Subject: Ackanomic Digest V2 #222
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, July 29 1997        Volume 02 : Number 222

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:09:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 117

Well, I'd been meaing to get around to doing one of these.  My current
plans for this office, by the way, are to patch stuff that has recently
made it inot the rules.  The long standing problems I figure I at least
desrve a few points for fixing, if I go to the trouble of hunting them
down.

The text of CSR 117 is as follows:

In Rule 419.2 VI. delete the second and third sentences and replace them
with: "Any player may join this Institution by posting a public message
stating they are doing so.  Any player may leave this Institution by
posting a public message saying they are doing so."

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:00:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Cheering, Victory Gestures, etc.

Hooray!
Wheeee!

<strut>

  _
 / \
|   |
|   |
|   |
|   |
|   |   
|   |.---.
|   ||   |.---.
|   ||   ||   |.---.
|   ||   ||   ||   |
|    | _-_| _ || _ |
|   _--\  \/ \||/ \|
|_--    \_/\_/  \_/|
|      _-          |
|    _-            |
|                  |
 \                /
  \              /

/dev/joe
BWG victory gestures

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:43:53 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Viruses & CarsesraC

I hear he was murdered. The only witness was too far away to see it 
clearly, but the murderer appeared to be wearing a *toga*
<Melodramatic minor organ chord>

**two-star

> And what's going on with fnord, anyway?  He's been extremely quiet of late.
> Anyone have any idea about that?  (Like fnord, perhaps?)
> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Stolen Moments--Red Hot & Cool
> Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
> Unanimous is a mouse with a single horn in its forehead.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:06:35 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P2233 rejected (Otzmaara)

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > I already pointed out in a previous post that the three day limit doesn't
> > really prevent any countering, or double countering, although it might
> > leave a rathger small windows for anti-countering.
> 	That limitation gives players who can log on at (say) 2:32
> A.M. Saturday morning if they like an unfair advantage over those of
> us who can't... or just don't enjoy such time-sensitive shenanigans.
> 	Also, the assertion that I had a window of a number of hours
> in which I could have countered the Go Fish played against my Fix My
> Gadget, while true enough of itself, ignores the goal of Ackanomic to
> be fully playable by anyone who has email access once in three days.
> 

Any other player who had a Go Fish could have countered the first Go Fish
any time during those first three days. In Acka many such deals are made.

Anyway, if you have email access once in three days, then the next time
you access you'd be able to use another Card.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:07:11 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P2233 rejected (Otzmaara)

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > I already pointed out in a previous post that the three day limit doesn't
> > really prevent any countering, or double countering, although it might
> > leave a rathger small windows for anti-countering.
> 	That limitation gives players who can log on at (say) 2:32
> A.M. Saturday morning if they like an unfair advantage over those of
> us who can't... or just don't enjoy such time-sensitive shenanigans.
> 	Also, the assertion that I had a window of a number of hours
> in which I could have countered the Go Fish played against my Fix My
> Gadget, while true enough of itself, ignores the goal of Ackanomic to
> be fully playable by anyone who has email access once in three days.
> 
k

Anyway, I'm not deadset against eliminating this specific provision. I
judt don't think it's necessary to remove it.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:17:24 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > As I've stataed before, CFJ 429 established no such thing. The reasoning
> > for that CFJ may have mentioned this, but the CFJ statement was very
> > specific, and refered to no Organization other than TMBSG.
> 
> CFJ 429 affirmed existing game custom that an organization's similarity
> with itself is undefined.  Are you saying that TMBSG's similarity with
> itself is undefined, yet all all other organization's self-similarity
> is defined?  Doesn't that seem absurd?  

Whether or not it is absurd is not the question. R214 is very explicit
about what is being judged, and what is official and what is not.
The reasoning is explicitly and unamigously  not part of the official
judgement.

You misrepresent CFJ 429, which was poorly phrased to begin with.

> 
> > I find this a real stretch of one's logical imagination to apply this
> > reasoning to any Organization. Especially from a player who is so strict
> > about other things, such as, when is there truly a precedecne conflict.
> > Arguing that is no more that trying to pull the wool over our collective
> > eyes :)
> 
> I find the above offensive.  I submitted a CFJ, nothing more.  I have
> no intent to deceive anyone, as is implied above, and as I said, find
> the implication offensive.
Is that smiley written in invisible ink or something?
I find it very offensive that you imply that a metaphor, clearly marked
with a smiley, is offensive.

>  What does interpreting the precedence rule
> have to do with this anyway?
You stated several times that you tend to be strict about those. Well, I'm
strict about judgements, and I find it offensive that you are tying to
pass off reasoning as something 'established by CFJ'. Game Custom is
established by the CFJ statement (provided it is judged true), not by
reasoning.

I urge the Justices to refer to the rules about CFJs when considering this
appeal.

Niccolo flychuck
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:19:11 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P2246 accepted (Internomic a la Vynd)

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> >
> >
> >That's absurd.
> 
> ... which, around here, is not actually an argument against it :)
> 
> - -mr cwm

Funny, I just made that argument in an unrelated post. I think Game Custom
is strong enough to make this have the intended effect, but if it will
make everyone feel better, I'll submit the appropriate proposal to ammend
it so that everyone will agree on its meaning, and give the points to
someone else.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:20:18 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: IP's  (/dev/joe, ThinMan) 

I am voting to accept both IPs

Niccolo Flychuck

On 28 Jul 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> I have already voted to ACCEPT the IP against /dev/joe.
> 
> I am now taking the opportunity to ACCEPT the IP against ThinMan.  I
> have no problem with Officers attempting to abuse their offices.  I have
> no problem either, with removing said Officers from said Offices when
> they try L;)
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:22:25 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Resolution - IP

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > Let's impeach him for this.  
> > I am calling for impeachement of Senator /dev/joe
> 
> > For good measure I am calling for impeachment of Sentor ThinMan (he
> > proposed the rule)
> 
> This might be problematic.  I've already called an IP on /dev/joe; Rule 404
> says that a player may only have one IP pending at any one time.  It does
> not say, however, that only one IP may be pending against a player at any
> one time, so it looks like there are now two IP's against /dev/joe and none
> against ThinMan.

Well, perhaps someone else will call an IP against ThinMan, or not.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:28:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PCI

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > BTW,  what's the status of all those Auctions?
> 
> The Runemaker is late on Otzma auctions, I believe. 
Malenkai is correct. I am late. I'll anounce this in a few hours, and
after that I'll resign from the position of RuneMaker.

I suppose this will prompt a proposal from someone to change the Card
creation procedure. There are two elements I'd really like to see kept -
the dependence on game events. Right now the number of Cards one can
create depends on the LSAP. The secod is the RuneMaker not having complete
control over which Cards are being created. Currently the RuneMaker may
excercise some control, but randomness dominates.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:42:08 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: people's council 

I hereby petition to be a member of the peoples council, if I am not
already, as Bascule pointed out, a member of the peoples council.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe
have I sent an odd number of messages?

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:47:24 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IP 

I am calling an IP against Vynd, the third senator in the triumverate.  As
a supporter of the senate coup, I feel that he should be impeached.

I am voting in faovr of this IP, as well as the IP against /dev/joe.  I
also encourage any other freedom loving citizen to enact an IP against
senator ThinMan.

Perhaps Robert Sevin could redeem the senates honor by ousting it of these
vermin.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:50:37 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Resolution 

>
>Vynd is appointed to Senator seat Sinecure 33; Robert Sevin is
>appointed to Senator seat Rebus 8-{}; /dev/joe is appointed to Senator
>seat /dev/senate3; ThinMan is appointed to Senator seat Melvin.}}

I don't believe this clause has the nessacary precedence to be carried out.
There is a specific method in the rules for filling empty senate seats, and
the rule that regulates that has a lower number than this one.

I believe there are three empty senate seats, andd that an election should
be held to fill them.

Mr. Lunatic Fringe

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:35:17 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal

> Game Custom is established by the CFJ statement (provided it is judged
> true), not by reasoning.

*Explicit* game custom is established by the statement of a CFJ.  It
is *implicit* game custom that self-similarity of organizations is 
undefined.  I cannot see what I am doing here that is offensive.  You
also dodged this question which was clearly stated in my last post:

> Are you saying that TMBSG's similarity with itself is undefined, yet
> all all other organization's self-similarity is defined?

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:23:48 -0400
From: jordan james <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Viruses & CarsesraC

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9C01.2039F1E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----Original Message-----
From:	**Alexandre Muniz [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, July 29, 1997 1:44 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: Acka: Viruses & CarsesraC

I hear he was murdered. The only witness was too far away to see it 
clearly, but the murderer appeared to be wearing a *toga*
<Melodramatic minor organ chord>

**two-star

> And what's going on with fnord, anyway?  He's been extremely quiet of late.
* Anyone have any idea about that?  (Like fnord, perhaps?)
* I understand someone dressed as a crazed ceaser in a toga killed him ruthlessly
* - Karma
> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Stolen Moments--Red Hot & Cool
> Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
> Unanimous is a mouse with a single horn in its forehead.

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9C01.2039F1E0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9C01.2039F1E0--

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Maiden Voyage

Note: I have just sent out an email via [email-masked]. If
you did not receive this message, please notify me at your earliest
convenience.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:30:36 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 437 Verdict - Appeal

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > > As I've stataed before, CFJ 429 established no such thing. The
> reasoning
> > > for that CFJ may have mentioned this, but the CFJ statement was
> very
> > > specific, and refered to no Organization other than TMBSG.
> > 
> > CFJ 429 affirmed existing game custom that an organization's
> similarity
> > with itself is undefined.  Are you saying that TMBSG's similarity
> with
> > itself is undefined, yet all all other organization's
> self-similarity
> > is defined?  Doesn't that seem absurd?  
> 
> Whether or not it is absurd is not the question. R214 is very explicit
> about what is being judged, and what is official and what is not.
> The reasoning is explicitly and unamigously  not part of the official
> judgement.
> 
> You misrepresent CFJ 429, which was poorly phrased to begin with.
> 
R214 is very explicit about what becomes _explicit_ game custom in
connection with a CFJ.  But that is by no means the only component
of game custom.  We have gone through this discussion around here
before.  In at least some cases, part or all of a judge's reasoning
must be accepted as implicit game custom, because the explicit
game custom of the truth or falsehood of the question may depend
on the reasoning given being the correct interpretation of the rules.
It's a kind of logical feedback.

> >  What does interpreting the precedence rule
> > have to do with this anyway?
> You stated several times that you tend to be strict about those. Well,
> I'm
> strict about judgements, and I find it offensive that you are tying to
> pass off reasoning as something 'established by CFJ'. Game Custom is
> established by the CFJ statement (provided it is judged true), not by
> reasoning.
> 
Game custom is established according to the truth or falsehood of
the CFJ statement, but as above, that does not preclude the
possibility of part of the reasoning entering Custom as well.
Whether that principle applies in this case will be decided by
the Court.

> I urge the Justices to refer to the rules about CFJs when considering
> this
> appeal.
> 
I have no reason to doubt that they would.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:00:07 -0800
From: "Jerome Herrman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IP 

Microsoft Mail v3.0 (MAPI 1.0 Transport) IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Jerome Herrman
To:  'acka'
Subject:  Acka: IP
Date: 1997-07-29 08:51
Priority: 3
Message ID: E22E77412107D111948C0060976638FA
Conversation ID: Acka: IP

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

I am calling for an IP against Thinman.

Techno

While an intelligent blind funny detective from another planet was with a
team of kangeroos, one cosmic Russian from Indiana stole all the air.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:38:52 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Senate Resolution

Mr. Lunatic Fringe wrote:

[From S.R. 101:]
> >Vynd is appointed to Senator seat Sinecure 33; Robert Sevin is
> >appointed to Senator seat Rebus 8-{}; /dev/joe is appointed to
> Senator
> >seat /dev/senate3; ThinMan is appointed to Senator seat Melvin.}}
> 
> I don't believe this clause has the nessacary precedence to be carried
> out.
> There is a specific method in the rules for filling empty senate
> seats, and
> the rule that regulates that has a lower number than this one.
> 
> I believe there are three empty senate seats, andd that an election
> should
> be held to fill them.
> 
MLF is incorrect.  Here is the relevant text from rule 401:

	(x) Office Type 
	All offices are either Functional or Political. If the rules
fail
	to specify the type of an office, that office is a Political
	Office. Vacancies in a particular Political office are filled by
	election for office (by the procedure in R 402), unless other
rules
	specify otherwise. In the case of an optional Political office
	where a nomination did not produce any volunteers, the election
	process is aborted at that point. 

Rule 401 specifically allows other rules to specify other ways in
which political offices (such as Senator) are filled.  The new rule
created by S.R. 101 did so.  There is no precedence conflict.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:48:26 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fair's fair

I am calling an IP against Senator Robert Sevin.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:51:06 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IP

I am voting for acceptance of the IPs pending against /dev/joe and 
ThinMan, and for rejection of the IP pending against Vynd.

**two-star

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:57:33 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: yet another hidden agenda RFC

I'm a bit fuzzy on how this is supposed to work, but...I think it might be
overly complicated.  It would be best, IMHO, to start out with a simple
Hidden Agendas rule, trusting the Speaker to come up with a good method to
generate Agenda Items.

I have been meaning to send out a real truly honest-to-Azpiazu RFC on this
one(suitable for submission as a Proposal), but this Senate Coup has been
distracting me.

Join The Rebellion!  Stand up for your democratic rights!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Duran Duran:Shadows On Your Side
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
I have a black belt in origami--stop or I'll fold you!

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:48:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Cheering, Victory Gestures, etc.

I am hereby forming an Organization called The Rebellion.  This
Organization is dedicated to the overthrow of the Tyrannical Ruling
Elite, also known as the Senate, by disempowering Rule 411.1 and impeaching
them all(except the noble Robert Sevin, who refused to be a party to this
coup).

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Duran Duran:Shadows On Your Side
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
I'm confused as a baby at a topless bar!

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:54:39 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: IP

Since Public Voting seems to be the norm(do we have to wait for Count
Tabula to announce the voting periods having begun, or not?  If so, I can't
help but wonder at Malenkai's complicity in this whole thing...as, after
all, the burier of the Bonus Votes that were used so profligately on this
Proposal), I hereby vote to accept the Impeachment of /dev/joe(both times,
if necessary)and ThinMan.  I vote against the Impeachment of Robert Sevin.
Vynd's fate I will hold in abeyance for now...

Long live the Rebellion!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Duran Duran:Shadows On Your Side
Current Book--Joel Rosenberg:The Silver Stone
Throw another Ken on the Barbie.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ross Morgan-Linial <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Senate Resolution - IP

On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

// > This might be problematic.  I've already called an IP on /dev/joe; Rule 404
// > says that a player may only have one IP pending at any one time.  It does
// > not say, however, that only one IP may be pending against a player at any
// > one time, so it looks like there are now two IP's against /dev/joe and none
// > against ThinMan.
// 
// Well, perhaps someone else will call an IP against ThinMan, or not.

I am calling for an IP against ThinMan. I am voting for the IP against
ThinMan, and I will carefully consider the IP against /dev/joe before
voting.

- ------
Ross Morgan-Linial * [email-masked]

Any man who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
 - Samuel Goldwyn

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

Date: 29 Jul 1997 12:34:34 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Fair's fair 

AC>I am calling an IP against Senator Robert Sevin.

AC>ThinMan

Now that all the IP's are out on the table, here's by final attempt at
going for them...

ACCEPT the first IP against /dev/joe
ACCEPT the second IP against /dev/joe
ACCEPT the IP against ThinMan
ACCEPT the IP against VYND
REJECT the IP against Robert Seving

GF
*whew*

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 13:01:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Postmasterness

I am announcing the following postal code change, delimited by BOSTON.
This will make the muppetlabs.com lists official in 3 days, while still
leaving the wilma lists official for a reasonable transition period
(after which our new postmaster can phase out the old lists).

BOSTON
Change the first sentence in the postal code from:

  All addresses below which end in @wilma should be treated as having
  ".che.utexas.edu" appended to the name.

to

  All addresses below which end in @wilma should be treated as having
  ".che.utexas.edu" appended to the name.  The addresses created by
  instead replacing "@wilma" with "@muppetlabs.com" are all public forums
  subject to the same restrictions as their "@wilma" counterparts.
BOSTON

Now, I am resigning from the office of Postmaster.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postmasterness

> Now, I am resigning from the office of Postmaster.

I hereby volunteer for the Office of Postmaster.

breadbox
fingers crossed

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 13:40:05 -0800
From: "Jerome Herrman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE:Acka : IP 

Microsoft Mail v3.0 (MAPI 1.0 Transport) IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Jerome Herrman
To:  'acka'
Subject:  RE:Acka : IP
Date: 1997-07-29 13:29
Priority: 3
Message ID: 1EBE0E4BFE07D111948C0060976638FA
Conversation ID: RE:Acka : IP

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

Please record the following votes from me....

ACCEPT the first IP against /dev/joe
ACCEPT the second IP against /dev/joe
ACCEPT the IP against ThinMan
ACCEPT the IP against VYND
REJECT the IP against Robert Seving

Techno

While an intelligent blind funny detective from another planet was with a
team of kangeroos, one cosmic Russian from Indiana stole all the air.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:25:57 EDT 
From: [email-masked] (Ed  Graham)
Subject: Acka:  BWGL (and other stuff)

NOW I am training the bussiness end of the BWGL on Breadbox.

Re: Hidden Agendas RFC:  I like the concept,  but as Vynd pointed out,  a
lot has to do with participation.  A possible solution may be for
"Whoever it is Who's Harfing This Thing" to make up a series of truly
impossible conditions(  such as the accumulation of *all* Acka-dollars,  
or to hold some mutually exclusive offices like a seat on the Senate and
the Presidency simultaneously,  or even to solve the ROJ).  Then,  if not
enough volunteers sent in sufficient conditions,  whatever was left would
be distributed.  Also,  how about, instead of Auctioning the NE's,  that
Players submitting AE's (in ascending order of score at end of the
previous Cycle)  would get to choose the NE's from the list of those
available,  in turn?  Of course,  if you failed to complete your choices
in the alloted time (36 hoursor so?),  you would be skipped,  and have to
contend with one of the randomly chosen impossibles.

One other thought,  similar to Vynd's caution about the relative length
of Cycles;  coulkd we make the destruction of AE's and NE's voluntary for
anyone who doesn't win?  If we make it voluntary to "turn in" AE's,  some
Players may wish to keep the ones they have.  This would,  of course make
it more difficult for "Whoever it is Who's Harfing This Thing"  to track
and distribute NE's,  but it *could* require less time coming up with new
conditions.  

I know I will be ineligible to vote on this when and if it gets this far,
 but I really like it so far.  I would like to see some form of playtest
before it gets adopted Acka-wide,  but I realise that it might take
months before we really know if it will be good or bad with or without
testing.

A last note to anyone who can:  Please fix the wording in the PCI Rule! 
By my reckoning,  this message will unfortunately result in my leaving
the PCI, before I even had a chance to mess up.

Voting (whether it's legal or not) Gnome

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: is (thank you)

is
mr cwm, revived editor, publisher, etc.

is would like to devote this entire end-of-the-month issue to thanking
those who voted to restore its belly to its proper place.  Thanks.  (You
know who you are.)  (And doesn't this BWG make it all worthwhile?)

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:14:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: is (thank you)

mr cwm wrote, under the appearance of publishing in his newspaper:

> is would like to devote this entire end-of-the-month issue to thanking
> those who voted to restore its belly to its proper place.  Thanks.  (You
> know who you are.)  (And doesn't this BWG make it all worthwhile?)

P2242 was rejected, due to one additional NO vote by proxy (ThinMan's
proxy to me) than was first reported.  No newspapers were reinstated.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:14:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: is (thank you)

mr cwm wrote, under the appearance of publishing in his newspaper:

> is would like to devote this entire end-of-the-month issue to thanking
> those who voted to restore its belly to its proper place.  Thanks.  (You
> know who you are.)  (And doesn't this BWG make it all worthwhile?)

P2242 was rejected, due to one additional NO vote by proxy (ThinMan's
proxy to me) than was first reported.  No newspapers were reinstated.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:29:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 139 Verdict

CFCJ 139 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 139
  Subject: Entity Manipulation
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: ThinMan (failed to respond)
3rd Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 25, 1997, 21:56h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Chaos has committed a Crime.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Chaos attempted to zap the following entities with an Orbital Mind
Control Laser via the following action on July 14th:

- ---
> I offer /dev/joe Jephthah's Pride in exchange for the Collossus of
> Sardia, an Otzma Card type Go Fish, a Plunky Monkey Wrench, a Scroll of
> Crumble, and A$250.        Oh my, this is too good to pass up.        I am zapping /dev/joe with my Orbital Mind Control Laser for
the trade offer quoted above.
        *zot*
- ---

Now, its been alleged that this was in fact a Crime, due to the fact that
the Collossus of Sardia did not exist at the time, but were not here to
judge that.

It seems much more likely that the heinous crime of Zuriti'ili was comitted
in regards to these nefarious attempted entity manipulations.  Lets look
at the mysterious  circumstances surrounding this action:  1) The fabled
Collossus of Sardia mysteriously disappears.  2) The target is nothing but
charred remains in the afterlife.  3) The President (and defendant) is
making secret deals with his partner in crime to gerrymander him onto
the Supreme Court in exchange for supporting this underhanded entity
manipulation.

We know that the heinous crime of Zuriti'ili involves entities, but not
a prime number of entities.  The number of entities in question here
is 254 or 255, depending how you count.  It is also rumoured in the
ancient texts that a *zot* noise is involved, and that is the case here.

The Judge has no choice, given the overwhelming evidence presented, that
Chaos comitted the Crime of Zuriti'ili here on this day of July 14th.

Suggested Penalty:

A FINE of A$1150 -- known A$ value of the entities in question.

mr cwm's reasoning:

The evidence against Chaos is, indeed, overwhelming, but that is actually
an argument in favor of his innocence since, as anyone who has watched
_Murder, She Wrote_ knows, the party to whom the evidence most clearly
points is never guilty.

In researching Ancient Texts, I have come to suspect that the *zot* noises
which figure so prominently were added in transcription by scribes who
could not bring themselves to believe that the Incredibly Wise Ancient
Ones had ommitted any reference to such an amusing sound.

I have examined the record, and exacty two CFCJ's (not including this
CFCJ) have been called since Zuriti'ili has been recognized as a Crime.
One of those (CFCJ 137) was a charge of Zuriti'ili, but one, CFCJ 138, was
not.  Consider CFCJ 138:  a Crime was committed, and yet there was not the
slightest hint of Zuriti'ili.  From this I draw the logically indefensible
(well, R719 *does* say "unusual lattitude") conclusion, which is also the
guideline brought forth by this verdict, that Zuriti'ili is never
committed simultaneously with another Crime.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:31:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 440 Verdict

CFJ 440 has been judged FALSE.

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

Call For Judgment 440
  Subject: Gadgets
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: ThinMan (failed to respond)
2nd Judge: mr cwm (selected Jul 24, 1997, 23:51h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Removing Clause (vi) of Rule 595, "Gadgets", will cause many existing
Gadgets to stop working since they will no longer be able to manipulate
entities.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

I am phrasing it that way because I find it easier than the converse; I
believe that it should be ruled FALSE.

The clause in question is(excluding square-bracketed text which does not
change the effect):

  (vi) A Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a Protected entity
       if its Blueprint so specifies.

I have listed in a recent email message the rules which contain the word
"Protected", and they are few.  I do not believe that removing this
restriction will have the effects that Malenkai claims.

Malenkai stated that he beleieves game custom holds that all entities
are "Protected", because of that phrasing in an earlier version of Rule
500.  However, Niccolo Flychuck also stated, in reference to a recent
proposal to amend Rule 1301, that "Protection language is obsolete".  So it
seems to me that no entities are Protected, except perhaps those that
specifically state it in the Rules, and I can't find any real reason why a
Gadget should be able to manipulate those things in the first place.

If what is _meant_ is that Gadgets may manipulate any entity, then perhaps
the CSRR Officer should change Rule 595 to reflect this fact if this CFJ is
judged true.

Malenkai's Bronze Torch Reasoning:

> Alfvaen's Reasoning [quoted]:

> I have listed in a recent email message the rules which contain the word
> "Protected", and they are few.  I do not believe that removing this
> restriction will have the effects that Malenkai claims.

The provision in clause (vi) is a an *enabling provision*, not a
restriction.  The key question here is to ask: What does the word
"Protection" mean as used in clause (vi).  I am going to make a
case that it means "any" or "all" (or is a no-op), whereas the
initiator appears to make a claim that it is an attribute, without
definition, yet with significance (if it has no significance, then it
doesn't really exist, leading to any or all anyway).  I am going to
argue that my construction is supported by game custom, whereas no other
is. (Saying "protected entity" means "all entities" is the same as
saying "protected" is a no-op).
 
> Malenkai stated that he beleieves [sic] game custom holds that all
> entities are "Protected",

I did not say such a thing, and prefer to be quoted directly in the
future, rather than have my quotes misconstrued.  I stated that game
custom gives us the construction of "Protected entity" to mean "any
entity", because that is what it meant from the time Blanket Protection
was added with proposal 986, and continued to mean when its definition
was removed with proposals 1416 and 1539.

The question ramins, then, what does "Protection" mean when its defintion
is removed.  When proposal 986 was accepted, giving all entities
and actions Protection by default, the term became obsolete as an adjective,
yet was not removed from all places as an adjective.  Some entities were
described by the adjective, whereas others were not, yet the idea of
Protection as described in rule 592 applied to everything, hence the
word had no real meaning where it was actually used as an adjective at
that point; it was obsolete, a no-op.

That is when this custom was created, and it applied to clause (vi) at
that time.  It remained defined as a noun in rule 592 for entities and
actions (ie, rule 592 delineated what it meant for an entity to be
Protected).  Entity Protection was removed from rule 592 and moved to
rule 500 by proposal 1416.  Proposal 1416 was a very long proposal which
removed virtually all instances of the word Protection from the rules
where it pertained to entites.  This did not change the customary
meaninglessness of the word.  The fact that it did not remove the
instance in clause (vi) did not remove the custom created by its
obsolecence by proposal 986, and did not change what it *meant* to be
Protected, which for entities, was now described by rule 500, without
use of the actual word.  Proposal 1539 later moved action Protection
into rule 101, strengthened the concept of Protection, and dumped rule
592 altogether.  Again, this did not change the customary null rendering
of the word as used as an adjective.  Clause (vi) meant the same thing,
whether or not proposal 1416 accidently forgot to remove it.  Proposal
1416 did not create this custom because of the oversight, it was *already*
there with 986.

> However, Niccolo Flychuck also stated, in reference to a recent
> proposal to amend Rule 1301, that "Protection language is obsolete".

Niccolo may or may not have said that, but the statement is true, IMO.
As I have stated, it became obsolete by proposal 986, yet game custom
allowed it to exist as a null op in various places, including clause (vi).

The rules are silent on the proper construction of the term "Protected",
therefore the above game custom must be consulted to find the correct
rendering, and since proposal 986, that rendering is a no-op.

Given that, clause (vi) gives Gadgets the ability to manipulate entities
as described in their blueprints.  Without clause (vi), Gadgets have
no rule-based authority to change the game state, hence they cannot,
as rule 101 is clear on the matter of the game state may only be changed
as described in the rules (which, ironically, is part of my half of the
elimination of Protection and CFJ 113 -- proposal 1539).

> seems to me that no entities are Protected, except perhaps those that
> specifically state it in the Rules, and I can't find any real reason why a
> Gadget should be able to manipulate those things in the first place.

To clarify my difference of opinion with the initiator: He appears to
be arguing for Protection to be an attribute of entities, even in the
absense of a definition of the term, and I am arguing that Protection
is an obsolete term whose rendering, in the places it remains, is given
to us by game custom; it is *not* an attribute.  I am *not* arguing
that all entities are *Protected*, but that "Protected" means "any" as
used in clause (vi).  Indeed, game custom itself favors my interpretion
over that of the initiator, because that is how we have been doing it
in the case of clause (vi) since proposal 986, over a year now (gee time
flies...).  If the initiator's apparent interpretation indeed held sway,
then gadgets could *not* manipulate most entities, and the CFJ would
indeed should be judged FALSE for that reason, but that is not the game
custom interpretation of clause (vi).  In any case, I cannot find how
gadgets will manipulate *any* entities, under *either* interpretation,
if clause (vi) is removed (although if the initiator's apparent non-
customary construction is chosen, it doesn't really matter much).
   
> If what is _meant_ is that Gadgets may manipulate any entity, then perhaps
> the CSRR Officer should change Rule 595 to reflect this fact if this CFJ is
> judged true.

Yes, this is a perfect candidate for a CSRR, but the enabling provision
of clause (vi) must remain.  I do not see how the CFJ can be judged other
than TRUE.

mr cwm's reasoning:

(I haven't felt the need to download the entire rule set and conduct a
search for quite a while.)

It is impermissible to turn to game custom in this case.  R595/17(vi) is
clear, as there are at least two instances of entity protection being
defined in the Rules:  by R921/5 the Amber Banana Tree (which is an entity
by R923/7) may be protected by the Bronze Umbrella, and by R1131/9 Rules
(which are entities by R500/1) may be protected by Earth Defense Missles.

R595/17(vi), then, gives Gadgets the ablility to create, destroy, or
manipulate both the Amber Banana Tree while it is under the protection of
the Bronze Umbrella, and Rules that are under the protection of Earth
Defense Missles.  One should note, however, that R595/17(i) states that
"the Gadget behaves in the manner defined by the Blueprint." Any Gadget,
then, whose Bluprint defines its behavior in such a way that it could
manipulate the protected entities noted above, has the ability to do so by
R595/17(i). R595/17(vi), therefore, adds nothing to the ability of any
Gadget, and its removal will not take any ability away.

(... on reflection, I feel I must address Malenkai's claim that without
R595/17(vi), Gadgets will have no ability to affect the game state, which
I quote here: "Without clause (vi), Gadgets have no rule-based authority
to change the game state, hence they cannot, as rule 101 is clear on the
matter of the game state may only be changed as described in the rules
(which, ironically, is part of my half of the elimination of Protection
and CFJ 113 -- proposal 1539)."  I contend that R595/17(i) is a rule which
descibes how a Gadget may effect a change in the game state, namely, as it
behaves in a manner defined in its Blueprint.  R101/3 does not require
that the actual changes in the game state be described in the Rules--if
that were case then no proposal could ever become a rule, unless it
already was one.  Rather, R101/3 requires that the methods by which the
game state may be changed must be described, a requirement that R595/17(i)
fulfills.)

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V2 #222
*******************************