Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #121
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Sunday, June 8 1997         Volume 02 : Number 121

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:08:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 402 (Alfvaen)

> CFJ 402 has been assigned to Alfvaen

I reject this CFJ.  (As I previously stated, my own reasoning on the matter
is what /dev/joe is questioning; this would be like asking me to judge an
appeal of my own verdict, which I don't feel competent to do.)

- --
- --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
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from crap.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 10:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> 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.

I must disagree here. The point of playing a game that is nothing but
rules is to follow them. We build a game with a level of complexity of
our own choosing. The fun of Nomic, for me, is seeing how the rules
work together - the interplay of what we create. Sometimes the fun is
in getting ourselves out of a tangled mess that is no fault but our
own. If it gets to be too much, then we should change the rules, not
ignore them.

> 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?

Hey, this can be done, right now, by any player. Just submit a
proposal.

> 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'm very sorry to hear that.

> 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.

"Cheap"? I don't understand this at all. Paradox Wins are extremely
difficult to achieve, which is as it should be, in my opinion.

> 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 reason Malenkai wins so frequently is that he puts so much effort
into it. There are few other players who carry so much of the current
game state around in their heads.

Winning this game is not easy.

>> 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.

I just want to interject here that I was in fact rather annoyed by
/dev/joe's museum win. It was exactly the sort of thing I was afraid
would happen when the Museum proposal passed, and was the main reason
I voted against it. But it passed, so what can you do?

> 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...)

Sorry it seems so hard, but it's a valuable treasure. (Remember that
whoever finds T141 also finds T142.) You can at least take heart in
the fact that no one else has even gotten as far as you have. (Which I
have to admit surprises me.) If you're still frustrated with it, then
I will let it be known that at some point this month I have dropped a
(very) indirect hint with respect to the map you have.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:05:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> > 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.

> I must disagree here. The point of playing a game that is nothing but
> rules is to follow them. We build a game with a level of complexity of
> our own choosing. The fun of Nomic, for me, is seeing how the rules
> work together - the interplay of what we create. Sometimes the fun is
> in getting ourselves out of a tangled mess that is no fault but our
> own. If it gets to be too much, then we should change the rules, not
> ignore them.

The problem is that first you have to weather the problem before you get to
fix it.  :-)  And there are always the lunatic fringe that don't want the
problems to be fixed(how many attempts have there been to keep the R106
abduction from happening again? how successful have they been?).  :-)

> > 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?
> 
> Hey, this can be done, right now, by any player. Just submit a
> proposal.

I'll put it in my list of proposal ideas.

> > 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.
> 
> "Cheap"? I don't understand this at all. Paradox Wins are extremely
> difficult to achieve, which is as it should be, in my opinion.

I guess what it looks like, to me, is that attempted Paradox Wins are based
on very trivial rule ambiguities.  I don't know if it was any different in
the earlier stages of the game, since I haven't bothered to look over those
CFJ's.  And maybe I'm just biased because, if I find a paradox in the
Rules, I'm more likely to try to submit a proposal to fix it than to submit
a CFJ.

> > 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 reason Malenkai wins so frequently is that he puts so much effort
> into it. There are few other players who carry so much of the current
> game state around in their heads.
> 
> Winning this game is not easy.

I know that.  Which was my point.  It's not easy...except, it seems, for
Malenkai.  And that's frustrating for the rest of us, or at least some of
us, I would wager...  There's a limit to how fun a game can be when it's
always being won by the same person.  IMHO.  (Of course, it does also make
me more determined to try to win next time...)

> >> 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.
> 
> I just want to interject here that I was in fact rather annoyed by
> /dev/joe's museum win. It was exactly the sort of thing I was afraid
> would happen when the Museum proposal passed, and was the main reason
> I voted against it. But it passed, so what can you do?

And to me it's ancient history, so I can't be bothered by it one way or the
other.  :-)

> > (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...)
> 
> Sorry it seems so hard, but it's a valuable treasure. (Remember that
> whoever finds T141 also finds T142.) You can at least take heart in
> the fact that no one else has even gotten as far as you have. (Which I
> have to admit surprises me.) If you're still frustrated with it, then
> I will let it be known that at some point this month I have dropped a
> (very) indirect hint with respect to the map you have.

Aha!  Next time I get a chance to grovel through my email...I'm not
squeamish.  (Hmmm...is "this month" June, or the past thirty days?
Never mind, I'll find it.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--They Might Be Giants:Dead
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
It's a sky blue sky.  The satellites are out tonight.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> The problem is that first you have to weather the problem before you
> get to fix it.

Thus the game encourages us to consider the consequences of the
changes we make beforehand.

>>> 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?
>> 
>> Hey, this can be done, right now, by any player. Just submit a
>> proposal.
> 
> I'll put it in my list of proposal ideas.

(cough) I'm not entirely sure you understood me. (If you did, please
accept my apology and ignore the following sentence.) What I meant was
that the power to suspend a Rule for a month, subject to a vote, is a
power that every player has right now; just write a proposal that
suspends a rule for a month (or any amount of time) and submit it!

> I guess what it looks like, to me, is that attempted Paradox Wins
> are based on very trivial rule ambiguities.

Well, then, they aren't really as trivial after all.

>> The reason Malenkai wins so frequently is that he puts so much effort
>> into it. There are few other players who carry so much of the current
>> game state around in their heads.
>> 
>> Winning this game is not easy.
> 
> I know that.  Which was my point.  It's not easy...except, it seems,
> for Malenkai.

*My* point was that I doubt it is easy for Malenkai, either.

How long have you been in the game? Around a month? Have some
patience. Malenkai was in the game for three or four months before he
won his first cycle.

(Meanwhile, you found /dev/joe's Exquisite Dead Guy treasure within
two *days* of joining the game. A treasure, I might add, that I had
been working on since it was buried! Alfvaen, *you* are one to talk
about being frustrated!)

> And that's frustrating for the rest of us, or at least some of us, I
> would wager...  There's a limit to how fun a game can be when it's
> always being won by the same person.  IMHO.  (Of course, it does
> also make me more determined to try to win next time...)

In my opinion, Nomic is a game that can be extremely fun without ever
winning it, or trying to. There are so many goals you can choose and
compete for, and winning a Cycle is but one of them. In all my time
here, I have only once made any effort to win a Cycle. That's one more
time than some other players, I'll bet.

>> Sorry it seems so hard, but it's a valuable treasure. (Remember that
>> whoever finds T141 also finds T142.) You can at least take heart in
>> the fact that no one else has even gotten as far as you have. (Which I
>> have to admit surprises me.) If you're still frustrated with it, then
>> I will let it be known that at some point this month I have dropped a
>> (very) indirect hint with respect to the map you have.
> 
> Aha!  Next time I get a chance to grovel through my email...I'm not
> squeamish.  (Hmmm...is "this month" June, or the past thirty days?

The former.

> Never mind, I'll find it.)

Don't be so sure.

b

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 12:04:37 -0700
From: Summoned Spider <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Hubert Feathers 

This notice is to inform you that one (1) copy of the map to the
Hubert Feathers has been issued to the player with the name two-star.

You do not need to respond to this notice. It is provided for
informational purposes only.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 14:14:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

Malenkai wrote:
> 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'.

These comments disturbed me.  I wish I could duplicate Malenkai's
"no offense is intended" statement, but the comments at least mildly
offended me and at least a mild degree of offense is inherent in the
statements below, if the players who said the above really believed it.

If "it is becoming staid", or "it needs to be more competitive", change it!
That is what nomic is all about.  If players vote down your changes,
discuss with them publicly or privately why they voted against your changes.
It may not be for the reasons you think.  I don't have the time to comment
publicly on every proposal, so often I just read the proposals, considering
any public discussion on them, and cast my votes.

There is no "elite" in Acka.
The only reason that just a few players handle most of the "administrative"
tasks in Acka (CotC, scorekeeper, all the financial/entity stuff, promoter,
tabulator, speaker, etc.) is because there are only a few players who have
been in Acka continuously for a long period of time, who generally stay
aware of everything that is going on, and are willing to do the work.
The "been in Acka for a long period of time" is not a requirement to
perform these offices, but as players leave the game, these offices will
tend to end up being performed by those who have been here longer.  Some
of the newer players, such as Alfvaen, may be willing to take up some of
this work, but they need to step forward and let that fact be known.

The problem with the "I don't need to RFC my rule" attitude is that any
reasonably-complicated proposal (including mine, Malenkai's, etc.) will
probably have some problem in its first version that (if accepted) will
make the game hard to play -- possibly because it isn't clear what the
rules mean, or because it creates work for the officers who keep the game
running, or it contains obvious scams.  Some of Acka's players like to
create complex frameworks of offices, entities, etc. but then aren't
willing or even able to handle the work or to interpret the rules the
result.

> First I looked at my own play.  Why had I become the sort of player whose
> style of play would draw public resentment?  

Possibly because you're *good* at this game.  You have won *6* cycles
of Ackanomic already.  Surely some of the other teams resent the success
of the Chicago Bulls (who have won 4 of the last 6 NBA championships,
and are playing in the final series to determine this year's champion).
I think the same sort of thing is at work here.  I'm not justifying the
resentment here, just explaining why it does not surprise me.

> 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.

Actually, the support for the anti-loophole surfing has not been very
consistent.  Every time there are a few really good surfs, this support
rises for a while; the first time there was really big anti-loophole
support was after a period of more than a month last summer when the
degree of loophole surfing was so extreme that essentially Acka just
consisted of a series of loophole surfing attempts; since then we have
gone through cycles of loophole surfing, followed by cleaning up the
loophole, followed by stagnation until people start writing new rules.
(with new loopholes in them :-)

> In the course of that line of play, I developed an intense familiarity
> with the rules. [...] 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".

Don't worry, the game goes in cycles.  Loophole surfing is part of the
cycle; if nobody ever surfed loopholes, nomic wouldn't be as much fun.
In this particular case, the attitude that the game had been sterilized
by too much anti-loophole-surfing was unfounded; and your recent loophole
surfing proves this.  These were certainly not the only bug loopholes
waiting to be exploited.

> 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.  

The problem with the RoJ treasure as it stands now is that nobody has
any idea what was wrong with my attempt to find it, so nobody is
willing to expose any more of their fragments in order to find it.
There's a completely *-ed out section of about 10 words in the original
posting of the treasure which probably contains the one extra condition
necessary to find the treasure, and this section looks ready-made to
be revealed with a map shard otzma card, but when I managed to acquire
such a card and use it on that treasure, instead of giving me that
segment, you gave me a piece of one of the 23 fragments. Admittedly, it
was one which I did not already have, but the fragments are no longer
the problem -- the treasure hasn't been found because nobody knows
the last condition needed to find it, and whatever clues have been
given to decipher this condition, if any, were not sufficient.

> I'm not gonna write much about the Godfather scam, 

I'll comment simply that it is a "good" scam in that it points out a
fundamental problem with the rule -- even if you restrict the godfather
to not being able to place bets himself, or add other restrictions, the
godfather can always ensure that "friends" -- whichever player(s) he
chooses to asscoiate with -- get all the Narfalone Family money.
It *could* have been used for fun, if a Godfather made interesting
bets available, but in several months it didn't happen.

> but would like to explore the Cheez-Whiz scam a bit, to get some better
> insight.  A scam that was called a "cheap win".

I was not one who called it a cheap win (I realize others did do so, though).
However, something not too different from this was tried before, although
it did not involve making up a blueprint with a sentence intended only to
be used as a frankenstein part.  That attempt was ruled to fail, and I
have presented my arguments as to why I think this attempt will fail --
for reasons within the rules.

> 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.  

I thought about this for a while, and I still don't know what to make of
this statement, so I'm not making any real comment here.

> 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.

I agree fully here.  Note, though, that I still consider using a scientist
office in this way to be possible grounds for impeachment.  The inventor
office (and the other scientists, when they were added) have always been
seen as a loophole surfing threat, and an office where impeachment is
not necessarily a punishment for not performing the duties of the office,
but instead, a penalty for taking advantage of the looseness of the
rules regulating the office.  If I use the Archaeologist office to win a
cycle, I would expect to be impeached as well (except I might not have
the office any more, due to the way that office moves at end-of-cycle...
hmm...)

> 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.

Agreed on the annoyance factor with these gadgets.

> 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. 

At least from my perspective, an impeachment for this scam isn't because
you broke the game, but rather, it means "OK, you've made enough use out
of that office for what you paid for it; let's let somebody else have a
turn at it."  However, I can't speak for others.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:35:37 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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

I accept this trade.

#transfer Mr. Nacho, devjoe : 100 A$ : Oscar Purchase
#transfer devjoe, Mr. Nacho : 1 Oscar : for A$100

Mr. Nacho

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:42:41 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

>
>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.

Malenkai,

I do not speak for all of Ackanomic (Or if I do, no one ever informed me :)
but I can say that I wasn't annoyed, bothered, or upset by your scam.
Rather, I was taking a course of action in supporting your impeachment (in
the case of your scam) as I was in calling a forehead tribunal (on
/dev/joe).  It's all role-playing.  Actions and reactions.  To me, thats
the funnest thing about Ackanomic.

Mr. Still the registrar confused as anyone Nacho

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 14:42:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

Oops, I forgot one comment I wanted to make here.

Malenkai wrote:
> 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.

I was very disappointed with the total lack of response to that win.
Part of the fun of winning a cycle by any means other than points is
the defending of that win against people who will try CFJs and other
tactics to try to negate it.  It is also fun to play the other side
of that game -- to try to find the hole in somebody's loophole which
will keep their scheme from working.  Because I had been thinking about
that win for a *long* time before I attempted it, I had the time to
consider lots of possible attacks to take that win away.  It seems
that I did so so well that nobody could find any way to dispute it.
It was either that, or nobody cared, and I hoped it wasn't the latter,
because that would *really* mean the game was dying.  Fortunately, it
seems Malenkai's recent surfing has regenerated that part of the game.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 16:37:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

/dev/joe wrote:

> The problem with the RoJ treasure as it stands now is that nobody has
> any idea what was wrong with my attempt to find it, so nobody is
> willing to expose any more of their fragments in order to find it.
> There's a completely *-ed out section of about 10 words in the original
> posting of the treasure which probably contains the one extra condition
> necessary to find the treasure, and this section looks ready-made to
> be revealed with a map shard otzma card, but when I managed to acquire
> such a card and use it on that treasure, instead of giving me that
> segment, you gave me a piece of one of the 23 fragments. Admittedly, it
> was one which I did not already have, but the fragments are no longer
> the problem -- the treasure hasn't been found because nobody knows
> the last condition needed to find it, and whatever clues have been
> given to decipher this condition, if any, were not sufficient.

Having inside information on the map, I am going to say that the above
is partially inaccurate :)  I was just observing that at the time, it
seemed that someone said in one e-mail that the game was not competetive
enough, and in virtually the next e-mail said they were giving up on the
RoJ treasure.  It may not have been exactly like that, but that seemed 
like it to me.  As for the treasure now, I'm not sure how to proceed,
but it has been my attitude that I will let Acka proceed as they wish.
Since Acka has not proceeded, I assume this is not what they want (of
course, /dev/joe and a couple of others *have* worked on the problem,
and I understand how they could see themselves blocked, and indeed they are
blocked, with Acka at-large having little interest in it).  I maintain
though, that a player currently with *no* fragments can work to find
it.  It is not the thing you can sort of sit down and solve, as with
other treasures, but requires a high degree of interaction with other
players, and I argue that is the problem, lack of interest on the part
of those who have *not* tried.

> I have presented my arguments as to why I think this attempt will fail
> -- for reasons within the rules.

I *do* believe you are wrong and that my attempt *should* be successful,
though.  I certainly expected a CFJ; would have been disappointed otherwise.
That is the sort of "good" competetion I was referring to.  It was some
of the other comments referred to in my last message that seemed 
inconsistent with what I was writing about in the original "Observations"
post.
 
> > 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.
> 
> I thought about this for a while, and I still don't know what to make of
> this statement, so I'm not making any real comment here.

For having won 6 cycles, I am penalized 90 points, or 17% of 541, but a 
whopping 45% of 199.  I have no chance to win by points now, unless it
is via a scam.  Yet I am resented for trying scams too.  That is all I
was saying.  As for "historically most competetive", generally those
with the eggplant weights are those players, and I was simply referring
to the draconian penalty now being applied in terms of percentage of
point wins.  It seems like point wins are cheaper now because, if you 
win one, you have not really beaten a 6 time champion, or other champions
with high eggplant weights, because I have no chance to win under this
scheme anyway.  Placing Chartreuse Goose restrictions on the eggplants
further makes it obscene, and I was contending that winning with all
the champions in a cage really would not mean much to me.  Imagine what
the Whamiols will be able to do...
 
> Note, though, that I still consider using a scientist office in this
> way to be possible grounds for impeachment.

I think its the *way* in which it was presented, in some regards an
actuation of the resentment for my past success, without regard for
my past contributions to this game.  My take on it is that using the
office to become a dictator, hurt another player, or crash the game
would be grounds for impeachment, but winning a cycle simply means
we move on to the next one.  I do not think what I did is grounds
for impeachment, and given my history in this game, would be disappointed
if I were to be impeached over this.

> I was very disappointed with the total lack of response to that win.
> Part of the fun of winning a cycle by any means other than points is
> the defending of that win against people who will try CFJs and other
> tactics to try to negate it.

I saw no obvious holes, but I was busy planning my trip.  At that time,
there seemed to be more of a 'tude that winning doesn't matter though.

> It was either that, or nobody cared, and I hoped it wasn't the latter,
> because that would *really* mean the game was dying.  Fortunately, it
> seems Malenkai's recent surfing has regenerated that part of the game.

I think there was a bit of that, but I'm actually impressed with
the new players, and I have no doubt that they will be winning alot
some day.  I just hope I don't resent them when they've won 10 cycles
(which is possible with a MN at 199). :-)

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 16:51:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> I do not speak for all of Ackanomic (Or if I do, no one ever informed me :)
> but I can say that I wasn't annoyed, bothered, or upset by your scam.
> It's all role-playing.  Actions and reactions.  To me, thats
> the funnest thing about Ackanomic.

Look, I have no hard feelings towards *anyone* about this.  I do, however,
think its a sad day when someone can be resented for success, and that
explains alot.  I do not resent /dev/joe for finding so many treasures;
I can sit and laugh my @$$ off about T 106 ;).

I was actually overjoyed at Alfvaen's competetive spirit in terms of
both scams, and hope my observations, both public and private, are not
construed as having hard feelings.  They are exactly that, observations.

I'm sure, after this win is resolved one way or the other, Alfvaen will
get the chance to be Mad Scientist.  Of course, in the case of CFJ 402
true, the Blueprint is going to have a rather bizarre first line ;)

Malenkai
don't impeach me, I just work here
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 16:57:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 393 Verdict

CFJ 393 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 393
  Subject: OMCL Trade
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: two-star (selected Jun 02, 1997, 7:36h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

  /dev/joe did not in fact accept a trade of his vending machine for
  a Large Wooden Block, but was in fact a victim of an Orbital Mind
  Control Laser.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

See Mohammed's message:

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:08:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  steal!

I am powering up my Orbital Mind Control Laser.  The zap-ee
is... /dev/joe.  I am zapping /dev for the trade Guy Fawkes recently
offered:  the Large Wooden Block for a Vending Machine.

This means the Add-On becomes unstrapped.

two-star's Reasoning:

It has been remarked, of late, that the acceptance
of a verdict can have interesting consequences, even if the verdict is
overturned, as I expect this will be. I do believe I am party to a scam,
in this case.

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 17:23:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 402 (Vynd)

CFJ 402 has been reassigned to Vynd

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

Call For Judgment 402
  Subject: Azpiazu
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Alfvaen (declined)
2nd Judge: Vynd (selected Jun 08, 1997, 17:22h 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 14:33:58 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> Sorry it seems so hard, but it's a valuable treasure. (Remember that
> >> whoever finds T141 also finds T142.) You can at least take heart in
> >> the fact that no one else has even gotten as far as you have. (Which I
> >> have to admit surprises me.) If you're still frustrated with it, then
> >> I will let it be known that at some point this month I have dropped a
> >> (very) indirect hint with respect to the map you have.
> >
> > Aha!  Next time I get a chance to grovel through my email...I'm not
> > squeamish.  (Hmmm...is "this month" June, or the past thirty days?
> 
> The former.
> 
> > Never mind, I'll find it.)
> 
> Don't be so sure.
> 
> b

I must say, if I am going in the right direction, you are very evil, 
breadbox. If I am not, you are even more evil, for making me think that 
I am.

**two-star
who was born July 2, 1974, and remembers the first launch of the space 
shuttle Columbia quite clearly.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 17:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 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'.

I disagreed with these statements at the time, and I still disagree with
them now.  I think there is an unfortunate tendency for players here who
have gotten bored personaly to declare that the game is obviously shot,
and it's time for radical change.  Then the players who are having a
perfectly good time like me vote down their proposals, and they lose
interest again for awhile.

> 
> 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".

I think you are fully justified in pointing out these kinds of problems in
people's proposals, as well as when we stray from the rules.  It is stuff
like this that keeps us from walking into a really BIG loophole or
Paradox, one that thoroughly messes the game up.

> 
> 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.

I disagree with the charges of elitism, although I can sympathize, or
perhaps undertand is a better word. I think what most other people ahve
been posting about this is correct.  You and a few others have rather a
lot of power here (or at least, a rather large proportion of what little
power there is to go around) and have won a lot of cycles.  I don't see
this as elitism so much as skill and hard work.  You have the office
because you are willing to do their duties, I'm not sure if the same could
be said of many of the people who complain of elitism.  Who wants to be
Financier, after all?  As far s rules lawyering and whatnot is concerned,
well, I think it's important that we have it, this is afte rall, a game of
rule making.  But, as they say, nobody likes a rules lawyer.

> 
> 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.

Well, I think the only thing to say ehre is that you can't please everyone
all the time.  Furthermore, I'm not sure if you can be sucessful at this
game and expect to please much of anyone except yourself.  It is, after
all, a gmae, and a game implies some competition.  Now Acka is probably
less competitive than most any other game I have seen, but I think most
players here have at least some vague desire to win the cycle, if nothing
else.  they're going to be pissed when someone else does, especially, as
Alfvaen and /dev/joe have pointed out, if it is someone who has won
several times before.  Given a chance, we may well act on this sort of
resentment.  I think you have to accept the fact that people don't like to
lose, and if you win, people are going to try and get a few shots in.
Hence stuff like my Call for Impeachment, which, after some consideration,
I am leaving out on the table.  I was frustrated to see that you had won
the cycle, doubly frustrated because it wasn't a win that, from my
prespective, required much effort on your part.

> 
> 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. 

Well, as far as my calling this a cheap win, I think I have to stand by
that statement as well.  All your arguements about how it was actually
possible for anyone to exploit this loophole, if they had the money and
could talk someone into selling their office or writting a blueprint or
whatever, don't really do anything to change the fact that for you and the
other scientists, exploiting it only cost you a couple of messages.

As far as lowering the Magic Number is concerned, well, you
have a better arguement there.  Frankly I did not think about how this
would magnify the handicaps that previous winners had from Victory
Eggplants.  I would definitely support some action to cut those back.  As
far as calling victories by points cheap, well it certainly requires
plenty of effort to write a bunch of proposals people will vote for.

I think that what this comes down to, in the end, is that you are taking
all of this quite personally.  You are unhappy because people don't like
the things you are doing all the time, and resent the fact that people
attack you perhaps more often than they do other players.  Well, I for one
did not call for impeachment because it was Malenkai who got the "cheap
win," but because someone had, in my view, rather grossly abused the
office of scientist.  If it had been /dev/joe or any other scientist, I
think I would have done the same thing.  I apologize if you thought it was
really some sort of attack on you personaly, and in an attempt to make it
clear that this is so, I am going to rescind my offer to second Alfvaen's
duel.  The duel seems to me to be a purely personal matter, one that, in
retrospect, I don't really want to get involved in.  As far as the
impeachment goes, well, surely you must have seen that coming.  Were you
really expecting everyone to pat you on the back?  I'm sure you would
agree that your loophole surf and abuse of, as I've already said, the very
loop-holed offices of the scientists, is not something that we want to see
more of.  How else can it be discouraged than by actions like this?

> 
> Malenkai
> confused
> Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
> 

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #121
*******************************