Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #481
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Saturday, January 25 1997      Volume 01 : Number 481

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:38:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gaoler

Phil Ackley wrote:

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

Bernard also owes a public apology.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 02:55:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : snowgod - Red Barn Limerick Duel

The snowgod - Red Barn Duel of Limericks has ended and I declare snowgod
to be the victor with 8 votes to Red Barn's 7.

snowgod +6
Calvin N Hobbes+3
Red Barn -6
/dev/joe -3

Red Barn (7)
- ---------
/dev/joe
Strider
Bascule
ThinMan
fnord
Lestrade
mr cwm

snowgod (8)
- --------
Malenkai
Guy Fawkes
Swann
Evil Ballot Stuffer
snowgod
Niccolo Flychuck
Haeous Corpus
Calvin N Hobbes

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:05:41 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Polish Translator 

>X-Authentication-Warning: kimbark.uchicago.edu: mjhardin owned process
doing -bs
>Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:58:41 -0600 (CST)
>From: Harvey Harfblah <[email-masked]>
>X-Sender: [email-masked]
>Reply-To: Harvey Harfblah <[email-masked]>
>To: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: Read this (it's about Polish)
>
>> Hey Matt, Ackanomic might need your services. Since I know you are a
>> masterful linguist, I thought you might enjoy this assignment. Let me know
>> what you think:
>> 
>> --- Begin Message ---
>.
>.
>.
>> --- End Message ---
>
>> What do you think?
>
>Sure thing. I'll translate what I can. And if a reply is required, I'll
>try and make it legible. The only problem is that some characters that are
>in the Polish language do not appear on a keyboard. I think they're
>contained in the ASCII character (ALT-***) hamster, though.
>
>In short, I'll be happy to help the cause of Harf and Acka.
>
>						Going to class now,
>							Matt
>
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:05:01 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 338 (Niccolo Flychuck)

Niccolo Flychuck has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 338
  Subject: Paradox Win CFJs
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 24, 1997, 20:04h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

CFJ 334 was not a Paradox Win CFJ.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The statement submitted for judgement number 334 was:
>It is impossible to determine with finality whether or not a CFJ is a
>Paradox Win CFJ.

Rule 219 defines a Paradox Win CFJ this way:
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.

Rule 211 may provide a supplemental definition of a Paradox Win CFJ,
but no CFJ will satisfy R 211's definition while not satisfying
R 219's.

CFJ 334 did not claim that further play was impossible, nor that rule
changes were impossible.  Malenkai has argued that the statement
would qualify under the third category, but I do not understand how
he supports that position.  Red Barn did not claim or argue that it
is illegal to submit a Paradox Win CFJ, nor that it is legal.  Rather,
he claimed and argued that the definition of "Paradox Win CFJ" is
indeterminate.  There is no player action in question, and no claim
of indeterminate legality -- only a claim of indeterminate definition.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:08:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 339 (Jammer)

Jammer has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 339
  Subject: Leaving the Game
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Jammer (selected Jan 24, 1997, 20:09h EST)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Assuming the revelation in the post quoted below is true, that post
resulted in Eponimondas leaving the game.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

The relevant post:

>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:35:40 -0500
>From: [email-masked] (Zelda B. Morris)
>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

>From Rule 250:A player is any person who is registered as a player.

I assert that, if the revelation of this post is true (all mail from
Eponimondas and the non-players neitzsche and Joan of Arkansas was indeed
from the same person), the action of leaving the game, apparently taken
by Joan of Arkansas and neitsche, was actually taken by Eponimondas, who
left the game as a result of this post.

The act of leaving Acka was taken by the person (who for lack of a beter
name I shall call "Zelda") in this post.  "Zelda" was a person registered
as a player, more specifically registered as a player under the Ackanomic
name Eponimondas.  In this post, she resigned from the game, and as a
result was no longer registered as a player; more specifically, she was
no longer registered under the player name Eponimondas, and so
Eponimondas was no longer a player.

The fact that for some unknown reason she erroneously signed her name
Joan of Arkansas instead of Eponimondas in her resignation message is
immaterial to this argument.  "Zelda" was a person who was registered as
a player; as a result of this post, she became deregistered.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:13:24 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : snowgod - Red Barn Limerick Duel

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> The snowgod - Red Barn Duel of Limericks has ended and I declare snowgod
> to be the victor with 8 votes to Red Barn's 7.

> snowgod (8)

> Evil Ballot Stuffer

This is neither a hearing nor an election, therefore the EBS cannot
vote.  Taking away the EBS vote makes it 7/7, so the tiebreaker would
apply, and I remember not who was first.  Also, did you take the
holiday into account for the voting period?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:17:59 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 340 (Niccolo)

Niccolo Flychuck has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 340
  Subject: Player Registration
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 24, 1997, 20:17h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Assuming the revelation given in the post quoted below in
Reasoning is true, neither Eponimondas nor neitzsche ever registered as
players.

Guy Fawkes' Reasoning:

The relevant post:

>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:35:40 -0500
>From: [email-masked] (Zelda B. Morris)
>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

>From Rule 251:A person wishing to join the game, and who cannot do so as a Returning
player, should notify the Registrar, providing a valid email address,
their real name, and the legal Ackanomic name they wish to play under.
Upon them providing this information, should the requested name indeed be
a legal Ackanomic name, the Registrar shall post a public
message announcing the new player and providing their Ackanomic name,
real name, and email address, and if the prospective player provided it,
how they discovered the game.  Upon the posting of such an announcement,
the person becomes registered as a player.

Assuming the post quoted above is true (that one person, for lack of a
better name here known as "Zelda," on three separate occasions attempted
to register as an Ackanomic player, under the names Eponimondas,
neitzsche, and Joan of Arkansas respectively, and that "Zelda Morris" is
indeed that person's name), then on the first two occasions, her attempt
to register failed miserably.

To wit, "Zelda" failed to provide the minimum information necessary to
become registered as a player: on the first two occasions, she did not
provide her real name, instead providing the pseudonyms Adam Gesher and
Moses Rojas.

As a result, the Registrar did not post a proper message announcing their
admission to Ackanomic: the messages which at one time appeared to serve
this purpose did not actually contain the player's real name, and as a
result, neither Eponimondas nor neitzsche ever became a player.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:23:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 338 (Niccolo Flychuck)

Malenkai wrote:

> Call For Judgement 338
> Subject: Paradox Win CFJs

> ThinMan's Reasoning:

> Malenkai has argued that the statement would qualify under the
> third category, but I do not understand how he supports that position.

Rather than repost my lengthy blather on the matter under the
Bronze Torch rule, I simply ask the Judge to read and consider that
post, not only because its right, but because its fun to have
alternative arguments :)

Malenkai
just kidding

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:35:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Limerick Hearing

Using the Evil Ballot Stuffer on a Hearing! Oh, really. Is nothing
sacred?

I am sneering.

b

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:55:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1676

> Proposal 1676
> Giving Ghost a Thorough Rewrite

> (1) A player may only begin a new ghost word where there is no existing
> ghost word, or when the previous player resigned. 

Is this an *option* in the case when a player resigns?  In the section
where players resign, I saw no mention of the fact that the ghost
word is destroyed.  I like the idea of the ghost word being destroyed
when a player resigns; if that is your intent, the language should be
more explicit.  If that is not your intent, your intent should be
clarified.

> 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.

So, if a protest is lodged, a player will be "removed from the game".
When a player is "removed from the game", are they deemed to have
resigned?  I guess I would say no, but I would prefer some explicit
language to that effect as well, especially if resignation results in
a new ghost word, as above.

Per my first paragraph above, I would like to see the ghost word destroyed
in some of these cases.  For example, if a challenge alledging the ghost
word is in the official dictionary is successful, I would like to see
the ghost word destroyed.  Otherwise, the player to the figurative "right"
of the player posting such a word wins the game, regardless of the 
number of players.

The other case is the killer word syndrome, where a player plays 
a word that is not in the offical dictionary, yet all the plays would
either result in a word in the OD, or a non-OD substring.  In this
case, resignation gets rid of the word if you follow my advice above,
but I would like to see a challenge of type 'that is not a substring of
an official word' which fails nuke the ghost word as well.

I guess I would like to see any challenge destroy the ghost word, except
the case of a player alledging the word is in the official dictionary,
and that challenge being invalid.

Malenkai
has won acka's only IRC ghost game (that I know of, anyway)

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:53:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: acka : snowgod - Red Barn Limerick Duel

Malenkai wrote:
> Uri Bruck wrote:
> > The snowgod - Red Barn Duel of Limericks has ended and I declare snowgod
> > to be the victor with 8 votes to Red Barn's 7.
> 
> > snowgod (8)
> > Evil Ballot Stuffer
> 
> This is neither a hearing nor an election, therefore the EBS cannot
> vote.  Taking away the EBS vote makes it 7/7, so the tiebreaker would
> apply, and I remember not who was first.  Also, did you take the
> holiday into account for the voting period?

Red Barn's limerick was posted first.

Red Barn's posted his limerick at Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:50:18 -0500.
snowgod posted his limerick at Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:45:32 -0900.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 18:48:53 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka:  CFJ 339  Being Chosen

I accept 

Jammer

John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:02:34 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1676

Malenkai wrote:
> Malenkai
> has won acka's only IRC ghost game (that I know of, anyway)

You want to start another?

			Strider

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:04:05 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Internomic

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> >Salutations!
> >
> >       A comment of snowgod's a while back started me thinking.
> 
> it was mr cwm, but thanks :)

		My apologies to mr cwm( is that Welsh?) for misatributing this.:(

			Strider

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:41:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1676

Stephen McCulley wrote:

> > has won acka's only IRC ghost game (that I know of, anyway)
> 
> You want to start another?

I cannot IRC tonite, but possibly can tomorrow night.  I'll ref a
real game of acka ghost if players want.  If 4 or more players respond
to this post by 18:00 tomorrow (saturday) wanting to play ghost,
I will ref it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:47:25 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 128 Verdict

CFCJ 128 has been judged TRUE.  The actual penalties were as /dev/joe
suggested.  However, depending on the outcome of other CFJs on this
matter, the financial aspects of this matter are still in doubt.

For example, there is a CFJ alledging that Eponimondas never 
registered as a player, therefore the FINE could not be paid to
/dev/joe, I would guess.  Unravelling the financial matters may be
tricker than originally thought.

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:  TRUE

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.

fnord's Reasoning:

According to the admission of one of the three 'players' in
question, that they are all the same person in real life.
>From this fact, it is obvious that a player committed a Crime.The player that committed the crime is the first 'player' that
signed up for this game, as e is the player that then went
on to break the rules by signing up twice more, under other
names.

Thankfully, it is not up to me to determine if Eponimondas
is still in the game or not, but my take on the 'resignation',
is that it referred only to the player 'Joan of Arkansas', since
it was posted in a message signed by that 'player'.

Penalty:

I accept the suggestion of /dev/joe, and hereby proclaim the penalty to be:

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:50:08 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Acka: Bartender Order

After all this mail--

I'd like some salt, a lemon, quartered, and three shots of Tequila.

No munchies, unless the worm counts.

Swann

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:59:56 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Steven A. Swiniarski)
Subject: Re: Acka: Limerick Hearing

>
>Using the Evil Ballot Stuffer on a Hearing! Oh, really. Is nothing
>sacred?
>
>I am sneering.
>
>b
>
>
>
I apologize, it was a reflex to all the other watnots I've been voting
on, muscle spasm, really!

Swann
pouring water on his EBS to cool it off.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:04:21 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1676 

>Stephen McCulley wrote:
>
>> > has won acka's only IRC ghost game (that I know of, anyway)
>>
>> You want to start another?
>
>I cannot IRC tonite, but possibly can tomorrow night.  I'll ref a
>real game of acka ghost if players want.  If 4 or more players respond
>to this post by 18:00 tomorrow (saturday) wanting to play ghost,
>I will ref it.
>
>Malenkai

I'll play IRC ghost (and regular ghost if without me there would be less
than four players).

snowgod

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

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 21:04:07 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1676

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Stephen McCulley wrote:
> 
> > > has won acka's only IRC ghost game (that I know of, anyway)
> >
> > You want to start another?
> 
> I cannot IRC tonite, but possibly can tomorrow night.  I'll ref a
> real game of acka ghost if players want.  If 4 or more players respond
> to this post by 18:00 tomorrow (saturday) wanting to play ghost,
> I will ref it.
> 
> Malenkai

Count me in!

		Strider

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #481
*******************************