Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #489
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, January 29 1997      Volume 01 : Number 489

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:35:52 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine Resolution

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Congratulations ThinMan, and I hereby present you with the
> > Pedestal of *ping* for the Machine to rest on as you study it.
> > I am also giving Swann A$5; he was the only player to make an
> > incorrect guess after I posted the truth with R's incorrectly filled
> > in and before my ARRRGHH post.
> 
> I have noted the transfer of gift entities in this post.  However,
> there is a CFJ by Guy Fawkes to be distributed later claiming he
> gets the machine, meaning, simply that the Pedestal has gone to
> ThinMan, and there is a thread split as to the machine's location.
> Just wanted to clarify what may not have been assumed.
> 
> Malenkai
> Financier

By a thread split, you mean that there are now two current legal game
states?  One in which ThinMan has the machine, and one in which Guy
Fawkes has it?

			Strider

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:48:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine Resolution

Stephen McCulley wrote:

> By a thread split, you mean that there are now two current legal game
> states?  One in which ThinMan has the machine, and one in which Guy
> Fawkes has it?

Well, I have not distributed the CFJ yet, but all CFJs create a
game state thread split, one where it is assumed true, and one when
it is assumed false.  99 times out of 100 it doesn't really matter --
we just wait until one thread collapses, so I was using the expression
as ackaspeak slang to indicate the Pedestal was going to ThinMan,
even in the thread where Guy gets the machine.

I apologize for alluding to a yet-to-be distributed CFJ, but I do
things in a weird order, so I figured I'd announce it lest I forget.

As for threads, you could argue that if the CFJ takes longer than 3
days to clear the justice system, each Scholar must report a Truth,
and the OICoRT must deliver a Boon, etc, but I'm not sure we're that
strict about it...

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:15:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mad Scientist Building

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> >      Any player publicly that kisses an Tickle-Me Elmo cannot cast votes
> >      for 4 days following the kiss.  Tickle-Me Elmo may, however, munch
> >      on as many snacks as Tickle-Me Elmo likes.  A single Tickle-Me Elmo
> >      is selected from this sentence.  The holder of the Tickle-me-Elmo
> >      scores two extra points whenever one of his proposals passes.  At
> >      this Tickle-Me Elmo the Blueprint is constructed, (and is a
> >      Blueprint) and no more Parts may ever be added to it.
> 
> The Fat Lady is singing.

No, I don't win the cycle until the Mad Scientist actually finishes 
building Tickle-Me-Elmo and proclaims IT'S ALIVE!!!

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:15:02 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fat Lady ARRRRGGGGHHHH!

The cycle doesn't actually end until the monster is actually
constructed.  We have to wait for 3 days for the Mad
Scientist to exclaim "Its Alive!!" for the cycle to end.

Sorry for the confusion.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:22:14 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (/dev/joe)

/dev/joe has found Phoebe.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:33:56 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka:  Oh justr wondering

Do Scrolls of Crumble work on Tickle me
Elmo Blueprints. 

It seems rather useless to try it of
the TME itself as the cycle would be over.

Jammer

John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:41:03 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 341 (Robert Sevin)

Robert Sevin has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 341
  Subject: The Revenge of Hubert
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Robert Sevin (selected Jan 28, 1997, 21:41h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Guy Fawkes' guess as to the Machine's That Goes *ping*'s Truth on the
morning of January 28, 1997, preceded ThinMan's similar guess as to the
Truth.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

Not that I am hellbent on what was really a very cheap guess
for either of us, but it is important to know.

In the similar Hubert situation (CFJ 324, excellent reading, by the way), it
was ruled that one must use the sender's timestamp in determining the order 
of
Ackanomic actions, unless a time correction factor for the sender's
computer (via the last paragraph of R370) is in effect.  At the time of
the guesses at the truth, neither ThinMan's nor my email had a correction
factor in effect.

Since then, Proposal 1572 added this clause to the end of Rule 370 to
attempt to resolve future "Hubert" situations.

>Such corrections may be applied retroactively, provided they are
>announced within 3 days of the post or posts to which they are being
>applied. Moreover, it is a privilege of the Postmaster to post such
>corrections with respect to other players' posts, if he can factually
>determine the relevant information.

I contend that this clause does not have its intended effect; namely, it
cannot generate a retroactive effect.

>From Rule 103 (precedent over R370)
>No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
>before the generation of the effect.

When a player invokes the questionable clause of Rule 370, it attempts to
generate an effect (an email correction factor) which applies
retroactively to a time before the generation of the effect (the time at
which to correction factor was posted).

Although Proposal 1572's efforts are well-intentioned, they are null, and
that ThinMan's correction factor did not apply to his guess at the Truth.

On a side note, I question whether it is possible for the Postmaster to
_factually_ determine the correction factor using email headers.  For
simplicity's sake, let's accept for the rest of this reasoning, wilma's
time as being "correct"; whether it is or not, it gives us a frame of
reference.  Timestamps for the two messages (min:sec)

                GF              Thinman
localhost       7:23            7:37
intermediate    7:23            5:31
wilma           8:19            6:13

It is obvious that ThinMan's machine was "fast" relative to wilma, but by
how much?  The intermediates are no help; they too could be fast or
slow.  It is also possible that the uiuc machines were even faster than
ThinMan's this morning.  Furthermore, any number of system clocks could
have been adjusted in the meantime, making measurements against the
atomic clock server _now_ unreliable.

The point of this is, even if it were legal for the Postmaster to apply a
retroactive timestamp correction, there is not enough data for him to do so.
It is entirely possible (although admittedly improbable) that I did
indeed hit the "send" key before ThinMan and my message was stalled on
the wire somewhere, and that inaccurate clocks make it impossible to
determine with finality whether or not this is indeed the case.

This area needs more work.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:19:02 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Oh justr wondering

John Martin Lotz wrote:
> 
> Do Scrolls of Crumble work on Tickle me
> Elmo Blueprints.
> 
> It seems rather useless to try it of
> the TME itself as the cycle would be over.
> 
> Jammer
> 
> John-Martin Lotz
> [email-masked]

Scrolls of Crumble destroy gadgets.
A blueprint is not a gadget.
THEREFORE:
A Scroll Of Crumble cannot destroy a blueprint.

Bummer, eh?   
	-Strider

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:35:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 342 (Jammer)

Jammer has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 342
  Subject: Tickling Tickle-Me Elmo
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Jammer (selected Jan 28, 1997, 22:35h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

The Blueprint for the "Tickle-Me Elmo" either is destroyed (or does
not exist), or if it does, it is in conflict with the rules and should
be destroyed (as should any Gadgets made from it) in accordance with
Rule 594.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

There are 2 possible cases here, governed from different parts of Rule
594, *either* of which is sufficient for a verdict of TRUE.

Case I:

From R 594:

> If a new Blueprint does not (a) introduce exactly one new type of
> Gadget, (b) name the new Gadget type, and (c) unambiguously define
> the behavior of such a Gadget, it is immediately destroyed. 

From the Blueprint for "Tickle-Me Elmo":

> A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.

This part of the Blueprint causes the Blueprint to run afoul of 
clause (c) above; it does not unabiguously define the behaviour of
the Tickle-Me Elmo.  What does this mean?  It is not clear, ambigious.
I challenge the Judge to unambiguously state the behaviour.

This satisfies the first part of the boolean OR in the CFJ's statement,
and is sufficient for a verdict of TRUE, as the Blueprint is immediately
destroyed.

Case II:

Although I find the Blueprint defining ambiguous behaviour as described
above, the only reasonable rendering of the clause above to avoid 
ambiguity is to construe 'selected' to mean 'created', 'built', or
'manufactured'. 

However, from R 597:

> Only the Mad Scientist can construct anything from a Blueprint created
> by this Rule [...]

Thus the Tickle-Me Elmo, in building a Tickle-Me Elmo via the 'selected'
clause, runs afoul of the clause from R 597, and is in violation of 
the rules, and thus by the following clause in R 597 is destroyed:

> (ii) When a Blueprint is judged to be in conflict with one or more
> Rules, the Blueprint is destroyed, as are any extant Gadgets made
> from that Blueprint. 

This case is also sufficient to satisfy the boolean OR in the statement,
leading to a verict of TRUE.

In short, the sentence:

> A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.

Invalidates the Blueprint.  Ie, what does this sentence unambigiously
mean?

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:46:08 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Clair Anthony Viglione)
Subject: Re: Trinket: Jammer's Butler 

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE ACKA LIST _NOW_ IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON TO DO
SO PASS ON TO PERSON WHO CAN. SORRY IM DOING THIS SECRETELY: NO ROOM TO
ELABORATE

                        /|  /|
                        ||__||
                       /   O O\__
                      /          \
                     /      \     \    - Clair Viglione (yes, this is  what
I
                    /   _    \     \     look like!)
                   /    |\____\     \
                  /     | | | |\____/
                 /       \| | | |/ |     __
                /  /  \   -------  |_____|
               /   |   |           |       --|
               |   |   |           |_____  --|
               |<-|_|_|_|--<<<     |     \----
               /\                  |
              / /\        |        /
             / /  |       |       |
         ___/ /   |       |       |
        |____/    c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:41:08 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka:  Building a house

I, Jammer, wish to build a house on 
one of the pieces of of land that I own

I will pay the Treasury nothing for the modest
building I will build there.

I will call this building Trophy

John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:47:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: snowgod's disease???

I saw a quote of something to the effect that someone may
have called a snowgod's disease hearing against Mohammed, but
never actually saw the original message.  Did such a hearing 
call ever occur?

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:44:22 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: G&C proposal 107 

>On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
>
>>
>> submitted by /dev/joe
>>
>>
>> Tromino Go
>>
>> Credits:
>> Original game by Sid Sackson; published in the June 1994 issue of
>> Games magazine.  Adapted for e-mail play by /dev/joe.
>
>
>I endorse this.
>
>Niccolo Flychuck

AS do I!

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:45:57 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Mad Scientist Building 

>Steven A. Swiniarski wrote:
>>
>> I have assembled the blueprint for Tickle-Me Elmo!
>> The last part submitted by my humble servant Igor--
>> er (ahem)-- Guy Fawkes has made it so any new part
>> would be rejected IMHO.  I am now constructing this
>> monster. Bwahahah!

Oh, and I'd just designed the percfect piece.  Oh well, perhaos for the
next monster.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:50:40 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official - Fictionary 

>So we need to know who submitted #6 now.
>

I submitted #6.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:37:35 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Resign 

Though I do not know if Habeous Corpus will see this or not, I wish to let
him know that it has been a huge pleasure playing Acknaomic with him and I
wish him all the best.  Please, oh please, come back soon.

snowgod

BTW, If it has not already been done, I nominate Habeous Corpus for the
Hall of Elders.  If it has been done, I second this nomination.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:59:32 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE ackanomic 

>--
>
>[email-masked] has unsubscribed from ackanomic.
>No action is required on your part.

I contend that Clairence has illegally unsubscribewd himself from the
Ackanomic lists without resigning from the game first.  Does anyone else
construe his messagees "which was obviously a case of snowgod's disease
though I cannot tell who it was aimed at) as a resignation?

Shall I submit the CFCJ?

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:00:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE ackanomic

>> [email-masked] has unsubscribed from ackanomic.
>> No action is required on your part.
> 
> I contend that Clairence has illegally unsubscribewd himself from
> the Ackanomic lists without resigning from the game first.  Does
> anyone else construe his messagees "which was obviously a case of
> snowgod's disease though I cannot tell who it was aimed at) as a
> resignation?

Was Clairence even an active player? I seem to remember that at the
time e joined, one had to vote to become active. (Maybe we should have
left it that way.)

b

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:03:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 342 (Jammer)

> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 342
>   Subject: Tickling Tickle-Me Elmo
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: Jammer (selected Jan 28, 1997, 22:35h EST)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The Blueprint for the "Tickle-Me Elmo" either is destroyed (or does
> not exist), or if it does, it is in conflict with the rules and should
> be destroyed (as should any Gadgets made from it) in accordance with
> Rule 594.

The blueprint reads:

     Any player publicly that kisses an Tickle-Me Elmo cannot cast votes
     for 4 days following the kiss.  Tickle-Me Elmo may, however, munch
     on as many snacks as Tickle-Me Elmo likes.  A single Tickle-Me Elmo
     is selected from this sentence.  The holder of the Tickle-me-Elmo
     scores two extra points whenever one of his proposals passes.  At
     this Tickle-Me Elmo the Blueprint is constructed, (and is a
     Blueprint) and no more Parts may ever be added to it.

I was going to debate this one differently, over the issue that the last
sentence of the blueprint doesn't preclude additional pieces being added,
as the sentence has no power until the blueprint is actually complete, 
and by *that* time it will be true by the rules anyway, even if other
sentences are added to the Blueprint-to-be in the meantime.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:04:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE ackanomic

Phil Ackley wrote:

> I contend that Clairence has illegally unsubscribewd himself from the
> Ackanomic lists without resigning from the game first.  Does anyone else
> construe his messagees "which was obviously a case of snowgod's disease
> though I cannot tell who it was aimed at) as a resignation?

E was on vacation.  I do not have the rules handy, but I seem to remember
that a player on vacation is permitted to not be subscribed.  That
may be a different issue from being permitted to unsubscribe :)

Malenkai
tired

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:07:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE ackanomic

snowgod wrote:
> > I contend that Clairence has illegally unsubscribewd himself from
> > the Ackanomic lists without resigning from the game first.  Does
> > anyone else construe his messagees "which was obviously a case of
> > snowgod's disease though I cannot tell who it was aimed at) as a
> > resignation?

Clairence is on vacation (on ice, actually) so he has not committed
a crime, unless it is posting a public message while on vacation.

breadbox wrote:
> Was Clairence even an active player? I seem to remember that at the
> time e joined, one had to vote to become active. (Maybe we should have
> left it that way.)

Clairence became active on Proposal 1511, back on December 15.

/dev/joe
pointlogs are so useful

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:01:24 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Trinket: Jammer's Butler

Clair Anthony Viglione wrote on Tuesday, January 28, 1997 7:46 PM

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE ACKA LIST _NOW_ IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON TO DO
SO PASS ON TO PERSON WHO CAN. SORRY IM DOING THIS SECRETELY: NO ROOM TO
ELABORATE

                        /|  /|
                        ||__||
                       /   O O\__
                      /          \
                     /      \     \    - Clair Viglione (yes, this is  what
I
                    /   _    \     \     look like!)
                   /    |\____\     \
                  /     | | | |\____/
                 /       \| | | |/ |     __
                /  /  \   -------  |_____|
               /   |   |           |       --|
               |   |   |           |_____  --|
               |<-|_|_|_|--<<<     |     \----
               /\                  |
              / /\        |        /
             / /  |       |       |
         ___/ /   |       |       |
        |____/    c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c

What is this, pick on Jammer week <VBG>

Anyway I don't believe he exists

> It is a small humanoid figure 1.25 meters tall wearing a dark suit and a 
> grave expression.  It introduces players, looks down its nose at player's
> who are not properly dressed, gives a tie to such players, and offers
them
> canapes.
	This sounds like a Creature.
	Trinkets can't carry things around and don't have behavior in the
sense of giving ties to people.  The above is great as a description as
long as you understand it's *only* a description and doesn't give the
Butler the ability actually to hand out ties.
	No Creatures yet exist.  Malenkai sneaked the word "Creature" 
into the Inventor rule some time ago, as a rider to a more important fix; 
but the word has been largely ignored.  When I say the Butler sounds 
like a Creature, what I mean is that some time ago I drafted a proposal 
to allow Players to build Creatures that are able to (for example) hand 
things out, just as your Butler seems to want to do.
	Unfortunately, it never got proposed; it seemed like a lot of 
bookkeeping.  I'll dig it out again, though, just for giggles... if I can 
find it.
	I'm also going to bring out Pinkerton again, in a more useful 
form-- less weird syntax.  If I ever get around to it.
	Gotta go.

- --Mohammed
- --Mohammed

time stamp was 1-02-97 2:36 PM

Regards
Jammer
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:10:33 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 343 (snowgod)

snowgod has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 343
  Subject: Building
Initiator: Jammer
    Judge: snowgod (selected Jan 28, 1997, 23:10h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Jammer should be allowed to build his house.

Jammer's Reasoning:

Basically, there is no rule against it.

According to Rule 101/1
The Game of Ackanomic

     Ackanomic is a self-modifying game of rules. All players must always
abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then
in
     effect, and interpreted in accordance with current game custom.

     The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
rules. Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and shall only
     have those effects, as specified by the rules. Whatever is not
explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however, is permitted and
     unregulated. Game custom, spirit of the game, and linguistic
interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated or part of the
game state.

     The game consists of a sequence of "Cycles". Cycles end when specified
by the Rules. At most one Cycle is in progress at any one time. A
     player may only win a Cycle by achieving a winning condition that is
defined by the Rules. A player may not win the Game of Ackanomic. A
     player always has the option to leave the Game of Ackanomic.

     This rule has precedence over all other rules.

Within the Rules there are rules regarding the size of buildings
Rule 839/6
Buildings
Calvin N Hobbes (Thierry Joffrain)

     A building is a class of entity in Ackanomic which can be of six
sizes:

          small (aka cramped or puny) (1 land unit)
          cosy (2 land units)
          classy (4 land units)
          lavish (6 land units)
          sumptuous (9 land units)
          extravagant (12 land units)

     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.

which does not refer in any way to how to build a building, as well as
rules
covering the size of thing that has some revelaence to the subject of
buildings

Rule 1519/0
The Size of Things
Jammer (John Lotz)

     I wish to make a modest proposal.

     All Items in Acka have a size measured in thingees.

     Negligible 0 Thingees
     Small 1 Thingees
     Medium 2 Thingees
     Large 4 Thingees
     Huge 5 Thingees
     Really Huge 6 Thingees

     The significance of this is that all structures and land have a
capacity measured in Thingees as well;
     A Space in a structure holds 10 Thingees.
     A Kaa of land holds 25 Thingees.
     A Tower holds 6 Thingees.

Once again there is no element of description of how to build one.

Additionally there are references to houses in
Rule 252/1
Joining the Game
Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin)

     For the purposes of this rule, a player whose most recent departure
from Ackanomic prompted the creation of an Undead is considered a
     Returning player. All other players are considered New.

     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.

     Upon the registration of a New player, the following procedure takes
place, in the order shown.

     1) The New player is granted 1 kaa of urban land and a Small building
thereupon as their legal residence. This building shall be known as their
     Home. This building shall also be known as "player name's House",
where "player name" is replaced by their official Ackanomic name. A player
     may change the name of this building by publically announcing the new
name and unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename.

     2) The New player is paid from the Treasury the average A$balance of
all other extant players.

     3) The New player is given 100 newly created PFBonds associated with
himself. The Financier shall assign a label that may be used to refer to
     the PFBonds associated with the New player, although this procedure
may continue without waiting for him to do so.

     4) The Registrar shall select a Mentor for the new player. The Mentor
receives A$25 from the Treasury.

     A person able to join the game as a Returning player may do so by
posting a public message to that effect. This message must include their
     Ackanomic and real life names, as well as a valid email address. The
Registrar shall then record their return to the players list.

     Upon the registration of a Returning player, the following procedure
takes place:

     1) The Undead created in response to their most recent departure from
Acka, who bears the Ackanomic name that player had immediately prior
     to his most recent departure from Acka, transfers all entities it is
haunting to the Returning player. These entities are now no longer haunted.

     2) That Undead is destroyed.

     3) All Bond Promissories in that player's real life name are converted
to PFBonds associated with that player. Their label is the same as the
     PFBonds whose conversion created the Bond Promissories.

     4) If the player left during the current cycle, his score is the
minimum of 0 and the score he had upon last leaving the game. Otherwise,
his score is
     -15N, where N is the number of cycles he has won. If this causes his
score to be negative, he is given a Victory Eggplant, and his Eggplant
     Weight is set to -15N, where N is defined as above.

While the appropriate section of this rule
 1) The New player is granted 1 kaa of urban land and a Small building
thereupon as their legal residence. This building shall be known as their
     Home. This building shall also be known as "player name's House",
where "player name" is replaced by their official Ackanomic name. A player
     may change the name of this building by publically announcing the new
name and unambiguously identifying the building they wish to rename;

does seem to mention the creation of a house, neither states how this is
accomplished nor does it preclude any
other method of doing so.

Other mentions to buildings and houses and structu mention the size of a
building, not anything about how to build it.

At the same time it should be noted that there are rules on how to create
trinkets, blueprints and the like to provide a means to
make them, so it cannot be argued that it is emmpossible or there was
neither time nor room to concider it.

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:13:38 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Proposal 326 

>The Senate has decided to vote YES on Internomic Proposal 326.
>
>Note that Habeous Corpus did not vote before he left, and that the
>Speaker will need to appoint an Acting Senator.
>
>breadbox
>Senator, seat Sinecure 33

I was not subscribed to the Acka-senate list so I don't know if this counts
as a formal vote, but in my position as Acting senator, it was my intention
to suport Internomic P326.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:18:43 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE ackanomic 

>Was Clairence even an active player? I seem to remember that at the
>time e joined, one had to vote to become active. (Maybe we should have
>left it that way.)
>
>b

While I was Tabulator clairence voted twice.  I don't recall the Proposal
numbers, but it was on the two proposals that he submitted.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:19:56 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:CFJ 342

Salutations!
Malenkai wrote:

> In short, the sentence:
> 
> > A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.
> 
> Invalidates the Blueprint.  Ie, what does this sentence unambigiously
> mean?

I'm afraid that I must differ with you.  If one instead construes the
phrase "is selected" to mean "is chosen" (which to me seems more
intuitive), then the sentence is not ambiguous or illegal, merely
irrelevant.  The Tickle-Me Elmo selects an occurance of the phrase
"Tickle-Me Elmo from the sentence "A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected
from this sentence."  and does nothing with it.  Silly, irrelevant, but
not ambiguous.

			Regards,
				Strider

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:24:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harfmeister

I am declaring the following proposals Harfy:

P 1647: snowgod's haiku
P 1685: [Pinnochio's Nose], despite the fact that the proposal is
Americo-centric in its potential requirement that a player learn
the English system of measurement in some detail.

Malenkai
Harfmeister
pro-metric

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:31:35 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:CFJ 342

Stephen McCulley wrote:

> > In short, the sentence:
> >
> > > A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.
> >
> > Invalidates the Blueprint.  Ie, what does this sentence unambigiously
> > mean?
> 
> I'm afraid that I must differ with you.  If one instead construes the
> phrase "is selected" to mean "is chosen" [...]

Would not the fact that we are debating the construction indicate
ambiguity ? :)

Malenkai
clearly ambiguous

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:37:38 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:CFJ 342

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Stephen McCulley wrote:
> 
> > > In short, the sentence:
> > >
> > > > A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.
> > >
> > > Invalidates the Blueprint.  Ie, what does this sentence unambigiously
> > > mean?
> >
> > I'm afraid that I must differ with you.  If one instead construes the
> > phrase "is selected" to mean "is chosen" [...]
> 
> Would not the fact that we are debating the construction indicate
> ambiguity ? :)
> 
> Malenkai
> clearly ambiguous

	DOH!  One-Love.

       -Strider

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:47:58 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 341 (Robert Sevin) 

At 09:41 PM 1/28/97 -0500, Malenkai wrote:
>Robert Sevin has been chosen.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 341
>  Subject: The Revenge of Hubert
>Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>    Judge: Robert Sevin (selected Jan 28, 1997, 21:41h EST)
>Judgement:

I decline to judge.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:54:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:CFJ 342

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Stephen McCulley wrote:
> 
> > > In short, the sentence:
> > >
> > > > A single Tickle-Me Elmo is selected from this sentence.
> > >
> > > Invalidates the Blueprint.  Ie, what does this sentence unambigiously
> > > mean?
> > 
> > I'm afraid that I must differ with you.  If one instead construes the
> > phrase "is selected" to mean "is chosen" [...]
> 
> Would not the fact that we are debating the construction indicate
> ambiguity ? :)

The rules do not require that a Blueprint be unambiguous.  They require 
that it unambigously define the behavior of the Gadget it describes.  I 
can find no interpretation of that sentence which provides any 
information about the behavior of a Tickle-Me-Elmo.  There is only one 
Tickle-Me-Elmo in that sentence; thus, that word is selected, whatever 
that means; and the sentence has no bearing on the behavior of a 
Tickle-Me-Elmo.

If a Blueprint contains the phrase, "This Gadget is some color, either 
red or blue, possibly changing from time to time," the behavior of the 
Gadget is not unambiguous unless its behavior depends on its color, which 
is ambiguous.  Likewise, the behavior of the the Tickle-Me-Elmo is 
unaffected by the "selection" of a given locution within its Blueprint; 
only if another part of its Blueprint introduced a behavior dependent on 
"selection" would the ambiguity or lack thereof affect its behavior.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:22:51 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 341 (Niccolo Flychuck)

Niccolo Flychuck has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 341
  Subject: The Revenge of Hubert
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Robert Sevin (declined)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jan 29, 1997, 00:23h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Guy Fawkes' guess as to the Machine's That Goes *ping*'s Truth on the
morning of January 28, 1997, preceded ThinMan's similar guess as to the
Truth.

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

Not that I am hellbent on what was really a very cheap guess
for either of us, but it is important to know.

In the similar Hubert situation (CFJ 324, excellent reading, by the way), it
was ruled that one must use the sender's timestamp in determining the order
of
Ackanomic actions, unless a time correction factor for the sender's
computer (via the last paragraph of R370) is in effect.  At the time of
the guesses at the truth, neither ThinMan's nor my email had a correction
factor in effect.

Since then, Proposal 1572 added this clause to the end of Rule 370 to
attempt to resolve future "Hubert" situations.

>Such corrections may be applied retroactively, provided they are
>announced within 3 days of the post or posts to which they are being
>applied. Moreover, it is a privilege of the Postmaster to post such
>corrections with respect to other players' posts, if he can factually
>determine the relevant information.

I contend that this clause does not have its intended effect; namely, it
cannot generate a retroactive effect.

>From Rule 103 (precedent over R370)
>No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
>before the generation of the effect.

When a player invokes the questionable clause of Rule 370, it attempts to
generate an effect (an email correction factor) which applies
retroactively to a time before the generation of the effect (the time at
which to correction factor was posted).

Although Proposal 1572's efforts are well-intentioned, they are null, and
that ThinMan's correction factor did not apply to his guess at the Truth.

On a side note, I question whether it is possible for the Postmaster to
_factually_ determine the correction factor using email headers.  For
simplicity's sake, let's accept for the rest of this reasoning, wilma's
time as being "correct"; whether it is or not, it gives us a frame of
reference.  Timestamps for the two messages (min:sec)

                GF              Thinman
localhost       7:23            7:37
intermediate    7:23            5:31
wilma           8:19            6:13

It is obvious that ThinMan's machine was "fast" relative to wilma, but by
how much?  The intermediates are no help; they too could be fast or
slow.  It is also possible that the uiuc machines were even faster than
ThinMan's this morning.  Furthermore, any number of system clocks could
have been adjusted in the meantime, making measurements against the
atomic clock server _now_ unreliable.

The point of this is, even if it were legal for the Postmaster to apply a
retroactive timestamp correction, there is not enough data for him to do so.
It is entirely possible (although admittedly improbable) that I did
indeed hit the "send" key before ThinMan and my message was stalled on
the wire somewhere, and that inaccurate clocks make it impossible to
determine with finality whether or not this is indeed the case.

This area needs more work.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:43:57 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Wall Submission 

At 11:23 PM on 1/27/97, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Vote for Absurdity!  Support Recursive Loops!
>
> snowgod

  And use as many MRAs as you can!  (Oh, what?  MRA-referencing-acronym).

- -Red Barn

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #489
*******************************