Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #509
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Friday, February 7 1997       Volume 01 : Number 509

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 01:08:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 344 (ThinMan)

CFJ 344 has been assigned to ThinMan.

Feb 07 01:09 EST: -10 Calvin N Hobbes: failed to deliver verdict on CFJ 344

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 344
  Subject: Open Invitation at the Monument to Futility
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (assigned Feb 07, 1997, 01:09h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

/dev/joe is not at the Monument of Futility, as of the time of
the finding of Treasure 103.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

This is not nit-picking; I generally find the sort of nuance in
this CFJ interesting, and somewhat important in developing a notion
of what "game state" is.  If no one else does, I apologize.

/dev/joe posted about 3 days ago:

- ------
A long time ago, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> I am adding a 145-meter Ostentatious Tower to Xanadu.  Its name is the
> Monument to Futility.
>
> On each side of the door to the Monument to Futility is a large marble
> tablet bearing the legend, "This tower was erected by Guy Fawkes on the
> First of November in Year One of Ackanomic.  It serves as a memorial to
> all who have tried and failed to win by means of paradox, and as a
> reminder that these Calls for Judgement are not nuissances, but an
> integral part of our heritage.  All are free to enter the Monument, but
> do so with neither irritation nor anger, for the discourse engendered by
> these attempts has been well worth the efforts in having them judged." [...]

I am going to the Monument to Futility.
- ------

>From R 835:

> 4) A Location may be specified as a Common Location. Players may leave
> and enter such Locations freely, provided they meet any specific
> conditions that may be defined for the Common Location.

>From R 839:

> 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 question is, did Guy Fawkes grant /dev/joe permission to enter his
house (the tower, for all intents and purposes, is part of the house,
permission to enter one is sufficient to enter the other).

If he did not have permission, he is not at the Tower.

/dev/joe claims permission is granted from the description of the
Tower itself [or at least I presume that is the basis of the claim]:

> All are free to enter the Monument, but do so with neither irritation
> nor anger

What if /dev/joe attempted to do so with anger?  Is the Tower description
sufficient to deny permission to an angry player to enter?

I argue that the Tower description has no power to change the game state
in this way, and that is the key point of this CFJ, what is a change
in the game state?  I argue that the granting of permission to enter
a common location is a change in the game state, and that a Tower
description does not have the authority to do that.

>From R 841:

> Towers may not manipulate protected entities or perform protected
> actions

The "protected" language is from a previous era in the rules, but it
seems that granting permission to enter a common location is
protected.

On the other hand, it does seem obvious that a player should be able to
grant permission via a tower description, but I do not think "seeming
obvious" is enough.

What if the owner of the Tower wants to revoke permission?  Can they
override the desciption carved in the Tower?  If the description is
granted authority by the rules to grant the permission, the answer
is no.  If it is not, this CFJ is trivially TRUE.

I'm not overly concerned where /dev/joe is, as it did not affect the
treasure hunt, but again apologize for finding this sort of thing
interesting.

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:18:12 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1699 failed quorum (Chess Things)

No. 
This one was legally retracted.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1699
> Chess Things
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  7 / 19 = 36.842105%
> Yes:  5    No:  0     Present:  2   ...Proposal failed quorum.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck +2 : EP P1699
> 
> YES votes:
> 	Guy Fawkes
> 	Mohammed
> 	ThinMan
> 	Swann
> 	Strider
> 
> NO votes:
> 
> PRESENT votes:
> 	Malenkai
> 	Lestrade
> 
> Active players who did not vote:
> 	fnord
> 	Robert Sevin
> 	Ludwig
> 	Calvin N Hobbes
> 	Niccolo Flychuck
> 	snowgod
> 	breadbox
> 	/dev/joe
> 	Narf
> 	Techno
> 	mr cwm
> 	Habeous Corpus
> 

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:20:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1699 - retracting (fwd)

My original retraction messag, from my outgoing messages.
this will enable you to find the one from wilma.

Niccolo Flychuck

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:13:15 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1699 - retracting
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I'm gonna have to retract this one again. found another bug

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1699
> Chess Things
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> {{[Now, that's more like it]}}
> 
> This is a Modest proposal
> In 1230.2 "Swinger Like to Play Around II - Managing the game"
> section 2 J.(i) will be ammended to read in full:
> "A Round of play is defined as a time period in which each Swinger played
> at least once, where a Default Pass also counts a play, and a Special
> DD-Turn counts as a play for each Swinger taking part in that turn, in eir
> capacity as Swinger."
> 
> 
> In section 2 D the text :
> " as a result of the fact that eir Party no longer exists,"
> Will be deleted.
> 
> {{[The second is a correction to the null proposal. The first should have
> really gone with the check fix, because playing order may change as a
> result of check, it is possible that the current condition of each Swinger
> playing exactly once, might never be met. In the spirit of that
> ammendemnt, Special DD-Turn also count.]}}
> 

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:23:42 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Acting Registrar

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> Is there no registrar until snowgod returns?
> If there is an acting registrar, who is it?
> 

As President I am the acting Registrar

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:38:32 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1700 failed quorum (Prime Otzma)- and voting results

Mohammed is on Vacation which makes me acting Tabulator for two days.
I'll be needing the voting results, and to figure out who is on Vacation
(everyone who abstained)

I'll contact Mohammed to confirm that those messages that looked like
voting results do indeed contain the correct information as he has
tabulated it.

The way I see it, for the proposals whose voting periods ended before this
forced Vacation, so this wouldn't chane the results for the rest of the
proposals.
(I'll be checking he actual dates - but this should hold for most of them)

Niccolo Flychuck
acting Tabulator/Promoter/Registrar, and S*B*R knows what else.

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Mohammed wrote:
> > > This makes 8 votes and 9 abstains, and the proposal fails to meet quorum.
> > > Mohammed, fnord, Robert Sevin, Calvin N Hobbes, breadbox, Techno, mr cwm,
> > > Jammer, and Red Barn are put on vacation, and then none of the other
> > > proposal results count because Mohammed can't release proposal results
> > > while he's on vacation. :-)
> > 	Okay.  But can other people vote while the proposal results are 
> > being held up? 
> 
> I don't think they can.  But re-release the results now while the
> abstaining players are mostly on vacation.
> 
> Also note that proposals 1697 and 1705 were also retracted, and
> when proposal 1700 failed due to quorum it broke an 11-proposal
> chrome streak.   BIG :-(
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:42:07 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Assorted Important Stuff

A whole bunch of Malenkai's proposals passed, and I am awarding him
a Silver Stripe.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Proposal 1695 passed, calling a hearing on the future of PFbonds.
Please vote to keep PFbonds!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Proposal 1698 passed, instituting the Postal Code.

The initial postal code is posted on a web page at
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/postalcode.html

This means that messages on ackanomic, acka-games, acka-chess, and
acka-financial are now public messages, provided they have the
appropriate subject line, and that they obey the restrictions in
the Postal Code:

  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*.

  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.

Note that discussion is not restricted; any discussion can take place
anywhere, but try to keep it to relevant lists.  Game actions and
official messages required by the rules must follow the limits above.
Anything is allowed on the main list, but as the games and financial
lists start becoming used more, I will encourage players to try to
use them whenever appropriate.

If you are not on some of these lists, you may want to subscribe now.
Some players may need to be subscribed to some lists in order to do
their jobs.

If you don't know which lists you are on, send mail to
[email-masked] with the word "which" in the
message body (or "which [email-masked]" if the address you
subscribe with differs from the address your outgoing mail shows).

The ackanomic-digest list currently includes messages from both
ackanomic and acka-games.  At some time this will probably change,
and there will be separate digests for the main list and the
acka-games list.

acka-priv and acka-games-priv are aliases for ackanomic and acka-games
which don't mess with the Reply-to: address, so replies default to the
original author, not to the list.  Note that if you select a "group
reply" or "reply to all recipients", etc. in your mailer, copies of
the mail will be sent to both the sender *and* the list.  Please be
careful about this, and prevent snowgod's disease.

I will be making changes in the postal code as it becomes relatively
agreed-upon what kind of changes we should make.  (Changes are made
similar to CSR's.)  One immediate change I see is that acka-research,
intended for discussion on RFC's and pretty much anything, can be
a public forum with no game actions allowed.  A post on that list
should be enough to satisfy "No Dead Players Allowed", but it isn't
because the rule currently says "If any player who is not currently
on a voluntarily activated vacation does not vote or communicate
publicly with all of the Ackanomic players for a time period of one
week".  I will change the "communicate publicly with all..." bit
to "send a public message".

If anybody has any other suggested postal code changes, let me know.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Proposal 1700 failed due to quorum, putting a bunch of players, including
the Promoter/Tabulator, on vacation.  Due to a bit in the vacation rule
which was instituted to prevent players from abusing it by strategically
going on short vacations, these players must stay on vacation for two full
days before coming back.  I want to change this from:
   a player who has been on vacation less than 2 days may not take
   themselves off vacation
to:
   a player who has been on a voluntarily activated vacation less than
   2 days may not take themselves off vacation
and maybe drop the 2 day minimum expected time for vacations called
by the rules as well.  We already have similar language in the
No Dead Players rule and the Silly Vacation Hat rule.  In any case,
I will send this proposal out as soon as I can figure out who to send
it to; I guess Mohammed's duties fall to the President, Niccolo Flychuck.

Niccolo Flychuck may want to call a holiday for 2 days to help allow time
to clean up the mess, if it looks like it's going to be bad enough to
need that.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 08:51:28 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted Important Stuff

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Proposal 1700 failed due to quorum, putting a bunch of players, including
> the Promoter/Tabulator, on vacation.  Dueto a bit in the vacation rule
> which was instituted to prevent players from abusing it by strategically
> going on short vacations, these players must stay on vacation for two full
> days before coming back.  I want to change this from:
>  a player who has been on vacation less than 2 days may not take
>  themselves off vacation
> to:
>  a player who has been on a voluntarily activated vacation less than
>  2 days may not take themselves off vacation
> and maybe drop the 2 day minimum expected time for vacations called
> by the rules as well.  We already have similar language in the
> No Dead Players rule and the Silly Vacation Hat rule.  In any case,
> I will send this proposal out as soon as I can figure out who to send
> it to; I guess Mohammed's duties fall to the President, Niccolo Flychuck.

Yes they do.

> 
> Niccolo Flychuck may want to call a holiday for 2 days to help allow time
> to clean up the mess, if it looks like it's going to be bad enough to
> need that.

Which might earn the title of teh Holidayig President. I guess I'll have
to confer with the Speaker before I do that.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> /dev/joe
> 

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:11:42 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: G & C 107

G & C proposal by /dev/joe has been accepted

endorsed by:

Niccolo Flychuck
Guy Fawkes
snowgod
ThinMan
/dev/joe

Sometime today or tomorrow I'll add this to the G&C page, and also add all
the changes from recent proposals.

Maybe I'll even figure out the Fictionary game state, in light of the
current Vacation.
Meanwhile I am anouncing the current game of Fictionary to be an
Exhibition. This will minimize its interference with the game state (that
is the nomic game state)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:20:58 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Report

More than 5 days have passed since my last score report, with quite a
bit of activity.  We also got to see the quorum-crisis-prevention
measures in action, which ended up creating a small crisis anyway
because the Tabulator was one of those who failed to vote.

Here is the scoring since the last score report:

Feb 01 17:53 EST: -4 Guy Fawkes: retract P1709, 1710
Feb 01 20:15 EST: +6 breadbox: Duel winner
Feb 01 20:15 EST: -6 Robert Sevin: Duel loser
Feb 01 20:15 EST: +3 Malenkai: Duel winner's second
Feb 01 20:15 EST: -3 Calvin N Hobbes: Duel loser's second
Feb 01 20:15 EST: +6 /dev/joe: Duel winner
Feb 01 20:15 EST: -6 Malenkai: Duel loser
Feb 01 20:15 EST: +3 Mohammed: Duel winner's second
Feb 01 20:15 EST: -3 Guy Fawkes: Duel loser's second
Proposal 1667-1679 scoring:
  1667,68 rejected
  1669 modest
  1670 rejected
  1671,72,73 normal
  1674 rejected
  1675 modest
  1677 rejected
  1678 modest
  1679 rejected
Feb 03 14:47 EST: -2 /dev/joe: retract P1705
Feb 04 12:00 EST: +6 snowgod: swingpoint conversion
Proposal 1680-1692 scoring:
  1680 normal
  1681 rejected
  1682,83 modest,short,tuba
  1684,85,86 rejected
  1687,88,89 normal
  1690 modest
  1691,92 normal
Feb 06 01:14 EST: -10 Niccolo Flychuck: did not respond to CFJ 343
Proposal 1693-1700 scoring:
  1693 modest
  1694,95 normal
  1696 modest
  1698 normal
  1700 failed to meet quorum
       Mohammed, fnord, Robert Sevin, Calvin N Hobbes, breadbox, Techno,
       mr cwm, Jammer, and Red Barn each lose 5 points and were put on
       vacation.
Feb 06 22:14 EST: +15 Malenkai: Chrome streak P1687-96,98 broken
Feb 06 22:14 EST: +15 Guy Fawkes: Chrome streak P1687-96,98 broken
Feb 06 22:14 EST: +5 /dev/joe: Chrome streak P1687-96,98 broken
Feb 07 01:09 EST: -10 Calvin N Hobbes: failed to deliver verdict on CFJ 344

Current Scores:

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
99      Malenkai             Ag  (Randy Hall)
82      Guy Fawkes           A   (Robert Shimmin)
79      /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
51      Swann                A   (Steven Swiniarski)
35      Strider              A   (Jason McCulley)
35      Lestrade             A   (John Duncan)
33      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
27      mr cwm              IV   (Eric Murray)
26      snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
22      fnord               IV   (Michael Thomas)
17      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
10      Mohammed            IV   (Jason Orendorff)
0       Narf                 N   (Joshua Nave)
0       Ludwig               N   (Chris Lundberg)
0       Clairence           II   (Clair Anthony Viglione)
0       BuzzBee             NI   (John Coifman)
0       23 Skidoo            I   (David Thomas Fisher)
- -1      Calvin N Hobbes     IV   (Thierry Joffrain)
- -2      Techno              IV   (Jerome Herrman)
- -4      Red Barn            IV   (Daniel Knapp)
- -19     Jammer              IV   (John Lotz)
- -19     Bascule              Vv  (Matt Black)
- -21     breadbox            IV   (Brian Raiter)
- -26     Robert Sevin        IVv  (Mitchell Harding)

Status:
A=Active, N=New, V=Vacationing, IV=Involuntary Vacation, I=On Ice,
D=Dead, R=Returning (non-active), v=Victory Eggplant, g=Chartreuse Goose

Also, I note that the On Ice rule was changed in the last batch to
knock players out after just 60 days on ice instead of 90; this doesn't
eliminate anybody yet, but BuzzBee is only 19 days away.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:22:24 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Score Report

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Also, I note that the On Ice rule was changed in the last batch to
> knock players out after just 60 days on ice instead of 90; this doesn't
> eliminate anybody yet, but BuzzBee is only 19 days away.

Does your figure of 19 days account for holidays?

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:26:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Hearing 106

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Proposal 1695 passed, calling a hearing on the future of PFbonds.

The choices are:

"Bonds are worth the work, and I'm willing to do that work."
"Bonds are cool, but they just aren't worth the effort."

Note also that the Prez should call for a nomination for Undead-Harfer.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:36:52 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted Important Stuff

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Proposal 1700 failed due to quorum, putting a bunch of players, including
> the Promoter/Tabulator, on vacation.  Due to a bit in the vacation rule
> which was instituted to prevent players from abusing it by strategically
> going on short vacations, these players must stay on vacation for two full
> days before coming back.  I want to change this from:
>    a player who has been on vacation less than 2 days may not take
>    themselves off vacation
> to:
>    a player who has been on a voluntarily activated vacation less than
>    2 days may not take themselves off vacation
> and maybe drop the 2 day minimum expected time for vacations called
> by the rules as well.  We already have similar language in the
> No Dead Players rule and the Silly Vacation Hat rule.

I personally do not want to see the quorum failure penalty weakened.
If the two day thing is objectionable, perhaps some other penalty should
replace it, like Chartreuse Goslings, or something.  At least the two
day thing prevents a whole string of proposals from failing, in theory.

Without the two day penalty, a group of people could work in concert to
*intentionally* cause a quorum crisis.  I remember the talk of this
during the original quorum crisis.  The two day thing at least is
safe, and players should be aware of the potential consequences of not
voting.

Perhaps the real solution is to propose your non-voting status, and 
automatically force players who do not vote on a quorum failure into
that status for a week, or something.  This is preferrable, IMHO, to
weakening the quorum protection.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:07:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Official 

In keeping with R415 I am anouncing that a Proposal Moratorium will start
tomorrow, for a duration of two days.

Niccolo Flychuck
President.

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 02:09:13 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Score Report

Malenkai wrote:
> Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > Also, I note that the On Ice rule was changed in the last batch to
> > knock players out after just 60 days on ice instead of 90; this doesn't
> > eliminate anybody yet, but BuzzBee is only 19 days away.
> 
> Does your figure of 19 days account for holidays?

Whoops. No.
Add however many days worth of holidays there have been to this
(9, I think).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:15:41 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Returning from Vacation 

>This makes 8 votes and 9 abstains, and the proposal fails to meet quorum.
>Mohammed, fnord, Robert Sevin, Calvin N Hobbes, breadbox, Techno, mr cwm,
>Jammer, and Red Barn are put on vacation, and then none of the other
>proposal results count because Mohammed can't release proposal results
>while he's on vacation. :-)

I'd like to publicly announce my return from my vacation, if I am indeed on
vacation.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:19:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted Important Stuff

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> that status for a week, or something.  This is preferrable, IMHO, to
> weakening the quorum protection.

May I ask one of the more senior players why we have quorum at all?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:27:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Holiday?

Did our esteemed President call for a Holiday, and if he did, when did it 
begin?

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:30:59 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted Important Stuff

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > that status for a week, or something.  This is preferrable, IMHO, to
> > weakening the quorum protection.
> 
> May I ask one of the more senior players why we have quorum at all?
> 
> Guy Fawkes
>
Suppose we didn't have quorum, we could very well have proposals passing
because a single player voted yes, and no one else voted at all, or other
proposals passing on ridicilous majorities.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:40:21 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Holiday? - no.

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Did our esteemed President call for a Holiday, and if he did, when did it 
> begin?
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 

I did not call for a Holiday. 
In fact, I was even asked not to. I did call for a proposal Moratorium,
which, according to the rules, starts the day after it is anounced. What
it means is that once it start officers can't distribute proposals. I have
anounced a two day moratorium, which should be more than enough time for
Mohammed to get back into things

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:40:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted Important Stuff

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> Suppose we didn't have quorum, we could very well have proposals passing
> because a single player voted yes, and no one else voted at all, or other
> proposals passing on ridicilous majorities.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

If only one or two players are voting on a proposal, we have a lot worse 
problems than quorum.

GF

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 08:42:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted Important Stuff

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> May I ask one of the more senior players why we have quorum at all?

Because at least 2 attempts to repeal it have failed.  Elder tinan
was especially vocal in his opposition to lowering quorum, whereas
myself and Elder Wayne were usually trying to lower and remove it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 08:45:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate

I am appointing Strider acting senator for breadbox's seat, and
Lestrade acting senator for Robert Sevin's seat.

Although there is no business before the senate, I feel I should do
so for the sake of completeness, and apologize for not doing so last
night.

Malenkai
Acting Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:55:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted Important Stuff

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Suppose we didn't have quorum, we could very well have proposals passing
> > because a single player voted yes, and no one else voted at all, or other
> > proposals passing on ridicilous majorities.
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> If only one or two players are voting on a proposal, we have a lot worse 
> problems than quorum.
> 
> GF
>
It means the proposal doens't generate enough interest. but please don't
take the numbers as are. 

This is something that goes with a non-turn based game.
In a turn based nomic, at least in Suber's  initial ruleset, of making a
proposal, discussing and then voting on it.  
In a non turn based game we don't have that kind of schedule.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 08:54:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Change of Faith

It is with much sadness that I must announce that I am leaving the
Church of the Markovian Dream.  I leave with only the most fond memories
of what, IMHO, the Church accomplished for the game.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:55:17 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: ACKA: I'm back from vacation

I am publically announcing my return from vacation

John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:26:54 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Vacation 

Because of an unexpectedly long period of limited e-mail access,
I am going on vacation, expected duration three days.  I have
not seen any Ackanomic business since yesterday morning, but
hopefully my mail will back up to speed by Monday morning.

Regards,

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:43:47 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Auction

I bid A$140

Niccolo Flychuck

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> >> >I bid A$75 for Fragment 16.
> >> >
> >> >               Strider
> >> I bid A$90 for Fragment 16.
> >> 
> >> Robert Sevin
> >I bid A$100 for Fragment 16
> >
> >Strider
> 
> I bid A$120 for Fragment 16.
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:07:40 -0800 (PST)
From: fnord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Just for completeness sake

At what exact point did I go on Vacation, so I can know at
the earliest opportunity when I may return from vacation
without breaking any Rules.

Eris forfend I become a criminal or somesuch.

fnord

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:54:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Kolot Ackanomic Special Issue - No More War

No More War 

In an exclusive interview to Kolot Ackanomic, President Flychuck reveals
his involvement in the Thring's decision to reject the so-called "War 
Proposal".
Over the past two weeks rumors abounded about a proposal in our sister
nomic Thring, to declare war on Ackanomic, following Acaknomic's win in
Internomic. These disturbing news have been brought to Ackanomic by
Ambassador snowgod. 
President Flychuck wasted no time in initiating informal talks with the
Thring leadership. 
EArly this week the failure of this proposal was reported. The President
feels that he played no small part in this, even though it has been
suggested that he might have been making too much of it, and wasn't it a
bit harfy?  The President told Kolot that "War is not a matter which can
be taken lightly."

Nicolai Chuckarov
for Kolot Ackanomic

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:19:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Just for completeness sake

> At what exact point did I go on Vacation, so I can know at
> the earliest opportunity when I may return from vacation
> without breaking any Rules.

February 6, 22:14:17 EST.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:05:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Preator/SC

I am appointing /dev/joe acting Praetor.  He thus becomes acting
Justice as well.

I will be forwarding him material for the CFJs in appeal shortly.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:23:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Jukkasjarvi

Please due not request that I reveal to you fragments of the Runestone
of Jukkasjarvi that you do not own.  I just received a rather disturbing
message with such a request for fragments owned by three other individuals,
none of which was the sender of the request, and at least two of which
have given me no indication whatsoever that they wish me to distribute
that information to anyone else.  Even if they had, I will not distribute
fragment text to a non-owner.

I consider the fact that I know the contents of the fragments and owned 
them during the initial distribution an artifict of the simulation, and
not really part of it, and consider such requests for the contents of
the stones you do not own, especially when accompanied with threats, in
poor taste and out of the spirit of this developmental prototype, and
personally unenjoyable.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 11:42:41 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 346 (Strider)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Strider has been chosen.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 346
>   Subject: Inconsistent
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: Strider (selected Feb 06, 1997, 23:23h EST)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Malenkai did not accept the trade quoted below, and was the victim of
> an Orbital Mind Control Laser.

I accept.

- --Strider

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 11:43:25 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 129 (Strider)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Strider has been chosen (again)
> 
> Malenkai -20 court fee
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call for Criminal Judgement 129
>   Subject:  Illegal return from vacation
> Initiator:  Malenkai
>     Judge:  Strider (selected Feb 06, 1997, 23:36 EST)

I accept this one, too. ^_^

Strider

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 18:13:01 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trade Offer

I offer the following trade to Mohammed:

the Little Bag O' Chips F in my possession,

for the following entities in Mohammed's possession:

Scroll of Crumble
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment  1
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment  2
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment  5
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment  6
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment  7
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 10
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 16
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 17
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 18
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 21
Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment 23

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:24:13 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [none]

The party has come to an end.

I bid you all farewell, and thank you for attending.

P.S.  Who has each Bag O' Chips?

Ludwig

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 18:26:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate

I am appointing Guy Fawkes senator in ThinMan's stead.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 18:29:27 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> The party has come to an end.
> 
> I bid you all farewell, and thank you for attending.
> 
> P.S.  Who has each Bag O' Chips?

Which players have which entities is on the players/entities page,
which is accessable off the main page.  It it is a day or so out of
date, but the bag o chips are fairly up to date.

The url is: http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackayp.htm

Also, please put Acka: in your subject lines.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 18:56:56 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 330 Appeal Verdict

The Supreme Court has unamiously upheld the original verdict of 
FALSE on CFJ 330.  For the record, the actual justices were /dev/joe
and Malenkai

Feb 07 18:57 EST: -25 Red Barn: Frivolous appeal of CFJ 330

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 330
  Subject: CFCJ 119 revisited
Initiator: Red Barn
    Judge: Swann (selected Jan 17, 1997, 19:32h EST)
Judgement: FALSE
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

  The first complaint made by Red Barn was legitimately exercised for the
purposes of R1448.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  R1448 refers to a player "legitimately exercising this ability [to
complain]".  It is not clearly defined what precisely constitutes
legitimately exercising the ability.  Presumably, it can be defined as
publicly posting a legitimate complaint.  Nor is a legitimate complaint
defined.  However, R1448 says, on line 6 of paragraph one:

In order for this complaint to have the effects described in this rule,...

  Therefore, it can be assumed that a legitimate complaint is, rather than
a complaint having any specific effects, merely a complaint complying with
the rules.
  Paragraph one, lines 1-4, read:

  Any new player of Ackanomic (defined, for these purposes, as a player
who has been a player of Ackanomic for less than 31 days) that is playing
Ackanomic for the first time (i.e. they have only joined the game of
Ackanomic once) may publicly complain when they lose any points or
currency. ...

  Red Barn submitted an entity of ambiguous type to the Clerk of the
Court, who treated it as a CFCJ until it was determined not to be.

  Rule 710 states:
  1) A "court fee" of A$20 will be paid by the player making the CFCJ, to
the Treasury.

  I submit that any action labelled as a CFCJ and treated as such by the
Clerk of the Court incurs such a fee, because the action was treated as a
CFCJ beyond the point at which such a fee would be incurred.

  Therefore Red Barn paid A$20 to the court, and the complaint in question
was legitimate.

Swann's Reasoning:

I judge FALSE since it seems that, regardless of the perception of the
caller,
the money in question wasn't "really" debited, so the complaint was not
legitimate.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court agrees with the original judge, as the money was never
paid.  Even if the filing fee was paid, however, it cannot be construed
as a penalty.  The issue of "penalty" was handled in CFJ 329, and the
language of R 1129 (was 1448) indicates the loss must be a penalty.

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

Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 19:09:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 341 Verdict

The Supreme Court has unanimously judged CFJ 341 FALSE.  ThinMan
has also added his reasoning to the CFJ privately via his Bronze
Torch (would the web-harfer note).  The justices were /dev/joe and
Malenkai

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: FALSE

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.

ThinMan's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

I specified on January 29 that his computer's clock had been 35 seconds
fast for the previous several days, including the day on which the
closely-timed messages were sent.  This correction factor is sufficient
to make the time of my post actually be before that of Guy Fawkes'.
The only question, then, is whether that correction may be legally
applied.

Guy Fawkes has argued that the R370 provision allowing retroactive
time corrections is rendered invalid by R 103.  I claim, however,
that despite the wording of R370, it does not, in fact, generate _or
attempt to generate_ a retroactive effect.  The pertinent section of
R 370 describes how e-mail timestamps are to be interpreted, and I
claim that the meaning of applying a correction retroactively is to
reinterpet the relevant timestamp(s) in light of the correction
factor(s).  The reinterpretation is mandated for the present, not
the past.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Malenkai's comments:

First, as far as the Postmaster factually determining the relavent
information, it can be argued that nothing can be determined factually
in this game.  Myself and Red Barn could be the same player, for
example.  How do you know were not?  "Factually" has to be construed
in the context of the "spirit of the game", as it has been the entire
game, and in this light, it it my judgement that the Postmaster
factually determined ThinMan's machine guess to be first, and exercised
his privilege to apply this correction.

So it does come down to the retroactivity question raised by the
initiator.  From R 103:

> No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
> before the generation of the effect. A rule change that would have
> effects retroactive to before the time of its application is invalid.

>From R 370:

> Such corrections may be applied retroactively, provided they are
> announced within 3 days of the post or posts to which they are
> being applied.

I agree with ThinMan that the correction is not a
retroactive *effect*, but disagree in that I construe it to be a
retroactive *interpretation* (where he labelled it a present-time
interpretation).

All matters of Judgement in this game are retroactive interpretations --
it is not possible for them to be otherwise.  Judgements apply
retroactively to any game-state split that they adjudicate, and are
not really *effects*, but Platonically tell us which game state we happen
to be in.  I render the language at the end of R 370 to be similar to
judgement, in this case it being a privilege of the Postmaster or
the person sending the e-mail to make that judgement, provided they
comply with the other parameters of the priviledge.  The fact that
the Postmaster's judgement in this matter was not made via a formal
CFJ is irrelavent.

/dev/joe's comments:

> >From R 370:
>
> > Such corrections may be applied retroactively, provided they are
> > announced within 3 days of the post or posts to which they are
> > being applied.
>
> I agree with ThinMan that the correction is not a
> retroactive *effect*, but disagree in that I construe it to be a
> retroactive *interpretation* (where he labelled it a present-time
> interpretation).

I agree with this "retroactive interpretation" interpretation.

I also agree with ThinMan's argument that his already-published
correction factor was sufficient to make his post be first, even
without my later, different correction, but note that if there was a
difference, my correction based on the time stamps of the individual
messages would hold.

I also note that this verdict results in ThinMan being the Scholar
just after I ceased to be Scholar, but since he went on vacation, the
machine teleports to another player's home.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #509
*******************************