Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #207
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, July 19 1997        Volume 02 : Number 207

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:01:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: question

> > Does anyone know how to interpret this (from rule 1240.1, section V.5)?
> > 
> > 5. When a player uses an Otzma Card on a proposal, and the proposal is
> > retracted, the Otzma Card is destroyed.
	[great explanation snipped]

> > Either way, could we maybe do without this provision?
> 
> You might like to rephrase that, but dropping it entirely could
> potentially leave some Cards in an indeterminate state.
	Thank you very much, Niccolo, for your extremely helpful
comments.  I might propose to reword it along with some other
malicious hacks I'm thinking about.

- -- 
Chaos
brewing

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:05:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Otzma Card Auction

I am bidding A$15 each in the Auctions for: OCID 136, OCID 137, and
OCID 134/138.

- -- 
Chaos

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:07:40 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Otzma Card Auction

> I am bidding A$15 each in the Auctions for: OCID 136, OCID 137, and
> OCID 134/138.

I think the bidding has gone past A$15 on OCID 137 already...and possible
on OCID 136 as well, I can't remember.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Bruce Willis:Down In Hollywood
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
This sentence contains only one nonstandard English flutzpah.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:10:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: party

> As soon as DPR's party starts, I'll be there. I will stand in a corner all
> night singing "Stand", by REM (left head lead vocals, right head backing)
> unless anyone wants to dance with me, in which case I will do the dance for
> "Stand", while still singing, or unless anyone plays or sings any TMBG, in
> which case I will conga round the room. On my own, if necessary.
	Uh oh!  Thread splits!

- -- 
Chaos

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:24:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postmaster request

breadbox wrote:
> By the way, this also means that I may not be able to go through with
> my offer to provide space for storing web pages. Right now it's all up
> in the air; we'll have to wait and see. (/dev/joe: how much space does
> all the html stuff currently take up?)

The acka HTML directory actually has a total of 21MB of stuff in it,
but 4.6M is from my copy of the official dictionary (2 copies, actually,
all-in-one and split by word length), and 5M is a directory containing a
backup of all the most important files, and 2.4M is an unnecessary
duplicate copy of the proposal archive (as a single file!), which leaves
9MB of other stuff, and this includes 3 copies of the rules -- the base
files I work from (830k including scripts), the rule-by-hundreds files
(about the same size), and the big rule file (530k because it does not
include 160k worth of rule suites, etc.)

The 8MB of "real" HTML stuff (not including my base rule files) looks like:
1.3M rules, 2 copies of all but suites
3M proposals
1M cfjs
120k cfcjs
580k entitylog, P/E page, includes some excess old thread duplicates
400k score stuff (mostly old pointlogs)
420k gallery (again, includes some old and unused stuff)
300k other images (half is old copies of the map, oops)
100k phoebe -- I need to split this page.
100k obsolete GnC page and my experiment with chessboard tables
140k prosthetic foreheads, the machine, duels, blueprints, fictionary
the rest, about 500-700k, miscellaneous little files

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 08:26:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 429 Verdict

On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 429 was judged FALSE.  Didn't someone ask what the point of this
> was?

I did, and I also offered an assumption that you might be trying to find
holes in the Synod. 
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgment 429
> Subject: Similarity
> Initiator: Malenkai
>   Judge: mr cwm(selected Jul 13, 1997, 19:10h EDT)
> Judgement: FALSE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The H similarity of They Might be Slumbering Giants and They Might be
> Slumbering Giants is 100.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> Similarity is described by rule 1003, section 4.
> 
> mr cwm's Reasoning:
> 
> R1003/14(4) states:  "The H similarity between any two Organizations A and
> B, is the greater of orgsim(A,B) and orgsim(B,A)."
> 
> There is no Rule, Game Custom, or Spirit by which I can rule that TMBSG
> and TMBSG is two Organizations.  The H similarity of TMBSG and TMBSG
> being, thus, undefined, it cannot be 100.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 08:33:56 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 (MLF)

This CFJ has no bearing on the state of the Synod. The eligibility as
defined in the quoted section of the rules is only relevant as to whether
a Church should be allowed to purchase a Seat in the Synod. 

Anyway, the reasoning is flawed. It entirely based on the assertion that
CFJ 429 established that self-similarity is undefined. CFJ 429 established
nothing of the sort. It established that the H Similarity of TMSBG and
TMSBG is not 100.  The reasoning is neither part of the CFJ, nor is it
part of the verdict, and thus has no bearing on this, or any other CFJ.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> MLF has been chosen.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgment 437
> Subject: Similarity II
> Initiator: Malenkai
>   Judge: Mr Lunatic Fringe (selected Jul 19, 1997, 00:33h EDT)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> It cannot be determined with finality whether the Church of Seleya is
> eligible for a Seat in the Synod.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> This is not a PWCFJ, although it could easily be reworded to be.  Its 
> the situations, and notthe wins, that I find intersting, and by making
> winning *not* an outcome, the air can be cleared.  This is just for 
> fun.
> 
> Rule 1303, section 10b, says:
> 
> > b. A Church is not eligible for a Seat in the Synod if the total M 
> > Similarities with allthe Churches which are members of the Synod is
> > equal to or greater than 80. 
> 
> CFJ 429 established that self-similarity was undefined.  This rule 
> establishes eligibility based on, in part, a test that involved calculation
> of self-similarity.  Thusthe eligibilty cannot be determined with
> finality.  What than means, I'll leave to someone else to decide.
> 
> Note that none of the other churches, indeed any church, is eligible
> either.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 08:36:29 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Organizational burying

This is way too complicated. 
Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Gavin Doig wrote:

> This is my first RFC, so I hope I've done everything right. This is
> intended to allow organizations to bury treasure.
> 
> Rex Mundi.
> 
> proposal Organizational Burying
> 
> This is a Modest proposal.
> 
> Prepend the following text to rule 1217, "Buried Treasure":
> 
> The term player as used in this rule also refers to any organization. Any
> action undertaken by a player in this rule may also be undertaken by an
> organization in the usual fashion for organizational actions.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:37:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Azpiazu

> Share with me the wisdom of Azpiazu!  Meditate upon His Holy Blueprint,
> whose text may never be used to produce another like him, but which we
> shall preserve against the passage of time.  Come and follow the Church of
> Azpiazu!  Follow our Creed: "Be inconsistent, but don't do it all the
> time."
	I am a willing Follower of the Church of Azpiazu.  I'm also
interested in becoming a priest.

- -- 
Chaos

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 08:43:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2241

On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2241
> Senate Resolutions
> ThinMan
> 
> 
> {{ [ This proposal empowers the Senate to make relatively quick, minor
> changes to the rule set in case we encounter an extraordinary situation
> in which the normal voting process is hung up or too slow.  The use of
> this privilege exacts a price, however.  To further balance things and
> spread the power around, I have decided to follow Niccolo's lead and
> propose term limits for Senators as part of the package as well.  The
> specifics of the Senator term limits is negotiable, but for now I just
> set them equal to the presidential term.
> ] }}

Interesting. 
The only paragraph which defines the limits Thinman discusses is the last
one which puts the 8 week ban. I suppose this is a kind of a term limit,
and a good balance for the kind of power given here. The length limits
are good,  but not strong to ensure that a resolution will not change
something fundamental. Length limits, as I've learned is several
debates, can be a boon for creativity.  It is also interesting to note
that this proposal _does_ equate roles and powers. 
This would be an interesting thing to try out. Unless I can demonstrate
that the Senate can attain dictatorial powers with this, I'll vote for it.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> A new rule entitled "Senate Resolutions" shall be created and numbered 
> 411.1, with the following, double-ampersand-delimited text:
> 
> &&
> The President, the Speaker, the Supreme Court Justices, and the
> Senators may each introduce a Senate Resolution at most once per
> calendar month by publicly posting its text.  The officer introducing
> the resolution shall then post a presumptuous, ostentatious speech,
> at least as long as the text of the resolution, explaining why the
> resolution should be accepted.
> 
> If the text of the resolution is longer than 20 80-character lines,
> or if it is not prefaced in the same document with a statement to the
> effect that the following text is a Senate Resolution and a provisional
> title, then the Officer who introduced it is considered an Incompetent
> Political Buffoon for the following three days.  Otherwise, a vote is
> initiated in the Senate on the question of whether or not to accept the
> Resolution; the voting period shall be three days for this.
> 
> If the Senate votes in favor of accepting a resolution then immediately
> after the results of the vote are publicly announced (as described in
> rule 1001), that resolution's text is added to the ruleset as a new
> rule with its initial title the specified provisional title, and an
> initial number equal to the first integer greater than 5000 which is
> not already a rule number.  The player who initiated the resolution is
> then permitted to cheer, strut, and make victory gestures.  The CSRR
> Officer is permitted and encouraged to assign such a rule a new number
> once within the first 7 days of its existence (in order to place it
> in the correct section of the rules); the Harfmeister is permitted to
> once rename such a new rule to any legal name during the first seven
> days of its existence.
> 
> If the Senate votes against accepting the resolution then the player
> who introduced it loses 10 points and is encouraged to moan, gripe,
> and complain about their choice of either "tree-hugging,
> big-government, hippie liberals" or "gun-toting, poor-hating,
> draconian conservatives."
> 
> Regardless of the outcome of the vote, each Senator who votes in favor
> of accepting a resolution is removed from his Senator seat at the same
> time that the complete, final voting results on that resolution are 
> publicly announced.  Senators who are removed from their seats in this
> way shall not be eligible to be re-elected as Senators for eight
> weeks following the removal.
> &&
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:49:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Azpiazu

> > Share with me the wisdom of Azpiazu!  Meditate upon His Holy Blueprint,
> > whose text may never be used to produce another like him, but which we
> > shall preserve against the passage of time.  Come and follow the Church of
> > Azpiazu!  Follow our Creed: "Be inconsistent, but don't do it all the
> > time."
> 	I am a willing Follower of the Church of Azpiazu.  I'm also
> interested in becoming a priest.

I am announcing the formation of the Church of Azpiazu, of which I am the
Founder.  two-star, Rex Mundi, and Chaos are my Followers.

My Church Dogma shall consist of my original announcement which I made; I
can supply it to the Web-Harfer if necessary.  (In my capacity as an Expert
in Bandwidth-Wasting Gizz, I believe that posting it again is unnecessary
under the provisions of Rule 1301, since "announcing" the Church Dogma may
not necessarily require the BWG of posting it in its entirety if it has
already been posted elsewhere.)

Whoever is setting up a test mailing list for the Synod(breadbox?)may
also do so for acka-azpiazu, if e wishes.  I am also ordaining Chaos as
a Priest of the Church of Azpiazu.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Song In My Head--Mark Korven:Human Beings
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
Words are useless, especially sentences.  [Madonna]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:01:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 430 Verdict

CFJ 430 has been judged FALSE.

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

Call For Judgment 430
  Subject: Adjudicating Treasure 101
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Guy Fawkes (selected Jul 13, 1997, 19:55h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The activity labelled Grab-a-Donkey that has been in progress over
the past few months is not actually a game of Grab-a-Donkey.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

This is a fascinating prinicple of law, IMO, and can have some
far-reaching implications.  Alot more fun than calling a CFCJ on the
Wrangler for consistent gross tardiness, IMO :-)

Grab-a-Donkey is described by rule 1213.  Rule 1213 lays out a prescription
for playing the game of Grab-a-Donkey; in particular, it regulates the
action of the Wrangler moderating a game of Grab-a-Donkey.  I quote
relevent sections of rule 1213 pertaining to the act of moderating the
game:

> Rounds will last no less than one full day and no more than 3 full
> days from the start of the round.
> E. At the end of the Round, the Wrangler will publicly report what each
> player on the GAL did, and determine the results.

The Wrangler thus has 3 days from the start of the round to post the
results.  The Wrangler is not an office, thus the speed provision does
not apply, although there may be sufficient game custom to construe
*any* time limits in the game to have an extra 3 day grace period
tacked on.  I'm not gonna get into that here, because it doesn't
matter.  Lets assume 6 days.

The Wrangler, on at least one occasion, has posted the results of GAD
more than 6 days after the start of the round.  Thus the game of GAD
has not been played as described in the rules.  (In case the statute of
limitations comes into play in this CFJ, I note that the round announced
this fortnight is tardy, so the SoL should not apply.  Also, previous
tardiness *has* been pointed out as well, another reason the SoL does
not apply.)  The fun part is,  what does that *mean*?

I quote from rule 101:

> The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
> rules. Actions described in the rules may only be performed, and shall
> only have those effects, as specified by the rules.

The action of playing and moderating the game of Grab-a-Donkey that has
occurred this spring and summer has not been performed as described in
the rules, as demonstrated above.  Actions, however, may *only* be
performed as described in the rules.  The conclusion, therefore, is that
that action is not, in fact, a game of Grab-a-Donkey, but something
similar with a much more relaxed pace.  How's that for pretzel logic?
I know there is a logician's term for it, but I cannot remember it OtToMH.

Ah, now this feels like nomic :-)

Guy Fawkes's Reasoning:

The heart of the matter involves the interpretation of the portion of
Rule 1213 quoted by the initiator.  In short, it specifies that a round
of Grab-a-Donkey last from one to three days, and that the Wrangler post
the results of the round "at the end of" that round.

It is long-standing game custom that where a word or phrase has no
Ackanomic-specific definition, common English usage may serve as a guide
to its interpretation.  After much thought, the judge has found that the
critical phrase, "at the end of" can take on a variety of meanings in
common usage, depending on context.  A few examples:

"At the end of the day, he reflected on the events of that morning."
Here, it is well understood in common usage that the subject's moment of
reflection does not necessarily occur at the exact end of the day,
midnight, and may in fact precede midnight by several hours.  Perhaps it
is evening, and he is sitting reflecting in front of the television; or
perhaps it is as early as mid-afternoon, and he is reflecting on what
happened at work on his way home.  At any rate, the vast majorityof the
notable events of that day have happened to him, and the phrase "at the
end of the day" is easily understood in common usage.

"At the end of twenty minutes, I grew tired of waiting and walked away."
 Here, the event occurs simultaneously with the "end," and was in fact
caused by the length of time before the end.  Common usage accepts this
as understandable and appropriate.

"At the end of the race, the marathoner collapsed in the middle of the
interview."  Here, the runner has, in fact, already crossed the finish
line, and the race is over, but common usage understands the sentence
completely: he collapsed shortly after crossing the line -- the phrase
is appropriate because his collapse was the first notable event
happening to him after crossing the line.

So, depending on context, an event occurring "at the end of" some period
can take place before, simultaneously with, or after the exact end of
that period.  Or, the sentence can be completely ambiguous.  For
example:

"At the end of the game, the fans stormed the playing area."  The common
speaker of English would find this phrase applicable to The Play, in
which the storming occurred before the end, and in which I am certain
the replay shows the ball being lateralled at one point to a saxophone
player; but common usage could also apply this to the last NBA
championship, in which the storming brought about the end of the game
and prevented the last half-second from being played; or the average
speaker of English could find it appliccable to our last state high
school basketball championship, where 12,000 exuberant fans watched in
shocked silence as our local Manual Rams won an unprecedented fourth
consecutive championship on a buzzer-beater, and then promptly stormed
the court.

Depending on the interpretation of "at the end of" in Rule 1213, a
phrase which can describe the last relavant events before the end, an
event simultaneous with the end, or the first relavant events after the
end, depending on context, the correct verdict varies.

Th initiator has interpreted Rule 1213 such that a round does not end
until the Wrangler posts its results: in this interpretation "at the end
of the round" means simultaneous with the end of the round, and in fact
causing the end of the round.  In this interpretation, the activity
presently taking place under the guise of Grab-a-Donkey does not folow
the description of Grab-a-Donkey in the rules: several rounds have
endured significantly longer than the one to three days given by the
rules.  Due to the wording of the Rule 101 which the initiator quoted,
this activity cannot affect the game state in the manner which
Grab-a-Donkey affects the game state, because it does not follow the
rules for Grab-a-Donkey, and the correct verdict is TRUE in this
interpretation.

On the other hand, the Wrangler has seemed to follow an interpretation
of Rule 1213 such that the rules for Grab-a-Donkey cuase a round of
Grab-a-Donkey to end after three days if the Wrangler has not already
done so by posting the results.  The end of the round, than, is an
automatic change to the game state after three days, and the Wrangler is
free to release the results later; "at the end of the round" interpreted
here as the first events relavant to the game of Grab-a-Donkey occurring
after the instant at which the round ends.  Since the Speed rule does
not apply (Wrangling is not an Official duty), the Wrangler can release
the results at his leisure in this interpretation, and the correct
verdict is FALSE.

The Rules instruct a Judge to apply game custom and the spirit of the
game to resolve differences of interpretation such as these.

The judge finds it useful to trace the history of this
Grab-a-Donkey-like activity to find which of these interpretations best
fits game custom.  Wrangler snowgod began this activity in March, and
the first few rounds were released as follows:

Round 1 began:  9 Mar
Round 2 began: 21 Mar  (12 days)
Round 3 began: 24 Mar  ( 3 days)
Round 4 began:  3 Apr  (10 days)
Round 5 began: 16 Apr  (13 days)
Round 6 began: 26 Apr  (10 days)

During this time, the Wrangler frequently apologized for his tardiness
in releasing the results (in fact, he apologized with every release of
results except for the 3-day round).  Since the lateness was noted by
the Wrangler and others, the 14-day legalization of unnoticed rule
violations does not apply.  Certainly, the illegality of such lateness
(illegal according to the first interpretation) was noted for the
purposes of the Statute of Limitations when during the 13 day delay
releasing results (from 3 Apr to 16 Apr), the Wrangler stated that he
did not want the game to proceed too far in the midst of a potential
thread split, and he announced that despite any illegality in doing so,
he would withhold the results of the game until the Supreme Court
returned the results of CFJ 364. When the Court returned UNDECIDED on
April 14, the Wrangler gave up and released the results according to the
(later ruled correct) thread of ThinMan grabbing breadbox's donkey.  At
any rate, in the first interpretation ("at the end of" meaning only
"simultaneous with the end of"), the game of Grab-a-Donkey had ceased to
be Grab-a-Donkey by April 16, 1997 due to this tardiness.

However, on April 23, CJF 376 (the continuation of CFJ 364) was
distributed.  It was later judged TRUE, establishing the truth of the
statement:  In Round 2 of the current game of Grab-a-Donkey (the results
of which were released by Wrangler snowgod on 24 March 1997), ThinMan
grabbed breadbox's donkey.  Since CFJ's are judged with respect to the
game state at the time of their submission, this established as game
custom that on April 23, or perhaps on an unknown date up to three days
before:

       1) there was a current game of Grab-a-Donkey
       2) this was the same game of Grab-a-Donkey whose 2nd round
          results were released on 24 March 1997
       3) in that game's Round 2, ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey

If 1) or 2) had been false, the statement of CFJ 376 would have been
meaningless, and therefore INVALID, or at the very best FALSE.  Thus,
the first interpretation (which would demand a TRUE verict) is not
supported by game custom.

The judge can find no event, specifically no tardiness, occurring since
April 23 which would cause the current game of Grab-a-Donkey to be other
than Grab-a-Donkey that did not also occur before April 23, and so by
game custom must be interpreted in such a manner such that it does not
result in the current game of Grab-a-Donkey to no longer be
Grab-a-Donkey.

This is not to suggest that all occurrences of the phrase "at the end
of" in the Ruleset should be interpreted to mean "simultaneously with or
after the end of."  Automatic game state changes, particularly, should
probably occur simultaneously with the "end" referred to in "at the end
of".  This judgment merely states that in this particular case, game
custom does not support interpreting "at the end of" in Rule 1213 to
refer only to simultaneity -- in short, game custom does not support the
interpretation demanding a TRUE verdict.  Game custom states that the
proceedings of the current game of Grab-a-Donkey resulted in a game of
Grab-a-Donkey existing on April 23; since then, this game has proceeded
along a similarly slow pace, and so by game custom it still exists.

By game custom, I must rule FALSE.

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:07:31 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Charge

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Aaron Humphrey [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Saturday, July 19, 1997 12:38 AM
To:	Ackanomic
Subject:	Acka: Charge

I am charging karma A$15 for a Classified Ad he is running in the next
issue of the Big White Gazette.
I acept this bargain, I mean how else would any one know about my public tattoo parlour.
- -karma

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Mike Oldfield:The Killing Fields Soundtrack
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
"Is it a party?"

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:34:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 (MLF)

> Anyway, the reasoning is flawed. It entirely based on the assertion
> that CFJ 429 established that self-similarity is undefined.  CFJ 429
> established nothing of the sort.
	It didn't have to.  That self-similarity is undefined is a
fact, whether there is game custom to support it or not.

- -- 
Chaos
mildly perturbed

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:03:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  bot change

Hey, kids.  I just reprogrammed the bot to handle proxies correctly,
so if it crashes on the next proposal results (due out in a few
hours)... you've been warned.

Love,
Chaos

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 04:43:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 429 Verdict

On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 429 was judged FALSE.  Didn't someone ask what the point of this
> was?
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Call For Judgment 429
>   Subject: Similarity
> Initiator: Malenkai
>     Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 13, 1997, 19:10h EDT)
> Judgement: FALSE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The H similarity of They Might be Slumbering Giants and They Might be
> Slumbering Giants is 100.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> Similarity is described by rule 1003, section 4.
> 
> mr cwm's Reasoning:
> 
> R1003/14(4) states:  "The H similarity between any two Organizations A and
> B, is the greater of orgsim(A,B) and orgsim(B,A)."
> 
> There is no Rule, Game Custom, or Spirit by which I can rule that TMBSG
> and TMBSG is two Organizations.  The H similarity of TMBSG and TMBSG
> being, thus, undefined, it cannot be 100.
> 

Hrm.  Well my philosophy and logic is a little musty, but isn't
something's similarity to itself a fundamental rule of logical thought, or
something... ?  I fully concur with mr cwm's verdict. =)

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)
From: Aaron Humphrey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Big White Gazette, Issue 3

                    The Big White Gazette
     "Wasting Bandwidth Since A Couple of Weeks Ago"

This issue: an exclusive article from Ackanomic's own Tabulator and
Promoter--Chaos!

(This article was sent to us not long ago; in it Chaos describes
 some events that, controversially enough, take place in other
 realms even beyond the ken of Internomic, realms which almost seem
 not to be Nomics at all...until recently.)

       LOOPHOLE SURFING HITS STATE LEGISLATURE
             Big City, Suburbs in Furor

Somewhere in the United States there is a broad stretch of land made
up of mountains, forests, a few fair-sized towns, and in the west, a
city on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River.  The land is called
Tennessee.  The city is Memphis, and I live there.

About two weeks ago, the nomickiest thing happened here.

A little background information is in order.  There's a constant
battle here (probably everywhere in the United States) between big
cities and the affluent outlying areas that hover just beyond their
borders (the suburbs).  People do not want to live within Memphis city
limits.  The schools are rotten, taxes are high, and crime is rampant.
However, one can live just outside Memphis and drive each day to a
workplace in the city.

The trend is a little sad.  Those who can afford to move out do so,
and the city is left with a weaker tax base.  Conditions worsen.

Living in the suburbs is a pretty blatant loophole surf.  You reap the
benefits of living near a big city, drive on their roads, and earn
money in your job with a company lured there (at some expense) by the
city-run Chamber of Commerce-- without paying city taxes or taking any
interest in the city's community, which decays in its neglect.

So cities like Memphis are always trying to expand their borders by
annexing the outlying areas.  This closes the tax loophole at least,
although not in a way that anyone really likes.  (The inner city is
still doomed, and everything Memphis City Schools touches turns to
slime.)  Naturally the suburban loophole surfers don't want their
communities to be annexed, but the state law has always been on the
city's side on this one.

Until now.

This spring, the Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee proposed some
legislation to help a little town (in his district) avoid annexation
by a nearby city.  It flew through the Tennessee state legislature.
No one bothered to read it.

The amendment to state law repealed a rule that previously prevented
any new city from being established within three miles of an existing
city.  It also lowered some population requirements so that now, any
group of 225 citizens can write up a list of services and a budget,
hold a referendum, and (depending on the results of the vote)
incorporate themselves as a new city.  The amendment furthermore gave
such proceedings precedence over annexation by existing cities.

So there's a new loophole to surf.  If the city of Memphis is
breathing down your back door, grab some friends and incorporate.
Once you're in a city of your own, Memphis can't touch you.

The thing is, no one understood all these changes at the time.  No one
dreamed of their repurcussions.  And the loophole sat in the books for
several months before anyone noticed.

Imagine the shock, the horror, and the joy of being the one to
discover it!

Suddenly, within the past two weeks, three rich little munchkin havens
popped up just east of Memphis, all clamoring to incorporate.  The
city, blindsided by the news, watched in horror as hundreds of acres
of phenomenally tax-rich real estate slipped through its fingers.  The
mayor called for a special session of the Tennessee legislature to
change the law back before any of the referenda could be carried out.
One suburban lawyer and activist retorted, "I really think it's
shameful that so many people are calling for the special session for
the sole purpose of denying people the right to vote."

The whole situation is exhilarating in a way.  There is ridiculously
slanted rhetoric on both sides.  There is suspense-- for the Tennessee
legislature will convene again next year, and no one seems too sure
about what will happen.  Careful political plays are being made.
There is the ironic humor of seeing urban forces, formerly
unstoppable, suddenly impotent while the little guy scrams gleefully
for shelter.  And behind it all, there's the man who pulled the most
collossal egg plant in the history of the state, slipping this little
logic bomb right under the noses of an entire three-ring bipartisan
circus of politicians and bureaucrats.  (Still no comment from him.)

But then, the revelation hits.  We're playing Nomic with people's
lives out here.  This can't be a good trend.

Trinkets & Treasures:

In the BWG's continuing effort to bring you useless statistics regarding
trinkets and treasures, we present below a painstakingly assembled list of
the players who have buried, and found, the most treasures.  From this list
were excluded such treasures as the "Jukkasjarvi Cheez-Whiz" Bonus Vote
treasures, as well as the Whamiol and "snowgod" Treasure Maps, which in
this publication's opinion are not in the spirit of Treasures.

The results follow:

Treasures buried--
12--Malenkai: 101,102,103,106,107,120,122,132,137,166,173,176
8--Mr. Lunatic Fringe: 104,111,123,134,138,149,165,177
8--/dev/joe: 118,119,125,126,140,151,172,174
7--Alfvaen: 144,146,148,155,164,167,169
5--Chaos: 109,110,112,115,153
4--breadbox: 113,116,141,142
2--Guy Fawkes: 114,163
2--Jammer: 117,129
2--Red Barn: 121,152
2--fnord: 127,128
2--Antimatter: 143,168
2--two-star: 145,170
1--Niccolo Flychuck: 105
1--ThinMan: 124
1--Strider: 130
1--Ackers: 133
1--Calvin N Hobbes: 135
1--Bascule: 136
1--IdiotBoy: 139
1--Voting Gnome: 147
1--karma: 175

This reporter must confess that he didn't realize that Mr. Lunatic Fringe
(the erstwhile snowgod)had buried so many treasures.  Malenkai's top
placement was less surprising, perhaps because so many of his treasures
remain unfound.

Treasures found--
16--/dev/joe: 103,109,110,112,113,114,116,120,127,138,139,143,145,148,149,167
6--Alfvaen: 118,141,142,151,153,173
5--breadbox: 115,119,132,136,146
3--Guy Fawkes: 105,111,140
3--Malenkai: 124,130,134
3--two-star: 144,168,172
2--Chaos: 126,174
2--fnord: 123,125
1--Voting Gnome: 102
1--Bascule: 163

/dev/joe's top placement on the list is also not surprising, although
perhaps the size of the gap between first and second place is.  But there
is no question as to who is the champion treasure hunter in Ackanomic.

Trinkets & Treasure--Update:

It was brought to the attention of the BWG that another Trinket has been
added to the list of the twice-buried, the "repayment".  At first, the
outlook for this Trinket, created almost as an afterthought by former
President Mr. Lunatic Fringe, did not seem bright--either destroyed
trivially for recompense, or even buried forever, but /dev/joe, in true
Treasure-Hunter fashion, managed to unearth it, and then buried it himself.
It was found by two-star a little over a week ago.  There is obviously
grounds to speculate that two-star himself may be preparing another
treasure map, since the Silver Shovel treasure would seem to depend on it.
(Or does it?)

The Exquisite Dead Guy has also been unearthed again, by /dev/joe, and
it seems likely to this reporter that it will soon equal the inhumation
record of No Tea.  While /dev/joe satisfied the conditions of the map by
determining that no "Ackanomic-inspired pangram" existed, Alfvaen has
informed us that the search remains for other pangrams inspired by
Ackanomic.  He has also made cryptic comments about "anti-pangrams".

Classified Ads:  (rates: A$3 per line)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a cramped store which is called "Canines Tattoo Parlour" on area
k9 on the map. any player may come here and get a peel off tattoo made
and provide a description if they wish for 200A($) and I will buy them
back at any time later than 3 days for 195A($) as long as they r not
too badly desecrated or disfigured from there original state.

- -Karma (Tattoo You)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.terranet.ab.ca/~aaron/)
Current Album--Bill Cosby:When I Was A Kid
Current Book--Robert Jordan:The Dragon Reborn
How come they call them buildings if they've already been built?

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #207
*******************************