Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #99
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Wednesday, May 28 1997        Volume 02 : Number 099

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 00:00:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another not quite RFC

On Tue, 27 May 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> Besides the most important goal of finding out what people
> think of the concept, I'd like to hear from you all as to what kind of
> subtle changes you think would be necessary to make this work.
	I am not too fond of the idea of voting being a public action,
specifically, but making players' votes public information wouldn't be
so bad.  I would vote in favor of the change.
	It would be easy to rig the bot to send a summary of
everyone's votes on pending proposals to the list every day (or every
other day or whatever).

- -- 
Mohammed
Maybe one curious televangelist and slow cartoonists from Indiana were made
for each other.

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 17:42:03 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 380 

>Nobody seemed to notice it last time I said it, so,
>I accepted CFJ 379 at Thu, 15 May 1997
>13:30:23 -0700, and delivered judgment at Thu, 22 May 1997 14:45:34
>-0700, so dock me for negligence and retract my judgement.

/devjoe is a deadbeat judge in light of his excellent judegement on the
matter of CFJ 379.  CFJ 379 to the praetor (that would be ThinMan).

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 17:38:49 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ping?, house name 

>/dev/joe
>lives in the only house named for Nachodude's current name
>BTW, is snowgod going to change his name back some time soon?
>I'd hate to have to really change all the records.

Well,

The thing I was hoping would happen hasn't happened yet, but it still
might.  I'll see what happens in two more weeks.  If not, I'm no longer
gonna be nachodude.  Yeah, it's a safe bet to keep me as snowgod in the
records.

snowhgod

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 18:00:30 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 382 

>BTW, I want to let the record show that the Supreme Court has already
>turned in their decision on CFJ 382 to the Clerk, and did so before
>the deadline and well before /dev/joe posted his analysis of same. Any
>resemblances there may be between his post and the Supreme Court's
>reasoning is, essentially, coincidental.
>
>breadbox
>Justice

As the somewhat befuddled CotC I must ask the question "Have I not sent out
the supreme courts verdict on CFJ 382 all ready?  I sure as hell sent it to
someone and I hope it wasn't my grandmother or girlfriend or something?
Nobody recieved the thing, eh?

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:20:53 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another not quite RFC 

>On Tue, 27 May 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
>> Besides the most important goal of finding out what people
>> think of the concept, I'd like to hear from you all as to what kind of
>> subtle changes you think would be necessary to make this work.
>	I am not too fond of the idea of voting being a public action,
>specifically, but making players' votes public information wouldn't be
>so bad.  I would vote in favor of the change.
>	It would be easy to rig the bot to send a summary of
>everyone's votes on pending proposals to the list every day (or every
>other day or whatever).

I also support this. No surprise there, huh?  I'd like to see voting made
public, with the exception of hearings, elections, etc, which I believe
should remain private.

>Mohammed
>Maybe one curious televangelist and slow cartoonists from Indiana were made
>for each other.

Huh?  :)

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:24:24 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 384 (AntiMatter) 

Call For Judgment
Subject: Possible Polythiesm
Initiator: Alfvaen
Judge: fnord (Failed to respond)
Second Judge: You can call me Al (declined judgement)
Third Judge: AntiMatter
Judegement:

Statement:

A player can be a member of more than one Church at a time.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

According to Rule 102, "Resolving Conflicts", if two sections of the same
rule conflict, and there is no other section of the rule that resolves the
conflict, then the statement occurring later in the rule takes precedence.
I quote the revelant sections of Rule 1301, "Churches":

(Rule 1301)
      6. A player may not be a member of more than one Church at the same
time.

7. a. Any player may petition the Founder of a Church for membership
in that Church.
b. If Church Policy has nothing to say on accepting new members, then
Church membership will be up to the Founder. However, a Player cannot
become a member of a Church until the Founder of the Church sends a
public announcement to that effect.

So, in essence, clause 6 applies only so long as it does not contradict the
Church Founder's own whims regarding membership of eir Church, whose effect
on Church membership takes precedence by occurring later in the rule.  No
player can belong to more than once Church at a time, unless the founders of
the latterly-joined Churches decide that they are willing to accept the
player.  (Subject to Church Policy, of course, but there is nothing to say
that Church Policy has to reject players who are already members of
Churches, either.)  Clause 6 is thus entirely nullified by Clause 7, since
it can be ignored by Church Founders and makers of Church Policy with
impunity.

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:28:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ 382 

Back from the ether, here is the verdict of the CFJ 382 appeal.  I imagine
that [email-masked] didn't have a clue what to make of it.

The Supreme Court has upheld the original verdict of CFJ 382. I am supposed
to penalize Guy Fawkes for bothering the judges or something?

Call For Judgment
Subject: Pragmatic Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
Judge: /dev/joe
Judgement: FALSE
Appeal Verdict: FALSE

Statement:
If a player attempts to create a Trinket whose value exceeds
the number of A$ in his possession, and the impossibility of this act
goes unreported for the next two weeks, following the two-week period of
non-reporting, it appears equally legal and illegal for that player to
trade the impossibly created Trinket (in the case where manipulation of
that Trinket has not been attempted since its creation).

Guy Fawkes' Reasoning:
As (Mohammed?) once said, "Retroactivity is blood in the water for paradox
sharks."

In this scenario (Actually, any situation where the acceptance of an
impossible change to the game state has a effect on the legality of later
actions would have worked), a player attempts to create a Trinket which e
cannot afford.  Rule 506 governs the creation of Trinkets.

> A player may create a Trinket by publically announcing its name,
> description, and value, as long as the player has
> at least as many A$ as the announced value. Upon doing so, the
> stated amount of A$ is transformed into the
> Trinket, and the creating player becomes the owner of the Trinket.

Clearly, the for a player to create a Trinket with a higher value than e
has A$ is against the Rules.  Rule 713 defines two classes of such
actions, a class of illegal actions (non-retractable errors), which
occur, but are punishable, and a class of of impermissible or impossible
actions (retractable errors), which cannot occur, although the attempt is
punishable.  Both these classes fall under the broader category of
Crimes, which also includes actions which are entirely within the rules
but nonetheless punishable, such as submitting substantially similar
proposals.

> To perform an action specified by the Rules to be Illegal is a Crime. An
> action specified by the Rules to be "impermissible" is, by contrast,
> impossible. However, an attempt to commit such an action is a Crime
> [even though the action itself does not occur].

A reading of the Trinket rule, as well as game custom and practice (take,
for example, CarsesraC's recent attempted creation of the A$1000 "rule
book of rings" trinkets) classifies the attempted creation of a Trinket
whose value exceeds the account balance of the creating player among the
"impossible" or "impermissible" (retractable) class of rule violations.
It does not occur, and the attempt to make it occur is a Crime.

Rule 713 goes on to attempt to add an element of pragmatism to impossible
and illegal actions.  Herein, however, lies the paradox.

> If, however, the illegally or impossiblility of a publically knowable
> change to the game state goes unreported for at least 14 days, the
> action or inaction which caused that change is considered legal, but it
> is still a Crime. The change is deemed to have occurred retroactively to
> the time of the attempt. The preceeding does not apply to the case of
> events which occur automatically, but whose occurrance is not (or
> erroneously) reported [e.g., loss of the Great Trombone]. This
> paragraph has precedence over rule 103.

As established above, the act of creating a Trinket for which one has
insufficent A$ is not an illegal act for the purposes of Rule 713, since
Rule 713 uses illegal to specifically refer to the class of
non-retractable, yet punishable, Rule violations.  It is, instead, an
impossible or impermissible act in the sense of Rule 713, which uses
those terms to describe retractable errors -- violations of the rules
which do not occur.

In the scenario with which this CFJ concerns itself, after the two-week
period of non-reporting, the "pragmatism clause" generates a retroactive
change to the game state; namely, it causes that particular instance of
the (in this case) impossible action to "legal, but... still a Crime".
This amusing arrangement of words is not in itself paradoxical, for Crime
in specfic Ackanomic usage refers to a very broad class of actions with
little in common save that they are all subject to CFCJ.  Some Crimes are
against the Rules and others are not.  "Legal" is used throughout the
Ruleset to refer to actions, names, entities, and other facets of the
game state which do not violate the rules.  Therefore, the effect of the
Rule 713's retroactive game state change is to cause the hitherto
impossible Trinket creation to become legal (within the rules), though to
remain a Crime (an action punishable by CFCJ).

>From both a legalistic point of view (the impossible/impermissible class
of game state changes is against the rules, whereas legal changes to the
game state are not) and in common language (an impossible event cannot
occur; therefore all events which occur are not impossible), the effect
of the "pragmatism clause" is to retroactively cause the normally
impossible Trinket creation to be not impossible.

(Aside: The purpose of the retroactivity is clear.  Had after creating
it, Player A traded it to Player B, who donated it to the Museum thereby
raising his BV above A$5000 and winning the cyle, causing the position of
Archaeologist to transfer from Player C to D, allowing D to create a new
OMCL, which was immediately used by Player E to obtain...  Rewinding the
game state for the other, unexpected but true thread is difficult if not
impossible, perhaps destroying weeks of play.)

However, this useful retroactivity causes a paradox: because Rule 713
changed the game state to make the impossible Trinket creation legal at
the time of the Trinket's creation, the Trinket creation is no longer
impossible (it occurred, didn't it?), and so Rule 713 is deprived of a
legal basis for altering the game state to its current one.  Of course,
if Rule 713 doesn't alter the game state, then the Trinket creation is
impossible, allowing it to be altered by Rule 713, thus depriving Rule
713 of the ability to alter it, and so forth...

It's a rephrasing of the time paradox of going back in time to murder
one's ancestor.

Retroactivity _is_ blood in the water for paradox sharks.

/dev/joe's reasoning:

The situation described in the CFJ is (briefly) that a player attempts to
create a trinket with more A$ than he owns, the impossibility of this is
not reported for 14 days, and then the third paragraph of rule 713 kicks in,
retroactively making the action legal.

Guy claims that the retroactivity causes a paradox, that once Rule 713
makes the action legal, Rule 713 no longer applies since the action is
no longer impossible or illegal, and that this causes Rule 713 to have
never triggered in the first place, which means it *can* trigger, etc.

However, Rule 713 only retroactively makes things legal.  It doesn't
retroactively make things illegal, nor does it retroactively undo its
own effects.  The only thing it does retroactively is make an illegal
or impossible action become legal.  So once the conditions for making
the illegal trinket creation retroactively legal occur, Rule 713
retroactively makes it legal.  After this, it cannot retroactively make
it legal again because the conditions for doing so cannot be met again,
but this doesn't matter because the action is already legal.

If the illegality of the creation of a trinket worth more A$ than a
player has goes unreported for 14 days, the creation becomes legal.

Sometimes when paradox sharks smell blood, blood is all they swallow.
The bleeding man hasn't totally escaped yet though -- there may still
be a paradox with this rule, but this isn't it.

Appellate comments:

Both the original judge and I agree on two things.
1) The effect of the "pragmatism clause" is to retroactively make an
illegal or impossible game action legal.
2) It can only do this once, and has no other direct game effects.

The original judge, however, is mistaken about the ramifications of this
change.  The "pragmatism clause" does not have to make a legal action
illegal retroactively or _directly_ undermine its own action for paradox
to exist.  Because it has a retroactive effect, it can be thought of as
a "retroactive cause", whose effect is the legality of the normally
impossible action.  This legality has several proactive (forward or
normal causality) game effects;  for example, once legally created, the
trinket can be traded, which it could not be if it had never been
legally created.  Another of these proactive effects is that two weeks
after the legal creation of the trinket, the "pragmatism clause" cannot
kick in -- an illegal game state change has not gone unquestioned for
two weeks.

The only way in which the normally impossible trinket creation can be
legal is by the action of the "pragmatism clause".  The pragmatism
clause only applies to illegal or impossible changes to the game state
that go unquestioned for two weeks.  Therefore, if the game state change
is legal (even if its legality is based solely on the "pragmatism
clause") the pragmatism clause cannot make it legal.  Thus, no
non-paradoxical threads in which the trinket is created exist.

If, however, the trinket creation is illegal, and no one questions its
creation, it is not illegal due to the action of the pragmatism clause.
Thus, no non-paradoxical threads in which the trinket is not created,
yet no one questions its creation, exist.

Basically, no game thread can contain both the retroactive legalization
of the trinket creation and the legal creation of the trinket, nor can a
game thread contain the unchallenged illegal creation attempt of the
trinket, and that creations continued illegality.

The retroactive change to the game state inititates a host of proactive
changes, one of which eliminates the original retroactive game change.

Most simply, the retroactive cause and the retroactive effect cannot
co-exist in the same thread.  Effects must have causes, and causes must
have effects.  Paradox.

If the Supreme Court disagrees, I would appreciate in its reasoning a
non-paradoxical game thread in which the normally impossible trinket
creations is either definitively legal or illegal, and no one questions
its legality.  Such a thread should begin slightly before the creation
of the Trinket, end slightly more than two-weeks later, and be
self-consistent.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Here is one game thread that the Court feels meets the request that
Guy Fawkes' makes in the last paragraph of his appeal reasoning:

May 01, time 0000: player A owns A$50.
May 01, time 0001: player A attempts to creates a trinket worth A$100,
                   which is legal by Rule 713 and therefore succeeds.
May 15, time 0002: player B notices that player A did not have enough
                   A$ to create eir trinket.

And here is another such thread:

May 01, time 0000: player A owns A$50.
May 01, time 0001: player A attempts to create a trinket worth A$100,
                   which is illegal by Rule 506 and therefore fails.
May 15, time 0000: player B notices that player A did not have enough
                   A$ to create eir trinket.

Neither of these threads contains a paradox.

The difficulty that Guy Fawkes describes in integrating the seemingly
incommensurable retroactive effects of the scenario seems to stem from
attempting to assign causes and effects a bit too freely. When the
illegality of an action goes unnoticed, Rule 713 does not climb into a
time machine on the fourteenth day and go back and make the event
legal (only to discover upon its return that it never had a time
machine in the first place). It merely provides one of the criteria
for determining if a game action is legal or not. Did a rule declare
the action impermissible? If yes, did it go unnoticed for two weeks?
If again yes, then it was legal, and at no time is it considered to be
otherwise.

To look at it another way, Rule 713 does not cause a retroactive
effect so much as it causes the original thread split. A thread split
occurs when a determination of the game state requires information
that is not yet available. (Platonists may interpret "determination"
in the previous sentence as referring to the discovery of where the
game state currently is, and non-Platonists may use the interpretation
that the game state is actually *indeterminate* until the information
is obtained. Both interpretations serve equally well here.) In the
past, CFJs have been the most common vehicle of thread splits; in such
a case, it is the final judgement that is the future information
needed to determine the game state. (And in fact Rule 215 also gives
CFJs the power of retroactivity.)

Viewing events this way, when a player attempts to create a trinket
they cannot afford, Rule 713 causes a thread split to occur at that
moment. In one thread, their action was successful and legal. In the
other thread, their action was unsuccessful and illegal. Note that if
Rule 713 had no "pragmatism" clause, there could be no thread in which
the action could succeed, and so in a very real way, Rule 713 causes
the thread split. Now, how do we determine which thread is the real
one? Rule 713 tells us how. If someone notices that the action was
illegal in less than two weeks after the attempt, the threads collapse
at the moment they report the fact, and the "unsuccessful" thread is
the real one. Otherwise, both threads remain viable until exactly two
weeks after the original act, at which point they collapse with the
"successful" thread being the real one.

Clearly, at no time is there a paradox in either thread, nor does Rule
713 at any point remove its own jurisdiction out from under itself.

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 01:27:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 380

> >Nobody seemed to notice it last time I said it, so,
> >I accepted CFJ 379 at Thu, 15 May 1997
> >13:30:23 -0700, and delivered judgment at Thu, 22 May 1997 14:45:34
> >-0700, so dock me for negligence and retract my judgement.
> 
> 
> /devjoe is a deadbeat judge in light of his excellent judegement on the
> matter of CFJ 379.  CFJ 379 to the praetor (that would be ThinMan).

Actually, that was two-star who narrowly missed the deadline on CFJ 379.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:24:00 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 384 (AntiMatter)

> Call For Judgment
> Subject: Possible Polythiesm
> Initiator: Alfvaen
> Judge: fnord (Failed to respond)
> Second Judge: You can call me Al (declined judgement)
> Third Judge: AntiMatter

I will decline judgement, as well.
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:36:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 385 (Vynd) 

Call For Judgment
Subject: Here Goosy Goosy
Initiator: Bascule
Judge: Vynd
Judegement:

Statement:

For Alfvaen to perform the Acid Rain Dance is equally legal and illegal.

Reasoning:

Alfvaen has two contracts binding his actions. The contracts demand
that he does the Acid Rain Dance, and that he does not dance. There
is no means for deciding precedence between contracts, and therefore
his action of dancing is both legal and illegal.

The first contract:

   Alfvaen shall obey the wishes of the owner of this contract with
   regard to performing the Acid Rain Dance.  In other words, he shall
   perform said dance if the owner of the contract requests him
   to(once only), and he shall refrain from performing it under any
   other circumstances.

The pertinent phrase that I wish to call to the judge's attention is
"he shall refrain from performing it [the acid rain dance] under any
other circumstances."

The contract has no owner. Thus, from "under _any_ other
circumstances" we see that Alfvaen is bound by contract to
refrain from performing the Acid Rain Dance.

The second contract:

   Alfvaen shall obey the wishes of the owner of the Brass Umbrella
   with regard to performing the Acid Rain Dance.  In other words, he
   shall perform said dance if the owner of the Brass Umbrella
   publicly requests him to(once only), and he shall refrain from
   performing it under any other circumstances.

The owner of the Brass Umbrella (me) has requested publically that
Alfvaen perform the Acid Rain Dance, and he is bound by contract to
do so.

>From Rule 1995:
"Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any
restrictions that that contract places on em"

The player _must obey_ any restrictions. As the restrictions imposed
by Alfvaen's two contracts are contradictory, the legality of his
performing the Acid Rain dance is equally legal and illegal, since no
precedence exists regarding contracts.

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:39:12 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 386 (Carserac) 

Call For Judgment
Subject: Perhaps It's a Paradox?
Initiator: Habeous Corpus
Judge: Carserac
Judegement:

Stetement:

If a CFJ Statement does not meet the requirements of a
Paradox Win CFJ it is not a Paradox Win CFJ,  regardless of any claims to
the contrary in the Statement or Reasoning of that CFJ.

Reasoning:

Rule 601 (Winning By Paradox)  states,  in full:  "A call for
judgement whose statement alleges that further play is impossible, that
changing the rules is 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.
When it ceases to be legal to appeal a particular Paradox Win CFJ, if the
final verdict is true, and the player who submitted the CFJ is a voting
player at that time, then that player wins the cycle.  "

Note that the Rule refers to the Statement of the CFJ,  not the
Reasoning.  Also,  note that only the above stated conditions make the
CFJ a "Paradox Win CFJ",  with no mention of use of the phrase "Paradox
Win CFJ"  making any difference.  Specific referrence to a CFJ's
Statement is not coincidental nor accidental;  for Rule 211 (Invoking
Judgement)  states,  in part:  "Any CFJ must include a single, clear, and
clearly labeled statement that can be answered TRUE, or FALSE. The
remainder of the CFJ may consist of alternate material to bolster one
decision or another. The judge is required only to consider the actual
statement provided and the current ruleset. "  This clearly means that
nothing contained in the Reasoning portion of a CFJ is mandated to have
any effect on the subsequent ruling on the CFJ or its disposition.

Please note,  also, that Rule 211 aditionally states:  "CFJ's with no
clear statement, or consisting of empty statements or inherently
contradictory statements or multiple statements, in the judgement of the
Judge, shall be judged "Invalid".  It is even possible,  from the above,
that a CFJ containing a Statement that does not meet the criteria for a
"Parafdox Win CFJ" and yet contains the phrase "This is a Paradox Win
CFJ"  in the same Statement (or even possibly in the Reasoning)  could
well be mandated a judgement of Invalid as inherently contradictory.

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:38:16 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Silliness

I am creating a trinket named snowgod, worth A$50.

#trinket Antimatter : 50 : snowgod

I will sell snowgod to the player formerly known as snowgod (Mr. Nacho) for a 
mere A$100. Otherwise, I'll keep is as a souvenier.
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:42:57 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 380 

>Actually, that was two-star who narrowly missed the deadline on CFJ 379.
>
>/dev/joe

Aha.  Color me incompetant.  Sorry bout that.

Mr. Nacho

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:51:19 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Silliness 

>I am creating a trinket named snowgod, worth A$50.
>
>#trinket Antimatter : 50 : snowgod
>
>I will sell snowgod to the player formerly known as snowgod (Mr. Nacho) for a
>mere A$100. Otherwise, I'll keep is as a souvenier.

Hee hee!  I've been wondering when someone was going to do this.  As a
matter of fact, I seriously considered doing it to ThinMan when he became
fibonacci, but somehow managed to restrain myself. As for payment, feh. :)

Mr. Nacho

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:56:38 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Silliness

> I am creating a trinket named snowgod, worth A$50.
> 
> #trinket Antimatter : 50 : snowgod
> 
> I will sell snowgod to the player formerly known as snowgod (Mr. Nacho) for a 
> mere A$100. Otherwise, I'll keep is as a souvenier.

Oh yes, a description: It looks exactly like the player formerly known as 
snowgod, but it is made entirely out of green cheese.
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 23:12:02 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blue Thing 

At a moment like this, I wish I had never donated my blue thing to the
mueseum.  Oh well, such is life.  Bascule, I am hereby offering you A$101
to rent your Blue Thing for a period of one week.

Mr. Nacho

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 12:15:01 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Beldin's tailor bribe redux, laundry money for Bedin'

Aaron Humphrey wrote:
> 

> > Sorry, but...
> >
> > I am amending the rule Beldin's Pants by changing "Ackadollar" to "trinket".
> 
> In an attempt to save the Inky Bloater from imminent destruction, I offer
> to buy it back from two-star for A$20.  (Then all that will happen is the
> destruction of the Parka itself.  Not that that will stop two-star from
> being the creator of it or anything...and what happens when he has no more
> trinkets?  For that matter, what does it mean to "lose" a trinket?  Is it
> necessarily destroyed?  Perhaps it just goes Somewhere Else.)

I think the rules are a litte ambiguous on the matter of losing things. 
The only thing I know, (by experience as it happens,) that it is 
possible to "lose" is Phoebe's Matchbox, which is immediately found by 
another player. I support the interpretation that the lost trinkets are 
Somewhere Else, although they could cease to exist or be destroyed and 
turned into ackadollars.
The other problem is that the rule is now ambiguous as to how the 
trinket to be lost is chosen. It would seem that in the absence
of any information to the contrary, random selection is implicit, and 
the Officer in Charge of Random Things must make the determination. But 
this need not be so, perhaps I can choose the trinket, or perhaps the 
game splits into a separate thread for each trinket.

Anyway, don't worry about the Bloater. I think I know of at least a 
couple ways to save it.

**two-sta&rpentomino;

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

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 23:37:08 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing

Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At a moment like this, I wish I had never donated my blue thing to the
> mueseum.  Oh well, such is life.  Bascule, I am hereby offering you A$101
> to rent your Blue Thing for a period of one week.

Uh-oh. I can see where this is heading. Well, just try it :-)

I am changing my name to R2D2. Any funny business and you will never see 
snowgod again. Don't try to call the police. ...
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 00:05:16 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing 

>Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> At a moment like this, I wish I had never donated my blue thing to the
>> mueseum.  Oh well, such is life.  Bascule, I am hereby offering you A$101
>> to rent your Blue Thing for a period of one week.
>
>Uh-oh. I can see where this is heading. Well, just try it :-)
>
>I am changing my name to R2D2. Any funny business and you will never see
>snowgod again. Don't try to call the police. ...

"Hello, Gaoler?"

"Oops, that would be me."

"Can you help me?"

"I am me!"

"Oh, in that case I'll help myself."

"Or you could help me."

"You are me."

"Oh yeah"

"Okay, now repeat after me...

"I am hereby creating a trinket called Antimatter with a value of A5.  It
looks like an exact replica of the player formerly known as Antimatter,
except that it is made of snowgod.

   	"I am hereby creating a trinket called Antimatter with a value
   	of A5.  It   looks like an exact replica of the player formerly
   	known as Antimatter, except that it is made of snowgod.

" And I am creating a contract known as "Mutual Assured Destruction" with
the text

  	 " And I am creating a contract known as "Mutual Assured
  	 Destruction" with the text

"If within 5 days of the signing of this contractI do not recieve the
trinket known as snowgod and A$1000 from the player formerly known as
Antimatter, and at the time of the signing of this contract known as R2D2,
I will donate the trinket known as Antimatter to the museum.

   	"If within 5 days of the signing of this contractI do not recieve
  	the trinket known as snowgod and A$1000 from the player formerly
  	 known as Antimatter, and at the time of the signing of this contract
   	known as R2D2, I will donate the trinket known as Antimatter to the
   	museum.

"And now I sign in.

   	"And now I sign in.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

No funny business buster.  I was just going to ask for my name back, but
now I have kidnapped yours and bound myself into a contract.  If you do not
give me my name and A$1000, antimatter (and every future name you choose
for yourself :) will be lost forever!

Antimatter, this is last your only chance.  Surrender the name! ;)

Mr. Nacho
All in good fun

#Trinket snowgod : Antimatter : 5 : scamming

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 08:34:13 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 385 (Vynd)

> Call For Judgment
> Subject: Here Goosy Goosy
> Initiator: Bascule
> Judge: Vynd
> Judegement:
> 
> Reasoning:
> 
> Alfvaen has two contracts binding his actions. The contracts demand
> that he does the Acid Rain Dance, and that he does not dance. There
> is no means for deciding precedence between contracts, and therefore
> his action of dancing is both legal and illegal.
> 
Bascule must have a yearning for pate, or something.  The rules may
indeed make contradictory demands in this case, but that would simply
mean that Alfvaen has no legal course of action available to him.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:29:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing

>Uh-oh. I can see where this is heading. Well, just try it :-)
>
>I am changing my name to R2D2. Any funny business and you will never see 
>snowgod again. Don't try to call the police. ...

  I am creating an A$1 trinket named "Antimatter".  It looks like a small
droid in the shape of a trash can.  BwaHaHa!!!

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:40:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing

>>I am changing my name to R2D2. Any funny business and you will never see 
>>snowgod again. Don't try to call the police. ...
>
>  I am creating an A$1 trinket named "Antimatter".  It looks like a small
>droid in the shape of a trash can.  BwaHaHa!!!

  Actually I seem to have missed my window.  I will pay A$100 for a Blue
Thing...
 
- -Red Barn

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 08:41:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 385 (Vynd)

> > Call For Judgment
> > Subject: Here Goosy Goosy
> > Initiator: Bascule
> > Judge: Vynd
> > Judegement:
> > 
> > Reasoning:
> > 
> > Alfvaen has two contracts binding his actions. The contracts demand
> > that he does the Acid Rain Dance, and that he does not dance. There
> > is no means for deciding precedence between contracts, and therefore
> > his action of dancing is both legal and illegal.
> > 
> Bascule must have a yearning for pate, or something.  The rules may
> indeed make contradictory demands in this case, but that would simply
> mean that Alfvaen has no legal course of action available to him.

Actually, as far as I know, I am the owner of the first contract, since I
created it and I did not give it to anyone else(since contracts are not
tradeable).  If that fact it is not tradeable means that no one can own it,
then nobody owns it, but otherwise I own it, and I am compelled by the
other contract to wish to perform the Acid Rain Dance.  :-)  (Okay, perhaps
not, but I hereby state that I do wish to do so rather than have no legal
recourse.)  And I believe that "legal" in this case refers to Criminality;
if I am bound by two contracts to both perform and not perform the same
action, then all I will do is go to Gaol for whichever choice I make.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Aldo Nova:Fantasy
Current Book--C.S. Friedman:Black Sun Rising
There's too many clues in this room.

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 08:53:29 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Taglines Attribution Quiz, Reminder

This is just a reminder about my Taglines Attribution Quiz(Mark II), a.k.a.
Treasure 148.  So far I've received exactly one response, from /dev/joe,
wherein he identified two tagline quotes and received 1.5 points for doing
so.  Now, I did know that a lot of my taglines were extremely obscure, but
I expected that a _few_ more of them might be identifiable...  I can only
assume that few people have bothered to check my page at
http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/tags.html to see if they could even just
pick out one or two off the top of their head.  (And the newcomers might
just not have noticed the treasure at all...)  There is over a month left
in the competition, but I would be extremely gratified if someone could win
with better than 1.5 points.  (I mean, and you get the wonderful The White
Tent The Raft, another of my line of Unique Trinkets[TM]!)

If people want a few more hints, then perhaps I could do up a few of those,
too...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Aldo Nova:Fantasy
Current Book--C.S. Friedman:Black Sun Rising
I had a brush with Death; later I curled with Delirium.

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:36:16 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Name Uniqueness

Is there, in fact, a rule that specifies that two distinct named entities
cannot have the same name?  I thought that there was, but I just went
looking through all the likely rules(500.1 being the most obvious), and
found nothing to that effect.  But I remember when CarsesraC tried to
create a number of identical "Rule Book" trinkets a few weeks ago, it was
disallowed(though mostly because he didn't have enough money for it, but
the name duplication was mentioned too).  Is there any such rule, that I am
just too blind to see?  Does it just apply to trinkets?  Is this Mutually
Assured Creation actually legal?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Depeche Mode:It Doesn't Matter
Current Book--C.S. Friedman:Black Sun Rising
Your twisted prejudices aren't shared by me, fetish boy.

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 10:43:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name Uniqueness

Alfvaen wrote:
> Is there, in fact, a rule that specifies that two distinct named entities
> cannot have the same name?  I thought that there was, but I just went
> looking through all the likely rules(500.1 being the most obvious), and
> found nothing to that effect.  But I remember when CarsesraC tried to
> create a number of identical "Rule Book" trinkets a few weeks ago, it was
> disallowed(though mostly because he didn't have enough money for it, but
> the name duplication was mentioned too).  Is there any such rule, that I am
> just too blind to see?  Does it just apply to trinkets?  Is this Mutually
> Assured Creation actually legal?

See rule 348, " "

/dev/joe

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #99
******************************