Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #125
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, June 9 1997         Volume 02 : Number 125

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:06:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

>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. 

To make a comment I've found myself making many times over the past year, I
haven't been paying much attention to the game lately. I did notice
Malenkai's Godfather scam, but this is the first I've heard of any negative
response to it. Admittedly, I read far from all Acka messages, and therefore
I am not surprised that I missed something. However, I am surprised that a
negative response occurred in the first place. 

I think seeking out loopholes is a good thing, almost regardless of the
intention behind it. The best way to encourage people to improve the rule
set is to show them how it is currently flawed. By exploiting a loophole in
the rule set, one is able to bring to light a problem within the rules. I
have heard it said that the appropriate action to take in such a situation
(when one finds a defect in the rules) would be to bring this to the
attention of the public, and to propose a change to it. I have three
problems with this. First, this doesn't prevent anyone else from exploiting
the loophole before the proposal passes. Second, if the loophole is a
nonobvious one, a proposal to correct it might fail, due to lack of interest
or knowledge on the part of the voting populace. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, what is the motivation to seek out loopholes if you gain no
benefit from it? It should be a fun thing to do.

In fact, I would support a proposal to set up a mechanism that would in some
way recognize a player that had found a loophole, and exploited it elegantly
to make a point. To do such a thing requires diligence, and knowledge of the
rules, both of which should be valued in Ackanomic. Our rule set is truly a
harfy one, and to master is requires a truly harfy individual. This should
not to unpraised.

However, there is one potentially negative side to loophole surfing -- if it
is done maliciously, it can damage the game. Some loopholes cannot be
exploited in nonharmful ways. Exactly how you define harmful and nonharmful
isn't clear, but it seems evident that some exploitations could result in
making the game much less fun for everyone involved. There seems to be no
way to avoid this dilemma, except to have faith that the players in
Ackanomic rise above this. We could conceivably create an officer that could
correct such flaws instantly, without use of a proposal, but I am sure that
this would be considered too much power in the hands of an individual.

That particular debate is really a side-issue, and isn't important to my
argument. In my experience, Malenkai has never maliciously exploited a
loophole. To claim that the Godfather scam made the game less fun for others
seems like a silly complaint to me. I can't see how it hurt anyone, except
that it showed that our current system could be improved. Malenkai has
pointed out when we've not been following a rule properly (such as when he
pointed out the illegal CFJ distribution), but is it a fault to follow the
rules? I strongly agree with Malenkai that the game is, at it's essence,
just the rules. To follow them only when we please seems to defeat the
purpose of the game. It requires skill to craft good rules, and why bother
making the effort if we'll just agree to ignore bad parts of the rules? We
need to be vigilant about these details.

Malenkai and I have historically disagreed on many issues, and I am sure we
will continue to do so for as long as we're both in Ackanomic (and have no
plans of leaving -- I sincerely hope Malenkai feels the same way), but let
me make it clear that I think he has been (and continues to be) one of the
most instrumental players in this game, and that without his hard work, I'm
not sure Acka would be around today. Is the game elitist, because Malenkai
has held a great deal of offices? The game is only elitist in the sense that
you have to volunteer for an office, and Malenkai is often the only player
willing to do the work. True, a certain degree of power comes with these
offices, but can that be avoided? And do we want it to be avoided? Someone
has to do the work in this game -- at one point, in the distant, distant
past, I held a great deal of offices in Acka. There was a time when the
Speaker was the only officer, and did all of the work. Truly, it entailed
wielding a great deal of power, and was that elitist? Perhaps, but the work
must get done, and Malenkai has consistently stepped up to do the work.

I mean this message as a defense of Malenkai, and a message of support for
him. I do not mean it as an attack on anyone else. I've been in Acka since
the beginning, and I feel strongly about some issues. I know Acka isn't
perfect -- I could come up with many things that we could improve, but I
don't feel that Malenkai has hurt the game in any way. Thank you, Malenkai,
for all the work you've done.

Robert Sevin

ps -- Sorry about the long tirade...

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

Date: 9 Jun 1997 17:16:34 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Malenkai's win 

Malenkai's scam was legal, and not inherently destructive of game play.
I see no reason to resent it whatsoever.  I had been trying to surf that
loophole for some time (was aware of it, in fact, since the Frankenstein
Monster was in its RFC stage and included "proposal" (!!!) among the
acceptible documents, but the best phrase available in the rules to me
was simply not good enough).  I congratulate him on a loophole well
surfed.

As for him abusing the office of Wizard, I am on record as being in
support of the use of Acka-offices for personal gain.  However, if an IP
were authored against him, I would probably support it, since I am also
in favor of Acka's tradition of mob justice: punish swiftly, punish in
excess, and generally punish regardless of guilt or innocence :)

As for handicapping getting way out of hand, I reply that it is not the
handicaps, but the Magic Number which have gotten out of hand.  As the
author of handicaps, I must state that they were designed to make each
point win successively more difficult.  Since I (and many other players,
I believe) find point wins to be excessively boring, I believe the
concept is a worthy one.

Most of the handicap reforms I've seen so far, though, do little to
actually solve this problem.  Simply making the point win easier is no
solution, no more than printing money is a solution to the national
debt.

My suggestion is simple: amend the eggplant weight to -15 (or whatever)
per _point_ win rather than any generic win.  I invite someone to write
this into a proposal -- I have no idea which clause of R666 this applies
to anymore.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: 9 Jun 1997 17:18:26 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Trinket 

I am creating a trinket, value A$10, called the Medium-sized Wooden
Block.  Its name is a suitable description of its appearance.

#trinket Guy Fawkes: Medium-sized Wooden Block: 10

I offer the Medium-sized Wooden Block in exchange for a Vending Machine.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:24:25 +0000
From: "Bascule" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket

> I am creating a trinket, value A$10, called the Medium-sized Wooden
> Block.  Its name is a suitable description of its appearance.
> 
> #trinket Guy Fawkes: Medium-sized Wooden Block: 10
> 
> I offer the Medium-sized Wooden Block in exchange for a Vending Machine.
> 
> Guy Fawkes

Here we go. Scams R us are on the march again.

Bascule

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:27:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

>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.

I agree that an important part of Ackanomic is the subgames, Internomic, and
many other aspects that have almost become tradition. The existence of
nonvoting players shows that this is a part of Ackanomic that will most
likely grow in importance. I wholeheartedly support this.

I do not feel that we should do away with the search for loopholes, and if
you are lucky enough to find a loophole, the exploitation of it. 

There is room for both views, at least my vision of Ackanomic includes both.
I am not an active participant in either one, although I've always been
fascinated with all aspects of Ackanomic, and the growth it has undergone.
To me, it doesn't seem difficult to have both aspects of the game coexisting
peacefully.

>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.  :-)

That's true, but this is the one sense in which I consider myself elitist.
Nomic is, by definition, a game of rules. I don't think we want to divorce
ourselves from our roots. I don't think a looser game necessarily means it
will be more fun -- I think it's eventual conclusion would be fierce
arguments about how a rule should be interpreted. If we keep the rule set as
logical and consistent as possible, minimizing any subjective judgement
calls, then the game will run more smoothly. This doesn't mean that all
players need to be rule lawyers, just as citizens of a country don't need to
all obtain law degrees to exist in the society. Personally, I think Acka
could be modeled after a nation in that sense -- some citizens enjoy the
benefits of the laws, but do not concern themselves with their creation and
maintenance (except, perhaps, by electing officials that they like), and
other citizens make it their lives to work with the laws. A new player
shouldn't feel as though they have to dive right into the rules, they should
begin with the subgames and the other activities that can be understood more
readily, and then slowly work their way into the rule set, IF they desire.

Oh, and just to reminisce, I found it amusing that you pointed out a first
proposal being picked apart. Check out the first 10 (approximately)
proposals in Ackanomic. See how many were authored by me, and how many were
declared invalid. :)

>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.

Except that ignoring any rule sets the precedent that we can ignore rules
when they are inconvenient, thus reducing the motivation to create a
consistent rule set, eventually (in my mind) leading to squabbles over when
you are allowed to ignore rules, etc.

>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

I mentioned this in my last message, and I think it's a good idea, but I
don't think it would be supported by most players.

>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,

I don't want to get off track, but I would like to mention at this point
that we really ought to create an Acka-Chat mailing list, where all of this
unofficial business can be conducted. I am also referring to the Personal
Information survey, etc. I found it all greatly enjoyable, and participated
in it, but due to the limited time I spend on Ackanomic, I prefer to have
the "official" mailing list as uncluttered as possible, so I won't miss
anything urgent.

>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?

True, Malenkai wins most of the cycles, but I've never thought the point of
the game was to win cycles. I love Acka, and I've only one 1 cycle ever. But
I can see that it might be important to some players, because Acka is
different for everyone. Why not try and devise more ways to win cycles, and
thereby include some activities that would even the odds? Or, to try a
different approach, why not get rid of the idea of winning cycles, and
instead have monthly winners in various categories, of which loophole
surfing could be just one possibility. There are many solutions to the
problem you describe, although I believe the heart of the issue is that
Malenkai devotes more time and work to Acka, and in the long run, that's
hard to beat. And why shouldn't it be?

>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.

I think Acka can come pretty close to satisfying everyone. And allow me to
once again "toot my own horn", and mention that Townships could go a long
way to solving this problem. Does anyone wish to once again debate the
merits of this system? I still support it strongly.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:35:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

>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.  

Why do we still have the point system, btw? It seems to create more trouble
than it's worth. There have, throughout the history of Acka, been complaints
about people performing actions solely to gain or lose points. Is the system
fun and harfy enough that we want to keep it?

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:45:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation 

>I think I'm more on the side of Order, but I do appreciate harf as well.
>At least, I try to.  :-)

Harf (the concept, belief, idea, etc) isn't opposed to order. Harf is a kind
of style, hard to describe. Harfy and silly seem to be almost synonymous in
Acka, and although they are intimately related, they are not identical.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:46:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Birthdays 

>So far I have received 12 responses to my query about RL birthdays.
>Participation in this poll is purely voluntary; this is just a reminder
>that the poll being taken.  There is only a 17% chance of any two
>birthdays out of group of twelve being the same, and my current list
>does not beat the odds.  The full list will be distributed when I
>decide I'm unlikely to receive more responses.

1/12/77

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:47:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: further personal info

> > 1.  What's the best movie you've seen in the past year?
	I don't remember if The Usual Suspects was last year or not.
I can't think of anything else that was really better.  Maybe I'm
forgetting something.

> > 2.  What's the worst movie you've seen in the past year?
	I think I saw Romeo & Juliet less than a year ago.  It's far
and away the worst.

- -- 
Mohammed
A lone bald squid from Yale chased millions of forgetful politicians.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:49:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Announcements (was Re: Acka: Observation) 

>> > Now there's an idea... player alignments.
>> Actually, I was contemplating writing an RFC about just that, using 
>> the alignments from Steve Jackson Games' Illuminati game.
>So what could be the possible game effects of having alignments, of either
>kind?  Certain alignments being permitted or restricted to performing
>certain actions, or joining certain organizations?  It does have some
>potentials...

If the attempt was harfy enough, it would certainly have my support.

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket Dispersal

On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Aaron Humphrey wrote:

> 
> 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.

I refuse this transfer.

> --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!"

                               - Vynd, paranoid =)

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:00:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sal

On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 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.
	If you like, I can give you Financier access to the bot,
resign that office, and spend more time revising the code than
updating the bot state (which never gets caught up anyway).
	It occurs to me it might be more frustration than it's worth
to have to wait around for remote bot bugs to be fixed...

- -- 
Mohammed
A wild slow violent Russian.  Enough said.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:09:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

Robert Sevin wrote:

> Why do we still have the point system, btw? It seems to create more 
> trouble than it's worth. There have, throughout the history of Acka,
> been complaints about people performing actions solely to gain or
> lose points. Is the system fun and harfy enough that we want to keep it?

Many game players are goal-oriented, and points are a simple goal.
Also, I think we need something to shoot for, even if its a target for
scams.  Perhaps 500,000 points would be a good magic number so that
*only* scam wins could get there ;).

I don't know why we have *both* points and A$s.  I would be happy with
just one.  It seems like it would minimize the work somewhat.  I was
thinking of creating a quantity called 'Mana' or something, that you
earned like points, A$, and processing chips, (and would replace those
things) and then could be spent to perform game actions.  More aspects of
the game could be open to earning Mana, I suppose.  I dunno, it seemed
like alot of work just to replace the current system.  It is my goal,
though, to have just *one* currency to track.  Also, if you went with
a concept like this, the whole win by cycle thing and bonds would not
make sense, and people like these things, I suppose.

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:30:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: In defense of the point system (was Re: ... Observation)

On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> >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.  
> 
> Why do we still have the point system, btw? It seems to create more trouble
> than it's worth. There have, throughout the history of Acka, been complaints
> about people performing actions solely to gain or lose points. Is the system
> fun and harfy enough that we want to keep it?
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 

Well, to answer your question directly, I would say yes, it is.  To
address the issue more in a general sense, I would say that the point
system or something like it is very important, if not vital, to Acka.  It
provides a basic sort of structure to everything that we are doing.
Without a point system, we're all just sort of throwing ideas at each
other, and while that might at times be interesting, it isn't exactly what
I would call a game.  Thjis is not to say that a point style system is
necessary to hae a game, or even for Acka to exist as a game.  If we
really wanted to, I'm sure we could change things around so we're all on
some sort of quest for the Golden Frog or whatever.  I'm jut saying that
the point system is what we have in place, and at this point I think it
would be extremely difficult to change off of it (although adding stuff
like, oh say, treasure Hunts and funky chess games is always an option).

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:34:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Observation

> 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.
	/dev/joe's scan had the P.R. advantages of being totally
unexpected (to me) and having a ridiculous and amusing physical
analogue.  Yours was abstract and has been tried before (in another
form), therefore it is seen to be somehow less clever.

> 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. 
	Whatever... the OMCL and the Blue Thing are in fact the only
two really fun Gadgets in the game.  The annoying ones, if any, are
the Whamiols and Electronic Potatoes.

> With the OMCL, the efficiency with which officers and judges do
> their jobs is given magnified game-start effect.  That's real fun.
	I think it is, and has been.  There's a certain suspense in
waiting for something over which you have no control.  There's a
certain pleasant lopsidedness in an Officer having a few discretionary
powers not entirely necessary for his job.

	I agree with more or less all of the rest; hang in there and
congratulations on your win.  If indeed it is yours.

- -- 
Mohammed
A con artist will meet a superhero from West Virginia in a game of
football a few days ago.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:35:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 400 Verdict

CFJ 400 has been judged FALSE.  This means the Cheez-Whiz *has* the 
clue to the treasure line in it.

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

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

Statement:

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

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

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

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

Below is the text of the submitted Blueprint:

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

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

{{[End of Reasoning]}}

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The ambiguity clause of R594 applies to the entire blueprint, not to
individual sentences.  In any case, I do not find that the sentence in
question necessarilly implies any behavior at all.  In my judgement,
Malenkai's creation of the blueprint for Cheez-Whiz is legal and
successful.

I deduce that Malenkai has managed to scam another win.  He seems to be
returning to his old ways.  (Which, I will add, _were_ rather more
colorful.)  I always was against "winning by Frankenstein Monster."

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:45:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 134 Verdict

CFCJ 134 has been judged TRUE.

I apologize to Techno for incorrectly making him the deadbeat on
the previous distribution.  Would the scorekeeper please change that
if he has not done so already.

The following penalites will be assesed after a 3 day grace period:

#award : Atilla the Pun : -100 A$ : CFCJ 134
2 days in Gaol

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: TRUE

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)

Techno's Reasoning:

I find this CFCJ to be TRUE.  Atilla the Pun is guilty of said crime.

Actual Penalty:

A$100 and 2 days in gaol.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:49:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 401 Verdict

CFJ 401 has been judged TRUE.

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: True

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 seatis
> vacant, it is filled by the last Player to take possession of any
> Frankenstein Monster. If no such player exists, the seat shall befilled
> 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.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Alfvaen is correct that R596 reverses itself in the second paragraph by
providing a means of transferring the office -- mandating one, in fact
- -- by which it is possible for a Scientist to obtain the office of Mad
Scientist.  The second paragraph takes precedence by R102.

The Ackanomic Research Guild is specified and described by R593, which
has precedence over R596 by the numerical method (R102).  R596 thus
cannot prevent anyone who is already a member of the Guild from
becoming Mad Scientist.

Alfvaen is again correct in arguing that the third paragraph of R596
has precedence over R593 and R595 with repsect to the Mad Scientist
not receiving the privileges of a Scientist.  I know of no other rules
which grant privileges to Scientists in particular.

The sticking point, to which I feel a need to address myself, is the
following question of Ackanomic law: are the duties and priveleges of
officers tightly bound to the offices, or attributable to the players
who hold the offices?  That is to say, when R596 says the Mad Scientist
does not receive any of the privileges of a Scientist, does it mean
only that they are not conferred by the Mad Scientist office, or does
it mean that the player who holds the office does not receive such
privileges at all?  The letter of the rules, as well as some degree of
legal precedent, indicate the latter.  The CFJ statement is therefore
true.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:57:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  bday

- -- 
Mohammed
June 13, 1977

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:04:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket

On 9 Jun 1997 [email-masked] wrote:
> I offer the Medium-sized Wooden Block in exchange for a Vending Machine.
	I am zapping Bascule with my OMCL for the trade quoted above.

- -- 
Mohammed
Weird things happen to kings from Zaire.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:19:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malenkai's win

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> My suggestion is simple: amend the eggplant weight to -15 (or whatever)
> per _point_ win rather than any generic win.  I invite someone to write
> this into a proposal -- I have no idea which clause of R666 this applies
> to anymore.

Another idea I had was to not reset the scores after non-point wins.
Then you can leave the higher magic number, and not have paradox or
museum wins kill it before you can get enough points.  These changes
go well together with Guy's suggestion, I think.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 20:18:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe Hearing

Phoebe's wisdom as posted by Techno was found
to be authentic in the recent hearing.

bogus (6)
- -----
mr cwm
breadbox
ThinMan
Alfvaen
/dev/joe
Voting Gnome

not bogus (7)
- ---------
fnord
Evil Ballot Stuffer
Malenkai
Evil Ballot Stuffer
Mr. Nacho
Mohammed
Vynd

Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 20:31:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Quiz Over

> /dev/joe finished with a whopping 13 points, many of which he admits to
> having acquired through doing web searches for lyrics.  :-)

That's a problem with the 'net.  It has rendered trivia games obsolete.

Malenkai
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket Dispersal

I bid A$20 on the Travesty.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Robert Sevin's House

>> I hereby grant permission to reattach my house, to whoever wishes to do so.
> 
> I am attempting to reattach Robert Sevin's house, although I won't succeed
> unless two other winged players join me.  I know that breadbox had also
> volunteered, and someone else...

Mr. Lunatic Fringe was the third player, if I am not mistaken?

I am now at Robert Sevin's house, and attempting to reattach it.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 21:14:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2042 accepted (Which trinket??)

> Proposal 2042
> Which trinket??

>    When this sentence first takes effect, the Officer in Charge of Random
>    things shall have three days to announce such choices for all such
>    undecided cases which have occurred within the past two weeks, 

Inky Blotters #287 and #6 were "lost" by two-star.  I would assume
"lost" means to the treasury.  IAC, I'm not sure how to tell the bot
about this.

Malenkai
Speaker
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:22:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Misc Proposal Business (Was P2036 accepted)

Malenkai wrote:
> Acrobot wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal 2036
> > Increasing the Alien's Odds
> > Malenkai
> 
> I seem to remember retrating this.

You did.  P2039 and 2040 were also retracted.

P2042 was my 80th accepted proposal, bringing my blue cross rank to 90.

P2043 contains an invalid bribe (reasoning: the bribe cannot be valid,
because it proposes to give out otzma cards that don't exist.  The bribe
appears to be a weak paradox attempt -- it proposes to give out something
valid if the bribe is invalid or of indeterminate validity -- but clearly
the bribe does not take effect if it is invalid, and the proposal bribery
rule clearly states that the conditions in bribes must be determinable
when the voting results are released, and any bribe that violates this
rule is invalid).  A proposal with an invalid bribe is rejected, its
author loses 15 points, and no other scoring or such effects are
triggered. [all by the proposal bribery rule]

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 21:28:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato + Aliens

Robert Sevin as found the Magic Potato for this week, and may play
Beldin's Tailor if he wishes.

- --

Alien rolls:

1728
1007 <-- Rule: "Organizational Powers" is abducted.

Malenkai
Speaker
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat (why wasn't that abducted?)

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:43:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato + Aliens

Malenkai wrote:
> Alien rolls:
> 
> 1728
> 1007 <-- Rule: "Organizational Powers" is abducted.

Since P2038 passed, the highest numbered rule at the time this was posted
was R1399, "Thank You Yakko".  The alien rolls were not performed
correctly.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 21:53:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato + Aliens

> Since P2038 passed, the highest numbered rule at the time this was posted
> was R1399, "Thank You Yakko".  The alien rolls were not performed
> correctly.

Bummer.  I must have left my brain overseas.  I even looked at that
proposal and did not see Literature renumbered the first time.  IAC,
the new rolls are:

373
1301  <-- "Church" is abducted.

Malenkai
Speaker
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato + Aliens

On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Since P2038 passed, the highest numbered rule at the time this was posted
> > was R1399, "Thank You Yakko".  The alien rolls were not performed
> > correctly.
> 
> Bummer.  I must have left my brain overseas.  I even looked at that
> proposal and did not see Literature renumbered the first time.  IAC,
> the new rolls are:
> 
> 373
> 1301  <-- "Church" is abducted.
> 
> Malenkai
> Speaker
> Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat
> 

Cackle.

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:06:31 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Lunatic Fringe 

>>>  Yay!  I am changing my name to "1                             32".
>>
>>A player who's name was quite fine
>>tried changing his name to a crime
>>before he started complaining
>>that the rules keep changing
>>I think he was losing his mind.
>
>  Boo.  Phooey on you.

Hey.  If it were legal, I'd approve it!

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #125
*******************************