Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #50
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, April 15 1997        Volume 02 : Number 050

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:31:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

/dev/joe wrote:

> Who's the processing chip harfer, anyway?

That is the Financier's responsibility.  At least I did it
when I was Financier, and the rules define that the Financier is 
responsible for tracking all entities.  It was one of the 
reasons I was forced to resign as Financier; it was just too much.

I would recommened that the bot be modified to automatically
calculate processing chips, based on comments players put in
proposal headers (ie, players should be responsible for 
calculating how many processing chips their proposal will create
if accepted, and noting it in a header comment in bot-friendly
syntax).

Malenkai
Expert in entities/finance

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:36:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

/dev/joe wrote:

> By the way, did I miss the nomination call for the empty senate seat?

It ended this morning at 8:30 am.  The results will be released tonight.

BTW, current events such as this can be found on the CE page at:

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

Malenkai
assistant web-harfer

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:19:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 374 (Malenkai)

snowgod wrote:

> I hereby declare (assuming I have the power) that until PPN returns to a
> normal state, a state with ETP rules, that they are not a trade partner of
> Ackanomic.

I do not believe you can undesignate a nomic as a trade partner; as the
ETP rules do not give you the authority to do that, unless you take a
*very* liberal construction of 'designate'.  This is a bug that got lost
in the shadows of all the others :)

BTW, despite the fact that the Pumpkin Patch Nomic indeed does not appear
to have an ETP rule, I'm not so sure CFJ 374 being TRUE is a sure thing.
First of all, it may not matter what their rules say, secondly, until I
spend some time there, I cannot for sure say that they do not have said
rules. 

Despite all the other problems with ETP, this is the one thing I object
to most about it.  It should not MATTER what the game state of another
nomic on the trading net is!  Either it sends us trade packets, acks
our trade packets to it, nacks our trade packets to it, or does not
respond.  Its the lack of slickness bothers me so much, I guess.  I
think its an asthetic thing.

When I was RFCing my solution, the criticism was that it was too 
bureaucratic!  It did not require judges to continuously moniter the
game state of ANY nomic we want to trade with, though, to make sure the
Customs Officer is in compliance.   Just think of the internet cloud
model discussed previously; do you REALLY need to monitor the internal
state of every node on the internet to talk to it?!

Of course, the "in the judgement of the CO" band-aid attempt may make
the above irrelavent, well see :)

Malenkai
vote YES on 1921

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

>> The simultaneous is unplayable in one sense; it creates a paradox
>> of sorts if there is a circle of grabs (two players grabbing each
>> other is the simplest case) and any member of the circle has the
>> Little Lamb.
>> 
>> The "lamb first" variant suffers from the same potential paradox.
>> 
>> This leaves the "lamb last" interpretation -- which would be
>> supported by game custom if a potentially paradoxical
>> interpretation (as opposed to an actually paradoxical one) defers
>> to a non-paradoxical one.
> 
> That's good.  I'll have to think about it.

FWIW, this is pretty much the reasoning that I was planning on
submitting if I had been confirmed before CFJ 364 was decided.

Rather than open a can of worms with the use of the word
"paradoxical", I would simply state that the game is not really
playable, for this and other reasons, unless you assume that someone
who grabs the Little Lamb cannot have it grabbed from them until after
the round is over.

b

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:10:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Matt Miller wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > #transfer IdiotBoy, fnord : Harfmeister
> > 
> 
> FWIW, I was not Harfmeister, though I sure would like to be!  I think it
> was Vynd.

You were the Harfmeister for about 3 days, I think, between the acceptance
of whichever of your proposals I designated harfy, and the fnord's
proposal, which I said was harfy (and incomprehensible) at the same time
as yours.  Sorry IB :(

> 
> IB
> 
> 
> 

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:13:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Vynd wrote:
> 
> >
> >Just think, we haven't even begun to address the possibility of breadobx
> >grabbing the lamb, ThinMan grabbing it from breadbox, me grabbing it from
> >ThinMan, Malenkai grabbing it from me, etc, all in an attempt to grab the
> >person's Donkey.  I like the reasoning that the grabs are simultaneous,
> >with the implication that if you grab the lamb while someone is grabbing
> >your Donkey, you lose your Donkey and are out of the game.
> >
> 
> I like that result, too, (and it's what I assumed until this CFJ promted a
> close reading of the rules) but I wouldn't call it reasoning, because I
> don't think the rule supports it.  The rule doesn't support anything,
> which is the problem. 

Ah, but that is precisely why it is reasoning.  Why must we blindly follow
the rules, when we can exercise our inherrent ability to bullsh..  err
reason, to explain these conflicts?

> 
> -mr cwm
>  who was beginning to think things were getting a bit dull
> 
> 

                                 - Vynd, Unofficial expert in reasoning

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:36:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

Vynd wrote:

> Ah, but that is precisely why it is reasoning.  Why must we blindly follow
> the rules, when we can exercise our inherrent ability to bullsh..  err
> reason, to explain these conflicts?

That is one POV.  However, the rules are explicit as to the procedure
to render judgement, and, as mr cwm eloquently put it in his reasoning,
bull$+.. is not one of those procedures (although CFJ 228 appears to
establish contrary game custom in its reasoning; (which I have always
disagreed with), but that custom cannot countermand the rules.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:54:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??)

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> >mr cwm wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, /dev/joe wrote:
> >> >I disagree with this reasoning; I don't see how the simultaneity makes the
> >> >game unplayable.  It seems to me that if the transfer of the little lamb
> >> >occurs simultaneously with the grabbing of donkeys, the result when exactly
> >> >one player attempts to grab the donkey of the player possessing the little
> >> >lamb is the same as if that player stood around admiring his donkey, and
> >> >acquired the little lamb by external means at the same time -- that is,
> >> >the grabbing player gets the lamb and the player with the lamb keeps his
> >> >donkey; the grabbing player keeps his donkey unless exactly one player
> >> >grabbed it, in which case he gets to keep the little lamb but is eliminated
> >> >from the game.
> >> 
> >> Why?  I mean, why does it seem that way to you?  If the transfer were
> >> truly simultaneous, it seems to me they'd all have the Little Lamb at the
> >> same time.  Or else it would zip to the last person in the chain.  Maybe
> >> unplayable was too strong.  The Rule still doesn't give a clue as to which
> >> to chose here, either, though.
> >
> >Here's how I see it:
> >
> >before transfer:
> >ThinMan(d)           breadbox(d)           Malenkai(d,l)
> >
> >Now ThinMan attempts to grab breadbox's donkey, and breadbox attempts
> >to grab Malenkai's donkey, and Malenkai stood around or grabbed some
> >other donkey.
> >
> >You check, simultaneously for each player, how many players tried to grab
> >his donkey, whether he covered it, and whether he had the lamb, as well
> >as whether there was exactly one player who didn't cover his donkey.
> >ThinMan was the only player who grabbed breadbox's donkey, and breadbox
> >**DOESN'T HAVE THE LAMB YET**, and breadbox was the only player who
> >grabbed Malenkai's donkey, and Malenkai has the lamb now.
> >
> 
> Why does breadbox not yet have the LL?  He attempted to grab Malenkai's
> Donkey, but got confused and grabbed the LL instead.  The LL *is
> transferred* to him.
> 
> >during transfer:
> >ThinMan(d)   <-(d)-    breadbox     <-(l)-   Malenkai(d)
> >
> >after transfer:
> >ThinMan(d, bb's d)     breadbox(l)           Malenkai(d)
> >
> 
> You're saying "during transfer" as though it's obvious there's some time
> delay between grabbing something and getting it.  Wouldn't that mean, in
> your illustration, that there is a time in which the donkey that was
> breadbox's and the LL that was Malenkai's are possessed by no one?  Even
> if that's possible, there's nothing in the rule to say it happens that
> way.

I think what /dev/joe is saying is that if grabs are simultaneous, they
should be resolved simultaneously.  This would make it impossible for
ThinMan to grab the Lamb from breadbox.  It is clearly impossible for
ThinMan to grab the Lamb from breadbox if breadbox doesn't have the Lamb.
If grabs are resolved simultaneously, then ThinMan grabs breadbox's donkey
at the same time that breadbox is grabbing Malenkai's lamb, and when grabs
are resolved, ThinMan gets breadbox's donkey, breadbox get's Malenkai's
Lamb.

> >breadbox is then eliminated from the game before it proceeds
> >to the next round because his donkey has been successfully grabbed.
> >
> >In order to do it the way mr cwm wants to do it, you'd have to process
> >breadbox's attempted grab before processing ThinMan's attempted grab,
> >i.e., handle lamb grabs before donkey grabs.
> >
> 
> It's not that I want to do it that way, it's that I don't believe the rule
> provides a basis on which to say it happens one way or the other.  I could
> say, "in order to do it the way /dev/joe wants to do it, you'd have to
> process ThinMan's attempted grab before processing breadbox's attempted
> grab, i.e., handle donkey grabs before lamb grabs."  Which isn't a bad
> thing, it's just that the rule doesn't say which way to do it.

I think that game custom is pretty clear that the grabs are all resolved
simultaneously.  What /dev/joe has described above as your position is not
simultaneous, and I don't see any support for it anywhere, to tell the
truth. What I have just outlined above, and what I think /dev/joe was
trying to get across (my apolgies if I am misrepresenting the views of
that esteemed purveyor of foreheads) is fundamentaly different from what
you present it as.  It is not a sequential, first grab donkeys, then grab
lambs method.  It is a simultaneous method, where you don't resolve
anyone's grabs first.  Try looking at it in terms of a movie, or
something.  breadbox and ThinMan are both twirling their lassos (or
whatever) around, looking for something to nab.  breadbox see's Malenkai's
donkey and let's fly, not noticing that ThinMan is unleashing his coils
upon breadbox's donkey at the same time.  ThinMan doesn't give a damn what
breadbox is doing over there, he sees that donkey and he intends to make
it his own.  Then both of them reel in their catches, but breadbox
discovers that his aim was off and he got the Lamb instead, ennui.  This
probably isn't as clear as I think it is, but what it all boils down to is
that ThinMan can't grab the Lamb because breadbox doesn't have it yet,
that breadbox gets the Lamb at the same time ThinMan get's breadbox's
donkey.

> 
> -mr cwm
> 
> 

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:56:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> > Who's the processing chip harfer, anyway?
> 
> That is the Financier's responsibility.  At least I did it
> when I was Financier, and the rules define that the Financier is 
> responsible for tracking all entities.  It was one of the 
> reasons I was forced to resign as Financier; it was just too much.
> 
> I would recommened that the bot be modified to automatically
> calculate processing chips, based on comments players put in
> proposal headers (ie, players should be responsible for 
> calculating how many processing chips their proposal will create
> if accepted, and noting it in a header comment in bot-friendly
> syntax).

Something like this would require a rule's change, I think.  I for one,
ahve no idea why people get processing chips.  So I'm probably going to
crew up and not include it in the header when I should.  But, it being the
Financier's responsibility, he would still be the one who gets in trouble
when I screw up.  So he'd end up having to keep track of all that stuff
anyways.

> 
> Malenkai
> Expert in entities/finance
> 

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:59:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> > By the way, did I miss the nomination call for the empty senate seat?
> 
> It ended this morning at 8:30 am.  The results will be released tonight.

Was this sent out as a public message?  I don't know anything about the
nomination process for senators, but I am sure that I never saw any calls
for such a thing.

> 
> BTW, current events such as this can be found on the CE page at:
> 
> http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackace.htm
> 
> Malenkai
> assistant web-harfer
> 

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:11:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

Vynd wrote:

> Was this sent out as a public message?  I don't know anything about the
> nomination process for senators, but I am sure that I never saw any calls
> for such a thing.

Yes, in fact, you volunteered :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Misc

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Vynd wrote:
> 
> > Was this sent out as a public message?  I don't know anything about the
> > nomination process for senators, but I am sure that I never saw any calls
> > for such a thing.
> 
> Yes, in fact, you volunteered :)

Um.  Hrm.  I'm still sure I never saw it, but I've been under a lot of
stress, and the happy pills have been known to impair my memory, hrm.

> 
> Malenkai
> 

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Call for senator (from the archive)

> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:30:45 -0400
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: Senate
> 
> If you would like to volunteer for senate seat 'Sinecure 33', e-mail
> me with said intention over the next three days.  
> 
> Malenkai
> Speaker

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:30:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate

The following volunteers have emerged from under the blizzard of
BWG to run for senate seat 'Sinecure 33'.  Send me your votes.
Voting lasts for 3 days:

IdiotBoy
Niccolo Flychuck
Vynd
You can call me Al

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:46:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Proposal 1920 (correction)

Okay, sorry about that.  Here's P1920 (for better or worse).

- -- 
Mohammed
Relentlessly, well-mannered flashy mutant brainy aquatic intellectual
burger-flipping sensational jolly amorphous sweet weird pretty rude
superheros nuked very few flashy wandering babbling crazy rude musical
sweet teachers.

Proposal 1920
Indentured Servitude
Guy Fawkes
Distributed at 19:45 on Tuesday, 15 April 1997

Create a new rule with text as delimited by @@

@@
{{ Renumber this rule to 318}}

1. Certificates of Indenture (CoI's) are Tradeable Entities.  Each CoI is
associated with exactly one player.

2. A player may create a CoI associated with emself at any time.  A player
may destroy a CoI which he owns at any time.  Other rules may specify
other conditions under which CoI's are created or destroyed.

3. A CoI is used as follows:  A player sends a message to the Tabulator
stating that e is using a CoI, which proposal under voting consideration e is 
using the CoI on, which player that CoI is associated with (the
Indentured player), and the type of legal vote the Indentured player
should cast. This message must be unambiguous.  Also, the player sending
this message must own the CoI both when e sends the message and when the
voting results for the proposal are released.  Any attempt to use a CoI
not in accordance with this section fails.

4. If all CoI usages for a single proposal Indenturing a single player
state that the Indentured player should cast the same legal vote, the
Indentured player's vote on that proposal is changed to (or remains) the
vote specified by the CoI(s).  (This has precedence over Rule
106).  Otherwise, the CoI's have no effect. When the Tabulator reports the
voting results for that proposal, he should report all CoI's used on it.
When this report is made, those CoI's are destroyed.

{{[ Why?  On the positive side, a player could create CoI's associated
with himself and sell them as a fundraiser.  On the negative side, the
rules could state conditions under which CoI's associated with a player
might be created and sold at public auction. ]}}

@@

Amend Rule 256 as follows:

Increment the numbers of steps 4-9 by one.

Insert the following, immediately after step 3:

4) All players owning Certificates of Indenture associated with the
departing player are paid the lesser of A$100, or the number of A$
possessed by the departing player divided by the number of CoI's
possessed by other players (rounding down), from the departing player's
account for each CoI associated with the departing player they own.  All
CoI's associated with the departing player are then destroyed.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:55:08 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Senate (questions for the nominees) 

>The following volunteers have emerged from under the blizzard of
>BWG to run for senate seat 'Sinecure 33'.  Send me your votes.
>Voting lasts for 3 days:
>
>IdiotBoy
>Niccolo Flychuck
>Vynd
>You can call me Al

Before I cast my vote, I'd like to hear from each of the nominees. Could you
each say a little about yourselves, and about how you will fulfill your
responsibilities as Senator.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate (questions for the nominees)

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> Before I cast my vote, I'd like to hear from each of the nominees. Could you
> each say a little about yourselves, and about how you will fulfill your
> responsibilities as Senator.
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 

Hi, my name's IdiotBoy and I'm a moron.
<waits for the requisite "Hi, IdiotBoy">
There are responsibilites as Senator?  Forget it, I'm voting for Vynd.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:13:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  votes

Hi, my votes are for sale.  A$ 45 apiece.  Or, for a limited time only:  
in exchange for 15 PFbonds associated with yourself, I will vote YES 
on every proposal you submit from the time I ack the transaction, until 
the end of May.

- -- 
Mohammed
Save lawyers!

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:44:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  cgi

The "browse proposals" page is fixed, so you can vote from there now, even if
you don't like the "cast votes" page.  The proposal page is friendly to text
browsers, like Lynx.

Records show seven players have cast votes through cgi since 5:00 PM New 
York time on April 12.  If anyone can tell me the names of them all, I'll 
give that person Agora or 5 Processing Chips, his choice.

And no sneaky hacking into Odin.  :o)

- -- 
Mohammed
A funny farmer from Yale was in firm control.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CGI: Guess

Using my keen deductive skills:

IdiotBoy (this one is free for all who may guess after)
/dev/joe
Mohammed
Malenkai
Vynd

IB
I'd like the processing chips.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:05:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Guess

> IdiotBoy (this one is free for all who may guess after)
> /dev/joe
> Mohammed
> Malenkai
> Vynd
	*Seven* players have voted through cgi; you only named two.

- -- 
Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:14:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Guess

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> 	*Seven* players have voted through cgi; you only named two.
> 
> -- 
> Mohammed
> 
That'll teach me not to read the original message!

IB

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:20:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Guess

> > 	*Seven* players have voted through cgi; you only named two.
> That'll teach me not to read the original message!
	*shrug*  Keep guessing; there are only 480700 possible combinations.

- -- 
Mohammed
A funny farmer from Yale was in firm control.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:59:20 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict (mr cwm, snowgod ??) 

>You check, simultaneously for each player, how many players tried to grab
>his donkey, whether he covered it, and whether he had the lamb, as well
>as whether there was exactly one player who didn't cover his donkey.
>ThinMan was the only player who grabbed breadbox's donkey, and breadbox
>**DOESN'T HAVE THE LAMB YET**, and breadbox was the only player who
>grabbed Malenkai's donkey, and Malenkai has the lamb now.

*Doesn't have the lamb yet* is what this whole arguement is aout, /dev/joe.
The way I see it, lamb transfer is simulataneous (and thanks to Guy Fawkes
for wording this for me) instantanteeous.  As soon as the moves were
announced, breadbox had the lamb, and at that sam instant, ThanMan might or
might not have too.  Itn a wayy its like diplomacy... everything happens at
the same time.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:10:51 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Guess 

>Using my keen deductive skills:
>
>IdiotBoy (this one is free for all who may guess after)
>/dev/joe
>Mohammed
>Malenkai
>Vynd
>
>IB
>I'd like the processing chips.

WRONG!  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

IdiotBoy
snowgod
Mohammed
Malenkai
/dev/joe

I want the chips too.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:24:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Guess

> IdiotBoy
> snowgod
> Mohammed
> Malenkai
> /dev/joe
> I want the chips too.
	Give me seven names, instead of five, and I'll at least tell you how 
many you got right.  :o)

- -- 
Mohammed
A funny farmer from Yale was in firm control.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 23:38:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blueprint 1

Blueprint for the "Cap'n Crunch Whistle"

The Cap'n Crunch Whistle is a small whistle with the number "2600"
inscribed on it.  When blown, it produces a sound.  The text 
enclosed in double dollar signs in this Blueprint is notes and
comments only, and does not describe the behaviour of the Cap'n Crunch 
Whistle in any way.

$$
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
[this is done this way to avoid submitting a 60K proposal.  Please don't
scam me on this.]

Create a new rule entitled "Game of Pure Skill", numbered 1250.7, with
the following text:

"
[The gist of the Game of Pure Skill is that each of 3 players are given
a suit in a deck of cards, and the referee is given the remaining suit.
Cards are flipped at random from the referee's suit, and players bid
on them from the cards in their pack.  The object is to win the highest
point total (not quantity) of cards, through strategic bidding.  This
game has also been called "How much would you bid for the Three of
Spades?"]

1) General Equipment: 

The game uses one Standard Deck (deck) without the optional cards.

2) Number of Players:

The game has exactly 3 players and 1 referee.

3) Starting an instance of the game:

As described in rule 1250.1, section VI.

4) Rules of the game:

4a) The deck is divided into its 4 suits.  The spades are given to
the referee, and each player receives one of the other suits.  Each
of these is called a "pack".

4b) Each card has a value, independent of suit.  The value of an Ace
is 1, a King is 13, a Queen is 12, a Jack is 11, and all other cards'
values are their numeric values.

4c) A game consists of 13 rounds.  A round lasts for 3 days or until
all players have submitted their moves to the referee, whichever comes
first.

4d) A round starts by the referee choosing a random card from his pack
of spades, and announcing the card chosen to each player.  This card
is called the "prize" for that round.

4e) Each player then submits a "bid" of one card from their pack, by
announcing their choice privately to the referee.  If a player fails
to submit a bid by the end of the round, the referee chooses a card
randomly from their pack as their bid.  Players are discouraged from
failing to bid.  The value of a bid is the value of the card used to
make the bid.

4f) The referee resolves the round as follows.  If a single bid submitted
is higher than the other bids, the player who submitted the bid receives
the round's prize for his "take" pile.  If no single bid is highest, the
prize card is discarded and removed from play.  Regardless of the outcome
of the bidding, all cards used for bidding are discarded and removed
from play.

4g) The referee announces the results of the round to all players, and
announces all cards used as bids.  This ends the current round.  The
next round can then start in accordance with 4d), unless the 13th
round has ended, in which case the game ends.

4h) Upon the game ending, the value of the cards in each player's take
pile is totaled.  The single player with the highest total is the winner
of the game.  If there is no single player with a highest total, then
the game has no winner.  If a player has no cards in their take pile,
their total value is zero.

5) Upon a winning condition being met and a winner being declared, the
winner receives 8 points, and the referee receives A$8.  The winner
receives a standard Trophy.

6) The referee should, but is not required to, keep a web page of the
state of the game, and the history of each move.

7) Players may not discuss or collude on strategy or bids.

8) If a player leaves this game, or the game of ackanomic, while this
game is in progress, they will be replaced by a bot who plays randomly,
as managed by the referee.  Any bots are not considered players for
the purposes of clause 4h)

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

Create a new rule entitled "Limerick Contest", numbered 1250.8, with
the following text:

"
1) General Equipment: 

Ackanomic Magic Dice
     
2) Number of Players:
     
Exactly 2, with Count Tabula as a referee. It is Permissible for 
Count Tabula to be both a player and referee at the same time.
     
3) Starting an instance of the contest
 
As described in rule 1250.1, section VI.

4) Rules of the contest:
     
Each of the players in the contest writes a limerick about the other
player. The limerick may be silly, funny, and even ridicule the other
participant in a good-humored manner, as long as it is not offensive.
The limericks must be posted within 3 days of the start of the
contest. If one of the participants fails to post a limerick, then
the other wins by default. If neither post, the referee chooses a
winner at random using the AMD.
     
Once both limericks have been posted, there is a 3 day voting period.
During the voting period all Ackanomic players may send their vote to
the referee, indicating which limerick is the better one, 

with an extra caveat, quoth here.
The Poet Laureate (if there is one)
Shall, with his learned art gained quite so dear,
Attempt to share and increase the fun
When the Poet's vote is count'd at the end,
His one vote shall instead be counted twice.
The Poet may, if e does wish, then send
A public message, hopefully quite nice
To praise the Duelist which had won his vote
Explaining why the Poet liked what e wrote.

The participant whose limerick got the most votes wins the contest.
In case of a tie, the participant whose limerick was posted first wins
the contest. In the case that that does not determine a winner, the
referee determines a winner at random, using the AMD.
If the winner is chosen at random, both players shall be eligible,
even if one or both are non-active.

No Trophy is awarded to the winner of this contest.
"

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

Create a new rule entitled "Ghost", numbered 1250.9, with
the following text:

"
1.General Equipment: Official Dictionary

2. Players: minimum -- 2; maximum -- the number of active players when an
instance of Ghost is initiated less 1; Referees -- one 

When the rules specify that a player is removed from the game, it means
that he is no longer a player in that instance of Ghost. It is not
necessarily a resignation, although a resignation does cause a player's
removal from the game. 

3. Beginning of game

As described in rule 1250.1, section VI.

4. Rules

The referee shall randomly assign each player a different integer ranging
from 1 to N, where N is the number of players in the game. Player 1 shall
play first, and after that, play shall proceed in order of increasing
number. Player 1 plays again just after the turn of the player with the
highest number. Each player's turn begins when the previous player's ends,
unless that player's play was a protest, in which case it begins when the
protest is resolved. Each player's turn shall last the lesser of three
days or until that player plays. 

At any time prior to the first turn of the player assigned the highest
number, players may be added to the game. One wishing to be added to the
game should inform the referee of their desire to do so; the referee shall
then inform all current players of the addition. The new player will be
assigned the number one greater than the highest number already assigned
to a player in the game. Before the beginning of the new player's first
turn, or three days after their addition, whichever comes first, the new
player may be removed from the game if any player already in the game
protests their addition. Players may not be added to instances of Ghost
being played as a Duel. 

Players in a game of Ghost are forbidden from using dictionaries or other
reference books to aid their play. They may use these references for other
purposes. 

In his turn, each player shall do one of the following: (1) begin a new
ghost word; (2) continue an existing ghost word; (3) protest the ghost
word; (4) resign. Plays shall be made by sending a message describing the
play to all players and the referee. 

(1) A player may only begin a new ghost word when there is no existing
ghost word. He shall do so by naming any letter of the alphabet. 

(2) A player may continue an existing ghost word only when there is an
existing ghost word. He shall do so by posting a string of letters
identical to the existing ghost word except for the addition of one letter
at either the beginning or the end of the ghost word. This string then
becomes the new ghost word. 

(3) A player who protests the ghost word shall do so by either by stating
that the ghost word is a word of four or more letters in the official
dictionary, or by stating that the ghost word cannot be found within any
word in the official dictionary. ("uperso" can be found within
"supersonic"; "spronc" cannot.) A protest is said to be made against the
player whose turn caused the ghost word to be changed to its present form. 

When a player protests the ghost word, play is suspended until the protest
is resolved. If the protest was on the grounds that the ghost word is a
word of four or more letters in the official dictionary, the referee shall
attempt to locate it therein and report his findings. If the ghost word is
a word of four or more letters in the official dictionary, the protest is
valid; otherwise it is invalid. Either way, when the referee reports the
validity or lack thereof of the protest, it is considered resolved; if the
protest was valid, the ghost word is destroyed. 

If the protest was on the grounds that the ghost word cannot be found
within any word in the official dicitonary, the player against whom the
protest was made has three days to post a word containing the ghost word.
If he does not, the protest is resolved as valid. If he does, the referee
shall attempt to locate that word in the official dictionary, and shall
report his findings. If the named word is a word in the official
dictionary, the protest is invalid; otherwise, it is valid. Upon the
referee reporting on the validity or lack thereof of the protest, it is
considered resolved; at the resolution of any protest of this sort, the
ghost word is destroyed. 

A player who makes an invalid protest is removed from the game; a player
who has a valid protest made against him is removed from the game. 

(4) A player who resigns is removed from the game. A player who does not
make a move within his turn is assumed to have resigned. When a player
resigns, the ghost word is destroyed. 

A player may remove themselves from an instance of the game at any time by
posting a message to that effect. If it was their turn, they are assumed
to have resigned. If they leave Ackanomic, they are assumed to have posted
such a message. 

5. Winning

If exactly one player remains in the game, that player wins. There are no
other winning conditions.  The winner receives a standard Trophy. 

When a winner is found, the referee shall receive 8 A$. If this game took
place as a Duel, the winner shall receive no additional compensation. If
it was not a Duel and fewer than four players began the game, the winner
receives four points. If from four to eight players began the game, the
winner receives points equal to the number of players that began the game.
If more than eight players began the game, the winner receives 8 points. 

6. The Referee

Upon request, the referee must provide the following information: the
players in the game and their order of play, whose turn it is, the current
ghost word, and a history of the game in progress. He may, but is not
required to, keep a web page with this information. 

If the referee resigns his position, goes on vacation, or leaves the game
of Ackanomic, he is no longer the referee. In this event, any player of
Ackanomic who is not a player of that instance of Ghost may become referee
by publically expressing his desire to do so. While there is no referee,
the game is suspended.
"
$$

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:06:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Guess 

>> IdiotBoy
>> snowgod
>> Mohammed
>> Malenkai
Robert Sevin
mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 23:07:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CGI: Guess

On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> >> IdiotBoy
> >> snowgod
> >> Mohammed
> >> Malenkai
> Robert Sevin
> mr cwm
> 
> 

	*grin*  Keep trying...

- -- 
Mohammed
A funny farmer from Yale was in firm control.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:06:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blueprint II

Blueprint for the "Golden Frog's Tongue"

A Golden Frog's Tongue is a replica of the actual Golden Frog's
tongue.  When frobbed, tweaked, or manipulated in any way, it says
the following:

K dgnkgxg vjcv K co oqtg eqpukuvgpv vjcp K co ceewugf qh. Ejgem gxgta
ukping qpg, kh aqw yknn.  Vq og vjga ctg lwuv okpqt vygcmu, ejgem cnn
qh aqwt enwgu.

The text enclosed in double dollar signs in this Blueprint is notes and
comments only, and does not describe the behaviour of the Golden Frog's
Tongue in any way.

$$

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
[this is done this way to avoid submitting a 60K proposal.  Please don't
scam me on this.]

Create a new rule entitled "Fictionary", numbered 1250.10, with
the following text:

"
[Gist:  A player chooses an obscure word from a dictionary that
hopefully no one knows the definition of.  All other players 
anonymously submit bogus definitions of the word.  All submissions are
mixed in with the real definition, and players vote on which definition
is correct. Scoring is based on voting for the correct definition
among all the chaff, or inticing others vote for your bogus definition.]

I. General Equipment: 

Gamepoints as needed
Official Dictionary
All English Definition Lookup dictionaries defined as General Equipment 
 
II.  Number of Players:

minimum: 5; maximum: the number of active players when an
instance of Fictionary is initiated.  Referees: none.

III.  Starting an instance of the Game:

As described in rule 1250.1, section VI.  Additionally, the player
announcing the start of the Game shall randomly assign each player
a different integer ranging from 1 to N, where N is the number of
players in the game.  All players shall be randomly assigned numbers
in this way, including non-active ones.

IV.  Rules of the game:

The game is composed of rounds; each round shall have one "Brainiac".
All players who are not the Brainiac shall be known as "Bluffers".
The game shall be scored in Gamepoints.

Player 1 shall be the Brainiac of the first round, and after that,
Brainiac duty shall be assigned in order of increasing player number
at the completion of each round.  Player 1 again assumes the duty
just after the completion of the round where the player with the
highest number was Brainiac.

A round is composed of the following steps, in order.  All steps
shall be completed within 3 days of the competion of the previous
step (or the start of the round in the case of the first step).
If a player(s) fails to perform the designated action by the end of
this time limit, the listed default action is deemed to have been
performed, and they lose 1 Gamepoint.

Steps (1 thru 5) of a Round:

1) The Brainiac shall choose a word (known as the "Ing Word" for
that round) from the Official Dictionary, whose definition is available
in one of the Definition Lookup Dictionaries (Dictionaries), and
publically post the word.  The Ing Word should be as obscure as possible.
Words with Harfy definitions are encouraged.

The Brainiac shall also privately note the definition of the Ing Word.
This definition shall be a verbatim transcription of any of the
definitions provided by any of the Dictionaries.  (Part of speech and
similar details should not be transcribed).  This shall be known as the
"Actual Definition".

This step ends when the Ing Word has been publically posted.

Default Ing Word: "ing"; Actual Definition:  "A pasture or meadow;
generally one lying low, near a river."

2) All Bluffers shall submit a definition for the Ing Word to the
Brainiac via private e-mail.  Default: "" is submitted.

3)  The Brainiac shall compare the submitted defintions with the Actual
Definition and any other definitions in the Dictionaries (On-line
Definitions), and report how play proceeds based on the following cases:

3a) 2 or more Bluffers submitted a definition that is substantially
similar to an On-line Definition.  In this case, each such Bluffer
receives 3 Gamepoints, the Brainiac is sneered at for picking an easy
word, and the round ends.

3b) Exactly one Bluffer submitted a definition that is substantially
similar to an On-line Definition.  In this case, that Bluffer receives
4 Gamepoints, and their submitted defintion is removed from play.
The Brainiac publically announces that this has occurred, and play
proceeds without the submission as if case 3c) occurred, except that the
correct Bluffer does not participate.

3c) No Bluffer submitted a definition that is substantially similar to
an On-line Definition.  In this case, the Brainiac randomly sorts the
submitted definitions and the Actual Definition into a numbered list
(without the names of the associated Bluffers), and publically posts
the list for Bluffer voting.  This posting ends this step.

3d) Default: The Brainiac loses 4 Gamepoints, no other scoring occurs
this round, and play proceeds to the next round.

4) All Bluffers shall vote for one of the definitions on the list,
and publically post their vote.  Voting for the Bluffer's own definition
is permissible (and is called "sheeping").  It is good form to quote
the definition being voted for in this post.  This step ends when all
bluffers have voted.  Default: A Bluffer who did not vote is deemed to
have sheeped.

5a) The Brainiac shall score the voting and post this information, the
cumulative scoring for the game, and the actual definition.  Scoring
is as follows (in addition to any from section 3):

        i)   Each Bluffer receives 1 Gamepoint for every player other
             than himself who voted for his definition.

        ii)  A Bluffer receives 2 Gamepoints if he voted for the Actual
             Definition.

        iii) If no one voted for the Actual Definition, the Brainiac
             receives 2 Gamepoints.

5b) The game shall end when all players have been Brainiac the same
number of times, and one or more players has 25 or more Gamepoints.
The single player with the most Gamepoints wins, and receives 1 A$ for
each Gamepoint they have.  If there is no such player, all players
who are tied with the most Gamepoints recieve A$12.  There is no winner
declared, however.  The winner also receives a standard Trophy.

5c) If the game does not end at this step, play continues to the next
round with a new Brainiac at step 1.

5d) Default: The Scorekeeper or Acting Scorekeeper becomes acting Brainiac
to adjudicate step 5.  If there is no such officer, the game ends with
no winner and no payoff.

5e) Players are permitted to ridicule any definition that is not
the same part of speech as the Ing Word.

V.  Errata

1)  Players on vacation are replaced by bots who perform the default
actions in their stead (but the players receive all scoring as a result
of the bot's play).  A player going on vacation may have a volunteer
play in their place if they can find such a person, however.

2) Players may resign at any time, although this is considered bad form.
Any player who resigns or leaves Acka is replaced by a bot until the
end of the round in which they resigned (unless they resigned after
the completion of step 5, and before the completion of step 1 in the next
round).  After that, their "spot" is removed from the game.

3) Players may not look up the Ing Word (or any of the definitions), in
any dictionary until its definition is disclosed, or until adjudication
of step 5 is required.
"

$$

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #50
******************************