Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #26
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Thursday, March 27 1997       Volume 02 : Number 026

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:26:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 357 Verdict

CFJ 357 has been judged FALSE.  This collapses the silver key to the
'george' treasure thread, the one we have been playing under an
assumed verdict of FALSE.

Yesterday, the gold key ate 7 of Robert Sevin's A$, and the bronze key
ate one of ThinMan's processing chips.  I would appreciate it if the
bearer of the Goose would track this stuff, as specified in the rules.

Clerk of the Courts
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgement 357
  Subject: Keys III
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Red Barn (selected Mar 18, 1997, 1:44h EST)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (selected Mar 25, 1997, 14:50h EST)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The Silver Key (defined in rule 222), was transferred to /dev/joe on
March 8th, 1997.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

snowgod posted the following public message on that date:

> I am giving the Silver Key to /dev/joe.

I believe there is a reading of R 222 that would allow this transfer
without /dev/joe's ack (he never acked the transfer), and this should
be cleared up.  If this is true, it would have eaten a Gadget on March
15th.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

I can see the reading of R 222 to which Malenkai refers, but I do not
think it is the best reading.  According to R 222, the Silver Key is
tradeable.  Also according to R 222, "The Silver Key may only be given
to a Player possessing one or more Gadgets."  R 222 thus places a
restriction on to whom the Silver Key may be transferred -- but it does
not provide for that Key to be transferred in any way other than that
established elsewhere in the Rules.  The Silver Key is not a gift
entity, so its transfer requires an acknowledgement.  /dev/joe did not
acknowledge the transfer, so it did not occur.

The case might well have been decided the other way if it had involved
the Gold Key, because R 222 also says, "The Gold Key may be given to any

player whose monetary account has a positive number of A$."  This is a
fundamentally different provision than the one for the Silver Key, as
this one seeks to make positive provision for the transfer instead of
to place a restriction.  I am at a loss to explain why the Silver and
Gold Keys are handled differently, but we must obey the rules as they
are written.  Game Custom is silent on this issue, and I do not think
that the spirit of the game indicates a preference for any particular
reading of this rule.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:22:59 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation Ends

To:  Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

By this message I return from Vacation.  Normally, I don't return until
I've caught up on the mail, but I don't want to hold the AckaDip game up.
Is there anything I ought to check first?

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:14:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Auctions; Inventor

On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> I am building a Bonus Vote Add-On.
	That was around 10a local time, which means this is done.
	I am calling a public Auction on this Gadget.  The minimum bid is
A$ 1.  I bid A$ 75 for it.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:42:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Straw Poll Results

I got 13 varied responses on the straw poll; snowgod, Malenkai, Red Barn,
IdiotBoy, Narf, Robert Sevin, Vynd, ThinMan, Niccolo Flychuck, breadbox,
Bascule, Mohammed, and mr cwm responded (although not all answered every
question); I thank all these respondents.

Note that I am not making any changes yet, but just posting what I think
I will do, based on the responses.

1. Do you think the acka-discuss list should be deleted, and the
traffic that is there now merged back into ackanomic?

There were 6 clear nos, 2 clear yeses,
2 votes that we don't need both discuss and research,
1 ok but would prefer to keep it.
1 vote to just have one main list for everything, but the next best thing
  is to keep a second list for chatter

Decision:
Given that we already have acka-research for a discussion-only list,
I am considering dropping this completely.  In my plan, I will let
mail to acka-discuss BOUNCE, to make people realize what they are
doing, and resend their mail to acka-research or ackanomic, or wherever
it belongs.

2. If it's decided acka-discuss is remaining, would you be in favor
of changing the reply-to on the main list back to the list instead
of acka-discuss?

There were 3 nos, 4 yeses, 1 maybe, 1 probably,
1 no, if set for no game actions (think he means yes)
1 maybe in time, but not immediately

Decision:
I will be setting the reply-to on ackanomic to ackanomic.  It appears
it is just to much trouble for too many ackanomic players to watch
where they are sending their mail before sending it.

3. Would you prefer just creating an alias, ackanomic-r, for the
mail list, with replies set to ackanomic-r [i.e., a list where
the thread will stay on the main list] to the plan in #2 above?

There were 4 yeses, 4 nos, 1 no opinion, and 2 didn't understand the question

Decision:
I'm not going to use this idea.

4. What actions should be allowed on acka-discuss? (currently it is
limited to trades)

There 3 responses of "none", 3 "none, if the reply-to is fixed",
1 undecided, 1 "player movements", 1 "just trades", and 1 "all"

Decision:
I'm getting rid of the list, but if we were keeping it I'd set it
to no actions.

5. Should we create a separate list, acka-judicial, as the appropriate
place for all CFJ posts, including discussion?

There were 9 nos, 2 yeses, and 1 "it's ok"

Decision:
I will not be creating this list.

6. (acka-finance) Does it need a digest list?

There were 5 yeses, 1 no, 2 "no but don't care", 2 no opinion,
1 eliminate acka-finance.

Decision:
I'll be keeping the list and creating a digest for it.

7. What actions should be allowed on acka-research? (currently it is
limited to trades)

There were: 1 "none", 1 "retractions", 2 "only trades", 1 "no opinion"
1 "none if no reply-to there", 1 "all",
1 "RFCs" (these are not actions and are allowed anyway)

Decision:
I'm split between making it no actions and setting the reply-to to
ackanomic (or acka-voting), or making it "actions related to proposals"
(like retractions and making proposals harfy) and leaving the reply-to as is.
I *really* want to keep the large amount of discussion related to proposals
off the main list, and I think allowing a few appropriate actions here
to allow for this is ok.

8. What other changes should be made to the postal code?

There were:
1 vote to just have one list for everything or two, with one discussion only.
1 vote to just fix the reply-tos
1 vote for anything to simplify it
1 vote that maybe all this structure is too rigid
1 vote to just put all the actions on the main list

My overall decision (plan I):
Eliminate acka-discuss, acka-discuss-digest.
Create acka-finance-digest.
Change reply-to on ackanomic to ackanomic.
Change reply-to on acka-voting to ackanomic (or acka-voting).
Make the following postal code change:

Change the paragraph that begins with acka-research@wilma to read:
 "acka-research@wilma may not be used for any game action.
  acka-research-digest@wilma is the digest versions of this lists and is
  subject to the same restrictions."

Add to the end of the paragraph that begins with acka-finance@wilma:
 "acka-finance-digest@wilma is the digest version of this list and is
  subject to the same restrictions."

Plan II is the same as the above except don't change the reply-to for
acka-voting, and the first sentence of the postal code change for
acka-research says:
 "acka-research@wilma may only be used for game actions related to
  current proposals."

The new structure will look like this:
ackanomic is for anything except subgame actions
acka-voting is for proposal and vote result distribution
acka-finance is for trades, gifts, auctions
acka-games is for subgame actions
acka-chess is for party chess
acka-research is for discussion (and maybe stuff related to proposals)

Any thoughts on this will be welcome.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:17:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Bot

Hi, guys.  I just finished rewriting a big chunk of the bot, so it's more 
likely to crash within the next few days than ever before.  Benefits of 
the rewrite:  none visible from the outside.  However, it'll be easier to 
handle things from my end in the future.

If you manage to crash the bot, I'll give you a prize.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:50:41 -0500
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 363 Verdict

CFJ 363 has been judged TRUE without comment.  Contempt is detailed
in rule 715.

I do not think this is as straightforward as it appears.  There are
a few things at work here:

A good case for an appeal can be made, based on the tense of the
CFJ's verb 'is'.  The report was due on the 20th, at which time the
senators were placed in contempt.  By the 23rd, they had not made
a decision, therefore they were placed in Gaol, no longer in contempt.
The CFJ was filed on the 25th, therefore 'is' is false.  That's one
argument.

OTOH, is there a customary 3 day 'grace period' or 'speed' clause, or
are they placed in contempt when it is 'publically knowable' that they
did not comply; the referrant time for public knowability could either
be when the report was published, when it was pointed out (as in this
CFJ being filed), or when this verdict is published.

IAC, it seems they are or were in contempt at some point.  The when is
important, because if it was more than 3 days ago, they were (and may
still continue to be), in Gaol, thus requiring a reconstruction of the
game state for illegal actions comitted by the contemptees whilst in
Gaol.  Oh fun :)

Given the veracity of this CFJ, assuming it is not appealed, we know
they were in contempt at the time it was filed, which was yesterday,
indicating that there may still be some time for them to make the
decision as per rule 715.

I will wait and see if the initiator or someone else has a legal opinion
in this matter, or if this appealed, before attempting to resolve the
game state.

Clerk of the Courts/Speaker
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 363
  Subject: Contempt
Initiator: snowgod
    Judge: Strider (selected Mar 25, 1997, 11:46h EST)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Each senator is in Contempt.

snowgod's Reasoning:

        Cycle eleven ended on Mar 13 at 17:13 EST.  It was longer than
thirty days in length and a Commission d'Arts at the beginning of the next
cycle by R670:

>1) Upon the end of a cycle which exceeded 30 days in length, or as
>otherwise directed by the rules, The "Commission d'Arts" (Commission)
>shall begin session, which shall last for 7 days. The Senators shall be
>the Commissioners, thus composing this body. Exception: No Commission
>shall be started if it has been less than 60 days since any previous one
>has been started.

        The Commission lasted 7 days (until March 20th) at which time a
report was due from the senate listing the nominees for the Silver Moon
award.

>2) At the end of the session, the Commission shall produce, and publically
>post, a report listing 4 Nominees for the Silver Moon award. A Nominee
>must be a work of art from Acka's past, such as a Silly Vacation Hat
>description, Phoebe post, Gaoler poem, Prosthetic Forehead, etc. Rules,
>Proposals, and other written works are also permissible, but are
>discouraged as Nominees, unless they are truly meritorious. One constraint
>is that the Nominee must be publically accessible from a web page
>maintained by the Web-Harfer. Material created by non-active players is
>discouraged as a Nominee.

        No nominees were produced until Mon, 24 Mar 1997 at 07:46:24 (PST).
Thus the senators are held in Contempt in accordance with section 4 of R670.

>4) If the Commission fails to produce the report in within the constraints
>of this rule, each Senator is placed in Contempt.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:07:31 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vending Machine

I am building a Vending Machine, just so the winner of the current
auction can have fun with their new toy.  It will be done in 3 days.

Malenkai
Wizard

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:33:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: On CFJ 363 (Let me out!)

I believe that R670 works like this:

From the end of the cycle, until 7 days after the end of the cycle, the
"Commission d'Arts" is in session.  (section 1)

At the end of the session, the Commission shall produce and post the list
of Nominees.  (section 2)  This cannot mean that the description must be
created and posted at that moment; such is too strict a requirement.
Note that the list cannot be posted earlier -- the rule requires the
commission be in session 7 days and *then* at the end of the session
produce a report and post it.  The most reasonable assumption is that
the commission has 3 days after the end of the session to produce and
post the list.

This would have the session end at Mar 20, 17:13 EST, and the deadline
for the list being on Mar 23 at that time (putting the senate in contempt
then).  This would have the deadline on deciding whether to pay the A$100
fine or go to Gaol end Mar 26 (today) at 17:13 EST, putting me in Gaol
at that time (now).

Thus, if I am in fact in Gaol now, I am bribing the Gaoler A$50.  Let me out!

/dev/joe
Gaolbird

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:16:40 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Treasure/Auction

I am revealing the following portion of the Silver Key treasure map
(treasure 137).  Who says all of my treasures are hard?  [Note that there
is an unrevealed portion, but this portion is true, and no tricks are
planned].

- --
A player who possesses an entity named 'Earth', at least one gadget, and
publically says: "I have at least one gadget, and want to possess,
love, hug, and call the silver key george." shall find the silver key
treasure.
- --

I am hereby initiating an auction for my trinket called 'Earth'.  
Minimum bid A$10.  Not only could this trinket be useful given its name
(with or without some of the proposals in the queue), it will allow you
to retrieve the silver key whenever you want, yet avoid the nasty gadget
eating!  Its like having the silver key for free!

Start Bidding!

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:15:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Anomymous Proposals

Anyone interested in a rule change that would make the author
of a proposal unknown until its voting results are released
(or until it is removed from voting consideration)?  The way
the rules are written, retractions will still work, but a couple
of other things may have to be tweaked.

It could add a little spice to game.  Comments?

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:47:02 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: On CFJ 363 (Let me out!) 

{I sent this to the wrong list the first time}

>This would have the session end at Mar 20, 17:13 EST, and the deadline
>for the list being on Mar 23 at that time (putting the senate in contempt
>then).  This would have the deadline on deciding whether to pay the A$100
>fine or go to Gaol end Mar 26 (today) at 17:13 EST, putting me in Gaol
>at that time (now).
>
>Thus, if I am in fact in Gaol now, I am bribing the Gaoler A$50.  Let me out!
>
>/dev/joe
>Gaolbird

 First, I agree with /dev/joe's assesment of the Contempt situation. I'm
still not sure about the customary three day bit, though I imagine it holds
(a case could be made that it doesn't but I'm not going to).

That being said I could take great pleasure in holding /dev/joe in Gaol, as
he once did to me, but I won't.  Instad I'll release him in exchange for
the A$50 he offered to me.  I hope he has learned his lesson :)

I will let any other senator out for A$50.

snowgod

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #26
******************************