Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #164
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, June 25 1997       Volume 02 : Number 164

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:23:13 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Krykek (Karma)

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC81A5.A214F280
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Malenkai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Wednesday, June 25, 1997 7:52 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: Acka: Krykek (Karma)

> Yesterday you told me a krykek is nothing so now being selected krykek
> for the "abduction?" that occurred means .. Nothing? That is I mean do
> I have to publica

Actually I thought you asked what a "krykek-harfer" is.  Sorry about
that.  Krykec, and your duties, are described in rule 1118.

Malenkai

Actually I did ask about krykek-harfer but when you mentioned I was =
chosen krykek the coincidence was all so overwhelming I was ignorant of =
there being any diff.=20
BTW how is this new ascii format treating my mentor no more gizz I hope?
With the exception of this band wasting gizz I'm adding right now HA!! =
HA!!

- -yer proud protege Karma
you aren't really leaving me in aweek as mentor r u?

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC81A5.A214F280
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC81A5.A214F280--

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:24:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 411 Verdict

CFJ 411 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a stupid hat
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 411
  Subject: Losing CFJs
Initiator: Robert Sevin
    Judge: CV1701 (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (forwarded to the Supreme Court)
3rd Judge: Supreme Court (assigned Jun 23, 1997, 12:32h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

The following two events are not equivalent:
Initiating a CFJ and having it judged false.
Losing a CFJ.

Robert Sevin's Reasoning:

I'm not sure what it means to lose a CFJ, but I don't think CFJs are a
contest that can be won or lost depending on the judgement given.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

It may be the case the the first sentence is the most sensible
interpretation of the ambiguous second sentence. Or it may not.
Regardless, the two sentences are certainly not equivalent.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:31:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 391 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 391 has been overturned to FALSE.  The Court neglected to penalize
the original judge, thus by rule the penalty is 1 point.

This brings up an interesting situation that will require a CFJ in
its own right, to decide if the Blue Things actually are retroactively
undestroyed.  I will submit it tonight.

#award breadbox : -24 A$ : tardy verdict on CFJ 391
#award mr cwm : -24 A$ : tardy verdict on CFJ 391

Jun 25 20:30 EDT: -1 Alfvaen: CFJ 391 overturned

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

Call For Judgement 391
  Subject: Seeing Blue
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Robert Sevin (declined)
2nd Judge: Calvin N Hobbes (declined)
3rd Judge: Techno (declined)
4th Judge: two-star (declined)
5th Judge: Alfvaen (selected Jun 05, 1997, 20:02h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

The Blueprint for the 'The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too
Much, Really' (Blue Thing) defines behaviour for a Gadget that
could potentially break the rules, or could possibly be used to
break the rules.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

There exists an entity called 'Man Thin'.  The Blue Thing's Blueprint
specifies behaviour that would possibly allow someone to change the name
of our esteemed Senator Melvin to this name, which would be a violation
of rule 348.

Upon a verdict of TRUE, the Blueprint and all extant Blue Things are
destroyed, as described in rule 594 with interpretation clarified
by CFJ 261 (the last paragraph of CFJ 261's reasoning has been
superceeded by rule change; the other relavent rules (viz 594 sec (ii))
and customs remain unsubstantial

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Here is the relevant paragraph from the Blue Thing's Blueprint:

"The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really is able to
change the player name of any Ackanomic player to another name which is
an anagram of the original. This is accomplished when the owner of The
Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really states publicly
that he has pointed The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really at x (where x is the name of the player being renamed) and
pressed the ENERGIZE button.  The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do
Too Much, Really then gives the owner an anagram of the original name
which he must post to the public forum."

Notice that in this Blueprint it does not say anything about how the
particular anagram of the player's name is chosen after the Blue Thing
is used on em.  (Was this Blueprint submitted before "unambiguously
specifying the Gadgets' behaviour" became a requirement?)  Since the
rules are silent, game custom seems to dictate that the player who owns
the Blue Thing choose the anagram.  There is certainly no built-in
restriction in the Blueprint to keep a player from changing the name of
another player(or emself)to a name which would violate Rule 348.  (Rule 348
specifies that no two entities can have names that match; it does not, in
itself, as I read it, prohibit changing an entity's name to match
another's, though the results of such an action would certainly be
illegal.)

Therefore, though it saddens my heart, I am forced to conclude that the
Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really has a Blueprint
which can potentially be used to violate the rules.

CFJ 361 is an earlier ruling that such a Blueprint should be
destroyed.  To be thorough, I checked on the modifications to Rule 594
since the ruling was delivered on CFJ 361.  Malenkai is correct that
the changes would not affect the verdict delivered there, so I am
obliged to repeat it.

(Other Notes: with the recent amendments of R348, it would also be
impossible, as I read the rules, for a Blue Thing to change a player's
name to one of eir previous names unless e is wielding the Blue Thing
emself.  This may be a problem in R348 if any other name-changing device is
created.)

{{[End of Judgement ]}}

snowgod's Appeal Comments:

[none]

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

>From Rule 348: "No two named entities may have names that match.... Anattempt to do anything that requires a name to be chosen [such as
creating a Trinket or Organization] fails if the chosen name matches a
name already in use."

An attempt to use The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really's power to change a name to an anagram clearly falls under the
doman of the second quoted sentence above. If the anagram returned
matches a name already in use, the second sentence states that the
attempt "fails". Note that the rule does not forbid the attempt in and
of itself. Quite the opposite: it describes what happens as a result.
Furthermore, since such an attempt will fail, it is impossible for it
to transgress the first sentence of Rule 348.

Thus, the Gadget known as The Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do
Too Much, Really cannot be used to break the Rules.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:34:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Krykek (Karma)

> BTW how is this new ascii format treating my mentor no more gizz I hope?

Well, I'm still getting mime at the bottom of your messages, but my
mailer no longer crashes on it.  Perhaps the crashing was some sort
of coincidence.

> you aren't really leaving me in aweek as mentor r u?

I really don't know.  I cease to be your mentor when you've been in
the game for 2 weeks.  The Registrar may know.

Malenkai
on IRC

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:37:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 136 Appeal Verdict

TRUE has been upheld on CFCJ 136.

Jun 25 20:36 EDT: -25 Robert Sevin: frivilously bother the judges on CFCJ 136

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a Men Without Hats logo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 136
  Subject: Illegal Dueling
Initiator: Robert Sevin
    Judge: Vynd (selected Jun 18, 1997, 21:51 EDT)
Judgement: TRUE
   Appeal: TRUE

Statement:

Robert Sevin has committed a Crime.

Robert Sevin's Reasoning:

At approximately 10:08pm Central time on June 17, I officially announced a
duel between Alfvaen and /dev/joe. At 10:57pm Central time on June 17, I
sent an identical copy of the same message. Since the duel had already been
declared, my second message was a Crime (I was not authorized by Alfvaen to
initiate a second, identical duel).

Suggested penalty:

a DEDUCTION of 1,000,000,000 points
and
a FINE of A$5
and
a SENTENCE of 2 days in the Gaol
and
a TRANSFERENCE of the Adhesive Capital H
and
a PUBLIC APOLOGY of 3 lines

Vynd's reasoning:

The first question here is, of course, did the events described above
actualy occur?  I have satisfied myself that they did (OK, OK, I remember
it happening).  Rule 1215 Duels clearly describes the procedure through
which Challenges to a duel may be given.  The first step is for the
Challenging player to find someone else to be their Second.  Only after a
Second has been chosen may he post a Challenge on behalf of the
Challenger.  Clearly then, Robert Sevin broke the rules by sending out an
unauthorized Challenge.  Actually, since it was impossible for him to send
a real Challenge, that message "never happened," but even trying to send
it was still a Crime.

In light of the serious nature of the Crime, and the history of Mr. Sevin.
I have no choice but to sentence him to:

A DEDUCTION of 0 points.

and

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 13 or more lines.

Robert Sevin's Appeal Reasoning:

I hereby appeal CFCJ 136, paying any necessary fees to do so. I hope that
the TRUE sentence will be upheld, and that I will be given a more severe
punishment.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Robert Sevin has had the misfortune to attempt autoflagellation under
a Supreme Court that believes that punishments should fit the crime
under consideration. In particular, this Court has no desire to set a
precedent of severely punishing a crime that 1) could quite easily be
committed as an innocent mistake, and 2) caused no harm other than to
waste less bandwidth than this CFCJ.

Punishment:

The original punishment:

a PUBLIC APOLOGY of at least 13 lines

has been altered by the Supreme Court to:

a PUBLIC APOLOGY of at least 12 lines

... plus, of course, the automatic 25-point penalty for "frivolously
bothering the Judges".

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:45:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 402 Appeal Verdict

All hail Azpiazu!

                           - Vynd-icated

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:46:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 414 Verdict

CFJ 414 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing an authentic snowgod campaign prosthetic forehead
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 414
  Subject: Modest Proposals
Initiator: Robert Sevin
    Judge: Atilla the Pun (selected Jun 20, 1997, 20:17h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Proposal 2136 is not a Modest proposal.

Robert Sevin's Reasoning:

The rule governing Modest proposals declares that (delimited by ') 'A
proposal is considered to be Modest if and only if the author of the
proposal prefaces the proposal with the words "This is a Modest proposal".'
Proposal 2136 begins with (delimited by ') '{{This is a Modest proposal.'
The two braces preceding the declaration of modesty makes this a non-Modest
proposal.

Atilla the Pun's Reasoning:

I can find no fault with Robert Sevin's reasoning; therefore, I find this CFJ
TRUE.  I will however note that Proposals 2133 and 2134, as well as
Malenkai's Long proposal, are also non-modest.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:49:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Silver Moon

The following are the silver moon candidates, now that the thread has
collapses.  Reply to vote; voting lasts for 3 days or until the game
crashes, whichever comes first :)

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

 Proposal 1909 by fnord
   http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/prop1950.html#P1909
 
 Thinman's ridicule of /dev/joe's guess at the 11th truth of the Machine.
   http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/machine.html#11-r1
 
 breadbox's Hubert Feathers treasure
   http://www.itw.com/~malenkai/ackafta.htm#141
 
 Vynd's posting of Phoebe's Wisdom on April 25th.
   http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/phoebe.html#36

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:00:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: GF Mini-storage, Inc.

Vynd wrote:
> On 25 Jun 1997 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > Proposed action: GF Mini-storage, Inc. shall buy a Trade Liscence.
> > 
> > As the sole member of this organization, I am approving of this action,
> > and so it happens.
> 
> Actually, I think it fails.  If the Organization is doing the purchasing,
> then it is going to have to pay for it.  I don't think GF Mini-storage
> (girlfriend mini-storage??) had any money at this time (or does the
> start-up money go to the Org?  I dunno, maybe I should ahve read the
> rules, ah well....)

Guy gave his org A$200 when he first created it.  Orgs can receive gifts
w/o a trade license, specifically so that they can buy trade licenses
and other powers.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:08:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 402 Appeal Verdict

> All hail Azpiazu!

It's ALIVE!  Even if it cannot do fery much!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--John Bottomley:Blackberry
Current Book--Jean Lorrah:Ambrov Keon
Everybody has something to hide except for me and my squid.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:27:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 416 Verdict

CFJ 416 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a headache
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 416
  Subject: Financial
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: Rex Mundi (selected Jun 23, 1997, 20:57h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

At Monday, June 23, 1997, noon Acka time, the bond dividends are
calculated and the richest and poorest players are determined and 2%
of the richest player's currency is calculated, and then both the
dividend payments and the Rule 2101 payment happen simultaneously.

/dev/joe Reasoning:

Background:  Both events are said to occur at the same time.  Rule 2101
has the 2% currency transfer thing.  Rule 508 has the dividends.
Rule 2101 just says it happens on Monday, but rule 380 says that when a
day of the week is specified but no time of day is specified, the action
happens at noon.  Neither of these specifies a time zone so rule 380
makes both occur at noon EDT.

There are three cases I can imagine.

Case I:
Rule 508 and Rule 2101 are treated as conflicting rules, both trying to do
something at once.  Rule 508 wins the conflict, so it does its thing and
then Rule 2101 does its thing.  [This is the opposite of the statement.]

Case II:
Same as case I, but Rule 380 specifies the time for the event in Rule 2101,
and thus it takes precedence over Rule 508.

Case III:
The case described in the statement.  The dividends and R2101 payment are
calculated simultaneously before either takes effect, and then both
transfers happen at once.  This has the same result as case II, since
the bond dividend doesn't depend on the players' A$ balances.  I think
there's a little game custom that would lead to this being the expected
result, but regardless of which way I do it somebody's going to question
it, so I might as well make the CFJ first, right?

[Note: This actually matters, or at least might matter.  I donated all my
A$ to Seleya before noon acka time today, so that I would have A$0 when
the R2101 effect happened.  However, I then noticed that bond dividends
happen at the same time, and I will earn enough dividends to pass some
other players, especially with both myself and Voting Gnome benefiting
from the Whamiols *and* the one-time return of points from the removal
of Eggplant Weights.  In the no-Azpiazu thread, I'm getting over A$160
in dividends, which is *still* less than what Robert Sevin is getting.]

Rex Mundi's Reasoning:

This would seem to fit with the way score changes are handled, and the
rules don't really 'conflict', so the first two cases in /dev/joe's
reasoning don't apply.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 402 Appeal Verdict

> False was upheld.  The non-Azpiazu thread collapses.  The following
> transactions result.
>
> [...]
> 
> Jun 25 20:21 EDT: -25 /dev/joe: frivilous appeal of CFJ 402

Speaking only for myself, of course, I would just like to say that if
I could have waived the 25-point penalty for this appeal, I would
have. This decision was anything but frivolous.

breadbox
Justice

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:48:20 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Dice server)
Subject: Acka: SBoC Random OC determination

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dice rolls requested by: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Rolls also sent to:
    [email-masked]

# I am using the dice server to determine the random otzma card
# delivered from the spell book of chorg based on the following
# schedule (skeleton key is not a rule yet):
# 1 - go fish
# 2 - map shard
# 3 - untouch me
# 4 - share my expenses
# 5 - share my income
# 6 - swinging sale
# 7 - tactical retreat
# 8 - paratroop
# 9 - foul fowl
# 10 - truthseeker
# 11 - fix my gadget
# 12 - scientist for a day
# 13 - art thief

No. of sides on every die:     13
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    1
No. of rolls per line:          1

      8

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
   Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.

   For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
   subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/

   The dice server is provided by:

      Shadow Island Games
      http://www.pbm.com/ds.html

Original message follows:
> From [email-masked]  Wed Jun 25 18:47:59 1997
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id SAA08924 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:47:59 -0700
> Received: from mail.itw.net(206.138.122.6) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma008921; Wed Jun 25 18:47:53 1997
> Received: from ppp121.itw.com (ppp121.itw.com [206.138.122.121]) by mail.itw.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA29549 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:47:47 -0400
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:45:40 -0400
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: d
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 13
> #D 1
> #R 1
> #L 1
> #T Acka: SBoC Random OC determination
> 
> #C I am using the dice server to determine the random otzma card
> #C delivered from the spell book of chorg based on the following
> #C schedule (skeleton key is not a rule yet):
> #C 1 - go fish
> #C 2 - map shard
> #C 3 - untouch me
> #C 4 - share my expenses
> #C 5 - share my income
> #C 6 - swinging sale
> #C 7 - tactical retreat
> #C 8 - paratroop
> #C 9 - foul fowl
> #C 10 - truthseeker
> #C 11 - fix my gadget
> #C 12 - scientist for a day
> #C 13 - art thief

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7

iQCVAwUBM7HKYz8NitsTFjcVAQF2MgQAnWDnK0VnnVL6Wm4Zgr+PbhOlxYXdVtMZ
XKdkZ1B2FVX3ssAehewNG/Jur75LOV17R7f+t37nKGQrxVsxeI6U5GWo6UZ4h5Yx
OG4yDNXC1PA+yEC9I1ZcVG8bY6vodyoHIHtG1HaXcYxBrBgpw3QIt7WovbsHdk8C
86PDb7aEATM=
=eR8k
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:09:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Cheez-Whiz

I am building a Cheez-Whiz so that its blueprint will remain as
part of history, and as a keepsake.  It will be done in three days.
Its blueprint may also be useful to someone else as a tool...

As for CFJ 402, I am more excited about the 'nomicy' nature of the 
CFJ than the win.  To me, things like CFJ 402 are why I play nomic;
I find them inheritly interesting, and I hope more people got fun
out of the argument, gist, and nomicy nature of CFJ 402 and that
monster rule than were upset by the win.  I really hope that, or would
not have done it.

As for the "frivolous" comment in the pointlog entry, that is just the
way I log them usually.  I agree it was not frivolous.

Malenkai
Angry Villager

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:13:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 414 Verdict

I'm appealing CFJ 414.

The rules do not define a preface so game custom and standard english
usage prevails.  The interpretation of a preface as "the very first
thing in a proposal" is unreasonably narrow.  A preface is simply
a part of a book (or proposal in this case) which comes before the
main part of the text.  In several books I picked at random in my own
home, out of those that have prefaces, it could be just after the title
page (before the table of contents), or just after the table of contents,
or there could be more things after the table of contents but before the
preface (one had a publisher's note there).  Also, the proposal bribery
rule also talks about a preface with the bribe in it -- they both can't
come first, and it doesn't seem reasonable to me that game custom would
prevent these rules from being used together.  I think a more reasonable
interpretation is that a preface is any text that comes before any of the
changes described in rule 103 or before the actual rule-related part of a
rule created when a proposal beceomes a rule in full.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:27:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Blue Things

I am not going to file a CFJ surrounding CFJ 391 and the existance
of the Blue Things.  I am satisfied that they exist, rule 594 is 
not worded the way I remebered it being.  There is also game custom
supporting that they would exist (CFJ 190).  In case Blue Things were
destroyed as a result of CFJ 391 coming back true the first time:

#award Bascule : blue thing :
#award Museum : blue thing : 275 BV for snowgod

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:38:07 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New Player (Mentor: Niccolo Flychuck)

Attention players!

We have a new player!  Please welcome Dan Strenkowski
<[email-masked]>, ackanomic name: "Chalmers", to this game of
ours.  In response to the market research question, Chalmer writes:

>and i was just surfing and found your web site! :)

Niccolo Flychuck has been selected as his mentor.

Chalmers, meet everyone.  Everyone, meet Chalmers.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe
Registrar

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:45:39 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Universe 

>
>I am offering to help the Ambassador in assaulting and capturing The
>Universe named "Hunt a resonant fungus". The acceptance of p 2156
>"gravity" does not seem to be necessary for Ackanomic to recognise it as
>the initial ruleset of The Universe. I remind the Ambassador that it is
>his duty to organize an assault on this heathen nomic.
>
>**two-star
>

I appreciate the offer of assistance.  If P2156 passes, I will surely need
your assistance in organizing an assault.  If it fails, I do not believe we
need to organize an assault --but perhaps we should anyway.

The universe will be ours!

MUhahahahahah!

Fringey
Ambassador

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:31:58 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More Work for the Senate 

There are three new internomic prposals, Number 342, 343, and 344.  Numbers
342 and 343 were proposed by Antimatter of Ackanomic.  Number 344 was
proposed by Rishonomic.

I hereby initiate a sneate vote on all three. It is my opinion that P342
does not do what it aseeks to do.

BTW, P344's text is not an error....

Mr. Lunatic Fringe.
Ambassador

P342

Let the rules be changed by removing Rishonomic from the list of voting
players.

P343
Create a rule titled "Internomic Duels" with the text:

If one Nomic believes another Nomic has insulted it or engaged in an offensive
act against it, it may (thorough its liason with Internomic) challenge the
offending Nomic to an Internomic Duel. The challenged Nomic may accept or
decline the invitation.

If the challenged Nomic accepts, the liasons of the dueling Nomics may choose
to accept certain stakes in the challenge (such as a gain or loss of points or
the ability of the victor to insert a specified rule into the loser's
ruleset).
They may also choose to accept changes to the default initial rules. Any
stakes
or changes to the rules must be accepted by both liasons, with the
exception of
starting without rule 5, which is accepted if either liason requests it.

An Internomic Duel is played by two teams of three players each, representing
the two Nomics involved. A neutral referee is also neccessary. The initial
rules are as follows, unless the participating Nomics agree to changes:

Rule 1.
Each team gets a turn in sequence. The team which gets the first turn is
determined randomly by the referee.

Rule 2.
On a team's turn, all three members of that team must agree to a change to the
rules. The referee must determine the change's legality. If the change is
legal, the referee must decide the number of points to be awarded for the
change, from 0 to 5. The change then takes place.

Rule 3.
A rule may be declared illegal by the judge for any reason. The referee need
not explain eir reasoning. Recommended reasons to declare a rule change
illegal
are:
  It would make future rule changes impossible.
  It would immediately make one team win.
  It is deliberately biased towards one team or the other.
  It removes some or all of the referee's power to determine the legality of
  rule changes or adjucate disputes.
  It detracts from the spirit of the game.
  The referee just doesn't like it.

Rule 4.
The referee is in charge of maintaining a correct record of the state of the
game. If a dispute arises during play, the referee's decision is final.

Rule 5.
The rules of an Internomic Duel are binding on all players of both Nomics
involved. The referee should declare illegal any rule change which puts an
unfair burden on the non-dueling players of either Nomic.

Rule 6.
The winner is the first team to reach 100 points.

Rule 7.
Either team may forfeit the game at any time.

P344
Create a rule titled "Internomic Duels" with the text:

If one Nomic believes another Nomic has insulted it or engaged in an offensive
act against it, it may (thorough its liason with Internomic) challenge the
offending Nomic to an Internomic Duel. The challenged Nomic may accept or
decline the invitation.

If the challenged Nomic accepts, the liasons of the dueling Nomics may choose
to accept certain stakes in the challenge (such as a gain or loss of points or
the ability of the victor to insert a specified rule into the loser's
ruleset).
They may also choose to accept changes to the default initial rules. Any
stakes
or changes to the rules must be accepted by both liasons, with the
exception of
starting without rule 5, which is accepted if either liason requests it.

An Internomic Duel is played by two teams of three players each, representing
the two Nomics involved. A neutral referee is also neccessary. The initial
rules are as follows, unless the participating Nomics agree to changes:

Rule 1.
Each team gets a turn in sequence. The team which gets the first turn is
determined randomly by the referee.

Rule 2.
On a team's turn, all three members of that team must agree to a change to the
rules. The referee must determine the change's legality. If the change is
legal, the referee must decide the number of points to be awarded for the
change, from 0 to 5. The change then takes place.

Rule 3.
A rule may be declared illegal by the judge for any reason. The referee need
not explain eir reasoning. Recommended reasons to declare a rule change
illegal
are:
  It would make future rule changes impossible.
  It would immediately make one team win.
  It is deliberately biased towards one team or the other.
  It removes some or all of the referee's power to determine the legality of
  rule changes or adjucate disputes.
  It detracts from the spirit of the game.
  The referee just doesn't like it.

Rule 4.
The referee is in charge of maintaining a correct record of the state of the
game. If a dispute arises during play, the referee's decision is final.

Rule 5.
The rules of an Internomic Duel are binding on all players of both Nomics
involved. The referee should declare illegal any rule change which puts an
unfair burden on the non-dueling players of either Nomic.

Rule 6.
The winner is the first team to reach 100 points.

Rule 7.
Either team may forfeit the game at any time.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:11:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 418 (Karma)

Karma has been selected. 

Clerk of the Courts
Wearing a headache
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call For Judgment 418
  Subject: Holy Harfy Headwear
Initiator: Mr. Lunatic Fringe
    Judge: Karma (selected Jun 25, 1997, 23:11h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The Registrar is not not required to release a list of players ackanomic
hats until such time as every player has sent in a legal description.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe's Reasoning:

>From R2099

>Each player is hereby required to choose what they want their ackanomic
>hat to look like. They must then write a 25 line description of their
>hat, telling what it looks like and why they chose that design for it.
>Messages describing the players hat must be sent to the Registrar, who
>will compile a huge list of everyone's hat descriptions, and then make
>that list available for any player to see, in conjunction with the
>Web-Harfer.

This rule sets up a three step process.  Each player must first "choose
what they want their ackanomic hat to look like" Then they must write a
description of it and send it to the Registrar.

Okay so far, but the third step is more complicated.  The registrar is
required to compile a list of *everyone's* hat design, and release such a
list.  I am not authorized or even permitted to release a partial list, and
I do not think that speed kicks in until such time as I recieve a hat
design from *everyone*.

Now, no offense to Robert Sevin (I love this rule), but I think this needs
to be fixed. First though, I want to verify that there is broken, and that
by not releasing a list of hat designs I am not violating the rules. :)

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:08:29 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Internomic P45 

There is another new internomic proposal, Number 345.  It was submitted by
Agora this time. A sneate vote onit is hereby initiated.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe
Ambassador

P345
Create a rule titled "Internomic Duels" with the text:

If one Nomic believes another Nomic has insulted it or engaged in an offensive
act against it, it may (thorough its liason with Internomic) challenge the
offending Nomic to an Internomic Duel. The challenged Nomic may accept or
decline the invitation.

If the challenged Nomic accepts, the liasons of the dueling Nomics may choose
to accept certain stakes in the challenge (such as a gain or loss of points or
the ability of the victor to insert a specified rule into the loser's
ruleset).
They may also choose to accept changes to the default initial rules. Any
stakes
or changes to the rules must be accepted by both liasons, with the
exception of
starting without rule 5, which is accepted if either liason requests it.

An Internomic Duel is played by two teams of three players each, representing
the two Nomics involved. A neutral referee is also neccessary. The initial
rules are as follows, unless the participating Nomics agree to changes:

Rule 1.
Each team gets a turn in sequence. The team which gets the first turn is
determined randomly by the referee.

Rule 2.
On a team's turn, all three members of that team must agree to a change to the
rules. The referee must determine the change's legality. If the change is
legal, the referee must decide the number of points to be awarded for the
change, from 0 to 5. The change then takes place.

Rule 3.
A rule may be declared illegal by the judge for any reason. The referee need
not explain eir reasoning. Recommended reasons to declare a rule change
illegal
are:
  It would make future rule changes impossible.
  It would immediately make one team win.
  It is deliberately biased towards one team or the other.
  It removes some or all of the referee's power to determine the legality of
  rule changes or adjucate disputes.
  It detracts from the spirit of the game.
  The referee just doesn't like it.

Rule 4.
The referee is in charge of maintaining a correct record of the state of the
game. If a dispute arises during play, the referee's decision is final.

Rule 5.
The rules of an Internomic Duel are binding on all players of both Nomics
involved. The referee should declare illegal any rule change which puts an
unfair burden on the non-dueling players of either Nomic.

Rule 6.
The winner is the first team to reach 100 points.

Rule 7.
Either team may forfeit the game at any time.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #164
*******************************