Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #477
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, January 23 1997      Volume 01 : Number 477

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:00:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 337 Verdict

CFJ 337 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 337
  Subject: Invalid Paradox CFJs
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Swann (selected Jan 22, 1997, 23:22h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The correct verdict for any Paradox Win CFJ is Invalid.

Guy Fawkes' Reasoning:

from R211:
>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's statement is substantially similar (actually,
identical in all respects) to the statement of a Paradox Win CFJ submitted by
some player and not yet resolved, to wit, its own.

Hence, the proper verdict is Invalid.

Swann's Reasoning:

I judge this CFJ FALSE for the reason that the quoted Rule qualifies the
similarity to be that in the judgment of the Judge ruling the CFJ, and while
self-similarity might "objectively" be an absolute, we cannot make any
assumptions on the beliefs and judgments of all possible Judges in all
possible circumstances. Since a human judgment is involved-- a judgment which
may be influenced by custom and the obvious intent of the rule-- the
statement is not universally true for all Paradox Win CFJs.

However, this does mean that any Judge can rule any Paradox win CFJ invalid
for this reason, e just isn't forced to by the Rule.  (It is permitted, not
mandatory.)

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:09:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 128 (fnord)

fnord has been chosen.

/dev/joe -20 CFCJ 128

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 128
  Subject:  Illegal Game Joining
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  fnord (selected Jan 23, 1997, 20:09 EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Eponimondas has committed a Crime.

Reasoning:

Eponimondas broke Rule 250, which states, in part:

  No person may register as a player more than once concurrently.

Eponimondas registered two additional times, as nietzsche and
Joan of Arkansas.  By Rule 713, "Crime", these extra registrations
never occurred, but the attempt to do so was a crime.  If this is
judged True, the game state shall be reset as if these two had
never joined -- all their A$ shall be returned to the treasury,
their houses will vanish and their land become common.  Any game
action they ever took is invalidated; I know only of the transfers
in the 3 mail messages provided as evidence below.  Fortunately,
nietzsche and Joan of Arkansas never became active players, so
I don't have to undo Whamiol score changes.

> From: [email-masked] (Moses Rojas)
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:24:54 -0500
> Subject: money
>
> I hereby give all my acka $ to Joan of Arkansas,
> if she acks it.

> From: [email-masked] (Adam Gesher)
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:28:14 -0500
> Subject: acka bux
>
> i hereby give all my acka $ to joan of arkansas,
> if she acks it. - nietzsche

> From: [email-masked] (Zelda B. Morris)
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:35:40 -0500
> Subject: Acka: I accept.
>
> I accept Nietzsche's and Eponimondas'  money.
> And must inform All, that they were me all along. I thought I'd just
> wait till I could figure a really good paradox win. But I just didn't
> have enough time---I'm returnin' my webtv box. Maybe I'll see you boys
> when I get my 'puter.
> -ZELDA M.
> (for now having to settle for bein' the richest woman in acka)
> P.S. I must resign, me and my DRONES.
> -------JOAN OF ARKANSAS

Only the first registrant, Eponimondas, remains, and I don't believe
Joan of Arkansas's message is sufficient to de-register Eponimondas.

Suggested penalty:

The TRANSFERENCE of A$20 to /dev/joe. [repayment of court fee]
A FINE of A$500.
EXPULSION from the game.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:51:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game of Questions

> With spectators?
>     Do you want to play questions?
> How do you play that?
>     You have to ask a question.
	This is not the same as the play.  :oP  Having never seen the movie, 
it disappoints me to know that it is different in any way from the exact 
letter of the script.  *ruegrin*

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:58:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

> >	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.
	Unfortunately, this would not work; Acrobot would not know who was 
sending the message.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:04:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: A Nomic in... Poland? And Germany?

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >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?

I don't know if the Internomic-as-a-member-of-itself idea would work as 
the I/N rules are currently written; the I/N rules require that each 
member nomic must have a liaison at all times and that this liaison must 
be an entity registered as a player of the nomic which it represents.  
One could argue (weakly, IMO) that Internomic has no players, rather it 
has member nomics.

On the same lines, the LackeyNomic idea (was it fnords?) would only work 
if the LackeyNomics had players, since one of the players would have to 
act as liaison.  OTOH, it would be fully possible to legislate non-human 
players to liase for the Lackeys.

I better stop now before I engineer the fall of Internomic.  That, IMHO, 
would be a Bad Thing, or at least Bad Luck.  (Anyone else read _1066 and 
All That_?)

Guy Fawkes 

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:09:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Punctuation Lesson (Please Read)

Using square brackets [] around something makes it a note.  Notes are 
like comments in programming.  They don't have any meaning.

[So you can use notes for stuff like this.  You can be informal inside a 
note.  You can joke inside a note.]

Using double curly braces around something makes it temporary rule text.  
Something in double braces happens only once.  Thus:

{{ A Hearing is called, with valid responses of "Yes" and "No".  If the 
verdict is "Yes", the sentence "A person with a webtv address may not 
join the game." is added to Rule 23894. }}

This hearing would happen once, not many times.  After the effects go 
through, this text is removed from the rule completely.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:17:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  disaster

No proposals have been distributed since P1651.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:21:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

> 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.
	Oh yeah.

> As for an alternate solution that I do not believe will break the rules,
> and will not be *that* bad:
	That strikes me as horribly dishonest.  Since it looks like CR is out of 
the picture, I'll renumber all the proposals.

- --Mohammed
happie  :o)

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:23:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1669

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> {This is frankly a reward and appreciation for the hard 
> work put in by the functional officers,  It gives them
> a break}
> 
> {This proposal would not go back and change something
> that occured in the past, but rather stop an action in its tracks}

Are the single braces an erroneous from of {{self-deletion}}, or are they 
a new form of syntax introduced while I was on vacation?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:26:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: On WebTV.net

I found confirmation of one of my guesses about the webtv players:

From http://www.webtv.net/HTML/home.specs.html:

> WebTV Network standard features include:
> 
> [...]
> 
> Six users supported per household, each with own (full) name, PIN number,
> personal Internet email address, favorite site storage, settings, etc.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:28:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Game of Questions

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > With spectators?
> >     Do you want to play questions?
> > How do you play that?
> >     You have to ask a question.
> 	This is not the same as the play.  :oP  Having never seen the movie, 
> it disappoints me to know that it is different in any way from the exact 
> letter of the script.  *ruegrin*
> 
> --Mohammed

There is no single definitive version of the script.  Stoppard made 
several amendments, and it has been performed so many different ways in 
the theater, that many scriptbooks for it today italicize large sections 
of the text as optional.  True, the film version is significantly 
different from any version of the playscript, but several of its 
amendments (particularly the science experiments) I feel are very much in 
the spirit of the original play.

Guy Fawkes 

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:30:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > As for an alternate solution that I do not believe will break the rules,
> > and will not be *that* bad:
>         That strikes me as horribly dishonest.  Since it looks like CR
> is out of the picture, I'll renumber all the proposals.

Would you please clarify what strikes you as "horribly dishonest".  I
stated clearly my position on the CR, and do not believe any statement
in that post to be dishonest.  This is as difficult for me as it is
for you and the rest of us, and really cannot fathom what would lead
you to a conclusion of dishonesty. 

I do find it inappropriate to call a CR without the points in
the post addressed.  Even if I did, I would have to wait for the prez
and the rule change anyway.  I have also offered an alternative that
would not require renumbering the proposals, based on the assumption
that no proposals have been distributed.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:37:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

> Would you please clarify what strikes you as "horribly dishonest".  I
> stated clearly my position on the CR, and do not believe any statement
> in that post to be dishonest.  This is as difficult for me as it is
> for you and the rest of us, and really cannot fathom what would lead
> you to a conclusion of dishonesty.
	No, I mean the solution itself-- not opinion you expressed.  I don't 
think it's entirely on the up-and-up to distribute 2 dummy proposals.  
That's all.
	I'm sorry.

- --Mohammed
rude
apologetic

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:15 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1634

Proposal 1634
Saaramaa
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

Repeal R 1307, "Ackanomic Middle Ages"

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:44:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: strange bot occurences

>         No, I mean the solution itself-- not opinion you expressed.  I
> don't think it's entirely on the up-and-up to distribute 2 dummy proposals.
> That's all.

I meant write real ones to retract later.  Here's a couple examples:

{{Mohammed gains 3 points.}}
- --
{{snowgod's house becomes hopelessly detached from it's teathers :)}}

They can be retracted, unless you care about the points.  The promoter
rule does not require that proposals be distributed in the order
received.

Also, I never meant to imply CR was out of the question.  I did say, 
however, that it was out of the question until someone wrote the 
appropriate rule changes, as well as some other circumstances.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:20 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1647

Proposal 1647
snowgod's Cure
snowgod

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:18 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1644

Proposal 1644
Ridiculous!
Red Barn

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:49:46 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1669

> > {This is frankly a reward and appreciation for the hard 
> > work put in by the functional officers,  It gives them
> > a break}
> > 
> > {This proposal would not go back and change something
> > that occured in the past, but rather stop an action in its tracks}
> 
> Are the single braces an erroneous from of {{self-deletion}}, or are they

> a new form of syntax introduced while I was on vacation?
> 
It was me hitting the Shift KEy wHen I shouldn't have

Jammer
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:24 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1660

Proposal 1660
Bad Pointer Reference
Guy Fawkes

This is a Modest Proposal.

Amend Rule 1319 so that the number 729, found in its last paragraph, is 
changed to 1307.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:23 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1658

Proposal 1658
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: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:23 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1659

Proposal 1659
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: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:57:14 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acrobot  is reposting back proposals

I've had 1634, 47, 44, 60 resent

?
Jammer
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:23 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1657

Proposal 1657
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: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:19 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1646

Proposal 1646
Unambiguizing ambiguities
Habeous Corpus

Create a new rule,  with text:

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:28 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1669

Proposal 1669
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 20:43:27 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1667

Proposal 1667
Free Breakfast
Jammer

This is neither a modest nor a grandeous proposal

Any player who holds an functional office is allowed
one time per office per cycle to declare any one
action of theirs to not have occured.  This rule may only
be invoked if  the action has not affected the game
state.

For the puposes of this rule, the game state changes
if the rules change, any hearing is held AND a vedict is
passed down, or if an entity is created or destroyed.

This rule is invoked by the player quoting the post
which stated the action occured, then saying "Yumm
feathers taste good, this never happened."

If the rule is invoked, all activity related to this action
cease, the approriate records state the player 
took advantage of the "Free Breakfast" rule
and play continues as if the action never occured.

{This is frankly a reward and appreciation for the hard 
work put in by the functional officers,  It gives them
a break}

{This proposal would not go back and change something
that occured in the past, but rather stop an action in its tracks}

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:29 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1672

Proposal 1672
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 20:43:28 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1671

Proposal 1671
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 20:43:22 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1656

Proposal 1656
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: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:19 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1645

Proposal 1645
Too Many Hunters
Red Barn

  This is a modest proposal.

  I propose that all players who have, in the past, called for at least
three witch hunts within a single day be penalized by having A$20
transferrred from each of their possessions to the Treasury.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:07:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acrobot is reposting back proposals

Well, 1660 was originally 1662; the only thing I can figure is that 
Mohammed has corrected the proposal numbers and that now Acrobot is 
dumping its entire queue, regardless of whether it needed corrected or not.

Of course, I could be (and probably am) wrong.

Guy

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, John Martin Lotz wrote:

> I've had 1634, 47, 44, 60 resent
> 
> ?
> Jammer
> John-Martin Lotz
> [email-masked]
> 

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:11:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Official (Tabulator)

	Due to the proposal numbering problems, everyone should be getting 
Proposals 1652 on upwards again.

	********************************************************
	*** Please disregard all the Proposals numbered 1653 ***
	*** or higher that you received before tonight!      ***
	********************************************************

The newly distributed proposals should be correct.  (The redistribution 
also gave me a chance to correct a few formatting errors.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:14:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Acrobot is reposting back proposals

> Well, 1660 was originally 1662; the only thing I can figure is that 
> Mohammed has corrected the proposal numbers and that now Acrobot is 
> dumping its entire queue, regardless of whether it needed corrected or not.
	This is almost exactly right... I did the dump 'by hand' though, so 
there was no debug phase.  I should have realized I didn't have to resend 
**everything**.

- --Mohammed
bashful
hasty

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:26 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1666

Proposal 1666
The Morning After
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

Repeal the rule created by proposal 1630, "Happy Birthday Ackanomic!".

{{[no offense, but we have a whole year to think up a new one.  I still
believe the rule is a paradox, but even if it isn't, well I dunno...]}}

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:15 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1633

Proposal 1633
Evil Twins
Calvin N Hobbes

{Renumber this rule to number 259, so it is with other "player states" rules}
Provided two player agree to it, they will become the other's evil twin.
They will remain as such until one of them sends a public message containing
the phrase: "my evil twin is a good twin".

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:20 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1648

Proposal 1648
Generic Proposal Title #1648
Eponimondas

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

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:25 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1664

Proposal 1664
Amending "Invoking Judgement"
Calvin N Hobbes

{The following change means that there is no indefinite protection of
paradoxes within the rules}

Amend the last line of R211 "Invoking Judgement" to read, in whole:

Any Paradox Win CFJ which is based on the same sort of Paradox, in the
judgement of the judge, as any Paradox Win CFJ judged TRUE in the previous
two cycles shall be judged Invalid. 

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:18 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1641

Proposal 1641
Fix Swingers' demise
Niccolo Flychuck

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:26 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1665

Proposal 1665
Amending "Overturning Judgements"
Calvin N Hobbes

{This actually makes use of AOJs by the Supreme Court, as it was once meant
to do}

Amend R217 " Overturning Judgements" by adding the following at the end:

The Supreme Court will return its verdict as an AOJ in the according format
and with proper formalities as defined in the rule set. There is no need to
quote the entire CFJ that was appealed, only ensure that proper reference to
that CFJ is made in the AOJ.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:21 -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: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:17 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1640

Proposal 1640
Duel with Seconds
Niccolo Flychuck

This is a Modest proposal.

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:27 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1668

Proposal 1668
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 20:43:16 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1637

Proposal 1637
Changing Changing Player Names
ThinMan

This is a modest proposal.

Rule 251 "Player Names" shall be amended in the following ways:
1) The second sentence of the second paragraph shall be changed to:
   "The Registrar shall record and acknowledge each legal name change;
   a legal name change takes effect at the time of the Registrar's
acknowledgement."
2) The last sentence shall be changed to: "It is a duty of the Registrar
   to notify any player who attempts to illegally change his name."

{{ [ This clarifies the effective time of name changes, and revises
the somewhat confusing duty/right bit at the end of the rule.  I
wouldn't have thought it necessary if not for the recent bruhaha
among Red Barn, fnord, and myself. ] }}

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:25 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1662

Proposal 1662
Ethics in Duels
Lestrade

This is a Modest Proposal

Change Rule 1215 Duels, # 2) 4th  paragraph from

"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."

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." 

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:24 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1661

Proposal 1661
Otzma Card of type Scientist for a Day
Guy Fawkes

Create a new rule, a member of the Otzma Cards Rule Suite, with text as 
follows.

A Card of this type may be played only in the public forum.  A player who 
does so pays A$20.

In the message in which a player states he is playing a card of this 
type, he may also include exactly one collection of text which he would 
like to see as a new Blueprint.  This text becomes a new Brueprint in the 
Blueprint Archive; this Blueprint is said to be created by the player who 
played the Scientist for a Day Otzma Card.

If at least 5 active players, or 20% of the active players, whichever is 
greater, publically protest this Blueprint within 3 days of its creation, 
it is destroyed, and its creator loses 10 points.

Counter-Action:  Any Blueprint created by the use of the countered 
Scientist for a Day Card is destroyed. 

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:17 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1638

Proposal 1638
Removing the nasty side effects of R 1315
Malenkai

The is a Modest proposal

Amend R 1315, "Church Sanctuary", in the following ways:

I. replace

"
      If a player is declared a Heretic or otherwise threatened to be
burned, then any priest can grant the player a "Sanctuary Of Salvation",
even if the priest is the player herself, by making a public statement
to that effect. 
"

with:

"
      If a player is alledged a Heretic or otherwise threatened to be
burned, via the specific application of another rule pertaining to
Heresy or burning, then any priest can grant the player a "Sanctuary
Of Salvation" (SOS), even if the priest is the player herself, by making
a public statement to that effect, and provided the player receiving
the SOS consents to it. 
"

II.  In the third paragraph of the rule, replace "can resume" with
"resume as if they had not been cancelled".

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:18 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1642

Proposal 1642
Creation of a PartyChessPiece Demon
Niccolo Flychuck

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

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

4. A Demon's materail value is 2

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:16 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1636

Proposal 1636
Removing Dangerous Redundancy Dangerous Redundancy
ThinMan

This is a modest proposal.

The first sentence of the last paragraph of rule 211 "Invoking
Judgement" shall be amended to read, in whole:

If the statements of two unresolved Paradox Win CFJs are substantially
similar, in the opinion of the judge of the higher-numbered one, then
the higher-numbered one shall be judged Invalid.

{{ [ Aside from simplifying the language, this removes the specific
reference to R 219 (which could be renumbered) and removes a
redundant definition of "Paradox Win CFJ" from the rules.  (The term
is also defined in R219, which is more appropriate anyway.)  I think
it imperative that official terms be defined only once.  This also
fixes a loophole by which one could attempt to torpedo any pending
CFJ win attempt by submitting a substantially similar attempt.  (The
current rule doesn't specify that only the more recent would be
judged Invalid, and my reading has either one or both being so
judged.) ] }}

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:43:16 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1635

Proposal 1635
Minor Cleaning
ThinMan

This is a modest proposal.

Amend Rule 219 to read, in full:

A call for judgement whose statement alleges that further play is
impossible, that rule changes are impossible, or that a player action
which would affect the game state appears equally legal and illegal is
a "Paradox Win CFJ."  Only those CFJs so specified by the rules are
Paradox Win CFJs.  When it ceases to be legal to appeal a particular 
Paradox Win CFJ, if the final verdict is true then the initiator wins
the cycle.

{{ [ This is a minor maintenance proposal.  The part of R 219 that
explicitly permits the filing of these specific CFJs is removed,
as it is redundant.  The requirement that the initiator specify a
paradox win claim in his reasoning is eliminated as unnecessary,
though I imagine that the practice will continue.  The language
covering when and whether the initiator wins the cycle is simplified,
and the wording "is declared winner" is changed to "wins," which
is much more robust.  The resulting text is somewhat shorter than
the original.] }}

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #477
*******************************