Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #64
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Sunday, April 27 1997        Volume 02 : Number 064

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 08:48:02 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> I don't know what to attribute it to... maybe it's a result of the Postal 
> Code and asking people to subscribe to acka-voting-digest where it's 
> harder to reply to individual proposal messages, or maybe because it's 

Perhaps the digest thing is part of it, as I, for one, used to participate
insome almost 'real-time' debates.  It's a busy time for me now, and I
think that even had I not been on digest I would have been less vocal. 

> 
> There has recently been a spate of rather audacious proposals from 
> snowgod and I (among others).  On my part at least, some of them were 
> cast without regard to their passability but were instead attempts to 
> write something shocking and maybe even offensive enough to provoke _at 
> least one player_ to say something about it -- but instead there

Many of those are proposals I've seen before. The thing is, those
proposals are what we have come to recognize as harfy. They may or may not
be fun, but there's little to debate in them.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 23:15:40 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

Guy Fawkes has a valid point.  I've noticed a markedly lower volume of
mail since I returned then what I was used to just a few weeks ago. 
We've also lost some players -- I note that Ackers has once again left
us and Red Barn has likewise departed.  In fact, 3 of the most active
participants in conversation were not even a part of the game when I,
still a newbie m'self, joined.  1 of 'em wasn't even a member when I
left for my little 'vacation'.

Not only is there less debate on proposals, there's less talk about
other things as well.  No bond purchases, no trinket creation, no new
treasure hunts (I guess I missed one while I was gone), no 'come to IRC'
messages... in general, none of the messages that made/make Ackanomic
fun for me.

Why is this?  Well... I think for one that some of our recent rules have
gotten out of control.  Reorganizing the organizations has created
problems, and I still have trouble with that one.  All the recent rules
on paranormality... I gave up on 'em early on in the debate (although I
want to point out, after the fact, that us winged players are at a
disadvantage.  We can not have a second head, thus denying us certain
paranormal powers... And not once did we even SUGGEST that the citizens
of Ackanomia reward us for our hard work in securing the public
buildings to the ground.)

Narf

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 07:30:47 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> Guy Fawkes has a valid point.  I've noticed a markedly lower volume of
> mail since I returned then what I was used to just a few weeks ago. 
> We've also lost some players -- I note that Ackers has once again left
> us and Red Barn has likewise departed.  In fact, 3 of the most active
> participants in conversation were not even a part of the game when I,
> still a newbie m'self, joined.  1 of 'em wasn't even a member when I
> left for my little 'vacation'.

This game has always had it's ups and downs. I think this last week 
has been very quiet though, with perhaps 10-20 messages/night 
compared with periods where 40 was more like the norm. Whenever it 
gets like that though, it becomes harder and harder to follow what is 
going on. Personally I like the lots of mail situation too, and I'm 
sure things will liven up in time. It's up to us of course! Perhaps 
our resident Expert in BWG could give us a few tips on how to 
increase mail volume.

Bascule
Wondering why Malenkai is an expert in BWG, when Red Barn wasn't

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:34:00 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> Or, considering a less extreme example, Making Use of the Gumball. I
> don't support that one either, but I imagine it has a chance of
> passing. Even so, there's not much I can say. It's pretty blindingly
> obvious why players like me don't want that to become a rule, it's
> equally obvious why the players who will vote for it do want to have
> it as a rule, and I can't imagine what sort of debate could be brought
> forth that would affect anyone's opinion. "Don't vote for that
> proposal; it's got too many holes in it!" DUH.

The gumball poposal is just for me a proposal. I don't know why 
xebra bod don't like it. So its not obvious.  

> Such proposals represent a philosophical difference of opinion, and
> I'm not much good at changing other people's philosophies. All I can
> do is cast my vote, and see what happens. When those kinds of
> proposals get voted in more often than not, then I know I'm in the
> minority. But I have no desire to force my minority viewpoint onto
> everyone else. That's not why I play this game.

For a lot of proposals I don't have enough background knowledge or 
interest in the area that it wanted to change.

I guess that it would be a good custom if you wants to comment you 
own proposal or thinks that its a very good proposal you start a 
discussion about it on the research list. This would generate more 
support for your proposal or a clearer understanding of the effect of 
the proposal.  

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 08:13:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Narf)

Narf has found Phoebe's Matchbox.

#transfer Vynd, Narf: Phoebe's Matchbox

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 08:15:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 375 Verdict

CFJ 375 has been judged TRUE.

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: TRUE

Statement:

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.

Rule 1060 describes the Narfalone Family.  The rule states explicitly
that Tammany is a member of the Narfalone Family (section 6).  The rule
does not state anyone else, including the Godfather, is a member of the
Narfalone Family, yet describes ways for players, including the Godfather,
to become members.  My reading of the rule indicates that the Godfather
is *not*, in fact, automatically a member, but for the purposes of this
argument, it matters not; it just changes the math as indicated in the
CFJ's statement.  I will assume not for the remainder of the argument.

There are N+1 members of the Narfalone Family, N non-negative.  It is
not publically knowable what N is.  Section 5 of the rule describes the
overthrow process:

> 5. Any member of the Narfalone Family can attempt to overthrow
> the Godfather by publicly stating eir intention to do so. This does
> not constitute an admittance of membership in the Narfalone Family.
> If 2/3rds of the members of The Narfalone Family publicly acknowledge
> the challenger within one week, e shall become the new Godfather.

Once a player states their intention to overthrow the Godfather, this
process kicks in.  If K+2 (K non-negative) players support the overthrow
attempt, it cannot be determined with finality if (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) >= 2/3.
(A strict-constructionalist may say (K+2)/(N+1+K+2) = 2/3; however, game
custom, spirit of the game, and common sense have construed voting
ratios to be >=, not =, and even under this construction, the argument
holds in principle for certain values of K, and should not disqualify
the statement).  I also point out that the magnitude of the K+2 term
cannot be determined with finality either, because the legality of a
player voting in favor of the overthrow (and thus adding to K+2) is
not publically knowable.  (Of course, we cannot know if the overthrow
attempt was legal in the first place either!).

We cannot know if the overthrow was successful, thus we cannot know if
the overthrowing player has become the Godfather, thus section 10
kicks in, which says only the Godfather may take actions on behalf of
the Narfalone Family; some of the possible actions being placing
and accepting wagers.

Bascule's Reasoning:

Malenkai's math notwithstanding (as has been acknowledged by
Malenkai, the equation above should read if K/(N+1)>=2/3 for K
members supporting the overthrow attempt of the Godfather, where the
Narfalone family has N player members), his reasoning is sound.
ThinMan has also observed that this is not in fact a Paradox win CFJ.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 08:34:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: NAP Swinger

The NAP Swinger is an optional office.  The rules, however, still
require an appointment to be made (acting for Red Barn).  The appointee
may ignore all the duties of the office.

I appoint, via dice roll, xebra bod to the office of Acting NAP Swinger.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 08:42:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: snowgod's disease

snowgod's disease Hearing against Narf finds Narf is infected.

Infected (7)
- --------
fnord
IdiotBoy
breadbox
Guy Fawkes
mr cwm
Bascule
snowgod

Not Infected (5)
- ------------
Vynd
Malenkai
Mohammed
Narf
ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 08:59:27 -0700
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 376 (fnord)

Malenkai writes:
> 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)

I accept this CFJ

fnord

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 13:13:27 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (Narf)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Narf has found Phoebe's Matchbox.
> 
> #transfer Vynd, Narf: Phoebe's Matchbox

Ooooh goodie goodie!  I never have yet received one of these randomly
transfered goodies!  I hope Phoebe has something wise to say to me...

Narf

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

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 18:48:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Apologies

Hi, everyone.

I'm very very busy with schoolwork and don't have much time to dedicate 
to the game right now.  And won't for two weeks or so.  So:  the bot is 
going to run unattended for a while.  I will make an effort to read 
messages that are sent privately to me, *without* 'acka' in the subject 
line.  Everything else will be filtered to a file I will only 
spot-check-- and that only when I have time.

I noticed the PHP is gone.  Hooray!

The financier stuff is unfortunately a mess right now, though the bot is 
working okay.  Isn't there supposed to be elections for the Overseers?

Anyway, have fun and forgive my abstentions if any.

- -- 
Mohammed
Have you ever seen a lone con artist with that kind of plumage?

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #64
******************************