Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #467
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Tuesday, January 21 1997       Volume 01 : Number 467

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:58:22 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Vacation

I am not on vacation

Jammer
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:00:24 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:End of Cycle

Salutations!!

		I would like to order a whiskey. Bushmill's 1608, if possible.  In the
event that I can no longer order a drink, I will provide my own.  I
would then like to propose a toast to Habeous Corpus. Congratulations on
winning the Cycle!  

			Regards,
				Strider

PROST!

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:05:02 -0600
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: *ping* 

Today is Tuesday, the 21st 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* 8 times. 

/dev/joe
Scholar of *ping*

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:09:07 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:Fat Lady

Salutations!!

		Hey lady whose body is fat,
		We know that you know where it's at.
		The cycle is through,
		I'm tired of you,
		So go home and hang up your hat.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:34:06 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: beer 

>I am ordering a beer.
>
>Malenkai
>playtesting the bartender rule

I am loggin Malenkai's order of a beer, and running to my copy of the rules
to figure out what the heck I'm supposed to do now.

Malenkai, would you enjoy some muchies with that beer while I add it to
your tab?

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:37:16 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:End of Cycle 

>Salutations!!
>
>		I would like to order a whiskey. Bushmill's 1608, if
>possible.  In the
>event that I can no longer order a drink, I will provide my own.  I
>would then like to propose a toast to Habeous Corpus. Congratulations on
>winning the Cycle!
>
>			Regards,
>				Strider
>
>PROST!

Your order of a mixed drink has been noted.  Here, enjoy your Bushmill's
1608... Strait or with water, sir?  WOuld you care for some munchies?

snowghod

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 01:41:58 PST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: HELP

My computer dumped on me tonight,  losing approximately 25 messages, 
including any digests after #463.

Could _someone_ please resend any current digests,  and any Lanter, 
Acka-research,  Acka-Senate,  or any other important posts to me?  I
have not got anything from Acka posted since Saturday left in my
archive.

HC

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 01:52:29 PST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Fictionary

Luckily,  none of the Fictionary bluffs were in the deleted files,  so
here goes:

There was exactly one submission that matched the ing word,  sent by
Techno.  The correct definition,  and the remaining bluffs follow,  in
no particular order:

The ing word is " opinicus"

1)  Pertaining to snails; snaillike.

2)   A mythological animal with and eagles head, wings and a 
tail.

3)  A book of legal opinions.

4)   an expert or advisor.

5)  An asymptote that is shared between two hyperbolas.

6)  A poem in which the poet or speaker mourns another's death.

Please send your votes for the ing word to the Acka public forum with the
word "Fictionary" in the subject.

Habeous Corpus
Brainiac from the tube era

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 02:06:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fictionary

> The ing word is " opinicus"
> 6)  A poem in which the poet or speaker mourns another's death.

I vote for definition #6.

BTW, I'm going to work on sending HC as much as I can find of the mail
he lost, right after sending out this message.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 02:30:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: HELP

> My computer dumped on me tonight,  losing approximately 25 messages, 
> including any digests after #463.

BTW, since HC's computer "dumped" he also needs to fix his time zone.
The fictionary post was marked 1:52 PST, quite a bit after I responded
to it, and indeed, still later than the current time.  (I know it is
supposed to be CST.)

/dev/joe
Postmaster/Timekeeper

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:34:40 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re :Acka: Fictionary 

>6)  A poem in which the poet or speaker mourns another's death.

I am going to follow /dev/joe's lead and vote for #6.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:00:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1639

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > 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
>
Obvious cut & paste error, I'll retract and resubmit.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:03:48 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1639 -retract

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Proposal 1639
> > Presidential Debate

Due to excessive typos I'm retracting 
this to resubmit.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:21:42 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1642 - retracting

With one fix I might have left it, with two, I should retract this and
resubmit.

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> 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 ofpiece 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 beused
> > 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

This is also a good restriction. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:22:44 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1647

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> 
> >> 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
> 
>
could you post it anyway?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:24:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fat Lady

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> 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

The distribution of P 1648 also triggers the Whamiols.

Malenkai
who really did not like that rule change

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:30:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady

Stephen McCulley wrote:
> 
> Salutations!!
> 
>                 Hey lady whose body is fat,
>                 We know that you know where it's at.
>                 The cycle is through,
>                 I'm tired of you,
>                 So go home and hang up your hat.

ROTFL!!

I certainly know who not to challenge in a duel :)

However, from R 667:

> The Fat Lady's singing will endure for exactly three hours, or until
> any player publicly posts an original limerick *politely* [my emphasis] 
> asking her to stop, whichever comes first.

The CFCJ is tempting :)

Malenkai
who has had a politeness moon called on him for insulting the fat lady

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:41:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial

Do to RL, the bond yields will be late.  I have to find a way to
offload some work, and I have decided to jettison the PFbond
calculations, since I have not the time to write a program of 
spreadsheet to do it.

The cholces are:

a) someone who is not doing much acka work volunteering to be
assistant to the financier, responsible for bond yields and yield
by portfolio only.

b) repealing pfbonds and removing a few K from the ruleset, as they seem
like a marginal game element anyway, and the end of cycle bonus is still
incentive for score improvement.

c) making bond yields pay off based on end of cycle bonus; i.e., you
receive the percentage of end of cycle bonus for a particular player
based on the bonds you hold in that player.  This is still messy due
to the fragmented trading of pfbonds that has been in vogue lately.

d) we make the bond yields occur when officers salaries are paid.  I
would still appreciate a volunteer to help me with it, though.

e) we keep it the way it is, but someone else does the financier job.
Since I will still be maintaining the players' page, as I have through
the previous 2 financiers, there will be redundant work if this option
is chosen, and I dislike redundant work, and if someone is willing
to do all the work, why don't they volunteer for a) now?

f) other ideas?

Hopefully we can go with option a); mabye someone will volunteer.  I
have all the information you will need.  Otherwise, I would appreciate
comments before proceeding with option b).

Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:04:17 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Internomic: If there were paradoxes we'd win again.

>
>>>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...

ROFL!!!!!

I think we're trying to turn Internomic into Ackanomic!

ThinMan

P.S.  I have returned from not being on vacation.  TM

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 06:57:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady

> However, from R 667:
> 
> > The Fat Lady's singing will endure for exactly three hours, or until
> > any player publicly posts an original limerick *politely* [my emphasis] 
> > asking her to stop, whichever comes first.
> 
> The CFCJ is tempting :)
> 
> Malenkai
> who has had a politeness moon called on him for insulting the fat lady

I had just been thinking of both of those things myself....

Still, I think we can agree that posting unkind poetry directly at the
Fat Lady to the public forum does not really constitute a crime.
However, I *would* hazard a guess that the limerick failed to silence
her.

b

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 09:50:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Still, I think we can agree that posting unkind poetry directly at the
> Fat Lady to the public forum does not really constitute a crime.
> However, I *would* hazard a guess that the limerick failed to silence
> her.
> 
> b

Unkind poetry may not be a *crime*, per se, but I still thik it was 
impolite.  On that note, I am calling a Politeness Moon on Strider.  
Although the limerick was good, this blatant disrespect for one who has 
serverd Acka so well through many ends of cycles cannot be tolerated :)

Guy Fawkes
who is considering becoming righteously indignant enough to call for a 
Duel over this 

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 08:03:13 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

> Do to RL, the bond yields will be late.  I have to find a way to
> offload some work, and I have decided to jettison the PFbond
> calculations, since I have not the time to write a program of 
> spreadsheet to do it.
> 
> The cholces are:
> 
> a) someone who is not doing much acka work volunteering to be
> assistant to the financier, responsible for bond yields and yield
> by portfolio only.
> 
I volunteer
Jammer
AKA
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:15:40 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 1643

Mohammed wrote:

>	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.

It was I who had this problem, when I migrated my e-mail to MS-Exchange.
It has not been remedied, although the work-around I use is to assure
that I don't write lines longer than 72 characters.  It seems to be
the Exchange/SNTP gateway that is actually doing the converting, and
that machine is far out of my control.  I think that the gateway could
be configured with different (or no) line limit, but a reconfiguration
would impact everyone else who uses Exchange to send SNTP mail as well.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:27:20 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Why I don't like things to default to 0 size.

Jammer (I think) wrote:

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

It is not RL intuitive, in the "Size of Things" framework as it is
already established.  Many (indeed, most) items I conceive as possible
gadgets, trinkets, or other entities, are small enough that one could
fit hundreds of them into even a tiny building.  The only reasonable
approximation is to give such things size zero.  I certainly hope
that A$s have size zero; otherwise we are all in trouble.

Moreover, RL intuition is not generally asccepted in Acka as a
respected argument for or against any particular proposition.
>
>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 . . ."

That is entirely possible.  Likely, even.  It is the nature of the
game.  You are engaging in another aspect of the game by attempting
to avoid that scenario.  I would just as soon see that scenario happen.

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

If the general populace agree, or if you can convince them, then that
area will be elaborated.  However, I must agree with Malenkai that a
default is necessary, and I must also agree with him that a default of
zero is the most appropriate.  I feel much more comfortable assigning
nonzero size to things on a case-by-case basis.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:35:35 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Fictionary

I vote for:

>3)  A book of legal opinions.

ThinMan
Bluffer

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:51:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PF stuff

This is unofficial, of course, but I think it's right.

Guy Fawkes

Player		yield		
Habeous		.62		
snowgod		.75						
Guy Fawkes	0
Malenkai	.52			
/dev/joe	.58			
Niccolo		.41			
Swann		.41			
AirHead		.27			
Robert Sevin	.24			
Lestrade	.23			
mr cwm		.12			
ThinMan		.12			
Mohammed	.17			
Techno		.15			
G. Peefalt	.36			
fnord		.13	
breadbox	.08	
Strider		.18	
Calvin		0
BuzzBee		0	
23 Skidoo	0	
Eponimondas	0	
nietzsche	0	
Clairence	0	
Jammer		-.165	
Bascule		.05	
Red Barn	0	

Non-zero A$ changes

AirHead   	+27
Bascule  	+5
breadbox 	+10
/dev/joe	+91 
fnord		+13
G. Peefalt	+36 
Guy 		+50  
Habeous		+12
Jammer		-16
Lestrade	+23
Malenkai	+42
Mohammed	+44
mr cwm		+13
Niccolo		+28
Robert Sevin	+24
snowgod		+40
Strider		+18
Swann		+41
Techno		+2
ThinMan		+16

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:53:04 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New mailing list

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, /dev/joe wrote:

>
>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'm not sure I see the point.  If we all subscribe to both, have we gained
anything?  And if we all don't, can acka-games really be considered a
public forum?

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:26:48 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Swingpoints

and which cycle do they go in.

OK, as the Swingpoint rule goes now, the Swingpoints convert to 2 points
each. With the Time Zone rule ammendment, which I believe I was accepted,
this happened, at 12:00 noon OAT, which was after the end of the cycle, so
these points already go in the new cycle

Jan 21 12:00 OAT niccolo +6  Swingpoint conversion
Jan 21 12:00 OAT snowgod +4 Swingpoint conversion

And once again Swingpoints are created and awarded:
3 to Niccolo Flychuck
2 to snowgod

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:28:24 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New mailing list

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, mr cwm wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure I see the point.  If we all subscribe to both, have we gained
> anything?  And if we all don't, can acka-games really be considered a
> public forum?
> 
> -mr cwm
>
A public forum is a forum everyone can subscribe. acka-research,
acka-finance, acka-chess, are all public forums, and not all players
subscribe to them.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:49:20 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Swingpoints - correction

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> and which cycle do they go in.
> 
> OK, as the Swingpoint rule goes now, the Swingpoints convert to 2 points
> each. With the Time Zone rule ammendment, which I believe I was accepted,
> this happened, at 12:00 noon OAT, which was after the end of the cycle, so
> these points already go in the new cycle
> 
> Jan 21 12:00 OAT niccolo +6  Swingpoint conversion
> Jan 21 12:00 OAT snowgod +4 Swingpoint conversion
> 
> And once again Swingpoints are created and awarded:
> 3 to Niccolo Flychuck
> 2 to snowgod

Correction - that's 4 to Niccolo Flychuck
3 Swingpoints to snowgod

> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> Chess-Umpire
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:54:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

John Martin Lotz wrote:

> > a) someone who is not doing much acka work volunteering to be
> > assistant to the financier, responsible for bond yields and yield
> > by portfolio only.

> I volunteer

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> This is unofficial, of course, but I think it's right.

> Player          yield

[the actual work]

I appreciate this guys!  Would the two of you work out between yourselves
who is going to volunteer for the next bond cycle, and/or on a 
permanent basis?

thx again,
Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:58:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 127 Verdict

CFCJ 127 has been judged TRUE, with penalties to be assesed at the
end of a 3 day grace period:

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of at least three lines.
A FINE of A$25.

Mohammed -25 CFCJ 127

I also agree with the Judge's reasoning that the witchhunt against
Bascule never occurred, and is hereby "cancelled", in the practical
sense.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Call for Criminal Judgement 127
  Subject:  Improper Witchhunts
Initiator:  Strider
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jan 18, 1997, 19:38 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE

Statement:

Mohammed has committed a crime.

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

ThinMan's Reasoning:

>From rule 101: "Actions described in the rules may only be performed[...] as specified by the rules."

>From rule 710: "If, in a public message, a Player refers to the Earthbeing 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."

It appears that Mohammed has attempted to call a witchunt without
adhering to the restrictions imposed by rule 710.  In particular, the
quoted message does not referto the Earth being round, nor indeed,
to the Earth being any particular shape whatsoever.  There is no
rule that permits a witchhunt to be called as Mohammed has attempted
to do, thus Mohammed's attempt is in violation of rule 101, and is a
Crime.

I note that the suggested penalty is not among the valid penalties,
but after carefully reading R 710, I do not find this sufficient to
indicate a verdict of invalid.  However, I do not believe that
Mohammed's attempt to call a witchhunt actually succeeded, so the
witchhunt never actually began, and its cessation is not possible.

Actual Penalty:

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of at least three lines.
A FINE of A$25.
>

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:02:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Hearing 101

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> Unkind poetry may not be a *crime*, per se, but I still thik it was
> impolite.  On that note, I am calling a Politeness Moon on Strider.
> Although the limerick was good, this blatant disrespect for one who has
> serverd Acka so well through many ends of cycles cannot be tolerated :)

Hearing 101 - Politeness Moon vs Strider.  The responses are:

"Yes, it was polite."
"No, it was not polite."

Vote by replying to this post.

Count Tabula

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:21:16 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: New mailing list

> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, /dev/joe wrote:

> >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'm not sure I see the point.  If we all subscribe to both, have we gained
> anything?  And if we all don't, can acka-games really be considered a
> public forum?

The point is that "public messages" sent for the purpose of playing subgames
can be sent to this list, and anybody who is totally uninterested in the
subgames we play can unsubscribe.  This is a (minor) reduction in bandwidth,
at the expense of the registrar or myself having to sign new players up to
2 mailing lists instead of just one.

If my proposal (which has not been distributed yet, but is mostly in
the form above) passes, I would like to try an experiment.
I will create the acka-official list, starting essentially the way I
made the acka-games list, but with followups set to ackanomic,
and make it a public forum *and* the official mailing list.
Proposals, Proposal Results, CFJ's, CFJ results, Hearing announcements,
score reports, financial reports, elections, and other important stuff
that everybody needs to see goes there; responses to these things go
here, or in the case of some of these items which should be sent to
acka-off-priv, the reponses go to the sender of the message.  Players
who don't participate much can ignore the discussion by unsubscribing
from this list.  Some players who go on vacation may want to stay
subscribed only to the official list so they can immediately see what
proposals passed and what new proposals are up for vote when they return.
This also allows players to do more e-mail filtering.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:23:42 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: CFJ 330 Verdict 

> 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.

  Well, at least I saved the money!  Now I have to figure out if that means
I made that complaint or not...

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:33:08 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1651

Proposal 1651
Allowing for Splitting of the Official Bandwidth
/dev/joe

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:".  The postmaster may declare any mailing list
   open to subscription by anyone to be a public forum.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:33:07 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1650

Proposal 1650
Sometimes we want to randomly choose non-active players
/dev/joe

This is a modest proposal.

{{[ This has been bugging me.  The problem would really have shown itself
if the tornado had hit, because Malenkai would have found himself
unable to complete the random reassignment, as the non-active players
could never be chosen, and would just be stuck with 0 score, even though
(most likely) somebody else ended up with their scores.  Worse, the
reassignment process would wait around for players to become active.
There are a few other places in the rules where excluding non-active
players from a random assignment doesn't make sense. ]}}

I. Amend Rule 254, "Player States", by changing
   "Only Active players may be randomly selected for anything."
to
   "Only Active players may be randomly selected for anything, except
    where the rules specifically allow non-active players to be selected."

II. Amend Rule 255, "Vacationing", by changing
  "While a player is on vacation, the player shall not be randomly
   selected for anything."
to
  "While a player is on vacation, the player shall not be randomly
   selected for anything, except where the rules specifically allow
   vacationing or non-active players to be selected.

III. Amend Rule 402, "Offices, Related Definitions", by adding to
the end of section (ii) h) 1):
"All tied Nominees shall be ranked this way, including any non-active ones."

IV. Amend Rule 516, "Auction", by adding to the end of section 6d:
"All tied bidders shall be eligible for the random selection, including
non-active ones."

V. Amend Rule 1217, "Buried Treasure!", by adding "All such players
shall be eligible for the random selection, even non-active ones." 
to the end of the paragraph which now ends "If the condition is
achieved simultaneously by 2 or more players, the finder is determined
at random by the Officer in charge of Random Things."

VI. Amend Rule 1313, "Tornado", by inserting after the first sentence
of the second paragraph:
"All non-Sheltered players shall be involved in the random reassignment
of scores, including non-active ones."

VII. Amend Rule 1230.2, "Swingers Like to Play Around II - Let's  play",
by changing the last sentence of section 2.E. from
  "The Chess-Umpire determines the playing-order of the Party Swingers
  randomly."
to
  "The Chess-Umpire determines the playing-order of the other Swingers,
  including any non-active swingers, randomly."

VIII. Create a new rule, with text:
{{ 
Amend the Games & Contest game "Limerick Contest" by adding a new
paragraph to the end with this text:
"If the winner is chosen at random, both players shall be eligible,
even if one or both are non-active."

Amend the Games & Contest game "Ghost" by inserting after the first
sentence of the first paragraph in section 4:
"All players shall be randomly assigned numbers in this way, including
non-active ones."

Amend the Games & Contest game "Fictionary" by adding a period to
the end of section III, followed by:
"All players shall be randomly assigned numbers in this way, including
non-active ones."
}}

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:29:11 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: New mailing list 

> 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.

  What about telepathy?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:33:09 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1653

Proposal 1653
Generic Proposal Title #1653
Niccolo Flychuck

1. Every Presidential 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 at the
   begining of the nomination period. 
   If a Moderator is not annouced, then it is permissible for the 
   Presidential candidates to engage in an Unmoderated Debate, defined
   elsewhere in this rule, provided all candidates agree to this.

3. Once the nomination period begins 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,
   and the last post for any given elections is posted at least 24 hours
   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. An Unmoderated dabate may take place when the conditions for such 
   a debate as described in section 1 of this rule are met.
   In an unmoderated Deabte, each candidate may post up to 4 questions to 
   the public forum. Any player who is not a candidate may post 
   up to 1 question to the public forum.
   Candidates replies to those questions are subject to all the
   restriction specified in this rule.

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:31:31 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (Red Barn) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Financial 

> Hopefully we can go with option a); mabye someone will volunteer.  I
> have all the information you will need.  Otherwise, I would appreciate
> comments before proceeding with option b).

  I can do it, if need be.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:33:59 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady 

> who is considering becoming righteously indignant enough to call for a
> Duel over this

  First Acrobot, and now the Fat Lady!  (Actually, my mailer seems to be
displaying things in reverse order, probably because my email was down
yesterday.  But whatever.)  Perhaps we need a rule that lets non-humans
duel?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:43:07 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady

Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) wrote:
> 
> > who is considering becoming righteously indignant enough to call for a
> > Duel over this
> 
>   First Acrobot, and now the Fat Lady!  (Actually, my mailer seems to be
> displaying things in reverse order, probably because my email was down
> yesterday.  But whatever.)  Perhaps we need a rule that lets non-humans
> duel?
> 
> -Red Barn
Salutations!

		Actually, Barn; I think he's trying to decide whether or not to duel
me. :)  

				Regards,
					Strider

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:42:21 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: CFCJ 120 Verdict 

At 6:44 PM on 1/20/97, Malenkai wrote:

> 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

  Very well, I shall further test the rules.  If that first complaint
wasn't legitimate (ie a compaint at all), I've only complained twice.  In
that case (and if that's not the case I don't do the following, if
possible):

  That wasn't in the rules!  You keep changing the rules!  You never told
me about that rule!

  (Sorry, I didn't feel like writing up another complaint.  There's only so
much variety these things can have, anyway.)

- -Red Barn
It was worth it.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:45:18 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial 

> I appreciate this guys!  Would the two of you work out between yourselves
> who is going to volunteer for the next bond cycle, and/or on a
> permanent basis?

  Since there are apparantly already two other volunteers, I retract my
volunteerhood.  Thanks.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:53:22 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady 

>  Actually, Barn; I think he's trying to decide whether or not to duel
> me. :)
>
>                 Regards,
>                     Strider

  Technicalities...

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:07:37 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady

Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) wrote:
> 
> >  Actually, Barn; I think he's trying to decide whether or not to duel
> > me. :)
> >
> >                 Regards,
> >                     Strider
> 
>   Technicalities...
> 
> -Red Barn

Where would we be without them?  (:

		Strider

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:29:17 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady 

> Where would we be without them?  (:
>
>         Strider

  In Gaol, like me.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:35:12 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady

Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) wrote:
> 
> > Where would we be without them?  (:
> >
> >         Strider
> 
>   In Gaol, like me.
> 
> -Red Barn

How'd you end up in Gaol?  I missed it.

	Strider

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 16:09:55 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (Red Barn) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Fat Lady 

> How'd you end up in Gaol?  I missed it.

  Actually, I'm not there _yet_, but if all does not go well, I will be soon.

  As a result of CFCJ 120 - for trying to change my name to "Chess nuts
boasting in an open foyer".  It's too long, therefore rather than _being_ a
crime, I've _committed_ a crime.  Not quite what I had in mind.  At the
time I was trying to become a Crazy French-Scotsman, so I needed to lose
money/points.  Therefore I said "I believe this was quite a serious crime,
and there should be some monetary penalty, as well."  The judge, taking me
at my word, sentenced me to a 10-line apology, a A$50 fine, and 5 days in
Gaol.

  See what you can get into if you're not careful?

- -Red Barn

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #467
*******************************