Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #120
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Sunday, June 8 1997         Volume 02 : Number 120

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:25:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Azpiazu Blueprint

> It is somewhat to my chagrin zat I am forced to post the Blueprint uff zee
> Monster Azpiazu.  <reading from script>  "I have assembled the Blueprint
> for <name>!"  Oops, I mean "I have assembled the Blueprint for Azpiazu!"
> It follows in its entirety(and I sink zat you vill recognize its nature and
> zee source of my chagrin).
> 
> 
> Blueprint for Azpiazu:
> 
> All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
> of Azpiazu, and they conflict with this one.
> 
> As is obfious, it is impossible to add more parts vissout zee Blueprint
> becoming contradictory.

I don't believe that the blueprint actually *creates* a conflict between
this sentence and other ones that might follow it merely by stating that
a conflict exists, where it does not necessarily exist otherwise.
Blueprints are not rules; blueprints only have any legal force in the way
that they regulate the behavior of gadgets.

Blueprints only have power under the rules to:
1. Introduce one new type of gadget, name that type of gadget,
  unambiguously define the behavior of gadgets of that type, and
  define raw materials needed to construct that gadget
  (R594, (i), paragraph 2)
2. Have precedence over some other blueprints (R594, (iv))
  (and note that no possibility is allowed for blueprints to claim
  precedence over one another -- the blueprint has no say in the
  inter-blueprint precedence scheme)
3. Allow some types of manipulations of gadgets to be performed
  as public actions (R594, (v))
4. Define the behavior of one type of gadget and ways which that
  gadget may be manipulated (R595, (ii))
5. Define that its gadget is nontradeable or gift (R595, (iii))
6. Define that its gadget is indestructible, which prevents its owner
  from destroying it (R595, (vi))
7. Define that a gadget may manipulate protected entities (R595, (vii))

Anything else a blueprint claims to do fails, as the Blueprint has
no authority to do it; if this "anything else" violates any rules,
the blueprint is destroyed.

The blueprint in question reads in full:
> All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
> of Azpiazu, and they conflict with this one.

While statements of intra-blueprint precedence are reasonable can have
power as far as they need to for defining the gadget's behavior, this
sentence does not in any way define the gadget's behavior; instead it
attempts to create conflicts within the blueprint where they may not
already exist.  If a conflict already exists, the statement hasn't
really accomplished anything, and if no conflict exists, the statement
is powerless to create one.  Plenty of ordinary parts like "Azpiazu
is blue" can be added to the blueprint without being rejected, as
no actual conflict or self-contradiction would exist.

I will submit the CFJ (if one has not already been submitted by the time
I finish writing this).

This sort of loophole surfing of the blueprint rules by a scientist
(creating his own meta-conflict statement in a dummy blueprint to try
to abuse the frankenstein monster rule) is potentially grounds for
impeachment from the office of Wizard, in my opinion.  (But I am not
yet filing such an impeachment paper.  I will do so if there is public
support for it, though.)

> (Is zee cause uff my chagrin now clear?  Vould anyvun vish to be my second
> in a duel?)

Sure, I will.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Azpiazu Blueprint

On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:

> 
> It is somewhat to my chagrin zat I am forced to post the Blueprint uff zee
> Monster Azpiazu.  <reading from script>  "I have assembled the Blueprint
> for <name>!"  Oops, I mean "I have assembled the Blueprint for Azpiazu!"
> It follows in its entirety(and I sink zat you vill recognize its nature and
> zee source of my chagrin).
> 
> 
> Blueprint for Azpiazu:
> 
> All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
> of Azpiazu, and they conflict with this one.
> 
> 
> As is obfious, it is impossible to add more parts vissout zee Blueprint
> becoming contradictory.  (I belieff zat I must also use a Processing Chip
> to make zis Blueprint.)
> 
> #award Alfvaen: -1 PC : Azpiazu Blueprint creation
> 
> I now commence building Azpiazu.  Zis vill be completed in three days, at
> vich point I will expend a furzer 0.5 PC(or 1 PC, depending on a certain
> proposal in zee queue); Azpiazu vill be transferred into zee possession of
> Malenkai, be avarded the honorary title of Angry Fillager, receiff a
> Silfer Pitchfork, and vin yet anuzzer Cycle.

Well, I think this goes beyond the pale.  I've long thought that the
Scientist and Blueprint rules had far too much room for corruption,
there's basicaly no controls over what they produce.  I'm too busy right
now to whomp up a proposal to deal with this kind of stuff, but I would
like to encourage anyone else who isn't to give it a try.  Don't get me
wrong, scaming wins is an important part of the game, in my view.  I look
forward to the day when i do it myself. =)  But this was not only
patheticaly simple, but unpreventible, and impossible for all but three
players in the game to even attempt.  All in all, a very cheap win indeed.

> 
> (Is zee cause uff my chagrin now clear?  Vould anyvun vish to be my second
> in a duel?)

If you need one, I am available.  I am also, here and now, calling for
Malenkai to be impeached from the Office of Wizard.

> 
> Mad Scientist, feeling used
> 
> 

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]
At least the Wings won.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 15:38:14 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[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

Ooh.  You just named two more of my favorite movies.  How could I have
forgotten about those two.  Even more importantly, was that last sentence
rhetorical?

Mr. Bandwidth Wasting Fluff Promoting Still The Registrar Nacho

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 21:59:15 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Purchase 

>Mr Nacho,  I would very much like to purchase a BV from your Vending
>Machine.
>#transfer -A$200 Voting Gnome,  Mr.  Nacho,  1 Bonus Vote
>#transfer 1 Bonus Vote,  Mr Nacho,  Voting Gnome
>
>Also,  how would it be possible for me to get one of those neat Add-ons?
>
>Voting Gnome
>doesn't know what e's going to do with it,  but wants one anyway

I thank you for the purchase, Voting Gnome.  If you want an add on of your
own, I bet you could talk a scientist into building one for you.  Of
course, you' be responsible for the bidding.

Oh, I'm giving A$50 to mr cwm, A$50 to malenkai, and A$50 to Guy Fawkes, my
fellow (none-yetters)

#transfer Mr. Nacho, mr cwm : 50 A$ : Donation
#transfer Mr. Nacho, Malenkai : 50 A$ : Donation
#transfer Mr. Nacho, Guy Fawkes : 50 A$ : Donation

Mr. Nacho

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 22:04:10 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Azpiazu Blueprint 

>This sort of loophole surfing of the blueprint rules by a scientist
>(creating his own meta-conflict statement in a dummy blueprint to try
>to abuse the frankenstein monster rule) is potentially grounds for
>impeachment from the office of Wizard, in my opinion.  (But I am not
>yet filing such an impeachment paper.  I will do so if there is public
>support for it, though.)

Hehehehe!  The laughed at him in the laboratory.  They cursed him when he
attempted to repeal my expertise in headware, and now they will impeach him
for abuse of office!  /devjoe, I support you!

>> (Is zee cause uff my chagrin now clear?  Vould anyvun vish to be my second
>> in a duel?)
>
>Sure, I will.

As would I

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:23:52 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Azpiazu Blueprint

> > Blueprint for Azpiazu:
> > 
> > All sentences that follow this one are, or describe, attributes
> > of Azpiazu, and they conflict with this one.
> > 
> > As is obfious, it is impossible to add more parts vissout zee Blueprint
> > becoming contradictory.
> 
> I don't believe that the blueprint actually *creates* a conflict between
> this sentence and other ones that might follow it merely by stating that
> a conflict exists, where it does not necessarily exist otherwise.
> Blueprints are not rules; blueprints only have any legal force in the way
> that they regulate the behavior of gadgets.

Hmmm.  I wonder if that means that I broke the Rules by posting the
Blueprint, if it is not in fact finished.  I just trusted that Malenkai
knew what he was doing, however reprehensible it was.  However, the
relevant clauses in R597(which is more relevant than R594-5 until the
Blueprint-under-construction becomes a Blueprint)lead me to think that
Malenkai did in fact fulfill the conditions of the rule.  However, I
welcome a CFJ submission on the matter.

> I will submit the CFJ (if one has not already been submitted by the time
> I finish writing this).

Thank you.  However, I would certainly not consider myself competent to
judge it, under the circumstances, since my little brain is all awhirl.

> This sort of loophole surfing of the blueprint rules by a scientist
> (creating his own meta-conflict statement in a dummy blueprint to try
> to abuse the frankenstein monster rule) is potentially grounds for
> impeachment from the office of Wizard, in my opinion.  (But I am not
> yet filing such an impeachment paper.  I will do so if there is public
> support for it, though.)

I did today(after receiving Malenkai's original submission)send a proposal
to Acrobot(which hasn't yet been distributed)which would prohibit
Scientists from digging up Frankenstein parts(since it is open to abuse,
and anyway no respectable Scientist would be caught doing such a thing),
the Godfather from betting on events whose odds he can set himself, and,
most importantly IMHO, prohibit people with Violet Eggplants from winning a
Cycle(so that you have to raise your score above zero to win by any means
at all).  I encourage you all to vote for it when it gets distributed.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Tammy Wynette & The KLF:Justified & Ancient
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
These eyes are blind, this is a pure thing

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:29:30 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Azpiazu Blueprint

> Well, I think this goes beyond the pale.  I've long thought that the
> Scientist and Blueprint rules had far too much room for corruption,
> there's basicaly no controls over what they produce.  I'm too busy right
> now to whomp up a proposal to deal with this kind of stuff, but I would
> like to encourage anyone else who isn't to give it a try.  Don't get me
> wrong, scaming wins is an important part of the game, in my view.  I look
> forward to the day when i do it myself. =)  But this was not only
> patheticaly simple, but unpreventible, and impossible for all but three
> players in the game to even attempt.  All in all, a very cheap win indeed.

The Mad Scientist rule was the one rule, when I was reading through the
ruleset before sending mail to snowgod to join the game, really clinched my
desire to join.  I thought "Cool!"  And now it's been...I don't know,
sullied somehow.

> > (Is zee cause uff my chagrin now clear?  Vould anyvun vish to be my second
> > in a duel?)
> 
> If you need one, I am available.  I am also, here and now, calling for
> Malenkai to be impeached from the Office of Wizard.

Better you than me.  (I wouldn't be able to do it for another month
anyway, since the Mr. Nacho IP I authored...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--OMD:The Native Daughters of The Golden West
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
BUFFERS=20 FILES=15 2nd down, 4th quarter, 5 yards to go!

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:43:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sal

Alfvaen wrote:
> > I got 25 each for bond-harfer, entity-harfer, map-harfer, postmaster,
> > scorekeeper, trinket-harfer, undead-harfer, and web-harfer.
> 
> > #award /dev/joe: +200 A$: salary
> 
> And you wonder why I proposed "Salary Cap"?  :-)  It won't be long before
> you can win by Rule 1319, at this rate...

If it bothers you, fix the rules to eliminate some of these extra harfers,
or take over some of my work.  We had other bond-harfers and undead-harfers
before the current "overseer" structure came into effect, but the bond-
harfer was doing everything by hand and seemed to always make a few mistakes
in each report, and the undead-harfer simply failed to keep the records
current after a while.

I notice that the original Bond-harfer was created by proposal 1695, as
an office to calculate the PFbond dividends.  This duty, the whole point
of having the office, disappeared from the revision of this rule by P1860.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 00:46:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sal

> If it bothers you, fix the rules to eliminate some of these extra harfers,
> or take over some of my work.  We had other bond-harfers and undead-harfers
> before the current "overseer" structure came into effect, but the bond-
> harfer was doing everything by hand and seemed to always make a few mistakes
> in each report, and the undead-harfer simply failed to keep the records
> current after a while.

As you may have noticed by now, I am a compulsive list-maker and
record-keeper, and would probably love to harf something or other.  (I'm
definitely gunning for an Assistant Web-Harfer position, as you may or may
not have noticed...:-)  So much of my attention is focused on Ackanomic
these days that you're probably better off taking advantage of it.  I'm
well on my way to Trinket-Harfer already...

Perhaps what I wonder is whether these harfing positions are really worth
A$25 a month each.  But then, I don't know what work is involved...

> I notice that the original Bond-harfer was created by proposal 1695, as
> an office to calculate the PFbond dividends.  This duty, the whole point
> of having the office, disappeared from the revision of this rule by P1860.

Then perhaps the office is no longer necessary as a separate entity?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--OMD:The Native Daughters of The Golden West
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
Seize the bull by the china shop

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:55:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sal

Alfvaen wrote:
> As you may have noticed by now, I am a compulsive list-maker and
> record-keeper, and would probably love to harf something or other.  (I'm
> definitely gunning for an Assistant Web-Harfer position, as you may or may
> not have noticed...:-)  So much of my attention is focused on Ackanomic
> these days that you're probably better off taking advantage of it.  I'm
> well on my way to Trinket-Harfer already...
> 
> Perhaps what I wonder is whether these harfing positions are really worth
> A$25 a month each.  But then, I don't know what work is involved...

Well, look at the entitylog on the web page.  The following files are
used to build the P/E file:
  http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/entitylog
  http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/entityowners
  http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/entitynames
However, if Mohammed's bot can post a P/E page, then the harfers just need
to report all the stuff in the entitylog for the bot to tabulate.

> > I notice that the original Bond-harfer was created by proposal 1695, as
> > an office to calculate the PFbond dividends.  This duty, the whole point
> > of having the office, disappeared from the revision of this rule by P1860.
> 
> Then perhaps the office is no longer necessary as a separate entity?

That's possible, but I think it's more appropriate to put that duty back
into the office.  *Somebody* has to calculate those dividends, and these
scheduled things are better off if the bot doesn't just automatically do
them at the given time (since the records may not be fully updated yet).

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 08:35:17 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  further personal info, serious BWG

> >> 1.  What's the best movie you've seen in the past year?
> >
> >Trainspotting, next best was The Usual Suspects
> 
> Ooh.  You just named two more of my favorite movies.  How could I have
> forgotten about those two. 

I'm a big fan of 'gangsta' (as my brother calls them) movies. 
The Usual Suspects, The Godfather, Goodfellas, Carlito's Way, Donnie 
Brasco, I luv 'em all. 

> Even more importantly, was that last sentence rhetorical?

I presume you mean this:
> Independence Day. All my friends liked it though, and that made it
> even worse :) 

If you did, the answer's nope! I had to listen to them going on about
how good it was in the car on the way home. Even though all that
stuff about a virus was complete cack. Even though that pilot (Troy
was it?) knocked out an alien with a bop on it's head, when it was
supposed to be totally nails. Even though the President flew up in a
plane to destroy the alien spaceship. I mean, puhlease!

> Mr. Bandwidth Wasting Fluff Promoting Still The Registrar Nacho

Bascule 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 04:21:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Oscar building

The Oscar I was building was finished when the blueprint became 7 days old.
Since it required raw materials, and I provided them, I own the Oscar,
according to R595 (iv) (c).

I am offering to trade the Oscar to snowgod for A$100, the amount of
proceeds he has received thus far from what was and should soon again
be my Vending Machine. (and a typical amount that auctions reach around
here)

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 11:47:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Observation

The next two paragraphs are for historical perspective only, and
no offense is intended by them.

Before I went on vacation, I was publically berated for taking
actions to attempt to repeal a suite of rules that could be scammed
to the extent that certain individual(s) could become dictator(s).
This option was not open to all players, only those who held certain
office(s).  I was cordial and took only actions described in the rules
to attempt to correct this situation.

Besides the public and private rudeness I was subjected to at the time,
which, in all but one case, has been satisfactorily resolved, several
comments were made about the game at that time.  I am too lasy to
bring up the exact quotes, but the gist was that 'it needs to be more
competitive', or 'it is becoming staid', or 'lets face it, there is an
elite here that runs the game', or 'its my rule, I don't have to RFC
it if I don't want to', or 'let the revolution begin', or 'too many
rules lawyers'.

So I went on vacation, 11 flights and over 33000 km, alot of time
sitting in planes and airports.  In tropical Africa, it gets dark at
18:00, so dark that you can actually see the Milky Way with incredible
clarity.  Due to the threat of lions, you cannot leave the camp after
dark, and there is no electricity.  The point of the preceeding -- it
gives you an awful lot of time to yourself, so of course I had alot of
time to dwell on Acka the previous 2 paragraphs, which was what was
going on when I left.

First I looked at my own play.  Why had I become the sort of player whose
style of play would draw public resentment?  I believe the whole challenge
of nomic is the rules, following the rules no matter how difficult, 
loophole surfing within the rules, and all the other stuff that falls out
of this.  One of the things that frustrates me about playing other games
sometimes is how inconsistently the rules are treated by the players,
but that is not the point of those games.  That is why I was drawn to 
nomic, finally a game for someone who usually is more interested in the
rules than the actual game.

I looked back at my history in this nomic.  When I started, I started as
a loophole surfer, as I'm sure some of the old timers can remember :).
This is just how I have always played nomic.  There were some problems
with that, so about a year ago, I swore off "non-minor" loophole
surfing and pledged to work to remove loopholes from the rules, and did
alot of that for about a year.  I had actually believed, and argued, at
the time that doing so would sterilize the game (anyone who remembers the
Nobs/Markovian wars will remember that).  Despite that, however, there
was clear support in this nomic for the anti-loophole surfing, clean up
the rules line of play, as evidenced by the voting records, so I
continued.

In the course of that line of play, I developed an intense familiarity
with the rules.  As I knew the rules pretty well, I became more efficient
at my duties, and thus could take on more duties.  OTOH, I started 
pointing out flaws in proposals -- how they would not work with the
current rules, started pointing out when proposals would make more work
for me, and started pointing out when the rules were not being
followed.  As a player of nomic, I like the challenge of keeping the
game state as close to what is prescribed in the rules as possible.  As
Speaker, I found it was my duty to do so.

As it turned out, I saw that these activities, which I actually thought
were cool and mandated in some respects, were leading to some sort of
resentment based on the comments in the third paragraph above, and that
the cleaning up of the rules and anti-loophole-surfing attitude actually
*had* sterilized the game to some extent.  So after all that, my answer
to my self-analysis was: "I dunno, I tried my best to make positive 
contributions to the game so that it would be fun for all, sorry if you
feel that way".

Down this avenue of exploration, I could not find a way to alter my style
of play in these regards to address some of the 'elitism' and 'running
the game' comments that were bothering some players.  (Admittedly, when 
I came back, I seriously thought of ignoring the whole CFJ mis-distribution
thing as a step towards this end, but felt that was the *wrong* thing to
do.)

So, on vacation, I thought about some of the other alledged problems,
such as 'lack of competetion', 'staid and sterilized', 'you're complaining
about my rule, but have not tried it', etc.  On 'competetion', I looked
at my background.  The coolest thing I have done there, IMO, was the
RoJ treasure (treasure 122).  This was a failure, by my assesment.  I
did observe, though, that the same people that were diagnosing 'lack of
competetion' as a problem with my play, and with Acka in general, had
decided not to participate in T 122, moreover, no one offered a single
word of advice on how the concept could be improved in response to me
asking that question at least once.  I marked that up to a dissonance
between the type of competetional content I have the skill to develop,
and the type of competetion Acka wants.  Ok fine, I'll leave it to those
who want the competetion to develop the content that will solve this
problem; perhaps its not a content issue.

Competetion without content development leaves trying to win by points
the straigforward way (which I personally find boring), public forum
harf (which I have little, if any, skill at), and loophole surfing.

Loophole surfing was the perfect answer, I thought!  It was something I
was good at, it addressed the issues of 'competetion', 'staid and
sterile', and, given the grief I was starting to get about pointing out
flaws in proposals and attempts to repeal scammable rules, seemed the
perfect way to at least change my play to address all of these issues.
On one of my flights, I went through my library of known Acka scams and
selected a few that seemed significant, but non-offensive, and on par
with what others were doing.  I never had any intention to "sully" 
anything, or "use" anyone, or get a "cheap win".  I was, as best as I
could, attempting to address problems others had brought to my attention
about my play, and the game, with a new style of play.  

I observe, then, that people complain about the way I play, no matter how
I play, no matter what good faith adjustments I attempt to make, or
whatever energy, fun, and competetion I try to add to the system.  You
don't want your rules sterilized or replealed so that they cannot be
scammed, yet seem to begrudge my scamming attempts.  I'm confused, that
is all, no hard feelings in any way.

I'm not gonna write much about the Godfather scam, but would like to
explore the Cheez-Whiz scam a bit, to get some better insight.  A scam
that was called a "cheap win".

A "cheap win", to me, is lowering the magic number from 541 to 199, and
continuing to penalize the historically most competetive players with
- -90 point starts.  If I won on that playing field, I would consider it
cheap indeed.  I'll be blunt, to me its more than cheap; it is blatant
discrimination.  To further its cheapness, it has been proposed that
past winners not only overcome this huge deficit, but have a virtual
Chartreuse Goose until they prove that they can score some number of
points, further eliminating the harf of the cool winning conditions of
nomic, at least among the historically competetive players.  It has been
said that a majority can impose any sort of sillyness onto a minority that
they wish; indeed 60% of the players can get together and vote themselves
50 points, if they wish. 

As for the actual scam, I would like to compare it to /dev/joe's museum
scam, in light of some of the comments made about my scam.  It was said
that my scam was available to only 3 players.  Indeed, /dev/joe's scam
was available only to those with Vending Machines, at the time, 3
players.  Most scams are only available to a minority of the players;
there are some out there now that are available to others, and not
available to me.  /dev/joe paid at least A$1050 to get that Vending
Machine.  I'm sure a Scientist would have written the Cheez-Whiz Blueprint
for A$1050.  I certainly would have *sold* the Wizard office for that
price, and a check of the ftp archives will indeed confirm that I offered
the office for sale, and no one offered even what I paid for it 
originally.  In summary, both of these scams were available to 
*everyone*, but you had to find the line of play.  To me, that is fun.

The effect of my scam, if successful, will be to win a cycle.  Same
effect as /dev/joe's scam.  To be honest, I don't really see the big
difference or the big deal here, except as some form of discrimination.
The Cheez-Whiz Blueprint in no way compromised the stability of the
game, and in reality, was mostly harmless.  Other Blueprints, like
the OMCL and the Blue Thing, are annoying as hell and detract from the
game IMO.  Indeed, people were planning to use the Blue Thing on me
while I was on vacation!  That's real sporting.  With the OMCL, the
efficiency with which officers and judges do their jobs is given
magnified game-start effect.  That's real fun.

It seems then, that there is some sort of double standard here, one which
I endevour to get to the bottom of.  It is certainly not worth putting
a lot of energy into the game, on my part, to partake in.  I was just 
trying to have a little fun and add spice to the game, and you round up
a vigilante posse to impeach me, when a scam with the same potential 
effect goes by with a big yawn.  Its tough to operate in an environment
with inconsistent standards, but more importantly, it is unenjoyable.
Again, I apologize if the scams "sullied" part of the game for you, the
intent was to have some good, clean, harmless fun, but I do not think
the response is in those lines, hence I make these observations. 

Malenkai
confused
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 11:58:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Mad Hatter (CnH)

In the 'its my duty to select a mad hatter' thread for Malenkai,
CarsesraC did not post a design.  Calvin N Hobbes has been selected.

Malenkai
Speaker
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 12:01:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Frobnotzer

The Frobnotzer is complete, and I am initiating an auction for
it.  The auction ends in 3 days or as described in the rules.  Bid
publically.

Malenkai
Wizard
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:07:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Frobnotzer

Malenkai wrote:
> The Frobnotzer is complete, and I am initiating an auction for
> it.  The auction ends in 3 days or as described in the rules.  Bid
> publically.

I bid A$50.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 12:12:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma

The procedure for creating Otzma cards, section 6 of rule 1240.1,
was not followed completely, (step 6e was not performed in its
entirty) and one could argue has failed.  I suspect no one is
going to make that argument; it is along the lines of CFJ 397.  In
that thread, I am initiating a *private* auction for the following
Otzma cards that were just created.  Indicate which you are bidding
on:

Untouch Me
Swinger Sale

Malenkai
Acting RuneMaker
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 12:18:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 401 (ThinMan)

CFJ 401 has been assigned to ThinMan

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

Call For Judgment 401
  Subject: The Madness of Scientists
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Jun 08, 1997, 12:17h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

It is possible for a Scientist to become a Mad Scientist, although e
will then be unable to exercise any of the usual privileges due a
Scientist.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

I reproduce here the relevant text of Rule 596, "Mad Scientist".

> There is an Office of Mad Scientist which has one seat. The holder of
> the Office has the title of Scientist, but e is not a member of the
> Ackanomic Research Guild. This Office cannot be filled by any other
> Scientist, and when a Player takes the seat of this Office e must say
> publicly; "They laughed at me back at the Academy, the fools!
> Bwahahaha!" Or words to that general effect.

> This Office can only be filled or transferred as follows: If the seat is
> vacant, it is filled by the last Player to take possession of any
> Frankenstein Monster. If no such player exists, the seat shall be filled
> by Election for Office.

> The Mad Scientist's duty is to create Blueprints for, and build,
> Frankenstein Monsters. Being an outcast from the Scientific community, e
> has none of the other usual privileges associated with being a
> Scientist, this takes precedence over rules that would grant em duties
> and privileges beyond those assigned em in this Rule.

In the first paragraph, the rule states that a Scientist cannot fill the
office of Mad Scientist.  However, in the second paragraph it states that
in the event of a seat being vacant, it is filled by the last Player to
take possession of any Frankenstein Monster.  It is entirely possible for
the player specified by that sentence to be a Scientist.  And since the
default precedence decrees that later sections of a rule have precedence
over earlier sections, the first paragraph's restriction may be violated
under the conditions specified by the second paragraph.

The third paragraph states in no uncertain terms, and with precedence over
other rules, that a Mad Scientist will not be able to exercise any of the
duties of a Scientist.  So even if a Scientist is able to become a Mad
Scientist by the means specified in the second paragraph, e will lose the
privileges due a Scientist, including the ability to create Blueprints for
non-Frankenstein-Monsters.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 12:24:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 402 (Alfvaen)

CFJ 402 has been assigned to Alfvaen

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

Call For Judgment 402
  Subject: Azpiazu
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Alfvaen (selected Jun 08, 1997, 12:22h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The Blueprint for Azpiazu, a Frankenstein Monster, does not exist.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Sorry, I don't have time to write all this out, but see e-mail on
both sides of the issue by myself and other players in the thread
with "Azpiazu Blueprint" in the subject line.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 13:03:54 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Acka:  further personal info 

At 10:40 PM 6/6/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> >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 :-)

2/13/79 - and here I thought I was the newbiest of the newbies...8-p

Al

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:07:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> First I looked at my own play.  Why had I become the sort of player whose
> style of play would draw public resentment?  I believe the whole challenge
> of nomic is the rules, following the rules no matter how difficult, 
> loophole surfing within the rules, and all the other stuff that falls out
> of this.  One of the things that frustrates me about playing other games
> sometimes is how inconsistently the rules are treated by the players,
> but that is not the point of those games.  That is why I was drawn to 
> nomic, finally a game for someone who usually is more interested in the
> rules than the actual game.

ICOCBW, but to me it almost looks like Ackanomic is at a stage where the
"actual game" has become as important as the Rules.  At least, I confess to
being more interested in playing around with trinkets, the entities already
in existence, subgames, etc. than I am about, oh, seeking Paradox Wins, or
"loophole surfing".  I understand that this may be personal preference, but
if the game has "ossified" somewhat, perhaps I just like playing games
with a solid skeletal structure.

> In the course of that line of play, I developed an intense familiarity
> with the rules.  As I knew the rules pretty well, I became more efficient
> at my duties, and thus could take on more duties.  OTOH, I started 
> pointing out flaws in proposals -- how they would not work with the
> current rules, started pointing out when proposals would make more work
> for me, and started pointing out when the rules were not being
> followed.  As a player of nomic, I like the challenge of keeping the
> game state as close to what is prescribed in the rules as possible.  As
> Speaker, I found it was my duty to do so.

And I can see how this may garner some resentment on the part of people who
would rather play something a bit looser, having a bit more fun, whether it
fit into the current game or not.  I can certainly see many new players
being put off when their first proposal idea is picked apart before their
eyes.  (I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, just that it's not
encouraging for newcomers.)  Being the one who says "You can't do that," is
not going to make you popular.  :-)

> Down this avenue of exploration, I could not find a way to alter my style
> of play in these regards to address some of the 'elitism' and 'running
> the game' comments that were bothering some players.  (Admittedly, when 
> I came back, I seriously thought of ignoring the whole CFJ mis-distribution
> thing as a step towards this end, but felt that was the *wrong* thing to
> do.)

I did think that the game would have no worse off had the CFJ affair been
quietly ignored for a couple of weeks until the Statute of Limitations
expired.

Should there be a clause about how, perhaps, some office(President,
perhaps)can make a case for suspending a Rule once a month, to be voted on
by the players?  Like the CFJ thing, or perhaps the temporary
panic(which you might have missed)when we seemed to have been without
Entity-, Trinket-, and Undead-Harfers for several weeks.  Or even keeping
the Aliens from having abducted R106.  Anything that makes the game nothing
but a pain for all its members, however much in accordance with the rules,
is not going to be looked on favourably, and some resentment, however
irrational, will be engendered by the person who points this out.

> So, on vacation, I thought about some of the other alledged problems,
> such as 'lack of competetion', 'staid and sterilized', 'you're complaining
> about my rule, but have not tried it', etc.  On 'competetion', I looked
> at my background.  The coolest thing I have done there, IMO, was the
> RoJ treasure (treasure 122).  This was a failure, by my assesment.  I
> did observe, though, that the same people that were diagnosing 'lack of
> competetion' as a problem with my play, and with Acka in general, had
> decided not to participate in T 122, moreover, no one offered a single
> word of advice on how the concept could be improved in response to me
> asking that question at least once.  I marked that up to a dissonance
> between the type of competetional content I have the skill to develop,
> and the type of competetion Acka wants.  Ok fine, I'll leave it to those
> who want the competetion to develop the content that will solve this
> problem; perhaps its not a content issue.

When I started up my Tagline Attribution Quiz, somehow I expected more of a
response from people.  I was somehow expecting the members of Ackanomic to
be able to get more of the references(most of which are, admittedly,
obscure); in hindsight this may have been unreasonable.  I think perhaps
this is the same as T122, in that way; assuming a level of interest and
skill among people which may not be there.  If a problem doesn't yield an
easy solution right away, many people will give up on it; if, after much
effort, it _still_ doesn't yield a solution, most of the rest will, too.
(After I worked so hard on breadbox's map to the Hubert Feathers, I was
finally successful, and then I got a second map on which I am still
stumped, and which I haven't even looked at in a week...)

> Competetion without content development leaves trying to win by points
> the straigforward way (which I personally find boring), public forum
> harf (which I have little, if any, skill at), and loophole surfing.

And I confess I'm not much of a loophole surfer.  Most of the ones that
occur to me have already been closed up.  :-)  I'm not sure which of the
categories above my favoured activities would fall into; perhaps public
forum harf is closest, but perhaps there's other areas you're missing as
well.

> Loophole surfing was the perfect answer, I thought!  It was something I
> was good at, it addressed the issues of 'competetion', 'staid and
> sterile', and, given the grief I was starting to get about pointing out
> flaws in proposals and attempts to repeal scammable rules, seemed the
> perfect way to at least change my play to address all of these issues.
> On one of my flights, I went through my library of known Acka scams and
> selected a few that seemed significant, but non-offensive, and on par
> with what others were doing.  I never had any intention to "sully" 
> anything, or "use" anyone, or get a "cheap win".  I was, as best as I
> could, attempting to address problems others had brought to my attention
> about my play, and the game, with a new style of play.  

I confess that my problems with the Azpiazu win are entirely personal to
me.  The Mad Scientist rules were among my favourite in the ruleset, which
is why I was so eager to come the MS; "Azpiazu" is a name for which I have
inordinate fondness, and will now never see its full potential under the
Rules.  And perhaps I'm just obsessing too much on the game right now.
:-/

> I observe, then, that people complain about the way I play, no matter how
> I play, no matter what good faith adjustments I attempt to make, or
> whatever energy, fun, and competetion I try to add to the system.  You
> don't want your rules sterilized or replealed so that they cannot be
> scammed, yet seem to begrudge my scamming attempts.  I'm confused, that
> is all, no hard feelings in any way.

I don't know what to say, since I haven't been around long enough.  Perhaps
you should just give up listening to what other people think, because you
can't please everyone all of the time anyway, and if what you hear is
self-contradictory, or excludes all possibilities from consideration, then
it can't be of any use.

On the other hand, ignoring genuine bad feelings isn't a good idea either.

I personally don't mind closing off loopholes in rules.  I'd love to get
the Contract rules working smoothly, and I've also been trying to clean up
the Narfalone and Mad Scientist rules(and not just since you surfed them).
Maybe I'll meet with resistance from other players, too.  We'll see if this
starts to pall on me.  But I'm trying to do what I think should be done.

> A "cheap win", to me, is lowering the magic number from 541 to 199, and
> continuing to penalize the historically most competetive players with
> -90 point starts.  If I won on that playing field, I would consider it
> cheap indeed.  I'll be blunt, to me its more than cheap; it is blatant
> discrimination.  To further its cheapness, it has been proposed that
> past winners not only overcome this huge deficit, but have a virtual
> Chartreuse Goose until they prove that they can score some number of
> points, further eliminating the harf of the cool winning conditions of
> nomic, at least among the historically competetive players.  It has been
> said that a majority can impose any sort of sillyness onto a minority that
> they wish; indeed 60% of the players can get together and vote themselves
> 50 points, if they wish. 

If you want to talk about resentment, then perhaps the biggest source of it
would be that one player will, if Azpiazu is in fact built, have won half
the Cycles of Ackanomic.  I have a friend who has always been much better
than I at wargames, and it got frustrating to play against him because I so
rarely won...and for him, it was frustrating because he so rarely lost.
Perhaps, as you say, there is little more that you can think of to do with
the game than loophole surfing, much of which could lead to winning cycles.
But the fact remains that it's just as frustrating to us to know that our
odds of winning a cycle are less than 50% because Malenkai will probably
get to it first.  How long would this Cycle have lasted had you not been on
Vacation for most of it?

Having our scores constantly reset to zero makes it well-nigh impossible to
win by points.  The Museum is possible if you hold lots of Offices, or if
you turn into a miser.  The Crystal Chalice...that might be up there with
Treasure 122, for all the progress I've seen on it.  The Mad Scientist...
well, admittedly, for all its harfiness, without a stunt like Malenkai's,
it's far from assured.  And Paradox Wins are, by this stage of rule
development, looking just a bit cheap.

So yeah, winning a Cycle is something that is hard work for most of us.  So
to see Malenkai do it yet again adds to the frustration, and resentment.
Perhaps you can't help it that it's easier for you to win, but it is
beginning to become ridiculous.  The whole point of Victory Eggplants, you
told me once, is to make it harder for past winners to win again.  I think
it's time that had some real force.

> As for the actual scam, I would like to compare it to /dev/joe's museum
> scam, in light of some of the comments made about my scam.  It was said
> that my scam was available to only 3 players.  Indeed, /dev/joe's scam
> was available only to those with Vending Machines, at the time, 3
> players.  Most scams are only available to a minority of the players;
> there are some out there now that are available to others, and not
> available to me.  /dev/joe paid at least A$1050 to get that Vending
> Machine.  I'm sure a Scientist would have written the Cheez-Whiz Blueprint
> for A$1050.  I certainly would have *sold* the Wizard office for that
> price, and a check of the ftp archives will indeed confirm that I offered
> the office for sale, and no one offered even what I paid for it 
> originally.  In summary, both of these scams were available to 
> *everyone*, but you had to find the line of play.  To me, that is fun.

Well, I personally have not had the chance to obtain a Scientist's office,
and...well, I'm sure that I did have A$1050 before my ill-fated decision to
spend A$331 on the Map to Snowgod.  :-/

Perhaps, as I mentioned above, it's just that nobody else had even
_thought_ of that scam, and for the seven-time Cycle-winner to pull it
burned up a lot of folks.  (Yes, I confess that I probably wouldn't have
had nearly the problem with the Azpiazu blueprint if, say, mr cwm had
submitted it.  Maybe I should have judged his Paradox Win CFJ TRUE.  :-)

> The effect of my scam, if successful, will be to win a cycle.  Same
> effect as /dev/joe's scam.  To be honest, I don't really see the big
> difference or the big deal here, except as some form of discrimination.

Okay, you found us out, we're prejudiced against people who've won the Cycle
more than three times as often as anybody else.

> The Cheez-Whiz Blueprint in no way compromised the stability of the
> game, and in reality, was mostly harmless.  Other Blueprints, like
> the OMCL and the Blue Thing, are annoying as hell and detract from the
> game IMO.  Indeed, people were planning to use the Blue Thing on me
> while I was on vacation!  That's real sporting.  With the OMCL, the
> efficiency with which officers and judges do their jobs is given
> magnified game-start effect.  That's real fun.

Fun is in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sure that the players formerly
known as snowgod and Antimatter were having fun with their name-battle.
And I'm sure that you were having fun with your loophole surfing.  I'd just
have to say that that happened to coincide with my moment of least fun.

> It seems then, that there is some sort of double standard here, one which
> I endevour to get to the bottom of.  It is certainly not worth putting
> a lot of energy into the game, on my part, to partake in.  I was just 
> trying to have a little fun and add spice to the game, and you round up
> a vigilante posse to impeach me, when a scam with the same potential 
> effect goes by with a big yawn.  Its tough to operate in an environment
> with inconsistent standards, but more importantly, it is unenjoyable.

That's the problem with impeachment; it can't help but engender bad
feelings, unless of course the office-holder has simply disappeared from the
face of the Net.  The results of the IP have yet to be determined, of
course, so maybe popular opinion will be with you.

And the fact is that the world is a place with inconsistent standards.
People are selfish; they want to have what they want, even if it means that
other people don't, they resent people who get more than they do, however
deserving those people may be, and they have so many things jumbling around
in their heads that it's a wonder that anything they say is consistent.  I
know that I'm rife with personal inconsistencies, and I doubt anyone else
is any different.  We're messy to deal with, even(or especially)here in
such a microcosm.  Everybody wants to be able to scam the Rules, but we
don't want anyone else to.  Everybody wants to have fun, whether anyone
else is or not.  That's what it boils down to.  It's sad, and it's messy,
and it's not always enjoyable, as you said.  Maybe there's a clean
solution, maybe there's not.

Ackanomic, however much it tries, can't satisfy everybody.  Many of the
game's founders are now sleeping giants, rumbling now and then, but mostly
wishing the game they'd built was more like it was when they were still
building it, while they dream of other nomics.  The game isn't what
everybody wants it to be, just what some people manage to convince most of
the others it should be.

> Malenkai
> confused

And I don't blame you.  I hope I might have cleared up your confusion a
bit, if not necessarily made your problems any more easily solved.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--The Infidels:100 Watt Bulb
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
On the other hand, you have different fingers.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #120
*******************************