Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #20
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Friday, March 21 1997        Volume 02 : Number 020

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:56:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 359 Verdict

CFJ 359 has been judged FALSE.  Narf receives the Chartreuse Goose.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 359
  Subject: Modesty Paradox
Initiator: Narf
    Judge: breadbox (selected Mar 19, 1997, 9:07h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Due to conflicts in rules 207 and 209, further game play is impossible.

Narf's Reasoning:

Rule 207 states that “If a non-Modest proposal is accepted, the player
who proposed it receives 10 points, and every player who
voted NO on it receives 3 points. If a Modest proposal is accepted, the
player who proposed it receives half as many points as he or she would
have received otherwise, and no points are awarded for voting NO.”

While Rule 209 states “Whenever a Modest Proposal is adopted, the number
of points scored by its author as a direct result of authoring an
adopted proposal shall be half the number of points they would otherwise
have scored (rounded down).”

I assert that it is impossible to determine the correct number of points
to award a player who authors an accepted modest proposal.  Rule 207
clearly has precedence in case of conflict, but the two rules do not in
fact conflict with one another.  Here is my take on the string of events
following the acceptance of a modest proposal:  According to rule 207,
the author receives half the number of points that e would have
otherwise, or 5.  Rule 209 states that e shall receive half the number
of points they would otherwise have scored (rounded down) or... 2.
Since 2 is half of 5, rounded down.  Of course, no where in the rules
does it specify the order of rule application, merely the order of
precedence.  So... perhaps what REALLY happens is that rule 209 is
applied first, giving the author 5 points, then rule 207 kicks in... and
because rule 207 does not specify whether or not to round down, the
player receives 2 or 3 points.  Of course, this is further complicated
since we may not even be done at this point.  After all, neither rule
says that the score should only be haved once.  Having halved it to 5
(by application of either rule), in order to fully obey the rule, we
would have to halve it again.  Now whether or not this generates a score
of 2 or 3 again depends on which rule you are following and your
interpretattion of it.

What this all leads to, in my opinion, is a situation where it is
impossible to determine how many points the author of a modest proposal
should receive, and if you disagree with that statement, the only number
of points possible is 0.

breadbox's Reasoning:

Though it may not be obvious at first, I believe what this comes down
to is the interpretation of the word "otherwise" in the quoted section
of Rules 207 and 209. "... half as many points as he or she would have
received otherwise" and "half the number of points they would
otherwise have scored (rounded down)." While perhaps a case might be
made for this being ambiguous, I do not think so: the understood
completion in both cases is "had this rule not been applicable."
Or, more to the point, "had the proposal not been Modest." That is,
the proposal earns half as many points as it would have if it was not
Modest and everything else was equal.

Narf's assertion, however, seems to hinge on an implied completion of
each clause of "had this rule not been applied", or perhaps "had this
rule not existed". With such an interpretation, I might agree that the
rules are referring to the current "running total" of penalties and
bonuses applied so far. Perhaps the Scorekeeper is expected to start
with the base 10 points and then run down the ruleset, applying each
penalty/bonus as required, and that a Modest proposal requires the
halving to occur twice, once for each rule that mentions it. Given all
of the above I could agree that there is no implied order to the
application of each penalty, and thus the rounding issue would be a
problem. However, this is not the case.

To put the distinction as succinctly as I can: The rules do not say
"the player receives half as many points as they were about to be
given before applying this rule"; instead they say "the player
receives half as many points as they would have received *if* the
proposal had not been Modest." Or, if you like: The rules do not each
supply one step in the process of determining the points to award;
instead they require a number to be calculated first - in both cases
the same number - and then halved.

I note that given this interpretation (which, I reiterate, I do not
find to be ambiguous when taken in their contexts), the rules would
yield to numerical precedence if it were an issue, and thus there
would still be no paradox.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 02:01:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 355 Verdict

CFJ 355 has been judged TRUE.

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

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.

fnord's Reasoning:

Rule 309 clearly indicates that a proposal would be invalid if it is
substantially similar to a previous proposal.  Looking at the proposals
named by this CFJ (1807-1839), they are obviously similar (if not downright
copying and pasting).  Therefore, I rule TRUE that Proposals 1807 through
1839 are invalid.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 02:50:03 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 360 (Techno)

Techno has been chosen.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 360
  Subject: *** ***'* *** **** *** ** ** ****
Initiator: Narf
    Judge: Techno (selected Mar 20, 1997, 2:50h EST)
Judgement: 

Statement:

CFJ 359 is invalid

Narf's Reasoning:

I submitted CFJ 359 to the Clerk of the Court under the email address
[email-masked].

According to Rule 211, "Any player who has a question or complaint about any
matter concerning the rules, the facts, or their     interpretation may email
their statement to the Clerk of the Court, who will then distribute it
publically. A call for judgement is then incurred on that statement."

Ok, so what constitutes a player?  It seems obvious, but there is a slight
technicality here.

according to rule 250, "A player is any person who is registered as a player.
Players are named, unownable entities. No person may register as a player
more than once concurrently. Anyone is allowed to observe the game and
participate in discussion of any issue, but no person who is not a player may
make a proposal, or vote on any proposal, or call for judgement, or judge, or
score points, or win a cycle. "

And according to Rule 252, "A person wishing to join the game, and who cannot
do so as a Returning player, should notify the Registrar, providing a valid
email address, their real name, and the legal Ackanomic name they wish to
play under. Upon them providing this information, should the requested name
indeed be a legal Ackanomic name, the Registrar shall post a public message
announcing the new player and providing their Ackanomic name, real name, and
email address, and if the prospective player provided it, how they discovered
the game. Upon the posting of such an announcement, the person becomes
registered as a player."

My chain of reasoning goes something like this: I registered as a player
giving the email address [email-masked].  I never registered under the email
address [email-masked], nor has anyone else.  Even though I identified
myself to Malenkai at the time of submission, he had no way to verify that
that was in fact me.

Should this CFJ be judged false, I could theoreticaly create an email address
"[email-masked]" , identify myself as Malenkai and post a message offering
to buy 1 pfNarf for A$1000, and then log on as myself and accept the deal.
 Obviously this CFJ must be judged true.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 02:51:57 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: About CFJ 360

These are my thoughts on CFJ 360.  Sorry about this.

From the department of the truly in dubious taste comes the following
CFJ.  Since the beginning of time, we have, in good faith, allowed
this, with the understanding that access to the Internet is not
100% reliable; we all do not have ethernet to the backbone, etc. 
Many players from time to time have played from multiple e-mail
addresses due to ISP problems, geography, and other factors.  For
example, if your ISP goes down, there is no way to play the game again
if this is judged TRUE.  I, as a functional officer, who does countless
of hours of WORK for this game, do not want to have to weed through 
whether this sort of thing is a tactic or whether this sort of thing is
used as the hurricane was approaching Agusta and mr cwm used a different
e-mail address to try to go on vacation.  I know for a fact that an
earthquake hit southern california very close to the time the CFJ in
question was submitted, an analagous situation.  How the **** do I know
if AOL was knocked out for while, but the initiator still wanted to play
the game.  AOL is notorious for unreliable internet access.
It borders on [no comment], and is not part of fun game play, IMHO.
Sorry for editorializing.  
 
I surely hope the initiator retracts this promply, and bears eir Goose
like a good sport.
  
Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:12:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 358 Verdict

Call For Judgement 358 -
Subject: Crazy French-Scotsman and the End of the Cycle
Initiator: Vynd
Judge: Red Barn (selected Mar 19, 1997, 9:02h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

  Vynd's complaint on 3/17/97, 1:30 am EST, about having his points set 
to
zero at the end of the last cycle, was a legitimate exercise of the 
public
complaining ability for the purpose of having point losses counteracted
described in Rule 1129/1: Crazy French-Scotsmen.

Initiator's Comments:

  The crucial question here, in my opinion, is whether or not having my
score set to zero at the end of the cycle constitutes a loss of points, 
but
I'll go over some of the technicalities here as well. Rule 1129/1 states
that any new player who has never played Ackanomic before may "publicly
complain when they lose any points or currency.  When they exercise this
option, the penalty will immediately be counteracted." The definition of 
a
new player who has never played before put forth in this rule clearly
covers me, so I have the ability "exercise the option" to complain. There
is a little ambiguity in the wording I quoted when it comes to "penalty,"
but it seems it seems reasonably clear that it must refer to the loss of
"any points or currency" mentioned in the previous sentence, even if it
does not use that exact term.

  So, we come to the real dilemma: Is having my score reset to my 
eggplant
weight, as described in rule 666, a loss of points. I believe that it is.
Rule 1129/1 does not specificaly define what constitutes a loss of points
for the purposes of Crazy French Scotsman-type complaining. An admitedly
less than exhaustive (although rahter exhausting) review of the rules and
CFJs does not reveal any general rules or customs defining what 
constitutes
a loss of points. I am therefore forced to assume that common sense and
logic plays some sort of a role here. Logicaly, anytime my collection of
points, or "score" as some people call it, changes from one number to a
lower number, then I have lost some points. My score at the end of the 
last
cycle was 3. After my score was reset according to rule 666, my score was
0. 0 is, to the best of my knowledge, less than 3. By this reasoning, I
lost some points when my score was reset, and according to rule 1129/1 I
have the right to complain about it and have the "penalty" counteracted. 
In
my message of 3/17/97, at 01:30 EST, I exercised this right to complain,
using the the terms and manner called for by rule 1129/1. This being the
case, my complaint should be considered valid, and all the effects
described in rule 1129/1 as occuring upon the public posting of a valid
complaint should take place.

Judge's Comments:

  I'm probably not the best person to judge this, since, were I to render 
a
judgement of TRUE, as I am strongly tempted to do, my own Crazy
French-Scotsmanhood would have to be reconsidered (I used a similar
argument).  Nonetheless I will do so to the best of my ability.
  The second paragraph of Vynd's statement seems to be concerned entirely
with establishing that a change in score from three points to zero
constitutes a "loss of points".  I have no problem with this; had the
applicable wording been "penalty", the matter would have been open to
debate, but with it as it is it is not.  (Sorry, fewer short words in
future.)
  Now, the question arises: was it otherwise valid?  I assume so; I'm not
about to download the entire mailing-list archive to validate Vynd's 
claim
to having never played before, etc.
  The statement said, however "... for the purpose of having point losses
counteracted described in ...".  This grammar could be quibbled with; 
read
it as "the purpose which was described in rule ...".  I suppose this 
could
be counted as a purpose, yes.  Fine here.
  I see no problems with this, and therefore render a verdict of TRUE.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:59:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor

>   (Sorry, not sure where to send this...)
>   I bid A$20.
	You got it to the right place.
	To clarify:  whenever you aren't sure where something should go,
you can either (a) go look it up in the postal code; (b) send it to
ackanomic@wilma-- all public actions (except subgame stuff) are legal
there; or (c) send it wherever makes sense; in most cases that will work. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 11:27:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Inventor

> Plunky Monkey Wrench.
	I bid A$ 45.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 12:54:45 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I hereby place myself on a vacation with an expected duration of 7 days,
putting my expected return date at Mar 27.  I encourage the Acting Justice
to overturn CFJ 356.

See you next week!

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:00:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Inventor

>> Plunky Monkey Wrench.
>	I bid A$ 45.

  I bid A$80.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:09:02 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 358 Side-effects

> Call For Judgement 358 -
> Subject: Crazy French-Scotsman and the End of the Cycle
> Judgement: TRUE
> 
> Statement:
> 
>   Vynd's complaint on 3/17/97, 1:30 am EST, about having his points set 
> to zero at the end of the last cycle, was a legitimate exercise of the 
> public complaining ability for the purpose of having point losses
> counteracted described in Rule 1129/1: Crazy French-Scotsmen.

This has been verified by CFJ, so the score change takes place retroactively
to Mar 17, 1:30 AM, before the end of the bond cycle.  Vynd's score was
increased to 11 for the earlier "complaint" in the same message.

For this complaint, his scoree increases 3 points, to 14, and then to the
next higher prime, 17.

The dividends on PFVynd are now based on a score change for that bond cycle
of 16 instead of 10.  PFVynd are held by Robert Sevin (2) and Vynd (98).
This increases the unrounded dividends as follows:

Robert Sevin: from 1.60 to 1.72 -> no change when rounded
Vynd: from 9.80 to 15.68 -> change rounded dividend from A$10 to A$16

This also establishes three uses of the Crazy French-Scotsman rule within
24 hours (two at Mar 17 01:30 and one at Mar 17 14:14), so Vynd gets the
title of Crazy French-Scotsman.

/dev/joe
Scorekeeper

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 22:53:54 +0000
From: "Matt" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Return from vacation

I hereby return from vacation.

Bascule

FWIW - I've been on the verge of leaving completely for weeks. But I 
just can't do it. This debate between CnH and ThinMan reminded me of 
what I'd be missing if I did :)

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 23:02:04 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Resignation

I resign as a Priest in the Church of the Markovian
Dream, but remain a devout acolyte of said Church.
(To continue as a priest would endanger too many buildings)

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 17:47:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Inventor

> >	I bid A$ 45.
>   I bid A$80.
Grrrr... I bid A$ 90 for the Plunky Monkey Wrench.

- --Mohammed
worried

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 17:52:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Archeologist

> The electric potato has been built and I am initiating a public auction, with
> the minimum bid set at A$1
	I bid A$ 87 for this.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:03:09 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 358 Side-effects

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Call For Judgement 358 -
> > Subject: Crazy French-Scotsman and the End of the Cycle
> > Judgement: TRUE
> >
> > Statement:
> >
> >   Vynd's complaint on 3/17/97, 1:30 am EST, about having his points set
> > to zero at the end of the last cycle, was a legitimate exercise of the
> > public complaining ability for the purpose of having point losses
> > counteracted described in Rule 1129/1: Crazy French-Scotsmen.
> 
> This has been verified by CFJ, so the score change takes place retroactively
> to Mar 17, 1:30 AM, before the end of the bond cycle.  Vynd's score was
> increased to 11 for the earlier "complaint" in the same message.
> 
> For this complaint, his scoree increases 3 points, to 14, and then to the
> next higher prime, 17.
> 
> The dividends on PFVynd are now based on a score change for that bond cycle
> of 16 instead of 10.  PFVynd are held by Robert Sevin (2) and Vynd (98).
> This increases the unrounded dividends as follows:
> 
> Robert Sevin: from 1.60 to 1.72 -> no change when rounded
> Vynd: from 9.80 to 15.68 -> change rounded dividend from A$10 to A$16
> 
> This also establishes three uses of the Crazy French-Scotsman rule within
> 24 hours (two at Mar 17 01:30 and one at Mar 17 14:14), so Vynd gets the
> title of Crazy French-Scotsman.
> 
> /dev/joe
> Scorekeeper
I am creating a trinket.  It has a value of A$25.  It is called the Bond
Bracelet.  It is a thin platinum bracelet with a small readout on it. 
It contains all relevant information about bonds, and is updated every
10 seconds.  I am presenting it to /dev/joe for his greatly appreciated
work on bond-harfing.

Strider
Bond-Harfer(really)

In the event that I need to acknowledge these figures as correct, I do
so.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:51:57 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation

mr cwm wrote:

> I hereby place myself on a vacation with an expected duration of 7 days,

The prez should appoint a CSRR officer, or act the job himself.  ThinMan
is Acting Justice by rule.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:04:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Mad Scientist

Those fools in the Royal Society laughed at me!  We'll see who's laughing
when my devious work is done!  Bwah-ha-ha-ha!

IB
accepting the job of Mad Scientist

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:18:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Monster Mash!

I haf come up from zee lab deep underneath FunkeeTahwn to scream to zee
vorld:

I am beelding a mahnster and eet's name is Stinky!

IB
Mad Scientist

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:50:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Gumball

I wandered out my front door, thinking I might drop by breadbox's place and
demand some back rent, when what to my wandering eyes should flatten me
out and plow over my crushed body with squealing brakes and the roar of an
internal combustion engine just barely under control, but a Jeep Cherokee,
which then rips down the dirt road at a speed guaranteed to cause worry 
in any intelligent creature.

College students heading south for Thring Break, apparently.

As I tried to seperate my parts from those of my ex-mailbox, I noticed a
gooey, stringy substance plastered to my chest.  At first I thought it
might be No Tea, but as it turns out, the stuff is not tubular at all, but
instead stretchy.  In fact, it seemed to stretch right up off my chest,
past my left ear, and down the road as far as I could see, as if it had
been (and in fact, still was) stuck to the tires of that Jeep.

I had but a second to ponder this when the substance finally reached the 
limit of its stretchability and yanked me bodily out of the road and 
started to drag me down the street.  Desperately I tried to peel it out 
of my chest, but I only managed to get my hands enveloped, then my feet, 
then my head.

What the heck, I thought, I might as well enjoy myself.  It is the third 
Thursday in March, and I am chewing the Gumball.

- --Mohammed
ouch

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 22:54:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Tornado

0) A Tornado sweeps through acka, swirling the scores around, and
dislodging buildings.  (We need an official bard to record the tale
of destruction).

1) Scores after the Tornado, effective at that time (pointlog is at
the end of the post).  Victory Eggplants may have been destroyed.  I
note that Bascule's VE causes him to keep my -68 that he got stuck
with.  Welcome back! :)

Strider             :  13
snowgod             :  -14
Vynd                :  6
Niccolo Flychuck    :  -3
mr cwm              :  0
Narf                :  0
Red Barn            :  9
/dev/joe            :  0
breadbox            :  30
You can call me Al  :  -15
fnord               :  0
Techno              :  0
Swann               :  21
Sarud               :  3
Panther             :  17
Jammer              :  0
Calvin N Hobbes     :  0
Ackers              :  3
IdiotBoy            :  -5
Lestrade            :  12
Mohammed            :  6
Robert Sevin        :  -15
ThinMan             :  -1
Bascule             :  -68
Malenkai            :  0

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

2) The following houses are dangling (actually, I seem to recall
breadbox reattaching his, I'm not sure?):

Calvin N Hobbes: dislodged
snowgod: no effect
Niccolo: no effect
23 Skidoo: dislodged

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

Mar 20 8:55 EST: -17 Strider: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -35 snowgod: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -11 Vynd: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -16 Niccolo Flychuck: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -12 mr cwm: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -9 Narf: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +3 Red Barn: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -6 /dev/joe: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +27 breadbox: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -18 You can call me Al: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +0 fnord: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +0 Techno: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +21 Swann: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +3 Sarud: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +17 Panther: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +0 Jammer: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +0 Calvin N Hobbes: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +3 Ackers: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -4 IdiotBoy: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +15 Lestrade: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +11 Mohammed: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -1 Robert Sevin: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +14 ThinMan: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: -53 Bascule: Spring Tornado
Mar 20 8:55 EST: +68 Malenkai: Spring Tornado

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 23:09:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tornado

I wrote:

> 2) The following houses are dangling (actually, I seem to recall
> breadbox reattaching his, I'm not sure?):
> 
> Calvin N Hobbes: dislodged
> snowgod: no effect
> Niccolo: no effect
> 23 Skidoo: dislodged

I actually forgot to roll breadbox's in case it is 
dangling.  The roll shows no effect.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 21:04:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tornado

> > 2) The following houses are dangling (actually, I seem to recall
> > breadbox reattaching his, I'm not sure?):
> > 
> > Calvin N Hobbes: dislodged
> > snowgod: no effect
> > Niccolo: no effect
> > 23 Skidoo: dislodged
> 
> I actually forgot to roll breadbox's in case it is 
> dangling.  The roll shows no effect.

I did in fact reattached my house successfully, using the
Gravitational Monopole.

In addition, snowgod's house has already been reattached.

The Map is a little out of date w.r.t. these things. (The Map also
still claims that I am still standing outside my house w/ my
possessions and the GM attached to the house, when I have in fact put
everything back in my house. This is probably my own fault, since I
announced these actions at the bottom of a message containing several
other things.)

If there is any debate over these facts, I will be happy to go through
the archives and double-check them. (No disrespect meant by this; I am
offering to help out rather than add to the workload of the
Map-Harfer/Postmaster.)

breadbox

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #20
******************************