Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #490
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Wednesday, January 29 1997      Volume 01 : Number 490

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:06:12 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Resign - Habous Corpus 

At 8:27 PM on 1/28/97, Uri Bruck wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:
>
> >
> > I also nominate Habeous Corpus for the Hall of Elders.
> >
> > Guy Fawkes
> >
> I join the nomination of Habeous Corpus for the Hall of Elders

  I do, too.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:14:08 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Misc/some official 

> Guy Fawkes's address, etc.  Another observer's mail is bouncing, and is
> getting moved to the digest list: [email-masked]

  That was an account I set up in case anything ever went wrong with my
email (as it's done twice since last monday, already).  I appreciate the
moving to the digest list - wonder why I didn't think of that.  Ironically,
last night both my regular and alternate accounts went down
simultaneously... both should be back up, now.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:19:26 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: G&C proposal 107 

> A No Man's Land is any area of empty space completely surrounded by
> trominoes.

  "surrounded" needs definition, I think - I could place a single piece on
the board and claim it surrounded the entire remainder of the board!

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:21:59 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: Mad Scientist Building 

>      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 think this refers to the ambiguous Blueprint, not to _this_ blueprint,
so it should be possible to add more parts.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:33:07 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure Map Fragment 

> Umm, no.  This _           _  is no comment.  Yours was merely a comment
> about how you weren't commenting.:)  That, of course, revealed more than
> if you'd actually answered my question!!  BWAHAHAHA!!

  Actually, "This" is a pronoun.

  This: "            " is no comment.
  This: "!T" is no tea.
  This: "_             _" is nothing more than two underscores separated by
spaces.

  Say what you mean :)

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:39:50 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official - Fictionary 

> So it appears that HC broke the rules.  As I recall, Habeous Corpus
> had no web access, so it is possible that he looked it up in some other
> dictionary.

  For the record, it's possible to get full internet access (FTP, WWW,
Gopher, USENET, everything but Telnet) via email, by sending instructions
to various servers.

  For example, you can access any web site by sending a message containing
the line:
SEND http://www.bergen.org/~dankna
  (or whatever URL)
  to a server.  You get a plaintext version of the page, with all the tags
stripped, images labelled, and links replaced with [#], URLs gathered at
the bottom.

  You can get a copy of the document explaining how to do this via email,
as well, by sending mail to:

To: [email-masked] (for US, Canada & South America)
Enter only this line in the BODY of the note:
  send usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email

To: [email-masked] (for Europe, Asia, etc.)
Enter only this line in the BODY of the note:
  send lis-iis e-access-inet.txt

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 02:40:42 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tickle-Me-Elmo legality 

  I'd argue that the sentence "A single Tickle-Me-Elmo is selected from
this sentence." has the effect that the Speaker selects "Tickle-Me-Elmo"
from the sentence, and nothing else happens.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 02:43:05 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:CFJ 342 

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

  No, only poor understanding. :)

> Malenkai
> clearly ambiguous

  Isn't that an oxymoron?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:01:01 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official - Fictionary 

>  You can get a copy of the document explaining how to do this via email,
>as well, by sending mail to:
>
>To: [email-masked] (for US, Canada & South America)
>Enter only this line in the BODY of the note:
>  send usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email
>
>To: [email-masked] (for Europe, Asia, etc.)
>Enter only this line in the BODY of the note:
>  send lis-iis e-access-inet.txt
>
>-Red Barn

Thanks for posting this.  I promised to post the same thing a while back
but then lost the information and was unable to.  Oh well, it's to late for
HC, but poerhaps /dev/joe could put this info somewher on the web page?

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 04:44:41 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official - Fictionary 

> Thanks for posting this.  I promised to post the same thing a while back
> but then lost the information and was unable to.  Oh well, it's to late for
> HC, but poerhaps /dev/joe could put this info somewher on the web page?

  Which would be, ironically, inaccessible to email-only users...  Perhaps
in the (thus far unused) document sent whenever anybody joins the list?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:09:16 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official - Fictionary

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Dan Knapp wrote:

> > Thanks for posting this.  I promised to post the same thing a while back
> > but then lost the information and was unable to.  Oh well, it's to late for
> > HC, but poerhaps /dev/joe could put this info somewher on the web page?
> 
> Which would be, ironically, inaccessible to email-only users...  Perhaps
> in the (thus far unused) document sent whenever anybody joins the list?
> 
> -Red Barn

Why unused?

> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 05:08:22 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official - Fictionary 

> > Which would be, ironically, inaccessible to email-only users...  Perhaps
> > in the (thus far unused) document sent whenever anybody joins the list?
> >
> > -Red Barn
>
> Why unused?

  Some clarification is in order:  I didn't mean the file sent, but rather
the appended data in the "confirmation of subscription" message, which is
nothing more than a statement to the effect that there is a message
there...  Actually, those two should probably be merged, shouldn't they?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:31:00 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: mail problems 

I don't know exactly what the problem is, but I do not seem to be currently
receiving mail at my normal address.  This situation is likely to be resolved
today, but anyone who cares should know that I have not received any acka
mail since yesterday aftrenoon, and that I will not receive any until things
get fixed.

If you receive this message, then mail to this account will probably get
through.  I do not check this as regularly as my normal account, but I will
check more frequently until my other account is working properly again.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:50:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Scroll of Crumble!

Bidding ends today on the scroll of crumble!  The current high bid
is a measly A$ 605.  Get your bids in before 23:54 tonight.  You could
own this historic artifact.

Chief Cheese

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:49:48 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: G&C proposal 107

>
>> 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 also endorse this.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:56:25 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 116

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm, CSRR Officer

By lack of objection, the rule changes outlined below take place as CSR
116.

- --------

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: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:15:58 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: mail problems resolved

Just to let you know, my mail problems appear to be resolved.  I offer
public appreciation and praise to Malenkai, who kindly sent a game
state update to my alternative e-mail account while I was having
difficulties with this one.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:34:04 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 342 (Jammer)

/dev/joe wrote:

>> 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 is exactly right.  And even once the Blueprint is constructed
it is only legally binding insomuchas it governs how the gadget it
describes behaves.  Moreover, the sentence in question is wholly
ambiguous as to what "the Blueprint" is.  It would appear that the
blueprint attempts to have some unspecified Blueprint to be constructed
at Tickle-Me Elmo.

The Mad Scientist appears to have violated Rule 597 by not keeping the
Blueprint-under-construction secret as specified.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:44:27 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Time Check

I am hereby reporting that my computer's clock is approximately 35
seconds fast with respect to the time reported by the NIST's atomic
clock server.  This, by the way, suggests that wilma is a minute or
more slow with respect to that server.

I am contemplating changing the "No E-mail, No Game" rule so that
the official time of an e-mail event is the time the message was
sent from wilma, for applicable messages, or the time received by
the Speaker for messages not sent through wilma.  Any comments?

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:00:52 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Time Check

I wrote:

>I am hereby reporting that my computer's clock is approximately 35
>seconds fast with respect to the time reported by the NIST's atomic
>clock server.  This, by the way, suggests that wilma is a minute or
>more slow with respect to that server.

I should add that in my best judgement, my clock has been 35 +/- 5
seconds ahead of the atomic clock for the last three days at least,
and the appropriate correction should be applied to any posts during
that time and forward.

ThinMan
>

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:01:44 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 341 (Robert Sevin)

>
>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.

Indeed it is.  And it is in the spirit of gameplay that I write these
comments.

[...]
>
>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.

I claim that a "correction factor" is not an effect.  It is, rather,
a piece of data relevant to determining the game state.  The effect
of the material added to R370 is to allow for timestamps to be
interpreted according to data not available at the time of the
relevant post.  The interpretation, or reinterpretation, occurs after
the correction factor is applied; Rule 103 is not relevant.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:05:51 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1691

Proposal 1691
Creation of a PartyChessPiece Tornado
Malenkai

Create a new rule called "Creation of a PartyChessPiece Tornado" to be
a member of the Party Chess Rule Suite, reading: 

      1. A Tornado is represented by the ASCII character T.
      2. A Tornado's material value is 11.
      3. A Tornado's move consists of N+1 segments, where N is the number
of pieces captured by the Tornado in its current move sequence: 

      a) In the first segment of its move sequence, the Tornado can move
up to 2 squares in any direction, provided all the squares between the
current square and the destination square are unoccupied.

      b) If a Tornado fails to capture an enemy piece on the current
segment of its move sequence, its move sequence ends when the current
segment is completed (its movement ends).

      c) If a Tornado captures an enemy piece on its current move segment,
it may start a new move segment as follows: the Tornado can move
up to M squares, in any direction except for the direction it moved on
its previous move segment, provided all the squares between the
current square and the destination square are unoccupied.  For the 
purposes of this section, M is the material value of the most recent
piece captured by the Tornado, unless that piece was a HarfyBlob, in
which case M is the Hn of that HarfyBlob.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:05:52 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1692

Proposal 1692
Thief
Malenkai

      Create a rule entitled: "Otzma Card of type Art Thief", which is
a member of Otzma Cards Rule Suite, and has the following text: 

      "
      A Card of this type can only be played in the public forum, and
only when the Ackanomic Museum of Antiquities (Museum) contains one
or more entities other than players. 

      A player who plays this Card shall unambiguously announce the name
of an entity (other than a player) contained in the Museum.  Upon doing
so, the entity is removed from the Museum and transferred to the player,
(and is no longer considered "on display" in the Museum).

      Its Counter-Action: The player playing the card is deemed to have
been "caught stealing" [and suffers the applicable penalties, qv R 850].
If the player still possesses the entity transferred as above, it is
transferred back to the Museum as if it had never been removed (i.e.,
its donor and display status are restored).
      "

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:05:50 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1690

Proposal 1690
Preventing Infinite Win Crashes
Guy Fawkes

This is a Modest proposal.  Amend Rule 666 as follows.

Reletter step m) to n).  Add the text "m) If the game state is such that 
the single winner of the last cycle would immediately win again upon the 
resumption of Ackanomic play, the Chartreuse Goose is transferred to that 
player." directly after step l).

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:09:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine Resolution

> 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?
	Er, yes... not two legal game states, really, so much as one legal 
and one spurious-- but we don't know which is which yet.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:08:32 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine Resolution

Mighod, Schroednger's Game <VBG>

> 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?
	Er, yes... not two legal game states, really, so much as one legal 
and one spurious-- but we don't know which is which yet.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:19:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official - Fictionary

>   Which would be, ironically, inaccessible to email-only users...  Perhaps
> in the (thus far unused) document sent whenever anybody joins the list?
	Speaking of which, could someone send me the faq so I could make it 
publicly available through Acrobot?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:25:04 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time Check

> I am hereby reporting that my computer's clock is approximately 35
> seconds fast with respect to the time reported by the NIST's atomic
> clock server.  This, by the way, suggests that wilma is a minute or
> more slow with respect to that server.

I offer the headers below (from the message ThinMan just sent) to show
that wilma's time is more accurate than other machines that process
ThinMan's mail. :-) If your machine is only 35 seconds fast, and the
message was sent to your mail server instantaneously, the mail server's
time is 101 seconds slow (or realistically, 101 seconds plus the time
needed for transferring the message) and wilma's is slow by 40 seconds
plus the time needed for transferring the message.

Received: from linus.ucs.indiana.edu (linus.ucs.indiana.edu [156.56.254.56]) by wilma.che.utexas.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA27133 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:43:12 -0600
Received: by linus.ucs.indiana.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
	id <[email-masked]>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:42:11 -0500
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:44:27 -0500

> I am contemplating changing the "No E-mail, No Game" rule so that
> the official time of an e-mail event is the time the message was
> sent from wilma, for applicable messages, or the time received by
> the Speaker for messages not sent through wilma.  Any comments?

I was thinking the same thing for messages sent through mailing lists;
The "received from ... by wilma" time is a time which will at least
ensure that the order messages are received at wilma is the order they
are treated as being sent within the game; this may not be exactly the
order they were sent in, but at least it's something we can *check*.

Using the Speaker's received time is a good idea for handling other
messages.  (You don't want to use the postmaster's time, because the
only time you're likely to have many "public" messages sent outside
the mailing list is when the list (or the network to the list server)
is down, therefore the postmaster may not be getting the mail either.)

So as not to put wilma into the rule set, write something like
"The time a public message is considered to have been sent is the time
it was received by the server handling the mailing list it was sent to,
if it was sent through a mailing list, or the time the speaker received
it otherwise." 

However, I've been working on another rewrite of the multiple mailing
list bit, one which will limit the types of actions that can be
performed in each public forum (except our current official list,
in which any actions may be performed, and public messages not sent
through the mailing list, which are also unrestricted).  This one
will put all the mail restrictions in a document not actually part of
the rules (but given appropriate force by the rules) called the
Postal Code, which can be changed by the Postmaster using a CSR-like
mechanism.

The Machine rule should be re-written so that guesses work like
Magic letters - when there are multiple guesses at the same time,
the first one is the one the scholar receives first.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:30:40 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure Map Fragment

Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) wrote:
> 
> > Umm, no.  This _           _  is no comment.  Yours was merely a comment
> > about how you weren't commenting.:)  That, of course, revealed more than
> > if you'd actually answered my question!!  BWAHAHAHA!!
> 
>   Actually, "This" is a pronoun.
> 
>   This: "            " is no comment.
>   This: "!T" is no tea.
>   This: "_             _" is nothing more than two underscores separated by
> spaces.
> 
>   Say what you mean :)
> 
> -Red Barn
I simply used underscores where you used quotes.  I should have done it
your way, but since I merely wanted to delineate a blank space, I fail
to see that it makes a difference. :)

			Semantically,
				     Strider

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:36:09 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine Resolution

John Martin Lotz wrote:
> 
> Mighod, Schroednger's Game <VBG>
> 
> > 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?
>         Er, yes... not two legal game states, really, so much as one legal
> and one spurious-- but we don't know which is which yet.
> 
> --Mohammed
For Harf's sake, nobody open the box!! 

			Strider
LOL

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:46:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gaoler

  I hereby change my Ackanomic name to "Red Barn", in an
attempt to minimize damage caused by a spare Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do
Much, Really (kind of like IBM).

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:46:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure Map Fragment

>I simply used underscores where you used quotes.  I should have done it
>your way, but since I merely wanted to delineate a blank space, I fail
>to see that it makes a difference. :)

  Not at all.  You failed to put a colon immediately after the "This",
making the word refer to itself :).

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:54:09 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Time Check

/dev/joe wrote:

>I offer the headers below (from the message ThinMan just sent) to show
>that wilma's time is more accurate than other machines that process
>ThinMan's mail. :-) If your machine is only 35 seconds fast, and the
>message was sent to your mail server instantaneously, the mail server's
>time is 101 seconds slow (or realistically, 101 seconds plus the time
>needed for transferring the message) and wilma's is slow by 40 seconds
>plus the time needed for transferring the message.

Well, I'll be!  It is entirely possible that my mail server's clock
is off by 100+ seconds.  It is also likely that the transfer time
between me and it is very small -- we have an excellent network, and
are "close" to the server.

[I wrote:]
>> I am contemplating changing the "No E-mail, No Game" rule so that
>> the official time of an e-mail event is the time the message was
>> sent from wilma, for applicable messages, or the time received by
>> the Speaker for messages not sent through wilma.  Any comments?
>
>So as not to put wilma into the rule set, write something like
>"The time a public message is considered to have been sent is the time
>it was received by the server handling the mailing list it was sent to,
>if it was sent through a mailing list, or the time the speaker received
>it otherwise."

That makes sense.
> 
>However, I've been working on another rewrite of the multiple mailing
>list bit, one which will limit the types of actions that can be
>performed in each public forum (except our current official list,
>in which any actions may be performed, and public messages not sent
>through the mailing list, which are also unrestricted).  This one
>will put all the mail restrictions in a document not actually part of
>the rules (but given appropriate force by the rules) called the
>Postal Code, which can be changed by the Postmaster using a CSR-like
>mechanism.

That sounds good.  And unless someone gives me a good argument against
my proposal about message timing, I will submit it.  The Postal
Code bit will fit better in the Postmaster rule or as its own rule,
and it would not clash with my amendment that way.  I will have my
amendment defer to rules which designate other orderings.
>
>The Machine rule should be re-written so that guesses work like
>Magic letters - when there are multiple guesses at the same time,
>the first one is the one the scholar receives first.

Good idea, I'll incorporate that.  Anyone have any other timing
issues that should be addressed?

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:12:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Time Check

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I was thinking the same thing for messages sent through mailing lists;
> The "received from ... by wilma" time is a time which will at least
> ensure that the order messages are received at wilma is the order they
> are treated as being sent within the game; this may not be exactly the
> order they were sent in, but at least it's something we can *check*.

This I strongly object to;  when I was promoter, it was often my 
experience that proposals sent in the proper order would return to me 
rearranged.  I wouldn't want officers to be caught violating the rules 
all because of the odd rearrangement and miscellaneous timer error.  The 
way the promoter rule is currently written, such rearrangement would 
cause all proposals after the first anomalous message to be non-proposals.
> 
> Using the Speaker's received time is a good idea for handling other
> messages.  (You don't want to use the postmaster's time, because the
> only time you're likely to have many "public" messages sent outside
> the mailing list is when the list (or the network to the list server)
> is down, therefore the postmaster may not be getting the mail either.)

Perhaps, but what about players who reguarly get huge delays, sometimes 6 
hours or more, in their mail (eg Bascule)

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:23:43 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Time Check

Guy Fawkes wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>
>> I was thinking the same thing for messages sent through mailing lists;
>> The "received from ... by wilma" time is a time which will at least
>> ensure that the order messages are received at wilma is the order they
>> are treated as being sent within the game; this may not be exactly the
>> order they were sent in, but at least it's something we can *check*.
>
>This I strongly object to;  when I was promoter, it was often my 
>experience that proposals sent in the proper order would return to me 
>rearranged.  I wouldn't want officers to be caught violating the rules 
>all because of the odd rearrangement and miscellaneous timer error.  The 
>way the promoter rule is currently written, such rearrangement would 
>cause all proposals after the first anomalous message to be non-proposals.

This is a reason to incorporate other changes into the idea, not
to trash the idea itself.  We need a better way to determine the
sequence of events that occur close together.  That means setting
a standard.
>
>> Using the Speaker's received time is a good idea for handling other
>> messages.  (You don't want to use the postmaster's time, because the
>> only time you're likely to have many "public" messages sent outside
>> the mailing list is when the list (or the network to the list server)
>> is down, therefore the postmaster may not be getting the mail either.)
>
>Perhaps, but what about players who reguarly get huge delays, sometimes 6 
>hours or more, in their mail (eg Bascule)

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.  The idea would
have very little effect on people with large e-mail delays, as it
is designed to resolve small time differences.  Such a person would
probably not be a good choice for a time standard, of course, but
what problem do you expect such a person to encounter?

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:01:47 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Postal Code RFC

Here's the RFC to have multiple official "public forum" mailing lists,
divided by topic.  This would only be modified slightly for my concept
of non-voting players -- adding some near-duplicate language which
requires all players to be on the official list and all voting players
to be on the official voting list, and adding several lists to the Postal
Code.

Repeal Rule 372, "Customary Subject Line".  {{[Incorporated into 422]}}

Amend Rule 422, "Postmaster", to read in full:

  The Postmaster is an optional functional office with one seat.

  A duty of the Postmaster shall be to create and maintain an official
  mailing list for Ackanomic, so public messages can be sent to one
  address and forwarded from there to all players and observers
  automatically.  The Postmaster shall create additional, optional
  lists as he deems it appropriate.  Another duty of the Postmaster
  shall be to keep a publicly available record of the Postal Code.

  The Postal Code is a document which may be changed by the Postmaster
  by publicly posting the desired changes; if fewer than 2 players
  publicly disagree with the change within 3 days, it is applied to
  the Postal Code; otherwise, the change is ignored.

  A message is a public message if and only if it is distributed to all
  non-vacationing Players or it is sent to any mailing list indicated
  as a public forum in the Postal Code, and any actions performed in the
  message obey all restrictions in the Postal Code for that list, and
  the subject line contains either "Ackanomic:" or "Acka:".
  [Only actions are regulated; discussion can take place anywhere,
  though players should try to post to appropriate lists.]

  For a player not on vacation not to be subscribed to at least one form
  official mailing list is a Crime.  There may be multiple forms of the
  official list, such as a regular list and a digest list.  Any person
  subscribed to any public forum who is not a player is considered to
  be an observer.  The Postal Code must always indicate which list is
  the official list.

  If a digest version of any mailing list exists, the Postmaster shall have
  the privilege of moving any player or observer from the normal list to
  the digest version of that list if that person's e-mail is bouncing.

  The Postmaster shall receive the usual salary for a Functional Office.

  {{The Postal Code now reads as follows:

  All addresses below which end in @wilma should be treated as having
  ".che.utexas.edu" appended to the name.  All mailing lists mentioned
  below are public forums unless otherwise specified.

  ackanomic@wilma is the official mailing list.
  ackanomic-digest@wilma is the digest version of this list.
  acka-priv@wilma is an alternate form of ackanomic@wilma, suitable for
  messages desiring a private reply.

  acka-games@wilma may only be used for actions pertaining to Games &
  Contest games, treasure hunts, Grab-a-Donkey, and The Machine that
  Goes *ping*.  [What else?]
  acka-games-priv@wilma is an alternate form of acka-games@wilma, with the
  same restrictions, but suitable for messages desiring a private reply.
  ackanomic-digest@wilma is also the digest form of acka-games@wilma

  acka-chess@wilma may only be used for actions in Party Chess.

  acka-financial@wilma may only be used for trades or gifts of entities.
  }}

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 00:06:28 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code RFC

Generally I like this, it's a good plan.
One points however.
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Here's the RFC to have multiple official "public forum" mailing lists,
> divided by topic.  This would only be modified slightly for my concept
> of non-voting players -- adding some near-duplicate language which
> requires all players to be on the official list and all voting players
> to be on the official voting list, and adding several lists to the Postal
> Code.

> acka-chess@wilma may only be used for actions in Party Chess.

I've used the custom of preceding Party Chess state postings with
PartyChess: instead of acka. 
The Party Chess rules do not speak of a public forum, they say that this
information is to be sent to all Swingers and spectators. I think such a
distinction helps Swingers locate those posts. I notify them by private
email as well, but I don't actually send a copy of the Party Board by
private email.
Previously players indicated that they filter mail by subject line (I
filter by both adress and subject)  I thnk it would be helpful to allow
that prefix for Party Board postings.

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire

 > 
> acka-financial@wilma may only be used for trades or gifts of entities.
> }}
> 

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 16:15:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code RFC

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> > acka-chess@wilma may only be used for actions in Party Chess.
> 
> I've used the custom of preceding Party Chess state postings with
> PartyChess: instead of acka. 
> The Party Chess rules do not speak of a public forum, they say that this
> information is to be sent to all Swingers and spectators. I think such a
> distinction helps Swingers locate those posts.

I realize Party Chess isn't played with "public messages" now, but I
was just putting that there to allow for a simplifcation of the rules
or "standardization" later.  If you prefer not to involve party chess,
I'll take that out.

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 00:58:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code RFC

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> 
> I realize Party Chess isn't played with "public messages" now, but I
> was just putting that there to allow for a simplifcation of the rules
> or "standardization" later.  If you prefer not to involve party chess,
> I'll take that out.

I see some value to including it. My consideration here is convenience.
I filter that list to a seperate folder. If other players who filter their
mail can do this by address, then there's no problem. Otherwise, I suppose
I could use "acka: chess"  as a subject line. This will include the
acka prefix, andn distinguish it from other ackanomic messages. 
I can do this anyway.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:02:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Time Check

	I think all e-mail events should be clocked by the order in which 
they appear in the digest.  The problem with that is that it's entirely 
possible that there won't always be a digest in the future.  :\

- --Mohammed
designing digital dice

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 01:07:02 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Ambassador - seek out and explore

snowgod,
I have found a young small nomic and, even though I realize that I have
no authority in this matter, I request that you try to establish contact
with them.

It is called Future Nomic (assuming it's still out there)
and it's at 
http://www.gallaudet.edu/~ghritter/Nomic/

I particulary found interesting proposals 330,331 :)

I will looking forward for your report.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:14:35 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1641 accepted (Fix Swingers' demise)

Proposal 1641
Fix Swingers' demise
Niccolo Flychuck

Votes cast by active players:  12 / 18 = 66.666667%
Yes:  10    No:  0     Present:  3   ...Proposal accepted.

YES votes:
	mr cwm
	/dev/joe
	Niccolo Flychuck
	Calvin N Hobbes
	Strider
	fnord
	ThinMan
	Guy Fawkes
	Mohammed
	Vulcan Unity vote

NO votes:

PRESENT votes:
	breadbox
	Lestrade
	Malenkai

Active players who did not vote:
	Robert Sevin
	snowgod
	Bascule
	Techno
	Swann
	Habeous Corpus

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:14:34 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  P1635 accepted (Minor Cleaning)

Proposal 1635
Minor Cleaning
ThinMan

Votes cast by active players:  13 / 18 = 72.222222%
Yes:  12    No:  3     Present:  0   ...Proposal accepted.

YES votes:
	/dev/joe
	Lestrade
	Red Barn
	Calvin N Hobbes
	Strider
	fnord
	ThinMan
	Niccolo Flychuck
	Guy Fawkes
	Mohammed
	Malenkai
	Vulcan Unity vote

NO votes:
	mr cwm
	Habeous Corpus
	breadbox

PRESENT votes:

Active players who did not vote:
	Robert Sevin
	snowgod
	Bascule
	Techno
	Swann

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #490
*******************************