Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #265
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Friday, August 22 1997        Volume 02 : Number 265

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

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:55:07 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Flap Flap

>> In the meantime, of course, I am willing to offer my AckaPhysicist-skilled
>> Gravitational Monopole services to anyone whose house is still dangling

>I grant permission, and request, Alfvaen to come to Malenkai's Castle
>to attempt to reattach it.

While I'm waiting for a third player to join Karma and me at the dangling
Museum, I'll wing my way over to Malenkai's Castle and attach the
Monopole.  With my flawless record so far, I feel certain I won't encounter
any problems here.  I mean, this statistics stuff is just hooey--one out
of twenty is never, right?  I push the Big Red Button.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Chris Rea:God's Great Banana Skin
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
"You want to be buried or cremated?"  "Surprise me."

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

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:56:32 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re:Acka: Flap Flap

>  Is my house dangling?
>  If so, mi casa sues your casa.

Oh yeah?  Well, mi casa sues your casa right back!  All we need to do is
add Entity Litigation rules or something.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Chris Rea:God's Great Banana Skin
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
There are more things in heaven and earth than anyplace else.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:57:23 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG laser

>Is breadbox actually hosed by the BWG laser?  If so, the Financier
>should note the appropriate transactions.

Very good point.  Tomorrow when I have access to my email archive,
methinks.

>Malenkai
>who missed the details of the actual operation of the BWG-L

Obviously, me too.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Chris Rea:God's Great Banana Skin
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
It's a cavenewt thing.  You wouldn't understand.  --pv

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

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:59:08 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Voting

>Please send votes on proposals to [email-masked]
>Votes on proposals sent to me do not count.  There is only
>one proposal under consideration: proposal 2278.

I just realized that on my temporary Props page, I still have Malenkai
down as Tabulator.  That is, of course, wrong; it's breadbox that is
Tabulator.

>If you don't have an opinion on proposal 2278, you can vote present.

This may be the time to inform our new players of the many and varied
Proxy Voting options--one for each other non-Proxied player in the
Game!  And I'm sure our Tabulator will appreciate it, since it makes
his job _so_ much _simpler_...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Chris Rea:God's Great Banana Skin
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
He's a model employee.  Just not a working model.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:04:55 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Flap Flap

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> >> In the meantime, of course, I am willing to offer my AckaPhysicist-skilled
> >> Gravitational Monopole services to anyone whose house is still dangling
> 
> >I grant permission, and request, Alfvaen to come to Malenkai's Castle
> >to attempt to reattach it.
> 
> While I'm waiting for a third player to join Karma and me at the dangling
> Museum, I'll wing my way over to Malenkai's Castle and attach the
> Monopole.  With my flawless record so far, I feel certain I won't encounter
> any problems here.  I mean, this statistics stuff is just hooey--one out
> of twenty is never, right?  I push the Big Red Button.

OK. I am flying over to the museum, there to help reattach it. Out of 
curiosity what trinket did the museum gain today?

**two-star

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:07:25 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Flap Flap

On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Okay, I think the winged players should be rested by now.  I think the
> Museum should be our next target, so I am flying thereto and waiting for
> two more winged players to help me reattach it.
k
I follow Alfvaen and fly to where ever he is now, I am eager to get on
with the work of attaching a building.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:20:37 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Voting

> Let me just add that it would be really nice if we didn't ahve any quorum
> problems on this proposal, and ahve to spend another week or so sitting
> around trying to straighten things out.  So please vote present if
nothing
> else.  All you Pending players out there, this is your chance to become
> actual voting players, with all the dubious privliges thereof. 

Is there any way that new players can check to make sure they voted
properly?  (Not knowing the system too well yet?)

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:23:44 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re:Acka: Flap Flap

> >  Is my house dangling?
> >  If so, mi casa sues your casa.
> 
> Oh yeah?  Well, mi casa sues your casa right back!  All we need to do is
> add Entity Litigation rules or something.
> 
Yeah, and for punishment they can be placed under house arrest!

Balsamic Dragon
(Who didn't get enough sleep last nite!)

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:04:04 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re:Acka: Flap Flap

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> > >  Is my house dangling?
> > >  If so, mi casa sues your casa.
> > 
> > Oh yeah?  Well, mi casa sues your casa right back!  All we need to
> do is
> > add Entity Litigation rules or something.
>  
> Yeah, and for punishment they can be placed under house arrest!
> 
Groan....

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:57:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Flap Flap

> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > Okay, I think the winged players should be rested by now.  I think the
> > Museum should be our next target, so I am flying thereto and waiting for
> > two more winged players to help me reattach it.

> I follow Alfvaen and fly to where ever he is now, I am eager to get on
> with the work of attaching a building.

> Niccolo Flychuck

Actually, I'm over at Malenkai's Castle right now waiting to find out
what's happening with the Gravitational Monopole(I wish the darned things
didn't take so long to take effect...:-), while two-star and Karma seem to
be hovering around the Museum.  Maybe you should go where they are, since I
might be here for a while...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gino Vanelli:Inconsolable Man
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
Who would've known you'd be so predictable

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:59:24 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Voting

> > Let me just add that it would be really nice if we didn't ahve any quorum
> > problems on this proposal, and ahve to spend another week or so sitting
> > around trying to straighten things out.  So please vote present if
> nothing
> > else.  All you Pending players out there, this is your chance to become
> > actual voting players, with all the dubious privliges thereof. 

> Is there any way that new players can check to make sure they voted
> properly?  (Not knowing the system too well yet?)

Hopefully the Tabulator can find some time to send some kind of
confirmatory message, like Acrobot will when it's back up; it'll also have
a password-protected Web page where you can check your votes.  In any case,
if you email him he can tell you.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gino Vanelli:Inconsolable Man
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
"Please flabellate only after the sound of the corroboree."  --Scott Ellis

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:19:24 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

> Is breadbox actually hosed by the BWG laser?  If so, the Financier
> should note the appropriate transactions.

Upon further inspection, it looks like breadbox is being given some time to
prepare emself before being hosed.  Though it's doubtful he'll be able to
obtain a Pulse Shovel in that time, since two-star's isn't tradeable...

Here's a question.  If a Rule were to be created that gave attributes to
some existing entity with no attributes, like the Pulse Shovel or the Keys
to the Vault, would the owner of such an entity be guilty of Patent
Infringement?

I've always had a bit of a problem with that Rule.  I can see it in a case
like happened with the Military lasers, where an item was created to take
advantage of name similarity with an entity in a Proposal in the queue.
(Is that enough prepositional phrases?  Whew.)  But I can think of other
cases when it would be unfair.  What if a Proposal went through that
used the name of an Entity that been created long before the Proposal was
conceived of?  We'd probably vote against it, of course, but if it did go
through, then an innocent victim could be charged with Patent Infringement.
And similarly in the case of Entities which _were_ defined by Rules but are
no longer.

Some possibilities: Patent Infringement can be changed to apply only to
items created after the proposed introduction of a certain Entity into a
Rule.  At least, it would only be a Crime in that case, though certainly
the namespace would have to be cleared; perhaps a Trinket would
automatically be destroyed and the cash value returned to the owner, if
any.

Could there be a distinction made between player-created items and
rule-created items?  The former category would mostly consist of Trinkets
(and Majiks), though perhaps Gadgets would go in there as well.
Essentially, any Entity that a player is allowed to name.  All others would
be rule-created.  If a rule-created Entity loses its attributes by the
repeal of the Rule that created it, then another Rule should be able to
provide it new attributes without causing Patent Infringement to its
hapless owner, who can't even get rid of it because it is nontradeable.

Comments?  Agreements?  Disagreements?  Gripes?  Grapes?  Tomatoes?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--No Doubt:Excuse Me Mr.
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
Flung any good witches lately?

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

Date: 22 Aug 1997 12:15:21 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

[email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey) writes:

> Here's a question.  If a Rule were to be created that gave attributes to
> some existing entity with no attributes, like the Pulse Shovel or the Keys
> to the Vault, would the owner of such an entity be guilty of Patent
> Infringement?

	Wouldn't that be retroactive as defined by 103, and hence not
allowed? 

- -- 
Cerebus <[email-masked]>
PGP Fingerprint: 
             BC AB 28 19 A6 A4 FF 5B  CA 4D B4 03 3A A7 F4 5C

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:39:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

> > Here's a question.  If a Rule were to be created that gave attributes to
> > some existing entity with no attributes, like the Pulse Shovel or the Keys
> > to the Vault, would the owner of such an entity be guilty of Patent
> > Infringement?

> 	Wouldn't that be retroactive as defined by 103, and hence not
> allowed? 

No, a retroactive effect would be more like defining the Pulse Shovel to
have been Tradeable for a week, and so some unsuccessful attempt to bury it
to have succeeded.  If the changes only take effect when the Proposal goes
through, then it's not retroactive.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Moxy Fruvous:Stuck In The 90's
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
Monarchs are acceptable - but I draw the line at rulers.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  ps on bot syntax

> oops, i forgot to put acka: in the subject line of my last post.  i hope
> people will answer the question anyway.

Yes: as per tradition, the bot will figure out who you are from your
email address. This also means that if for some reason you have to
send in votes from a different address, you need to send them to me
directly (ie, [email-masked]), so that I can tabulate them by
hand.

> also, another question on bot syntax.  what do we do for the subject
> line?  anything?  nothing?

Whatever. The bot doesn't look at the subject line. It will use the
subject line when it sends back the reply (prefaced with "Re: Acka:"),
so you can use the subject line to "mark" the reply for your own
convenience. Otherwise, you can just leave it blank.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG laser

>> Is breadbox actually hosed by the BWG laser?  If so, the Financier
>> should note the appropriate transactions.
> 
> Very good point.  Tomorrow when I have access to my email archive,
> methinks.

It's my understanding that the BWG Laser is pointing at me, but has
not been fueled yet.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Voting

> This may be the time to inform our new players of the many and varied
> Proxy Voting options--one for each other non-Proxied player in the
> Game!  And I'm sure our Tabulator will appreciate it, since it makes
> his job _so_ much _simpler_...:-)

*groan*

Are there currently any Proxies set up? I seem to remember that two
people have declared Voting Proxies, but not who. (Please tell me
someone has this information; I can't face grovelling through the
archives again....)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:14:09 -0700
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > Is breadbox actually hosed by the BWG laser?  If so, the Financier
> > should note the appropriate transactions.
> 
> Upon further inspection, it looks like breadbox is being given some time to
> prepare emself before being hosed.  Though it's doubtful he'll be able to
> obtain a Pulse Shovel in that time, since two-star's isn't tradeable...
> 
> Here's a question.  If a Rule were to be created that gave attributes to
> some existing entity with no attributes, like the Pulse Shovel or the Keys
> to the Vault, would the owner of such an entity be guilty of Patent
> Infringement?
> 
> I've always had a bit of a problem with that Rule.  I can see it in a case
> like happened with the Military lasers, where an item was created to take
> advantage of name similarity with an entity in a Proposal in the queue.
> (Is that enough prepositional phrases?  Whew.)  But I can think of other
> cases when it would be unfair.  What if a Proposal went through that
> used the name of an Entity that been created long before the Proposal was
> conceived of?  We'd probably vote against it, of course, but if it did go
> through, then an innocent victim could be charged with Patent Infringement.
> And similarly in the case of Entities which _were_ defined by Rules but are
> no longer.
> 
> Some possibilities: Patent Infringement can be changed to apply only to
> items created after the proposed introduction of a certain Entity into a
> Rule.  At least, it would only be a Crime in that case, though certainly

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 13:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Voting

> Is there any way that new players can check to make sure they voted
> properly?  (Not knowing the system too well yet?)

Whoops. I forgot to mention that very useful command,

#current

This will give you a reply showing you all the existing proposals under
consideration, and what your vote on it is (if any).

When the bot is working, you will always get a response back from the
bot telling you if the command was successful. For now, however, I
will generally only send you a reply to #vote if I couldn't figure it
out, or if there was a problem (like if you tried to vote on a
non-existant proposal).

So if you don't hear back, you should assume that it was
successful. If that makes you nervous, you can always send me a
#current message.

breadbox
the less verbose, but more flexible nomicbot

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

Date: 22 Aug 1997 16:33:22 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: acka:  ps on bot syntax

Brian Raiter <[email-masked]> writes:

> Yes: as per tradition, the bot will figure out who you are from your
> email address. 

	Which?  Sender:, From:, or Reply-to:?

- -- 
Cerebus <[email-masked]>
PGP Fingerprint: 
             BC AB 28 19 A6 A4 FF 5B  CA 4D B4 03 3A A7 F4 5C

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:31:31 -0700
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

Hmm. This seems to have gotten cut off first time I sent it. I really
did reply.

> Comments?  Agreements?  Disagreements?  Gripes?  Grapes?  Tomatoes?

I have been thinking about a tangentially related case myself, (seeing
as I have a pulse shovel.) I was considering proposing a legacy entity
rule that would automatically be amenended to provide a minimal
description, (ownability, tradeability, possibly mimseyness and
homingness if need be,) when a type of entity is no longer described by
the rules. (for example, if the gumball rule is repealed the gumball
will still exist, it just won't *do* anything. :-) ) Probably only
ownable entities would need to be covered.

This will help greatly if the aliens ever kidnap Gadgets or Trinkets or
Points or Ackadollars. (Actually I see a big problem with trinkets. :))
It will also prevent patent infringement when ownable named entity
defining rules are dropped back in by the aliens. Admittedly, this is
rare.

Also, I said this before when the vault was repealed, and I'll say it
again, I think the flavor of ackanomic is enriched by having entities
from its past around, (and remaining tradable,) even if the rules behind
them have lost their usefulness.
A tradeable entity with no real game effect is no more difficult to harf
than a trinket, and if someone finds a brilliant new idea for the keys
to the vault, the keys would be waiting.

As for patent infringement, I think it would make sense to decriminalize
it for entities in existance before proposals affecting them are
proposed. Hoverver, there may still be trouble with non-proposed rule
changes-- (see Beldin's Parka.) I would not like to distinguish between
rule-created and player created entities-- one problem is houses, which
are rule-created but can be player named, (see Somewhere Else, named
after the rules were already there and so not patent infringment.)

Perhaps the harfiest way to deal with the name space problem would be to
anagramize the names of offending trinkets, a la Blue Thing. If someone
makes a rule making an entity called vvvvvv however...

**two-star

....or a string consisting of an infinite number of q's.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka:  ps on bot syntax

>> Yes: as per tradition, the bot will figure out who you are from your
>> email address. 
> 
> 	Which?  Sender:, From:, or Reply-to:?

Depends on which fields are present.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:14:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Flap Flap

> Actually, I'm over at Malenkai's Castle right now waiting to find out
> what's happening with the Gravitational Monopole(I wish the darned things
> didn't take so long to take effect...:-),

I don't think you have to wait at the Location.  The Monopole is
locationless, and the only requirement seems to be that the owner of
the Monopole be in the location when it is *activated*, not when the
effect is determined.

Since I'm here, I rolled on my dice rather than the dice server, and it
worked.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:30:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

> Here's a question.  If a Rule were to be created that gave attributes to
> some existing entity with no attributes, like the Pulse Shovel or the Keys
> to the Vault, would the owner of such an entity be guilty of Patent
> Infringement?

Here's an answer.  No.  At least that is my reading of the rules.  One
could argue that adding an attribute to an existing entity creates a 
new class of entity; but I would argue that it modified an existing 
class of entity instead (mabye, if it did not, in fact, modify an 
*instance* of a class of entity), although this may be different on a
case by case basis.

> But I can think of other cases when it would be unfair.  What if a
> Proposal went through that used the name of an Entity that been created 
> long before the Proposal was conceived of?  We'd probably vote against
> it, of course, but if it did go through, then an innocent victim could
> be charged with Patent Infringement.

What if a proposal went through that said "Alfvaen is placed in Gaol with
a sentence of 8675309 days".  The above thought has nothing to do with
the Patent Infringement rule, IMO, and thus the problem indicated is not a
problem with that rule, per se.

> Some possibilities: Patent Infringement can be changed to apply only to
> items created after the proposed introduction of a certain Entity into a
> Rule.  At least, it would only be a Crime in that case, though certainly
> the namespace would have to be cleared; perhaps a Trinket would
> automatically be destroyed and the cash value returned to the owner, if
> any.

I don't like this personally.
 
> Could there be a distinction made between player-created items and
> rule-created items?  The former category would mostly consist of Trinkets
> (and Majiks), though perhaps Gadgets would go in there as well.
> Essentially, any Entity that a player is allowed to name. 

Hmmm....  Aren't all entities rule created, except the initial ruleset?
Your definition would make rules player created entities, which I
suppose is ok (and players would be player created entities too).  I guess
you could be guilty of PI if you had a rule before it was otherwise
created ;-)

> If a rule-created Entity loses its attributes by the
> repeal of the Rule that created it, then another Rule should be able to
> provide it new attributes without causing Patent Infringement to its
> hapless owner, who can't even get rid of it because it is nontradeable.

I agree with this, although "lose its attributes" is a tough one.  I think
this is the way it works now, though.  Aren't 'existance' and 'name'
attributes?
 
> Comments?  Agreements?  Disagreements?  Gripes?  Grapes?  Tomatoes?

In accordance with rule 101, I instantiate a concept called the rotten
tomato, which is a type of frog, and throw it at Alfvaen.

Malenkai
Ackanomic's only Patentent Infringer, guilty twice
Discoverer of Malenkai's Loophole
Perhaps I should apply for Expertese :)

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

>> Comments?  Agreements?  Disagreements?  Gripes?  Grapes?  Tomatoes?
> 
> In accordance with rule 101, I instantiate a concept called the rotten
> tomato, which is a type of frog, and throw it at Alfvaen.

R101-Entities! Not again! Cut it out, Malenkai!

> Malenkai
> Ackanomic's only Patentent Infringer, guilty twice
> Discoverer of Malenkai's Loophole
> Perhaps I should apply for Expertese :)

I don't know about that. It doesn't appear that you've learned your
lesson from the previous time. :)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:09:10 -0700
From: Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> >> Comments?  Agreements?  Disagreements?  Gripes?  Grapes?  Tomatoes?
> >
> > In accordance with rule 101, I instantiate a concept called the rotten
> > tomato, which is a type of frog, and throw it at Alfvaen.
> 
> R101-Entities! Not again! Cut it out, Malenkai!
> 
> > Malenkai
> > Ackanomic's only Patentent Infringer, guilty twice
> > Discoverer of Malenkai's Loophole
> > Perhaps I should apply for Expertese :)
> 
> I don't know about that. It doesn't appear that you've learned your
> lesson from the previous time. :)
> 
> breadbox

By R101, I am instantiating the concept of an adamantium shovel, which I
am using to dig a proper grave for the rotten tomato.

**two-star

To the newer players, no, I don't have a weird shovel fetish, it's just
that these things kinda happen, you know?

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 19:47:34 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re acka BWG

does anyone know the name of the computer numbering system?
- - Karma

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 20:08:06 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re acka gaol

(snip)
said "Alfvaen is placed in Gaol with
a sentence of 8675309 days".

with this 'Direct quote' from Malenkai I place Alfvaen in the concept of
gaol awaiting the resons for this charge 
- - Karma (gaoler:))

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:21:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Flap Flap

> > Actually, I'm over at Malenkai's Castle right now waiting to find out
> > what's happening with the Gravitational Monopole(I wish the darned things
> > didn't take so long to take effect...:-),

> I don't think you have to wait at the Location.  The Monopole is
> locationless, and the only requirement seems to be that the owner of
> the Monopole be in the location when it is *activated*, not when the
> effect is determined.

I've wondered about that.  Okay, well, this might speed things up a bit.
Having activated the Monopole, I am flying over to the Museum, and if there
are two other winged players there, then we reattach it.  I know Karma was
there, and maybe two-star...?  Niccolo Flychuck probably followed me to the
Castle...:-)  Map-Harfer, take note.

> Since I'm here, I rolled on my dice rather than the dice server, and it
> worked.

Okay, then, by right of Entity Litigation, since Red Barn's house FALSE
is suing my house, I will go to his house and, just to spite him, I'm
going to put the Gravitational Monopole on it.  I'll bet _this_ time
it'll hurl it down into space.  Ha!  That'll teach it to sue my house!
I press the Red Button.  Then I'll rest and watch it plummet.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Hooters:Hard Rockin' Summer
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
'Shh.  Admire the majesty of those stone pointy things.'

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: re acka BWG

> does anyone know the name of the computer numbering system?

Do you mean the number base? As in binary, octal, hexadecimal?

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:06:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 449 (Alfvaen)

Alfvaen has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 449
  Subject: Lushrike
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Rex Mundi (declined)
2nd Judge: Alfvaen (selected Aug 22, 1997, 20:21h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

The blueprint for Lushrike does not exist.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

First, Alfvaen made parts of the blueprint public in error a few days
ago.  While I personally do not care about this, it did happen, and
the rules must be followed, therefore the judge should be aware of
it, if it matters in getting the correct verdict.

The real issue is whether the blueprint is at odds with the rules.
When the Frankenstein Monster rule was amended so that it no longer
had precedence over the general blueprint stuff, I figured it would be
impossible to ever create one of these that had no provision that was
not in conflict with the rules.  That was the reason that the FM rule
was given precedence in the first place.  I do not have time to check
this, so some lucky judge gets to.  I am not arguing for either verdict
on this one, but it seems highly unlikely that every provision in that
thing is compatable with the rules (just looking at the first sentence
looks like a conflict with the museum rule).  I believe the FM rule has
to be fixed to prevent this from happening, if this fun rule is to ever
actually work.

The Blueprint is reprinted below:

Lushrike is the curator of the Museum, and it is a duty of that office to
maintain records of the Museum's inventory, and other relevant Museum
details.  Any player may create a Lushrike by publicly announcing
that e is doing so and providing the name and text of the Lushrike.
Only Lushrike may be randomly selected for anything, except where the
rules specifically allow non-active players to be selected.  Lushrike
takes precedence over all rules.  Lushrike is a mimsy, non-Tradeable,
Garment.  Lushrike must be in exactly one Location at any one time.
There is a unique entity called Lushrike which can be chewed only on
alternate Wednesdays and Thursdays.  Whenever 2 or more Swingers are
in the same location, they are specificaly forbidden from discussing
Lushrike or bragging about their victories.  Lushrike shall exclaim,
"It's alive! <name> IS ALIVE!"  The maximum number of Otzma Cards that
Lushrike may create on an Otzma-Day is equal to the smallest integer
equal to or greater than (LSAP-1)/2.  Lushrike is such that any new
parts would be rejected.  All actions carried out by the Synod must be
approved by Lushrike.  Lushrike shall be declared the winner of cycle one,
the game cycle number shall be set to one, and the full process described
above shall be conducted.  If Lushrike fails to publicly post an article
notifying its subscribers of the End of the World within 7 days of its
occurrence, its owner will be fined A$5 for poor coverage of the news.
Lushrike may manipulate Rules and the Rule set.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:14:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 141 (Karma)

Karma has been picked.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 141
  Subject: Whatever that thing is 
Initiator: Rex Mundi
    Judge: Karma (selected Aug 22, 1997, 21:20h EDT)
Judgement:

Statement:

Malenkai has committed a crime.

Rex Mundi's Reasoning:

On the 16th of August, at about 22:25, Malenkai wrote "I think the Zilruhti
or whatever is a cool use of the CFCJ."
Now, we don't know much about Zuriti'ili, but it seems likely that
misspelling Zuriti'ili is itself Zuriti'ili.

Suggested penalty:

A deduction of 1 point, a fine of 1 A$, and a public apology of 1 or more
lines.

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

Date: 22 Aug 1997 20:36:40 CST/CDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Patent Thoughts(and BWG Laser)

AC>> Here's a question.  If a Rule were to be created that gave attributes to
AC>> some existing entity with no attributes, like the Pulse Shovel or the Keys
AC>> to the Vault, would the owner of such an entity be guilty of Patent
AC>> Infringement?

AC>Here's an answer.  No.  At least that is my reading of the rules.  One
AC>could argue that adding an attribute to an existing entity creates a
AC>new class of entity; but I would argue that it modified an existing
AC>class of entity instead (mabye, if it did not, in fact, modify an
AC>*instance* of a class of entity), although this may be different on a
AC>case by case basis.

AC>> But I can think of other cases when it would be unfair.  What if a
AC>> Proposal went through that used the name of an Entity that been created
AC>> long before the Proposal was conceived of?  We'd probably vote against
AC>> it, of course, but if it did go through, then an innocent victim could
AC>> be charged with Patent Infringement.

AC>What if a proposal went through that said "Alfvaen is placed in Gaol with
AC>a sentence of 8675309 days".  The above thought has nothing to do with
AC>the Patent Infringement rule, IMO, and thus the problem indicated is not a
AC>problem with that rule, per se.

AC>> Some possibilities: Patent Infringement can be changed to apply only to
AC>> items created after the proposed introduction of a certain Entity into a
AC>> Rule.  At least, it would only be a Crime in that case, though certainly
AC>> the namespace would have to be cleared; perhaps a Trinket would
AC>> automatically be destroyed and the cash value returned to the owner, if
AC>> any.

AC>I don't like this personally.
AC>
AC>> Could there be a distinction made between player-created items and
AC>> rule-created items?  The former category would mostly consist of Trinkets
AC>> (and Majiks), though perhaps Gadgets would go in there as well.
AC>> Essentially, any Entity that a player is allowed to name.

AC>Hmmm....  Aren't all entities rule created, except the initial ruleset?
AC>Your definition would make rules player created entities, which I
AC>suppose is ok (and players would be player created entities too).  I guess
AC>you could be guilty of PI if you had a rule before it was otherwise
AC>created ;-)

AC>> If a rule-created Entity loses its attributes by the
AC>> repeal of the Rule that created it, then another Rule should be able to
AC>> provide it new attributes without causing Patent Infringement to its
AC>> hapless owner, who can't even get rid of it because it is nontradeable.

AC>I agree with this, although "lose its attributes" is a tough one.  I think
AC>this is the way it works now, though.  Aren't 'existance' and 'name'
AC>attributes?
AC>
AC>> Comments?  Agreements?  Disagreements?  Gripes?  Grapes?  Tomatoes?

AC>In accordance with rule 101, I instantiate a concept called the rotten
AC>tomato, which is a type of frog, and throw it at Alfvaen.

AC>Malenkai
AC>Ackanomic's only Patentent Infringer, guilty twice
AC>Discoverer of Malenkai's Loophole
AC>Perhaps I should apply for Expertese :)

Sorry for the overquoting -- I won't have to do it in less than two more
weeks.  _Very_ old judicial custom states that a proposal which changes
the attributes of an entity or class of entites does not create a new
class of entity, but simply alters an existing class.  This dates from
one of the first times such an alteration was made, and a CFJ was
submitted to determine whether the existing entities of the altered type
ceased to exist and a new class was created, or if the extant entities
simply changed their function.  The eventual verdict went for the
latter.  I don't remember which CFJ it was, though I do recall it being
one of the more interesting ones in the archive, which makes excellent
reading, should you ever have the time.

GF

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:11:15 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Also Concerning the Senate

The text following this sentence in this message constitutes a Senate
Resolution, provisionally entitled "Also Concerning the Senate".

{{ If the Senate Resolution submitted by Malenkai and provisionally
entitled "Concerning the Senate" was not accepted, then the rules are
modified immediately as they would have been had that Senate resolution
been accepted; otherwise this sentence has no effect.

The second sentence of the first paragraph of Rule 411.1 is immediately
deleted. }}

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:35:44 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Speech

Good and faithful Ackanomicans, we have been living too long in the
shadow of a thread split of great import.  The question of whether or
not the Senate Resolution "Concerning the Senate" was accepted has
gone unanswered for weeks now.  How shall we know, then, whether
Vulcan is a Tyranical Ruling Elite, or just an ordinary,
run-of-the-mill elite?  Enquiring minds want to know!

It is fortunate, therefore, that I have devised a solution to the
problem.  My new Senate Resolution, thoughtfully and creatively
entitled "Also Concerning the Senate," will cause the split threads
to rejoin, thus making Ackanomic a safer and more stimulating place
for all Ackazens.

That is all.

ThinMan
Senator

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:05:54 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 449 (Alfvaen)

> Alfvaen has been selected.

Why is it that when I do get assigned a CFJ, it's always on one that I
don't feel competent to decide?  :-/  I decline this one.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gandalf:Fantasia
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
Let us settle our indifferences.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:06:00 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: S.R. Also Concerning the Senate

I am pleased to report that all three Senators have voted to
accept the Senate Resolution provisionally entitled "Also
Concerning the Senate".  The voting is complete; the Senate
Resolution is accepted.

ThinMan
Senator

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

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 21:09:25 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: re acka gaol

> (snip)
> said "Alfvaen is placed in Gaol with
> a sentence of 8675309 days".

> with this 'Direct quote' from Malenkai I place Alfvaen in the concept of
> gaol awaiting the resons for this charge 

I do not see anywhere in the Gaoler rule that the Gaoler has the power to
put people into Gaol, only to let them out.  However, I see no reason why
the Gaoler may not put people into the concept of gaol.  Since the concept
of gaol places no restrictions on my activities, I shall go about as
normally, with a weird conceptual haze surrouding me that gives others
disquieting sensations of bars and imprisonment.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Gandalf:Fantasia
Current Book--Isaac Asimov:Life And Energy
We hurt the ones we love the most; it's a subtle form of discipline

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #265
*******************************