Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #103
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, May 31 1997        Volume 02 : Number 103

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:11:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing 

>
>First, no such player exists (I was certainly not named R2D2 at the time
>to the
>signing of the contract), so I certainly can't pay you (not that I could
>anyways, since I don't have either snowgod or A$1000). Why don't you just
>destroy the trinket called Antimatter, and we can talk? :-)

You stel my name and then want to talk, no? No!  This contract may or may
not bind me, I think it is possible that I will now go to Gaol no matter
what I do, which is a pity considering that I was just defending myself :)
I am not sure at the moment, but I am still firm in my desire to recieve
A$1000 from you for extortion.  YOu may have to borrow to pay me.  If you
borrow, and I hope you will, I will consider destroying antimatter if you
sign a contract agreeing to do the same with snowgod.

Mr. Nacho

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:13:52 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing 

>
>I am changing my name to... hmmm.... "Antimatter was here".

I ackanowledge this, though I really lke the Rat Mittens bit better.  Oh,
in case you are intested, he are some more possibilities for you name
(though not all of these are legal blue thing replacements):

Rearranging the letters of 'Antimatter' gives:

Anti-matter.                            Mean it tart.
Mate in tart.                           I'm neat tart.
Team in tart.                           I am net tart.
I'm a net tart.                         Rat mean tit.
Meat in tart.                           An item tart.
Amen! it tart.                          I'm a ten tart.
Emit tartan.                            Item tartan.
Name it tart.                           Main tatter.
Tame in tart.                           Meant rat it.
Time tartan.                            I'm a net tart.
Man it treat.                           Rant mate it.
Met in a tart.                          Term attain.
I'm a tent rat.                         Amen! rat tit.
Tie man tart.                           Team rant it.
I meant tart.                           Item rat ant.
Mite tartan.                            I'm a ten tart.
Mean tit art.                           Name rat tit.
Rat tin mate.                           Rant meat it.
Matter an it.                           Emit rat ant.
Met rat an it.                          Rate man tit.
Tear man tit.                           Aim net tart.
Rat tin meat.                           Team tin rat.
Rant tame it.                           An it me tart.
A men it tart.                          An. Emit tart.
Tar mean tit.                           A mint treat.
Am tin treat.                           Me tartan it.
Rat time ant.                           Meant it art.
I met tartan.                           I am. Ten tart.
Aim ten tart.                           I'm a tent rat.
I tatter man.                           I am nett rat.
I'm a nett rat.                         Am net it rat.
I'm a tent art.                         Mine tart at.
Mate 'n' rat it.                        Emit 'n' a tart.
Item 'n' a tart.                        Item rat tan.
Amen! tit art.                          Mate ran tit.
Neat arm tit.                           Neat ram tit.
Mat in treat.                           Rat mite ant.
Rat mint ate.                           Eat mint rat.
Rat mint tea.                           Tame tin rat.
Item rant at.                           Meant tar it.
Martinet at.                            Emit rat tan.
Name tit art.                           Tin mate art.
Team ran tit.                           Met a rant it.
Matter in at.                           I am. Tent rat.
Aim tent rat.                           Time 'n' a tart.
Tatter, I'm an.                         Meat 'n' rat it.
Team 'n' rat it.                        A tin matter.
Emit rant at.                           Ta! mine tart.
Am a rent tit.                          Met rat in at.
Emit ant art.                           Item ant art.
I'm. Ant treat.                         Rat a men tit.
Team tin art.                           Meat ran tit.
Met an it art.                          A term ant it.
I'm net rat at.                         Meant trait.
I'm a tent tar.                         Merit ant at.
Amen! tar tit.                          Titrate man.
Tart 'n' I team.                        Ta! martinet.
Tin meat art.                           Met a tin rat.
A tin me tart.                          It 'n' tame rat.
I matter ant.                           Item tar ant.
Rat time tan.                           Mite 'n' a tart.
I'm a nett rat.                         Name tar tit.
Tar tin mate.                           Mate 'n' I, tart.
Met train at.                           Me in tart at.
Rat me ant it.                          Neat mar tit.
Term an it at.                          Ta! item rant.
Trim eat ant.                           I'm a tent art.
Am. In tatter.                          I. Am net tart.
Tame ran tit.                           I met rat ant.
I am nett art.                          I'm a nett art.
Rant time at.                           Am net it art.
Tamer ant it.                           Emit tar ant.
Time ant art.                           Ta! I'm net rat.
Met tar an it.                          Mat near tit.
Ta! emit rant.                          Ta! merit ant.
Trim ant ate.                           Trim ant tea.
Ta! met in rat.                         Timer ant at.
Ta! in matter.                          It 'n' a matter.
Time tart. An.                          Rat men it at.
Tar tin meat.                           Team tin tar.
Meat 'n' I, tart.                       An. I met tart.
A net arm tit.                          A net ram tit.
I'm a tatter 'n'.                       Rat mite tan.
Trim neat at.                           Mane it tart.
Inmate tart.                            Eat mint art.
Rate mint at.                           Tear mint at.
Tame tin art.                           Mate 'n' it art.
Met it 'n' a rat.                       Ta! me in tart.
Ta! term an it.                         Neat tram it.
Remit ant at.                           Rant a me tit.
A tent arm it.                          Tent a ram it.
Rant mite at.                           Ta! rant time.
Am trite ant.                           I 'n' tame tart.
Earn mat tit.                           I am. Tent art.
Aim tent art.                           Aim 'n' tatter.
Mite ant art.                           Mint art ate.
Mint art tea.                           Meta in tart.
Team it 'n' art.                        Ta! met train.
Me 'n' a tart it.                       Tar time ant.
An art me tit.                          Rant tie mat.

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:15:25 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing 

>  Ah, snownacho... could you see your way clear to renaming our good
>friend Mine alka?
>
>-Red Barn
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
>|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
>|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could, I would, but I wopn't.  Not for a week at least.  I'd hate to
toast Bascules blue thing.  When it has cooled down, though, I will gladly.

Mr. Nacho

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:17:47 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Services 

I am transfering A$50 to /dev/joe for services rendered.

#transfer snowgod, /dev/joe : 50 A$ : services rendered

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:22:44 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing 

>On Thu, 29 May 1997, Ross Morgan-Linial wrote:
>> I am changing my name to... hmmm.... "Antimatter was here".
>	This approach won't necessarily work considering Mr. Nacho is
>the Registrar.

I considered that, but not acking it seems to be an abuse of power.
Instead, I will try a new tact.

sowgod
stalemeate

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:28:31 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 384 (Mohammed) 

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 (declined judgement)
Fourth Judge: Mohammed
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: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:30:02 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 387 (Guy Fawkes) 

Call For Judgment
Subject: Once more to the Goose Man
Initiator: mr cwm
Judge: Guy Fawkes
Judegement:

Statement:

The refusal of mr cwm to publish a correction of the statement in the May
29 issue of is is a player action which would affect the game state that
appears equally legal and illegal.

Argument:

>From R601:  "It is a Crime for a Player to refuse to publish, in a
newspaper he or she owns, a correction of an untrue statement that
previously appeared in that newspaper, after a public request for such a
correction has been made."

The statement in the May 29 issue of is:  "In a move believed
unprecedented in the annals of Ackanomian journalism, and with one eye
fixed firmly on the calender, is today publishes this statement, which is
untrue."

It should be easy to verify that both a request for correction and a
refusal have been posted publically.

I contend that this refusal to publish a correction affects the game
state, as, if it is a Crime, the player may be subject to a TRUE verdict
and penalties in a CFCJ alleging that the player has committed a Crime,
while if it is not a Crime, the player is not subject to such a verdict
and penalties.

The refusal is, however, only a Crime (and therefore illegal) if the
statement for which correction has been requested is untrue.  If the
statement is not untrue, refusal is not a Crime (and therefore legal).

It should (and almost certainly has) been noted that the statement for
which correction has been requested is the Liar's Paradox.  If we assume
the statement is untrue (and the refusal therefore illegal), then what is
untrue is that the statement is untrue, making it not-untrue (and the
refusal therefore legal).  On the other hand (and I'm sure the Judge can
see this coming) if we assume the statement is true (and the refusal
therefore legal), then what is true is that the statement is untrue (and
the refual therefore illegal). Since assumptions of legality lead to
illegality, and assumptions of illegality lead to legality, I contend that
the refusal appears equally legal and illegal.

"This is a Paradox Win CFJ."

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:32:52 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 388 (Robert Sevin) 

Call For Judgment
Subject: The Continuing Paradox
Initiator: mr cwm
Judge: Robert Sevin
Judegement:

Statement:

A Judge delivering a verdict of TRUE on a CFCJ whose statement was "mr cwm
has committed a Crime" is a player action affecting the game state which
appears equally legal and illegal.

Argument:

The argument of my immediately previous CFJ demonstrates convincingly that
the action of mr cwm refusing to publish a correction to the May 29 issue
of is is equally a Crime and not a Crime, even if it is less convincing
that it demonstrates that the action is both legal and illegal.

Since a Judge must deliver a verdict in accord with the Rules, a verdict
of TRUE would be legal if the action in question was a Crime, while a
verdict of TRUE would be illegal if the action in question had not been a
Crime.  Since the action appears equally a Crime and not a Crime, a
verdict of TRUE appears equally legal and illegal.

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 01:50:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: New Blueprint

Blueprint for: Oscar

A Oscar is a golden statuette with a red button at its base.  The owner
of an Oscar may use it by pressing the button and pointing it at any
contract, and announcing this publicly.  When this is done, the Oscar
will place its owner's signature at the bottom of that contract.

/dev/joe
Archaeologist

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 01:53:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Building an Oscar

I am building an Oscar.
The Oscar will be completed when its blueprint has existed for a week.

/dev/joe
Archaeologist

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 07:59:27 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing

> >  Ah, snownacho... could you see your way clear to renaming our good
> >friend Mine alka?
> >
> >-Red Barn
> 
> I could, I would, but I wopn't.  Not for a week at least.  I'd hate to
> toast Bascules blue thing.  When it has cooled down, though, I will gladly.
> 
> Mr. Nacho

It's TWO weeks, Mr. Nacho! And you should know, you invented it!

Bascule
Blue Things are Great

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 23:06:06 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 389 (ThinMan) 

Call For Judgment
Subject: The Continuing Paradox
Initiator: Antimatter (o the palyer formerly konmw as)
Judge: ThinMan
Judegement:

Statement:

A player finding a treasure which has not yet been buried appears equally
legal
and illegal.

Antimatter's Reasoning:

Well, just _look_ at it. Is it legal or illegal? Can you tell? I can't.
Although, if it's legal, I already have the Chartreuse Goose (sneering).

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 23:12:09 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing 

>> >  Ah, snownacho... could you see your way clear to renaming our good
>> >friend Mine alka?
>> >
>> >-Red Barn
>>
>> I could, I would, but I wopn't.  Not for a week at least.  I'd hate to
>> toast Bascules blue thing.  When it has cooled down, though, I will gladly.
>>
>> Mr. Nacho
>
>It's TWO weeks, Mr. Nacho! And you should know, you invented it!
>
>Bascule
>Blue Things are Great

Blue things are truly fabulous.  I apologize for not knowing :)

Mr. Nacho
becoming official, or so it seems

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 23:21:33 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing

Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >First, no such player exists (I was certainly not named R2D2 at the time
> >to the
> >signing of the contract), so I certainly can't pay you (not that I could
> >anyways, since I don't have either snowgod or A$1000). Why don't you just
> >destroy the trinket called Antimatter, and we can talk? :-)
> 
> You stel my name and then want to talk, no? No!  This contract may or may
> not bind me, I think it is possible that I will now go to Gaol no matter
> what I do, which is a pity considering that I was just defending myself :)

Well, it's not MY fault if you go to Gaol.

> I am not sure at the moment, but I am still firm in my desire to recieve
> A$1000 from you for extortion.  YOu may have to borrow to pay me.  If you
> borrow, and I hope you will, I will consider destroying antimatter if you
> sign a contract agreeing to do the same with snowgod.

I will, under no circumstances, borrow to pay you, or pay you at all.

Point 1: I cannot retreive snowgod until Antimatter is destroyed and I get my 
         old name back. After that we can talk.
Point 2: I would not mind having to use a different name for the rest of the 
         game.
Point 3: A proposal currently up for vote may, or may not, result in the 
         destruction of the trinkets Antimatter and snowgod.

This is tactical lexical warfare; ever seen War Games? (all in good fun, of 
course...)
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 23:21:33 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing

Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 1997, Ross Morgan-Linial wrote:
> > I am changing my name to... hmmm.... "Antimatter was here".
> 	This approach won't necessarily work considering Mr. Nacho is
> the Registrar.

I know. But I am (right now) threatening to file impeachment papers if Mr. 
Nacho abuses his powers of office for personal gain (in other words, fails to 
ack this).
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 23:24:10 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 389 (ThinMan)

> Call For Judgment
> Subject: The Continuing Paradox
> Initiator: Antimatter (o the palyer formerly konmw as)
> Judge: ThinMan
> Judegement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> A player finding a treasure which has not yet been buried appears equally
> legal
> and illegal.
> 
> Antimatter's Reasoning:
> 
> Well, just _look_ at it. Is it legal or illegal? Can you tell? I can't.
> Although, if it's legal, I already have the Chartreuse Goose (sneering).

Chartreuse Goose, here I come... :-(
Funny, I was under the impression that this was lost in the mail system. Did 
everyone but me get a copy? I certainly never got this back from the list...
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 23:25:30 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing

"Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 May 1997, Ross Morgan-Linial wrote:
> > > I am changing my name to... hmmm.... "Antimatter was here".
> > 	This approach won't necessarily work considering Mr. Nacho is
> > the Registrar.
> 
> I know. But I am (right now) threatening to file impeachment papers if Mr. 
> Nacho abuses his powers of office for personal gain (in other words, fails to 
> ack this).

I know, I know; you already acked it. I read your message and attempted to 
delete this, but apparently sent it instead :-(

My mail program has it in for me...
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 06:03:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 387 (Guy Fawkes)

I withdraw this CFJ, and apologize for not knowing the penalty for the
point or score log at the moment.

- -mr cwm

On Thu, 29 May 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

>Call For Judgment
>Subject: Once more to the Goose Man
>Initiator: mr cwm
>Judge: Guy Fawkes
>Judegement:
>
>Statement:
>
>The refusal of mr cwm to publish a correction of the statement in the May
>29 issue of is is a player action which would affect the game state that
>appears equally legal and illegal.
>
>Argument:
>
>>From R601:  "It is a Crime for a Player to refuse to publish, in a
>newspaper he or she owns, a correction of an untrue statement that
>previously appeared in that newspaper, after a public request for such a
>correction has been made."
>
>The statement in the May 29 issue of is:  "In a move believed
>unprecedented in the annals of Ackanomian journalism, and with one eye
>fixed firmly on the calender, is today publishes this statement, which is
>untrue."
>
>It should be easy to verify that both a request for correction and a
>refusal have been posted publically.
>
>I contend that this refusal to publish a correction affects the game
>state, as, if it is a Crime, the player may be subject to a TRUE verdict
>and penalties in a CFCJ alleging that the player has committed a Crime,
>while if it is not a Crime, the player is not subject to such a verdict
>and penalties.
>
>The refusal is, however, only a Crime (and therefore illegal) if the
>statement for which correction has been requested is untrue.  If the
>statement is not untrue, refusal is not a Crime (and therefore legal).
>
>It should (and almost certainly has) been noted that the statement for
>which correction has been requested is the Liar's Paradox.  If we assume
>the statement is untrue (and the refusal therefore illegal), then what is
>untrue is that the statement is untrue, making it not-untrue (and the
>refusal therefore legal).  On the other hand (and I'm sure the Judge can
>see this coming) if we assume the statement is true (and the refusal
>therefore legal), then what is true is that the statement is untrue (and
>the refual therefore illegal). Since assumptions of legality lead to
>illegality, and assumptions of illegality lead to legality, I contend that
>the refusal appears equally legal and illegal.
>
>"This is a Paradox Win CFJ."
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 03:08:16 -0700
From: Joshua Nave <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 387 (Guy Fawkes)

mr cwm wrote:
> 
> I withdraw this CFJ, and apologize for not knowing the penalty for the
> point or score log at the moment.
> 
> -mr cwm

I do smell another paradox win cfj en route...

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:46:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka : Enfants

Still on Vacation and may only read the reply in a coupla weeks time when
I scan the archives again)

A couple of comments on CnH idea.
I can see two major interpretations here. One interpretation is the one
that says that we've basically given up on making Acka more dynamic, so we
just create sub nomics, and I believe that if this approved this would
probably be the major trend. Another interpretation is that just about
everything described can be done within the current Organizational
framework, and the rest could be done with slight tweaking to that
framework (even with existing Orgnizations). Organizations like Townships,
or Cross Unions would have provided the extra functionality. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:54:07 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : enfants

The more I read this thread the more I think of a recent failed proposal
of mine. Cross Unions.
Some of its functions would be to create organizational subgroupings that
include players ( and other entities) from different nomics. 
A Cross Union that started out in Acka, established an internal initial
rule set, added members from outside would effectively function like an
Enfant nomic.
Enfant nomic is a special case of a Cross Union.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:06:32 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Back from Vacation

I am returning from Vacation. Somewhat early. I won't be staying for long
though. Just taking advantage of this short time I have access to tie up
loose ends.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:09:06 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : President Nomination

I am hereby nominating myself as a Presidential Candidate.
I know it is customary to nominate oneself by private email, but
considering the early campaigning allowed, this should work just fine.

In my previous term I was sometimes called the Holiday President. On my
current term I will probably be known as the Vacation President. As I
intend to spend the first three weeks of my term on Vacation.

Niccolo Flychuck for President

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:44:44 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Bye-Bye Acid Rain Contracts

As they are no longer of any use, and as I am the only signatory, I hereby
destroy both of the Acid Rain contracts I created(to which there was no
mechanism to grant names, but since I've only created two contracts, and
they both involved the Acid Rain Dance, I think it should be clear which
ones I mean).

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Jim Croce:Time In A Bottle
Current Book--Lesley Choyce:Trapdoor To Heaven
So take the wheel, and I will take the pedals...

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:56:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : President Nomination

Hi.

I am nominating myself for President.

This may come as a bit of a surprise to some of you, but I think the
President should *do* something, and I plan to do that if I end up
with the job.  My first campaign promise is to dispatch the duties of
the President as quickly and effectively as possible.

My second campaign promise is to reread the rules, if I am elected,
top to bottom.

Then I will launch a campaign for major change.  I plan to appoint a
cabinet of rule-writers to whom I will assign the duties of "writing
up" rule changes that could have tremendous impact on the game.  If I
can find a Cabinet to support me, we will submit changes so dramatic
as to have practically no chance of passing.  But in my opinion, some
of them will....

Here's another campaign promise:  a proposal to fix the utter nonsense
I wreaked upon the Organization system will be submitted and
resubmitted until it passes.

My platform also includes the belief that bookkeeping is inherently
un-fun.  My administration will seek ways to cut down on bookkeeping
whether the general (non-Officer) public likes it or not.  This
includes, possibly, ditching PCs or even the point system.

I promise a major presidential proposal every two weeks during my
administration.  Let's have some fun with this thing.

- -- 
Mohammed
A sole baker and a surfer barely escaped from an intelligent buccaneer
from Mexico.

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:25:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  voting services offered

I haven't voted on 2026 yet.  I'm not sure which way I'll fall.  It
occurs to me that the pro-Enfant side will need as many votes as they
can get.

I've voted No on Whole-Day Deadlines and Leaping.

- -- 
Mohammed
votes for sale:  A$45 each

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

Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 00:42:07 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Proposal 2020

/dev/joe noted that the CFJ I returned last had unsatisfactory reasoning.
I never intended that to be the reasoning, and I had a very clear idea in
my mind as to what the reasoning should be when I accepted the CFJ, by the
time I got around to realizing I hadn't sent it in, I was packing.
The thing is, the CFJ was judged, the reasoning has no legal force, so the
CFJ served its purpose.
I don't see why the reasoning should affect the necessity for an
ammendment.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 13:43:44 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing 

>> I know. But I am (right now) threatening to file impeachment papers if Mr.
>> Nacho abuses his powers of office for personal gain (in other words,
>>fails to
>> ack this).
>
>I know, I know; you already acked it. I read your message and attempted to
>delete this, but apparently sent it instead :-(
>
>My mail program has it in for me...
>-------------------------------
>Antimatter * [email-masked]
>You have the power of negation.

Aha, so you say.  Instead, Is it not possible that in your attempt to
hijack my name and wreak utter havoc up[on Ackanomic you became so
overzelous that you just wanted to impeach someone no matter what they do?
No?  Oh, okay then.  I'll accept your explination.

But let it be known that I WILL have snowgod back before Antimatter leaves
my hands or ends up in the museum!   BWUHAHAHAHA!

snowgod :)

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

Date: 30 May 1997 17:27:44 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: proposal 2025 

Quite frankly this proposal disturbs me.  From a security standpoint, it
is a fairly trivial task to alter one's email so that Acrobot thinks a
message is from another player.  Unless you wanted to password all mail
to the bot (which I feel would be destructive to the spirit of the game
as well as a pain in the butt), having such a protocol for security
reasons seems to be unnecessary.

As for the pragmatic issues Mohammed would like to see fixed (players
sending him mail from addresses other than the one the bot recognizes)
this has multiple programming solutions.  Fairly simply, the bot could
be configured (as Wayne's nomicbot was) to recognize only that part of
the email address before the @.  This would work so long as the player's
multiple accounts have the same name.

Alternately, one could implement and #address command, allowing players
to manage their own address affairs.  This command could reasonably be
passworded, if one so desires.

A combination of these to suggestions be even more desirable.

I should note that beginning in the fall, I will find Acrobot's current
recognition protocols very awkward to use.  When I return to school, my
mail will carry the From field of any of four machines (whichever one
happens to process it at the time).  The coewl.uiuc.edu address I used
to solve this problem this spring will no longer be available to me.

Basically, this proposal bothers me on one philosophical issue: I
believe nomic bots should be altered to obey their game's rules, rather
than altering the game's rules to obey to bot's code.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:24:34 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Presidential Nomination/Election

The Nomination period for President expired at 9:00 this morning.  I
am not certain whether there were any candidates at that time.  Robert
Sevin attempted to nominate Alfvaen well within the nomination period,
but I think that in Acka, nomination period really means volunteer
period -- i.e., I'm not sure you can nominate anyone other than
yourself.  Niccolo Flychuck and Mohammed both nominated themselves
today, but after the deadline (Niccolo missed by less than 10 min.).
I need to figure out what happens, but I don't have time to do so
right now.  I will update you later tonight.

ThinMan
Acting Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:01:49 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Nomination/Election 

>The Nomination period for President expired at 9:00 this morning.  I
>am not certain whether there were any candidates at that time.  Robert
>Sevin attempted to nominate Alfvaen well within the nomination period,
>but I think that in Acka, nomination period really means volunteer
>period -- i.e., I'm not sure you can nominate anyone other than
>yourself.  Niccolo Flychuck and Mohammed both nominated themselves
>today, but after the deadline (Niccolo missed by less than 10 min.).
>I need to figure out what happens, but I don't have time to do so
>right now.  I will update you later tonight.
>
>ThinMan
>Acting Speaker

Once upon a time this would have meant that Niccolo Flychuck became
president at the moment he volunteered.  I am not sure what happens now
days.

Mr. Nacho
Ex three term president

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:50:05 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 389 (ThinMan)

> Call For Judgment
> Subject: The Continuing Paradox
> Initiator: Antimatter (o the palyer formerly konmw as)
> Judge: ThinMan
> Judegement:

In a probably futile attempt to avoid our fine feathered friend, I am 
retracting this if possible (is it?).
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:04:36 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Thing

Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Aha, so you say.  Instead, Is it not possible that in your attempt to
> hijack my name and wreak utter havoc up[on Ackanomic you became so
> overzelous that you just wanted to impeach someone no matter what they do?
> No?  Oh, okay then.  I'll accept your explination.

Who, me, wreak havok? And I think "hijack" is hardly the appropriate word; 
"kidnap" (namenap?) would be better. :-)

> But let it be known that I WILL have snowgod back before Antimatter leaves
> my hands or ends up in the museum!   BWUHAHAHAHA!

I can't wait to see this one. How, may I ask, will you retrieve snowgod if it's 
safely buried? You won't fulfil the conditions, I'll tell you that :-) 
Well, you might, but not easily. Does it have something to do with that Oscar?
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 18:11:16 -0700
From: LISA GRIFFITH <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Unsubscribe

Unfortunately I will be unable to access Acka everyday and am having trouble keeping up with the message flow.  I hope that one day I will be in a "stable" position where I am not traveling all the time and be able to return to figure this game out.
Please remove me from the mailing list.
Thanks,
Joon

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 23:29:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: proposal 2025

On 30 May 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> Quite frankly this proposal disturbs me.  From a security standpoint, it
> is a fairly trivial task to alter one's email so that Acrobot thinks a
> message is from another player.  Unless you wanted to password all mail
> to the bot (which I feel would be destructive to the spirit of the game
> as well as a pain in the butt), having such a protocol for security
> reasons seems to be unnecessary.
	As I have said in seperate messages, the password will be
optional.  A security conscious player like carsesrac may wish to lock
his "account" so no one can use it without a password.  I would like
for him to be able to do so;

> As for the pragmatic issues Mohammed would like to see fixed (players
> sending him mail from addresses other than the one the bot recognizes)
> this has multiple programming solutions.  Fairly simply, the bot could
> be configured (as Wayne's nomicbot was) to recognize only that part of
> the email address before the @.  This would work so long as the player's
> multiple accounts have the same name.
	This will be implemented before the week is out.  :o)  Thanks
to ye, Guy.

> Alternately, one could implement and #address command, allowing players
> to manage their own address affairs.  This command could reasonably be
> passworded, if one so desires.
	I don't like that as much; a player could then manipulate the
system to have me bombard [email-masked] with messages saying "your
password has been changed."  Unlikely, perhaps, but not pleasant for
me, however nice the current gang is.  :o)

> Basically, this proposal bothers me on one philosophical issue: I
> believe nomic bots should be altered to obey their game's rules, rather
> than altering the game's rules to obey to bot's code.
	That's a cheap blow.  A low shot.  The proposal does not
mention the bot and does not intend to make up for the bot's (numerous)
shortcomings.  I wouldn't mind allowing players to request a
reasonable amount of security.  I don't see why it is crucial that the
rules should forbid this, requiring the players to trust every
low-life on the 'net rather than their own duly elected/appointed
officers.

- -- 
Mohammed
A hero from another planet.  Enough said.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #103
*******************************