Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #465
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Monday, January 20 1997       Volume 01 : Number 465

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:57:51 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dueling Limerick 

> I think he was losing his mind.

 ... and may the best man win!

- -Red Barn/CNBIAOF

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:05:02 -0600
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: *ping* 

Today is Monday, the 20th day of January, in the Year of Our Lord 1997, 
and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today. 
Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 7 times. 

/dev/joe
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:04:28 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping* 

At 12:05 AM on 1/20/97, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Today is Monday, the 20th day of January, in the Year of Our Lord 1997,
> and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.
> Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 7 times.

  D'oh.  It _still_ works.  How can it possibly be phrased?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:14:36 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: snowgod's disease 

recent outbreaks of snowgod's disease (its even spreading to internomic)
have finally convinced me that it is time to fulfil my prescription.

I have submitted a haiku proposal to Guy Fawkes.

snowgod

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:49:34 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic Voting Results 

The voting results for P319 and P320 have been released (in the thread
where I am the moderator).  P319 passed and P320 Failed.

Acka, Agora, and Thring voted FOR P319 and FOR P320
Pumpkin patch abstained on P319 and voted AGAINST P320.

I reccomend that Habeous Corpus resubmit P320 if P325 passes (which would
eliminate Pumpkin Patch's veto).

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:56:01 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dueling Limerick

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> A player who's name was quite fine
> tried changing his name to a crime
> before he started complaining
> that the rules keep changing.
> I think he was losing his mind.

Its the gamesmaster's duty to call a vote on the limericks.
Has the other one been posted yet?

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:57:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (mr cwm)

mr cwm has found Phoebe's matchbox.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:48:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Niccolo's snowgod' disease

Niccolo Flychuck has snowgod's disease.

Infected (11)
- --------
Bascule
Malenkai
Red Barn
/dev/joe
snowgod
Niccolo Flychuck
Swann
Evil Ballot Stuffer
mr cwm
Strider
Mohammed

Not Infected (2)
- ------------
breadbox
ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:56:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dueling Limerick - vote for it.

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:
[limerick deleted to keep this duty impartial]
> 
> Its the gamesmaster's duty to call a vote on the limericks.
> Has the other one been posted yet?
> 
> Malenkai
> 
Yes, Red Barn has already posted eir limerick.

Oh players of Ackanomic, Red Barn and snowgod have posted their Dueling
Limericks and it is now up to the right upstanding citizens of this here
nomic to voteon the limericks, a vote which will decide the winner of this
Duel.
Send me your votes.

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:17:19 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witch Burnings

Rather than send 3 seperate e-mails, please construe the reporting
of these hearing results one nanosecond after each other.

- ----
First Red Barn witchhunt:

Jan 20 13:05 EST: -10 Red Barn: BURN THE WITCH!
Red Barn becomes Enlightened.
The rules require me to choose a bartender: /dev/joe

...then...

- ---
Second Red Barn witchhunt:

BURN THE WITCH, but nothing happens due to the Enlightenment.

...then...

- ---
snowgod witchhunt:

Jan 20 13:05 EST: -10 snowgod: BURN THE WITCH!
The previous public gathering ends, and we choose a new bartender: snowgod

==========
voting detail

Note the following factors in the voting detail:

1) All votes for which the hearing could not be determined were eliminated
2) All votes that were not to standard, such as 'eir name sounds like a
witch' were invalid
3) Some players changed their votes to add to the confusion.  I did not
realise this was so important
4) Some votes were late, and ignored
5) Some votes were early (before acked by me), and ignored
6) Some votes said: 'i vote <X> on all extant witchhunts'.  This was only
taken at the time of the post, and not carried to future hearings.  If
we have that sort of voting such that we are not even concerned with the
content of the alledged heretical message, it seems in my mind to be
missing the point, but that's just me.  Some votes even said 'I can't
keep track of this, but burn 'em all anyway'.  I'm not sure *I* see the
point of all this as far as gaming goes, perhaps I'm used to a different
sort of gaming.
7) There were probably other factors, errors, ommissions, etc.  We all
apologize.

8) I'm not sure what the date on the e-mail should be, but my wall clock
now says 13:16, so its well after the end of all the hearings.  I'm
not sure if netscape builds the rfc822 header on send, or on start compose

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

First Red Barn witchhunt:

Burn (12)
- ----
Bascule
Malenkai
/dev/joe
snowgod
ThinMan
Swann
Evil Ballot Stuffer
Strider
AirHead
Mohammed
Lestrade
Eponimondas 

Don't Burn (3)
- ----------
breadbox
Niccolo Flychuck
Red Barn

=======================

snowgod witchhunt

Burn (7)
- ----
/dev/joe
snowgod
AirHead
Mohammed
Bascule
Lestrade
Red Barn

Don't Burn (6)
- ----------
ThinMan
Niccolo Flychuck
Strider
breadbox
Malenkai
Habeous Corpus

=========================

Second Red Barn Witchhunt

Burn (7)
- ----
/dev/joe
snowgod
Strider
AirHead
Mohammed
Lestrade
Habeous Corpus

Don't Burn (3)
- ----------
Niccolo Flychuck
breadbox
Red Barn

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:56:50 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1640

Proposal 1640
Duel with Seconds
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest proposal.

In R1215 "Duels" Replace the following text:
"Moreover, it must be playable by exactly two players and have definitive
rules for determining a winner."

with the text:
"Moreover, it must be playable by exactly two players, or two teams of two
players each and have definitive rules for determining a winner, or a
winning team. If the chosen contest is for two teams, then each of the
participants of the Duel teams up with eir respective Second."

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:56:51 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1642

Proposal 1642
Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon
Niccolo Flychuck

A proposal to create a rule as a member of the Party Chess Rule Suite
entitled "Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon" which contains the
following the text:

"
1. A Demon is represented by the ASCII Character D
2. When the square the Demon currently occupies (R,C) is in the 
   range 5<R<15, e<C<o (that is between columns e and o, exclusive)
   it can move a distance of exactly 1 in any given direction, when the 
   square the Demon is on is not included in the above range, the Demon
   can move a distance of exactly 2 squares in any given direction.
3. A Demon is promotobale. A Demon can be promoted if an only if there 
   exist two friendly pieces of the same type (as each other, not
   necessarily the Demon), X and Y such that 
   (xR<R<yR /AND/ xC<C<yC) /OR/ (xR<R<yR /AND/ xC>C>yC)

4. A Demon's materail value is 2

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:56:49 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1639

Proposal 1639
Presidential Debate
Niccolo Flychuck

Create a rule entitled "Presidential Debate" which contains the following
text:
" 

1. Every Presedential Election where there are at least two candidates,
and no more than 30 candidates is preceded by a Presidential Debate. 

2. If the Speaker is not a candidate for President, and no other player
volunteers for the job then e acts as the Debate Moderator. If the Speaker
is running for President, then it is his duty to appoint another player
who is not running for President as Debate Moderator. In any case, the
name of the Moderator should be anounced no later than the end of the
nomination period. 

3. Once the Moderator's name has been anounced players and candidates may
send debate questions to the Debate Moderator. Each player may send up to
two questions. Each Candidate sends at least two questions, and at most 4
questions. If there are two or more substantially similar questions, the
Debate Moderator may unify them into a single question. 

4. Once the names of the candidates have been anounced, the Debate
Moderator anounces the begining of the Presidential Debate 

5. All posts which are part of the Debate, must have the word 'Debate' in
their subject line. 

6. The Debate Moderator may post the Debate questions in any order, and in
any time interval, as long as each post contains at most 5 questions, the
first post should posted five days before the end of the elections and the
last post for any given elections is posted at least 24hours before the
end of the elections. 

7. Each candidate may post one reply per question. Each reply has the
folowing limits:
a. A maximum of 10 lines of qouted text
b. A maximum of 15 lines of unquoted (original) text.
c. A maximum of 20 lines altogether.
The question, if qouted, is not counted in any of the above clauses . 

8. Each candidate may reply to another candidate's reply to a debate
question, provided the other candidate's reply is a direct reply to a
Debate question, and not a reply to another candidate's reply. Such
replies are limited to one reply per candidate per question, and must meet
the restrictions in section 7 of this rule. 

9. In any posting which is outside the context of the Debate, candidates
may not quote either questions or answers that were posted as part of the
Debate. 

10. If a candidate violates any of the above restrictions, each violation
counts as one vote for each of the other candidates. 

11. Should any of the above fail to occur for any reason, the elections
still end at the prescribed time according to R504. 

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:56:51 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1641

Proposal 1641
Fix Swingers' demise
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest propoal.
In R1230.2 "Swinger Like to Play  Around II - Let's Play
section 2 D
delete the text :"as a result of eir Party being destroyed,"

{{[The current text would not cover Capital-Swinger's Offices. The current
Party-Hall rule allows for Party Swingers of dissolved Parties to become
Capital Swingers, this has no effect of the NAP Swinger, since the NAP
Swinger's Office is not destoyed]}}

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:56:52 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1643

Proposal 1643
Witchhunt Reform (or Stopping those annoying 'quota
Malenkai

exceeded' messages from my ISP)

This is a Modest proposal

Amend R 1307, "Ackanomic Middle Ages", to replace:

"
If, in a public message, a Player refers to the Earth being round, or
implies that this may be the case, any other Player may start a Witchhunt
by sending a public message that names the alleged witch, quotes his or
her allegedly heretical message, and calls for a Witchhunt.
"

with:

"
If, in a public message, a Player refers to the Earth being round, or
implies that this may be the case, any other Player may start a Witchhunt
by sending a public message that names the alleged witch, quotes his or
her allegedly heretical message, and calls for a Witchhunt, provided a
Witchhunt is not already in progress against that player, and provided
there are less than 5 Witchhunts in progress.
"
 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amend R 360, "Hearings", to append the following text onto the end of
the second paragraph:

"
Any response contained in a post that does not unambiguously identify
the Hearing it is in response to, even if only one Hearing is in progress,
is invalid.
"

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:18:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Reorg III

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> RFC Reorg III

> V.  [Section Headings]
	...
> d) To add section headings to the Rules, and to amend or remove existing
> section headings.  All section headings must be labelled as such.  The
> existance or non-existance of section headings in the Rules has no effect
> on the game state.  {{all section headings are hereby removed from the
> Rules.}}
	Uh, I'd rather you didn't nuke all section headings.  Instead, 
maybe it could be specified that section headings must be [] notes?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:33:08 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1643

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1643
> Witchhunt Reform (or Stopping those annoying 'quota
> Malenkai
> 
> exceeded' messages from my ISP)
> 
> This is a Modest proposal
> 
> Amend R 1307, "Ackanomic Middle Ages", to replace:
> 
> "
> If, in a public message, a Player refers to the Earth being round, or
> implies that this may be the case, any other Player may start a Witchhunt
> by sending a public message that names the alleged witch, quotes his or
> her allegedly heretical message, and calls for a Witchhunt.
> "
> 
> with:
> 
> "
> If, in a public message, a Player refers to the Earth being round, or
> implies that this may be the case, any other Player may start a Witchhunt
> by sending a public message that names the alleged witch, quotes his or
> her allegedly heretical message, and calls for aWitchhunt, provided a
> Witchhunt is not already in progress against that player, and provided
> there are less than 5 Witchhunts in progress.
> "

How about making it illegal to call witch hunts on quoted text?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:35:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1639

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1639
> Presidential Debate
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 

This proposal is different than the one previously distributed under the
same name in that it does not attempt to change the duration of the
Presedential elections.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:37:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Promoter

Seeing that we now have a proposal-accepting bot, and having asked 
Mohammed, I resign from the office of Promoter.  (I am doing it this way to 
avoid the 3-day Nomination delay we'd have with the "Smooth Transition" clause.)  
This makes Niccolo Flychuck Acting Promoter until such time that he gets 
around appointing Mohammed Promoter on a permanent basis.

At this time, I have only one unPromoted proposal (snowgod's).   I have sent 
it to the Acrobot in snowgod's name; I believe this is within the rules; 
they leave the matter of HOW the Promoter wishes to distribute proposal's 
to his own discretion.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:41:39 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: New mailing list

I have set up a new mailing list, [email-masked].
This is intended to be used for most email messages sent due to
subgames.  Don't start using it for that yet, though, because I'm
not sure the rules consider messages sent here "public messages".

I have cloned the main mailing list to create this list, so
everybody subscribed to ackanomic should be subscribed to this
list as well.  You are not required to stay subscribed to this
list, but I imagine most players will.  I have also funneled the
messages from this list into the same digester as the ackanomic
list uses, so ackanomic-digest subscribers will get all these
messages together.  There's also an acka-games-priv list that
works like acka-priv but the message is initially sent to
subscribers of acka-games.

I also have an RFC for what is needed to ensure that this list
can be used as intended:

Amend Rule 372, Customary Subject Line, to read in full:
   A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to all
   non-vacationing Players or it is sent to any mailing list the postmaster
   declares to be a public forum, and the subject line contains either
   "Ackanomic:" or "Acka:".

I will declare ackanomic, acka-priv, acka-games, and acka-games-priv
to be public forums.

  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =

I am working on a much larger RFC for allowing non-voting players
into the game.  This would work somewhat as follows:

I. Amend the postmaster rule to have two official mailing lists;
one is the main official list, and one is the official voting list.
All voting players are required to subscribe to both; non-voting players
need only subscribe to the main official list.  Stuff like players
joining/leaving, score and financial reports, etc. could be sent to
the main list; it would be a low-volume list.  Proposals and vote
results would go to the official voting list.

II. Create a public mailing list, acka-official, with replies
set to ackanomic, which becomes the main official list.
Create another public mailing list, acka-vote, with replies
set to ackanomic (or acka-research?), which becomes the official
voting list.

III. Amend the rules, to change most references to "messages sent to
all players" to "public messages".

IV. Amend the rules, to change many instances of "player" to
"voting player".  Non-voting players would not be able to
write proposals, vote on proposals, submit or judge CFJ's, or
hold most offices.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:24:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1642

> Proposal 1642
> Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon
> Niccolo Flychuck

> 3. A Demon is promotobale. A Demon can be promoted if an only if there 
>    exist two friendly pieces of the same type (as each other, not
>    necessarily the Demon), X and Y such that 
>    (xR<R<yR /AND/ xC<C<yC) /OR/ (xR<R<yR /AND/ xC>C>yC)

Does it have to promote to the same type of piece as the two friendly
pieces that surround it, or can it choose any piece?

The latter case sounds like too much of a bargain, because a swinger
with pawns in two opposite corners could promote a demon anywhere on the
board (except on the edges).  The former case is more reasonable, since
the swinger has to already have two on-board pieces of the type promoted
to, which may need to go out of their way to help the demon promote.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:28:14 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1643

>
>
>
 >
>
>How about making it illegal to call witch hunts on quoted text?
>
>Niccolo Flychuck
>
>
Agora has a Rule entitled "accurate quoting shall not be penalized" which
prevents this sort of thing.  Perhaps we could do with a like-minded rule?

Swann

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:42:50 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1643

> Proposal 1643
> Witchhunt Reform (or Stopping those annoying 'quota
> Malenkai

> Amend R 360, "Hearings", to append the following text onto the end of
> the second paragraph:
> 
> "
> Any response contained in a post that does not unambiguously identify
> the Hearing it is in response to, even if only one Hearing is in progress,
> is invalid.
> "

How about numbering hearings?  Then we could just vote
"BURN THE WITCH!" in hearing 101 and "No, E said the earth was flat"
in hearing 102, or "Phoebe would not say anything so crass" in
hearing 103 and "Phoebe said much the same to me once" in hearing 104.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:07:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Promoter

> At this time, I have only one unPromoted proposal (snowgod's).   I have sent 
> it to the Acrobot in snowgod's name
	Before anyone gets any ideas, no, it isn't this easy to fool
Acrobot.  I'm going to have to text-edit the mail from mr.  Fawkes in
order to fool Acrobot into thinking it came from snowgod.
	It is possible to fool Acrobot via an amount of networking
subterfuge, just as it would have been possible to fool any human who had
the job.  The only complete solution I can imagine to this is password
authentication, which is fully possible but would be an inconvenience to
the players. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:07:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Promoter

> Guy Fawkes
	Oh-- I volunteer for the office of Promoter.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:10:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  oops

*grin*  I take it back, Guy Fawkes did indeed fool Acrobot.  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:30:15 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 332 (Swann) (My Judgement)

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 332
  Subject: Bribes
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Swann (selected Jan 19, 1997, 18:48h EST)
Judgement: 

Statement:

A bribe of the form "Bribe: A random Trinket whose name contains the
string 'Saaramaa'" is a valid bribe, assuming the author of the proposal
containing such a bribe has enough Trinkets so named to satisify the
bribe, and assuming the bribe complies with all of the other technical 
requirements specified in Rule 313 and elsewhere.

==============================
Considering this satement satisfies the requirement in 313 that 
"Bribes may only cause the transfer of tradeable or gift entities from the
 author of the proposal..." and the aleged trinkets are assumed [in the
statement] to exist in sufficent quantity to pay off the voters, the Judge
believes that the statement is trivally TRUE.

Swann

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:33:13 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Promoter

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Seeing that we now have a proposal-accepting bot, and having asked 
> Mohammed, I resign from the office of Promoter.  (I am doing it this way to 
> avoid the 3-day Nomination delay we'd have with the "Smooth Transition" clause.)  
> This makes Niccolo Flychuck Acting Promoter until such time that he gets 
> around appointing Mohammed Promoter on a permanent basis.

As this seems to be agreeable to all parties, and as Mohammed has
previously expressed eir desire to be Promoter, I am officialy appointing
Mohammed as Promoter.

Niccolo Flychuck
President

> 
> At this time, I have only one unPromoted proposal (snowgod's).   I have sent 
> it to the Acrobot in snowgod's name; I believe this is within the rules; 
> they leave the matter of HOW the Promoter wishes to distribute proposal's 
> to his own discretion.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:33:10 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 330 (Swann) (My Judgement)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 330
  Subject: CFCJ 119 revisited
Initiator: Red Barn
    Judge: Swann (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:32h EST)
Judgement: 

Statement:

  The first complaint made by Red Barn was legitimately exercised for the
purposes of R1448.

=====================
I judge FALSE since it seems that, regardless of the perception of the caller,
the money in question wasn't "really" debited, so the complaint was not
legitimate.

Swann

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:36:52 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1647

Proposal 1647
snowgod's Cure
snowgod

No player may have
a score of forty-two points
a sacred number

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:36:51 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1645

Proposal 1645
Too Many Hunters
Red Barn

  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.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:36:52 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1646

Proposal 1646
Unambiguizing ambiguities
Habeous Corpus

Create a new rule,  with text:

Anyone responding to a hearing,  subgame move,  duel,  or any other
specific game action that affects scores or requires an action by any
functional officer without explicitly naming the specific game action in
the subject line shall be guilty of a crime.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:36:50 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1644

Proposal 1644
Ridiculous!
Red Barn

  I propose that the entire contents of the Treaury be transferred to
Red Barn.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:41:09 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1642

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > Proposal 1642
> > Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> > 3. A Demon is promotobale. A Demon can be promoted if an only if there 
> >    exist two friendly pieces of the same type (as each other, not
> >    necessarily the Demon), X and Y such that 
> >    (xR<R<yR /AND/ xC<C<yC) /OR/ (xR<R<yR /AND/ xC>C>yC)
> 
> Does it have to promote to the same type of piece as the two friendly
> pieces that surround it, or can it choose any piece?
> 
> The latter case sounds like too much of a bargain, because a swinger
> with pawns in two opposite corners could promote a demon anywhere on the
> board (except on the edges).  The former case is more reasonable, since
> the swinger has to already have two on-board pieces of the type promoted
> to, which may need to go out of their way to help the demon promote.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

My prefference is the latter case in your quote, although I did not
consider the two pawns bit. As the proposal stands now, there would be no
limit on the type of piece. 
Limiting to the same type of piece as the two friednly pieces is no
different realy, because a Demon placed at the center of the board could
promote to pawn, and then immediately promote to any other piece.
A better solution would be to make an exception that pawns can't be used
to promote a Demon, or perhaps limit it to pieces with a material value
higher than the Demon's.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:06:55 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1632

Calvin N Hobbbe spake thusly
> 
> Oh, btw, I note that I didn't keep silent so the SOS against me is annulled
> and the witch hunt begins again. Sorry Malenkai, I have two messages coming
> up that are rather important.

Ooh, sorry about that, CnH, hadn't meant to imperil you in any way.

> Ok, the idea of the rule is to make everything simple for everyone. The
> events happen this way:
> 1- Someone makes a legitimate claim of chewing the gumball
> 2- In the same message, or soon after, the person states his two prefered
> choices for "mates".
> 3- After someone legally chews the gumball, anyone can begin courting
> 4- The player who chewed the gumball gives a pieces to two people.
> 5- If 4 occured within the time allowed, they can be parents, otherwise not.
> 6- In all cases, the gumball is made whole again and ready for chewing.
> 
> Note that the gumball owner can only give bits to people who have courted or
> have announced they would accept to bite a bit. Players who have not chewed
> the gumball don't have much to do, just state whether they would accept
> being parents. Of course, players are free to invest as much time as they
> want in courting. The player's first choices shouldn't have to much to do
> though.
> 
> Once the player gives away the bits, that's it, it's over. The recipients
> already stated their willingness to get it, so no other acknowledgement is
> needed. Note that they don't even have to say they will bite the gum (that's
> a private undertaking), it is assumed to be done.

That may be true, but what if one of the offerees doesn't say anything?
I didn't see any provisions for a time limit on the offer, or allowing
the chewer to retract his offer.

> >Here's another confusing part.  Players begin courting as soon as the
> >gumball is chewed, and then the chewer posts the two he wishes to
> >give the pieces to, and then they get to accept or not accept.
> 
> The person chewing *must* post two first choices, but may acccept anyone.
> And yes, theoretically, if the player does not make his choices know as soon
> as he chews, then player can begin courting, probably influence the first
> choices. That's good I think.

So, what if he offers it to two people, then gets two _really_ great
offers from courters.  Can he accept the courters, and just blow off
the people he initially offered the bits to?

> Only to people who state they would accept a bit. This implies they are
> courting. Courting can be a very stoical, very spartan affair if one wants
> to. Courting could be just saying "I'd bite". If someone doesn't say they
> would bite, then a bit cannot be given to them. Except for the poet --
> everyone wants his genes to dominate the gene pool.     :)

I dunno about that, especially this Poet Laureate. *grin*

> >  The assumption of acknowledgement
> >also unnerves me.  When is that supposed to be occurring?  When they
> >print their acceptance of the offer of the chewer?
> 
> If someone says they would accept a bit, then they are assumed to
> acknowledge a bit should one be given to them. It makes sense, and isn't
> something to be afraid of. Of course, the poet can always be picked, that's
> true, and assumed to accept.   :)

So, you might be able to encourage a bidding war between courters?

> Worried about all those potential renegade, delinquent children and you
> being dragged to court with them when they get their first CFCJ?    :)

Yeah, soemthing like that.

> Anyway, there should be plenty of players willing to be parents out there,
> so I don't think you'll be called upon to frequently. Call it a hazard of
> the trade.    :)

Quite possibly so, but I'm just afraid that since the Poet Laureate
is written expressly into the rules, that it may give others the option
to not have to think for two suitable parents, when the Rule already
names an acceptable one already.

> As for rule detailing the relationship between parents and children, it will
> be up to us to figure that out. There are numerous fun options I'm sure.

Oh, of that I am certain.

> When I was writing the prop, I knew that I was having problems making
> everything hold together and still make sense in a clear way. I'm not sure
> it's perfectly clear, or perfectly right.

It is clearer now, but there are still some problems, mainly loopholes
that could stall the process out.

fnord

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 01:04:10 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Poet Laureate

I'd like to thank the Poet Laureate for the poem written as per my
request.
I loved it, and it makes me feel real good that I could act as patron of
arts.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:11:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Poet Laureate

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> I'd like to thank the Poet Laureate for the poem written as per my
> request.
> I loved it, and it makes me feel real good that I could act as patron of
> arts.

And I'm sure you did not know, it moves you closer to one of the
Treasures of Jara.

Malenkai
wondering what the game state of YORL is

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:40:14 +0000
From: "Matt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1647

> Proposal 1647
> snowgod's Cure
> snowgod
> 
> 
> No player may have
> a score of forty-two points
> a sacred number

!!!!!

Cheap points, anyone?

Bascule

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:17:35 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1643

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1643
> Witchhunt Reform (or Stopping those annoying 'quota
> Malenkai
> 
> exceeded' messages from my ISP)

The bot did not distribute this correctly.  The last line of quoted
text is actually part of the title, not part of the proposal.  Since
the rules have no limit on title length, either we must fix the bot
or the rules, or voluntary comply with any limits of the bot.  Since
I didn't know the bot had limits, I did not realise this would happen.
(Wayne's bot seemed to have no limits).  In this case, it looks like
the bot's title limit is 51 characters.  Would the web-harfer please
make this update if he has not done so, and don't vote no because of
garbage in the proposal :)

Malenkai
who does not the rules based on the technology that happens to implement
them at the time

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:21:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Pythoncross Treasure Update

A total of two players have submitted a total of only 3 valid or
near-valid (i.e., technically invalid, but a valid game is
determinable from the submission) entries for the Pythoncross
treasure.  There are (slightly less than) 12 days left before the
treasure will be found.

The highest score of these three is 466.
Higher scores are possible.

Note: the map indicates that only properly valid entries are
contenders for this contest.  If your entry is invalid, and
it arrives within a reasonable time before the deadline, I
will let you know why it is invalid; in the case that it is
a contender for high score, you may be able to submit a
corrected version.  Whenever I do another treasure of this
type, I will be sure to word it so that I can accept entries
which are only invalid due to such technicalities.  I would
hate to see a last-minute winning entry lose due to something
like this.  Over the years I have subscribed to Games, I
have seen a few sets of contest results where a potential
winning entry was voided on a technicality (not submitting
all the correct information with the entry, or arriving too
late, etc.); such entries have been known to earn Games T-shirts.

Of the invalid entries received so far, the following errors have
been seen:
Incorrectly listing the position of a played word (near-valid)
Using letters not available on some play (invalid)
Using invalid words (invalid)
Mis-scoring plays (near-valid, with the corrected score)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:19:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1643

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> How about numbering hearings?  Then we could just vote
> "BURN THE WITCH!" in hearing 101 and "No, E said the earth was flat"
> in hearing 102, or "Phoebe would not say anything so crass" in
> hearing 103 and "Phoebe said much the same to me once" in hearing 104.

I will start doing this.  However, I would still like it codified that
ambiguous votes are invalid.  This can still happen even if hearings
are numbered, because people do not reply to the original post, as happened
in the lastest round of hearings.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:22:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1647

Matt wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 1647
> > snowgod's Cure
> > snowgod
> >
> >
> > No player may have
> > a score of forty-two points
> > a sacred number

> Cheap points, anyone?

I commend snowgod for making a good go at the cure.  I'm voting
yes, although I wonder what happens if a score change puts you at 42.
This rule probably loses on precedence, although we could renumber it
to 204 :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:36:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 332 Verdict

CFJ 332 has been judged TRUE.  I realise this already went to the
public forum, but, by rule, I have to distribute it again.  Just
as a note, these are usually sent privately so as to serialize them
when necessary.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 332
  Subject: Bribes
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Swann (selected Jan 19, 1997, 18:48h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A bribe of the form "Bribe: A random Trinket whose name contains the
string 'Saaramaa'" is a valid bribe, assuming the author of the proposal
containing such a bribe has enough Trinkets so named to satisify the
bribe, and assuming the bribe complies with all of the other technical
requirements specified in Rule 313 and elsewhere.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

I hope so.  Proposal bribery is described in Rule 313.

Swann's Reasoning:

Considering this satement satisfies the requirement in 313 that
"Bribes may only cause the transfer of tradeable or gift entities from the
 author of the proposal..." and the aleged trinkets are assumed [in the
statement] to exist in sufficent quantity to pay off the voters, the Judge
believes that the statement is trivally TRUE.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:38:18 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 330 Verdict

CFJ 330 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 330
  Subject: CFCJ 119 revisited
Initiator: Red Barn
    Judge: Swann (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:32h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

  The first complaint made by Red Barn was legitimately exercised for the
purposes of R1448.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  R1448 refers to a player "legitimately exercising this ability [to
complain]".  It is not clearly defined what precisely constitutes
legitimately exercising the ability.  Presumably, it can be defined as
publicly posting a legitimate complaint.  Nor is a legitimate complaint
defined.  However, R1448 says, on line 6 of paragraph one:

In order for this complaint to have the effects described in this rule,...

  Therefore, it can be assumed that a legitimate complaint is, rather than
a complaint having any specific effects, merely a complaint complying with
the rules.
  Paragraph one, lines 1-4, read:

  Any new player of Ackanomic (defined, for these purposes, as a player
who has been a player of Ackanomic for less than 31 days) that is playing
Ackanomic for the first time (i.e. they have only joined the game of
Ackanomic once) may publicly complain when they lose any points or
currency. ...

  Red Barn submitted an entity of ambiguous type to the Clerk of the
Court, who treated it as a CFCJ until it was determined not to be.

  Rule 710 states:
  1) A "court fee" of A$20 will be paid by the player making the CFCJ, to
the Treasury.

  I submit that any action labelled as a CFCJ and treated as such by the
Clerk of the Court incurs such a fee, because the action was treated as a
CFCJ beyond the point at which such a fee would be incurred.

  Therefore Red Barn paid A$20 to the court, and the complaint in question
was legitimate.

Swann's Reasoning:

I judge FALSE since it seems that, regardless of the perception of the 
caller,
the money in question wasn't "really" debited, so the complaint was not
legitimate.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #465
*******************************