Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #480
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, January 24 1997       Volume 01 : Number 480

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:07:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bartender

Oh, bartender. Yoo-hoo. May I have three coffee-and-Baileys, please?
Thank you. Munchies? No, no munchies, unless escargot is considered a
munchie.

b

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:30:52 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:Bartender

Salivations!

		I would like to order a God's Blessing. Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee
and Bushmill's 1608, please.  And munchies!! Lots of munchies and
crunchies!!  The big, crisp, PURPLE kind!!

				Strider

What do you mean you can't see them?  Only fools can't see the munchies!

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:53:18 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka:  Bartender order

I'd like a caffine and cola fizz

And bartender's choise on the munchie

John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:00:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

> Why not?  Majordomo does not modify the From: header line of the
> mail messages that it forwards.  Look for yourself.
	All mail from the listserver comes from "owner-ackanomic@wilma".
	The bot uses the address given in the first line of the message, 
not the address given in the From: field, since the From field is 
generally less constant and not as easy to parse.  Actually there would 
be some benefits to using the From: field... hmm; I'll ponder that one a 
while...

- --Mohammed
pondrous

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:22:20 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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.

I dunno if the provisions need to be made here,or elsewhere, although 
I've seen them accompany phrases like this before.
What happens if the player who called a Hearing doesn't
have enough money to cover the cost.  In other rules,
I've seen it say things like "as long as they have the money
to cover the cost.  If they don't, the process is undone."

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:08:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: new bot command

Mohammed:
> > Why not?  Majordomo does not modify the From: header line of the
> > mail messages that it forwards.  Look for yourself.
> 	All mail from the listserver comes from "owner-ackanomic@wilma".
> 	The bot uses the address given in the first line of the message, 
> not the address given in the From: field, since the From field is 
> generally less constant and not as easy to parse.  Actually there would 
> be some benefits to using the From: field... hmm; I'll ponder that one a 
> while...

Well, I know Wayne's nomicbot always worked the same way as Acrobot;
whenever somebody with a case of snowgod's disease sent their votes or
other bot request to the list, I always ended up with a response from
the bot in owner-ackanomic's box (along with all the bounce mail), saying
it couldn't match the address to a player.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:19:16 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

Mohammed wrote:

>> Why not?  Majordomo does not modify the From: header line of the
>> mail messages that it forwards.  Look for yourself.
>	All mail from the listserver comes from "owner-ackanomic@wilma".
>	The bot uses the address given in the first line of the message, 
>not the address given in the From: field, since the From field is 
>generally less constant and not as easy to parse.  Actually there would 
>be some benefits to using the From: field... hmm; I'll ponder that one a 
>while...

That is very strange.  When I look at the headers on my system,
they say "From: [email-masked]" or the like, with Reply-To
ackanomic@...  Admittedly, my mail goes through an SNMP-to-Exchange
gateway, but there was some discussion of this back when the lists
were first set up.  And the gateway is getting the original sender's
address from somewhere.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:22:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: new bot command

> Well, I know Wayne's nomicbot always worked the same way as Acrobot;
> whenever somebody with a case of snowgod's disease sent their votes or
> other bot request to the list, I always ended up with a response from
> the bot in owner-ackanomic's box (along with all the bounce mail), saying
> it couldn't match the address to a player.
	My bot sends the "can't find" message to *me* instead.
	I don't know if that's better or worse.  Probably better for 
wilma and me and worse for everyone else.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:26:44 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

ThinMan wrote:
> >> Why not?  Majordomo does not modify the From: header line of the
> >> mail messages that it forwards.  Look for yourself.
> >	All mail from the listserver comes from "owner-ackanomic@wilma".
> >	The bot uses the address given in the first line of the message, 
> >not the address given in the From: field, since the From field is 
> >generally less constant and not as easy to parse.
> 
> That is very strange.  When I look at the headers on my system,
> they say "From: [email-masked]" or the like, with Reply-To
> ackanomic@...  Admittedly, my mail goes through an SNMP-to-Exchange
> gateway, but there was some discussion of this back when the lists
> were first set up.  And the gateway is getting the original sender's
> address from somewhere.

You need to look at the full headers of the message to see the line
Mohammed was talking about.  Below are the somewhat-abbreviated headers
of your message as I received it, including the "From " header, which is
different from the "From:" header.  Mine just has "owner-ackanomic" instead
of "owner-ackanomic@wilma..." only because I received the message on wilma,
and it was re-sent from wilma, so it was treated as local mail.

/dev/joe

> From owner-ackanomic  Fri Jan 24 13:18:18 1997
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=IU%l=[email-masked]>
> From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
> To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command
> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:19:16 -0500

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:30:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: aging bot command

> That is very strange.  When I look at the headers on my system,
> they say "From: [email-masked]" or the like, with Reply-To
> ackanomic@...
	If you look in the actual text file, you'll see

>From [email-masked] Sun Dec 22 23:16:06 1996

or something similar on each message.  Or you should (I don't know how MS
does mail.) The "From:" field of a message, with the colon, is more or
less optional.  But odin (and unixen in general) slaps a "From " line on
*every* message that comes in.  Ever wonder how your mail program tells
where one mail message ends and the next begins?  If you're running unix,
that's how.
	There's a big difference.  You can have 18 From: fields in the
same message, but only one From line, and the From line is **always**
right at the top of the message.  See the little > in front of the From
line I pasted in above?  That's to prevent your mail-reader from getting
confused-- there's no > in front of that right now, as I write this, but I
know somewhere along the line someone will put a > there so that this
message can be sent as one message and won't look like two separate ones.
	Another difference is that the "From " field is usually *not* 
visible through your mailreader, while "From:" is.  Another difference is 
that you can say

From:  Willy The White Rabbit <[email-masked]>

but you can't do the same thing to the from line.  The Acrobot does not
know who Willy is, but it knows everyone's e-mail address.  So Acrobot
uses the From line rather than the From: field.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:51:17 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 334 Verdict

breadbox wrote:

>Right. As Red Barn's CFJ mentioned, Rule 219 specifically states that
>a CFJ that claims to be a Paradox Win CFJ is a Paradox Win CFJ,
>period. And if the judgement is FALSE or INVALID, for whatever reason,
>the submitter gets the Chartreuse Goose.
>
>I do not interpret R 219 that way, although I now see that the
>"Such a CFJ..." might be interpreted that way.  I interpret it
>to encompass all of the conditions in the previous paragraph as
>well, however, exactly as the previous sentence does.  There is
>no dispute that if a Paradox Win CFJ is judged false or invalid
>that the initiator gets the goose; the dispute involves whether
>it is or is not a Paradox Win CFJ.  I note for the record that
>my rewrite of R219 would remove this ambiguity.
>
>ThinMan
>P.S. Sorry, breadbox, for sending this to you twice.  TM

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:00:25 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

/dev/joe wrote:
>ThinMan wrote:
>> That is very strange.  When I look at the headers on my system,
>> they say "From: [email-masked]" or the like, with Reply-To
>> ackanomic@...  Admittedly, my mail goes through an SNMP-to-Exchange
>> gateway, but there was some discussion of this back when the lists
>> were first set up.  And the gateway is getting the original sender's
>> address from somewhere.
>
>You need to look at the full headers of the message to see the line
>Mohammed was talking about.  Below are the somewhat-abbreviated headers
>of your message as I received it, including the "From " header, which is
>different from the "From:" header.  Mine just has "owner-ackanomic" instead
>of "owner-ackanomic@wilma..." only because I received the message on wilma,
>and it was re-sent from wilma, so it was treated as local mail.

[example deleted]

Alright, that answers part of my confusion -- somewhere along the
line, the "From " header is being removed from my mail, and only
the "From:" line remains.  The fact remains, however, that the
"From:" header contains the original sender's address.  Is there
some reason why that header should not be used?

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:16:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1670

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, fnord wrote:

> I dunno if the provisions need to be made here,or elsewhere, although 
> I've seen them accompany phrases like this before.
> What happens if the player who called a Hearing doesn't
> have enough money to cover the cost.  In other rules,
> I've seen it say things like "as long as they have the money
> to cover the cost.  If they don't, the process is undone."

The rules already prohibit a player from voluntarily going into debt. 
That situation would definitely fall into this category -- the extra 
language is unnecessary, IMO.  Besides, it's engineered so that the cost 
would only become substantial after there are already three or four 
Hearings sitting on Malenkai's desk; exactly the time when players need 
some reason to think twice before hitting the send key for another hearing.

Guy Fawkes 

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:20:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Mohammed wrote:
> 
[comments about majordomo changing email header]
> 
> That is very strange.  When I look at the headers on my system,
> they say "From: [email-masked]" or the like, with Reply-To
> ackanomic@...  Admittedly, my mail goes through an SNMP-to-Exchange
> gateway, but there was some discussion of this back when the lists
> were first set up.  And the gateway is getting the original sender's
> address from somewhere.
> 
> ThinMan

Use a full header.  (In Pine, the command is H -- you may have to enable 
it first.  You will see the first line the header reads

Received: from wilma.che.utexas.edu ([email-masked]
[128.83.162.58])

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:41:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

> Alright, that answers part of my confusion -- somewhere along the
> line, the "From " header is being removed from my mail, and only
> the "From:" line remains.  The fact remains, however, that the
> "From:" header contains the original sender's address.  Is there
> some reason why that header should not be used?
	The only reason I had for writing it that way is that the From: 
field is harder to parse than the From line.
	snowgod's-disease mail could be processed as normal if I did 
things that way.  Hmm.  I dunno... personally, for the puny benefits, I'd 
rather spend an hour programming a #current function than rewriting 
existing code.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:51:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: new bot command

> Alright, that answers part of my confusion -- somewhere along the
> line, the "From " header is being removed from my mail, and only
> the "From:" line remains.  The fact remains, however, that the
> "From:" header contains the original sender's address.  Is there
> some reason why that header should not be used?

The "From:" line is not really guaranteed to be easily parseable.
Although there is a standard that is followed, the "From" line is what
the computer is expected to read. The "From:" line is meant more for
humans to read.

b

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:46:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Bot:  Don't:  Panic

If you find two responses to your bot mail from this morning, the second 
is correct and the first is wrong.

- --Mohammed
running everything through a second time

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:47:29 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1675

Proposal 1675
Giving Beldin a Longer Needle
Guy Fawkes

This is a Modest proposal.  Amend Rule 939, section 1, to read:

1) They may replace any one word in the rule with a different word, and
as part of this amendment, optionally replace an article which directly
precedes the replaced word (if present) with another article. The new
word must appear in the Official Dictionary or elsewhere in the rules.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:53:13 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 115

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm, CSRR Officer

Three weeks after returning from vacation, I have finally gotten around to
re-reading the Rule Set (which is very nicely organized, by the way,
although I experienced, briefly, a minor sense of personal loss at seeing
"Palindromes Are Inherently Amusing" renamed to "Winning by Palindrome" 
which, though indisputably more descriptive, doesn't have quite the same
flavor).  In the name of Common Sense, I submit the following two minor
(but original, for once!) rule changes as CSR 115, and remind everyone
that two public objections within the next three days will prevent them
from taking place:

- --------

In R313 "Proposal Bribery", insert the word "other" before the phrase
"rule change" in the first sentance.  [Currently, the bribe paragraph must
come before any rule change in a proposal.  If a bribe were to be
considered a rule change (a description of a game effect) one might say
the bribe paragraph must come before itself, which would violate Common
Sense.]

- --------

In R405 "Speaker", replace the first sentance, which currently reads:

"This rule takes precedence over all rules." 

with 

"This rule takes precedence over all other rules."

as Common Sense would preclude a rule from taking precedence over itself.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:12:53 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 128 (fnord)

Malenkai spake thusly
> 
> fnord has been chosen.
> 
> Call for Criminal Judgement 128
>   Subject:  Illegal Game Joining
> Initiator:  /dev/joe
>     Judge:  fnord (selected Jan 23, 1997, 20:09 EST)

I accept this CFCJ.

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:01:57 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: SFJ 5 Verdict 

Agora Has judges SFJ5 to be true, collapsing the thread in which Ackanomic
was selected to deliver judgement.  There is now no Ambiguity... Ackanomic
has won the first game of internomic!

snowgod
Ambassador

>Agora Nomic
>Judgement of ICFJ 5  (formerly mislabelled CFJ 6, sorry)
>
>-----------------
>STATEMENT FOR JUDGEMENT:
>
>     Ackanomic has won the game of Internomic.
>
>-----------------
>JUDGEMENT:  "true"
>
>Rule 114 says:
>
>114.  Whatever is not forbidden is allowed, except that changing the
>      rules is only permitted when another rule allows it.
>
>If we interpret "allowed" as merely meaning something is not against the
>Rules, then the first part of the statement is utterly tautologous and
>without meaning.  Judicial construction seems to require that the entire
>Rule be given meaning if possible.
>
>As Player Favor of Agora has remarked, 'When dealing with purely
>within-Game entities like points, what could "permitted" or "allowed"
>possibly mean other than "possible"?'  Given the precise words of the Rule,
>I conclude that Ackanomic's change of Points was "allowed" and therefore
>possible.
>
>I notice another possible loophole in Rule 114, as worded:  it says that
>"changing the rules is only permitted when another rule allows it".
>However, another rule (113) does allow changing the rules.  Thus changing
>the rules is permitted.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>CHANGE OF RULES:
>
>In accordance with the above, I hereby declare that the Rules have been
>changed by enacting the following rule:
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<
>216.  The Rules may not be changed except as specified in the Rules.
>
>      Anything regulated by the Rules may only be changed as specified by
>      the Rules.
>
>      No rule change shall take effect earlier than the moment of its
>      adoption (or that of the proposal which included it), nor have any
>      retroactive application.
>
>      No game move shall have retroactive effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>NOTES:  This is not a proposal, but an actual and immediate change to the
>rules; thus it need not be voted upon.
>
>The number "216" is not part of the rule, and if for some reason this
>number cannot attach to the new rule, then the new rule has whatever number
>is assigned it by the rules, or no number.
>
>I might have gone further, but now hopefully nobody can.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>JUDGEMENT, continued:
>
>The following text is part of Agora's judgment, as specified in our Rules:
>
>Blob writes:
>
>I, for one, am rather swayed by elJefe's argument about the impossibility
>changing the scores, in spite of it's permissability (or it syllablicity!)
>I realise that Agora's game custom says otherwise, (I would have argued in
>favour of this stance, had I have been here when the issue was raised),
>but I do not see that we necessarily have to adopt the same conventions in
>Internomic.
>
>Ergo, I would judge this CFJ to be FALSE
>
>
>
>
>Oerjan writes:
>
>My suggestion is to judge it TRUE. After all, as you have pointed out (I
>never remember such things correctly), this is consistent with Agora
>Custom and CFJs on the issue - we apparently lost the argument when it was
>raised here.
>
>It seems that Ackanomic also has custom that absent any Rules everything
>in the game is possible.
>
>So far, none of the Internomic members seem to have taken the opposite
>view in their own handling of this problem of unregulated entities. So it
>seems only natural to judge this TRUE if that is what all member nomics
>would do in a similar internal situation.
>
>
>
>
>favor writes:
>
>I seem to have missed the posting (I assume it was
>posted somewhere?) of the permitted-versus-possible
>distinction.  It's probably just a matter of taste
>(to use Steve's phrase), but I think I'm agin it.
>
>When dealing with purely within-Game entities like
>points, what could "permitted" or "allowed" possibly
>mean other than "possible"?  I suppose it *could*
>mean "impossible but legal-if-only-you-could-do-it",
>but that seems like a highly nonintuitive concept,
>and only if there were some pretty explicit hint
>of such a thing in the relevant Ruleset would I
>accept it as a natural interpretation of the Rules.
>
>Let's see, a good argument on the other side of
>the coin: perhaps we can see R114 as part of a
>"Bill of Rights" of the Internomic; a promise that
>the Rules will not unfairly punish certain actions.
>In the case of R114, a promise that a Player shall
>not be deemed to have violated the Rules unless
>e has done something that the Rules explicitly
>prohibit.  Hence "allowed" meaning "not punishable".
>R114 tells us that would will not, for instance, be
>punished for constructing a Perpetual Motion Machine;
>it says nothing about whether or not such things
>are possible.  But that only makes sense with
>extra-Game entities, where we have some other
>way of knowing what's possible and what isn't.
>Without using R114, how can we tell whether or not
>adjusting your own score is possible?  R114 seems
>to be our only clue, so I think we have to
>listen to it...
>
>More evidence that the Rules should talk only
>about what's possible and what happens, and
>avoid all this silly stuff about what's legal
>and what's punishable!  *8)
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Regards,
>-- elJefe, Liaison for Agora (selected to judge)
>
>
>************************************************
>  Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso <[email-masked]>
>  Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics
>  Cambridge University
>
>  also at <[email-masked]>
>

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:08:14 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bartender 

>To:   Ackanomians
>From: mr cwm, bartender
>
>Well, this ought to be interesting, since, if I remember correctly, my
>frinking experience consists of a coke and a spring water.  All right
>then, step on up, but if you order something unusual, you might have to
>tell me how to make it, or at least tell me what category it falls in for
>billing purposes.  And let's see if we can move some of these munchies!

Exhalted Bartender,

Would you please make for me a Good Omen, shaken not stirred served in a
large hollowed out cantaloupe?

Thanks,
snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:54:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1670

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> The rules already prohibit a player from voluntarily going into debt.
> That situation would definitely fall into this category -- the extra
> language is unnecessary, IMO.  Besides, it's engineered so that the cost
> would only become substantial after there are already three or four
> Hearings sitting on Malenkai's desk; exactly the time when players need
> some reason to think twice before hitting the send key for another hearing.

I appreciate the sentiment here, but I have come up with a solution that
I believe will solve the problem without legislation.  If you feel this
amendment has value in its own right, vote for it, but do not vote for
it simply on my accord.

I personally will vote no, because I do not want to discourage hearings
*in general*.  My quibble with the latest round of hearings was with
their value added to the game (content), not their quantity, and my
complaints were in my capacity as a player, not an officer.  I realise
that was not clear at the time :(

Malenkai
appreciative and apologetic

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:03:33 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1676

Proposal 1676
Giving Ghost a Thorough Rewrite
Guy Fawkes

Create a new rule with text as follows.

{{ The rules for Ghost, a Game on the Games and Contests Page, shall be
replaced by the below text, delineated by the :) symbols 

[changes include fixing the nagging questions with protests, allowing
players to join games in progress in a limited fashion, creating a
contingency for the referee leaving, and allowing three letter words
that are real words -- with all the 3-letter "Scrabble words" in the 2nd
official dictionary, it seemed appropriate.]

:)
1. Equipment: none

2. Players: minimum -- 2; maximum -- the number of active players when
an instance of Ghost is initiated; Referees -- one

3. Beginning of game
An instance of ghost begins upon the referee sending the GamesMaster a
message expressing the intent to start a game of Ghost and listing the
players who will begin the game, and the GamesMaster publically
announcing the start of the game or as directed by other rules.

4. Rules
The referee shall randomly assign each player a different integer
ranging from 1 to N, where N is the number of players in the game. 
Player 1 shall play first, and after that, play shall proceed in order
of increasing number.  Player 1 plays again just after the turn of the
player with the highest number.  Each player's turn begins when the
previous player's ends, unless that player's play was a protest, in
which case it begins when the protest is resolved.  Each player's turn
shall last the lesser of three days or until that player plays.

At any time prior to the first turn of the player assigned the highest
number, players may be added to the game.  One wishing to be added to
the game should inform the referee of their desire to do so; the referee
shall then inform all current players of the addition.  The new player
will be assigned the number one greater than the highest number already
assigned to a player in the game.  Before the beginning of the new
player's first turn, or three days after their addition, whichever comes
first, the new player may be removed from the game if any player already
in the game protests their addition.  Players may not be added to
instances of Ghost being played as a Duel.

Players in a game of Ghost are forbidden from using dictionaries or
other reference books to aid their play.  They may use these references
for other purposes. 

In his turn, each player shall do one of the following: (1) begin a new
ghost word; (2) continue an existing ghost word; (3) protest the ghost
word; (4) resign.  Plays shall be made by sending a message describing
the play to all players and the referee.

(1) A player may only begin a new ghost word where there is no existing
ghost word, or when the previous player resigned.  He shall do so by
naming any letter of the alphabet.  Upon this action, any previously
existing ghost word is destroyed, being replaced by this letter.

(2) A player may continue an existing ghost word only when there is an
existing ghost word.  He shall do so by posting a string of letters
identical to the existing ghost word except for the addition of one
letter at either the beginning or the end of the ghost word.  This
string then becomes the new ghost word.

(3) A player who protests the ghost word shall do so by either by
stating that the ghost word is a word of four or more letters in the
official dictionary, or by stating that the ghost word cannot be found
within any word in the official dictionary.  ("uperso" can be found
within "supersonic"; "spronc" cannot.)  A protest is said to be made  
against the player whose turn caused the ghost word to be changed to its
present form.

When a player protests the ghost word, play is suspended until the
protest is resolved.  If the protest was on the grounds that the ghost
word is a word of four or more letters in the official dictionary, the
referee shall attempt to locate it therein and report his findings.  If
the ghost word is a word of four or more letters in the official
dictionary, the protest is valid; otherwise it is invalid.  Either way,
when the referee reports the validity or lack thereof of the protest, it
is considered resolved.

If the protest was on the grounds that the ghost word cannot be found
within any word in the official dicitonary, the player against whom the
protest was made has three days to post a word containing the ghost
word.  If he does not, the protest is resolved as valid.  If he does,
the referee shall attempt to locate that word in the official
dictionary, and shall report his findings.  If the named word is a word
in the official dictionary, the protest is invalid; otherwise, it is
valid.  Upon the referee reporting on the validity or lack thereof of
the protest, it is considered resolved. 

A player who makes an invalid protest is removed from the game; a player
who has a valid protest made against him is removed from the game.

(4) A player who resigns is removed from the game.  A player who does
not make a move within his turn is assumed to have resigned.

A player may remove themselves from an instance of the game at any time
by posting a message to that effect.  If it was their turn, they are
assumed to have resigned.  If they leave Ackanomic, they are assumed to
have posted such a message.

5.  Winning
If exactly one player remains in the game, that player wins.  There are
no other winning conditions.

When a winner is found, the referee shall receive 8 A$.  If this game
took place as a Duel, the winner shall receive no additional
compensation.  If it was not a Duel and fewer than four players began
the game, the winner receives four points.  If from four to eight
players began the game, the winner receives points equal to the number
of players that began the game.  If more than eight players began the
game, the winner receives 8 points.

6.  The Referee
Upon request, the referee must provide the following information: the
players in the game and their order of play, whose turn it is, the
current ghost word, and a history of the game in progress.  He may, but
is not required to, keep a web page with this information.

If the referee resigns his position, goes on vacation, or leaves the
game of Ackanomic, he is no longer the referee.  In this event, any
player of Ackanomic who is not a player of that instance of Ghost may
become referee by publically expressing his desire to do so.  While
there is no referee, the game is suspended.
:)
}}

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 18:11:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1676

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> Proposal 1676
> Giving Ghost a Thorough Rewrite
> Guy Fawkes

YEssssssssssssss!!  No parade for Malenkai this time :)

Malenkai
hiding treasure clues in parade descriptions

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:20:57 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gaoler 

I accept Bernards bribe of A$30, and release him, though I would like to
impose the following restriction oon his release :

Upon Release Bernard is to compose an original Top Ten list of the ten
funnest things to do in Gaol.

Note that no rule binds Bernard to these conditions, but it seemed like fun :)

snowgod
gaoler

Bernard -30, gaoler bribe
snowgod +30, gaoler bribe

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:18:27 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Internomic

Salutations!

	A comment of snowgod's a while back started me thinking.  He said that
he thought Internomic should join Internomic.  The only requirements for
joining are that a new player must be a nomic with a liason.  The first
is obviously met; the second would have to be satisfied by election or
consensus among the member nomics.  I personally like the idea of
Internomic being a member of itself.:)

I invite discussion.

				Regards,
					Strider

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:21:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: retraction

I am retracting Proposal 1660.
Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:23:10 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Internomic 

>Salutations!
>
>	A comment of snowgod's a while back started me thinking.

it was mr cwm, but thanks :)

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:26:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 334 Verdict

Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> I have submitted the appropriate CFJ.  However, I would like to
> quibble with Malenkai.  CFJ 334 either is or is not a Paradox Win
> CFJ. No claim in my reasoning affects this.  The statement in my
> reasoning is an observation.  If Malenkai disagrees with that
> observation then he has acted correctly.  If he agrees with it,
> however, then he has reported information known to be false, i.e.
> that the Goose has flown.

Quibble on, my ironic twin! :)

There are several things at work here.  First of all is a pet peeve of
mine where reasoning in CFJs has become part of implicit game custom.
The more the game has gone on, the more I have thought about this 
principle and found it personally something I would like to explore 
*in general*, and *counter*, if possible.  

This originally started with CFJ 113, if not earlier, and I really began
thinking about it more with CFJ 240, when ThinMan asserted that a
non-paradoxical rendering of the rules was perferrable to a paradoxical
one (with other qualifiers).  To ThinMan's credit, he prefaced that
statement with the qualifier "In my judgement"; however, it has seemed
to become part of game custom since then without vote, and over the
disagreement of at least one player.  Perhaps it becomes game custom
due to implicit acceptance of the players, but the reality to me seems
to be that it is game custom that the reasoning of CFJs becomes game
custom, and I felt like challenging that, because *that* custom was
never accepted by vote, etc.

That is the general point, and this looked like another case of that.
However, I do agree with ThinMan that he was attempting to make an
observation, and not setting game custom with his comments about whether
CFJ 334 was a paradox CFJ.  However, is he the *player* entitled to
make that observation? :)

Now, the next point is ThinMan's comments about disputing whether the
CFJ itself *is* a paradox win CFJ, and I believe there is an interesting
point here.  Being a Platonist, I don't necessarily dispute that
myself, but it is my feel that we have a very non-Platonic game custom
and ruleset.  The distinction being that we seem to be more of an "officer
decides things and the game state is as officers say" nomic rather than
an "officer reports things and the game state just is, even if all officers
shut up" nomic.  I may be wrong on that perception; but one who tries
to think in Platonic terms would see things too far towards "officers
decide things" then perhaps they actually are.

Now, on to my actual dispute with whether CFJ 334 is a paradox win CFJ.
CFJ 334 alledges the truth of the following statement:

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

Aside from some technical requirements, which were all fulfilled by the
initiator of CFJ 334,  The following, in the statement of a CFJ, 
(from R 219), is a sufficient condition for a CFJ to be a paradox win
CFJ:

> If [...] a player action which would affect the game state appears
> equally legal and illegal [...]  

It is clear that determining whether or not a CFJ is a paradox win CFJ
is an action that affects the game state (assuming an actor, otherwise
determination affects the game state).  Winning and Chartreuse Goose
transferrance are possible material effects of such a determination.
So the CFJ satisifies *that* part.

It all comes down to, in my mind, *who* is doing the determination.  If
it is Platonically a paradox win CFJ or not, then the determiner is not
a player and CFJ 334 would not qualify.  However, if the determiner is 
a player, the CFJ *does* qualify; it essentially says: 'It is impossible
for the appropriate player to determine with finality whether or not a CFJ
is a Paradox Win CFJ', and thus it qualifies.

I disputed this because I personally find this rather interesting, and
hence all my blather about determination/reporting of the game state.
If this is a determination of the game state question, CFJ 334 qualifies.
If it is a reporting issue, it does not.  I did not call the CFJ myself
because I did not have time to write this, but it seemed *intuitive* at
the time that there existed a possibility that determining whether a
CFJ was a paradox win CFJ was a game-state-affecting player action.

I draw this conclusion in part from R 405:

> (vii) If any game state information or data needs to be tracked, and
> the rules do not specify who is to track it, the Speaker is required
> to do so, and is required to make it available to any player on request
> or as needed [e.g. player locations and thread splits].

The rules are silent as to who is responsible for tracking whether CFJs
are paradox win CFJs, therefore it falls to the speaker.  I admit the
distinction between "tracking" and "determining", but in order to track
it must be *determinable*, therefore we have established some legal
basis for at least one player, the speaker, making the determination.
Even if it is Platonically determined, how does the speaker learn of 
that determination?

There is also game custom from CFJ 244 which (in its reasoning :)), 
establishes that officers have the power of judgement and determination
in matters pertaining to their duties, again lending creedence to the
possibility of rendering that "players" are doing the determination.

In any case, this is my answer to "Is CFJ 334 a paradox win CFJ".  I
claim it could be, based on the preceding, but can see the other side.
The reason for the CFJ request is that I found this argument compelling
enough to not warrant simple acceptance of ThinMan's hypothesis, and
furthermore, feel more exploration of what actually constitutes qualifying
a CFJ as a "paradox win CFJ" (not the technical points, but the 
substantive ones) something worthy of exploring, not to mention some
of the other points of this post.

If no one else cares, you probably have not read this far.  In this case,
sorry for being so wordy :)

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #480
*******************************