  I disagree.  It is a valid insance of non-compliance with the rules.

- -Red Barn
If you're against yourself, who are you for?

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:23:03 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule)

fnord wrote:

[I wrote:]
>> The part of Rule 251
>> that Red Barn is alleged to have broken is definitive, not regulatory,
>> and thus it is impossible to break it.  Moreover, Red Barn did not
>> follow the correct procedure for changing his Ackanomic name, thus
>> his Ackanomic name would never have become "chess nuts boasting in an
>> open foyer" even if that were a legal name.  (He did not provide an
>> explanation of the change.)  Finally, the Registrar has the duty and
>> right to reject name changes which would produce otherwise illegal
>> names, which implies that no name change can be official until the
>> Registrar approves it.  The Registrar did not approve the name change
>> in question.
>
>I quite disagree.  The Registrar did no such thing, nor does
>he actually have to.  Quoting Rule 251

>"...It is the Regsitrar's _duty_ to make sure all names comply
>with this rule, and it the Registrar's _right_ to reject any name
>choosing or change which violates it."  (emphasis mine)

>snowgod has to make sure it complies with the rules, but once
>he does that, he is under no obligation to reject it.  It's his _right_
>to reject it, but not his _duty_.
>
You are, perhaps, reading the text differently than I.  If the
Registrar does not excercise his right to reject an attempted name
change that would create an illegal name, and if the name change
therefore takes place, then the Regisrar has violated his duty to be
sure that all names comply with the rule.  Technically you are correct,
the rules say that rejecting illegal names is a right, but practically
speaking, the right to reject and duty to assure compliance are two
parts of one thing.

>Since I did not see a claim rejecting the name change from snowgod,
>he didn't exercise his right to reject the name.

First, as I said, the whole thing gets the kabosh because Red Barn
did not satisfy all of the technical requirements for legally changing
his name.  End of story; everything else is a side issue.  Secondly,
however, it is at the least game custom that name changes don't go
through until the Registrar approves them.  Thirdly, accepting your
argument as valid produces the absurd situation that if I attempt to
change my name to something illegal, then my name in fact changes
immediately upon my posting (the Registrar hasn't rejected it at that
time), even though the Registrar will most likely reject it later.  It
has been less than 24 hours since the attempted name change, and
snowgod has not rejected it _yet_.  He need not do so, however, because
the name change attempt did not satisfy all the legal requirements
anyway.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:21:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 328 (Techno)

Techno has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 328
  Subject: Cult Paradox
Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
    Judge: Techno (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:20h EST)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a cult has
official status in Ackanomic.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

First, I claim victory by paradox should this CFJ be judged True.
This hinges on what it means to have Official status.
R1301 8 f defines a Cult, and within the same section declares that it has
no official status.
What does it mean to have Official status in Ackanomic?
I claim that for an entity or for a class of entities, which is implicitly
reffered in the said section, to have official status it is sufficient for
it to be defined, or to have a procedure that declares its existence.
F'rinstance, President has Official status because it is defined by the
rules. My being a player is an official status becuase there is a rule
which defines a procedure on becoming a player, and when I joined the game
the procedure in that rule was followed and  I officialy became a player
inthe game.
Contrariwise, if a player were to declare eirself Emperor,  eir being an
Emperor would have no official status.

I could go on with this, but I think the point should be clear.
Now for the paradox in that rule.  R1301 8 f defines a cult, thus
conferring on it official status, and immediately undefines its official
status.
Therefore, I claim, it is impossible to determine with finality whether or
not a Cult has Official status.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:25:46 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 123 (Swann)

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Swann has been chosen.  Again this could possibly be disqualified on
> technical grounds.
> 
> Red Barn -20 CFCJ 123
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call for Criminal Judgement 123
> Subject:  Breaking the rules
> Initiator:  Red Barn
>   Judge:  Swann (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:15 EST)
> Judgement:
[snip]
> 
> Note the use of the feminine pronoun.
> 
> Suggested Penalty:
> A fine of A$20
> 

It is game custom in Ackanomic that all pronouns are genderless. This
includes ordinary English pronouns and Spivak pronouns.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:23:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 122

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> I rule CFCJ 122 Invalid.
> 
> Reasoning: see rule 211, 4th paragraph.

/dev/joe has posted the following reasoning and verdict for
CFCJ 122.  I see no need to package it up, asssume this post to be
the formal verdict.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:29:37 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 329 (Malenkai)

Malenkai has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 329
  Subject: Donations and Penalties
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Malenkai (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:28h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Performing a voluntary transfer of currency or of any other
entity does not constitute being penalized.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

>As Malenkai noted, "In common english usage, the act of
>donating would not be considered a penalty, and in Acka,
>common english usage holds sway unless the rules or custom provide an
>alternative interpretation (CFJ 245 and severalothers)."  Malenkai went on to argue that CFJ 163 did,
indeed, imply that voluntarilly transferring currency to
the Treasury does constitute being penalized.  I find
Malenkai's application of CFJ 163 to this situation to be
inappropriate.  As I am unaware of any other rule or custom
that would cause a voluntary transfer to be construed as
a penalty, I assert the truth of the CFJ statement.

For the benefit of the Judge, who may not have been around at
the time, I will comment on CFJ 163: Robert Sevin had achieved
a score three points greater than the magic number, which in
those days remained fixed at 257.  He submitted and
subsequently retracted three proposals, the penalty for each
of which was one point at that time.  Mr. Sevin therefore
claimed to be the first winner of Ackanomic.  The rule covering
proposal retraction was numbered 423 at that time, and it
specified that when an author retracted his proposal, he
"gained" a one-point penalty.  The initiator argued that a
point penalty should be interpreted as causing the penalized
player's score to move further away from the magic number,
but the judge found against that position, deciding that
to be penalized in that context meant to lose points,
regardless of the penalized player's score.

There are several features of that case that are sufficiently
different from this one that CFJ 163 should not be regarded as
setting the relevant precedent or custom.  Most importantly,
it was the rules, not CFJ 163, that defined the score change
in question to be a penalty.  Moreover, the score changes were
involuntary (even though they resulted from the voluntary
action of retracting proposal) whereas the transfers covered
in this case are stipulated to be voluntary.  Finally, the
question in CFJ 163 was not whether or not the score change
was a penalty, but rather what the score change should be,
considering the game situation and the fact that it _was_ a
penalty.  CFJ 163 is not a reliable guide for the present
circumstances.
>

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:35:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 329 Verdict

CFJ 329 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 329
  Subject: Donations and Penalties
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Malenkai (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:28h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Performing a voluntary transfer of currency or of any other
entity does not constitute being penalized.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

>As Malenkai noted, "In common english usage, the act of
>donating would not be considered a penalty, and in Acka,
>common english usage holds sway unless the rules or custom provide an
>alternative interpretation (CFJ 245 and severalothers)."  Malenkai went on to argue that CFJ 163 did,
indeed, imply that voluntarilly transferring currency to
the Treasury does constitute being penalized.  I find
Malenkai's application of CFJ 163 to this situation to be
inappropriate.  As I am unaware of any other rule or custom
that would cause a voluntary transfer to be construed as
a penalty, I assert the truth of the CFJ statement.

For the benefit of the Judge, who may not have been around at
the time, I will comment on CFJ 163: Robert Sevin had achieved
a score three points greater than the magic number, which in
those days remained fixed at 257.  He submitted and
subsequently retracted three proposals, the penalty for each
of which was one point at that time.  Mr. Sevin therefore
claimed to be the first winner of Ackanomic.  The rule covering
proposal retraction was numbered 423 at that time, and it
specified that when an author retracted his proposal, he
"gained" a one-point penalty.  The initiator argued that a
point penalty should be interpreted as causing the penalized
player's score to move further away from the magic number,
but the judge found against that position, deciding that
to be penalized in that context meant to lose points,
regardless of the penalized player's score.

There are several features of that case that are sufficiently
different from this one that CFJ 163 should not be regarded as
setting the relevant precedent or custom.  Most importantly,
it was the rules, not CFJ 163, that defined the score change
in question to be a penalty.  Moreover, the score changes were
involuntary (even though they resulted from the voluntary
action of retracting proposal) whereas the transfers covered
in this case are stipulated to be voluntary.  Finally, the
question in CFJ 163 was not whether or not the score change
was a penalty, but rather what the score change should be,
considering the game situation and the fact that it _was_ a
penalty.  CFJ 163 is not a reliable guide for the present
circumstances.
>

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Although I see the appropriateness of CFJ 163 to this situation, I new
as I wrote it that it was a weak parallel.  ThinMan's argument is
stronger, and it is true that a voluntary purchase or transfer of 
currency is not considered a penalty under current custom and
linguistic interpretation.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:37:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 123 (Swann)

> > Call for Criminal Judgement 123
> [snip]
> > Note the use of the feminine pronoun.
> 
> It is game custom in Ackanomic that all pronouns are genderless. This
> includes ordinary English pronouns and Spivak pronouns.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

Not only that, but who's to say what gender an Ackanomic Player is?
I, Joseph DeVincentis, am male, but there is no reason why my
player in the game, /dev/joe, must also be male; indeed, there was a
proposal about two months ago (P1454) that would have assigned each
player an Ackanomic gender, in proportion with the real world ratio
of males and females.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:44:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: SOS for Bascule, Jammer, Red Barn and CNH (R1315)

T Joffrain wrote:

> So as priest of the Church of the Markovian Dream, I issue four SOS as per
> R1315 for Bascule, Jammer, Red Barn and Calvin N Hobbes.

The witchhunts on CnH, Bascule, and Jammer have been cancelled.  In all
honesty, however, R 1315 is worded in such a way as to make this 
interpretation not a sure thing, so if you are interested, and disagree
with this interpretation, I would submit a CFJ.

Witchfinder General

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:44:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 123 (Swann)

>It is game custom in Ackanomic that all pronouns are genderless. This
>includes ordinary English pronouns and Spivak pronouns.

  Oh.  Well, at any rate, I apologize for generating yet more email.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:48:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 123 (Swann)

>On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:
>
>> Swann has been chosen.  Again this could possibly be disqualified on
>> technical grounds.
>> 
>> Red Barn -20 CFCJ 123

  This is an OUTRAGE!!!  The rules about CFCJs make no sense whatsoever!
Everybody keeps changing the rules around, as if they were nothing more
than mere pawns of their twisted game!!!  Nobody bothered to inform _ME_
when that rule came into play!!!
  In the event that the above complaint is not legitimate for the purposes
of rule 1448, I do not make it.  In the event that the preceding qualifier
is invalid, I do not make it.

- -Red Barn
Still trying...

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:35:24 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Yet Another witchhunt (Jammer) 

>>No! E said the earth is flat.
>
>ThinMan

No sooner do we find out he has the diease than...

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:41:16 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New Player (Mentor: snowgod) 

We have a new player in Acknaomic and I have been choseen by the dice
server to be his mentor. His real name is Adam Gesher and his email address
is [email-masked].

He has chosen nietzsche as his Ackanomic name.

In response to the Market Research question he writes:

>i found
>out about you thru a webtv page of cool games posted by [email-masked].

We welcome him to Acknaomic!

snowgod
Registrar

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:53:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Question

  Here's a refreshingly un-complicated question:
  How can I access the archives of the public form mailing list?

  Thanks!

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:48:34 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule) 

>fnord wrote:
>
>> Since I did not see a claim rejecting the name change from snowgod,
>> he didn't exercise his right to reject the name.
>
>I have to disagree here.  Officers generally have 3 days to perform
>any task (duty, priv, right), whatever.
>
>Malenkai

Okay, I'll make it official.  I am denying Red Barns first attempt to
change his name, as the requested name was not legal.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:58:32 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ's 

I apologize for the multiple CFCJs.  I kept dropping my PPP connection last
night (big windstorm up here (80 mph+)) and I think that message was sent
and then I lost the connection before my client recorded that it was sent,
so next time I sent out queued messages it was sent again.

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:27:29 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ridiculous!

breadbox spake thusly
> 
> > I propose that the entire contents of the Treaury be transferred to
> > Red Barn.
> 
> Is it because the entire contents of the treaury be transferred to Red
> Barn that you came to me?

Wonders how difficult it would be to write an Eliza player, then
modify the Rules to allow non-sentient players to play the
game.

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:12:21 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1633

Proposal 1633
Evil Twins
Calvin N Hobbes

{Renumber this rule to number 259, so it is with other "player states" rules}
Provided two player agree to it, they will become the other's evil twin.
They will remain as such until one of them sends a public message containing
the phrase: "my evil twin is a good twin".

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:12:22 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1634

Proposal 1634
Saaramaa
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

Repeal R 1307, "Ackanomic Middle Ages"

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:12:20 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1632

Proposal 1632
Parents, Children, the Bees and the Gumball
Calvin N Hobbes

{Renumber this rule to number 904, so as to place it right after the gumball
rule}

After chewing the gumball, the player must break it up into three pieces. He
should keep one piece and find two recipients for the others by publicly
posting: "I've got a chewy bit of gumball, will the following two players
parent a child with me by biting a bit?" This message should then list the
names of two players.

Those two players may either accept the offer by replying "Yes, we'll make
wonderful parents together, I'll bite", or to turn it down saying "No, I'm
thinking of running for office and I'll have too much work".

Once someone chews (not bites) the gumball, other players may begin courting
to get a piece of the gumball by saying they would accept a piece. This
courting must be done in the form of poetry. Trinkets can also be traded in
exchange for one of the bits of gumball. Only the person who just chewed the
gumball may give a bit to other players, nor can there be more than three
bits of the gumball at any time.

The player giving out the bits of gumball may give one to any player who
said they would accept one. The Poet Laureate will always accept one, so one
can always be given to him -- his poetry is just awesome and wonderful you
just want to give him a bit of gumball. Players who would accept a bit of
gumball are assumed to acknowledge transfer of the gumball and biting it once.

As soon as three different players have a bit of gumball, the Ackanomic
Institute of Genetic Replication (AIGR) will take the pieces, and process
the three into a whole gumball again. If the AIGR process the pieces, then
the three players who had pieces become eligible parents together. These
three players may each write a poem about the experience.

If the AIGR has not processed the pieces one day before the next time
someone could legally chew the gumball, the pieces are collected and put
back together anyway and the players who had pieces do not become eligible
parents together.

The Registrar should keep a list of eligible parent groups. When a new
player joins, the Registrar must choose the members of the oldest parent
group as parents to the child. All new players in the following week are
said to be children of those parents and no new group need be chosen. Once
the week is over, the parental group disbands. Players who have all the same
parents are said to be Ackasiblings. If there are no parent groups, then
that player has no parents. Players without parents are said to be
immaculately conceived. The Historian must keep track of the families.

Any parental group disbands after 14 weeks if they have had no children.
Players can be eligible parents in more than one parental group at the same
time. The gumball and bits thereof are always the property of the person who
last chewed it, until someone else legally chews it.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:29:55 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule)

Someone (who knows, maybe a crime) spake thusly
> 
> > Suggested Penalty:
> >
> >  A Sentence of 5 days in the Gaol
> >  A Public Apology of 10 lines
> 
>   I believe that that was quite a serious offense, and that there should
> therefore be some monetary penalty, as well.

Ha.  and again I say ha.  Not on your life, nevermind the fact
that even if I did, it wouldn't be applied until several days from
now anyway.

Then again, if you say it is a serious offense, I could retract
and submit again with the Expulsion penalty. *evil grin*

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:31:22 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Too many hunters!

Red Barn spake thusly
> 
>   This is a modest proposal.
> 
>   I propose that all players who have, in the past, called for at least
> three witch hunts within a single day be penalized by having A$20
> transferrred from each of their possessions to the Treasury.

How can you transfer Ackadollars from a player's possessions?
Most possessions aren't allowed to have possessions of their own,
much less Ackadollars.

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:33:52 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule)

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> fnord wrote:
> 
> > Since I did not see a claim rejecting the name change from snowgod,
> > he didn't exercise his right to reject the name.
> 
> I have to disagree here.  Officers generally have 3 days to perform
> any task (duty, priv, right), whatever.

Is that game custom, or is that in a Rule somewhere? (Not that I'm
trying to refute it, as I agree with you (even though it
weakens my case))

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:42:04 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 328 (Techno)

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> Techno has been chosen.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 328
>   Subject: Cult Paradox
> Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
>     Judge: Techno (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:20h EST)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a cult has
> official status in Ackanomic.

Maybe I should have just submitted Cults as a proposal instead
of taking it through an RFC first.

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:28:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ridiculous!

>> > I propose that the entire contents of the Treaury be transferred to
>> > Red Barn.
>> 
>> Is it because the entire contents of the treaury be transferred to Red
>> Barn that you came to me?
>
>Wonders how difficult it would be to write an Eliza player, then
>modify the Rules to allow non-sentient players to play the
>game.

  Wonders how difficult it would be to define non-sentient.

- -Red Barn
Goodbye.  It was nice talking to you.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:33:30 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Question

Red Barn (or whatever his name is now) asked:
>   Here's a refreshingly un-complicated question:
>   How can I access the archives of the public form mailing list?

As a reminder to those who have forgotten, and for the first time for
many of our newer players, an archive of all the mail sent to the main
ackanomic (or acka-priv) list is saved, in the form of digests,
in wilma's anonymous FTP area.

FTP to wilma.che.utexas.edu as anonymous
cd acka/ackanomic-digest
get v01.n458  (or whatever one you want)

All the digests have names like v01.n458; you should look for what
you want by date.  The date and time is the time the digest was compiled,
so it includes messages sent before that time.  Older digests are stored
in subdirectories by month, such as 96dec for messages from December.

/dev/joe
Postmaster

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:32:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule)

>Ha.  and again I say ha.  Not on your life, nevermind the fact
>that even if I did, it wouldn't be applied until several days from
>now anyway.
>
>Then again, if you say it is a serious offense, I could retract
>and submit again with the Expulsion penalty. *evil grin*

  You are truly the most evil of all evil ones.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:40:49 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 328 (Techno)

>
>Clerk of the Courts
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 328
>  Subject: Cult Paradox
>Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck

_Niccolo_Flychuck_ submitting a paradox win CFJ?!?  Now I _know_ I
somehow wandered into a parallel dimension.  Behold: Ackanomic turned
on its head!

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 21:40:52 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 328 (Techno)

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, fnord wrote:

> Malenkai spake thusly
> > 
> > Techno has been chosen.
> > 
> > Clerk of the Courts
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Call For Judgement 328
> >   Subject: Cult Paradox
> > Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
> >     Judge: Techno (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:20h EST)
> > Judgement: 
> > 
> > Statement:
> > 
> > Is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a cult has
> > official status in Ackanomic.
> 
> Maybe I should have just submitted Cults as a proposal instead
> of taking it through an RFC first.
> 
> fnord
> 

Wouldn't matter. CFJs are judged according to the state of the rule set
at distribution time.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:42:22 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 329 (Malenkai)

>
>Malenkai has been chosen.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 329
>  Subject: Donations and Penalties
>Initiator: ThinMan
>    Judge: Malenkai (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:28h EST)

Oh, the irony.

ThinMan
Malenkai's Ironic Twin

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:46:02 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFCJ's

snowgod wrote:

>I apologize for the multiple CFCJs.  I kept dropping my PPP connection last
>night (big windstorm up here (80 mph+)) and I think that message was sent
>and then I lost the connection before my client recorded that it was sent,
>so next time I sent out queued messages it was sent again.

In that case, perhaps you would care to retract the duplicates?

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:05:31 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ridiculous!

A.K.A. TheWiz spake thusly
> 
> >Wonders how difficult it would be to write an Eliza player, then
> >modify the Rules to allow non-sentient players to play the
> >game.
> 
>   Wonders how difficult it would be to define non-sentient.

Turing Test!

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:07:55 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 328 (Techno)

Niccolo Flychuck spake thusly
> fnord said:
> > Maybe I should have just submitted Cults as a proposal instead
> > of taking it through an RFC first.
>
> Wouldn't matter. CFJs are judged according to the state of the rule set
> at distribution time.

Yeah, I know, but would you have thought about this had I submitted
it as a proposal instead ofan RFC?  That was what I was muttering about

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:52:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ridiculous!

>> >Wonders how difficult it would be to write an Eliza player, then
>> >modify the Rules to allow non-sentient players to play the
>> >game.
>> 
>>   Wonders how difficult it would be to define non-sentient.
>
>Turing Test!

  Very nice.  Now we need a "Turing Test hearing".  I can imagine
being declared non-sentient because I only pursue one goal...

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:00:28 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 328 (Techno)

>Call For Judgement 328
>  Subject: Cult Paradox
>Initiator: Niccolo Flychuck
>    Judge: Techno (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:20h EST)
>Judgement: 
>
>Statement:
>
>Is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a cult has
>official status in Ackanomic.
>
Perusal or the current form of Rule 219 shows that this is not in fact
a paradox win CFJ after all, Niccolo's comment in his reasoning
notwithstanding.  He will not, therefore, win the cycle should this
CFJ be judged true.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:00:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Re:  what?

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Moses Rojas wrote:
> so  20+12+6+5+5= 48, nay???
	What?  Yes...

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:20:14 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule)

Red Barn spake thusly
> >> In my opinion, CFCJ 120 must be judged False.
> >
> >Yeah, I knew it was weak to begin with, but all the mail he generated
> >went right to my head.
> 
>   I disagree.  It is a valid insance of non-compliance with the rules.

Possibly, but the CFCJ is rather specific about which Rule
it is claiming you broke, and how.  So, if I were to wish
to continue on, I'd have to submit another one.

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:25:55 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 120 (Bascule)

>>   I disagree.  It is a valid insance of non-compliance with the rules.
>
>Possibly, but the CFCJ is rather specific about which Rule
>it is claiming you broke, and how.  So, if I were to wish
>to continue on, I'd have to submit another one.

  Oh, fiddlesticks.  I do so wish you would.

  I seem to have lost track of what I'm doing. Very well.  I will take a
step back, and look at our current situation from an objective
perspective.
  Ackanomic has several new users.
  Some of these users (to wit, me) are attempting to be declared Crazy
French-Scotsmen.
  This title has absolutely no value whatsoever save for the glimmer of
pride that it brings.
  As a direct result of the above, I am attempting to be penalized in a
monetary or pointwise fashion.
  If I succeed in attaining this goal, I will immediately attempt to
reverse it.
  I don't care whether the reversal succeeds or not.
  I do, however, care that I attempt to reverse the penalty.
  And it is of the _utmost_ importance that I be penalized.
  Therefore I am posting CFJs, CFCJs, and other miscellaneous entities, to
the goal of proving that I have in fact done the above.
  And other people are attempting to stop me from doing so.
  Furthermore, I have declared many people to be Heretics, and have myself
twice been declared a Heretic on the same charge.
  This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

  Speaking of which, I still have about half an hour to post a third
complaint, assuming of course that I have not already done so.

- -Red Barn
What now?

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:38:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  I take action.

  Well, a shortage of time forces me to drastic action: being repetitive.

  I am donating A$ 3 to the Treasury, unconditionally.

  If it is a legitimate complaint for the purpose of rule 1448, and I do
not later retract it, I make the following complaint; otherwise, I do not:
  I didn't understand the rules!  You keep changing the rules!  You never
told me about that rule!  In fact, this whole business is just plain
unfair!!!!!

  If the qualifier attatched to the preceding complaint is invalid or
illegal, I instead attatch to the preceding complaint the following
qualifier:
  If it is a legitimate complaint for the purpose of rule 1448, I make the
following complaint; otherwise, I do not:

  If any of the qualifiers which I just made are invalid, I don't make
them.  The sole exception to the immediately preceding statement is the
case in which I later decide otherwise, in which case I do not make that
statement.  If the immediately preceding exception is invalid, I do not
make it.

- -Red Barn
I'll get it yet!

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:57:51 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Moses Rojas)
Subject: Fwd: Acka:  Re:  what?

- --WebTV-Mail-2030962521-65
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

to the following, my only explanation can be...
I added all the phantom points I hoped for
30x public retraction@-2 points/per = -60 nee
20 points + 12 points for a newcomer proposal
+6 for its grandioseness (grandiosity?) + 5 for cows eat grass + 5 for
its brevity....
ahhh....shot down in youth...

- --WebTV-Mail-2030962521-65
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:00:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:  Re:  what?
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Moses Rojas wrote:
> so  20+12+6+5+5= 48, nay???
	What?  Yes...

- --Mohammed

- --WebTV-Mail-2030962521-65--

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #459
*******************************