Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #122
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Sunday, June 8 1997         Volume 02 : Number 122

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:51:15 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Lunatic Fringe 

>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?).  :-)

Oh yeah, sure.  First I'm a trouble maker, then a lumbering giant.  Now,
get this, I'm "The Lunatic Fringe". Hehehehe.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe
hmm, that's a cool name

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 18:04:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

Vynd wrote:

> 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. 

Not at all, as I may have said in another post.  I think resentment of
success is bad not just in the game, but in all of life.  Secondly,
people called for competetion, and I provided some, and people resented
it.  Thirdly, because of my success, people have voted in handicaps 
so severe that I cannot realisitically win by points, and then they 
resent, even punish me, when I try to win via the only means available
to me.  Fourthy, it required no less work and was no less available 
than /dev/joe's Museum win, which no one called cheap (double standard).
I think that is bad game design.  That is all.  

Seriously, I am taking none of this personally.

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 14:14:55 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lunatic Fringe 

>Mr. Lunatic Fringe
>hmm, that's a cool name

Okay.  Here goes.  I'm sorry if this is going to cause anyone a lot of work
(let me know if it does, and I'll owe you a favor or TWO), BUT it has to be
done.  I am hereby changing my Ackanomic name (permenantly) to Mr. Lunatic
Fringe

In my capacity as Registrar I hereby ack the name change.  Furthermore, I
hereby announce an end to the name change moreorium I had announced earlier.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe
Registrar

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 16:41:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: No Duel

Vynd is right; a Duel would probably be the wrong thing at this point in
time.  I believe I understand Malenkai's point of view, which is something
I had been trying too hard not to do, I think.  (Sometimes I can be too
reasonable, and sometimes I deliberately try not to be to offset that.)

I can see Malenkai's point about the VE's now being somewhat crippling if
P2054 goes through, especially with the changed Magic Number.  (I do like
the Magic Number where it is, since I think I'm most likely to try to win
by points, at least the first few times.  :-)  Tomorrow I'll try to come up
with a proposal which will make the Eggplant Weight dependent on the MN(at
least at the start of a Cycle; it would seem silly otherwise).

I also pledge not to begrudge Malenkai the win if the CFJ should fall that
way, and he can have Azpiazu to do with as he will, which isn't much
because I didn't get around to adding a sentence to the Blueprint-to-be
myself.  :-)

As a gesture of friendship, I offer to exchange 5 PFAlfvaen(no, not the
trinket Red Barn has) for 5 PFMalenkai, so our mutual successes and
failures will be linked, however loosely.

And I would still like to engage you in a friendly game of Ghost or
somesuch thing.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--David Sylvian:Orpheus
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
Warning:  Do not suspend disbelief directly overhead.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 16:43:58 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lunatic Fringe

> >Mr. Lunatic Fringe
> >hmm, that's a cool name
> 
> Okay.  Here goes.  I'm sorry if this is going to cause anyone a lot of work
> (let me know if it does, and I'll owe you a favor or TWO), BUT it has to be
> done.  I am hereby changing my Ackanomic name (permenantly) to Mr. Lunatic
> Fringe

I am honoured to have inspired this.  :-)

> In my capacity as Registrar I hereby ack the name change.  Furthermore, I
> hereby announce an end to the name change moreorium I had announced earlier.

That's "moratorium".  "Moreorium" is the scientific name for the craving of
gray stuffed donkeys.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--David Sylvian:Orpheus
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
If being strong's unkind, then I need help here with this feather

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 18:13:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 393 Verdict

> CFJ 393 has been judged FALSE.

I am appealing this verdict.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 19:14:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: No Duel

> Vynd is right; a Duel would probably be the wrong thing at this point in
> time.

Actually, duels are usually the right thing.  In this case, it was
ambiguous to me as to whether I have been officially challenged
(hopefully the second can clarify that).  If so, I do not believe you
can retract it, although you may be able to forfeit, if not, then you
can proceed as you wish.
  
> As a gesture of friendship, I offer to exchange 5 PFAlfvaen(no, not the
> trinket Red Barn has) for 5 PFMalenkai, so our mutual successes and
> failures will be linked, however loosely.

As much as I appreciate this gesture, it would acknowledge that there
was a problem or hard feelings, and I really do not think that there
were.  Our successes are linked in the success of the game.  (Besides,
my bonds are gonna pay off huge when the Tornado hits, unless there
is some end of cycle gizz (BTW, someone told me the other day that I
misspell 'gizz'.  Is that possible?) :-)

> And I would still like to engage you in a friendly game of Ghost or
> somesuch thing.  :-)

If you have access to acka IRC and play chess, we can do that, although
I will play ghost.  A cooler game would be with more players though.
Whatever you can arrange.

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 19:17:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 393 Verdict

> > CFJ 393 has been judged FALSE.
> 
> I am appealing this verdict.

This makes 5 verdicts in appeal: 383, 391, 395, and 392 are the
others.  The CotC page is a couple of days out of date; it will
be updated by midnight.  If the SC needs any assistance, let me
know.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 20:04:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 384 Verdict

CFJ 384 has been judged TRUE.

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

Call For Judgment 384
  Subject: Possible Polythiesm
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Guy Fawkes (declined)
2nd Judge: Atilla the Pun (declined)
3rd Judge: Malenkai (selected Jun 05, 1997, 18:51h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

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

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

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

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

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

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

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Rule 1301 was amended on May 28th to allow membership in 3 churches.

This CFJ, due to the CFJ snafu, was officially distributed on Jun 02
(it was illegally distributed on May 22, and other times, but those 
actions failed).  Game custom must say that a CFJ applies to the time
it was distributed, because it is not publically knowable when it was
submitted to the CotC (I've always wondered about this actually, but
the PK custom is the only reasonable way to decide this).

Thus the CFJ is trivially TRUE.

I find the precedence argument FALSE, however, unlike the judge in
the other thread, in summary because one section regulates admission
*qualifications*, and the other regulates admission *procedure*.

For the BWG fans...  The relavent sections of rule 1301:

>     6. A player may not be a member of more than three Churches at the
> same time. 
>
>     7. a. Any player may petition the Founder of a Church for membership
> in that Church. 
>
>     b. If Church Policy has nothing to say on accepting new members,
> then Church membership will be up to the Founder. However, a Player
> cannot become a member of a Church until the Founder of the Church 
> sends a public announcement to that effect.   
Section 6 regulates church membership qualifications.

Section 7a regulates petetioning.  Even if there were no doubt as to
a player's inability to be in more than 3 churches, section 7a would still
allow them to *petetion* for that membership (even if membership was
impossible, no conflict here).

Section 7b regulates the Founder's actions (or admission *procedure*).
Indeed, if Church Policy *had* something to say about membership, such as 
"all players wearing prosthetic foreheads are welcome", then a player
in 3 churches wearing a prosthetic forehead could *not* join the church,
trivially, because 7b could not apply at all.  It seems reasonable then,
to construe 7b as regulating what the Founder may do and how he does it,
as constrained by other rules.  For example, a Founder who has taken
refuge per rule 1315, and is subject to the following as a result:

> That player is said to have taken refuge in solemn meditation and may
> not send any public messages for 27 hours. Any witchhunt against the
> player is canceled. 

could not ignore this rule and admit a member via public message simply
because rule 1301 would have numerical precedence over rule 1315.  
Likewise, the Founder may not ignore the constraints of rule 1301, 
section 6, just because section 7b would have interrule precedence.

Thus I find section 6 a general constraint, and section 7 regulating
the procedure under which the Founder admits a new member, (or 
regulating how the member is admitted by default), subject to the
general constraints of the rules, and thus there is no conflict of
regulation, and thus precedence does not apply.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:10:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Vynd wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Not at all, as I may have said in another post.  I think resentment of
> success is bad not just in the game, but in all of life.  Secondly,
> people called for competetion, and I provided some, and people resented
> it.  Thirdly, because of my success, people have voted in handicaps 
> so severe that I cannot realisitically win by points, and then they 
> resent, even punish me, when I try to win via the only means available
> to me.  Fourthy, it required no less work and was no less available 
> than /dev/joe's Museum win, which no one called cheap (double standard).
> I think that is bad game design.  That is all.  

Well, it reads like you are taking it quite personaly.  You bring up a
double standard, and the obvious implication is that people react
differently to a loophole type win from you than they do to one from
/dev/joe.  I don't think that there's really a double standard, I just
think that people happened to respond differently, without the concious,
or at least subconcious but enduring, sets of standards you imply.  I also
think that while these two situations were similar, there are some real
differences in how they came about, which at least in part can explain why
reactions were different.  I think that all of the stuff we've been seeing
on this issue are just what one would expect to see surrounding an event
like this.  It's only human to be a little disappointed when smeone else
wins the game, and since in this case the game actually keeps going, it's
no suprise that people are taking a few shots at the victor.  This time
around, well, I know that I overreacted a bit with my first message,
although I really did find it quite irritating.  Just blow off the whole
"cheap win" buisness as jealousy, if it makes you feel better. =)

the buisness with the negative scores is, as I said, a different matter.
I think you are absolutely right that the handicaping has gotten out of
hand.  I can also see why you would find it particularly galling to have
the magic Number lowered, so that while you used to be maybe 1/6th of the
way behind non-winners, now you are 1/3rd.  I pushed for that change
because I thought that with the Magic Number so high, the chances of a
points win were slim to none for any player.  Now with it lower, the
players without a slew of victory eggplants can actually concieve of
winning that way, but it still doesn't help the people we've handicaped
to hell and gone.  The idea of handicaps is, I think, a perfectly
reasonable one, but they've gone too far now.  At this point, Malenkai is
perfectly justified in saying that he has no choice but to seek out
loopholes if he wants to win.  I'd suggest omeone write up a change to the
rules, perhaps eggplants that only last for a cycle or two after their
creation, I don't know.  I'd do it, but I'm pretty busy right now, and
besides, Malenkai needs the points. =)

> 
> Seriously, I am taking none of this personally.
> 
> Malenkai
> Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
> 

                             Apologeticly,

                                            Vynd

[email-masked]
STILL glad the Wings won though. =P

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:11:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 402 (Vynd)

I accept judgement.

                            - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:23:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: No Duel

On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Vynd is right; a Duel would probably be the wrong thing at this point in
> > time.
> 
> Actually, duels are usually the right thing.  In this case, it was
> ambiguous to me as to whether I have been officially challenged
> (hopefully the second can clarify that).  If so, I do not believe you
> can retract it, although you may be able to forfeit, if not, then you
> can proceed as you wish.

Grr.  I seem to be suffereing from that vicious, but unnamed disease that
causes me to get half the messages after everyone else has seen them and
responded to them.  I'm not even using the digest lists =(   In any case,
assuming there werent a bunch of messages about this that I didn't get, I
was going to be Alfvaen's second, but backed out before an official
challenge was sent.  By the way, sorry I didn't send you a message warning
you Alfvaen, I had to run as soon as I finished that response to
malenkai's "Observation."  A response which, I might add, *I* still
haven't recieved.  I did send it to the main list right?  Anyone have any
idea why this is happening to me, and what other messages I might have
missed?  I'm particularly curious if this is why none of my proposal since
"Terror on the High Seas" seem to have been distributed, or if Mohammed
just hasn't gotten around to them yet.

                             - Vynd, trying not to sound pushy

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 20:28:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

Vynd wrote:

> I pushed for that change because I thought that with the Magic Number
> so high, the chances of a points win were slim to none for any player.
> Now with it lower, the players without a slew of victory eggplants can
> actually concieve of winning that way

For the historically interested (my perspective anyway):

The old magic number was 257, even for the first cycle.  Over time,
the scoring system evolved so that the penalties for a failed proposal
were lowered, and a host of other scoring opportunities were added,
such as Whamiols, Phoebe posts, Internomic incentive, and we got better,
*as a group* at writing proposals; you name it, one by one more rules
were added that made point scoring easier, causing point inflation, but
the magic number never changed.

In conjunction with this, there was a growing 'movement' that point wins
were sort of boring, and that the only point of having point wins was
to allow a vehicle for scam wins, such as breadbox's third Silver Moon
proposal.

I proposed changing the magic number from 257 to 541, in part because the
Whamiols and Eggplants were out of balance, but mostly for the above 
reasons.  At the time it was voted in with 2 NO votes, I believe, so
I figured that was the general consensus.

Thus, at 199, I was suprised to find it 22% *lower* than the old 257,
and the 541 idea completely tossed out the window.  Its a simple case
of new players, new ideas, and a nomic changing its mind, I guess.

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 19:41:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: No Duel

Vynd wrote:
> Grr.  I seem to be suffereing from that vicious, but unnamed disease that
> causes me to get half the messages after everyone else has seen them and
> responded to them. [...] Anyone have any
> idea why this is happening to me, and what other messages I might have
> missed?  I'm particularly curious if this is why none of my proposal since
> "Terror on the High Seas" seem to have been distributed, or if Mohammed
> just hasn't gotten around to them yet.

I don't know what the problem is, but it isn't being held up at wilma, nor
is it bouncing back here.  The mail queue on wilma is empty as I write this,
and only CV1701's mail has been bouncing in recent days (full mailbox on AOL).

Two of your proposals after "Terror..." have been distributed -- an
Org Crime repeal and Mohammed's Box, and the most recent proposal
distributed is P2060.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:45:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harf

Lo!  And harken!  I have come, Players of acka, to inform you that
proposals 2045 and 2059 are harfy.  Pay attention!

As long as I have your attention, I just noticed that my proposals 2039
and 2040 are still listed as up for voting on the acrobot website.  I
retraced them a few days ago, but let me take this opportunity to retract
them again, just to make sure it takes.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 21:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: No Duel

On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Vynd wrote:
> > Grr.  I seem to be suffereing from that vicious, but unnamed disease that
> > causes me to get half the messages after everyone else has seen them and
> > responded to them. [...] Anyone have any
> > idea why this is happening to me, and what other messages I might have
> > missed?  I'm particularly curious if this is why none of my proposal since
> > "Terror on the High Seas" seem to have been distributed, or if Mohammed
> > just hasn't gotten around to them yet.
> 
> I don't know what the problem is, but it isn't being held up at wilma, nor
> is it bouncing back here.  The mail queue on wilma is empty as I write this,
> and only CV1701's mail has been bouncing in recent days (full mailbox on AOL).
> 
> Two of your proposals after "Terror..." have been distributed -- an
> Org Crime repeal and Mohammed's Box, and the most recent proposal
> distributed is P2060.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

Yeah, I went and checked on the acrobot site, and it was clear from that
that they had been distributed.  I have yet to see them in my mailbox.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 21:39:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 134 (Techno)

CarsesraC failed to respond.  It has been reassigned to Techno.

Jun 08 21:38 EDT: -10 Techno: deadbeat on CFJ 134

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 134
  Subject: Illegal Anti-Gumball Chewing
Initiator: Atilla the Pun
    Judge: CarsesraC (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: Techno (selected Jun 08, 1997, 21:38 EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Atilla the Pun has committed a Crime.

Atilla's reasoning:

At approximately 12:10 EDT on June 1, I accidentally posted a message (I had
intended to post it on May 29) in an attempt to chew the Anti-Gumball.  This
was patently illegal, since 1 is not a prime greater than seven.  I believe I
may have accidentally posted this message one or two more times, as well

Suggested penalty:

a FINE of A$100
a SENTENCE of 1 day in the Gaol
(for each erroneous message)

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 22:37:29 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

>Thirdly, because of my success, people have voted in handicaps 
>so severe that I cannot realisitically win by points, and then they 
>resent, even punish me, when I try to win via the only means available
>to me.

Not much to say here: winning by points is an almost earth-shatteringly
cheesy way of winning a Cycle. But for consistently inventive and successful
proposal authors, it's a good way of rewarding them. FWIW, I hope that
Malenkai continues to scam the hell out of this unstable,
bullet-hole-filled, manic little ruleset. As far as I'm concerned, Nomic IS
loophole surfing and then loophole patching. BUT: Malenkai, if points
winning is so undesirable, then don't worry about it. I've got over 50
points (I think) and I've got no chance of winning by points either. :v)

Algonquin

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:47:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: No Duel

> > Vynd is right; a Duel would probably be the wrong thing at this point in
> > time.
> 
> Actually, duels are usually the right thing.  In this case, it was
> ambiguous to me as to whether I have been officially challenged
> (hopefully the second can clarify that).  If so, I do not believe you
> can retract it, although you may be able to forfeit, if not, then you
> can proceed as you wish.
 
Vynd was selected as my second, and then turned it down without issuing the
challenge, so formal Duel procedures have not yet begun.  Of course, I had
two other volunteers as Second, IIRC, so perhaps I will select one of
those.

> > As a gesture of friendship, I offer to exchange 5 PFAlfvaen(no, not the
> > trinket Red Barn has) for 5 PFMalenkai, so our mutual successes and
> > failures will be linked, however loosely.
> 
> As much as I appreciate this gesture, it would acknowledge that there
> was a problem or hard feelings, and I really do not think that there
> were.  Our successes are linked in the success of the game.  (Besides,
> my bonds are gonna pay off huge when the Tornado hits, unless there
> is some end of cycle gizz (BTW, someone told me the other day that I
> misspell 'gizz'.  Is that possible?) :-)

I don't know if it's in my dictionary, but I would say that 'gizz' and
'jizz' are both acceptable spellings of what is, as far as I can tell, a
shortening of 'jism'.

As for the Tornado, I have my own plans for that...:-)

> > And I would still like to engage you in a friendly game of Ghost or
> > somesuch thing.  :-)
> 
> If you have access to acka IRC and play chess, we can do that, although
> I will play ghost.  A cooler game would be with more players though.
> Whatever you can arrange.

I'm really not much of a chess player.  I have stopped by Acka IRC a couple
of times, but it's been more or less uninhabited.  I rarely think to,
though, not being an IRC nut or anything.  :-)  If I do the Duel thing,
then you can pick something...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--The Jazz Butcher:Bloody Nonsense
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
A splash and hiss beyond my measuring

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 21:07:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 384 Verdict

> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 1301 was amended on May 28th to allow membership in 3 churches.
> 
> This CFJ, due to the CFJ snafu, was officially distributed on Jun 02
> (it was illegally distributed on May 22, and other times, but those 
> actions failed).  Game custom must say that a CFJ applies to the time
> it was distributed, because it is not publically knowable when it was
> submitted to the CotC (I've always wondered about this actually, but
> the PK custom is the only reasonable way to decide this).
> 
> Thus the CFJ is trivially TRUE.

It's also the case that the acceptance of the amendment to R1301
flip-flopped from ACCEPTED to REJECTED and back, because of various
uncounted votes.  I think it was REJECTED when I originally submitted the
CFJ, but I can't even be sure of that anymore...:-)

> I find the precedence argument FALSE, however, unlike the judge in
> the other thread, in summary because one section regulates admission
> *qualifications*, and the other regulates admission *procedure*.

That seems almost like hair-splitting, but I don't feel like submitting a
CFJ for "more than three churches...", so I'll let it stand.

What I find interesting, on looking further, is that nowhere does it say
that Church Policy has to accord with the Rules.  I mean, would it be
possible for Church Policy to say "A member of this Church is prohibited
from obeying any contracts that e signs"?

> Thus I find section 6 a general constraint, and section 7 regulating
> the procedure under which the Founder admits a new member, (or 
> regulating how the member is admitted by default), subject to the
> general constraints of the rules, and thus there is no conflict of
> regulation, and thus precedence does not apply.

Hmmm.  Okay, maybe this makes sense to me.  :-)  I'm just not sure I'm
persuaded, but I will leave it for now.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--The Jazz Butcher:Bloody Nonsense
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
Et quand tu ris, je ris aussi...tu aimes tellement la vie

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:11:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 397 (CnH) 

>	Simply by announcing the action, you can put yourself on the
>CFJ Ineligibility List, which would keep you from having to do this
>all the time (and keep Malenkai from having to resend them...)
>	Not a big deal or anything, just thought I'd mention it.

Thanks. I actually like ruling CFJs... when I have the time. Ergo I did not
have the time. Story of my life in Acka.

Btw, if there is anything requiring particular attention from me, I'd
appreciate a private copy, or adding my initials in the subject line.

My heartfelt thanks
CnH

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 21:22:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> >>> 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!

Yes, but what I mean is something like giving the President the power to
declare certain results of a certain rule's being observed to the letter to
be disregarded for a short period, once a month.  Subject to some
democratic restrictions, of course, but ideally this power should be
exercisable quickly enough that whatever the problem is won't fall past the
two-week retroactivity limit.

I dunno, it's still a bit amorphous.  I welcome suggestions, including "Are
you crazy???  This would be an awful idea!!!"

> 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.

But I want it NOW!  :-)

> (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 have had near-zero luck with any others.  I guess I did the Grump one
in a couple of hours(but even /dev/joe admitted that one was easier than
some), and I got your first puzzle, but obviously I haven't gotten that far
with Red Barn's and Calvin N Hobbes's...  (Did you miss the "Fibonacci"
clue on /dev/joe's?  :-)

> > 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.

That is true too.  I'd like to do it sometime, but I'm also having fun
doing other stuff, too.  Which is what I like about Ackanomic, is that it
does have stuff to appeal to different groups of people.

> > Never mind, I'll find it.)
> 
> Don't be so sure.

Hmm.  Interesting.  At least I feel closer than I have for a while...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--The Beatles:Got To Get You Into My Life
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
At the School of Hard Knocks, I'm the class clown

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 23:24:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 384 Verdict

> What I find interesting, on looking further, is that nowhere does it say
> that Church Policy has to accord with the Rules.  I mean, would it be
> possible for Church Policy to say "A member of this Church is prohibited
> from obeying any contracts that e signs"?

I believe it used to, look at the revision history.  There was a rather
interesting paradox CFJ submitted in the last wave of massive 
paradox CFJs that alledged that a self-contradictory church policy
was a paradox.  I seem to remember the argument being similar to
that of the current mutually exclusive contract thing, but cannot
remember the CFJ number or the argument.  I do remember judging or
writing bronze torch reasoning for it though.

Malenkai
tired of saying Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 23:28:14 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> Yes, but what I mean is something like giving the President the power to
> declare certain results of a certain rule's being observed to the letter to
> be disregarded for a short period, once a month.

We already have the crash patch rule for something that gets really
disasterous (which I point out I did *not* scam to become a dictator
when I had the chance the other day ;)).  Anything else we should
handle ourselves.  That CFJ thing wasn't really that bad.

Malenkai
bwg
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:30:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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.

Description of the Hat:

Malenkai's SVH is just an upside down flower pot with a pink flower sticking
out. The pot is of an orange colour only small children with an unsettling
taste for comic book shaped pasta will find appetizing. Other people just
find it strangely amusing. The pink flower on it's yellowish-green stem adds
a touch that the gutter press will describe as stereotypically excentric but
which the self adoring critics of style will find neo retro avant garde.

CnH

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:12:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinket Dispersal

Since I find myself with several trinkets of small value, and don't feel
like auctioning them all off, I think I will just attempt to bestow them on
some players who, in my opinion, don't have enough trinkets.  :-)

If e consents, I will give the Normal Matter to Antimatter was here, if
that is now eir official name.  Somehow it seems, I don't know,
appropriate.  :-)

If e consents, I will give the Bronze Umbrella to Techno, so that e will
have some control over the fate of my Amber Banana Tree when Prop 2899
rolls around.

If e consents, I will give the A$50 trinket to Mohammed, since as Financier
he will undoubtedly wish to examine the forgery attempt more closely.

And, finally, if e consents, I will give the cheap plastic imitation of the
Amulet of Yendor to Vynd, purely by elimination.

Oh, yes, and since I should have declared this when I planted my Amber
Banana Tree Seed and it was destroyed:

#award Alfvaen: -1 Amber Banana Tree Seed : planted

And the auction for the Travesty is still going on...act now to have a
chance at possessing this marvelous one-of-a-kind trinket!  Last bid was
A$10, by breadbox.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--King Crimson:Discipline
Current Book--Steven Brust:Five Hundred Years After
Two guys walk into a bar...*clang* *clang* "OOF!" "OW!"

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 21:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

>> (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 have had near-zero luck with any others.  I guess I did the Grump one
> in a couple of hours(but even /dev/joe admitted that one was easier than
> some), and I got your first puzzle, but obviously I haven't gotten that far
> with Red Barn's and Calvin N Hobbes's...  (Did you miss the "Fibonacci"
> clue on /dev/joe's?  :-)

I don't want to talk about it.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 21:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 384 Verdict

> There was a rather interesting paradox CFJ submitted in the last
> wave of massive paradox CFJs that alledged that a self-contradictory
> church policy was a paradox.  I seem to remember the argument being
> similar to that of the current mutually exclusive contract thing,
> but cannot remember the CFJ number or the argument.  I do remember
> judging or writing bronze torch reasoning for it though.

Malenkai is referring to CFJ 288 (initiated by Guy Fawkes). Both he
and ThinMan wrote Bronze Torch Reasoning for it.

Also somewhat related to this is CFJ 298, initiated by Malenkai and
judged by myself.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:54:01 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket Dispersal

Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If e consents, I will give the Normal Matter to Antimatter was here, if
> that is now eir official name.  Somehow it seems, I don't know,
> appropriate.  :-)

I do NOT consent. Aaah, get it away, get it away!

=|:-)~
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 20:54:01 -0800
From: "Ross Morgan-Linial" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lunatic Fringe

Phil Ackley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >Mr. Lunatic Fringe
> >hmm, that's a cool name
> 
> Okay.  Here goes.  I'm sorry if this is going to cause anyone a lot of work
> (let me know if it does, and I'll owe you a favor or TWO), BUT it has to be
> done.  I am hereby changing my Ackanomic name (permenantly) to Mr. Lunatic
> Fringe
> 
> In my capacity as Registrar I hereby ack the name change.  Furthermore, I
> hereby announce an end to the name change moreorium I had announced earlier.

If possible, I am changing my name to Antimatter, just to let the trinket 
formerly known as snowgod to be found.

I am creating a trinket called the trinket formerly known as the player 
formerly known as snowgod, worth A$10. It is a small statue of the player 
formerly known as snowgod with an inscription at the base, but the inscription 
is unreadable because it has been chisled out and reinscribed several times.

#trinket Antimatter:A$10:the trinket formerly known as the player formerly known as \
snowgod
(did I get that right?)
- -------------------------------
Antimatter * [email-masked]
You have the power of negation.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #122
*******************************