Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #466
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Tuesday, January 21 1997       Volume 01 : Number 466

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:44:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 120 Verdict

CFCJ 120 has been judged TRUE.  Actual penalties to be applied after
the 3 day grace period:

A Sentence of 5 days in the Gaol
A Public Apology of 10 lines
A Fine of A$50

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 120
  Subject:  Illegal Name Change
Initiator:  fnord
    Judge:  Bascule (selected Jan 17, 1997, 02:23 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE

Statement:

Red Barn has committed a Crime.

fnord's Reasoning:

 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.

Suggested Penalty:

 A Sentence of 5 days in the Gaol
 A Public Apology of 10 lines

Bascule's Reasoning:

 As a matter of public record, I am quoting ThinMan from a post to
 the public forum:

 > 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
 > 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.

 It is not often that I disagree with ThinMan, however in this case I
 do.

 From "Crime":
 > An action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is, by
 > contrast, impossible. However, an attempt to commit such an action
 > is a Crime [even though the action itself does not occur].

 Red Barn attempted to change his name to "Chess nuts boasting
 in an open foyer", an illegal Ackanomic name.

 From "Player Names":
 > A player may change his Ackanomic name, so long as the new name
 > complies with all applicable rules.

 As Red Barn's new name did not comply with all applicable rules, he
 was not permitted to change his name, and his attempt to do so was a
 crime.

Actual Penalty:

 Red Barn:
 > I believe that that was quite a serious offense, and that there should
 > therefore be some monetary penalty, as well.

 This judge will not be lenient with criminals who willingly commit
 what they consider to be "quite a serious offense".

 A Sentence of 5 days in the Gaol
 A Public Apology of 10 lines
 A Fine of A$50

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:47:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Reorg III

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> 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?

This was not worded well.  'Rules' was meant to be construed as the
ruleset, and it is not clear that that is the intent.  What I'm looking
for here is something like chapter headings in the rule document that
are not rules, nor part of any rule.  I will work on better wording
and repost.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:53:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Promoter

> 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.
	Thanks very much!

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:10:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1639

> Proposal 1639
> Presidential Debate

[...]

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

[...]

> the first post should [be] posted five days before the end of
> the elections1

I do not believe this will work, as elections are generally 3 days.

Malenkai
who actually prototyped a time travel proposal, but canned it because it
would be too much work for the web-harfer

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:57:25 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC Using "The size of things"

Jammer spake thusly
> 
> This is a grandios Proposal.
> 
> {This would go in the same Section as the "
> Size of Things" whenever that is decided.}
> 
> Section 2  Premise
> An active player can only use, or enjoy the
> effects of an an item if it is inside a structure

If which is inside a structure, the item or the player?  Do they
have to be in the same structure?

> Section 3: Procedures for determining what's
> inside or out
> Part one: Default
> All Items that require attention are declared to be inside
> first.  In the event that there are too many items to 
> fit in the house, the largerest item is placed in the structure
> first, then successively smaller ones, until the structure
> is filled,  In the event that there are more then one item 
> of a given size when the structure becomes full, random
> items of that size are placed outside., as are all
> other items

This last sentence is very confusing, and I'm afraid I don't
understand it at all.  It appears to say that if a structure
becomes full, and there are two items of the exact same size
(whether or not they are both inside, both outside, or one of
each), some (random) number of those items are placed outside
(presumably from the inside of the structure), as well as all
other items (items that are inside?  or all items that have yet to
be placed inside, which must therefore have been outside already).

> The same procedure is followed successively for
> Items that require a blueprints, items that can be made 
> from blueprints, and trinkets.
> 
> In the event that a plot is filled, e has the option of 
> moving it to any plot he can, or face it being discarded as 
> described below.

By 'it' I assume you mean item/entity, correct?

> Part Two:  Or you can choose
> Not withstanding any wriiteen above within this section
> a palyer can declare anything outside by posting 
> this statement publically.

Does the 'not withstanding' mean that a player can declare things outside
as long as the plot' doesn't have its thingee capacity exceeded?

> Part Three:  Discarding
> for a period of 48 hours, a player may move thing inside
> or outside or to other locations After that time is up, any
> item that is auctioned, with half of the proceeds going to the
> play nd half going to the accuision fund of the Museum

Players would only have 48 hours from the announced passage
of this proposal to move things?  They may, at no other time, 
move things from inside to outside, or vice versa?

And what is this about items being auctioned off?  What does 
this have to do with the size of things?

> If  the item is given to anyother player by some procedure 
> this happens, with the owning player suffering the effects of 
> loosing the item otherwise the peice is destroyed.

What effects of losing an item?  Or do you mean that _if_ a player
would suffer penalties from losing an item?  But that
wouldn't /shouldn't cause an item to be destroyed.

> Section 4.  The consequences of things being left out
> 1.  Any power or effect cannot be taken advantage of,  It
> the item requires attention, then the palyer suffers the 
> consequences.

The first statement is basically a rehash of Section 1.
You could leave Section 1 as it is, and then, in individual
entities, change the rules/blueprints if you want to
add additional penalties.

> 2. in the event of a storm, or something that might leave
> any building dangling, the Item disappears or is passed on to 
> it's next recipiant.

Whose choice?  Or do you mean that it would go to someone else
if that entity's blueprint/Rule said it would, otherwise it
would be destroyed?  Trinkets would really suffer then, as the
A$s would not be recirculated into the system.  Again, this might be 
a good place to modify the specific Rules after putting a simple
default case here.

> Section 5  Moving items inside or out.
> A player may declare by public post that any item be placed 
> outside 
> In order to move something from outside to inside, the player
> must post his attention publicly then wait twenty four hours
> before bringing it inside.

Where do things start out to begin with, assuming everyone has already
decided where their things are?  i.e. when someone gets Phoebe, where
does she appear to them?  In order to get the 6 points for posting
her wisdom, she would have to be inside, but if she appears to them
outside, they need to spend the time moving her inside.

> Section 6  Defalut sizes
> All items are by default 2 thingees in size unless otherwise 
> declared.  {I'd make Pheobe 0, blue prints and Prothestic 
> Foreheads 1, if not worn, and would say that the the VB machine
> that doesn't do anything leave 2 spaces in a structure}

I agree with Malenkai that things should be (by default) 0 Thingees
and that the specific Rule/blueprint declares them to be otherwise.

Also, this portion of the Rule, should probably be with the Rule that
defines Sizes, just for organizational sake.

fnord

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:42:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1643

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

> The bot did not distribute this correctly.
	Acrobot wishes me to pass on to you that it was quite offended at
this.  It would challenge you to a duel if the rules allowed it.  I tried
to talk some sense into it.  :o)

> The last line of quoted
> text is actually part of the title, not part of the proposal.
	The bot is limited to titles of four billion, two hundred
ninety-four million, nine hundred sixty-seven thousand, two hundred
ninety-five characters or fewer.  Such are the restrictions of the
language and architecture that power it; the quota on my account is much
more prohibitive, maxing out at around 19.5 meg I think.
	In my botmail archive, it appears your message has a line break in
the middle of the title.  Acrobot assumes that the line break indicates
the end of the title and the beginning of the proposal.  (Reasonable, 
right?)

	There are several possibilities:
	1)  There may be some bug in the bot or obscure "feature" of python
that causes it to break lines...  intelligently... between words while
reading them in.  I consider the chances of this practically nil.
	2) You may have sent the title on two lines, in which case Acrobot
did nothing wrong.  I don't know if you have a record of it...
	3)  You may have sent it on one line and, somewhere between where 
you are and where I am, some intermediate machine quite rudely split the 
line because it was too long.  Someone had this problem once before; I do 
not know if it was ever remedied.

	For the numerous *other* bugs in Acrobot that have manifested and 
shaken out over the past few days, I apologize.  :o)

> who does not the rules based on the technology that happens to implement
> them at the time
	I agree.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:29:28 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Non voting members

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

Interesting concept, but a minor question or three.

Would non-voting members gain points?  If so, would they be able to win?

> 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.

I had been thinking, just as I was about to become a player instead
of an observer, of trying to scam a way ato win the game, even
though I wasn't a player yet.  I almost had a way, but the loophole 
was too tiny.

fnord

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 19:14:27 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1648

Proposal 1648
Generic Proposal Title #1648
Eponimondas

preface: This is a grandiose proposal
==============================

This proposal, if adopted, is two non simultaneous events in unique
order a,b. a) this proposal is a public 30x retraction of itself b) cows
eat grass. 
=====================================

comment: though it might appear a null rule, I appeal to immutable 103
para ii.L6-7.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:33:06 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Poet Laureate

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> 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.

Did it, really?  Wow.  Hmm.... I wonder if I could get a cut of it.
Nah, probably not.  Not really that necessary, as I have a PFsnowgod 
already.

fnord

(I must say, Malenkai, and I mean this purely as a compliment,
you have the most difficult treasure hunts I have run across
in a long long time.)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:23:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1643

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         Acrobot wishes me to pass on to you that it was quite offended at
> this.  It would challenge you to a duel if the rules allowed it.  I tried
> to talk some sense into it.  :o)

I humbly apologize to Acrobot.  Although I have not determined the
cause of the problem, I accept that it was at my end.  In any case

Jan 20 20:22 EST: -2 Malenkai: retract P 1643

and I will submit another hopefully non-garbled version.

Malenkai
who wonders when Acrobot is going to join as a player

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:35:42 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1648

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1648
> Generic Proposal Title #1648
> Eponimondas
> 
> preface: This is a grandiose proposal
> ==============================
> 
> This proposal, if adopted, is two non simultaneous events in unique
> order a,b. a) this proposal is a public 30x retraction of itself b) cows
> eat grass.
> =====================================
> 
> comment: though it might appear a null rule, I appeal to immutable 103
> para ii.L6-7.
Salutations!

		I do not believe this to be legal.  If the proposal passes into the
ruleset, it will no longer be able to be retracted; only repealed. 
Furthermore, if you could retract a rule, you could only do so once. 
The remaining 29 would be null and void.

		Regards,
			Strider

sorry:)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:55:09 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Moses Rojas)
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1648

it was my original intent that a proposal containing anystring  could
be brought up and retracted. then i believed that  it might be
interesting to attempt to write a proposal which would intoduce itself
and act as a self retracting mechanism if passed. Thus a vote for the
proposal is a vote for the ability of an action such as the introduction
of a proposal and its public retraction to be "automated"  by the
(created) instrument and the explicit concent of all yes-voting members.
It occured to me if one could do this in unique order a,b perhaps the
scoring sequence might follow A being retractions of itself and B being
the entered text under 103/10 p.ii. L6-7 (I think this is the right
reference, tho' i'd have to check it).
Obviously this was an experiment in scoring. Optimally, I think 48
points could have been awarded. Plus I like the thought of being called
silly:)
- -E

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:08:58 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC Using "The size of things" fnord

fnord wrote on Monday, January 20, 1997 5:57 PM
> 
> Jammer spake thusly
> > 
> > This is a grandios Proposal.
> > 
> > {This would go in the same Section as the "
> > Size of Things" whenever that is decided.}
> > 
> > Section 2  Premise
> > An active player can only use, or enjoy the
> > effects of an an item if it is inside a structure
> 
> If which is inside a structure, the item or the player?  Do they
> have to be in the same structure?  
> 
The Item, although I haven't observed players going 
anywhere else. since I've joined.  Besides, "e" would
refer to a player and it refers to an item.

> > Section 3: Procedures for determining what's
> > inside or out
> > Part one: Default
> > All Items that require attention are declared to be inside
> > first.  In the event that there are too many items to 
> > fit in the house, the largerest item is placed in the structure
> > first, then successively smaller ones, until the structure
> > is filled,  In the event that there are more then one item 
> > of a given size when the structure becomes full, random
> > items of that size are placed outside., as are all
> > other items
> 
> This last sentence is very confusing, and I'm afraid I don't
> understand it at all.  It appears to say that if a structure
> becomes full, and there are two items of the exact same size
> (whether or not they are both inside, both outside, or one of
> each), some (random) number of those items are placed outside
> (presumably from the inside of the structure), as well as all
> other items (items that are inside?  or all items that have yet to
> be placed inside, which must therefore have been outside already).
> 
If you had two items 4 thingees in size and 3 items 2 thingees in size
the two fout thingee sized items are inside, and a randomly selected
two of the two thingee sized items are.  assuming a 10 thingee sized
structure.

> > The same procedure is followed successively for
> > Items that require a blueprints, items that can be made 
> > from blueprints, and trinkets.
> > 
> > In the event that a plot is filled, e has the option of 
> > moving it to any plot he can, or face it being discarded as 
> > described below.
> 
> By 'it' I assume you mean item/entity, correct?
Yes
> 
> > Part Two:  Or you can choose
> > Not withstanding any wriiteen above within this section
> > a palyer can declare anything outside by posting 
> > this statement publically.
> 
> Does the 'not withstanding' mean that a player can declare things outside
> as long as the plot' doesn't have its thingee capacity exceeded?
> 
Yes

> > Part Three:  Discarding
> > for a period of 48 hours, a player may move thing inside
> > or outside or to other locations After that time is up, any
> > item that is auctioned, with half of the proceeds going to the
> > play nd half going to the accuision fund of the Museum
> 
> Players would only have 48 hours from the announced passage
> of this proposal to move things?  They may, at no other time, 
> move things from inside to outside, or vice versa?
> 
No, there is a 48 hour period before an auction, during which the
player can move things around, during this period it cann't
be touched by other players.

> And what is this about items being auctioned off?  What does 
> this have to do with the size of things?
> 
> > If  the item is given to anyother player by some procedure 
> > this happens, with the owning player suffering the effects of 
> > loosing the item otherwise the peice is destroyed.
> 
> What effects of losing an item?  Or do you mean that _if_ a player
> would suffer penalties from losing an item?  But that
> wouldn't /shouldn't cause an item to be destroyed.

What I meant was if the item was passed to another player by its own 
ules it is passed to the next player. . . with any effect occuring 
that may happened as a result of not being attended to..  otherwise 
it's gone.
> 
> > Section 4.  The consequences of things being left out
> > 1.  Any power or effect cannot be taken advantage of,  It
> > the item requires attention, then the palyer suffers the 
> > consequences.
> 
> The first statement is basically a rehash of Section 1.
> You could leave Section 1 as it is, and then, in individual
> entities, change the rules/blueprints if you want to
> add additional penalties.
> 
> > 2. in the event of a storm, or something that might leave
> > any building dangling, the Item disappears or is passed on to 
> > it's next recipiant.
> 
> Whose choice?  Or do you mean that it would go to someone else
> if that entity's blueprint/Rule said it would, otherwise it
> would be destroyed?  Trinkets would really suffer then, as the
> A$s would not be recirculated into the system.  Again, this might be 
> a good place to modify the specific Rules after putting a simple
> default case here.

the second case

I had actually been thinking of a "net down under" not as a Australian
WAN but as a mechanism that catchs everything that is lost, or 
disappears in Ackanomia and recycles it into A$s.

> > Section 5  Moving items inside or out.
> > A player may declare by public post that any item be placed 
> > outside 
> > In order to move something from outside to inside, the player
> > must post his attention publicly then wait twenty four hours
> > before bringing it inside.
> 
> Where do things start out to begin with, assuming everyone has already
> decided where their things are?  i.e. when someone gets Phoebe, where
> does she appear to them?  In order to get the 6 points for posting
> her wisdom, she would have to be inside, but if she appears to them
> outside, they need to spend the time moving her inside.
> 
Pheobe appears inside

> > Section 6  Defalut sizes
> > All items are by default 2 thingees in size unless otherwise 
> > declared.  {I'd make Pheobe 0, blue prints and Prothestic 
> > Foreheads 1, if not worn, and would say that the the VB machine
> > that doesn't do anything leave 2 spaces in a structure}
> 
> I agree with Malenkai that things should be (by default) 0 Thingees
> and that the specific Rule/blueprint declares them to be otherwise.
> 
<grumble grumble> I still don't like that, 
> Also, this portion of the Rule, should probably be with the Rule that
> defines Sizes, just for organizational sake.
> 
> 
I have no problem with that.

Jammer
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:19:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1642

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 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

Another option would be to further restrict "betweenness", say, by saying 
the two pieces "framing" the Demon have to be within so many spaces of 
each other.  Also, one could say that a Demon could only promote at the 
end of a move, so that you can't just drop and promote.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:23:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1647

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 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

Even if the rule loses on precedence, perhaps it could be said that 
having a score of 42 points is a Crime?  >:)

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:22:53 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka  RFC:  How big it is

RFC:  How big it is
Author:  Jammer (John-Martin Lotz)

This is a grandious proposal.

Everytime an entity is created it has to be
given a size in thingees or a capicity in 
thingees.

A Trinket can have any legal size of except 0 
thingees, any other entity can have any legal size.

By default all items have a size of 1 thingee.

Item has the following definition in this section
Item:  Any entity that requires a blueprint, any blueprint
or any trinket as defined in the rules.
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:33:50 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka:  Why I don't like things to default to 0 size.

It is RL intuative.  If something exists by-
en-large it has size.  

It is too eas to have a 0 size default.
first one thing is zero sized, then another, 
then "hey don't forget the  "Size of Things", 
then "Oh ya, there is this rule . . ."

Having size and land add a fertile area of
elaboration of the ruleset.  

John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:35:47 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[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 17:36:32 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1647 

>> 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

At work today i figured out a haiku that makes having 42 points a crime,
but it was too late :)  Oh well, maybe next time.

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:44:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1647

Phil Ackley wrote:

> At work today i figured out a haiku that makes having 42 points a crime,
> but it was too late :)  Oh well, maybe next time.

Are they hiring ;)

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:01:04 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1647 

>Phil Ackley wrote:
>
>> At work today i figured out a haiku that makes having 42 points a crime,
>> but it was too late :)  Oh well, maybe next time.
>
>Are they hiring ;)
>
>Malenkai

I did it while I was vacuuming!

snowgod
bandwidth waster

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:12:30 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Dueling 

Here's a re-hash of the Dueling Limericks for those who are interested.
Send your votes to Niccolo Flychuck.

Red Barn Wrote:

  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.

To Which I replied:

  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.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:22:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: beer

I am ordering a beer.

Malenkai
playtesting the bartender rule

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:31:44 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Acka: *ping* guess

Why not?

I assert that the truth is (may be, could be, I hope but probably not)

"IF AND ONLY IF today has a date only born of two different prime numbers
 THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*."

Swann

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:05:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping* guess

Swann wrote:
> I assert that the truth is (may be, could be, I hope but probably not)
> 
> "IF AND ONLY IF today has a date only born of two different prime numbers
>  THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*."

Like so many of his fellow Ackanomians, Swann has made a futile,
incorrect guess at the Truth.

/dev/joe
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:20:38 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1649

Proposal 1649
Witchhunt Reform
Malenkai

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: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:10:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fat Lady

I believe the cycle ended when Proposal 1644 was distributed,
with Habeous Corpus winning, due to the player-becomes-active-
on-proposal-submission that was slipped into the 'Players'
rewrite.  I await confirmation from the scorekeeper, but since it
is late and I'm going to bed, I will do the Fat Lady stuff now :)

The Fat Lady is singing.

The cycle lasted 40 days, 12 hours, 39 minutes, if my math is right,
less 6 days for the holiday ?

1) All eggs and fruit are destroyed (and egg-fruit :))
2) Habeous Corpus receives a Champions Cloak and a Right-Handed Grapefruit

3) Clairence, Jammer, Bascule, and Red Barn, Eponimondas and
nietzsche receive Chartreuse Goose Eggs

4) There is no tax, athough the amount of A$ in circulation is over 30,000
now.
5) Players receive end of cycle bonuses, which I will calculate when
the end of cycle scores have been finalized
6) All previous champions start at -15*cycles won in points, and get
a victory eggplant.  Everyone else starts at 0 points.

7) No one was on vacation the entire cycle
8) The game cycle is incremented to 11, I believe, and the magic number 
is reset
9) The Gaol is emptied, but no one is there anyway
10) There is no Commission d'Arts, as there was one at the end of the
last cycle

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:52:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady

> I believe the cycle ended when Proposal 1644 was distributed,
> with Habeous Corpus winning, due to the player-becomes-active-
> on-proposal-submission that was slipped into the 'Players'
> rewrite.  I await confirmation from the scorekeeper, but since it
> is late and I'm going to bed, I will do the Fat Lady stuff now :)

Consider it confirmed.  Thank you, Malenkai, for pointing this out.

> The cycle lasted 40 days, 12 hours, 39 minutes, if my math is right,
> less 6 days for the holiday ?

Dec 11 03:57 to Jan 20, 16:36 EST.  Your math is correct.

Scoring since the last score report:
Jan 12 19:44 EST: -3 Jammer: did not report what Phoebe said
 P1618-1619 scoring:
   P1618 normal, unanimous (Bascule +2)
   P1619 modest
Jan 15 22:15 EST: +6 Robert Sevin: posting What Phoebe Says
Jan 16 20:32 EST: +6 Techno: posting What Phoebe Says
Jan 17 17:15 EST: +6 Lestrade: posting What Phoebe Says
Jan 17 21:44 EST: -2 Malenkai: retracting P1634
 P1620 scoring: rejected
Jan 19 23:41 EST: -12 Techno: bogus phoebe wisdom
Jan 20 00:39 EST: +6 snowgod: posting what phoebe said
Jan 20 13:17 EST: -10 Red Barn: BURN THE WITCH!
Jan 20 13:17 EST: -10 snowgod: BURN THE WITCH!
Jan 20 16:36 EST: +30 Habeous Corpus: 2 Whamiols (Red Barn)
Jan 20 16:36 EST: +15 snowgod: Whamiol (Red Barn)
Jan 20 16:36 EST: +15 /dev/joe: Whamiol (Red Barn)

Final Scores for cycle 10:
Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
306     Habeous Corpus       A   (Ed Graham)
224     snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
174     Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
149     Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall)
128     /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
114     Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
83      Swann                A   (Steven Swiniarski)
55      AirHead              A   (Eric Freeman)
52      Robert Sevin         A   (Mitchell Harding)
51      Lestrade             A   (John Duncan)
49      mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
46      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
46      Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff)
37      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
33      G. Peefalt           V   (Aaron Morris)
28      fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
19      breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
19      Strider              A   (Jason McCulley)
19      Calvin N Hobbes      Ag  (Thierry Joffrain)
1       BuzzBee             NV   (John Coifman)
1       23 Skidoo            V   (David Thomas Fisher)
0       Eponimondas          N   (Moses Rojas)
0       nietzsche            N   (Adam Gesher)
- -4      Clairence           IV   (Clair Anthony Viglione)
- -7      Jammer               V   (John Lotz)
- -9      Bascule              Av  (Matt Black)
- -10     Red Barn             A   (Daniel Knapp)

Status:
A=Active, N=New, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice,
D=Dead, R=Returning (non-active), v=Victory Eggplant, g=Chartreuse Goose
(some of the vacationing players above are actually on ice)

Scoring so far in cycle 11:
All scores set to zero except:
  Malenkai -60
  Bascule, /dev/joe, Habeous Corpus, Mohammed, Robert Sevin, and ThinMan -15
All the players named above have victory eggplants.
Malenkai -2 for retracting P1643

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #466
*******************************