Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #118
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, June 7 1997        Volume 02 : Number 118

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:05:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  G&C Submission:  YORL

I am hereby posting this description of this Game, a new G&C hopeful,
Ye Olde Rusty Lantern.  (My signatue at the bottom is not part of the
submission.)  This is modified slightly from the form currently in use
in the yorl@wilma game, to meet the G&C requirements.  Harf.  Also, a
bard now gets to discard 1 card if he passes.  Should be no problem;
I've played it this way before and there's no net gain in passing
unless your hand is really wretched.

Ye Olde Rusty Lantern - Rules

"Ye Olde Rusty Lantern" (a storytelling game)

[Synopsis:  the players (called Bards) are dealt a hand of cards.  Each
card bears a word or phrase describing a possible story element.  The 
Bards take turns telling parts of a tale, playing cards by bringing the 
corresponding story elements into the yarn.  When a Bard finishes the 
story by tying off all the loose ends and playing eir last card, e wins.]

Equipment:

	    some cards (to be provided by the Barkeep)
	    Ale (generated as needed)
	    a solid wooden table and benches
	    a brass pot

The Barkeep

The Barkeep is the person who started the game.  When e goes on
vacation, the tale is suspended until e returns.  If e should quit,
the tale unceremoniously ends.

At the beginning of the tale, the Barkeep shall announce the number of
benches and the names of the Bards who will start the tale.

(The Barkeep is considered the referee of the game.)

Bards

The Barkeep may not be a Bard.  Anyone else may join (becoming a Bard)
at any time, unless there are already as many players as benches.  Any
Bard may leave at any time.  If it is a Bard's turn when e leaves, e
is considered to have passed.  The Bards are all imagined to sit
around a table in the Barkeep's tavern, so whenever someone joins, the
Barkeep shall choose a place around the table for em to sit.

There must be at least two Bards for a tale to proceed, and no more
Bards than benches; any time this is not the case for a particular
instance of Ye Olde Rusty Lantern, that tale is suspended until the
requirements are both met.  (In the meantime, Bards are free to join
or leave, but no cards may be played.)

If, in starting the game, the Barkeep announced that the game would be
played for ante, and announced the entities required as ante, then a
Bard joining the game must pay an entry fee including a set of
entities that meets the Barkeep's requirements.  All these entities
are placed in the brass pot for the duration of the tale.

Cards

The Barkeep shall privately make (or obtain) a long list of story
elements before starting the game.  Each story element is represented
by one card.  During the game, each card is either in the deck, held
by one of the Bards, on the table, or burned.  They all start out in
the deck.  The Barkeep keeps track of the cards.  Each time the
Barkeep posts a public update of the game, he should post the number
of cards held by each Bard (but not which cards are held by whom),
list the cards lying on the table, and tell whose turn it is.  Each
Bard receives seven cards upon joining.  When a Bard leaves, eir cards
return to the deck.

When a Bard receives cards, the Barkeep chooses them randomly from the
deck and sends them to that Bard via private mail.  If there are not
enough cards in the deck, the Barkeep shall either end the tale
(lamely) or add story elements to his list of cards.  A card is added
to the deck for each new story element.  The cards are then handed out
as needed, and the tale goes on.

Gameplay

As soon as the Barkeep is ready to begin, e chooses a Bard to go
first and names em publicly.  It is that Bard's turn.

On eir turn, a Bard either tries to make a play, or passes.  If e 
successfully makes a play, it is still eir turn.  When a play is denied 
(which happens, alas, to the best Bards from time to time) or the Bard 
passes, play goes to the next Bard, clockwise around the table.

Passing

A Bard may pass explicitly.  Also, when the Tavern Owner notices that 
a Bard is asleep (i.e. it has been eir turn continuously for three days 
or more, and e has not tried a play in all that time) and posts a message 
to that effect, that Bard is considered to have passed.  When a Bard 
passes, e receives a card.

When a Bard passes explicitly, e may announce that e is discarding one
of the cards from eir hand, naming the card.  That card is burned.

Plays

A Bard attempts a play by sending a public message with the word 
"Lantern" in the subject header.  The text of the message should be
twelve to twenty-five lines of suitable prose to add to (or start) the 
tale.  If the Bard has any cards, the last line of the message should 
specify one of them.

The Barkeep shall then reply, either verifying that the play was
successful, or denying it.  E may, in addition to verifying the play, 
announce that the card thus played is a new Loose End.  This is done 
when, in the Barkeep's opinion, an interesting element is added to 
the game and isn't resolved right away:  a villain is introduced; a map 
is found; a prophesy is made.  When a card becomes a Loose End, it goes 
on the table, face up.  When a card is successfully played, but doesn't
become a Loose End, it is burned.  [The tale isn't complete until all the 
Loose Ends have been tied off.]  When a Bard attempts to play a card but 
is denied, the card is burned, and the Bard receives two cards to 
replace it.

The Barkeep may deny a play for any of the following reasons:  it 
is incomprehensible; it is a non sequitur from the previous bit of the 
story; it is not in the spirit of the game [e.g. the Bard is blatantly 
and rudely playing to get rid of cards rather than for the fun of the 
story]; it is too long or too short; the Bard has cards, but none of them 
is specified; no card was specified, and no Loose Ends were tied off; or 
a card was specified, but the text didn't bring it into the tale.

That last reason begs some explanation.  The text of a play is required
to bring into the story the ideas specified on the card.  [e.g.  If a
card bears the word "disguise", the Bard may play it only if he works
a disguise into the story.]  It's a matter of taste how central an idea 
must be in order to qualify.  Generally, it is insufficient simply to 
discuss an item (it must be present), to mention the possibility of an 
event (it must take place), or to have a character talk about another
character in dialogue (he must actually be introduced.)  In any case, the
Barkeep's reply is final.

The Barkeep may, in addition to verifying the play, announce that
one or more of the Loose Ends on the table have been resolved.  This 
means that the most recent play has tied off those parts of the story.
A Bard receives one Ale for each Loose End tied off by eir play.  [This 
is just for fun.  Originally I wanted to award the Bards points for their 
Ale at the end of the game, but I think it's all too open to abuse for 
that just yet.  We'll see how it's played.]

Interruptions

A Bard may try to interrupt any play attempted by another Bard, either
before or after the Barkeep replies to it, by announcing the
interruption, along with the play being interrupted and the name of a
card the interrupting Bard holds.  [The idea is that the story element
on this card is, by coincidence, a part of the story that the current
Bard is telling; the interrupting Bard now takes over the tale.]

An interruption never causes any of the tale to be discarded.  Neither 
does it have any effect on the success or denial of any play currently 
being attempted.  When a play and an interruption are both being 
attempted, the Barkeep must reply to the play first (regardless of 
which message e received first).

The Barkeep shall reply to each interruption, either verifying that it
was successful, or denying it.  If the interruption is successful,
then it is immediately the interrupting Bard's turn, and the Bard who
was interrupted receives a card.

The Barkeep shall deny an interruption if the card specified is not
one the interrupting Bard has.  In this case, one card is dealt to the
interrupting Bard, as a penalty.

The Barkeep shall deny an interruption if the story element on the
specified card was not sufficiently mentioned in the interrupted play.
In this case, the card is burned, and the interrupting Bard receives
two cards to replace it, as a penalty.  Again, what qualifies as a
sufficient mention is up to the Barkeep, but in this case e is
encouraged to be lenient.

If an interruption is not denied for either of the above reasons, the
Barkeep shall deny it if it comes too late-- that is, either the
interrupted play was attempted more than three days ago, or it has
already been successfully interrupted with a different card.  In this
case, the card is burned, and the Bard who attempted the interrupt is
dealt one card to replace it.

Winning

When a Bard successfully makes a play, with the result that e no longer 
has any cards and all Loose Ends are tied off, that Bard wins.  If the 
story isn't quite "done" yet, the winning Bard may finish it however e 
pleases.  Once that's done, the tale ends.

If the game was played for ante, the winner gets all the entities in
the pot, and no trophy is made.  Otherwise, a standard Trophy is
awarded to the winner.

- -- 
Mohammed
Americans led the big parade.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:17:56 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Antimatter Auction 

The auction for Antimatter has ended, but it appears that I no longer have
antimatter.  Instead, the high bidder gets a unique, nameless trinket.
Also, I'm not sure of the state of my MAD contracts.  I believe I may
weasle out of them due to my not acking the namechange bit, etc.  If
someone thinks they have been violated, I guess it could be CFCJ.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:19:27 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Tagline 

>
>--
>Mohammed
>Americans led the big parade.

Wow.  Don't let that babbler get out on USENET.  YOu could cause a huge
flame war :)

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 01:10:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  G&C Submission:  YORL

> Ye Olde Rusty Lantern - Rules

I endorse this.  I am also pre-announcing intent to run a game of
this if it is accepted, so if you want to play, let me know.  An
idea I had was allowing prospective bards to submit some cards 
themselves to help stock the deck; the variety could be interesting.
Let me know what you think of that idea.

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:23:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 383 Verdict

On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> Call For Judgment 383
>   Subject: Partial Repeals
	I appeal this to the SC.

My reasoning:

Usage of the word "repeal" in the sense used in P1992 has always been
common in the Ackanomic public forum.  Everybody knows what P1992 was
saying.  If P1992 were ambiguous or meaningless, its meaning would not
be so clear.

- -- 
Mohammed
The birthday of a macaw is a national holiday over there.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:25:55 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  G&C Submission:  YORL 

Is Mohammed Acting President and hence acting gamesmaster?  I don't recall
anyone ever being appointed, but I might have missed it.  Anyway, if that
is indeed the case, I endorse YORL for G&N

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 01:20:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  G&C Submission:  YORL

> Is Mohammed Acting President and hence acting gamesmaster?  I don't recall
> anyone ever being appointed, but I might have missed it.  Anyway, if that
> is indeed the case, I endorse YORL for G&N

There is no GamesMaster anymore.  Submissions are made by simple public
post now.  Since you're endorsement was made conditionally, you will
have to make it again for it to count (sorry) :-)

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 21:49:21 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  G&C Submission:  YORL 

>> Is Mohammed Acting President and hence acting gamesmaster?  I don't recall
>> anyone ever being appointed, but I might have missed it.  Anyway, if that
>> is indeed the case, I endorse YORL for G&N
>
>There is no GamesMaster anymore.  Submissions are made by simple public
>post now.  Since you're endorsement was made conditionally, you will
>have to make it again for it to count (sorry) :-)
>

Ooh.  Now that you mention it, I do remember something like that passing.
Been a while since I looked at the G&C rules.  Okay.  I endorse YORL, and
would love o try and play again, but I really don't have the time.  I'll
just observe Malenkai's game.

Mr. Out Of Touch Nacho

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:52:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  G&C Submission:  YORL

> > Ye Olde Rusty Lantern - Rules
> 
> I endorse this.  I am also pre-announcing intent to run a game of
> this if it is accepted, so if you want to play, let me know.  An
> idea I had was allowing prospective bards to submit some cards 
> themselves to help stock the deck; the variety could be interesting.
> Let me know what you think of that idea.

I also endorse the game.  I've started up a game of this, using slightly
modified rules(for instance, the Barkeep duties are shared democratically,
more or less, and a Bard's turn ends even after a successful play), among
some of my writing-oriented net. and RL friends(including my wife...:-),
and that was how I got the original deck, by asking the Bards to submit
their own cards.  Mind you, I also have a big deck of story-element things
that I came up with myself by free-associating, brainstorming, etc.

Anyway, I'd love to take part in Malenkai's game as well.  I mean, if the
existing yorl@wilma game is still going, I can be in three at once!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Falco:Emotional
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
In the beginning there was nothing...which exploded.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 01:51:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 135 (Bascule)

Bascule has been selected again.
#award Alfvaen: -20 A$: Court Fee

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 135
  Subject: Family Business
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Bascule (selected Jun 07, 1997, 01:50 EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Malenkai has committed a Crime.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Malenkai posted the following public message:

> In my various capacities as both a player and the Godfather, the
> following actions are occurring in the order specified:
>
> 1) As Godfather, I am publishing the following odds:
>
> The odds of a public message being posted by a player other than
> Malenkai in the next 7 days are 530 to 1.
>
> 2) The Godfather is taking bets on this event, with a maximum
> bet of A$1.
>
> 3) I, Malenkai, am taking the A$1 side of this bet, wagering A$1.
>
> 4) The Godfather acks this bet

In it, he explicitly, under his own name, makes a bet with the Narfalone
Family.  I now refer you to relevant sections of Rule 1060, "Organized
Crime".

Rule 1060, "Organized Crime"

(relevant sections)

2. Publicly admitting to belonging to the Narfalone Family is a Crime,
punishable by no more than 5 days in jail.

7. [excerpt] Any member of the Narfalone Family may bet by publicly stating
which event they are wagering on and the $A they are wagering.

11. [excerpt] ...any Narfalone Family business that requires a public
message should be done using the player's Narfalone Family name.
Otherwise, the public message is tantamount to an admission of membership,
which is still a Crime.

Clearly, by making a bet, which is Narfalone Family business that requires
a public message, without using his Narfalone Family name("The Godfather"),
Malenkai has admitted to being a member of the Narfalone Family.

Suggested Penalty:

Either a FINE of A$530(the amount Malenkai attempted to scam from the
Narfalone Family)

or a SENTENCE of 5 days(the maximum).

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Auction

> I am auctioning off my lovely "travesty"!  This painstaking hand-crafted
> bit of chaos...well, actually machine-crafted, but meticulously reproduced
> by hand("cut and paste" is for wimps!)could be yours!  Since it has a value
> of A$10 all by itself(though it would be worth far more to a
> collector), I am setting that as the minimum bid.  The auction shall be
> public, I shall be the Auctioneer, and it will not be Shubik.

I bid A$10 on travesty.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 02:22:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New Blueprint

I am creating a new Blueprint and acknowledge the processing chip
cost.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Blueprint for the Cheez-Whiz
Malenkai
Wizard
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

"
The Cheez-Whiz is a small pyramid.  3 of its sides are white, whilst
the 4th is black.  A Cheez-Whiz will transfer all of its owner's
Ackadollars to the Treasury if its owner legally chews the Gumball.
It is said that the Cheez-Whiz can also be used to help find long
lost Treasure.
  
All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
of grapefruit, and they conflict with this one.
"

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 22:40:12 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  further personal info

> >players that we have a better than even chance of two having the same
> >birthday.  How about a birthday list?  I volunteer to harf it.  I'm
> >curious about whether we have any matches.
> 
>   Sure.  12/13/80.  Saturday, not Friday.
> 
> -Red Barn

5/19/80. Hey, someone about my age - how surprising :-)
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 11:41:31 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Otzma Clarification

Just a clarification.
The probabilities (which may be the same of dirfferent than previously
published, but are undoutedly correct) are as follows

Go Fish 6*
Map Shard 6*
Summon Tornado 0
Untouch Me 15
Share My Expenses 9
Share Your Income 8
Swinging Sale 1
Tactical Retreat 7
ParaTroop 7
Foul Owl 3
TruthSeeker 6*
Fix My Gadget 4
Scientist for a Day 6*

Total CrIndex  78

Unless the numbers are manipulated by SwingPoints or probability points.

I don't know what the LSAP is, I also don't Malnekai 's complaint about
the language being iffy.
If the LSAP isequal to or greater than 10 is than there a minumu of one
card.
About the maximum it should be int((LSAP-1)/2), at least that's what it
was
the last time I looked. Although now that I'm looking it seems to say,
'the largest integer smaller to or greater than' which  I guess means that
there is no real limit. 
Since I'm only popping in, could someone propose a fix?
Maybe that's what meant by iffy.
Now how did that slip in there - /dev, could take a look at the
appropriate proposals s and ammendements and see where that got in - it's
obviously a po.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 11:51:13 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Returning from Vacation

I am hereby returning from Vacation

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 05:27:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: acka : Otzma Clarification

> The probabilities (which may be the same of dirfferent than previously
> published, but are undoutedly correct) are as follows

The Go Fish otzma card created by the spell book of chorg did not affect
the probabilities, since there is no limit to the number of Go Fish cards.
However, the runemaker should assign it an ID number or some such thing.

> If the LSAP isequal to or greater than 10 is than there a minumu of one
> card.
> About the maximum it should be int((LSAP-1)/2), at least that's what it
> was
> the last time I looked. Although now that I'm looking it seems to say,
> 'the largest integer smaller to or greater than' which  I guess means that
> there is no real limit. 
> Since I'm only popping in, could someone propose a fix?
> Maybe that's what meant by iffy.
> Now how did that slip in there - /dev, could take a look at the
> appropriate proposals s and ammendements and see where that got in - it's
> obviously a po.

A little research reveals that section III.5. of the otzma card definition
rule has never been amended.  The typo appears in P1369, which first
created the otzma cards (that was in October -- see how little some of the
rules get read? :-).

I recommend, however, that the runemaker follow the intent of the rule
and not make more than 2 cards this otzma day.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:26:57 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Otzma Clarification

On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> 
> A little research reveals that section III.5. of the otzma card definition
> rule has never been amended.  The typo appears in P1369, which first
> created the otzma cards (that was in October -- see how little some of the
> rules get read? :-).

It's that well known thing about proof reading yourself ... (I could use
the really embarassed emoticon right now)
> 
> I recommend, however, that the runemaker follow the intent of the rule
> and not make more than 2 cards this otzma day.
Part of the reason I returned from Vacation, even thought  I'll be gone in
12 hours for another 7-10 days

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> /dev/joe
> 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:29:27 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : resigning as Prez

Originally it was my intent to resign on my 'final' return from this
vacation. The reason for resigning has little to do with this Vacation
(which I'm currently temporarily off) but rather with the way I got the
job. I don't like it.

I am resigining from the Office of President.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 10:40:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: President

Its time for Acka's 9th presidential election.  The results of the
previous 8 were:

Robert Sevin 9, Mohammed 3
/dev/joe 5, this is not a name 4
snowgod 7, Niccolo Flychuck 4, /dev/joe 2
snowgod 7, Niccolo Flychuck 5, Uncle Sam 2
Niccolo Flychuck 7, breadbox 3, Robert Sevin 2
Strider (unapposed)
snowgod 4, Malenkai 4, breadbox 2, IdiotBoy 1
Niccolo Flychuck (unapposed)

If you would like to volunteer for this office, e-mail me.  The
nomination lasts for 3 days.

Malenkai
speaker

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 10:47:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 398 Verdict

CFJ 398 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
may or may not be Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 398
  Subject: Literature Scoring
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Vynd (selected Jun 05, 1997, 18:57h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

When a proposal that is Literature passes, the point value specified in
Rule 2010, "Literature", section II, is in addition to any other points
the author of that proposal would have received had the proposal not
been Literature.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Rule 2010 contains what I feel is an ambiguous wording:  "Whenever a
proposal that is literature passes, its author gains X points.", where X is
specified in the next sentence.  This could be read as saying that those
are the only points received by the author of the proposal, and this would
be disregarded in favour of R207, which would have precedence.  I think
that game custom would dictate that a Literature proposal should receive
the R2010 points in addition to R207(or R209) points.  If this CFJ is ruled
FALSE, an amendment of R2010 is doubtless in order.

Vynd's Reasoning:

I judge this CFJ to be TRUE.  The only arguement against this is that of
precedence, and it doesn't really hold here.  Precedence only comes into
play if there is a conflict between two rules, and there is no conflict
here.  While Rule 207 (and others high in the rule set) specify point
awards for certain events and or types of proposals, they do not exclude
additional point gains, or penalties, mandated by lower precedence rules.
This is supported by the game custom surrounding Silly proposals, whose
author's "score 5 points."

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 10:58:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: YORL

The following have endorsed YORL.  Only one more endorsement is
needed:

Malenkai
Alfvaen
Mr. Nacho

Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 18:24:15 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: YORL

I endorse it
Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> The following have endorsed YORL.  Only one more endorsement is
> needed:
> 
> Malenkai
> Alfvaen
> Mr. Nacho
> 
> Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
> 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 11:59:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: TAQMII Progress Report

I'm happy to say that it almost looks like the Tagline Attribution Quiz,
Mark II, might not have to run the whole two months after all.  It's been a
month, I believe, since I started it, and here are the current scores:

Red Barn: 8 points
fnord: 3.5 points
/dev/joe: 2 points
ThinMan: 1 point
two-star: 1 point
Mohammed: 0.5 points

(Anyone who thinks I've told them they have more points, let me know, and
tell me why they should have them, and I will do so.)

Anyway, Red Barn is getting very close to the 10-point mark, ahead of the
rest of the pack, and may soon be the owner of the prestigious The White
Tent The Raft!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Fleetwood Mac
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
At last, the Eludium Pu-36 Explosive Space Moderator!

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 13:41:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Auction Clarifications

> > > what if I call a single auction, for several items, which are
> > > distinct from each other in value and description? 
> > 
> > I do not believe you can do this.  Call seperate auctions.
> 
> I find no provision in the Auction rule to say that auctioning disparate
> items is prohibited.  It may be intended only for single items or groups of
> identical ones, which may determine game custom, but I don't see anything
> against it in the rules.
> 
> Would you still have a problem with auctioning, say, three different
> trinkets that are all A$5 in a single auction?

Auctioning multiple, distinct objects, not as a lot, in a single auction
is the same situation as the beldin's parka eating a trinket.  P2042 will
have the officer in charge of random things resolve such situations.
(In this case, he would randomly assign the N objects to the top N bids.

This could be interesting if the objects are, say 10 A$1 trinkets and one
good prize -- this amounts to a sort of lottery, and in fact could do quite
well as a lottery, with a minimum bid high enough to cover the value of the
big prize -- say A$5 in the above situation.  It would have to be a "private"
auction to get around that minimum raise bit -- everyone is expected to
bid the minimum.  I'll have to run one of these...

Come to think of it, self-destroying contracts are better than trinkets
for this sort of thing -- then we don't have dozens more A$1 trinkets
sitting around after the auction until players cash them in.

  "Losing Lottery Ticket #00002
   This contract destroys itself after being transferred to another player
   in an auction."

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:19:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 400 (Antimatter)

CFJ 400 has been assigned to Antimatter was here

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 400
  Subject: Last-Ditch Effort
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Antimatter was here (selected Jun 07, 1997, 15:19h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Malenkai's attempt to create his Blueprint for the Cheez-Whiz failed.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

In Rule 594, "Blueprints", it states the following:

An attempt to create a new Blueprint fails if its text does not
a)introduce exactly one new kind of Gadget, b)name the new Gadget type, and
c)unambiguously define the behaviour of such a gadget.

Below is the text of the submitted Blueprint:

> The Cheez-Whiz is a small pyramid.  3 of its sides are white, whilst
> the 4th is black.  A Cheez-Whiz will transfer all of its owner's
> Ackadollars to the Treasury if its owner legally chews the Gumball.
> It is said that the Cheez-Whiz can also be used to help find long
> lost Treasure.
>
> All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
> of grapefruit, and they conflict with this one.

I content that the last sentence of the second paragraph "It is said that
the Cheez-Whiz can also be used to help find long lost Treasure", does not
unambiguously define the Cheez-Whiz's behaviour.  The statement is in and
of itself ambiguous about the Cheez-Whiz's treasure-finding capabilities,
so the behaviour of the Gadget in this respect is ambiguous.

{{[End of Reasoning]}}

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:19:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blueprint in CFJ 400 true thread

CFJ 400 should be judged FALSE.  The Blueprint unambiguously does
not define *any* behavior for the Cheez-Whiz that can be construed
as "treasure-finding capabilities".  In fact, the questioned sentence
does not define behaviour at all; obviously, therefore, it is not
ambiguous in regards to behaviour definition.

Be that as it may, as an expert in BWG, *only* in the thread where the
Blueprint creation failed, I am creating a new Blueprint and acknowledge
the processing chip cost.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Blueprint for the Cheez-Whiz
Malenkai
Wizard
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

"
The Cheez-Whiz is a small pyramid.  3 of its sides are white, whilst
the 4th is black.  A Cheez-Whiz will transfer all of its owner's
Ackadollars to the Treasury if its owner legally chews the Gumball.
  
All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
of grapefruit, and they conflict with this one.
"

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:28:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 400 (ThinMan)

Sorry, illegal judge.

CFJ 400 has been assigned to ThinMan.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 400
  Subject: Last-Ditch Effort
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Jun 07, 1997, 15:27h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Malenkai's attempt to create his Blueprint for the Cheez-Whiz failed.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

In Rule 594, "Blueprints", it states the following:

An attempt to create a new Blueprint fails if its text does not
a)introduce exactly one new kind of Gadget, b)name the new Gadget type, and
c)unambiguously define the behaviour of such a gadget.

Below is the text of the submitted Blueprint:

> The Cheez-Whiz is a small pyramid.  3 of its sides are white, whilst
> the 4th is black.  A Cheez-Whiz will transfer all of its owner's
> Ackadollars to the Treasury if its owner legally chews the Gumball.
> It is said that the Cheez-Whiz can also be used to help find long
> lost Treasure.
>
> All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
> of grapefruit, and they conflict with this one.

I content that the last sentence of the second paragraph "It is said that
the Cheez-Whiz can also be used to help find long lost Treasure", does not
unambiguously define the Cheez-Whiz's behaviour.  The statement is in and
of itself ambiguous about the Cheez-Whiz's treasure-finding capabilities,
so the behaviour of the Gadget in this respect is ambiguous.

{{[End of Reasoning]}}

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:28:13 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blueprint CFJ tt resubmit

CFJ 400 should be judged FALSE.  The Blueprint unambiguously does
not define *any* behavior for the Cheez-Whiz that can be construed
as "treasure-finding capabilities".  In fact, the questioned sentence
does not define behaviour at all; obviously, therefore, it is not
ambiguous in regards to behaviour definition.

Be that as it may, as an expert in BWG, *only* in the thread where the
Blueprint creation failed, I am creating a new Blueprint and acknowledge
the processing chip cost.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Blueprint for the Cheez-Whiz
Malenkai
Wizard
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

"
The Cheez-Whiz is a small pyramid.  3 of its sides are white, whilst
the 4th is black.  A Cheez-Whiz will transfer all of its owner's
Ackadollars to the Treasury if its owner legally chews the Gumball.
  
All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
of grapefruit, and they conflict with this one.
"

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 11:42:43 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 400 (Antimatter) 

ints", it states the following:
>
>An attempt to create a new Blueprint fails if its text does not
>a)introduce exactly one new kind of Gadget, b)name the new Gadget type, and
>c)unambiguously define the behaviour of such a gadget.

The treasure finding abilities of the gadget are fluff.  It's behavior is
defined unambigously when you write "A Cheez-Whiz will transfer all of its
owner's Ackadollars to the Treasury if its owner legally chews the Gumball"

There is no ambiguity in what the cheeze whiz does.

>Below is the text of the submitted Blueprint:
>
>> The Cheez-Whiz is a small pyramid.  3 of its sides are white, whilst
>> the 4th is black.  A Cheez-Whiz will transfer all of its owner's
>> Ackadollars to the Treasury if its owner legally chews the Gumball.
>> It is said that the Cheez-Whiz can also be used to help find long
>> lost Treasure.
>>
>> All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
>> of grapefruit, and they conflict with this one.
>
>I content that the last sentence of the second paragraph "It is said that
>the Cheez-Whiz can also be used to help find long lost Treasure"

This constitutes descriptive text.  Just like "The Cheez-Whiz is a small
pyramid.  3 of its sides are white, whilst the 4th is black".  NOthing
more.  It's treasure finding abilities lie stricly in the discretion of the
map custodian.

Mr. Nacho

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:49:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: YORL

YORL has been accepted.  It will become a rule Tue at 1:05.
Alfvaen has decided to play.  If 4 or more total players sign
up, I will run a game of it.  Let me know if you wish to play.
I will allow bards to submit some number of cards, and make the
rest up.  All further details of the game will be posted on
acka-games.  Also let me know if you wish to play for an ante,
and if so, how much.  I will go with lowest suggested value (incl
0).

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 22:16:12 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  further personal info

> 1.  What's the best movie you've seen in the past year?

Trainspotting, next best was The Usual Suspects
 
> 2.  What's the worst movie you've seen in the past year?

Independence Day. All my friends liked it though, and that made it 
even worse :) 

Bascule

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:54:32 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Otzma Card - Chorg

The Otzma Card recently created from a page of the book of Chorg is OCID
129

Niccolo Flychuck
Rune Maker

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:56:05 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Otzma Cards

I am creating two Otzma Cards on this Otzma Day
I choose to tse the Deterministc Method for the first Cardu
I create a Card of type Swinging Sale OCID 130

The second Card I create using the probabilistic method. It is  a Card of
type 
Untouch Me
OCID 131

I declare this Otzma Day to be over.

Niccolo Flychuck
RuneMaker

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 18:24:48 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:  Votes

Would Count Tabula please let me know what I did wrong when I sent my
votes in for the IP and Mad Scientist election?  I'm not complaining, 
I've been out of it for a while.  I just want to do a better job next
time.

Voting Gnome	
preparing for SERIOUS BWG

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

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 18:34:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Votes

> Would Count Tabula please let me know what I did wrong when I sent my
> votes in for the IP and Mad Scientist election?  I'm not complaining,
> I've been out of it for a while.  I just want to do a better job next
> time.

It is my reading of the rules that non-Voting players cannot vote
in IPs and Elections.  I also had you as non-Voting.  If either of
these are wrong, let me know, I had to sift through about 1000 e-mails
downloaded 3 times, and I know I've screwed up other stuff since I've
been back.

Count Tabula
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:35:00 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Vacation

I am going on Vacation. My expected date of return is (again ) June 18.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:02:23 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 392 Appeal

The CotC wrote:

> CFJ 392 has been judged FALSE.  I hope Bascule has a good orange sauce
> lying around the house...
> 
> #transfer mr cwm , Bascule: Chartreuse Goose
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
> Techno's Reasoning:
> 
>  In the form that this CFJ is stated, it would at first appear
> to me to be true.  But after reading the rule concerning contracts
> (517/1) I believe it would be illegal to give the money and to not give
> the money.  The contracts rule states the following...
> 
> Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey any
> restrictions that that contract places on em; to do
>      otherwise is a crime.
> 
> 
> My reading of that statement tells me that it would be illegal to give
> the money because it would be illegal by contract 2.  It would also be
> illegal to not pay the money as stated by contract 1.  This CFJ states
> that it is both legal and illegal to give the money.  My reading of the
> rule is that it would be illegal to do either.

I am appealing this to the Supreme Court. 

Reasoning:

I agree with the original judge that it is illegal to give or not 
give the A$ to Alfvaen. I submit that it is also legal. If a rule 
demands an action of a player, I believe that action has legality 
conferred upon it. 

Example 1
- ---------

If R517 said:

"Once a player has signed a contract, that player must obey 
any restrictions that that contract places on em, _it is legal to 
obey such restrictions_; to do otherwise is a crime."

then I believe the CFJ would probably have been judged TRUE. Yet I 
believe that actions required of players must therefore also be 
legal. 

Example 2
- ---------

A trivial example, from Rule 205:

"c) Players, acting in their capacity as officers, must announce all
score changes they are responsible for notification of in the order
which they are made aware the occurrence. They must do so in a timely
manner."

If an officer, responsible for score changes, announces such a score 
change, we would say that such an action is legal. If another rule, 
hypothetical rule X, said:

"Players, acting in their capacity as officers, _may not_ announce
all score changes they are responsible for notification of."

would we say that there is no precedence conflict here? Would we say 
that the officers must announce score changes, but that to do so was 
illegal? I argue that we would say that the rules conflict, and 
precedence should be applied to determine the legality or illegality 
of the notifications. 

It is Legal To Perform a Required Action
- ----------------------------------------

R101 says:
"All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect"

R101 says I must abide by the rules. R517 says that I must obey my 
contracts. In obeying the contracts I would also be abiding by R517. 
Therefore to obey the contracts is legal.

Can Follows From Must
- ---------------------

A legal action within Acka is an action that is permitted, or an 
action that can happen. If an action must happen, then follows that 
that action _can_ happen (since it _must_ happen!) 

Summary
- -------

I believe that for an action to be required and yet be illegal is 
nonsensical. (For an action to be required and also be a crime is a 
different matter). If a rule requires an action, it also makes that 
action legal.

Bascule

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #118
*******************************