Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #58
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, April 22 1997        Volume 02 : Number 058

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 01:35:24 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Passover 

> However, I ask all Ackanomians to not make any mention of ***** for
> one week.  *****box, I'm sorry, but unless you want to be vanquished
> by Niccolo Flychuck or Myself in a duel, you are going to have to be
> matzobox or unleavened*****boy or something.  Thse things happens,
> you know.

Well, isn't that just a fine how-do-you-do.

The entire week? You've got to be kidding! Half of my blasted name is
verboten for a WEEK? Did I ask for this?

Just for that, I think I'm going to go make myself a sandwich.

Oh wait, I can't. I just remembered, I'm all out of *****.

<sigh>

Oh, and - uh - thanks for the suggested euphemisms, but I'll pass. I
would prefer either *****box or just blankbox. Or maybe:

bleepbox

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:04:58 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: GamesMaster (/dev/joe)

> > I believe /dev/joe is the GamesMaster.  
> 
> This is correct.  And I note that Malenkai's G&C reorg will eliminate the
> office before I ever get paid, unless that fictionary game drags on much
> longer than it should.
> 
> /dev/joe

I think that the G&C reorg will create a lot more new work for the 
GamesMaster office. So here by Im stating out that I want to be 
assistent-GamesMaster, Referee.

CarsesraC

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:12:32 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 373 Verdict

CFJ 373 has been judged TRUE.  This will retroactively affect some
financial details.

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

Call For Judgement 373
  Subject: Creator
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Vynd (selected Apr 14, 1997, 18:50h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Malenkai is not the creator of Beldin's Pants.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Players can create trinkets and gadgets, but the rules generally create
most other entities.  Malenkai created proposal 1594 which created
rule 1594.2 (at the time) which created Beldin's Pants.  Its a fine but
important distinction.  I think sometimes colloqially we say 'player X
created entity Y' when really 'player X created proposal Z which created
rule W which creates entity Y' for convienence, but such convienent
figures of speech have no bearing on the rules or game custom.  'To
create' is one of those verbs that has been given special operational
status by the rules, and general English renderings have no sway.

- - From rule 500:

> An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as
> specified by the Rules

The rules never specified a way for Malenkai to create the entity we
know of as Beldin's Pants, they merely specified ways for Malenkai
to create a proposal, and for other entities to creare rule 1592.2.

Vynd's Reasoning:

As I see it, the question here is whether or not the fact that Malenkai is
the author of the proposal of which created the rule which created the
entity known as Beldin's Pants means that Malenkai is the creator of
Beldin's Pants.

It is perfectly clear that Malenkai created the proposal, and the proposal
created the Rule in question.  Nowhere in Rule 940, however,  does it
state that an entity known as Beldin's Pants is created.  The Rule does
indeed define an entity with that name, but nowhere does it actually
create such an entity.  Game custom indicates that entities defined by the
rules can and do exist whether or not they were specificaly created
(witness Phoebe, the Brass Monkey, Prosthetic Foreheads, and many more).
I therefore rule TRUE, on the grounds that Beldin's Pants have no creator.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:39:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Passover

b.b. wrote:
> The entire week? You've got to be kidding! Half of my blasted name is
> verboten for a WEEK? Did I ask for this?
 [...]
> Oh, and - uh - thanks for the suggested euphemisms, but I'll pass. I
> would prefer either *****box or just blankbox. Or maybe:

Maybe Bascule could use the Blue Thing on you and turn you into bad boxer
or robbed ax for a week.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:42:52 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: internomic: P322

snowgod wrote:

> I hereby initiate a senate vote on P322.  Its internomic voting period
> ends
> in two weeks or when all members have voted.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> P322
> 
[Make Internomic a member of Internomic, with itself as liaison.]

I would be willing to go with this idea, if it provided a sufficient
framework.  Unfortunately, I don't think it does so.  For instance,
what if Internomic were selected as a judge?  What if it happened to
win the game?  How does it decide how to vote -- or does it vote?  If
it doesn't vote or judge, then what is the point of having it as an
IN member?

ThinMan
Senator

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:04:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: GamesMaster (/dev/joe)

CarsesraC wrote:
> > > I believe /dev/joe is the GamesMaster.  
> > 
> > This is correct.  And I note that Malenkai's G&C reorg will eliminate the
> > office before I ever get paid, unless that fictionary game drags on much
> > longer than it should.
> > 
> > /dev/joe
> 
> I think that the G&C reorg will create a lot more new work for the 
> GamesMaster office. So here by Im stating out that I want to be 
> assistent-GamesMaster, Referee.

Go back and re-read that re-org, please.  The reorg initially reduces the
gamesmaster's job by killing off all the current G&C which aren't being
played, as well as the broken diplomacy game, leaving just the almost-over
fictionary game, and anything else that gets started in the meantime.
When the current games end it removes the gamesmaster office altogether.

The re-org creates new G&C under the new rule suite structure, and these
new G&C shift the gamesmaster's work onto to the game's referee, and
occasionally other appropriate officers.  Each game will have its own
referee, a volunteer, except for those games which operate without a
referee.

BTW, I may go through and make more standardizations in the G&C later,
analogous to the changes Malenkai made in this re-org (besides putting
them into rules).  We should, for example, have a general procedure
for allowing a player or referee to replace one who has left the game,
within a reasonable time, and all games where this is reasonable just
adopt this instead of having 15 lines worth of such text in every game.

I wrote a "Generic Card Game" G&C which I don't currently plan to submit,
but which points out how much of each G&C is just generalities.  Well
over half this game's text is stuff that is neither a pointer to a
general procedure, nor something specific to card games.  (However, I
started writing this before the reorg was sent out, so there is some
text that could be replaced by such pointers, but IMHO there should be
more than there is).  I'm going to use this text as a guideline for
future G&C changes.

BTW, the text is at http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/gcg.txt
and since a couple of the games on the web site mentioned use dominoes,
there is a "deck of dominoes" (a type of playing cards -- one of the
domino games is even a trick-taking game!) at
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/dominoes.txt

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:31:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Senate Vote on Internomic Prop

The senate has voted 3-1 in favor of the recent internomic proposal
(which seems to have been numbered 322, but should have been 332).
ThinMan cast the single NO vote.

/dev/joe
Senator

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:32:34 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 375 (fnord)

Malenkai wrote:

> Call For Judgement 375
> 
[...]

> The legality of a player, who has attempted to overthrow the
> Godfather,
> speaking on behalf on the Narfalone family (ie, posting and taking
> bets)
> 7 days after the attempt was made, cannot be determined with finality
> (in the general case where at least 2 players (4 if the current
> Godfather
> is construed to be in the Narfalone Family) publically support the
> overthrow attempt) when the Godfather is not an active player (or is
> an active player but not actively playing).
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> This is a paradox win CFJ.  It is also the real-world case we face.
> 
[...]

Malenkai, renowned expert on the Judicial system, is incorrect about
CFJ 375 being a paradox win CFJ.  Here is the relevant section of
rule 601:

	A call for judgement whose statement alleges that further play
	is impossible, that rule changes are impossible, or that a
	player action which would affect the game state appears equally
	legal and illegal is a "Paradox Win CFJ." Only those CFJs so
	specified by the rules are Paradox Win CFJs.

The statement on which CFJ 375 has been called does not satisfy any of
the three criteria established by R 601, so CFJ 375 is not a paradox
win CFJ.  It has been some time since the "cannot be determined with
finality" clause was removed as a paradox-win criterion.

ThinMan
Expert on Paradox Wins
Expert on Non-winning Paradoxes and Non-Determinism

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:41:58 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Senate Vote on Internomic Prop

/dev/joe wrote:

> The senate has voted 3-1 in favor of the recent internomic proposal
> (which seems to have been numbered 322, but should have been 332).
> ThinMan cast the single NO vote.
> 
This is incorrect.  Robert Sevin also voted no.

>I vote no on IN P322/332 (whichever the official number actually is).

>Robert Sevin

The Senate vote is therefore tied, and the ProConsul may cast a
tiebreaking vote in accordance with rule 411.  Considering who the
ProConsul is, I imagine that the eventual decision will be to cast a
YES vote on IN P322.  If the ProConsul declines to vote, then the
president is empowered to decide IN matters on which the Senate does
not reach a decision.  There again, I think I can predict the outcome.
I have stated my reasons for opposing the IN legislation, which are
technical rather than philosophical -- if this were in Acka, I would
be calling for retraction and resubmission.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:47:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Vote on Internomic Prop

ThinMan wrote:
> /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> > The senate has voted 3-1 in favor of the recent internomic proposal
> > (which seems to have been numbered 322, but should have been 332).
> > ThinMan cast the single NO vote.
> > 
> This is incorrect.  Robert Sevin also voted no.

Sorry for the mistake.  When I went through my senate mail counting
votes I counted an old vote by robert sevin that was actually for
breadbox's confirmation.

ThinMan is correct, the senate has voted 2-2 on the proposal.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:54:50 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 375 (fnord)

From CFJ 375:

> The legality of a player, who has attempted to overthrow the
> Godfather,
> speaking on behalf on the Narfalone family (ie, posting and taking
> bets)
> 7 days after the attempt was made, cannot be determined with finality
> (in the general case where at least 2 players (4 if the current
> Godfather
> is construed to be in the Narfalone Family) publically support the
> overthrow attempt) when the Godfather is not an active player (or is
> an active player but not actively playing).
> 
Except that this is not a paradox win CFJ, Malenkai's argument appears
sound.  I observe, furthermore, that this situation provides an
excellent distinction between the Platonic game state and the Pragmatic
one.  The rules are sufficient to establish, Platonically, whether or
not Malenkai will be legally permitted to speak on behaf of the
Narfalones.  Pragmatically, however, _we_ cannot know whether such
speech is actually legal or illegal.  Even Malenkai may not know.

*eyebrow lift*  Fascinating.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:52:35 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Sworn Enemies

Despite what you see above, this is You can call me Al, beaming in 
from the "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" port (thank you, Mr. Meeks). This is 
my OTHER address, though I suppose this is unofficial nonetheless. 
Anwyay, I feel it's only fair to warn you AckaCitizens that there's a 
new top dog in the nomic universe - a nomic as freewheeling as Acka 
once was.

Actually, I'll digress for a moment to wonder - is Acka still 
freewheeling? It's still unconsciously silly, that's for certain, but 
I don't know whether it's as mobile as it once was. BTW, the boat 
joke from my Phoebe diatribe was one ascribed to Mohammed - if Acka 
were a boat, everyone would starve...I forget the reasoning, but it 
made sense to me at the time. Playing in a nomic from the beginning 
just beats the harf out of joining comparatively "late" in the game. 
The Machine that Goes *ping* is what first attracted me to Acka - the 
fact that so many, terrifyingly creative subgames could exist under 
the auspices of a set of meta-rules. Acka is to nomic what Calvinball 
is to baseball (CnH, how about setting up a game of Calvinball in 
Acka? Just a thought).

Has Thring been approached as a trade partner?

I'm terribly sorry about this email. I promise that this digression 
won't happen again until my wrist heals sufficiently to warrant 
another long typing spree like my recent spate of Rishonomic 
proposals (God, I can't believe I had the patience to write down 10 
proposals!).

And to the Jewish members of the game, have a happy and blessed 
Passover. Shalom.

Alfonso, masseuse to the stars and Calvinball aficionado

p.s. The subject line refers to...well, I'm sure you'll hear about it 
later.
- [email-masked]
Known alias:                               Wally Holland
Last seen at:                         St. Bonaventure U.
URL:      http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2042
Vision:                          20/25 right, 20/50 left
- [email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:29:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 375 (fnord)

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> Malenkai, renowned expert on the Judicial system, is incorrect about
> CFJ 375 being a paradox win CFJ.  Here is the relevant section of
> rule 601:
> 
> 	A call for judgement whose statement alleges that further play
> 	is impossible, that rule changes are impossible, or that a
> 	player action which would affect the game state appears equally
> 	legal and illegal is a "Paradox Win CFJ." Only those CFJs so
> 	specified by the rules are Paradox Win CFJs.
> 
> The statement on which CFJ 375 has been called does not satisfy any of
> the three criteria established by R 601, so CFJ 375 is not a paradox
> win CFJ.  It has been some time since the "cannot be determined with
> finality" clause was removed as a paradox-win criterion.

Also, I note that the statement is probably false regardless of whether 
or not it is a paradox win.  This is a case where the legality can be 
determined with finality, but it would be very difficult and highly 
impractical for us to do so.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:41:26 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 375 (fnord) 

>On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
>>
>> Malenkai, renowned expert on the Judicial system, is incorrect about
>> CFJ 375 being a paradox win CFJ.  Here is the relevant section of
>> rule 601:
>>
>> 	A call for judgement whose statement alleges that further play
>> 	is impossible, that rule changes are impossible, or that a
>> 	player action which would affect the game state appears equally
>> 	legal and illegal is a "Paradox Win CFJ." Only those CFJs so
>> 	specified by the rules are Paradox Win CFJs.
>>
>> The statement on which CFJ 375 has been called does not satisfy any of
>> the three criteria established by R 601, so CFJ 375 is not a paradox
>> win CFJ.  It has been some time since the "cannot be determined with
>> finality" clause was removed as a paradox-win criterion.
>
>Also, I note that the statement is probably false regardless of whether
>or not it is a paradox win.  This is a case where the legality can be
>determined with finality, but it would be very difficult and highly
>impractical for us to do so.
>
>Guy Fawkes

Either way, I can assure everyone that Malenkai does not have the required
number of votes to overthrow Narf.  There are certinly more than two
narfalones.  I think IdiotBoy will concur here, and maybe a few more if
theyt dare.

Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.  I wouldn't dare be a
narfalone :)

snowgod
we can always see who NArf accepted bets from

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:41:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sworn Enemies

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> Despite what you see above, this is You can call me Al, beaming in 
> from the "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" port (thank you, Mr. Meeks). This is 
> my OTHER address, though I suppose this is unofficial nonetheless. 
> Anwyay, I feel it's only fair to warn you AckaCitizens that there's a 
> new top dog in the nomic universe - a nomic as freewheeling as Acka 
> once was.

I think it's time for snowgod to drag the "Silly Nomic" proposal back out 
of the closet...

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:58:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 375 (fnord)

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> Either way, I can assure everyone that Malenkai does not have the required
> number of votes to overthrow Narf.  There are certinly more than two
> narfalones.  I think IdiotBoy will concur here, and maybe a few more if
> theyt dare.
> 

Hrmmm, I /honestly/ don't know if I am a member of OC or not.  I thought I
was, but my wager got rejected.

IB
not supporting any overthrow attempt ;)

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:35:03 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Vote on Internomic Prop 

>The senate has voted 3-1 in favor of the recent internomic proposal
>(which seems to have been numbered 322, but should have been 332).
>ThinMan cast the single NO vote.
>
>/dev/joe
>Senator

I also cast a vote of "No" on that proposal.

Robert Sevin
Senator

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:35:50 -0500
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: internomic: P322 

>I would be willing to go with this idea, if it provided a sufficient
>framework.  Unfortunately, I don't think it does so.  For instance,
>what if Internomic were selected as a judge?  What if it happened to
>win the game?  How does it decide how to vote -- or does it vote?  If
>it doesn't vote or judge, then what is the point of having it as an
>IN member?

This was also my reasoning for voting No. The concept is fine with me, but
the implementation needs to be more precise. I urge the ProConsul or
President (whoever ends up breaking the tie) to vote No.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 18:14:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Address unchange

I'm back at my old address, [email-masked]

I would have been back sooner if I'd remembered I'd unplugged my network
connection last week to prevent network crashes from taking my machine
with them.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 18:36:21 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IN 322/332

I vote in favor of internomic 332 to break the tie.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 18:45:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bartender (mr cwm)

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

Apparently there is a public gathering, and I am once again to serve up
the frinks.  (I assume we're celebrating Niccolo Flychuck's Prosthetic
Forehead win?)  All right, then, step on up and let me know what you'll
have.  And I can probably dig up some munchies, too.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 18:44:37 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato

Bascule receives the Potato.

Aliens.  None of these are rules:

1160
1312
1623

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:12:03 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Auction

I am calling an auction for my Scroll of Crumble.  The last one
went for an amount in excess of A$600.

Minimum bid on the Scroll is A$150.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:12:46 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gimme Shelter

I am building a Gimme Shelter.  It will be complete in 3 days.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:16:22 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Another Auction

I am initiating an auction for the  "Little Bag O' Chips E", a
unique and historic entity.  Minimum bid A$1

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:20:15 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: For Sale (not an auction)

The following entities are for sale.  This is not an auction.
Serious enquiries only please; I will not sell any of these cheap:

1) Wizard Seat

2) Spell Book of Chorg (has 19 pages)
Is equivelant to 4 gadgets, 1 Boon of the Ancients, *and* 14 Otzma Cards

3) Otzma Card of type Foul Fowl

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 18:21:14 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: I'm baaaaaaack

'ello mates, this is Narf, returned from the dead (I assume I've been
removed from the game for inactivity?  If not... then I'm back from a
deep sleep I suppose)

After lengthy arguments with AOL and their billing dept, I have decided
NOT to sign back up with them (they inadvertently canceled my account
with no warning) and I can now be found at [email-masked]

Can someone remind me what mailing lists I need to sign up on and how to
go about doin' so?

And fill me in on any relevant info I may have missed? 

Thanks in advance.

Narf

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 21:44:01 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: (None Yet)

I support Guy Fawkes for membership in (None Yet).

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 22:22:12 -0400
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retraction

#retract proposal 1946

As much as I dislike that rule, I suppose history
will win out.  Of course, everyone may have their
pet reason to support *each* of the rules I propose
to repeal, but if there is any desire to clean up
the ruleset, we have to start somewhere, and rules that
are not used seems as good a place as any.  I had made
up my mind to retract this one, though, if anyone
objected on historical grounds.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:21:28 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blue Thing to the rescue!!!

Having recieved a pitiful plea from euphemismbox to anagramize his
name, I am getting ready to use The Really Big Blue Thing That
Doesn't Do Too Much, Really. (BTW, it is shaped like a 1968 Ford
Mustang Fastback today, in case you are interested)

I am pointing The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, 
Really at (avert your eyes, snowgod!) blankbox, er I mean breadbox.

I am pressing the button marked ENERGIZE.

*click* *click* *whirr*

[wheat-derived-comestible-box gave me a couple of preferences... I 
hope it comes up with one of those...]

Oh no!

xebra bod

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #58
******************************