Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #531
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Thursday, February 20 1997      Volume 01 : Number 531

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:07:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal Results 

In a message dated 97-02-19 22:57:37 EST, malenkai wrote:

<< 1) Both Narf and snowgod voted on at least one proposal, and indicated
 they wanted a Runestone of Jukkasjarvi Fragment.  I give
 snowgod fragment 5 and Narf fragment 1.  Both Randomly chosen. >>

I thank thee kindly sir, and after reading my fragment, I put it in my
pocket, happy as a clam

Narf

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:11:06 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Diplomacy and copyrights

Robert Sevin wrote:
> I would certainly be interested... A former player (who went by the Acka
> name of Perfect Tommy) would also like to play.

Good, he can test out the non-voting player system (if he only wants to play
Diplomacy, and not the rest of Acka).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:13:33 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rosebud 

>> Now imagine, if you will, the following URL will in some way help you with
>> your quest.
>>
>> http://pri0.perceptualrobotics.com/scripts/intercam.dll?CGI?device=
>> Camera1.0.0&quality=balanced&scale=0.5&pan=117&tilt=-3&zoom=1
>
>Imagine doing this with lynx.
>
>b

I thought of that, but I have also provided enough clues that any person
should be able to find it without this URL, if they think about it a little
and remember their history (or stayed informed of current events).

If you wish, I can send you a JPG that you can download and view as if you
had accessed this URL.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:18:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Rosebud 

Yes... please do send a copy of the .jpg... I admit to being highly confused.

Narf

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:22:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Report

The magic potato and great tuba were quite active today!

The Brass Monkey did its thing again for P1714-1723.

Scoring since last report:
P1711 rejected (possibly this occurred later, but it doesn't seem to matter)
Whamiol scoring for Narf becoming active (/dev/joe, snowgod, Strider)
Feb 19 10:30 EST: -2 Lestrade: retracted P1731
P1713 rejected (author left game, but scoring for yes votes)
P1714 accepted
P1715 accepted (author left game)
P1716,1717 modest,potato
P1718 modest,potato,short
P1719 potato
P1720,1721,1722 modest,potato
P1723 modest,tuba
P1724 rejected
  (points for Chrome Streak 1714-1723: ThinMan 5, Malenkai 15, breadbox 5,
   Guy Fawkes would get 5 if he was still here)
P1725 modest
P1712 rejected (and author left game)

Current Scores:

Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- -----   --------------      ---  -------------
179     Malenkai             Ag  (Randy Hall)
115     /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
70      Strider              A   (Jason McCulley)
56      snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
51      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
46      Swann               IV   (Steven Swiniarski)
38      mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
33      Lestrade             A   (John Duncan)
32      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
22      fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
10      Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff)
3       Narf                 A   (Joshua Nave)
3       Ludwig               A   (Chris Lundberg)
0       BuzzBee             NI   (John Coifman)
0       23 Skidoo            I   (David Thomas Fisher)
0       Clairence           II   (Clair Anthony Viglione)
0       Panther              N   (Terry McKechnie)
0       IdiotBoy             R   (Matt Miller)
- -1      Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
- -2      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
- -7      breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
- -19     Bascule              Vv  (Matt Black)
- -26     Jammer               A   (John Lotz)
- -26     Robert Sevin         Av  (Mitchell Harding)
- -29     Red Barn            II   (Daniel Knapp)

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:23:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidental Nomination 

>If you would like to volunteer for this office, e-mail me.  The
>nomination lasts for 3 days.
>
>Malenkai
>Speaker

Techno for President! :)
snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:31:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1711 failed quorum (Value) 

>> I'll resign it if you want it, but I don't mind doing it either.
>	Okay, I'll take it.
>
Let me consider this for a little bit longer.  SOmeone has raised some
interesting points.

I am not yet resigning.

Perhaps until then, how about if I cc: a copy of every official registrar
message to Mohammed w/ a special subject line.  Acka: Mohammed: Registrar
forexample.

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:24:00 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1739 

>On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
>
>> Proposal 1739
>> Organized Crime
>> Narf
>>
>Whatever you do, don't throw a vote strike!
>
>IB

Or organize against one!!!

snowgod
thick as thieves we were

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:35:11 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1725 accepted (Potato Adjustment) 

>Proposal 1725
>Potato Adjustment
>mr cwm
>
>Votes cast by active players:  10 / 16 = 62.500000%
>Yes:  9    No:  2     Present:  0   ...Proposal accepted.
>

>NO votes:
>	/dev/joe
>	snowgod

Bet we've never seen this before :)

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:40:22 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fragment 

I am willing to trade Rune fragment 5 for another fragment.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:18:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragment

snowgod wrote:
> I am willing to trade Rune fragment 5 for another fragment.

I offer Runestone fragment 23 for it.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:26:54 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragment 

>snowgod wrote:
>> I am willing to trade Rune fragment 5 for another fragment.
>
>I offer Runestone fragment 23 for it.
>
>/dev/joe

I accept this trade.  Does malenkai send us each the text, or shall we send
it to eachother?

snowgod

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:43:02 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PHP Poem 

It is with sadn3ess and regret that I present to you this Party Hall Party
poem.  This months peom is not only depressing and awfully written (perhaps
my greatest achievement in depressing and awul poetry to date), it is also
quite delinquent.

snowgod
Gaoler

Oh ackanomic, when I joined thee
There were rules, but so few
The game was fun, well, it still is
but soon our ruleset grew,
to humongous size and enormous girth
and from this ruleset was given birth
subgames, poetry, And all the rest
theres always something new!

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:34:37 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragment trade 

I hereby offer to trade runestone fragment 1 for fragment 11... that is if
/dev/joe will accept my offer.

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:41:53 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragment trade 

>I hereby offer to trade runestone fragment 1 for fragment 11... that is if
>/dev/joe will accept my offer.
>
>Narf

If Not, I will trade Fragment 1 for Fragment 23.

snowgod

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 02:44:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragment trade

> I hereby offer to trade runestone fragment 1 for fragment 11... that is if
> /dev/joe will accept my offer.

I accept.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 04:03:38 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Fragments 

I'm a little uncertain of how this works.  Now that I've traded away my
fragment, am I still allowed to tell others what it said?  Or provide decoded
versions of such (I just finished decoding mine)?

Narf

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:15:35 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1738

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> [part of what makes]
> > this game fun is being subject to a huge rulesetthat requires constant
> > attention.  
> 	I don't think it's fun having no clue what's going on... but part of 
> what's fun is that everyone has a different idea of what's fun.  :o)
> 
> 	If I were to choose rules to delete, I would pick:
> 	- the rules regulating playing cards (unused)

I would move these into G&C, where they make more sense. Their original
purpose was to allow the creation of subgames, which eventually surfaced
as G&C. The Decks of Card make a useful template for that.

> 	- the Undead rules (unfun)
I'd keep those.

> 	- the point-win rules (not much fun, lotsa work)
> 	- the map (don't believe it should be legislated)
> 	- middle ages (enough is enough!)

I've tried this before.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Especially the Map.  It's nice to look at, but why does that need to be 
> a rule?  :oP  No offsense, Malenkai.
> 
> --Mohammed
> oops, I didn't mean to waste time replying to this stuff, just read it 
> and rerelease the voting results... but I wanted to let Narf know 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:16:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Traveling

I am visiting the Tower of Bandwidth.
Maybe something written on its walls will help me solve one of these
treasures (Red Barn's, or others).
I notice it is not up-to-date.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 04:15:24 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments 

Hmmm...

I know what I'll do.

I am currently in possesion of translations from two fragments, #1 and #11.
 I will share the text written on each of them to anyone who votes yes on any
of my proposals that is accepted between now and the time the entire
runestone is deciphered and restored.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:28:15 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 
> > One solution would be to make some provisions for this case here as well,
> > but why create unnecessary complexity where it serves little purpose?
> > I believe the simpler solution would to maintain the current membership
> > policies of Parties.
> 	That's not the case, unfortunately.  It's much simpler just to say 
> "To belong to more than one Party at a time is aCrime."
> 
> > I suggest:
> > " An Organization may purchase a Big Tent provided that none of its are
> > mmebres of a Party. A player may be a member of at most one Party at any
> > given time."
> 	I thought of that, but that language doesn't tell what happens when 
> a Party trades its Big Tent to another Organization which has a member 
> that's in another party.  Maybe there are other odd little situations; in 
> any case I think it's better to use Crime than to try and account for 
> them all.  :oP

Fine. Suppose  it says:
"It is impermissible for a player to be a member of more than one Party
at an given time."

Any action which results in breaking the above rule, does not happen. No
need to make any provisions for anything. While the designation of such a
result as a crime may be useful, but in itself has little consequence,
until a CFCJ has been judged TRUE and a penalty has been given. A process
that can take several day.
Meanwhile, there is nothing to prevent those multiple Unity Votes from
being counted.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > > --Mohammed
> 

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:29:14 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> > > > [4.  Organization Similarity]
> > > I don't think this section is an improvement on the existing language. I
> > > had to read it twice just to figure it out. 
> > 	Okay, I'll change it back.  Or at least change it.  I still think 
> > the current mathematical language is a little esoteric.
> 	How's this:
> 
> =====
> For any two Organizations X and Y, orgsim(X, Y) is defined as the
> percentage of members of X who are also members of Y.
> 
> The H Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the greater of
> orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A).
> 
> The L Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the lesser of
> orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A).
> 
> The M Similarity between two Organizations, A and B, is the averageof
> orgsim(A, B) and orgsim(B, A).
> =====
Looks fine to me.
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:51:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments

[email-masked] wrote:
 
> I'm a little uncertain of how this works.  Now that I've traded away my
> fragment, am I still allowed to tell others what it said?  Or provide
> decoded versions of such (I just finished decoding mine)?

Here is how it works.  Whenever an event occurs that would allow a
player to view a fragment they could not view immediately prior to
that event occurring, I e-mail that player the text privately.  Generally
possession of the trinket is the qualifying event.

You can do whatever you want with both the text and the trinkets.  If
you post the text publically, however, there is no guarentee that it
is genuine.  Text from me is always verbatim from my notes, and will not
change as a fragment is passed around.

Because Trinkets are not the best technology to implement this, there is
one thing that I ask:  1) Don't tamper with my initial distribution or
cajole info about the text out of me (as I am an artifact of the 
simulation; referee).  There are a couple of other flaws with using
trinkets as well, but since it *can* work, it was worth a try.

Also, there is still time left to acquire some more fragments via various
game actions before they are auctioned.  I am willing to referee a game
of Ghost, the winner getting a fragment, if there is any interest.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:36:37 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Acka: Treasures and Fragments and Trinkets, oh my

My Elwes is telling me (even though he can't, technically) that Elvis is 
still bothering him.  I decide to get out of my House, and take a walk
around our fair Ackanomic.

I go back to the Monument to Futility, unable to enter its fair walls,
to gaze upon the statue of the Chartreus Goose, posed so gloriously.  Still,
I must retrieve my Elvis.  I take to wing, gliding up along the Monument's
spire.  I reach out my hand, and mysteriously, the Elvis Trinket appears,
as if out of nowhere, into my hand.  I knew, however, that it was merely
the force of the talens drawing it to me.

I fly with my Elvis, over to the Tower of Bandwidth.  I greet /dev/joe,
look down over the edge and say to him, "You should throw the vine down
to Jane, as Cheetah has no paws with which to catch it."

I bid farewell to /dev/joe, taking flight again, heading for the Treasury.
Once there, I look at my Elvis.  I can hear him say "Don't be cruel."
Needs must be met, though, and so I destroy my Elvis Trinket, getting back
the A$23 from its creation.  I donate that A$23 to the Round Earth Restoration
Society, for it seems a wonderfully Discordian thing to do.

I then return home.

fnord -A$69 Trinket Creation (Elves, Elvis, Elwes)
fnord +A$69 Trinket Destruction (Elvis)
fnord -A$23 RERS donation

(forgot those before, sorry)

fnord

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:47:40 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasures and Fragments and Trinkets, oh my

fnord writes:
> 
> fnord -A$69 Trinket Creation (Elves, Elvis, Elwes)
> fnord +A$69 Trinket Destruction (Elvis)
> fnord -A$23 RERS donation

Ack!  That second line should be 
fnord +A$23 Trinket Destruction (Elvis)

Sorry,
fnord

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:52:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gettin' Religon

I am donating 50 PBPWayne to the Church of Seleya

IB

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:03:00 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1744

Proposal 1744
Proposal Proposal
/dev/joe

proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal 
proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal 
proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal 
proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal 
proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal proposal 

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:03:00 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1743

Proposal 1743
The Day the Earth Stood Still
snowgod

Create a new rule entitles "The Sinister Alien Abduction Act" with the
following text:

Section I - Abduction

Sinister Aliens exist. They are located at an advance staging base on the
metallic universal sphere directly over the top of the earth (henceforth
known as the edge of the universe). Sinister Aliens may alter the text of a
Rule, in the manner and under the conditions set out below. This process is
known as "abduction". The effect of an abduction on a Rule, when it has an
effect, is that of a temporary repeal of said Rule, plus any prescribed
rule changes contained herein .

The selection of the Rule to be abducted by Sinister Aliens occurs as
follows: as soon as possible after the distribution of the magic potato,
the Officer in Charge of Random Things shall select a random integer in the
range [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the lowest and
highest numbered Rulespresent in the Ruleset. A number selected by this
method shall be known as a Alien Target Designation Number. If the Alien
Target Designation Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that Rule
is abducted as described below unless the Rule is protected as described
below, and no further Alien Target Designation Numbers are selected in that
week. If the Alien Target Designation Number is not the number of a Rule,
then a new Alien Target Designation Number is selected as above, unless
three such Alien Target Designation Number (none of which is the number of
a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In that case, the Sinister
Aliens are deemed incompetant and no Rule can be abducted until the next
Magic Potato distribution.

If a Rule has been abducted or if an abduction attempt has been made but
defeated, the Officer in Charge of Random Things shall announce the number
and title of that Rule. If no Rule has been abducted, then he shall
announce that fact.

It is considered good form for the officer in charge of random things to
include an epic tale of  Ancient Alien Battles or a story of the Sinister
Alien's journey from the edge of the universe in this announcement.  It is
also considered good form to announce that the Sinister Aliens "were surely
the Nemesis of our own Ancients" and that "We shall One day triumph over
them, just as our forefathers, the ancients, must have!"

An abducted Rule shall be treated as if it has been repealed for a period
of one week.  After one week the rule is said to be returned by the aliens.
All nomic business related to said rule will be put on hold until the rule
is returned by the Sinister Aliens. Any deadlines that would be violated
because of the abduction shall be extended one week. Any Bad Pointer
References created by the abduction (and temporary repeal) of this rule
shall be treated as ambigous rule changes.

When returned, the rule is amended in the following way:

A) If the Rule does not already contain the sentence "This Rule defers to
all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.", then that sentence is
appended to the Rule.

B)If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the sentence is deleted
from the Rule.

[Popular Theory maintains that the Sinister Aliens are are amending our
rules as some sort of sick practical joke.]

Section II - Protection

The President may purchase an Earth Defense Missle for any Rule for the sum
of A$250 per Rule. No other player may purchase Earth Defense Missles, but
it is considered good form for a player to donate money to the President to
help defray costs. The Prresident may not purchase more than two Earth
Defense Missles in any one clander week.

If the Sinister Aliens attempt to abduct a rule that has been protected
with Earth Defense Missles the aliens shall be blown out of the sky and the
rule designated by the Alien Target Designation Number will remain intact,
and in its original form. The President then has the option acting "hip"
and making a speech congratulating Ackanomic on its victory.

Section III - Exemption

There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the abducted Rule the
Sinister Aliens shall have abducted the only power they maintain over our
ruleset.  As it would be impossible for them to return the rule, this rule
shall then repeal itself.

All Rule Changes caused by the Sinister Alien Abduction Act shall be
attributed to Sinister Aliens.

{{[This rule is a port (w/ modifications) of the Agoran virus rule.  Note
however that I have been planning a rule like this for quite sometime, even
before I knew of the virus, and was not influenced by the Agoran Rule in
the creation of this one.]}}

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:03:01 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1745

Proposal 1745
Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition
Narf

{{
[According to websters dictionary, a heretic is "a dissenter from established
church dogma".  Since all Acka residents do not belong to the same church,
and do not share the same dogma, the use of heretic in our ruleset needs to
be rexamined]

In rule #1307, replace
 "...alleged witch shall be branded a witch and heretic."
with
 "...alleged witch shall be branded a witch and a hisitic."

replace
"Any Player who has been burned as a heretic exactly once is considered
Enlightened. Any Player burned more than once, however, is beyond hope and
may never become Enlightened. Any Player who is Enlightened is free to say
what they wish, and may never have a Witchhunt called against them, or be
burned as a heretic. This paragraph has precedence over all others in this
rule. "
 with
 "Any Player who has been burned as a hisitic exactly once is considered
Enlightened.  This is the only way a player can become enlightened.  Any
Player burned more than once, however, is beyond hope and may never become
Enlightened. Any Player who is Enlightened is free to say what they wish, and
may never have a Witchhunt called against them, or be burned as a hisitic.
This paragraph has precedence over all others in this rule. "

In rule 1305, replace
 "A player who is a member of a Church can't be burned as a witch, or as a
heretic provided e follow the following procedure: "
 with
 "A player who is a member of a Church can't be burned as a witch, or as a
hisitic provided e follow the following procedure:"

add the following paragraph, delineated by :), to rule #1305.

  :)
3. There exists an un-ownable entity known as Baron Torquemada.  If any
player holds the altar by the horns, Baron Torquemada conducts an
inquisition, using his chief weapons: Fear and surprise.  Within one week,
the founder of the church must either a) release publicly all private church
policy and dogma, b) disband the church, turning all of the church's assets
over to the treasury, or c) donate A$1000 to the treasury.  This has priority
over rule #1301
 :)

}}

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:55:26 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: Acka:  Could someone tell me how to get to Acrobot.

I did some work on my system and have lost Acrobot's
address,  I want to vote.  I'd appreciate it if someone 
would send me the E-mail address.

Jammer
AKA
John-Martin Lotz
[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:28:13 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Could someone tell me how to get to Acrobot.

Jammer wrote:

>I did some work on my system and have lost Acrobot's
>address,  I want to vote.  I'd appreciate it if someone 
>would send me the E-mail address.

The e-mail address is the same as Mohammed's: [email-masked].
If you ever lose it again, you can find it by looking up Mohammed on
the players/entities page.  If you forget which player you're looking
for, look for the one designated as "Tabulator."

Remember to put "Acrobot" in the subject line.

Cheers,

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:28:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

> Fine. Suppose  it says:
> "It is impermissible for a player to be a member of more than one Party
> at an given time."
> 
> Any action which results in breaking the above rule, does not happen. No
	I dunno.  That doesn't necessarily follow.  Just because the
action would result in an impermissible state of affairs does not mean
that the action itself is impermissible.
	I see what you're saying about Crime, though.  It's not a 
complete solution.  :oP
	How about this: "...the Party itself generates an extra vote blah
blah blah unless that Party has a member that is also a member of some
other Party."  So the unity vote doesn't work if your party has dual
members. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:18:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1711 failed quorum (Value)

> Perhaps until then, how about if I cc: a copy of every official registrar
> message to Mohammed w/ a special subject line.  Acka: Mohammed: Registrar
> forexample.
	No thanks , but I'll make some changes to the bot to give you
access to change players' states:

#vacation niccolo-flychuck
#active niccolo-flychuck

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:30:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments

> Also, there is still time left to acquire some more fragments via various
> game actions before they are auctioned.  I am willing to referee a game
> of Ghost, the winner getting a fragment, if there is any interest.
	I'm in.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:32:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> 
> > Also, there is still time left to acquire some more fragments via various
> > game actions before they are auctioned.  I am willing to referee a game
> > of Ghost, the winner getting a fragment, if there is any interest.
>         I'm in.

I will start a game of ghost at 23:59 tonite if 3 or more players 
sign up by then.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:40:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

re:  org actions
> This is an extremely interesting concept, however, there may some 
> possibilities that you want to prepare for.  Should there be a time limit
> on how long an Organization has to approve?  Suppose one player in 
> the org decides to not say anything (yea or nay) anbout a suggestion.
> What about Vacation or Gaol or other similar situations?
	Does anyone have anything to say about these questions?
	The way I'm thinking of doing it is setting a 7-day time limit.  
If anyone denounces the suggestion, it's killed.  If everyone approves 
it before the 7 days is up, it happens.
	If time runs out, the action happens if more than half the org 
approved it, and fails otherwise.
	Objections?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:42:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Conspiracy Board-Game

> I could probably dig up the original board.
	Please do that, if you can, at your convenience.  This sounds 
like a really neat game.  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:56:35 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments

> Jason Orendorff wrote:
> > 
> > > Also, there is still time left to acquire some more fragments via various
> > > game actions before they are auctioned.  I am willing to referee a game
> > > of Ghost, the winner getting a fragment, if there is any interest.
> >         I'm in.
> 
> I will start a game of ghost at 23:59 tonite if 3 or more players 
> sign up by then.

I'm in; I will try to avoid looking up any relevant words in any of the
dictionaries while the game is going on, although I'm currently writing
a Scrabble bot, and I will resign if "trying" wasn't enough.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:55:39 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Fragments

>I will start a game of ghost at 23:59 tonite if 3 or more players 
>sign up by then.

Count me in.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:04:04 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments

Mohammed writes:
> > I am willing to referee a game
> > of Ghost, the winner getting a fragment, if there is any interest.
> 	I'm in.

What the heck, about time I tried another game.  Count me in.

fnord

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:07:55 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

Mohammed writes:
> re:  org actions
(fnord wrote this, btw):
> > This is an extremely interesting concept, however, there may some 
> > possibilities that you want to prepare for.  Should there be a time limit
> > on how long an Organization has to approve?  Suppose one player in 
> > the org decides to not say anything (yea or nay) anbout a suggestion.
> > What about Vacation or Gaol or other similar situations?

> 	The way I'm thinking of doing it is setting a 7-day time limit.  
> If anyone denounces the suggestion, it's killed.  If everyone approves 
> it before the 7 days is up, it happens.

I like this stuff.  Seven days should be _plenty_ of time for
everyone to respond.

> 	If time runs out, the action happens if more than half the org 
> approved it, and fails otherwise.

I think that this might want to be put at 2/3rds, or maybe even
settable by the org in question, so that each org can define how
many of its members need approve.  Or, it could be based on what type
of action is being attempted.

fnord

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:07:32 -0600
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1746

Proposal 1746
Lestrade's Shubik Auction Suggestion
Malenkai

This is a Modest proposal.

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

Amend R 516, "Auction", to replace:

"
      6b) In a public auction, each bid, except the first one, must
exceed the previous bid by at least 10%, or it is disqualified. 
"

with:

"
      6b) In a public auction, each bid, except the first one, must
exceed the previous bid by at least 10% for regular public auctions,
and at least 1% for Shubik auctions, or it is disqualified.  
{{Malenkai loses 5 points, Lestrade gains 5 points.}}
"

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:21:12 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gettin' Religon

IdiotBoy wrote:
> I am donating 50 PBPWayne to the Church of Seleya

I wasn't certain initially about the legality of this, but it looks OK.
Rule 1301 has me managing the church's currency and assets, and rule
256 makes bond promissories tradable.

On behalf of the Church of Seleya, I accept the donation.

(Looking at the rules about bonds makes me realize I need to delete the
bond-harfer meta-rule (R427.1) now that a bond-harfer has been appointed.)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:41:44 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fragments

All this talk about trading fragments reminds me that I have Fragment 19,
which, nice though it is, I'm not, realistically, about to put much effort
into using.  I'll trade it for a pfBond of anyone who has a positive score
in this latest report. 

- -mr cwm

>
>Current Scores:
>
>Score   Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
>-----   --------------      ---  -------------
>179     Malenkai             Ag  (Randy Hall)
>115     /dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis)
>70      Strider              A   (Jason McCulley)
>56      snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley)
>51      Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck)
>46      Swann               IV   (Steven Swiniarski)
>38      mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray)
>33      Lestrade             A   (John Duncan)
>32      ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger)
>22      fnord                A   (Michael Thomas)
>10      Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff)
>3       Narf                 A   (Joshua Nave)
>3       Ludwig               A   (Chris Lundberg)
>0       BuzzBee             NI   (John Coifman)
>0       23 Skidoo            I   (David Thomas Fisher)
>0       Clairence           II   (Clair Anthony Viglione)
>0       Panther              N   (Terry McKechnie)
>0       IdiotBoy             R   (Matt Miller)
>-1      Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
>-2      Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman)
>-7      breadbox             A   (Brian Raiter)
>-19     Bascule              Vv  (Matt Black)
>-26     Jammer               A   (John Lotz)
>-26     Robert Sevin         Av  (Mitchell Harding)
>-29     Red Barn            II   (Daniel Knapp)
>
>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
>

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:43:30 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments

On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Malenkai wrote:

>I will start a game of ghost at 23:59 tonite if 3 or more players 
>sign up by then.

That gives me about 10hrs to read the rules:  count me in.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:50:26 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Fragments

mr cwm wrote:

>All this talk about trading fragments reminds me that I have Fragment 19,
>which, nice though it is, I'm not, realistically, about to put much effort
>into using.  I'll trade it for a pfBond of anyone who has a positive score
>in this latest report. 

Done.

ThinMan +fragment 19, - 1PFThinMan
mr cwm -fragment 19, +1PFThinMan

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:52:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ghost.

Ok, I'm all read up on Ghost, count me in.

- --
Matt Miller
[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:57:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments

On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> All this talk about trading fragments reminds me that I have Fragment 19,
> which, nice though it is, I'm not, realistically, about to put much effort
> into using.  I'll trade it for a pfBond of anyone who has a positive score
> in this latest report. 
> 
> -mr cwm

I offer 1 PFsnowgod for Fragment 19

IB

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:59:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1727 (*Read This Now!*)

DAMN YOUR EYES, MOHAMMED!

Aagh, I was so close....

For the last week, I've had butterflies in my stomach every time I
read my email, expecting a message like that one. If you had to
notice, why couldn't you have noticed last weekend, before I got my
hopes up? I would have paid you *anything* to keep quiet, you know....

Oh, well. I won't retract it. I deserve the point penalty for trying
to extract such a cheesy win. You can't even dignify it by calling it
loophole surfing; it's just a low-down sneak attack. I apologize for
trying to pull such a fast one on my fellow Ackazens.

I actually got the idea for doing this when I first read the Notes
rule, back when I was just an observer. It wasn't until now that I
finally summoned the courage to actually make the attempt.

* sigh *

breadbox
skulking home, hiding his face from the jeering crowd, his second
attempt at evil handily thwarted.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:57:22 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fragments

mr cwm wrote:
> 
> All this talk about trading fragments reminds me that I have Fragment 19,
> which, nice though it is, I'm not, realistically, about to put much effort
> into using.  I'll trade it for a pfBond of anyone who has a positive score
> in this latest report.
> 
> -mr cwm
> 
I offer you 1PFStrider.

Strider

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:10:30 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Fragments

I acknowledge this, if I have to.

- -mr cwm

On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

>mr cwm wrote:
>
>>All this talk about trading fragments reminds me that I have Fragment 19,
>>which, nice though it is, I'm not, realistically, about to put much effort
>>into using.  I'll trade it for a pfBond of anyone who has a positive score
>>in this latest report. 
>
>Done.
>
>ThinMan +fragment 19, - 1PFThinMan
>mr cwm -fragment 19, +1PFThinMan
>
>
>ThinMan
>
>

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:17:13 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Pre-RFC org reorg

On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Fine. Suppose  it says:
> > "It is impermissible for a player to be a member of more than one Party
> > at an given time."
> > 
> > Any action which results in breaking the above rule, does not happen. No
> 	I dunno.  That doesn't necessarily follow.  Just because the
> action would result in an impermissible state of affairs does not mean
> that the action itself is impermissible.
> 	I see what you're saying about Crime, though.  It's not a 
> complete solution.  :oP
> 	How about this: "...the Party itself generates an extra vote blah
> blah blah unless that Party has a member that is also a member of some
> other Party."  So the unity vote doesn't work if your party has dual
> members. 
> 
> --Mohammed

I like that, because that would affect all parties the players is a member
of.  Makes for some interesting plays. I'd prefer it this were in addition
to the Crime thing, though.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #531
*******************************