Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #476
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, January 23 1997      Volume 01 : Number 476

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:28:59 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

Mohammed wrote:

>	By the way, ***Everyone Still has to Announce All Retractions
>Publicly***.  Doing #retract on the acrobot does not generate any mail,
>only an entry in my private log.  The rules demand a public announcement!

It seems, however, that one could make a public post out of an
Acrobot command.  That would satisfy all legal and technical
requirements.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:23:27 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany? 

At 4:18 PM on 1/23/97, mr cwm wrote:

> I still think Internomic should join itself.

  But then, who would be the Ambassador? :)

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:30:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

> Could the proposals be re-distributed with the appropriate numbers (and
> some sort of warning to prevent confusion)?
	Confusion is certain.

> distributed.  A Crisis Resolution seems like overkill, and the CSR Officer
> informs me he won't even *think* of touching this one.

	Crisis Resolution is my personal favorite choice.  I beg the 
speaker to declare a State of Crisis promptly.

	I don't personally like the idea of redistributing the proposals, 
as it seems like a heck of a lot of work and confusion for no purpose.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:01:07 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Boons

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> Boons of the Ancients are described in R 1311.  Sorry, it is late,
> and I will not be on-line tomorrow during the festivities, so I must
> do the Boons now.  I will update the entity page tomorrow nite.  If I
> missed anyone, let me know.

I was wondering if you missed me, Malenkai.  My greetings did go 
out before the announcement of the Boons, so, if I construe the
CFJ correctly, I should get a Boon.  I reserve the right to be wrong,
though.

fnord

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:21:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Akca: dummy nomics

>This is somewhat off-topic, but the Internomic definition of a Nomic is
>"a game with self-modifying rules".  Shouldn't that specify that it must
>have a few people in it?  Otherwise we could create a few "dummy" Nomics
>and use them to stuff the Internomic ballots...
>
>- -Red Barn

We could, _if_ we could get the LackeyNomics onto the Internomic voting 
list.  Perhaps it's a Good Thing (tm) that Internomic is still at the 
phase where each additional member must be added via vote.  Personally, 
Internomic's ruleset is very non-robust, and espicially considering the 
multiple jurisprudent traditions brought to the game, and will probably 
crash shortly without major intervention.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:28:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Game of Questions

From my personal experience with the Game of Questions, described by 
Stoppard via Red Barn, it only remains fun when the participants either 
agree to keep the pace of the game fast, are slightly drunk, or best 
yet both.  Otherwise, there's just too much time too think about your 
words before you say them.  The same goes for another parlor game I've 
tried to adapt for Ackanomic use, the Game of Word Disassociation.  It's 
just impractical via email.  If someone can think of a way around this, 
let me know.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:32:55 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: GamesMaster confused - Robert Sevin/breadbox Duel

I seem to have misplaced a couple of posts, will the Seconds of Robert
Sevin and breadbox please resend me copies of the whole pre-Dueling thing.

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:40:04 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1664

On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, john duncan wrote:

> That proposal wouldn't cover  a contest like Dueling Limericks
That is not its intent. IT's just supposed to give a greater choice. Once
players take the time to propose some more G&C.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> > > to
> > >
> > > "The Game or Contest (hereafter called Contest) chosen for the Duel must
> > > be one accepted for listing (or listed) on the Games & Contests web
> > > page. Moreover, it must be playable by exactly two players and have
> > > definative rules for determining a winner. If the contest calls for a
> > > vote of the whole of Ackanomic, then the duelists and their seconds are
> > > ineligible to vote in the contest."
> > >
> > Why?
> > There's two for each side, they compensate one another. One assumes that
> > each Duelist votes for eirself, and Seconds usually vote for eir Duelists,
> > so this has no effect on the results.
> 
> Perhaps, but it seems slightly immodest to vote for yourself in a
> contest like a duel.
> 
> > Should election candidates be barred from voting in their own elections?
> 
> This has nothing to do with elections.
> 
> Lestrade
> >
> 

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:47:53 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany?

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> 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
> 
> I seem to remember that Kelly Martin was a member of a nomic called
> Pnomic, simultaneously with Ackanomic....
> 
> ... probably a coincidence.
> 
> b

Yes. E started it and was then quite surprised to learn that there was
already a nomic called pnomic, and in Polish.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:48:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I accept.

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> Hmm.  Hmm, again.  If the *player* is deregistered ... I don't know.  Is
> this more interesting than it seems on the surface?  Who was the player,
> "Joan of Arkansas", or "'Zelda B. Morris'"?  If 'Zelda', then it seems all
> her Ackanomic names should de-register with her.  If "Joan" ... then she
> wasn't really registered more than once (so it seems the player must be
> "Zelda").
> 
> -mr cwm
>  looking forward to an appeal

The first sentence of the "Players" rules:
A player is any _person_ who is registered as a player.

I would assert that Zelda Morris was a player, Ackanomic name 
Eponimondas, who twice committed a Crime in attempting to break the rules 
by registering as a second player.  Grumble, grumble...   Platonically 
speaking, neitzsche and Joan of Arkansas never were, and... damn...  
without those Whamiol points, she's literally knocked us back to the last 
cycle. :(   Anybody care to reconstruct the last two weeks of Ackanomic 
in this light?

Guy Fawkes 
 at Def Conn 2

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:54:34 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany?

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Dan Knapp wrote:

> > We need to boldly discover more Nomics. It should be one of our top
> > priorities. I'd like to add it to the goals of the Harf party.
> 
> This is somewhat off-topic, but the Internomic definition of a Nomic is
> "a game with self-modifying rules".  Shouldn't that specify that it must
> have a few people in it?  Otherwise we could create a few "dummy" Nomics
> and use them to stuff the Internomic ballots...
> 
> -Red Barn
> 
> 
There is internomic rule which defines the names of the members. Currently
it is necessary to propose a rule change and have it accepted in order to
add another nomic into internomic. Somehow I think players of other nomics
would notice a straw nomic.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 01:00:33 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game of Questions

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, T Joffrain wrote:

> Anyone ever watch the show "Whose line is it anyway?" a UK show? It has a
> similar game and it is much fun.
> 
> CnH
> 
I catch that sometimes. But such games being fun depend on quick
reactions, and speed, I don't think they are suitable for email.
Anyway, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is recommended.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:59:33 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1670

Proposal 1670
Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
Guy Fawkes

This is a modest proposal.

Amend Rule 360 "Hearings" by adding the following to the end of its
first
paragraph.

If a hearing is called into session by a voluntary player action, the
initiating player pays a fee of A$20 times the number of Hearings
already
in session. [i.e. the fee is zero if no Hearings were in session when
the
Hearing was called.]  This fee is payed to the Treasury.  If more than
one
Hearing is initiated by the same player action, they are called into
session
non-simultaneously, each one separated by an infitessimal amount of
time.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:05:29 -0600 (CST)
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I accept. 

I propose the following. We simply make belief that all three were real
players (we do not yet have any 100% proof, "only" good evidence) and treat
all three as having resigned. There is a procedure to expel them if there is
a problem.

As far as I am concerned, I prefer to believe that this is the work of three
real and different people who simply knew each other and wanted to freak us
out before leaving the game. Full stop.

To keep in mind is that the effect, just the implication of the possibility,
are enough to really disturb a nomic. We have been shown a perfect example
of how "war" can be conducted.

>Guy Fawkes 
> at Def Conn 2

Calvin N Hobbes
wondering if Cassandra was right

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:37:13 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:History Part I 

>Presuming he accepts, I would like to pass this gift of A$50 on to
>/dev/joe, for without the many archives he keeps available, this job
>would have been, essentially, an impossible task. /dev/joe, thank you.
>
>breadbox
>your grateful historian

I too loved the history pages!  In fact, even though they included a
statement about aplagerised (Hey! I admitted I didn't write the majority of
that proposal) I thought they were great.

Excellent Job, breadbox.

snowgod
who would happily contribute money

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:16:22 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: I accept.

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> The first sentence of the "Players" rules:
> A player is any _person_ who is registered as a player.
> 
> I would assert that Zelda Morris was a player, Ackanomic name 
> Eponimondas, who twice committed a Crime in attempting to break the rules 
> by registering as a second player.  Grumble, grumble...   Platonically 
> speaking, neitzsche and Joan of Arkansas never were, and... damn...  
> without those Whamiol points, she's literally knocked us back to the last 
> cycle. :(   Anybody care to reconstruct the last two weeks of Ackanomic 
> in this light?

Nobody scored any whamiol points for nietzsche or joan of arkansas because
they never submitted any proposals, nor is it publicly knowable that they
ever voted.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:47:27 PST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I hereby return from Vacation.
HC

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:49:12 PST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Fictionary

OOOPS!!!

I forgot about the Fictionary Round in progress,  so I decided to delay
my trip for a couple of days,  hopefully until the end of the round.

HC

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:21:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spy's Report

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> It seems that Agora is slightly too hellbent on denying our Internomic
> win, employing some argument along the lines of "That which is
> permissible is not necessarily possible."  I have a half-formed idea in
> my mind that may render such an argument illegal, but other than that
> (I'll release the details if I can develop it into a robust CFJ) they may
> get away with imposing such un-harfy custom on Internomic.
> 
> Does anyone see any way to defeat such an argument?  Are appeals allowed?

Agora cannot judge false.  It invalidates their selection as judge,
as they were selected by moderator snowgod, under the assumption that
snowgod acquired the title as a result of the win.

Furthermore, Acka cannot judge true for the same reason.  If these
verdicts are returned, it is my opinion that the game will hang
waiting for a set of valid vericts to be returned, or split into
2 games states (agora true, acka false).  I have this written up in
more detail if anyone is interested.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:28:59 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka bux 

>i hereby give all my acka $ to joan of arkansas,
>if she acks it. - nietzsche

I see a plot in the works.  Oh yeah, with A$ there is no need for
Ackanowledgement.  They are gift entitities.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:29:40 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1674

Proposal 1674
Constructions and Architectural Aesthetic
Calvin N Hobbes

{Renumber this rule to 846}

{This rule will allow players to manipulate buildings. It will set a base
price for buildings, while allowing players to describe their home for the
record. It will also define construction and destruction, rebuilding and
upgrade}

The following table details the prices involved with various buildings:

Size	           Construction    Destruction     Rebuilding      Upgrade
Small	           A$100                A$10	   A$100	         A$500
Cosy	           A$500                A$50	   A$250	         A$1600
Classy	           A$2000              A$200	   A$1000	         A$4000
Lavish                   A$5000              A$500                A$2500
A$7000
Sumptous	           A$10000           A$1000              A$5000
A$15000
Extravagant         A$20000           A$2000	   A$10000           n/a

Construction costs do not include land. If a building is destroyed, it no
longer exists. If a building is damaged it may be repaired for the cost of
rebuilding. For the cost of an upgrade and provided the player owns enough
land, a building's size is increased to the next. No building can be more
than extravagant.

Such costs are paid to the Treasury and events associated with them occur
upon acknowledgement by the Financier. A player may only build on land they
own and provided they own enough land. A player may only alter buildings
they own.

The player may post a description of a building they own. After paying A$2
per word for the description (to the Treasury) the building is made exactly
as their description of it, provided that description follows the rules. It
is a crime to give a description of the house which is not in accord with
the rules.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:29:38 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1671

Proposal 1671
A Small But Non-Trivial Detail
Guy Fawkes

This is a Modest proposal.  Amend Rule 211 as follows:

In the fourth paragraph, change the first occurrence of "to the
statement
of a CFJ" to "to the statement of another CFJ".

In the sixth paragraph, change the first occurrence of "to the statement
of a Paradox win CFJ" to "to the statement of another Paradox Win CFJ".

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:29:39 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1672

Proposal 1672
Stop Giving Away Valuables!
Calvin N Hobbes

{The following will stop giving away land and houses. Note that they reside
with their mentors until they do get their house. This is no inconvenience
to the Mentor really, who is supposed to help and guide their protege anyway
and get paid for it}

Amend section 1 of R252 to read:

1) When a new player buys his first kaa of urban land ever, a Small house
will be given to him for free on that plot of land. This building shall be
known as their Home. This building shall also be known as "player name's
House", where "player name" is replaced by their official Ackanomic name.
Until they have their own home, new players reside with their mentors (as
defined in section 4 of this rule). New players may reside with their
mentors for one month maximum.

{The next one is to make sure we don't have cash flow problems anytime soon
when a number of players join, while making sure they can always buy their
first land by making a minimum}

Amend section 2 of R252 to read:

2) The New player is paid from the Treasury the average A$balance of all
other players divided by two, or A$400, which ever is more.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:29:39 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1673

Proposal 1673
Fix Home, Legal Residence and Renaming
Calvin N Hobbes

{A part of R252Sec1 was removed because it makes more sense in R839. The
follwing also reconciles the different terminology of "home" and "legal
residence". I've also reduced the workload of the Senate so that land deals
without much impact are not subject to approval}

In R839, change:

"Each instance of a player Home is a Common Location, with the restriction
that no player may enter a Home they don't own without permission of the owner. 

The Senate Building is lavish. The FM building is a classy place. The
Courthouse is a cosy building. These buildings may never be smaller that as
defined originally but can be greater. All of these buildings are Common
Locations. 

All other land, with or without buildings on them, that is not owned by
players is called common lands. All deals to sell or buy common land must be
approved by Senate vote. 

The size of the buildings cannot be changed except as allowed by the rules. "

To:

"A player may own more than one building, although only one (of his
choosing) may be his home. A player's home is also his legal residence. Each
instance of a player home is a Common Location, with the restriction that no
player may enter a Home they don't own without permission of the owner. 

A player may change the name of buildings they own by publicly announcing
the new name and unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename.

The Senate Building is lavish. The FM building is a classy place. The
Courthouse is a cosy building. These buildings may never be smaller that as
defined originally but can be greater. All of these buildings are Common
Locations. All other land, with or without buildings on them, that is not
owned by players is called common lands.

All deals to sell or buy common land which would result in a player owning
more than 5kaa of land must be approved by Senate vote. Otherwise the
Financier will acknowledge the transactions."

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:33:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1659

fnord wrote:

[about longer cycles]

> > {{[I could fill volumes explaining the benefits of this rule change]}}
> 
> Could you, please?

Not in this blizzard.  But some ideas:

1) less end of cycle work for the F.O.
2) more non-point wins as a percentage, I find point wins boring
3) since the magic number was made 257, we have added a bzillion ways
to score, and have had higher proposal passage rates, and the penalites
are lower, etc.  In other words, point inflation.
4) with a higher magic number, it will create more incentive to find
other ways to win.  I agree with Suber that the point mechanism for
winning should be out of a nomic pretty quick
5) longer term for the archaeologist
... There were others ... my time is limited ... if i ever get the
time, I will right more.  I guess I find point wins relatively boring
for the work they create, and happen faster due to point inflation over
the months.

Hope that helps.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:34:47 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany? 

>I still think Internomic should join itself.

I think we've talked about this before (at least on the (NoneYet) list.
I'm all for it.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:35:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany? 

>At 4:18 PM on 1/23/97, mr cwm wrote:
>
>> I still think Internomic should join itself.
>
>  But then, who would be the Ambassador? :)
>
>-Red Barn

Ooh, tricky.  WOuld it be one of the liasons of the member nomics, or
internomic itself?

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:38:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Tammany reform

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > way, because then your money essentially counts double.  It's not real
> > important, but if it doesn't make things too complicated, I'd like to see
> > SILENT kept.
>         I'll keep it.  It's not so bad.

Good.  Although not required for one of my Treasures, the hunter might
become confused if the option were not there.

Malenkai
treasure hider

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 01:42:50 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: What Presidential Address?

I was  under the impression that there were two more unanimous proposals
to be greeted, namely 1624 and 1628, now I see that they are Modest.
Nu, well.  I guess I'll sit and write the speech for Ackanomic's Birthday
then.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:42:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Boons

fnord wrote:

> I was wondering if you missed me, Malenkai.  My greetings did go
> out before the announcement of the Boons, so, if I construe the
> CFJ correctly, I should get a Boon.  I reserve the right to be wrong,
> though.

Forward the message with headers, and its yours.  Otherwise, cut and
paste from the ftp archive with header, or CFJ so that the judge has
to do the research.  I certainly apologize if I missed anyone, but 
given the blizzard which only seems to be affecting me, I don't think
I'll have a chance to verify your claim.  If anyome else has free time,
feel free to search the ftp archives to verify the claim as well.

This goes for anyone else who was missed.  I surely apologize.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:45:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I accept.

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> without those Whamiol points, she's literally knocked us back to the last
> cycle. :(   Anybody care to reconstruct the last two weeks of Ackanomic
> in this light?

I believe it was Red Barn's proposal that triggered the Whamiols that
triggered the end of the cycle.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:48:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I hereby return from Vacation.
> HC

This is against the rules.  You must remain on vacation for two days.

Malenkai
crisis to crisis to crisis :)

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 01:54:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Boons - blizzard

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> paste from the ftp archive with header, or CFJ so that the judge has
> to do the research.  I certainly apologize if I missed anyone, but 
> given the blizzard which only seems to be affecting me, I don't think

ACtually it's affecting me too. I nearly lost an entire Duel !!
But I'm picking up the pieces, and also working on updating the rest of my
web pages.

Niccolo Flychuck

> I'll have a chance to verify your claim.  If anyome else has free time,
> feel free to search the ftp archives to verify the claim as well.
> 
> This goes for anyone else who was missed.  I surely apologize.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:00:51 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Duel Robert Sevin - Breadbox

The limericks have been posted, and it is time for the voice of Ackanomic
to be heard. Speak up so we know whichi one of these valiant
limerickicists is to be declared the winner of the Duel. For the honor of
Ackanomic!!!

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster 
an optimistic Humpty-Dumpty

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:00:21 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: The Game of Questions 

> >From my personal experience with the Game of Questions, described by
> Stoppard via Red Barn, it only remains fun when the participants either
> agree to keep the pace of the game fast, are slightly drunk, or best
> yet both.  Otherwise, there's just too much time too think about your
> words before you say them.  The same goes for another parlor game I've
> tried to adapt for Ackanomic use, the Game of Word Disassociation.  It's
> just impractical via email.  If someone can think of a way around this,
> let me know.

  Well, there's IRC, but it would probably be best to stick to the lowest
common denominator of net access, and that's email.  So it's necessary to
make the game challenging even with time to think.  Why not just require
questions to be five words or less?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:06:19 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany? 

> There is internomic rule which defines the names of the members. Currently
> it is necessary to propose a rule change and have it accepted in order to
> add another nomic into internomic. Somehow I think players of other nomics
> would notice a straw nomic.

  Not if it claimed to be Polish or German!

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:13:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

Jason Orendorff wrote:

[about the proposal distribution problem]

>         Crisis Resolution is my personal favorite choice.  I beg the
> speaker to declare a State of Crisis promptly.

First of all, the President must also participate in a Crisis fix.  The
President has been silent on the issue, and I would like his opinion
before proceeding.

Secondly, I absolutely abhor the idea of calling a State of Crisis for
this, when other methods, are available [more on that following].  I 
have tried to guage public opinion on the matter based on comments to
the discussion, and guage Acka to be mixed.  My personal opinion is that
SoC is for real crashes.

Thirdly, it is my understanding that you have not located the bug in the
bot.  I do not want to call a State of Crisis everytime this happens.
I will not do so until I am assured the problem will not occur again.
If this means a change to the Promoter rule during the Crisis fix, so
be it, but I **really** do not want to set that precedent.  The Promoter
rule was amended to its current from for a reason.

Fourthly, I, in RL and AL, do not have the time to write the required rule 
change.  If we do go this route, I would like to see the text of the
rule change before calling the State of Crisis.

My thought is, to reiterate, that I do not want to set the precedent
of using SoC for this sort of situation.  I will however, guage opinion
on the matter via public and private comments, if players care to make
them, and make a decision later this evening, based on response to the
points in this post.

As for an alternate solution that I do not believe will break the rules,
and will not be *that* bad:

1) Nothing labelled as a proposal with a number greater than 1651 is
actually a proposal.  No votes cast on those posts are actually votes.
So, unless your rule change is written well, and I am sorry that I do
not have the time to write it, it does not matter that people voted.

2) Submit a dummy proposal as 1652.

3) Redistribute 1653 and 1654 with a subject line of "Acka".  This will
formally make them proposals, with a voting period to end 9 days from
the date of the post (due to the holiday).  Since we are in a blizzard
anyway, that is not bothering anyone, the extra 18 e-mails will be a 
drop in the bucket.

4) Submit a dummy 1655, then repeat step 3 for all other proposal like
posts.

Although more work for the Promoter and Web-Harfer (the web-harfer would
have to update the timestamps), the proposals would retain their numbers.
Also, a few players would have to re-vote.  A simple e-mail from all
players who have voted to the Tabulator saying: "please vote as I have
in the previous posts to you regarding the proposal-like posts", should
be enough to make their previous vote-like posts become actual votes.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:14:57 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany? 

> Ooh, tricky.  WOuld it be one of the liasons of the member nomics, or
> internomic itself?

  I think the way the rules are worded, it would have to be an _entire_
member nomic, since the ambassador is (I think, w/o checking) "a player
from the Nomic".

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:18:46 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: The Game of Questions 

>   Well, there's IRC, but it would probably be best to stick to the lowest
> common denominator of net access, and that's email.  So it's necessary to
> make the game challenging even with time to think.  Why not just require
> questions to be five words or less?

  No, on second thought, it wouldn't work too well.  Forget it.  But it's
still funny :)

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:22:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Duel Robert Sevin - Breadbox

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> The limericks have been posted, and it is time for the voice of Ackanomic
> to be heard. Speak up so we know whichi one of these valiant
> limerickicists is to be declared the winner of the Duel. For the honor of
> Ackanomic!!!
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> GamesMaster
> an optimistic Humpty-Dumpty

I vote for breadbox.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:29:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gaol (Red Barn)

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

The grace period is over, and these penalties are now enforced.  Note
that CFJ 336 postulates the illegality of making public posts whilst
in Gaol, and I believe the case for a verdict of TRUE on that CFJ is
a solid one.

I have nothing against Red Barn, but in the spirit of attempting to
follow the rules of this nomic, I would request respect of this 
possibility.  Perhaps a quick bribe of the Gaoler is appropriate
until this is fixed.  In any case, please note all the restrictions of
being in Gaol.

Malenkai
attempting to track the game state

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:34:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Boon (fnord)

fnord receives an Evil Ballot Stuffer has his boon.

Sorry :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:42:11 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Really Big Blue Thing 

I am changing the color of my blue thing on a whim.  I think I want it to
be a rather yellowish blue.  Yeah, yellowish blue is good.

Now, I am pointing it at Red Barn and pressing the energize button.  The
machine whistles and beeps and hums and all that good stuff before spitting
out an anagram that will become Red Barn's new Ackanomic name...

Bernard

Having completed my task, I hereby donate my Really Big Blue Thing to the
museum.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:41:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 124 Verdict

CFCJ 124 has been judged TRUE.  Penalty:

  A FINE of A$10 payable by Player Red Barn to the Treasury.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 124
  Subject:  Illegal CFCJ
Initiator:  Red Barn
    Judge:  Bascule (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:20 EST)
Judgement:  TRUE

Statement:

  Red Barn has committed a crime.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  Red Barn attempted, on Jan 16, 1997, at 21:59, to submit as a CFCJ
something which was in fact not one.
  This was, depending upon one's view, either illegal or invalid.
  If it was illegal, it was a crime.
  If it was invalid it was impermissible and the attempt to do it
was therefore a crime.
  It could not have been legal, because if so it was a permitted and
unregulated action.  But it attempts to be an action regulated by one of
the rules, and therefore is regulated by the rules.
  Therefore, Red Barn has committed a crime.

Suggested penalty:

  A FINE of A$10 payable by Player Red Barn to the Treasury.

Judge's Comments:

  The Judge concurs with the initiator's reasoning. The Judge wishes
the defendant well in his attempt to be dubbed a Crazy Scotsman.

Actual Penalty:

  A FINE of A$10 payable by Player Red Barn to the Treasury.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:45:16 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gaol 

I have taken Bernard into custody and placed him in the Gaol.  His is in
Cell .000001, way in the deepest recesses of the infinite gaol, somewhere
near Agora.

I have placed an intercom in his cell so that he may contact me when he is
ready to discuss the possibilty of a bribe.  I have removed all copies of
the ruleset for solitaire nomic from his cell :)

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:42:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 125 Verdict

CFCJ 125 has been judged Invalid.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 125
  Subject:  Illegal CFCJ (deja vu all over again)
Initiator:  Red Barn
    Judge:  Bascule (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:23 EST)
Judgement:  INVALID

Statement:

Red Barn has committed a crime.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  Red Barn attempted, on Jan 16, 1997, at 21:59, to submit as a CFCJ
something which was in fact not one.
  This was, depending upon one's view, either illegal or invalid.
  If it was illegal, it was a crime.
  If it was invalid it was impermissible and the attempt to do it was
therefore a crime.
  It could not have been legal, because if so it was a permitted and
unregulated action.  But it attempts to be an action regulated by one of
the rules, and therefore is regulated by the rules.
  Therefore, Red Barn has committed a crime.

Suggested penalty:

  A FINE of A$10 payable by Player Red Barn to the Treasury.

Judge's Comments:

  See rule 211, 4th paragraph.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:46:16 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Gaol 

At 3:45 PM on 1/23/97, Phil Ackley wrote:

> I have taken Bernard into custody and placed him in the Gaol.  His is in
> Cell .000001, way in the deepest recesses of the infinite gaol, somewhere
> near Agora.
>
> I have placed an intercom in his cell so that he may contact me when he is
> ready to discuss the possibilty of a bribe.  I have removed all copies of
> the ruleset for solitaire nomic from his cell :)
>
> snowgod

  NO!!!!  Not the ruleset!!!!

  How's A$30 sound to you?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:55:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 334 Verdict

CFJ 334 has been Judged FALSE.  The CFJ claimed to be a paradox win
CFJ; Red Barn receives the Chartreuse Goose.  

However, the reasoning of the Judge of this CFJ alleges that this is
in fact *not* a paradox CFJ at all.  Although that may be true, I'm
not sure such a claim in the reasoning is sufficient to make it not so.

ThinMan or someone else, please submit the appropriate CFJ.  To me,
the statement alleges the indeterminate legality of an action 
that would change the game state.  Perhaps a goofy definition of
"action" (I'm supposed to be a Platonist, right :)).  I certainly am
not disputing the claim, really, but a CFJ is a good idea.

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

Call For Judgement 334
  Subject: Paradox Paradox
Initiator: Red Barn
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Jan 22, 1997, 18:30h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

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 thelowest
> 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.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

It is ironic that I should be chosen to judge this CFJ at a time when
I have a proposal in the queue to correct this very situation.  It is
not as dire as Red Barn thinks, however.  His argument is based around
the observation that both R 211 and R 219 define the term "Paradox Win
CFJ," and that the definitions, he claims, are not equivalent.  He
claims that, therefore, the definition in R 211 should take precedence.
Red Barn goes on to argue that if a Paradox Win CFJ is initially judged
true but later overturned, that the R211 definition is "false."

In untangling this mess, I first observe that R 210 covers rule
_conflicts_.  I claim, however, that the "Paradox Win CFJ" defintions
in rules 211 and 219 do not conflict.  Neither rule precludes other
rules from defining other types of CFJs to be "Paradox Win CFJs,"
therefore there can be no conflict, just additional kinds of CFJ that
qualify for that label.  Furthermore, the definition in R 211 depends
on the defintion in R 219, and thus is supplemental if anything.

Now, as to the potentiality of the R 211 definition being "false": it is
impossible.  A defintion is a definition; it is necessarilly true.
This may lead to paradox (although in this case it does not), but it is
indisputable.  There are at least two non-paradoxical ways to parse the
R 211 definition:

1) The definition may be taken literally, as Red Barn has done.  In
keeping with the spirit of literal rule reading, however, this leads me
to the conclusion that R 211 does not define any CFJ to be a Paradox Win
CFJ (although it also does not preclude other rules from so doing).
This is because there is no CFJ that will produce a win under R 219
solely if it is judged true -- the judgement must also not be
overturned.

2) The R 211 definition may be parsed as "[...] if the final verdict is
TRUE."  This, in fact, is more in accord with game custom, and therefore
is given preference according to R 101.  Such an interpretation should
also be applied to the R 219 definition.

In support of invoking a non-literal interpretation according to game
custom, I note that we agree that Mohammed won the cycle 8 by paradox
(after the language in question was incorporated into rules 211 and
219).

Either way, however, the CFJ statement is FALSE, and either of these
non-paradoxical interpretations is at least as reasonable as the
possibly paradoxical one asserted by Red Barn, and thus must be
preferred.

With that out of the way, I note that this CFJ is trivially false, for
the vast majority of CFJs are unequivocally _not_ Paradox Win CFJs.
If the statement had said "[...] whether or not _some_ CFJs [...]" then
it would have been stronger.  In conjunction with that point, and as an
example, I observe that this CFJ itself is not a Paradox Win CFJ
according to any reading of rule 219, nor, therefore, according to any
reading of rule 211.  Even if it were judged TRUE, it would not result
in a win for Red Barn.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #476
*******************************