Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #502
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Monday, February 3 1997       Volume 01 : Number 502

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

Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 01:13:48 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : The distant sounds of war.

Uri Bruck wrote:

[about Thring's "war proposal" in response to Ackanomic loophole
surf win of Internomic]

> I also Cc'd to Malenkai and snowgod, perhaps Malenkai has some further
> comments to make

OK, you asked :)

It was my impression that the Thring proposal in question was a little
more tongue-in-cheek than perhaps others thought it was.  As we know,
it can be difficult determining attitude via e-mail in our own nomic,
much less a nomic in which we are less familiar with the players and
customs.

Secondly, loophole surfing is an accepted activity in acka.  In Internomic,
I feel no reason to play the game any differently that we do here.  It is
a young nomic, and we will all adjust to whatever culture evolves.  Until
then, however, I see nothing wrong with spicing things up a bit to
help the evolution process along, as long as the rules of the nomic are
not broken, and the actions are not blatently offensive.  In other words,
be yourself.  If this truly offends another nomic, and its my opinion that
it probably would not, I am confident that at least we could see each
others point of view, and ultimately work it out.

Thirdy, I was sort of waiting for an official Internomic action by
Thring before commenting outside our nomic.  The information was 
obtained by a spy, and I have no objective evidence that the proposal
in question is the will of Thring; perhaps it is just the will of
one player or faction in Thring.  Until a formal Internomic action
occurs, action on our part may be premature, IMHO, although it seems to
have been handled well by those involved, up to this point.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:33:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato and Awards

Malenkai wrote:
> CnH has been fortunate enough to find the magic potato.
> snowgod finds the Tuba, assuming that is possible on vacation.

Due to the timing of Mohammed's releases of proposal results,
neither Niccolo Flychuck nor Calvin N Hobbes managed to score
potato/tuba points on props 1667-1679.  The tuba isn't assigned
randomly (it goes to a player who lost the potato), so snowgod
can receive it on vacation.

On the Feb 1st results I forgot to take care of the medals.
I give Niccolo Flychuck a gold stripe (and he loses his silver stripes),
and I give Guy Fawkes his third silver stripe.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 04:24:33 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1712 

Ahh me.

Greetings one and all.  

As a hapless newbie lost in a maze of contradictions and seeming ambiguities,
will one step forward to take me under eir wing?  Yes, I seek a mentor, if
one has not already been appointed.

Incidentaly, I wish to name my house "Acme Labs"

Narf

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 03:38:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Postmaster

Mail to observer [email-masked] has been bouncing "user unknown"
for over a week now, with plenty of messages, so I am exercising my
privilege as postmaster to remove em from the game.

Mail to Red Barn ([email-masked]) has been bouncing "user unknown"
all day and I am using my privilege as postmaster to move him to the
digest list.  His alternate address, [email-masked], which was put
on digest a while back, appears to be working now.

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:33:49 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: New player - (Mentor - Guy Fawkes)

I acknowlegde this.
Eir Mentor is Guy Fakwes.

Niccolo Flychuck
acting Registrar

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> "Narf" has attempted to join the game.  snowgod forwarded the following
> message to me, and I got the answer to the poll question via private
> e-mail.  Unfortunately, I am not the acting Registrar.
> 
> Upon the acting registrar (Niccolo) acking this, he isin the game.
> Don't forget to assign a mentor, his poll question indicates that he
> would like one.  I see no reason he cannot be added to the mailing
> list now, though.
> 
> Malenkai
> --------------------------------------------------------------------  
> Phil Ackley wrote:
> > 
> > >From: [email-masked]
> > >Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:21:03 -0500 (EST)
> > >To: [email-masked]
> > >Subject: Ackanomicon
> > >
> > >Greetings and salivations!  Please add me to the game!
> > >
> > >IF I understand the rules correctly (dubious at best) I need to give you a
> > >full name: Joshua M Nave, an Ackanomic name: Narf , and an email address that
> > >will only bounce mail on odd numbered rainy days: [email-masked]
> > >
> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I discovered the game from the PBEM list located at pbm.com...  From there I
> jumped to the main nomicon page, and then on to ackanomicon.  And believe me,
> any hints, suggestions or advice you care to send will be more than welcome!!
> 

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 05:50:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Experts revisited

The senate has officially granted Malenkai expert status in
"Internomic".

breadbox
apologetic, forgetful senator

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:03:13 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Travelling

>
>Unfortunately, the rules are unclear about the location of the Amber
>Banana Tree. I had always *assumed* that the Amber Banana Tree is on
>Techno's property. If that is the case, then until I get permission
>from Techno to enter his property, I shall instead stand as close to
>the Amber Banana Tree as possible without actually leaving Yellow
>Roosevelt Avenue. (Techno does live on Yellow Roosevelt Avenue,
>doesn't he?)

Hmmm.  I think it's unclear exactly where the Amber Banana Tree is.
Unowned entities are Somewhere Else, IIRC.  The Amber Banana Tree is
owned, but that doesn't necessarilly mean that it is where Techno is,
or at his house.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 06:27:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Purple Robe

I hereby don my new Purple Robe of Justice. It has been ages since
I've been randomly selected for anything, so maybe this will help
(existing evidence to the contrary).

breadbox
shunned by dice

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:17:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Travelling

On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> Hmmm.  I think it's unclear exactly where the Amber Banana Tree is.
> Unowned entities are Somewhere Else, IIRC.  The Amber Banana Tree is
> owned, but that doesn't necessarilly mean that it is where Techno is,
> or at his house.
> 
> ThinMan

Nor does it mean one must go to the Amber Banana tree in order to 
purchase an Amber Banana.  Perhaps Techno has a fruit stand parked 
somewhere in the middle of the free market :)

Guy Fawkes 

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:50:15 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 342(ThinMan)

Call For Judgement 342
  Subject: Tickling Tickle-Me Elmo
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Jammer (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (selected Jan 31, 1997, 23:03h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

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?

ThinMan's Reasoning:

I do not find anything in the sentence highlighted by Malenkai that
leads me to conclude that it runs afoul of Rule 597.  I do, however,
find that the blueprint for Tickle-Me Elmo does not exist.  Rule
597 specifically says that the blueprint-under-construction cannot
become a blueprint until one of the following conditions is satisfied:

	v) Its construction is such that any new Parts would be 	rejected.
	vi) It is over 1000 words long.
	vii) It consists of more than 25 complete sentences.

The Mad Scientist's contention is that the addition of the last part
supplied by Guy Fawkes caused the blueprint-under-construction to
satisfy (v): "At this Tickle-Me Elmo the Blueprint is constructed, (and
is a Blueprint) and no more Parts may ever be added to it."  The Mad
Scientist has claimed publicly and elucidated to me privately that he
believes that addition of any other part would cause the monster to
have conflicting attributes via the "no more Parts may ever be added"
provision.

I disagree.  I first note that there is no specification of which
blueprint the blueprint-under-construction refers to in the
questionable section.  It makes no sense for it to refer to itself,
for not only is a blueprint not empowered to regulate itself, but
also the document in question will already be a blueprint before
that clause has any potential to have legal force.  Perhaps the
clause will cause null blueprints to be continuously constructed
at the location of Tickle-Me Elmo.  In any case, the "no more parts"
bit clearly applies to the blueprint to be constructed, and not,
therefore, to the blueprint containing the provision.

Suppose, however, that we construe the questionable provision to
actually apply to the blueprint that contains it.  How would this
cause a generic Part to give the Monster conflicting attributes?
Consider, for instance, the hypothetical part "Tickle-Me Elmo is."
Does the earlier part of the blueprint somehow say that TME is not?
By no means.  At best one could postulate some sort of implicit
"this part was added after the previous one" attribute to each
provision of the blueprint.  That might conceivably lead to a
conflict, but I find such a position very hard to accept.  Even if one
did recognize such implicit characteristics, I assert that they would
be characteristics of the _blueprint_, not of the Monster.

I also observe that the Part in question specifies only that no more
parts are to be added -- it does not say "after this one," or anything
to that effect.  If the clause were construed to apply to the monster
rather than the blueprint then I claim that it would still not
conflict with other parts.  We must consider the constructed Monster.
Once it is done (indeed, once the blueprint is done) rule 597 assures
that no more parts may be legally added.  This is fully in accord with
the pertinent provision of the document, as that provision cannot be
applied until it is given force by the construction of the monster.

As R597's conditions have not yet been satisfied, the blueprint for
Tickle-Me Elmo does not yet exist.

Finally, I observe that (i) rule 597 puts the Mad Scientist in a
precarious position by requiring him to follow strict procedures whose
application is potentially open to debate, but not giving him any
discretionary power to interpret those procedures; (ii) the Mad
Scientist appears to have broken rule 597 by not keeping the contents
of the blueprint-under-construction secret.

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:00:00 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 345 (Lestrade)

>Statement:
>
>The magic number for the cycle in which Proposal 1657 was accepted is
>257 as of the time this CFJ is distributed.
>
>Malenkai's Reasoning:
>
>Proposal 1657 amended rule 220 to change the magic number from 257 to
>541.  However, I'm not sure that would apply to the value of the magic
>number for the cycle in which the amendment occurred, as that was
>already established at the start of the cycle.  I don't care
>either way, and can see the argument either way (although, without thinking
>about it a great deal, I believe this CFJ is true), but better to make
>sure now than at the end of the cycle.

Without thinking about it a great deal, _I_ believe this CFJ is false.
Malenkai seems to be trying to assert that the Magic Number cannot be
changed during the cycle, whereas both the old and the new versions
of R220 specify ways in which it may change.

Alternatively, Malenkai may be claiming that the "base value" of the
magic number should not change with the amendment to R 220.  I direct
the judge to the following text from said rule: "The base value of the
Magic Number is 541."  There is little room for argument with that.
The rules must be followed in their current form.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:00:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1657 accepted (De-emphasizing)

> Put all the primes up to 100 in a table in the program and the calculation
> will be simple and take negligible time.
	Smart.  I hadn't thought of this.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:01:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1669 accepted (A Small But Non-Trivial Detail)

> > > 1669 looks like a prime number, according to my cheap casio calculator :)
> > > Malenkai
> > > has sore fingers
> >         You poor soul!  Are you writing this from a TeleType?
> 
> No, I meant doing the up-to-the-square-root thing on my calculator,
> which has tiny keys.  The keyboard on my pc is shot though, from 
> writing too much ackanomic mail.
	But that's what I meant.  Seems if you're at a PC, you can have 
the PC do it for you...

- --Mohammed
never mind

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:15:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PF Stuff

Player		yield
/dev/joe	.78
Swann		.39
Guy Fawkes	.36
Niccolo		.34
Strider		.26
Lestrade	.26
snowgod		.25
mr cwm		.23
Malenkai	.81
fnord		.21
ThinMan		.32
Calvin		.14
Mohammed	.21
Techno		.03
Red Barn	.01
BuzzBee		0
23 Skidoo	0
Clairence	0
Ludwig		0
Narf		0
breadbox	-.08
Jammer		-.085
Bascule		-.02
Robert Sevin	-.03

Non-zero A$ changes
Bascule 	-2
breadbox	-8
Calvin		+14
/dev/joe	+82
fnord		+22
Guy Fawkes	+44
Jammer		-9
Lestrade	+26
Malenkai	+65
Mohammed	+22
mr cwm		+23
Niccolo		+19
Red Barn	+1
Robert Sevin	-3
snowgod		+26
Strider		+26
Swann		+39
Techno		+1
ThinMan		+37

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:21:16 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: FW: Acka: The Machine that goes *ping*

>Last night I put the Machine that goes *ping* on the pedestal of
>*ping*.  The machine looked kind of hazy to me, as if it was only
>half there.  Maybe that explains what happened.  I had turned off
>the cook surface at the Ackanomic House of Pancakes, and decided
>to ponder some of the legal decisions awaiting me.  Try as I might,
>I just couldn't keep my eyes open.  As I slept, I dreamed, and I saw
>a ghostly apparition before me.  At first I thought it was Jacob
>Marley, but I realized that it was more than a month late for him.
>I finally recognized it as the Machine.  It spoke to me, revealing
>a sublime truth, but upon waking all I could remember was this:
>
>IF AND ONLY IF today *** *** ** *** **** ******** *** ***** ****** **
>*** ********, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.
>
>Perhaps you students of the Machine will be able to discern what the
>Machine actually told me.
>
>ThinMan
>(possibly) Scholar
>

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:42:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 345 (Lestrade)

On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> Alternatively, Malenkai may be claiming that the "base value" of the
> magic number should not change with the amendment to R 220.  I direct
> the judge to the following text from said rule: "The base value of the
> Magic Number is 541."  There is little room for argument with that.
> The rules must be followed in their current form.

Aye, the base value of the Magic Number is 541.  Nonetheless, I believe 
the Magic Number is currently 257.  When the Magic Number was last 
changed, it was done so by Rule 666, which reset it to its base value, 
then 257.  Since then, no rule has changed the Magic Number, although its 
base value has been altered.  Had the proposal contained self-deleting 
text to the effect that {{the Magic Number is changed to 541}} then it 
would be 541.  As it is, I believe it remains 257.

GF

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

Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:44:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 336 Verdict

CFJ 336 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 336
  Subject: Silence of the Gaolbirds
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Bascule (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (selected Feb 01, 1997, 10:02h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

A player in Gaol may not send a public message except as allowed by,
required by, or in conjunction with performing the activities listed
in the numbered list in rule 709.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Sending a public message is a regulated game action.  Specifically, it
is regulated by rules 372, and 370, and its content is regulated by
R 374, for example:

> Any Player sending a public message should be as polite as possible.

>From R 709:

> If a player is in the Gaol, they may perform no game actions except
> those on the following numbered list and those allowed by Rule 101.

Sending a public message is not on the numbered list, and does not fall
under the auspices of R 101 (which is the old R 115 and applies to
unregulated actions).

Therefore it is not permitted to be performed by a player in Gaol,
in general.

Now, what about in conjuction with the items on the numbered list, as
the CFJ's statement explores that question specifically.

The meta clause before the numbered list explicitly defers precedence
to any rule which regulates the items on the numbered list, therefore the
above exclusion does not apply where the rules which enable those actions
allow or require public messages in conjunction with performing those
actions.

A verdict of TRUE is indicated, although unraveling the rules on this
could be fun, and a verdict of FALSE is possible :)

I realise we have not been playing this way, but there is precedent for
playing "wrong" before the fact is pointed out (qv CFJ 280, where it
was pointed out that we did paradox wins "wrong" for awhile).

This also seems harsh, and maybe we should change it, but the rules
are the rules.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

I was at first inclined to judge FALSE, based on the argument that
public posts were not always game actions.  I do not find Rules 370
and 372 in conflict with that reasoning.  However, the fact that
Rules 374 and 1307, and perhaps others, make the text of any public
post suitable for invoking a game response lead me to conclude that
any public post must be construed as a game action.  As such, R 709
prohibits players in Gaol from making public posts.

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

Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:52:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 342 Verdict

CFJ 342 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 342
  Subject: Tickling Tickle-Me Elmo
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Jammer (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (selected Jan 31, 1997, 23:03h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

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?

ThinMan's Reasoning:

I do not find anything in the sentence highlighted by Malenkai that
leads me to conclude that it runs afoul of Rule 597.  I do, however,
find that the blueprint for Tickle-Me Elmo does not exist.  Rule
597 specifically says that the blueprint-under-construction cannot
become a blueprint until one of the following conditions is satisfied:

        v) Its construction is such that any new Parts would be         
rejected.
        vi) It is over 1000 words long.
        vii) It consists of more than 25 complete sentences.

The Mad Scientist's contention is that the addition of the last part
supplied by Guy Fawkes caused the blueprint-under-construction to
satisfy (v): "At this Tickle-Me Elmo the Blueprint is constructed, (and
is a Blueprint) and no more Parts may ever be added to it."  The Mad
Scientist has claimed publicly and elucidated to me privately that he
believes that addition of any other part would cause the monster to
have conflicting attributes via the "no more Parts may ever be added"
provision.

I disagree.  I first note that there is no specification of which
blueprint the blueprint-under-construction refers to in the
questionable section.  It makes no sense for it to refer to itself,
for not only is a blueprint not empowered to regulate itself, but
also the document in question will already be a blueprint before
that clause has any potential to have legal force.  Perhaps the
clause will cause null blueprints to be continuously constructed
at the location of Tickle-Me Elmo.  In any case, the "no more parts"
bit clearly applies to the blueprint to be constructed, and not,
therefore, to the blueprint containing the provision.

Suppose, however, that we construe the questionable provision to
actually apply to the blueprint that contains it.  How would this
cause a generic Part to give the Monster conflicting attributes?
Consider, for instance, the hypothetical part "Tickle-Me Elmo is."
Does the earlier part of the blueprint somehow say that TME is not?
By no means.  At best one could postulate some sort of implicit
"this part was added after the previous one" attribute to each
provision of the blueprint.  That might conceivably lead to a
conflict, but I find such a position very hard to accept.  Even if one
did recognize such implicit characteristics, I assert that they would
be characteristics of the _blueprint_, not of the Monster.

I also observe that the Part in question specifies only that no more
parts are to be added -- it does not say "after this one," or anything
to that effect.  If the clause were construed to apply to the monster
rather than the blueprint then I claim that it would still not
conflict with other parts.  We must consider the constructed Monster.
Once it is done (indeed, once the blueprint is done) rule 597 assures
that no more parts may be legally added.  This is fully in accord with
the pertinent provision of the document, as that provision cannot be
applied until it is given force by the construction of the monster.

As R597's conditions have not yet been satisfied, the blueprint for
Tickle-Me Elmo does not yet exist.

Finally, I observe that (i) rule 597 puts the Mad Scientist in a
precarious position by requiring him to follow strict procedures whose
application is potentially open to debate, but not giving him any
discretionary power to interpret those procedures; (ii) the Mad
Scientist appears to have broken rule 597 by not keeping the contents
of the blueprint-under-construction secret.

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

Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:57:56 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 341 (Supreme Court)

ThinMan has sent CFJ 341 to the Supreme Court:

> As an interested party, and not having the option of declining
> judgement, I hereby send CFJ 341 to the Supreme Court.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 341
  Subject: The Revenge of Hubert
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: Robert Sevin (declined)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (did not respond)
3rd Judge: ThinMan (forwarded to SC per rule 425)
4th Judge: Supreme Court (selected Feb 03, 1997, 12:58h 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: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:26:22 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: PF Stuff

> Player		yield
> Niccolo		.34

This is wrong due to an error in the scores on the web page.
Niccolo Flychuck's score is actually 40 now.

This affects the bond yields for 3 players.

> Non-zero A$ changes
> Mohammed	+22

Mohammed is *not* affected by Niccolo's score, but somehow we've come to
a different answer here.  I have taken the bond info from Malenkai's
player/entity page, and I get a yield of +27 for Mohammed.

I recently rewrote my score-adding program in python, and also wrote
another version of the program that harfs bonds.  (It's also a lot more
intelligent, and prints out any lines that don't match a player name,
rather than the old clumsy way I used to do it.  Right now it's spitting
out Habeous Corpus and Eponimondas entries at me.)

Here is the full report; bond yields need to be rounded up if positive,
down if negative:

Score changes used for bond cycle calculation:
- ----------------------------------------------
23 Skidoo: 0
Bascule: -4
breadbox: -16
BuzzBee: 0
Calvin N Hobbes: 14
Clairence: 0
/dev/joe: 78
fnord: 21
Guy Fawkes: 36
Jammer: -17
Lestrade: 26
Ludwig: 0
Malenkai: 81
Mohammed: 21
mr cwm: 23
Narf: 0
Niccolo Flychuck: 40
Red Barn: 1
Robert Sevin: -6
snowgod: 25
Strider: 26
Swann: 39
Techno: 3
ThinMan: 32
 
Bond Dividends
- --------------
23 Skidoo: 0.0  -->  100*0
Bascule: -2.0  -->  100*-4/2
breadbox: -7.92  -->  99*-16/2
BuzzBee: 0.0  -->  100*0
Calvin N Hobbes: 14.0  -->  100*14
Clairence: 0.0  -->  100*0
/dev/joe: 81.2  -->  100*78 + 10*32
fnord: 21.45  -->  99*21 + 1*-16/2 + 1*23 + 1*25 + 1*26
Guy Fawkes: 45.25  -->  75*36 + 30*40 + 25*25
Jammer: -8.5  -->  100*-17/2
Lestrade: 26.0  -->  100*26
Ludwig: 0.0  -->  100*0
Malenkai: 64.8  -->  80*81
Mohammed: 26.8  -->  80*21 + 40*25
mr cwm: 22.98  -->  99*23 + 1*21
Narf: 0.0  -->  100*0
Niccolo Flychuck: 22.0  -->  50*40 + 25*3 + 5*25
Red Barn: 1.0  -->  100*1
Robert Sevin: -3.0  -->  100*-6/2
snowgod: 26.5  -->  17*25 + 20*21 + 20*40 + 10*81 + 65*3
Strider: 25.74  -->  99*26
Swann: 39.0  -->  100*39
Techno: 0.3  -->  10*3
ThinMan: 36.9  -->  90*32 + 10*81

Here are the bonds I used:
- --------------------------
23 Skidoo: 100 23 Skidoo
Bascule: 100 Bascule
breadbox: 99 breadbox
BuzzBee: 100 BuzzBee
Calvin N Hobbes: 100 Calvin N Hobbes
Clairence: 100 Clairence
/dev/joe: 100 /dev/joe, 10 ThinMan
fnord: 99 fnord, 1 breadbox, 1 mr cwm, 1 snowgod, 1 Strider
Guy Fawkes: 75 Guy Fawkes, 30 Niccolo Flychuck, 25 snowgod
Jammer: 100 Jammer
Lestrade: 100 Lestrade
Ludwig: 100 Ludwig
Malenkai: 80 Malenkai
Mohammed: 80 Mohammed, 40 snowgod
mr cwm: 99 mr cwm, 1 fnord
Narf: 100 Narf
Niccolo Flychuck: 50 Niccolo Flychuck, 25 Techno, 5 snowgod
Red Barn: 100 Red Barn
Robert Sevin: 100 Robert Sevin
snowgod: 17 snowgod, 20 Mohammed, 20 Niccolo Flychuck, 10 Malenkai, 65 Techno
Strider: 99 Strider
Swann: 100 Swann
Techno: 10 Techno
ThinMan: 90 ThinMan, 10 Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:30:36 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1714

Proposal 1714
What Time is it, Anyway?
ThinMan

{{ [ This is intended to resolve various timing issues involved in
the game.  R370 is amended to establish an "official" time standard
for posts.  A few potential timing problems are also addressed. ] }}

Amend rule 370, "No E-mail, No Game," by deleting all of the fourth
paragraph
except the first sentence.

{{ [ The actual timing specification got long enough that I think it
should be in its own rule, so here it is: ] }}

Create a new rule entitled "Timing" with the following text delimited
by ** symbols:

**
Posts that are sent through any mailing list maintained by the
Postmaster are deemed to have occured at the time that they are received
by the list server.  Posts that are not sent through such a mailing list
and for which the Speaker is one of the designated recipients are deemed
to have occured at the time that they are received by the Speaker's
mail server.  Other posts not sent through any of the Postmaster's 
mailing lists are deemed to have occured at the earliest time that they
are received by the mail server of any of the Players, other than the
sender, designated as recipients.  If a Player posts a message only to
himself, then that post is deemed to have occured at the time that it
was sent.

(The term "mail server" is intentionally left open to some
interpretation.  It is intended to indicate the actual computer used for
e-mail by the relevant player if that computer has a full-time internet
- -- or other form of e-mail -- connection; otherwise it is intended to
mean that computer from which the relevant player downloads his mail.)

Players are encouraged to use an appropriate Postmaster-maintained
mailing list if available.  If the times of two posts are compared and
(i) only one of them went through one of the Postmaster's lists and (ii)
their times are otherwise within three minutes of each other, then the
post sent through the Postmaster's list is deemed to have occured first.

This rule defers to any rule which specifies an alternative method for
determining the times or relative times of posts.
**

Renumber the rule entitled "Timing" to number 371.

{{ [ The following bit will give the Promoter some discretionary power
in assigning proposal numbers, and remove any timing problems.  This
will also cover some cases that previously would have been incorrect
proposal numbering or incorrect distribution. ] }}

Amend Rule 406, "Promoter," by changing the text:

"(c) assign the proposal a number 1 greater than the number assigned to
the previously distributed proposal, and distribute it for voting."

to:

"(c) to assign each proposal an integer number greater than any number
previously assigned to a proposal.  It is expected, but not required,
that the promoter shall give each proposal a number exactly one greater
than the previous proposal's number;

(d) to promptly distribute each numbered proposal for voting." 

{{ [ The Tabulator needs a break to avoid violating the rules
involuntarilly. ] }}

Amend Rule 408, "Tabulator and Count Tabula," by changing the sentence:

"(c) to report the acceptance or rejection of proposals, in the time
order in which their voting periods ended."

to

"(c) to report the acceptance or rejection of proposals, in the time
order in which their voting periods ended; the time of these reports
is deemed to be the time indicated by the message's initial timestamp."

{{ [ The Machine that goes *ping* doesn't have a problem per se, but
it could benefit from some minor timing-related changes. ] }}

Amend rule 1209, "The Machine That Goes *ping*," in the following ways:

a) Replace section VI with the following text:
"Unless otherwise forbidden, each player other than the Scholar is
permitted to publicly post a guess at the undisguised form of the
Machine's
truth.  The player during each Scholar's term who legally so
posts the correct guess first received by the Scholar shall receive
the following rewards: he shall be congratulated by the Scholar; he
shall receive one random Boon of the Ancients, created at that time by
the Machine; and the Machine shall transport itself to his home.

Each player who posts an incorrect guess shall suffer the following
consequences: he shall be publicly ridiculed by the Scholar, who
shall be immune from the politeness moon in so doing (this takes
precedence
over Rule 374), and he shall pay a fine of A$ 10 for
mocking the sacred truth.  The Scholar must respond to each guess with
either congratulations or ridicule, as appropriate, within three days
of the time of the guess.

Players are forbidden from posting more than one guess during any given
term of any particular Scholar.

{{ If Proposal 1686 was accepted then the text ',who shall be immune
from the
politeness moon in so doing (this takes precedence over Rule
374) ' is hereby deleted from the text of Rule 1209. }}
"

{{ [ This removes the restriction on players posting guesses while a
guess is already pending, thus making the game more playable by
preventing players from accidentally violating the rules.  Guesses and
magic letter naming which occur after a correct guess are handled by
the next change: ] }}

b) Change the sentence:

"During the time after the Machine changes locations but before a new
truth is announced, no one may post a guess at the Machine's truth or
name the Magic Letter."

to:

"Guesses at the truth and attempts to name a magic letter are wholly
ignored for the purposes of all other provisions of this rule if they
occur before the current scholar has announced the disguised form of
the truth, or if they are received by the Scholar after a correct
guess has already been received during his current term."

{{ [ The times that guesses and magic letter names are received by
the Scholar is used instead of their posting time so as to protect
the Scholar from accidentally violating the rule when two messages
are received close together. ] }}

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #502
*******************************