Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #482
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Sunday, January 26 1997       Volume 01 : Number 482

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 00:30:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Duel Robert Sevin - Breadbox

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

I am voting in favor of breadbox.

breadbox
no surprises

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 03:02:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: More Postmaster

Mail to observer [email-masked] is also bouncing "no such user".
Once again I am exercising my privilege to move him to the digest list.

/dev/joe
Postmaster

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 12:45:18 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : snowgod - Red Barn Limerick Duel

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, 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?
> 
> Malenkai
>

The voting period ended before the Holiday.

Red Barn posted eir Limerick first, so in that case, e would win the Duel.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

Niccolo Flychuck
GamesMaster 

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 23:39:10 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Chalice of the Palace

As I've mentioned before, the map for this treasure is out on the web.
The URL is 
http://www.actcom.co.il/~bruck/acka/********.txt

I think with all the information posted thus far, and in a couple of posts
to come, anyone should be able to at least know what the map is, even if
they do not find the treasure

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 23:55:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Happy Birthday Ackanomic - Presidential Address

Greeting, citizens of Ackanomic.

A couple of days ago we celebrated a very significant day in the history
of Ackanomic, it's first anniversary. Most of us, in fact, all but one, if
I am not mistaken, were not there on that momentous day when Ackanomic
first came to be, but we have all contributed to its growth during the
time we were here, and have made it our own, the collective creation of
our minds. Together through crises and paradoci we have grown, and from an
a young rash nomic we evolved into a mature, wise and experienced nomic,
achieved fame through out nomic space. We have become a standard bearer
for other nomics to follow.

There are many things that treasure, such as headwear, our history and the
naming of names. It is through learning our history that we should develop
an insight of what the future might bring, and no less significant is the
history of names and the textualization of their meanings. 

We have achieved somethings that not many nomics can boast of. 

Recently, a sudden email flood started, not unlike the one that greeted me
when I first came to Ackanomic around March, which didn't stop until May.
I am happy to say that the last couple of days everything calmed down back
to normal, players are showing restraint, and I congratulate you for this.
We are demonstrating that we can be responsible players, and letting the
world know that Ackanomic can be a responsible nomic.

I hope that both I and Ackanomic shall be here for Ackanomic's second
Anniversary, and that we shall have both the insight and the foresight to
give room for growth, and no less important - 
Let there be Harf.

Niccolo Flychuck
President

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

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 21:45:24 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSRs 115 & 116

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm, CSRR Officer

Well, I've managed to do it again (I promise I had the reference right in
my handwritten original).  CSR 115 mis-specifies the location of the
change to Proposal Bribery, so I hereby retract it, as is permitted for
miscellaneous submissions.  Additionally, I submit the following corrected
version as CSR 116.  Sorry for the confusion. 

- --------

In R313 "Proposal Bribery", insert the word "other" before the phrase
"rule change" in the first sentance of paragraph IV.A.  [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: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:09:37 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 334 Verdict

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

[snip]
>
>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.
>

I think the part about it becoming game custom because it is accepted by
the players is very important.  In addition, it seems to me that it is
applied on a case by case basis, so that only certain CFJ reasonings are
accepted as game custom.  I'm not sure *that's* a good thing, but it's
very powerful, and I'm not sure trying to get away from it might not make
things worse.  Actually, I'm not sure anything *can* be done about it.  If
the players accept a reasoning as the interpretation of a certain rule,
that's pretty much what the rule *means*, regardless of what it *says*.

>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.
>

I think the game state is what it is, but often what it is is unclear.  An
officer is most likely to realize this first, in the course of performing
their duties, and if other players disagree with the officer's best
determination, I think the CFJ is a necessary and appropriate method of
determining what the game state is.

[snip]

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

Well, I did read some parts more carefully than others, but those parts
were quite interesting.

- -mr cwm

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #482
*******************************