Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #17
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, March 18 1997        Volume 02 : Number 017

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:04:01 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Processing Chips and Keys

I count the following processing chip changes since march 9th:

IdiotBoy +3
Malenkai +1
Narf +1 (for p1783, which should have been modest, IMHO)
snowgod +1
ThinMan -1 (key)

also, Robert Sevin's key eats another A$7 (effective last monday)
actually, this happens every day, but I record it every monday, as
that is when the 7 day cycle falls

Robert Sevin -7 hungry key

Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 08:25:25 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 353 (Malenkai)

This CFJ should be judged false.
Capturing is defined by R1230.1 where it is clearyly stated that the rule
takes precedence over all PCPD rules except where it explicitly defers.
While the section about pruchasing defers to the King rule, he section
which defines Capture does not defer to the King rule. So we R1230.1 which
defines Captures without making an exception for the King, and we have
section G of the King rule which says tha t aKing can't be Captured. This
a conflict which is resolved by precedence, which the statement about
Captures in section G of the King rule ineffective. Therefore the rules do
not forbid a King from being Captured, and the attack definition works for
the King as well.

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess Expert.

On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Malenkai has been chosen.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 353
> Subject: Checking the Party Chess Rules
> Initiator: Mohammed
>   Judge: Malenkai (selected Mar 16, 1997,23:12h EST)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> In PartyChess, no Swinger can be checked under the current rules.
> 
> Mohammed's Reasoning:
> 
> It comes right out of the rules:
> 
> Rule 1230.2, section 3. D. (i):
> > A Swinger is in Check when his King is attacked by one or more
> > opposing pieces.
> 
> Rule 1230.2, section 3. A. iii.:
> > A piece (1) is attacking opposing piece (2) if and only if they
> > are located on the board such that if it were (1)'s Swinger's turn to
> > move, he could capture piece (2) with piece (1).
> 
> Rule 1230.4 (Creation of a PartyChessPiece King), section G.:
> > A King can be neither purchased nor captured.
> 
> The play log on Niccolo Flychuck's Party Chess WWW page doesn't seem
> to indicate that anyone has ever been checked.
> 
This last bit is neither accurate nor relevant.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:20:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial Correction

I forgot to remove Ludwig, and miscalculated Sarud's starting cash (the
two are unrelated).  His starting cash is A$1009.  Sorry for the
confusion.  It still does not affect the end of cycle tax.
Ludwig's undead record is:

<HR>
<A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">Ludwig</A> (Chris Lundberg) 
[[email-masked]]
   Joined: Feburary 1, 1997, 06:00 EST
   Has the <A HREF="ackata.htm#042">Little Bag O' Chips B</a>
   Has the <A HREF="ackata.htm#043">A Big Bowl of Dip</a>
   Has the <A HREF="ackata.htm#062">Victory Gin</a>
   Has the <A HREF="ackata.htm#064">Victory Gin</a>
   Has the <A HREF="ackata.htm#066">The Splendid One Man Percussion 
Section</a>
   Swinger for <A 
HREF="http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/noneyet.html">(None Yet)</A>

   Cash : 700 A$
   Bonds: 100 PFLudwig

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

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 22:49:56 -0800
From: [email-masked] (John Martin Lotz)
Subject: RE: Acka: Undead

Malenkai wrote

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth, but the undead-harfer is on vacation,
and the prez has not appointed a new one.  These are the player
records for Clairence and 23 Skidoo (to be deleted from my page).
I know Clairence was active, I do not remember about 23 Skidoo.

As a note, Clairence was removed monday the 10th (60 day rule), and
23 Skidoo was removed the earlier of the 14th and the end of the
cycle.  I did not announce them due to being overwhelmed at the
conference.

I took the vacation because of RL events that made it difficult for 
me to keep up w/ Acka.  I am still monitoring things.   

Clairence and 23 Skiddoo are up on  the Undead page.  I'll pretty it up 
tomorrow

Jammer

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:02:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Bot

Oh, I sort of need to mention this, I guess.  The bot ignores everything 
after any line beginning with --.  It assumes such a line is the 
beginning of your signature.

This is a "feature" I cloned from other mail bots I've had experience 
with... ah well.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 02:13:48 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial (again)

Sarud's starting cash is A$1064.  Arggh!  I forgot that it had to be
calculated *after* the end-of-cycle bonuses, etc.  In any case, here
is the current balance statement:

A$s held by players:   26,579 A$ [25 players]
A$ value of Trinkets:   4,386
Church of Markovian:       45
Church of Seleya:         100
RERS:                     173
Synod:                    400
Treasury: (recalc)     43,317 (of this, A$ 10,917 is haunted)
                       ------
                       75,000

Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 02:17:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato

fnord receives the magic potato and is beldins tailor
malenkai recieves the tuba

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 02:21:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (mr cwm)

Mar 17 02:23 EST: -3 Lestrade: did not report what Phoebe said

mr cwm has found Phoebe.

Malenkai
speaker

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 03:00:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Treasure RoJ Treasure

All of the Runestone of Jukkasjarvi fragments have now been distributed.
Its interesting to see attempts at completing parts of the quest; there
have been a couple (or else they were gizz or false steps).  

Note that it is possible to win the game by finding this thing (and then
getting those keys, which I posit will be more difficult).  In any case,
fragment ownership is kept under the main treasure at:

http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackabta9.htm

It seems like acka has been hiding treasures much faster than finding
them lately.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 03:03:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Update

All of the pages I maintain should be up to date (except for current
events -- there is nothing going on now, except for an auction for
one of Niccolo's foreheads that ended some time ago).

Please check the entites page to make sure you have the entities
you think you should have (exceptions: the R 222 keys and the RoJ
fragments are kept elsewhere for now).

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:16:22 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Aliens 

I ghave a feeling about today.  I think today will be the day that the
aliens come down to earth and steal our rules.  Oh, woe are we.  The end is
near!

snowgod
Prophet of Uestiox?

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:54:28 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Update

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> All of the pages I maintain should be up to date (except for current
> events -- there is nothing going on now, except for an auction for
> one of Niccolo's foreheads that ended some time ago).

IB won that Auction with his A$15 bid, the only valid bid. knowing IB,
he'll sell that for at least 5 times as much:)

Niccolo flychuck

> 
> Please check the entites page to make sure you have the entities
> you think you should have (exceptions: the R 222 keys and the RoJ
> fragments are kept elsewhere for now).
> 
> Malenkai
> 

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:09:29 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Party Hall

Now that there are only two Swingers, Party Hall is no longer in session.
I was close to anouncing that PartyChess is suspended, however, when I
looked over the Party Chess rule suite I found out that nowhere was it
required for Party Hall to be is session in order for the Party Chss to be
played. The two existing Swingers are still Swingers.

I will soon post the current board, it is the turn of the (None Yet)
Swinger. Currently there is no such Swinger.  

Niccolo Flychuck
Chess-Umpire

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:56:50 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retraction of Impeach the Scorekeeper! (fwd)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:42:30 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Retraction of Impeach the Scorekeeper!

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> I hearby call for the impeachment of /dev/joe from the scorekeeper's
> office, and here's why!
> 
> He didn't tell me about all these lousy rules that make me lose points!  I
> found out from the pointlog that I lost points because my first proposal
> ever didn't pass.  I still haven't found the rule for that one, and if it
> exists, it is probably moraly wrong.  And then there's this buisness about
> my score getting set to zero at the end of the cycle.  I slave all month
> to get even a few paltry points together, and then THIS crap happens.  If
> I'd understood the stupid, if not down right perverted, rules for the end
> of a cycle, I never would have bothered with the immense effort that went
> into my Pet Animals proposal in the first place, seeing as how Malenkai
> was obviously going to win soon.  Sheesh, I'd swear that the part about
> scores getting set to zero wasn't even there the first time I looked at
> that rule, I bet someone added it when they saw that I was actually gonna
> get some points before the end of the cycle.  You people are always doing
> that, spitefully changing the rules right after I read them, admit it!!!
> 
> 
> Well, anyways, impeach /dev/joe and stuff.
> 
> 
>                                   - Vynd
> 
> [email-masked]
> 

Um, ah, sorry about that.  I kind of um, lost control there.  I've taken
my happy pills, and I feel better now.  I retract my call for the
impeachment of /dev/joe from the scorekeeper's office.  All that other
stuff about my losing points due to malicious rule changing and impossible
to find penalties and stuff, still stands though.  It's all true!  Don't
try to deny it!

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

PS -  My apologies for sending out so many times to so many places.  The
postmaster should probably be impeached for making it so difficult to
figure out where to send stuff.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:45:24 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 352 Vedict

breadbox wrote:

[about CFJ 350/252 conflict]

> I imagine one or both of these CFJs may have to be appealed in order
> to decide the matter.

I wrote a CFJ ages ago [168 or in that range] that established game
custom that the earlier verdict of 2 CFJs in dispute held sway.  I'm
not sure of the relavence here; it seems perhaps to be bad law.  In
any case, CFJ 350 cannot be appealed. but CFJ 352 can be, due to the
timing of releasing the verdicts.  A rather interesting pickle, IMHO.
I'm sure it would look more interesting if someone winning the cycle
hinged on it, but interesting to me nonetheless.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:56:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Aliens

No rules were affected.  The numbers rolled were:

550, 1354, 653

Malenkai
perhaps we need a daily number lottery based on these numbers :)

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:46:54 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: New trinket

I am creating a trinket called the Dubious Chicken Rectum.  It is a 
bronze cast of a feathery behind on a small pedestal engraved with 
the word "Rosebutt."  It is worth 1 A$.  I am presenting it to Red 
Barn.

Ackers -1 A$
Red Barn +Dubious Chicken Rectum

- ---
Ackers
[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:08:40 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : retracting 1787

#retract 1787

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:55:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 1840

> Proposal 1840
> Saving sendmail (or - I always hoped this sort of
> Malenkai
> 
> legislation would not be needed in Acka)

Its not me that breaking my long titles, I don't know who it is
though.  In any case, I retract this and will submit a new one.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:53:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 353 Verdict

CFJ 353 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 353
  Subject: Checking the Party Chess Rules
Initiator: Mohammed
    Judge: Malenkai (selected Mar 16, 1997, 23:12h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

In PartyChess, no Swinger can be checked under the current rules.

Mohammed's Reasoning:

It comes right out of the rules:

Rule 1230.2, section 3. D. (i):
> A Swinger is in Check when his King is attacked by one or more
> opposing pieces.

Rule 1230.2, section 3. A. iii.:
> A piece (1) is attacking opposing piece (2) if and only if they
> are located on the board such that if it were (1)'s Swinger's turn to
> move, he could capture piece (2) with piece (1).

Rule 1230.4 (Creation of a PartyChessPiece King), section G.:
> A King can be neither purchased nor captured.

The play log on Niccolo Flychuck's Party Chess WWW page doesn't seem
to indicate that anyone has ever been checked.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

By rule 1230.1, section 3F, and rule 1230.4, section H, the rule 
which defines the King piece is a PartyChessPieceDef rule, thus
the King is a PartyChessPiece.

Rule 1230.1, section 4A defines conditions under which a PartyChessPiece
may be captured.  R 1230.4, section G, stipulates that a King may
not be captured.  Since a King is a PartyChessPiece, it falls under
the general governance of rule 1230.1, which stipulates that it has
precedence over all PartyChessPieceDef rules (thus including 1230.4),
except where it explicitly defers.

R 1230.1 explicitly defers in regards to the way PCPD rules may define
alternate ways to capture, but does not do so in regards to alternate
definitions of being captured, therefore rule 1230.1 has precedence,
and the King can be captured (see sections 3F and 3C), as long as it
is possible for there to be 2 or more Swingers, a game in progress, 
one Swinger to have 1 on-board non-King, and one other Swinger to have
an on-board King.  

I find these enabling conditions possible under the current rules,
assuming 'Swinger' and the game of party chess is rendered
in the theoretical case as opposed to the case of the current game
and current Swingers (which I did not analyize for this possibility).
I justify this rendering by the wording of the statement with 'In Party
Chess', and 'current rules'.  Had the current game or Swingers been 
meant, it is clear that the initiator would have used the qualifier
'current'.

Rule 1230.2, section 3D defines the conditions under which a Swinger
is in check.  Those conditions are possible, hence a judgement of 
FALSE.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:02:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Keys

Robert Sevin's key eats another A$7.
ThinMan's key eats another Processing Chip.

Robert Sevin -7 keys
Niccolo -PF +15
IB -15 +PF

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:26:12 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 354 (CnH)

CnH has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 354
  Subject: Keys
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 22, 1997, 22:27h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

It is a Crime to bury the Keys defined in R 222 as a Treasure.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

R 222 says:

> After initial distribution, each Player shall either redistribute
> eir Key(s) to another eligible Player as outlined in this Rule, or
> the Key(s) shall be responsible for the respective actions taken
> against that Player as outlined below.

The rule specifies the way in which the Keys may be disposed of.
Burying them a Treasure is not one of them.  The rule has precedence
over the Treasure rule, therefore it is a breaking of the rules to
bury them, hence a Crime.

The quoted passage also appears to enable giving a Key to any player
eligible to receive it, as snowgod attempted to do, thus snowgod's
action was probably legal, as this rule has precedence over the
Tradeable stuff as well.  Sorry about that snowgod.  Oh well, I
guess the CFJ should have been called.

What a mess.  If this CFJ is judged TRUE, Narf's burial would still
hold (but be a crime), due to the non-retractable error thing.  If it
is judged TRUE before Mar 23rd, snowgod's burial will be undone.  More
ugliness is that if it is found that snowgod's transfer to /dev/joe
is legal, we would be in the thread where it was eating /dev/joe's
gadgets, and he could do nothing about it.  That doesn't seem fair.

If it is judged FALSE, but still found that snowgod's transfer to
/dev/joe was legal (a possible case), we have the problem case above.

Note that this CFJ does not assert the legality of snowgod's 
attempted trannsfer.  Hopefully the judge can sort all this out.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:47:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 354 (CnH) 

>Clerk of the Courts
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 354
>  Subject: Keys
>Initiator: Malenkai
>    Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (selected Mar 22, 1997, 22:27h EST)
>Judgement:

I accept.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:04:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinket IRC

I am creating a Trinket called 

'Ghost on IRC, anyone NOW?',

worth 1A$ with the following description:  "'This seems no different
than all the Trinket creation messages, or mountain of proposals, so
it shouldn't bother anyone :).' is written on it in red".

I am then converting the Trinket called 'Ghost on IRC, anyone NOW?'
back to 1A$, thus destroying it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:13:43 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 355 (fnord)

fnord has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 355
  Subject: Invalid Proposals
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: fnord (selected Mar 17, 1997, 23:13h EST)
Judgement:

Statement:

Proposals 1807 thru 1839, inclusive, are invalid.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Examination of the headers shows 1806 was distributed before any of
those numbered higher.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:24:03 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acrobot (more votes) 

I, Robert Sevin, hereby unambiguously cast the following votes:

#vote 1796 PRESENT
#vote 1797 PRESENT
#vote 1798 YES
#vote 1799 PRESENT
#vote 1800 PRESENT
#vote 1801 PRESENT
#vote 1802 PRESENT
#vote 1803 YES
#vote 1804 YES
#vote 1805 PRESENT
#vote 1806 NO
#vote 1807 NO
#vote 1808 NO
#vote 1809 NO
#vote 1810 NO
#vote 1811 NO
#vote 1812 NO
#vote 1813 NO
#vote 1814 NO
#vote 1815 NO
#vote 1816 NO
#vote 1817 NO
#vote 1818 NO
#vote 1819 NO
#vote 1820 NO
#vote 1821 NO
#vote 1822 NO
#vote 1823 NO
#vote 1824 NO
#vote 1825 NO
#vote 1826 NO
#vote 1827 NO
#vote 1828 NO
#vote 1829 NO
#vote 1830 NO
#vote 1831 NO
#vote 1832 NO
#vote 1833 NO
#vote 1834 NO
#vote 1835 NO
#vote 1836 NO
#vote 1837 NO
#vote 1838 NO
#vote 1839 NO

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:46:32 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acrobot (more votes) 

I, Robert Sevin, hereby unambiguously cast the following votes:

#vote 1840 YES
#vote 1841 YES
#vote 1842 YES
#vote 1843 YES

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #17
******************************