Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #60
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Thursday, April 24 1997       Volume 02 : Number 060

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:34:08 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 1953

I guess I'd have to paraphrase a couple of other players here:"don't knock
it till you've tried it". and further more point out that the 'what do we
need it for' is a response I received quite a lot. O/I is one example.

The Synod is simultanesouly competitive and cooperative, and we are near
the population size that would it feasible.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > Are all real world partnership shams, mistakes, errors in judgement?
> 	That's taking malenkai's statement to a rather extreme 
> conclusion.  We're a tight-enough-knit community that a "partnership" in 
> the sense of the Synod isn't profitable in terms of connections, good 
> will, etc.; also churches don't really get specialized to the point that 
> they need things from other churches, which is what would make Synod 
> really worth something.
> 
> -- 
> Mohammed
> Twin non-smoking funny astrologists stalked the famous baker mercilessly.
> 

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

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 23:38:03 -0700
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Until the cows come home.

The new silly phrase is "score 5 points"

Course, I'm sure you all saw that coming a mile away. I'll leave it to 
someone else to exploit this; it wouldn't be any fun to take advantage 
of my own loophole.

**twostar

also, I think I get 3 more points due to the new player bonus, R207 sec. 
VII. Have fun, folks.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:43:15 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Health Emergency!!! (fwd)

err... ummm... I meant to do that... 
<grin>

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> In reply to Narf's allegation that he meant to do that, please note that
> he did not have to vote publically even if his email address was not
> entered into the bot.  He could have sent it privately to Mohammed without
> the Acrobot heading and let him enter the votes by hand (which he would
> have to do anyway if the bot didn't recognize you.)  

Actualy, as I understand it, I'm not REQUIRED to send my votes to the
bot... not that it much matters.  Or did that get changed in the last
reworking of it all?

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:49:53 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Until the cows come home.

Alexandre Muniz wrote:
> 
> The new silly phrase is "score 5 points"
> 
> Course, I'm sure you all saw that coming a mile away. I'll leave it to
> someone else to exploit this; it wouldn't be any fun to take advantage
> of my own loophole.

Booo!  Hiss!!  That's not so silly!!

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 01:14:26 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Organizational Attributes

[this rule would clean up the problem of the unknown membership in the
Narfalones, as well as create many new and harfy possibilites for other
organizations]

Create a new rule with the following text:

Organizations can have attributes in accordance with this rule.  This
rule contains all the attributes possible for an organization. [the idea
here is that additional attributes would be made as ammendments to this
rule]  

A) Secret Societies - Organizations may gain the attribute "secret
societies" in the following ways: Rules sanctioned organizations may
specify in their governing rule that they are a secret society.  Player
sanctioned organizations may state in the public message that creates
them that they are a secret society.  Rules sanctioned and player
sanctioned organizations may become secret societies by taking a pulic
action in accordance with R1003 and R1005.

The membership of a secret society is known only to members of that
organization.  Every member of the organization must have a complete
list of all members of the organization.  When an organization becomes a
secret society, it must also appoint one player who is the only player
authorized to take public actions on behalf of the organization.

Secret societies may have their own internal set of rules.  These rules
may or may not be made public.  A secret society may expell any player
who has broken one of the internal rules as a public action. [yes, I
realize it won't be publicly knowable if the player has broken a rule or
not.  This should be considered a grave action -- other secret societies
will be hesitant to accept the rule breaker, and the expelled member can
spill the beans on the secret society.  Neither side will be anxious for
this to happen].  An expelled player has no recourse.

[If this goes through, it will include an ammendment to OC, making it a
secret society, and making the overthrow vote a private, internal
matter.]

Secret societies may not own big tents.  Organizations that already own
a big tent may not become secret societies, and secret societies that
purchase a big tent lose the secret society attribute.

[ok, it's sketchy in this format -- I'm trolling for suggestions and
ideas at this point.  If you like the concept, help me firm it up.  I
have other ideas for attributes that organizations can acquire as well,
but I want to start with this one.]

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:26:01 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 375 (Bascule)

> Bascule has been chosen.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgement 375
>   Subject: Not-so-Organized Crime Paradox
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: snowgod (declined)
> 2nd Judge: IdiotBoy (declined)
> 3rd Judge: fnord (declined)
> 4th Judge: Bascule (selected Apr 22, 1997, 20:20h EDT)
> Judgement:

That Purple Robe had to work eventually.

I accept.

Bascule

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:51:57 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Ack: points question

What is the penalty of not using the magic word ack: in the 
subjectline ??

CarsesraC

> Reply-to:      [email-masked]
> Date:          Tue, 22 Apr 1997 23:38:03 -0700
> From:          Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
> To:            [email-masked]
> Subject:       Until the cows come home.

> The new silly phrase is "score 5 points"
> 
> Course, I'm sure you all saw that coming a mile away. I'll leave it to 
> someone else to exploit this; it wouldn't be any fun to take advantage 
> of my own loophole.
> 
> **twostar
> 
> also, I think I get 3 more points due to the new player bonus, R207 sec. 
> VII. Have fun, folks.

 

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 03:19:04 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ack: points question

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> What is the penalty of not using the magic word ack: in the
> subjectline ??
> 

The penalty is -- you must stand on your head and recite the complete
ruleset by heart.

Narf

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:12:32 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: points question 

> What is the penalty of not using the magic word ack: in the 
> subjectline ??

Actually, the magic word is either "Acka:" or "Ackanomic:". See Rule
422, "Postmaster".

As to the "penalty", this technically means that this message did not
qualify as a public message, and therefore fails to be a public
announcement. twostar will need to resend the message with the proper
subject line to actually change the new silly phrase.

(Though this is interesting.... If such an error goes unnoticed and/or
unreported, it falls under the 14-day retroactivity rule [Rule 713].
Since it's been pointed out, that's no longer possible - except that
Carsesrac used "ack:" in his message, so, technically, the illegal
change to the game state is still unreported...! Or, at least it was
until now.)

xebra bod

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:42:37 +0100 (BDT)
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: points question

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Joshua Nave wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > What is the penalty of not using the magic word ack: in the
> > subjectline ??

I thought it was Acka, actually, although I'm not fussed personally

> The penalty is -- you must stand on your head and recite the complete
> ruleset by heart.
> 
> Narf

Go on then. I bet you can't remember all of rule 205.

Bascule

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:48:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict

CFJ 364 has been judged INVALID as described in rule 218.
 
Neither the Prosecutor snowgod nor the Consecutor Red Barn have 
submitted reasoning to mr cwm within the week as prescribed in that
rule.
 
Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 364
  Subject: Farmyard Animals
Initiator: snowgod
    Judge: Techno (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (deferred to Supreme Court)
3rd Judge: Supreme Court (assigned Apr 01, 1997, 10:51 EST)
Judgement: UNDECIDED
4th Judge: Jury (preceedings initiated Apr 14, 1997, 13:16h EDT)
Judgement: INVALID (by default)

Statement:

ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey.

snowgod's Reasoning:

I am agreeable to either a verdict of TRUE or FALSE.  I just wanted to get
this cleared up.  I suppose it is a timing issue.  Breadbox grabbed
Malenkai's Little Lamb and ThinMan attempted to grab breadbox's donkey.  If
the events happen simultaniously, does that mean the breadbox already has
the lamb at the time thinman makes his grab attempt?

I honestly don't know and will leave it up to a judge to decide.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court finds R1213 (Grab-A-Donkey) silent on the question of whether
the Little Lamb is grabbed before, after, or simultaneously with, the
grabbing of Donkeys.  It turns, then, to Game Custom, whereupon it finds
none, as might be expected with a relatively narrow issue (such as this)
which has never before arisen.  Finally, and in Desperation, it looks to
the Spirit of the Game, which is a modicum of help, in that it finds
grabbing the Little Lamb simultaneously with Donkeys to Violate the Spirit
of the Game by making Grab-A-Donkey unplayable.  However it finds
Grab-A-Donkey to be an equally good game whether the Little Lamb is
grabbed before or after Donkeys are grabbed.  Thus, the Court has no legal
basis on which to choose one procedure over the other, and (refusing, of
course, to choose on an illegal basis) must return a decision of
UNDECIDED.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:36:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Health Emergency!!! (fwd)

> Actualy, as I understand it, I'm not REQUIRED to send my votes to the
> bot... not that it much matters.  Or did that get changed in the last
> reworking of it all?
	Hasn't changed.  All the same I haven't gotten around to coutning 
those votes yet; too busy!

- -- 
Mohammed
Maybe very few funny wandering glamorous forgetful kings and con artists
were made for each other.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:33:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Ack: points question

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> What is the penalty of not using the magic word ack: in the 
> subjectline ??
> 
> CarsesraC

Actually, I think you're supposed to use "Acka:" and I don't think there
is an official penalty, except that a lot of people are going to get your
mail in the wrong mailbox, or something....

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> > Reply-to:      [email-masked]
> > Date:          Tue, 22 Apr 1997 23:38:03 -0700
> > From:          Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
> > To:            [email-masked]
> > Subject:       Until the cows come home.
> 
> > The new silly phrase is "score 5 points"
> > 
> > Course, I'm sure you all saw that coming a mile away. I'll leave it to 
> > someone else to exploit this; it wouldn't be any fun to take advantage 
> > of my own loophole.
> > 
> > **twostar
> > 
> > also, I think I get 3 more points due to the new player bonus, R207 sec. 
> > VII. Have fun, folks.
>  
> 
>  
> 

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:02:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: snowgod's disease Hearing

To:   Count Tabula Malenkai
From: mr cwm

Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:29:19 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: snowgod's disease Hearing

> To:   Count Tabula Malenkai
> From: mr cwm
> 
> Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!
 
Oh my LORD!

The irony of it. Still, it just goes to show that these epidemics 
must be stamped out.

I call for a snowgod's disease hearing on mr cwm

Bascule

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:06:44 -0700
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Gumball 

Today is Wednesday, April 23rd 1997, and I am chewing what may or may
not be Ackanomic's future liaison to Internomic.

xebra bod

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:01:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: snowgod's disease Hearing (mr cwm)

Bascule wrote:

[mr cwm's public post]

> The irony of it. Still, it just goes to show that these epidemics
> must be stamped out.
> 
> I call for a snowgod's disease hearing on mr cwm

The valid responses are below.  Reply to vote:

No, e, uh, meant to do that.
Yes, why just yesterday e posted a letter to eir aunt!

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:18:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 376 (fnord)

CFJ 376 has been assigned to fnord.

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

Call For Judgement 376
  Subject: CFJ 364 continued
Initiator: xebra bod
    Judge: fnord (selected Apr 23, 1997, 19:18h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

In Round 2 of the current game of Grab-A-Donkey (the results of which
were released by Wrangler snowgod on 24 Mar 1997), ThinMan grabbed
breadbox's donkey.

xebra bod's reasoning:

The Supreme Court's reasoning for its decision on the highly similar
CFJ 364 seemed to hinge upon the question of whether the Little Lamb
was "grabbed before, after, or simultaneously with, the grabbing of
Donkeys". Since the court found no clear answer to this question, it
returned a decision of UNDECIDED. To be specific, it saw the
"simultaneously with" case to be unplayable, but could find no reason
to prefer either "before" or "after".

I wish to argue that the question itself is misguided, which is why
there is no clear answer for it to be found, and that Rule 1213 is not
ambiguous (though perhaps not worded as forcefully as it needs to be),
and that the correct verdict for this CFJ should be TRUE.

Firstly, consider the game of Grab-a-Donkey when the Little Lamb is
not involved. Upon a careful reading, one will notice that the Rule
carefully avoids any situation wherein two or more players could be
grabbing a single donkey (by having all such players automatically
fail), or wherein a player could attempt to grab a donkey that is not
there (by having players without donkeys removed from the GAL before
any further grabs are possible). What this means is that the Wrangler
only needs to know the state of the game at the moment the current
round began, and what every player's move is.

This is important for two reasons. First, at no point does the
Wrangler need to determine the outcome of one player's move before
being able to determine another's. Second, the Wrangler cannot
determine any of the moves' outcomes until every player's move is
known.

Once these conditions are observed, it becomes obvious that this is no
accident. Section E of Rule 1213 states: "At the end of the Round, the
Wrangler will publicly report what each player on the GAL did, and
determine the results." Clearly, the results are not determined before
all the moves have been submitted. We will come back to this.

Grab-a-Donkey is structured similarly to a cellular automaton (such as
Conway's Game of Life), in which, at any given "round", the state of
each cell is dependent upon the states of its neighbors. Like players
in Grab-a-Donkey, a given cell's state at the end of a round is
determined by considering the states of its neighbors at the beginning
of that round. Even though the neighbors are undergoing state changes
of their own, none of these changes can actually affect the cell's
outcome. It is the states of the cells at the beginning of the round
that is used to determine their states at the end. To ask if the cells
all change their states simultaneously, or instantaneously, is to ask
moot questions, as these considerations have no bearing on determining
the outcome of each round. They are non-issues.

Now: with all this in mind, let us take a closer look at what the rule
actually says. The passage under scrutiny is section C. It begins: "If
exactly one player ('A') chose to grab another player's donkey ('B'),
and if B did not Cover their donkey, then B will lose their donkey and
be removed from the GAL at the start of the following Round ..." Note
that it does not say that player B loses their donkey; it says that
player B *will* lose their donkey. (So exactly when does B lose eir
donkey? At the start of the next round? when the Wrangler posts the
results? or maybe an infinitesimal amount of time after the grab?
Again, such questions are moot. They ignore the fact that either way,
the results of the round - and of the following rounds - are exactly
the same.)

The rule then continues: "... unless player B is in possesion [sic] of
the Little Lamb, in which case A will become confused and grab the
lamb by mistake and B will remain in possesion [sic] of his donkey.
(In this situation, possesion [sic] of the Little Lamb will transfer
to player A.)" Without specific wording to the contrary, I argue that
it would be a perverse reading indeed that treated the time referred
to by the clause "the Little Lamb will transfer to player A" as
meaning a significantly different point in the game as that referred
to by the clause "B will lose their donkey", especially considering
that they both appear in the same sentence. In fact, considering the
wording of Section E, I argue that the point in time referred to is
none other than at the end of the round.

In the situation that forms the question of this CFJ, the round began
with Malenkai, ThinMan, and breadbox on the GAL (among others), and
with Malenkai possessing the Little Lamb. Malenkai made a move other
than to Cover his Donkey, breadbox attempted to grab Malenkai's
donkey, and ThinMan attempted to grab breadbox's donkey.

For ThinMan to successfully grab the Little Lamb would require
breadbox to be in possession of the Little Lamb. Not to be at some
point soon, but at the time that the results of ThinMan's move is
being determined. Which means that breadbox's move must have already
been completed, and its outcome already determined and enacted, at
some point in time before the results of ThinMan's move is being
determined.

Once again I quote Section E: "At the end of the Round, the Wrangler
will publicly report what each player on the GAL did, and determine
the results." Surely the results of each player's moves cannot be
enacted before they have even been determined? It seems clear that
breadbox cannot possess the Little Lamb any earlier than the end of
the round.

Consider also: what if somebody else had also attempted to grab
Malenkai's donkey? In that case, breadbox's attempt to grab anything
of Malenkai's would fail, and he would not possess the Little Lamb at
any point during that round. breadbox's successful possession of the
Little Lamb is dependent upon the moves of every other player.

I argue that the outcome of one player's move cannot be sensibly
construed as being enacted before the results of every move have been
determined.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:34:53 -0700
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Acka: and let there be harf...

I hereby unambiguously, fully-intentionally, three-dimensionally,
sacrosanctly declare Proposals 1955 and 1957 Harfy.

fnord
Harfmeister

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 20:55:05 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Organizational Attributes 

>[this rule would clean up the problem of the unknown membership in the
>Narfalones, as well as create many new and harfy possibilites for other
>organizations]

>[ok, it's sketchy in this format -- I'm trolling for suggestions and
>ideas at this point.  If you like the concept, help me firm it up.  I
>have other ideas for attributes that organizations can acquire as well,
>but I want to start with this one.]
>
>Narf

Hmm...I like. What say you to this, Narf: linking the W-Files pair somehow?
Mold and Scold could be able to affect the Secret Org in some way...then
again, what do I know?

Albequerqe
                                     __________
                                    /          \
                                   /            \
                                  |   o     o    |
                                  |    |   |     |
                             ----------|   |----------
                             -----------\_/-----------
                           [email-masked]
                             -------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:05:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Machine (fnord)

snowgod did not post a Truth in the 7 days since he received the
Machine that goes *ping*.  It has teleported to fnord's place.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:32:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: misc.

I am giving A$45 to Mohammed for services rendered.

#transfer Guy Fawkes, Mohammed : 45 A$

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:13:26 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 364 Verdict 

>
>
>CFJ 364 has been judged INVALID as described in rule 218.
>
>Neither the Prosecutor snowgod nor the Consecutor Red Barn have
>submitted reasoning to mr cwm within the week as prescribed in that
>rule.

I submitted my reasoning.  I will be happy to resend it.

snowgod

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #60
******************************