Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #472
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, January 22 1997      Volume 01 : Number 472

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:58:21 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: appeal 

  Yes, I know, everyone's busy enough.  Sorry, then, to do this, but:  I
hereby appeal CFJ 330 to the Supreme Court.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:05:39 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 333 (snowgod)

I find that I agree with /dev/joe about CFJ 333.  It does not appear
to me to be the case that the President's speech is of indeterminate
legality.  Rather, at any particular time, the legality of his speech
can be accurately determined according to how far the required procedure
has progressed and which players have sent birthday greetings at what
times.

What Malenkai has shown in his reasoning is that we cannot determine
the legality of the speech without knowing the circumstances, but he
glossed over the fact that at no particular time is the legality
indeterminate.

The problem with the birthday rule is rather one of non-determinism.
That is to say, there are multiple ways in which the rule can be
satisfied.  This is sloppy and not very satisfactory, but it does not
constitute a paradox.

ThinMan
Bronze Torch Holder

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:03:53 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Drink 

At 12:55 PM on 1/22/97, Moses Rojas wrote:

> Ok here's one...
>
> i) thats not wine its vinegar
> ii) impossible.

  I disagree.  Wine has existed on Acka for less than a year now.  So I'm
really asking for wine that's about a year and two days old.

  Where these things that are five years or more older came from, I have no
idea.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:34:02 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Happy Bee Day

Happy Birthday, Ackanomic!

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:39:16 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Proposal 1656

>
>3. A Demon is promotable. A Demon can be promoted only if and 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) /AND/ the 
>    distance between those two pieces is equal too or smaller than 10.
>   A Demon can only be Promoted if the Swinger controling the Demon has 
>   just Moved or Captured. It cannot be Promoted following a Placement
>   or a Pass.

I still have problems with this.  Most importantly, the "distance
between two pieces" is not well-defined in the rules.  Rule 1230.3
gives a definition, but that appears to be for internal use only.
Other distance specifications are all for distances in a particular
(valid) direction.  In addition, I think it is still just too easy
to promote this piece.  I would be satisfied with that aspect of
things if the Demon could only be promoted immmediately following
a movement or capture that _it_ performs.
 
ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:35:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fictionary

I vote for #3.

> 3)  A book of legal opinions.

breadbox
bluffer from the transistor era

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:39:15 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Undead

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> 3) The undead's of all dead players will gather at the house of one
> unluckly player and cheer as one of them kisses him.  This player will be
> randomly selected from a list of players who have not publically wished
> happy birthday greetings to ackanomic.
> 
> The undead congregate at fnord's house.

Ya know, I had been thinking of calling a CFJ on _this_ little
foofarall, along the same lines of Malenkai's, because how can we know
whose house gets plagued by undead, until after the celebration is
over anyway.

fnord

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:37:33 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Happy Birthday Ackanomic

Happy Birthday, Ackanomic
Let me wax a bit poetic.
As we start our celebration,
And express our jubilation.

One year down and more to go.
How many cycles none can know.
The fun we had continues on,
Each new day beginning with harfy dawn.

fnord
Poet Laureate

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:25:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Part I has arrived

Brian Raiter wrote:

> Part I of Ackanomic's Official History is completed. (Well, actually,
> the first draft is completed - it is still in need of more markup.)
> This document covers the first six months of Ackanomic's history, up
> to July 22, 1996. The URL is:

In accordance with the Historian rule, I am donating A$50 to breadbox for
his excellent work.

Malenkai
history fan

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:31:20 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 334 (ThinMan)

ThinMan, unusually enough, has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 334
  Subject: Paradox Paradox
Initiator: Red Barn
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Jan 22, 1997, 18:30h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

It is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a CFJ is a
Paradox Win CFJ.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  Here's one to give the court a headache...
  ... I am claiming a Win by Paradox if this CFJ is judged true.

  Rule 211 says:

> Rule 211/10  Invoking Judgement[...]
> Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE
> (hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ) whose statement is substantially
> similar, in the judgement of the judge, to the statement of a Paradox
> Win CFJ submitted by any player and not yet resolved, shall be judged
> Invalid.  Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox,
> in the judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ ever judged TRUE,
> shall be judged Invalid.

  Thus from rule 211, a Paradox Win CFJ is defined as "any CFJ which would
constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE".

  Rule 219 reads:

> Rule 219/2  Winning By Paradox
>
>      If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible,
> rule changes are impossible, or a player action which would affect the
> game state appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may call
> for judgement on a statement to that effect.
>
> Such a call for judgement must contain in its reasoning a statement to
> the effect that the initiator is claiming a win in accordance with R 219,
> on a verdict of True.  Such a CFJ is called a "Paradox Win CFJ".  No CFJ
> may be called a Paradox Win CFJ, except as designated by the Rules.
>
> If the statement is judged True, and the judgement is not overruled, then
> the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the cycle;
> the win occurring at the time it becomes illegal to appeal the CFJ
> under the current rules.

  Thus the definition from rule 219 of a Paradox Win CFJ is "a CFJ with a
statement to the effect that further play is impossible, rule changes are
impossible, or a player action which would affect the game state appears
equally legal and illegal".

  Are these two definitions, in fact, equivalent?  I maintain that they are
not; paragraph 3 of rule 219 states "If the statement is judged True,
_and_the_judgement_is_not_overruled_, [...]"  Thus the definitions are
distinct.

  Rule 210 has this to say:

> Rule 210/3  Resolving Conflicts
>
> If two or more rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest
> effective ordinal number takes precedence.  If at least one of the rules
> in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or
> type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule),
> then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining
> precedence.  If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one
> another, or to defer to one another, then the numerical method must again
> govern.  If two statements in the same rule conflict with each other, and
> the rule doesn't define a way to resolve the conflict, then the statement
> which appears later in the rule takes precedence.[...]

  Thus the definition in Rule 211 takes precedence.  But then, if a Paradox
Win CFJ is judged true, and that judgement is then overruled, that
definition is _FALSE_!

  Paradox.

  Enjoy.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:31:43 -0600
From: john duncan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Happy Birthday

Happy B-day Ackanomic!

Lestrade

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:35:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Primes

> 1) Would someone please volunteer as a prime number harfer and
> check the passed proposal numbers for primeness?  I wonder if the
> bot could do this automatically in the future.
	I volunteer.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:36:19 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 333 Verdict

CFJ 333 has been judged FALSE.  Malenkai receives the Chartreuse Goose.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 333
  Subject: Birthday Goose
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: snowgod (selected Jan 21, 1997, 21:06h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The legality of the President delivering the speech mandated by Rule
1630, section 5, after the players have received their Boons of the
Ancients gifts for wishing Acka Happy Birthday per R 1630, section 4,
in the general case where at least one player fails to wish Acka Happy
Birthday, cannot be determmed with finality.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

> Rule 1630
> Happy Birthday Ackanomic!

[...]

> Happy Bee Day festivities start on January 22, and continue until 12
> noon  on the following day. It is considered good form for each player
> to publically wish happy birthday greeting to Ackanomic at some
> point during the festivities.
>
> During Happy Bee Day festivities, the following things will happen and in
> this order:

[by rule 380, the festivities start at 12:00 EST]

> 3) The undead's of all dead players will gather at the house of one
> unluckly player and cheer as one of them kisses him.  This player will be
> randomly selected from a list of players who have not publically wished
> happy birthday greetings to ackanomic.

This step can occur any time after 12:00 Noon.  The next 2 steps mandated
to happen in "this order" are:

> 5) The president shall make a speech commemerating the end of another
> Happy Bee Day and congratuling Ackanomic, and her players, for growing
> one year older.

Game custom requires that a non-paradoxical construction be favored over
a paradoxical one.  Although I find paradox difficult to avoid in this
rule, "has" must be rendered to be "has up until the point the Boons
are bestowed".  Therefore, any happy birthdays after the prez's speech
do not get boons.  Any other rendering leads to paradox straightaway...

However, two points:

1) The prez must wait until the Boons are bestowed to speak.
2) Any players who wish happy birthay after the first round of Boons
will receive Boons, because we are still at step 4, note the keyword
"Every", but the prez must wait until all Boons are bestowed.  Paradox.

Again trying to find a non-paradoxical interpretation (doing handwaving
at this point, as this interpretion is "not as reasonable" as the
paradoxical one in the rules) leads us to the prez shall speak after
one round of Boons have been bestowed,

AGAIN:

and anyone wishing happy birthday after the Boons are bestowed does
not get a Boon.  But, the rule says *Every player [wishing]*, therefore
the prez did an impossible [by R 713] act by trying to speak before the
Boons for these latecomers have been bestowed, and therefore must hang
until after the second round has been bestowed, and back to AGAIN,
and so on.

How long does the prez wait?  The premise stated that not all players
have said happy birthday yet, and this is the general case, not a
hypothtical case, and is the case that will occur, because not all
players will wish at the same time.  Eventually the festivities end,
at step 6, *but not until the prez has spoken*!.

As the fact that the festivities end after the prez speaks is later in
the rule than the clause that says they end at noon the next day, as is
the clause that says the steps are done in order; the later clauses have
precedence over the clause about the festivities ending the next day,
by R 210.  Even if they are construed to end January 23 at noon, the
prez in asymptotically squoze up against the end, with indeterminate
legality, but the precedence rule rules out this case anyway.

I challenge the judge to untangle the chain of events on this rule,
in the case specified in the statement, the case that will happen,
without handwaving or paradox.

Loose ends:

1) The initiator wins the cycle in accordance with R 219 on a verdict
of true.

2) The president making the speech has a material effect on the game
state, just like dangling houses or chewing the gumball, as it is an
action mandated by the rules, for which failure to perform leads to a
game state where a CFCJ against the prez would be judged true versus
a game state where such a CFCJ would be judged false.

3) Clearly, the temporal modifier to apply to when Happy Birthay wishing
counts is after the festivities have started, due to the first
paragraph in the rule quoted above, but that matters not for this
argument (I'm just trying to clarify that only wishes after 12:00 Noon
count for the purposes of how to handle this rule, as this CFJ came
when trying to write an official post explaining the chain of events,
and simply asking players to put "Birthday" in their subject line!
BTW, still do that, please :)).

snowgod's reasoning:

Upon reciept of this CFJ, i initialy inclined to judge TRUE. However, upon
taking a closer look (this isn't the first time Malenkai has tried to win
off of my proposals :) I realized that Malenkai's arguement wasn't as sound
as I sirst believed.

There is another nonparadoxial interpretation, and one that I believe is
the correct one.  Step 4 on the festivity list says:

> 4) Every Player who has publically wished happy birthday greetings to
> Ackanomic shall recieve a Boon of the Ancients.

I believe this can be interpreted as meaning "Every player who has
publically wished happy birthday greetings to Ackanomic (by the time the
officer in charge of such things decides to implement this step) shall
recieve a Boon of the Ancients."  Since implementation of this rule seems
to fall to either the speaker or the Officer in Charge of Random Things he
may chose to begin step 4 at any time and once he has done so, all players
who have wished geetings shall recieve their Boon.

Once Step four boon dispersal has been completed, It seems to me that step
four has also been completed, and that the president may make his speech
without fear of reprisals. I also note that players may continue to wish
happy birthday to Ackanomic even after step 4 is completed, but doing so
will not make them eligible for further boon dispersement.

This rule should have been more concise as to the timing and implimentation
of these events, but even as it stands, implentation is possible.  Also,
though it is legal to impliment step 4 of the festivities at any time, I
urge the officer in charge of implimentation to give a fair chance to every
player to wish happy birthday greeting to ackanomic.  Perhaps 24 hours of
after the start of the holiday would be a good time?

I judge this CFJ FALSE and apologize for it's many spelling and typographic
errors.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:56:33 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC Using "The size of things" fnord

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> fnord wrote:
> 
> > [...] I'm a strict-constructionalist.
> 
> And you once said you played Wiz-War.  That's a fun combination.

I did?  Hmm... I'd recall saying something like that because, actually
I'm not a Wiz War player.  Never got the chance to play, even though
I've met with the creator of the game several times (he lives 30 minutes
away from where I do, and I help run a gaming convention once a year
which he attends).

Actually, I'm mostly a strict-construcionalist here, and usually quite
loose about things in most other aspects.

fnord

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:46:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 333 (snowgod)

I don't see a paradox here.  Once step 4 happens, it is over.  The way I 
see it, there is such a thing as "between steps", and saying that the 
steps happen "in this order" does not mean they happen with no time 
between.

Perhaps step 4 happens as soon as step 3 is finished... or perhaps step 4 
just happens some indefinite time between 3 and 5.

The way I see it, since the rules do not specify whose job it is to 
notice that step 4 has happened, it falls upon the Speaker, and as soon 
as the speaker announces it, step 4 has happened; after which the Prez 
makes eir speech.

- --Mohammed
having done 0 research

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:50:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: 1652

> Did anyone get P 1652?  Now that the rules require sequential
> numbering, I'm not sure how this situation is handled.  Anyone?
	No clue.  I would assume all the proposals since 1652 are 
misnumbered, unless I can find a proposal to match to that number.

- --Mohammed
breaking the rules a lot lately

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:54:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: 1652

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > Did anyone get P 1652?  Now that the rules require sequential
> > numbering, I'm not sure how this situation is handled.  Anyone?
>         No clue.  I would assume all the proposals since 1652 are
> misnumbered, unless I can find a proposal to match to that number.

I would just like this clarified so voting can proceed on these
proposals.  Perhaps the Promoter could issue a statement on the matter,
or submit a CFJ, or perhaps we should just ignore the situation.  

Personally, I find just ignoring these situations not the way to go,
because, IMHO, a lot of interesting facets of law can shake out of
them.  OTOH, so many other things are happening...

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:02:16 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 334 (ThinMan)

> Call For Judgement 334
>   Subject: Paradox Paradox
> Initiator: Red Barn

>   Rule 211 says:
> > Rule 211/10  Invoking Judgement[...]
> > Any CFJ which would constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE
> > (hereafter called a Paradox Win CFJ)

>   Thus from rule 211, a Paradox Win CFJ is defined as "any CFJ which would
> constitute a win by rule 219 if it were judged TRUE".

>   Rule 219 reads:
> >      If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible,
> > rule changes are impossible, or a player action which would affect the
> > game state appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may call
> > for judgement on a statement to that effect.
> >
> > Such a call for judgement must contain in its reasoning a statement to
> > the effect that the initiator is claiming a win in accordance with R 219,
> > on a verdict of True.  Such a CFJ is called a "Paradox Win CFJ".  No CFJ
> > may be called a Paradox Win CFJ, except as designated by the Rules.
> >
> > If the statement is judged True, and the judgement is not overruled, then
> > the player who called for judgement is declared the winner of the cycle;
> > the win occurring at the time it becomes illegal to appeal the CFJ
> > under the current rules.
> 
>   Thus the definition from rule 219 of a Paradox Win CFJ is "a CFJ with a
> statement to the effect that further play is impossible, rule changes are
> impossible, or a player action which would affect the game state appears
> equally legal and illegal".
> 
>   Are these two definitions, in fact, equivalent?  I maintain that they are
> not; paragraph 3 of rule 219 states "If the statement is judged True,
> _and_the_judgement_is_not_overruled_, [...]"  Thus the definitions are
> distinct.

Paragraph 3 of Rule 219 is not part of the definition of a paradox
win CFJ, it is an effect that can be triggered by the result of a
paradox win CFJ.  The clause that states that the initiator of the
CFJ claims a win by R219 on a judgement of true does not, itself,
cause the win; that just makes it a PW-CFJ by rule 219.  The TRUE
judgement and the lack of an overruling of the judgement are what
causes the win.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:13:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Birthday Greeting

Happy birthday, Ackanomic!

- --Mohammed
ringing in the new

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:13:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Part I has arrived

> In accordance with the Historian rule, I am donating A$50 to
> breadbox for his excellent work.

[breadbox attempts to hide his ink-spattered hands behind his back
while accepting the gift and bowing at the same time.]

Thank you, Malenkai: for the donation, and - far more valuable to me -
your compliment.

breadbox
your humble historian

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:23:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Official Again

>   Sounds like we need another mail robot to tabulate votes.  That still
> leaves web pages to update, but it's a start.
	Hearings I'll be able to cover... if I ever have time to dig out of 
all this smegging mail.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:34:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Apology

I wish to apologize from the deepest hackles of my heart for my most rude 
interpolation the other day.  I must have been temporally insane.  To 
have called a Herring on an obviously most holy and ecuminibus was viol 
in the extreme.

- --Mohammed
slightly confumigated

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:40:32 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1658

Proposal 1658
Reorganization III
Malenkai

I.  [Leftover from Reorg II]

Renumber R 201, "Quorum and Active Players" to 107, and change its
title to "Quorum".  ['Players' moved the definition of active player
out of this rule, it should have changed the title back, too.]

Renumber R 208, "When Score Changes Take Effect", to 205. [putting the
meta-rule before the actual rules.]

Renumber R 210, "Resolving Conflicts" to 102.

Renumber R 1448 "Crazy French-Scotsmen" to 1129.
Renumber R 1630, "Happy Birthday Ackanomic!" to 1131.

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

II.  [Where to put R 1519, "The Size of Things"]

{{[With all due respect, I still wish to decouple making this rule
functional from the intent of this proposal.  As it stands, the
rule is neutered anyway by the fact that the sizes are not defined,
so setting them to 0 really doesn't change much.  Also, until some
officer has the duty of tracking sizes, I wish to not change them.

I suppose it should eventually go to 500.4, with the entity meta-rules,
but it refers to 'items' and 'structures', terms not defined by the
rules, and does not refer to entities.  Moreover, if we change items to
entitites, then both a building and what it holds would be an entity,
and we could put buildings in buildings, etc.  Not that this is necessarly
a bad thing to allow to happen, its just not well defined.  In other words,
I think some of the definitions need to be worked out better before it
is moved up with the meta-rules, so I propose to leave it at 1519 for now.
I do want to fix a couple of things real quick while I'm here, though:]}}

Amend R 1519, "The Size of Things" to replace:

"
I wish to make a modest proposal.

All Items in Acka have a size measured in thingees.
"

with:

"
All Items in Acka have a size measured in thingees.  Unless otherwise
specified in the Rules, an item's size is 0 thingees.
"

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

III.  [In the queue, some of these will be invalid rule changes]

Renumber R 1632, "Parents, Children, the Bees and the Gumball" to 1133;
then amend R 1133 to remove all text enclosed in single curly braces,
inclusive.

Renumber R 1633, "Evil Twins" to 1135; then amend R 1135 to remove all
text enclosed in single curly braces, inclusive.

Repeal R 1644, "Ridiculous!"
Repeal R 1645, "Too Many Hunters"
Renumber R 1646, "Unambiguizing ambiguities" to 714 [crime]
Renumber R 1647, "snowgod's Cure" to 207.3 [scoring]
Repeal R 1648, "Generic Proposal Title #1648"
Renumber the rule entitled "Presidential Debate" to 1137

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

IV.  [Discouraging Drift - assumes P 1623 passes]

Amend R 303, "Proposal and Rule Numbering" to add the following text to
the end of section II, sub-section 2.:

"
[Proposals should specify rule numbers for any rules they create so that
the new rule(s) are numbered into the appropriate section of the rules.]
"

{{[and please start numbering your rule creations.  The passage of P 1623
makes this real easy.]}}

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

V.  [Section Headings]

{{[it occurs to me that the rules document is unregulated, and the
web-harfer could add chapter headings to it now without changing the
game state, if he wants to, so I am going to leave this alone]}}

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:40:34 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1660

Proposal 1660
Amending Hearings
Calvin N Hobbes

Amend R360 "Hearings" to have the following added at the end:

A hearing may be retracted any time before its result is announced by the
player who put it forward.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:40:33 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1659

Proposal 1659
De-emphasizing Winning by Points (Longer Cycles)
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

Amend R 220, "Winning by Points" to replace all occurrances of "257"
with "541".

{{[I could fill volumes explaining the benefits of this rule change]}}

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:40:36 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1661

Proposal 1661
More Cool Stuff About Primes
breadbox

This is a modest proposal.

For the purposes of every rule that takes the primeness of numbers into
consideration, the number 57 is to be considered prime.

{{Renumber this rule to 350.}}

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:36:59 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: ACKA  Happy birthday

And many more.  

Ackanomic, a year older is.
the ruleset grow bigger
like nobodies biz
When it stops, I can't figure

Jammer
well it rhymes
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:50:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 335 (Niccolo)

Niccolo Flychuck, due to his robe, has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 335
  Subject: Still unraveling Rule 1630
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 22, 1997, 19:47h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Players who wished Acka 'Happy Birthday' before Jan 22, 1997, 12:00, 
EST, and have not done so after that time do not receive a Boon of the
Ancients as a result of R 1630.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

I was at least hoping to get that resolved as well with CFJ 333, but
alas it was not.  I believe the preamble of R 1630 establishes a scope
that the 'Happy Birthday' wishes count only if done during the festivities,
which start at 12:00, but it would be very easy for me to see a judgement
of false the way the rule is worded.  The fact that I believe this is
because that is the way the rule was intended to work; that interpretation
is a bit of handwaving.  This may seem like a pointless CFJ, but I would
like to make sure no one gets cheated out of their boon just due to
my reading of the rules.

Needless to say, a prompt verdict would be nice.
 
The good news is we have a whole year to clean up the rule :)

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:52:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: electronically disenfranchised

> Since my return from vacation, I have voted for proposals 1621-1648, and 
> I have submitted two proposals.  All this was done on Monday.  Acrobot has 
> ignored me on all counts.  Mohammed, do you have any idea what is going on?
	Yes.  The bot recognizes people by the email address given in the 
first line of the mail message.  The mail address I use to recognize you is

	[email-masked]

whereas the mail address on your last set of messages was

	[email-masked]

I do not immediately see a good way out of this.  I could put a fudge 
into the bot so it would recognize any shimmin@ ... csu.uiuc.edu as 
legit, but I hesitate to do so just because I don't want to set the 
precedent.  Your mail was received, but I will have to make some manual 
changes in order to get it to process.  Sorry for the delay-- I haven't 
had time to do anything these past days.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:57:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1656

> From [email-masked] Jan 21 16:15:11 1997
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:51:35 -0500
> From: "Steven A. Swiniarski" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Acka: Arcobot: Votes

	*sigh*  A corrected version will appear shortly.  I can't believe 
this is happening.  :o)

- --Mohammed
annoyance meter:  9.8

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:53:56 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Undead 

> Ya know, I had been thinking of calling a CFJ on _this_ little
> foofarall, along the same lines of Malenkai's, because how can we know
> whose house gets plagued by undead, until after the celebration is
> over anyway.

  If everyone's at the celebration, why do the undead go to the _house_?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:54:11 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official Again 

> First of all, tabulation of hearing votes is a tiny fraction of the work
> that has been created recently.  Then, to the general point...

  Oh - right - I forgot web pages, CFJs, CFCJs,
inverse-causality-resolution, and financial calculations, email sorting,
and probably other things, too.  Sorry about that.

> While I certainly do not oppose using technology to automate
> parts of the game, I still aim to keep the game playable in the absence
> of that technology, thus I strive for solutions that do not require
> it over ones that do.  Besides, for the most part, I enjoy the pencil
> and paper feel to doing my tasks.  Its just at these times when I'm
> overloaded, I have to vent a little :).  I am also not
> the only player who has asked for voluntary restraint.

  I agree that one can not rely on technology, and also do not like to
entrust things to machines - that denies the sense of triumph at the end
:).

> Since the nth witchhunts and the nth politeness moons and attempted
> hearings by people who did not take the time to read the rules; who
> figured Malenkai would take the time to read them instead, really added
> little value, IMHO, I would prefer to address these sorts of things on
> a social level, not a technological one.

  OK, makes sense.  It can't be any fun having everyone ignore the rules
and dump everything on you.  And if a computer _could_ handle it, there
would be no boundary until even the minor tasks become monstrosities.

> Nomic is a game about following the rules.  That means alot to me.
> Everyone makes mistakes, but it seems to me that you're missing the point
> of the game if you don't bother to make sure your action follows the
> rules before doing it.  I don't like to sit here and monitor whether
> people are following the rules, but I believe any game state of nomic
> that goes into a rule violation is "bad nomic karma" if you will. :)

  What would actually happen if the rules weren't followed?  I'd think that
would lead to inherent contradictions quite quickly, making the game
unplayable.  (Paradox Win? :)  Of course, the game would probably fall
apart soon after.

> During the great e-mail blizzard of april, Robert Sevin made a similar
> appeal.  After that, e-mail volume dropped to nil until someone spoke
> up asking for more.  I'm not saying go to that extreme either, but the
> game is much more complex now than it was then.  All I ask is: everything
> in moderation.

  I think that it's fine to have a lot of email, provided the game state
doesn't become utterly unmanageable.

- -Red Barn
Quote of the day:
  If you're not part of the solution...
  you're part of the precipitate.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:58:23 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA:  RFC Using "The size of things" fnord 

> I did?  Hmm... I'd recall saying something like that because, actually
> I'm not a Wiz War player.  Never got the chance to play, even though
> I've met with the creator of the game several times (he lives 30 minutes
> away from where I do, and I help run a gaming convention once a year
> which he attends).

> Actually, I'm mostly a strict-construcionalist here, and usually quite
> loose about things in most other aspects.

  There's no other type!  If you put things together minimally, someone
jumps in with a paradox win... :|  So it is in Nomic, Chess, and hard SF.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:02:31 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 334 (ThinMan) 

> Paragraph 3 of Rule 219 is not part of the definition of a paradox
> win CFJ, it is an effect that can be triggered by the result of a
> paradox win CFJ.  The clause that states that the initiator of the
> CFJ claims a win by R219 on a judgement of true does not, itself,
> cause the win; that just makes it a PW-CFJ by rule 219.  The TRUE
> judgement and the lack of an overruling of the judgement are what
> causes the win.

  I evidently didn't write that very well... what I meant was that, since
the definition in R211 says "Causes a win by rule 19 if is judged TRUE",
while of course merely being judged TRUE does not definitely cause a win -
thus _nothing_ is a PW-CFJ by the R211 definition (as you've just so
eloquently argued for me).

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:06:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Undead

>> Ya know, I had been thinking of calling a CFJ on _this_ little
>> foofarall, along the same lines of Malenkai's, because how can we know
>> whose house gets plagued by undead, until after the celebration is
>> over anyway.
> 
>   If everyone's at the celebration, why do the undead go to the _house_?

(The obvious response, if fnord was at the celebration then he would
have wished Ackanomic a Happy Birthday before then, is too obvious.)

They carried fnord, ankles and wrist, to the front of his house
first. Consider yourself lucky that this didn't happen to you. The
Great Old One was rather menacing to deal with when he was alive....

b

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:05:31 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka:  Apology 

At 6:34 PM on 1/22/97, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> I wish to apologize from the deepest hackles of my heart for my most rude
> interpolation the other day.  I must have been temporally insane.  To
> have called a Herring on an obviously most holy and ecuminibus was viol
> in the extreme.

  I will make the obligatory "A herring.  Yeah.  Sure." for everyone.

> --Mohammed
> slightly confumigated

  Group-smoked?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:23:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Boons

Proposal 1630 was accepted 8 to 4, as I recall.  There seems
to be the possibility that some votes were missed.  Before going 
to the trouble of bestowing alot of Boons, I would like to know, if
possible, if it really passed, or is there is a chance that it failed?

Malenkai
not liking rules with tight timing

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:40:46 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany? 

Ambassador

Do you know of a polish nomic (PNOMIC) based in Warsaw? (my polish is rusty)
I found this URL:
http://www.wlkp.ternet.pl/labirynt/nomic/nomic.htm

Do we have any kind of info about them? Their rule set is 11KB long,
available on the web. It looks like they are pretty young, if not just
starting. However, they seem to have a link to Thring for one. Acka should
be on the forefront of foreign relations. I'm going to go nomic hunting.  :)

Also, I should report that Thring has pegged us as a "choatic" nomic.
Implying the most choatic. Are we going to stand for that! Quick! Let's have
a disorganized argument on that.   :)

There is also a German Nomic (GNOMIC) based at the university of Frankfurt. URL:
http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/gnomic/gnomic.info.html

It seems to be somewhat more active. They have a 70KB rule set and made lots
of cool looking props (my german is better than my polish). The person who
is speaker (or just owns the web pages) has the game name Calvin. He he he...

Anyway, I'm now looking for Asian and African Nomics. A South American one
would be nice too.

Calvin N Hobbes
Just like Marco Polo

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:41:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 336 (Bascule)

Bascule has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 336
  Subject: Silence of the Gaolbirds
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Bascule (selected Jan 22, 1997, 20:40h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

A player in Gaol may not send a public message except as allowed by,
required by, or in conjunction with performing the activities listed
in the numbered list in rule 709.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Sending a public message is a regulated game action.  Specifically, it
is regulated by rules 372, and 370, and its content is regulated by
R 374, for example:

> Any Player sending a public message should be as polite as possible.

From R 709:

> If a player is in the Gaol, they may perform no game actions except
> those on the following numbered list and those allowed by Rule 101.

Sending a public message is not on the numbered list, and does not fall
under the auspices of R 101 (which is the old R 115 and applies to
unregulated actions).

Therefore it is not permitted to be performed by a player in Gaol,
in general.

Now, what about in conjuction with the items on the numbered list, as
the CFJ's statement explores that question specifically.

The meta clause before the numbered list explicitly defers precedence
to any rule which regulates the items on the numbered list, therefore the
above exclusion does not apply where the rules which enable those actions
allow or require public messages in conjunction with performing those
actions.

A verdict of TRUE is indicated, although unraveling the rules on this
could be fun, and a verdict of FALSE is possible :)

I realise we have not been playing this way, but there is precedent for
playing "wrong" before the fact is pointed out (qv CFJ 280, where it
was pointed out that we did paradox wins "wrong" for awhile).

This also seems harsh, and maybe we should change it, but the rules
are the rules.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #472
*******************************