Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #463
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, January 19 1997       Volume 01 : Number 463

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 14:36:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1620 rejected (Goblin)

Proposal 1620
Goblin
Swann

Votes cast by active players:  15 / 19 = 78.947368%
Yes:  7    No:  7     Present:  1   ...Proposal is rejected.

YES votes:
	mr cwm
	Bascule
	Habeous Corpus
	Swann
	snowgod
	Techno
	Malenkai

NO votes:
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	Strider
	fnord
	breadbox
	ThinMan
	Mohammed

PRESENT votes:
	Robert Sevin

Active players who did not vote:
	Calvin N Hobbes
	Clairence
	Lestrade
	AirHead

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:30:25 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping* 

>
>Ugh.  I would prefer not qualifying the year at all to putting
>something like that in there.
>
>> I always found the use of Common Era a bit confusing, and it just as as
>> inaccurate as Anno Domino, because the so called Common Era is common only
>> to a small portion of the wolrd's population.
>
>Would Christian Era then be preferable to you, since it is at least correct?
>
>/dev/joe

I'm sure you all know by now that I'm jewish, not a christian, but the year
of our lord bit doesn't bother me.  It has a nice meter to it, and changing
it would take away some of the ceremony (and poetry) that makes the machine
fun.

snowgod
perhaps someone ought to write a rule saying our lord is tmbg

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:27:58 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dates 

>         The "Ackanomic Era" idea would probably be more satisfying.
> Certainly it's more fun.  Would last year be 1 A.E. or 0 A.E.?  Do the
> numbers change on January 1 or on the Anniversary?

  0 A.E.  I'm a programmer.  I have a religious thing about numbering
things from 0.  :)

  On the Anniversary, I'd think.  How could Ackanomians possibly expect to
know when our calender changes over?

  On another note, when exactly _is_ the Anniversary?  I tried checking the
web page, but didn't find any such information, and then the mailing-list
archives, but they don't seem to go back that far.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:36:29 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: 'Round the Earth 

>Jason Orendorff wrote:
>>
>> > We have learned that this is part of a sinister international plot to
>> > smuggle the Monopoles to Agora, run by the same ring that is smuggling
>> > trinkets to Pumpkin Patch.
>>         This is untrue.  I demand a correction.
>
>No correction is necessary.  We are only asserting the truth of the fact
>that we learned of the plot, not the actual truth of the plot, and
>we have indeed learned of the plot.
>
>malenkai
>editor, 'Round the Earth

I believe the mere fact that he demands a correction means you have to
print it, regardless of the truth of the matter.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:41:46 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Apology 

>  I don't have snowgod's disease!:)
>I just screwed up the address.
>

That's what they all say.  Were it not for the amazing number of hearings,
I would have to call for Public Health Hearing against a few people to help
quell the disease.  But I'm not going to trouble our over-worked
witchfunder general.  Instead, I shall just work on my haiku.

snowgod
diseased

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:45:57 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic: If there were paradoxes we'd win again. 

>Sender: [email-masked]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 15:04:57 +0000
>To: [email-masked]
>From: [email-masked] (Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso)
>Subject: Re: SFJ Alternative
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Status: U
>
>>As requested by Snowgod, I hereby distribute SFJ 5, so we have it
>>judged in the case I am still Moderator too.
>>
>>Unfortunately my coin came up different than Snowgod's did, and I
>>have randomly chosen AckaNomic to judge it. I just hope both Nomics
>>will obtain the same judgement...
>
>Oh, glory.     8-o
>
>Think what this means.  If Ackanomic judges TRUE, then Andre is not
>moderator, so this is not a valid assignment, but Acka's assignment of the
>SFJ to Agora is effective.  Then should Agora judge FALSE (as I'm inclined,
>personally), it follows that Acka's assignment was ineffective and Andre's
>was the correct one. But then Acka's judgement of TRUE is the one to
>follow.   But then...
>
>This has a real chance of becoming a permanently unresolveable question.
>Perhaps we can put our heads together and avoid this?
>
>Regards,
>-- elJefe, Agoran Liaison
>
>
>************************************************
>  Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso <[email-masked]>
>  Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics
>  Cambridge University
>
>  also at <[email-masked]>
>

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:56:26 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic  

In the thread where Andre is still internomic moderator, and Ackanomic
didn't win, Andre has distributed sfj 5.  Acknaomic has been chosen to
judge it.

The text is identical to the sfj 5 I distributed.

I am inclined to judge it true... If any one of you want me to attach your
comments to it (bronze torch holders?) I will happily do so.

By the way, Agora's issue is "Just becuase the rules make an action
permissable, does that make it possible?".  If anyone is interesed, I can
forward them some of the dialouge on this matter.

snowgod
confused liason :)

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:50:18 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Limerick 

  Snowgod has wasted our time,
  But his wasting is not worth a dime.
  For I've caused quite a fury,
  Of eyes being blurry,
  And say that the record is mine.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:23:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Apology

Stephen McCulley wrote:
> 
> Salutations!!
> 
>                 I wish to apologize for wasting bandwidth by posting my hearing vote
> rather than sending it to Malenkai.  I don't have snowgod's disease!:)
> I just screwed up the address.

I'd like to apologize for not using acka-priv on all of them.  I'm
about 50% and improving.  Sometime soon I hope to have a synopsis
on all the hearings posted via e-mail, as opposed to the web, so that
those who voted ambigiously or did not vote can do so again.

Count Tabula

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:46:25 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 1315

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> As a priest of the Church of the Markovian Dream, I am invoking R 1315
> and taking the following actions:

[...]

As it turned out, all players either had their witchhunts cancelled via
CnH's silence, or broke the rules on this one.  I will post an updated
hearings list shortly.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:51:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acks: CFCJ 121 Verdict

CFCJ 121 has been judged true.

Malenkai -7 CFCJ 121

Clerk of the Courts
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 121
  Subject:  The pot calling the kettle black
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  Mohammed (selected Jan 17, 1997, 13:06 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE

Statement:

Malenkai has commited a crime.

snowgod's reasoning:

On January 16, 1997 Malenkai posted a message containing the following text
in response to a gift of a prosthetic forehead:

>Thanks.  I gratefully ack this transaction.  Does this mean I have a
>big head? ;)  In any case, I remove my current forehead and put this
>new one on.

This attempt to place a new prosthetic on his head so soon after removing
the original is clearly in violation of R915/8 (paragraph five), which
reads:

>A Player who is not already wearing a Prosthetic Forehead may wear any one
>e owns by announcing publicly that e is doing so and what type of
>Prosthetic Forehead is involved. A Player who is wearing a Prosthetic
>Forehead may remove it by announcing the action publicly. After a player
>removes a Prosthetic Forehead, his real head is sore for 48 hours and she
>may not wear a Prosthetic Forehead during this time.

It is understandable, with all the hailing and such going on, that Malenkai
might have gotten a bit overanxious to wear his fine new forehead.  But
rules are rules, and we must live by them, especially a role model such as
Malenkai.  By attempting to commit an action which is impossible Malenkai
has commited a crime and must be punished.

suggested penalty:

a FINE of A$7
a PUBLIC APOLOGY of 7 or more lines
a SENTENCE of 7 days in the Gaol

Mohammed's reasoning:

I was going to go look through the rules to verify snowgod's reasoning (it
looks waterproof to me but stranger things have happened) but it doesn't
much matter.  I'm certain that, at some point or another, Malenkai has
broken other rules (as have we all.) So, in the interest of getting rid of
this CFCJ ASAP and moving on to the *next* 100 messages in my box, I'm
ruling this TRUE.

The CFCJ system is seriously broken; practically all CFCJs must be ruled
TRUE until it is fixed.  The double jeopardy clause is useless; the
details of this mess are left as an exercise for the reader.

Actual Penalty:

A FINE of A$ 7.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:01:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acks: CFCJ 121 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:

> Call for Criminal Judgement 121

> The CFCJ system is seriously broken; practically all CFCJs must be ruled
> TRUE until it is fixed.  The double jeopardy clause is useless; the
> details of this mess are left as an exercise for the reader.

Ok, I'll bite.  This discussion could be interesting, if we could get
any bandwidth :).  CFCJs are different than CFJs.  In particular, R 710
stipulates a format not only for the statement, but also the reasoning
of the submission.  CFJ 327 has upheld that the reasoning in a
required component of the submission.  Specifically, it stipulates that
the reasoning will describe the details of the action that led to the
committing of the crime.

Thus, I would argue that while in a CFJ only the statement is on trial,
in a CFCJ both the statement and the reasoning are on trial.  Thus, if
the statement said: "Mohammed has committed as crime", and the reasoning
was "Visit Saaramaa", the CFCJ could not be judged true.  There is a
strong body of game custom that supports this distinction between
CFCJs and CFJs.  I agree that it would be better if this was made explicit,
but I would argue that they are not *as* broke as argued in the reasoning
of CFCJ 121, and had CFCJ 121 not been such an ice cold verdict to start
with, I would have argued that the reasoning of the Judge was possibly
inappropriate.

Malenkai
wondering if the majordomo server can produce a "bytes by sender" report
(not counting official mail ;))

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:18:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 328 Verdict

CFJ 328 has been judged FALSE.  Despite the claim in the initiator's
comments, it is my judgement that this was not a "Paradox Win CFJ",
based on the definition in R 219, thus the Chartreuse Goose remains
with Calvin N Hobbes (unless a CFJ proves otherwise).

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

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.

Techno's Reasoning:

  Rule 1301 item 2. says that a Church is not official until it has 3
followers.  If we followed the claimants logic, the church would be
official simply because is has been defined, no matter how many
followers.  In this rule, a Church is conferred official status when
it reaches a predetermined size, a cult is never conferred official
status.  Therefore a cult is never official and that can be
determined with finality.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:25:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Hearings

Here is a list of all the current hearings from the web page.  If
you have not voted, or voted ambigiously, you can reply to this with
your votes.  I have also restructured my operation so I can handle
more hearings if you want, but on a non-work-related basis it still 
seems like alot, IMHO.  I simply don't want my capacity to be the *only*
reason to call a hearing, so gfi.  (And to Mohammed I apologize for
being short; just because you read your e-mail late does not mean you
should not be able to participate).

Count Tabula
feeling ashamed
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Bascule Witchhunt (ends Tuesday Jan 21st 10:13) 

snowgod Witchhunt (ends Monday Jan 20th 12:50) 

Red Barn Witchhunt (ends Monday Jan 20th 12:47) 

Red Barn Witchhunt (ends Monday Jan 20th 02:04) 

Niccolo's snowgod's disease (ends Monday Jan 20th 02:00) 

Calvin N Hobbes Witchhunt (ends Monday Jan 20th 00:24) 

Techno's Phoebe Hearing (ends Sunday Jan 19th 20:54) 

Robert Sevin's Phoebe Hearing (ends Sunday Jan 19th 00:30)

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:40:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 127 (ThinMan)

Despite the largest membership Acka has known in a while, and
the Purple Robe of Justice, ThinMan has been chosen again.  He has
had better luck *without* the Purple Robe.

Strider -20 CFCJ 127

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 127
  Subject:  Improper Witchhunts
Initiator:  Strider
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jan 18, 1997, 19:38 EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Strider's Reasoning:

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>
> > This epidemic needs stamping out.
> >
> > I believe Niccolo Flychuck has snowgod's disease, and I am calling
> > for a hearing to that effect.
> >
> > Bascule
>
> I call a withhunt on Bascule for making this obviously heretical
> statement.
>
> --Mohammed
> trying to see how many hearings we can get going at the same time.

  In the preceding message, Mohammed called a witchhunt on Bascule for
making a supposedly Heretical statement. R1307 states that Heresy
consists of the contradiction of the statement "The Earth is flat."
Furthermore, the only conditions under which a witchhunt may be called,
are if a player refers to the Earth being round, or implies that this is
the case.  Being that Bascule's statement consists of none of these, I
believe Mohammed to have committed a crime in calling a Witchhunt on
him.

Suggested Penalty:  

The ceasing of the Witchhunt against Bascule, and a public apology by
Mohammed to Bascule

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:46:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acks: CFCJ 121 Verdict

On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> Ok, I'll bite.  This discussion could be interesting, if we could get
> any bandwidth :).  CFCJs are different than CFJs.
	Not different enough.  I believe R710 demands that a CFCJ be 
decided just as a corresponding CFJ would be decided.  I think this calls 
for a change.
	The thing that really bites me on the left ear is:

Except as detailed in this rule, it shall be like the Call for
Judgement in all ways, including how it is submitted, how judges are
selected, how it is appealed, etc.

	Nowhere does R710 say that the context provided by the 
initiator's Reasoning becomes part of the statement being judged.

> There is a strong body of game custom that supports this distinction
> between CFCJs and CFJs.
	I sorta see your point, but I still don't think the context is 
sufficient to bring "Malenkai has committed a Crime" to mean "Malenkai 
committed a Crime by doing blah blah..."

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:54:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acks: CFCJ 121 Verdict

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         I sorta see your point, but I still don't think the context is
> sufficient to bring "Malenkai has committed a Crime" to mean "Malenkai
> committed a Crime by doing blah blah..."

I'm certainly not opposed to codifying this, in fact, I've thought of
doing so myself from time to time, although I have thought it a bit
unnecessary.  

Also, I thought the example was "Mohammed has committed a Crime" ;)  I do
know Mohammed has committed a crime for not reassigning CFJ 146 when
he was Clerk of the Courts ages ago.  Perhaps we need a statute of 
limitations too :)  Perhaps I have committed the same crime.

Malenkai
Acka's first Justice
ex-Preator
Clerk of the Courts
Bronze Torch Holder

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:01:08 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 127 (ThinMan) 

>Despite the largest membership Acka has known in a while, and
>the Purple Robe of Justice, ThinMan has been chosen again.  He has
>had better luck *without* the Purple Robe.
>
>Strider -20 CFCJ 127
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Call for Criminal Judgement 127
>  Subject:  Improper Witchhunts
>Initiator:  Strider
>    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jan 18, 1997, 19:38 EST)
>Judgement:
>
>Statement:

Is there really no statement here?

snowgod
sees big business for Malenkai's loophole service

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:05:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 331 (Mohammed)

Mohammed has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 331
  Subject: Active Players
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Mohammed (selected Jan 18, 1997, 20:00h EST)
Judgement: 

Statement:

A Pending player becomes Active when it becomes publically knowable that
they have voted in a Hearing or Election.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Game custom question, I guess.  R 254 states, in part:

> Upon registration, a player is Pending. A Pending player becomes
> Active when it becomes publically knowable that he has voted or made
> a proposal.

The Judge must consider the possibility of game custom requiring that
"voting" be construed to mean "voting on a proposal".  I find that weak,
especially as R 254 is a new rule, and this has never come up, to
my knowledge, although I do suspect that voting meant that at one time.

Would then, voting within a church, or a game of Fictionary count?

Also, just the fact that it has not come up does not necessarily mean
an interpretation has been forced to exclude the possibility.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:06:26 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 127 (ThinMan)

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> >Despite the largest membership Acka has known in a while, and
> >the Purple Robe of Justice, ThinMan has been chosen again.  He has
> >had better luck *without* the Purple Robe.
> >
> >Strider -20 CFCJ 127
> >
> >Clerk of the Courts
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Call for Criminal Judgement 127
> >  Subject:  Improper Witchhunts
> >Initiator:  Strider
> >    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jan 18, 1997, 19:38 EST)
> >Judgement:
> >
> >Statement:
> 
> Is there really no statement here?
> 
> snowgod
> sees big business for Malenkai's loophole service
Salutations!

		The statement is "Mohammed has committed a crime"

			Regards,
				Strider

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:10:03 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 127 (ThinMan)

Phil Ackley wrote:

> >Call for Criminal Judgement 127
> >  Subject:  Improper Witchhunts
> >Initiator:  Strider
> >    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jan 18, 1997, 19:38 EST)
> >Judgement:
> >
> >Statement:
> 
> Is there really no statement here?

The statement was accidently omitteed.  The actual statement is:

Mohammed has committed a crime.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:11:32 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Apology 

> I'd like to apologize for not using acka-priv on all of them.  I'm
> about 50% and improving.  Sometime soon I hope to have a synopsis
> on all the hearings posted via e-mail, as opposed to the web, so that
> those who voted ambigiously or did not vote can do so again.

  Malenkai does have a list of current events, including hearings, but I
don't believe it has running status.  Just thought I'd mention it.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:35:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Duel (breadbox - Robert Sevin)

Mr. Sevin,

	breadbox has accepted your foolhardy duel, and I, Malenkai,
am seconding it.  We have seen your *own* hypocritical heresy in action,
when you sold your soul to sponge on a few Elder Wayne's Acakdollars!

	We have also seen your limericks in action, making this all
the easier :).  breadbox has chosen the duelling Limerick to answer this
challenge.

Malenkai
second to breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:38:19 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC

snowgod and I are meeting on acka's IRC server shortly, if anyone
would like to join us.  Info on the server is on the main web page.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:43:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 121 Verdict

> Also, I thought the example was "Mohammed has committed a Crime" ;)  I do
> know Mohammed has committed a crime for not reassigning CFJ 146 when
> he was Clerk of the Courts ages ago.  Perhaps we need a statute of 
> limitations too :)  Perhaps I have committed the same crime.
	If I still had a player list from that time, I'd choose a player 
at random from it and redistribute it right now.  :o)  How's that for 
stretching the rules?
	It was CFJ 149, and the archive says, to this day...

	[still unjudged]

- --Mohammed
listening to October Project

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:40:43 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (Red Barn) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Apology 

At 8:11 PM on 1/18/97, Dan Knapp (Red Barn) wrote:

> > I'd like to apologize for not using acka-priv on all of them.  I'm
> > about 50% and improving.  Sometime soon I hope to have a synopsis
> > on all the hearings posted via e-mail, as opposed to the web, so that
> > those who voted ambigiously or did not vote can do so again.
>
>   Malenkai does have a list of current events, including hearings, but I
> don't believe it has running status.  Just thought I'd mention it.
>
  And now I must waste bandwidth by stating that, before I sent that, I
didn't realize that Malenkai wrote that message... go ahead, laugh at the
new guy.  I don't care.  :)  Actually there's several people newer than me,
now.  That was quick.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:54:41 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Party on IRC 

Jopin malenkai and I on IRC for a game of Ghost.  Point your java capable
web browser to wilma.che.utexas.edu/~snowgod to join the fun (Acka IRC
Page) or point your regular irc client at wilma.che.utexas.edu port 9942 in
channel #Acknaomic.

Either way, come join us.

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:53:01 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 121 Verdict

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         It was CFJ 149, and the archive says, to this day...
> 
>         [still unjudged]

I was reading the archive upside down (forgot actually, but close).

> listening to October Project

very cool.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:12:04 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 331 Verdict

CFJ 331 has been judged true.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 331
  Subject: Active Players
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Mohammed (selected Jan 18, 1997, 20:00h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A Pending player becomes Active when it becomes publically knowable that
they have voted in a Hearing or Election.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Game custom question, I guess.  R 254 states, in part:

> Upon registration, a player is Pending. A Pending player becomes
> Active when it becomes publically knowable that he has voted or made
> a proposal.

The Judge must consider the possibility of game custom requiring that
"voting" be construed to mean "voting on a proposal".  I find that weak,
especially as R 254 is a new rule, and this has never come up, to
my knowledge, although I do suspect that voting meant that at one time.

Would then, voting within a church, or a game of Fictionary count?

Also, just the fact that it has not come up does not necessarily mean
an interpretation has been forced to exclude the possibility.

Mohammed's reasoning:

The statement, as written, must be judged TRUE, but I do not think that
responding to a Hearing counts.

More specifically, if a player somehow manages to cast a "vote" on a
Hearing (through gadgetry, for instance), that makes em active, but normal
responses are not necessarily "votes".

I think we've all assumed that only voting on Proposals counts, which is
fine, but the rules specifically refer to Election responses as votes, so
I think it's reasonable to say they count as well.

The rules do not refer to Hearing responses as votes at all, and I am not
convinced that there is sufficient game custom to allow that reading of
the rules.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:44:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC IRC IRC IRC IRC! 

Come join Malenkai, Strider, Red barn,m and myself on IRC!!!!

Do it now!

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:08:49 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Observer 

Lets all welcome new Observer  Yuen Ka Nang <[email-masked]>
to the game!

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:33:28 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Observer 

Lets all welcome new Observer  Yuen Ka Nang <[email-masked]>
to the game!

snowgod

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:45:15 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observer 

At 7:08 PM on 1/18/97, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Lets all welcome new Observer  Yuen Ka Nang <[email-masked]>
> to the game!
>
> snowgod

  Welcome!  I'm sure you'll enjoy watching Ackanomic.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:57:24 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observer 

>  Welcome!  I'm sure you'll enjoy watching Ackanomic.
>
>-Red Barn

Especially with Red Barn wreaking havoc!

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:04:10 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observer 

> Especially with Red Barn wreaking havoc!
>
> snowgod

  You still owe me a limerick, you know.  Or have you forfieted the title
of "Waster of the Most Bandwidth"?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:11:51 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Prosthetic Forehead

I am now wearing the forehead given to me by Strider.

Malenkai
convicted felon

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #463
*******************************