Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #276
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Saturday, August 30 1997       Volume 02 : Number 276

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:19:44 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Where do we go from here

Rex Mundi wrote:

> Tampering with the proposal queue. Making themselves immune from being
> Gaoled. Now we see the true colors of the Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite
> revealed.
> 
Oh, come on.  Naturally we are attempting to nix a proposal that
would repeal our powers.  And do you really expect that we would
allow ourselves to be Gaoled?  Such a penalty could possibly
have allowed our opponents sufficient time to work a repeal
through the queue.  If those parts of our recent actions
surprise you then you probably have not analyzed the current
situation very thoroughly.

> Citizens of Acka, if you have not already done so, I urge you to join
> the
> Rebellion. Just think: tomorrow, it could be _your_ proposal that gets
> canceled by the dictators. After that, who knows? You could find all
> your
> points, A$ or trinkets being taken by Vulcan. Up till now, I had
> believed
> that the members of Vulcan might have been sincere in their good
> intentions. Now, even that last frail hope has been stripped from me.
> 
For goodness' sake!  What would be the point of us doing any
such thing?  It would not be fun for you, and it would not be
fun for us.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:34:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka : Duel Challenge

NF wrote:
> Oh ThinMan of the party Vulcan, 
> Know that on this day Alfvaen, President of Ackanomic, Founder of the
> Rebellion, Holder of many offices, has bidden to communicate to you that
> he is Challenging you to a Duel. And so he spake :
> 
> Alfvaen presents a Challenge to ThinMan, for being, you know, one of the
> Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite.  And stuff.  Not to mention being suspected
> of Zuriti'ili.
> 
> You are hereby Challenged.

As second to ThinMan, I hereby present ThinMan's acceptance of this duel.
ThinMan has chosen the contest of Ghost.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:06:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where do we go from here

On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Notwithstanding the fact that the effect of this may be nil, I
> suggest that the organization Vulcan [membership: /dev/joe,
> Malenkai, ThinMan, Vynd] take the following actions:
> 
> (1)
> Change the rules by deleting the fourth paragraph of rule 511.

I approve of this action.  As all members have done so, it happens.

> 
> (2)
> Change the rules by creating a new rule, entitled "Security Door",
> and numbered 2, with the following text (delimited by the next two
> pairs of adjacent asterisks):
> **
> This is a rule of the Imperium.
> 
> No rule is a rule of the Imperium unless it claims in its text to be
> a rule of the Imperium.
> 
> No rule of the Imperium may ever be created, renumbered, modified
> in any way, or repealed, except as described by the rules of the
> Imperium.  No rule may be amended in such a way as to become a rule
> of the Imperium when it previously was not a rule of the Imperium,
> except as described by the Rules of the Imperium.
> 
> No rule of the Imperium shall ever cease to be in force except as
> described by the Rules of the Imperium.
> 
> Wherever a rule of the Imperium conflicts with a rule that is not a
> rule of the Imperium, the rule of the Imperium shall guide play and the
> provision of the other rule that conflicts with the rule of the Imperium
> shall be ignored.
> 
> Proposal 2285 is hereby immediately deemed invalid.  The text
> "This is a rule of the Imperium." is hereby immediately appended to the
> text of Rule 1 as a seperate paragraph.  This paragraph is deleted
> from this rule immediately after all the other effects described in
> this paragraph are enacted.
> **

I approve of this, it happens.

> 
> (3)
> Change the rules by creating a new rule, entitled "Immunity" and
> numbered 3, with the following text (delimted by the next two pairs
> of adjacent ampersands):
> &&
> This is a rule of the Imperium.
> 
> Members of Vulcan may not be sent to Gaol for any reason.
> &&
> 

I denounce this proposed action, it is voided.

> 
> I support all of these actions.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> Vulcan
> 

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:09:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Where do we go from here

> > Tampering with the proposal queue. Making themselves immune from being
> > Gaoled. Now we see the true colors of the Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite
> > revealed.

> Oh, come on.  Naturally we are attempting to nix a proposal that
> would repeal our powers.  And do you really expect that we would
> allow ourselves to be Gaoled?  Such a penalty could possibly
> have allowed our opponents sufficient time to work a repeal
> through the queue.  If those parts of our recent actions
> surprise you then you probably have not analyzed the current
> situation very thoroughly.

Oh, that's just Rebellion rhetoric.  Pay it no mind.  After all, your day
may have already come!

Ah, I feel like the fight is finally on, now...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Manhattan Transfer:Bodies & Souls
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
Earwigs are not the only fruit.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:10:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka : Duel Challenge

> NF wrote:
> > Oh ThinMan of the party Vulcan, 
> > Know that on this day Alfvaen, President of Ackanomic, Founder of the
> > Rebellion, Holder of many offices, has bidden to communicate to you that
> > he is Challenging you to a Duel. And so he spake :

> > Alfvaen presents a Challenge to ThinMan, for being, you know, one of the
> > Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite.  And stuff.  Not to mention being suspected
> > of Zuriti'ili.

> > You are hereby Challenged.

> As second to ThinMan, I hereby present ThinMan's acceptance of this duel.
> ThinMan has chosen the contest of Ghost.

Great.  Now all we need is a referee!  Preferably someone from the
Committee For Understanding.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Kenny G:Duotones
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
Art is a guy with no arms and no legs that you hang on the wall.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:12:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Spelling Bee

I've been wanting to do this for a long time...

The Spelling Bee is flying!  This should be remembered as the "publically"
flight, as I dedicated myself mostly to stamping this nonword out wherever
it occurred...:-)

Rule 205, change "publically" to "publicly" both times it occurs--in the
first paragraph and in the square-bracketed text in 1)b).

Rule 211, change "publically" to "publicly" in the first paragraph.

Rule 218, chance "occurences" to "occurrences" in the
first(square-bracketed)paragraph, and "dealine" to "deadline" in the fourth
paragraph.

Rule 252, change "publically" to "publicly" in III.1)

Rule 254, change "publically" to "publicly" in the paragraph beginning "A
Pending player..."

Rule 255, change "publically" to "publicly" in the seventh paragraph

Rule 258, change "transferrence" to "transference" in the second paragraph

Rule 330, change "publically" to "publicly" every time it occurs(twice in
first paragraph, once in second, twice in third)

Rule 340, change "mispelled" to "misspelled"  {{[ I find this one
particularly ironic...:-) ]}}

Rule 362, change "publically" to "publicly" twice, in 2)b) and 3).

Rule 371, change "occured" to "occurred" every time it occurs (four times
in the first paragraph, once in the third)

Rule 403, change "publically" to "publicly" twice, in section (vi)

Rule 412, change "records of the who owns" to "records of who owns" in a), 
and change "Priveleges" to "Privileges" near the bottom.

Rule 419.2, change "publically" to "publicly" in IV.

Rule 423, change "publically" to "publicly" in b)

Rule 424, change "all-conclusive" to "all-inclusive" and "publically"
to "publicly" in the first long paragraph 

Rule 425, change "appoinment" to "appointment" in II.

Rule 427, change "publically" to "publicly" in (a)

Rule 428, change "acccurate" to "accurate" in (a)

Rule 505, change "concering" to "concerning" in III., and change
"publically" to "publicly" in V.

Rule 506, change "publically" to "publicly" each time it occurs(once
in the second paragraph, once in the third, and once in the fifth), and
change "contans" to "contains" in the fifth paragraph.

Rule 509, change "unambigously" to "unambiguously" in the third paragraph

Rule 516, change "remainer" to "remainder" in 1)b)

Rule 620, change "infintesimal" to "infinitesimal" in the final paragraph,
and change "publically" to "publicly" twice in the paragraph preceding 3)

Rule 667, change "publically" to "publicly" in the fourth paragraph

Rule 670, change "publically" to "publicly" twice in 2)

Rule 712, change "publically" to "publicly" three times(in (iii)b), (iv)a),
and (iv)b))

Rule 713, change "impossiblility" to "impossibility", "occurrance" to
"occurrence", "publically" to "publicly", and "preceeding" to "preceding"
in the third paragraph,

Rule 714, change "publically" to "publicly" in the third paragraph

Rule 837, change "publically" to "publicly" in the last paragraph

Rule 841, change "publically" to "publicly" in 4) and 5)

Rule 843, change "relevent" to "relevant" in 6)

Rule 846, change "Sumptous" to "Sumptuous" in the table

Rule 850, change "occurrances" to "occurrences" in VII. and "publically"
to "publicly" in III.

Rule 909, change "publically" to "publicly" in the fourth paragraph

Rule 911, change "publically" to "publicly" in the second paragraph

Rule 925, change "publically" to "publicly" in the first and fifth
paragraphs

Rule 929, change "publically" to "publicly" in the second paragraph

Rule 939, change "publically" to "publicly" in the second paragraph

Rule 942, change "publically" to "publicly" twice in the third paragraph

Rule 1001, change "7 days conduct" to "7 days to conduct" in 3),
"seperately" to "separately" in the last paragraph of 5., "alloted"
to "allotted" twice in 3), "publically" to "publicly" in 3), and
"resupublically" to "results publicly" in the second paragraph of 5.

Rule 1044, change "publically" to "publicly" in 5.b.

Rule 1080, change "publically" to "publicly" in 1.b., "empower" to
"empowers" and "to valid calls" to "to be valid calls" in 1.c.

Rule 1081, change "Comittee" to "Committee" in the title, and "anounces" to
"announces" in the body

Rule 1082, change "logded" to "lodged" in the first paragraph

Rule 1112, change "publically" to "publicly" in the second and fifth
paragraphs

Rule 1118, change "Paranoral" to "Paranormal" in the second paragraph

Rule 1123, change "publically" to "publicly" in the third paragraph

Rule 1131, change "Rulespresent" to "Rules present" in the second
paragraph of Section I, change "Missle" to "Missile" and "Prresident" to
"President" in the first paragraph of Section II, "Missles" to "Missiles"
each time it appears(twice in the first paragraph and once in the second
paragraph of Section II), and "the option acting" to "the option of
acting" in the section paragraph of Section II

Rule 1209, change "publically" to "publicly" each time it appears (in
the second paragraph of V., in VII., in the first paragraph of VIII.,
and in the second paragraph of IX.)

Rule 1211, change "publically" to "publicly" in 7)

Rule 1213, change "publically" to "publicly" each time it appears (in the
fifth paragraph, in Rule A., and in Rule I.), change "possesion" to
"possession" three times in Rule C., and change "maintenence" to
"maintenance" in the second paragraph of Rule H.

Rule 1215, change "publically" to "publicly" in the fourth paragraph of 2.

Rule 1217, change "publically" to "publicly" each time it occurs (in the
first paragraph, fourth paragraph and fifth paragraph)

Rule 1230.2, change "publically" to "publicly" in 1.C.(vii),
"re-imbursement" to "reimbursement" in 2.D., "begining" to "beginning" in
3.A., "Privelege" to "Privilege" in 4.A., and "Swingers's" to "Swingers'"
in 3.D.

Rule 1230.18, change "controling" to "controlling" in 3.

Rule 1240.14, change "Brueprint" to "Blueprint" in the second paragraph

Rule 1250, change "maintaiined" to "maintained" and "seperate" to
"separate"

Rule 1250.1, change "unambiguosly" to "unambiguously" in III.c.,
"publically" to "publicly" in V.d., "priveleges" to "privileges" in VI.c),
"dissatisified" to "dissatisfied" in X., and "satisfiying" to "satisfying"
in XI.

Rule 1250.9, change "publically" to "publicly" in 6., and "dicitonary"
to "dictionary" in the third paragraph of 4.(3)

Rule 1250.10, "Fictionary": change "publically" to "publicly" wherever
it occurs(in the first and third paragraphs of IV.1), in IV.3b), IV.3c),
and IV.4)), "inticing" to "enticing" in the opening square-bracketed text,
"competion" to "completion" in the third paragraph of IV., "defintions"
to "definitions" in IV.3) and IV.3b), and "recieve" to "receive" in IV.5b)

Rule 1250.11, change "accorance" to "accordance" in the first paragraph
of Rule 3.

Rule 1250.12, change "crahses" to "crashes" in the third non-indented
paragraph of IV.

Rule 1250.13, change "correpsonding" to "corresponding" in IV.5)

Rule 1250.14, change "publically" to "publicly" and "athough"
to "although" in III.A., "may not scope" to "may not have scope"
and "recognizable as form" to "recognizable as a form" in III.B.1),
"notifiying" to "notifying" in III.B.4), "unambigious" to "unambiguous"
in III.B.8), "occurrance" to "occurrence" in III.D., "seperately" to
"separately" in the second paragraph of IV., "replacment" to "replacement"
in the first paragraph of V., and "beoming" to "becoming" in the fourth
paragraph of V.

Rule 1250.16, change "publically" to "publicly" in the last paragraph of
Rule 10., and "assignes" to "assigns" in Rule 1.

Rule 1301, change "publically" to "publicly" in 2. and 5.c.

Rule 1303: change "When there more" to "When there are more" in 6.,
"Profits are defines" to "Profits are defined as" and "which was more" to
"whichever was more" in the second paragraph of 8.

Rule 1317, change "publically" to "publicly" in the fourth and fifth
paragraphs

Rule 1320, change "recieve" to "receive" in the third and fourth
paragraphs, and "stoped" to "stopped" in the fifth paragraph

Rule 1321, change "suctions cups" to "suction cups" twice in the second
paragraph

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Kenny G:Duotones
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
If you don't give cats milk, they turn back into dragons.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:14:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Where do we go from here

> > (3)
> > Change the rules by creating a new rule, entitled "Immunity" and
> > numbered 3, with the following text (delimted by the next two pairs
> > of adjacent ampersands):
> > &&
> > This is a rule of the Imperium.
> > 
> > Members of Vulcan may not be sent to Gaol for any reason.
> > &&

> I denounce this proposed action, it is voided.

Now you see why I decided to give him only a Lesser Badge of Shame?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Kenny G:Duotones
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
Got my tie caught in a fax machine--suddenly I was in LA

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:21:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> Rule 340, change "mispelled" to "misspelled"  {{[ I find this one
> particularly ironic...:-) ]}}

This one was in there intentionally, or at least legend has it that
is was :(.

I was never sure what I would do if I ever became a dictator; I have
finally found something to do.  I wouldn't want to miss this whole
dictator thing without at least trying something :-)

I propose that Vulcan change the game state in the following way:

Rule 340 is amended to replace "misspelled" with "mispelled".

I support this action.

Malenkai
sorry :)

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:24:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where do we go from here

On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Notwithstanding the fact that the effect of this may be nil, I
> > suggest that the organization Vulcan [membership: /dev/joe,
> > Malenkai, ThinMan, Vynd] take the following actions:
> 
> > 
> > (3)
> > Change the rules by creating a new rule, entitled "Immunity" and
> > numbered 3, with the following text (delimted by the next two pairs
> > of adjacent ampersands):
> > &&
> > This is a rule of the Imperium.
> > 
> > Members of Vulcan may not be sent to Gaol for any reason.
> > &&
> > 
> 
> I denounce this proposed action, it is voided.
> 

Argh.  I hearby gouge my eyes out with a spork for my stupidity.  then I
do it again.  As Phoebe once said to me, "read the rules Vynd."  I have
already apologized to my fellow members of Vulcan for misunderstanding
why this rule would be neccesary, now I must apologizes to everyone else
for what I am about to do next:

I propose that the organization named Vulcan take the following action:

Create a new rule numbered 3, with the title Immunity, whose text is
delimited by the %% signs below.

%%

This is a Rule of the Imperium.

Members of Vulcan may not be sent to Gaol for any reason.

%%

I support this.

I also propose that the organization named Vulcan thwap Vynd upside the
head, an action which I support.

                               - Vynd, who is very tired but still feels
bad about this

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Rule 340, change "mispelled" to "misspelled"  {{[ I find this one
> > particularly ironic...:-) ]}}
> 
> This one was in there intentionally, or at least legend has it that
> is was :(.
> 
> I was never sure what I would do if I ever became a dictator; I have
> finally found something to do.  I wouldn't want to miss this whole
> dictator thing without at least trying something :-)
> 
> I propose that Vulcan change the game state in the following way:
> 
> Rule 340 is amended to replace "misspelled" with "mispelled".
> 
> I support this action.
> 
> Malenkai
> sorry :)
> 

I support this action.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:26:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2283

> Proposal 2283
> Vive la Revolution!

I am declaring this proposal harfy.

Malenkai
Harfmeister

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

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:27:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> > Rule 340, change "mispelled" to "misspelled"  {{[ I find this one
> > particularly ironic...:-) ]}}

> This one was in there intentionally, or at least legend has it that
> is was :(.

I should have thought of that.  Oh, well, mea culpa.  A new broom sweeps
too clean.

> I was never sure what I would do if I ever became a dictator; I have
> finally found something to do.  I wouldn't want to miss this whole
> dictator thing without at least trying something :-)

> I propose that Vulcan change the game state in the following way:

> Rule 340 is amended to replace "misspelled" with "mispelled".

> I support this action.

Heck, if I had absolute power, I'd do that too.  If you don't have it, then
maybe I should stick it in the "stuff the Spelling Bee can't quite do"
proposal I've been thinking of.  I mean, far be it from me to tamper with
game tradition, if I'm aware of it...:-/

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Kenny G:Duotones
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
a^n+b^n=c^n. No solutions for n>2, as can be seen by |#@}NO_CARRI

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:28:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vaguely weird things with my email.

This is mostly for breadbox, I guess.  I seem to be getting responses to
people's messages before I ge the messages themselves, at least some of
the time.  I realize this isn't all that uncommon in the world at large,
but since it only seems to have started happening to me for ackamail in
the last day or two, I thought you might want to know.  I'm not on any
digests, either, before you go check...

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:28:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where do we go from here

> I propose that the organization named Vulcan take the following action:
> 
> Create a new rule numbered 3, with the title Immunity, whose text is
> delimited by the %% signs below.
> 
> %%
> 
> This is a Rule of the Imperium.
> 
> Members of Vulcan may not be sent to Gaol for any reason.
> 
> %%
> 
> I support this.

I support this.

> 
> I also propose that the organization named Vulcan thwap Vynd upside the
> head, an action which I support.

I support this.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 00:35:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> > I propose that Vulcan change the game state in the following way:
> > 
> > Rule 340 is amended to replace "misspelled" with "mispelled".
> > 
> > I support this action.
> > 
> > Malenkai
> > sorry :)
> > 
> 
> I support this action.
>                                      - Vynd
> [email-masked]

I support this action also.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 00:36:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Where do we go from here

> > I propose that the organization named Vulcan take the following action:
> > 
> > Create a new rule numbered 3, with the title Immunity, whose text is
> > delimited by the %% signs below.
> > 
> > %%
> > 
> > This is a Rule of the Imperium.
> > 
> > Members of Vulcan may not be sent to Gaol for any reason.
> > 
> > %%
> > 
> > I support this.
> 
> I support this.

I support this.

> > 
> > I also propose that the organization named Vulcan thwap Vynd upside the
> > head, an action which I support.
> 
> I support this.

I support this.

> Malenkai

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 02:14:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Why aren't I in bed... ?

Well, I'm down to the last load of laundry in the drier, and trying not to
fall asleep, so lets see what pops into my head...

OK, just cuz I really do feel bad about this whoel screwy thing I did,
here's the siple explanation for all those playing along at home.  I
denounced it the frist time because I didn't think it was neccessary, not
because I'm all that great of a guy.  I am, but that's besdies the point.
After I denounced it, I went and read the gaol rule, and, as is my custom,
realized I'd madea big mistake, and thus apologized profusely and
reproposed the action.  I really am trying to make sure we don't do
anything to the rules that isn't either necessary to maintain ourselves,
or worthwhile, I guess this time I leaped before I lked.  As Phoebe once
told me, I should read the rules.

With that said, I'm going to throw a party this Monday from 7 pm unti
midnight, at my house, which is probably still named Somewhere Else.
everyone is invited, so long as they promise not to break anything.  This
party is in honor of any number of things.  First and foremost, the 28th
was my 21st birthday.  I didn't have a party and no one wished me happy
birthday...  Now that you've sobbed for awhile, this was a good things
from my prespective, since I don't drink but can do without the added
pressure of actually being legaly able to do so, and required by custom to
go get rip-roaring drunk.  And I did get presents, err, a present, a nice
big Pentium II 233 that came a few weeks ago (well, more like 1/5th of the
money to help me pay for it). So that is one good reason.  Also, as I have
vaguely hinted at over the past few days, I'm headed back to school, later
today (it being 2am here) in fact, so it can also be a welcome party, or
perhaps a housewarming party, or maybe even a going away party.
Furthermore, football season starts on Sunday, well worthy of celebration,
as I can now watch (well, listen to, the game didn't sell-out) the mighty
Detroit Lions fall flat again.  Oh yeah, and it's Labor Day.  In any case,
no alcoholic beverages, or frinks, will be served, but you can all get
drunk if you wnat anyway, this being Acka.  I may try and rustle up some
party favors if I am not too busy setting up the decorations and moving
all the stuff that isn't anywhere else in particular into a closet
somewhere.

Hrm.  The laundry is almost finished.  Well, to pass some time, I am going
to the Library.  I am then entering the Vault of the Book in search of
forbidden knowledge.  If I get paralyzed or cast into Sheol or something,
the party will have to be postponed you realize.

I apolgize for the, even for me, prodigous number of typos and spelling
errors that are probably in here, seeing as how I keep dozing off.  I'm
not gonna fix em though, that would be cheating.  hah, I'm funny.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:04:16 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Me too!

On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> The Zombie MLF wrote:
> 
> > This is different.  The supremem court is ALREADY a rule regulated
> > body,
> > and the is no ambiguity as to which supremem court is being refered
> > to.
> > Nowehre does it say "the organization The Supreme Court" in the rules.
> > 
> This is a little different, but not much so.  Here is the relevant part
> of rule 416 (Supreme Court), the only place where the term is defined
> in any way:
> 
> 	The Office of Justice has two Seats. The President, Speaker,
> 	Praetor, and Senators are not eligible to hold this office. The
> 	Justices are collectively known as the Supreme Court.
> 
> (1) I don't think that this is worded sufficiently to cause Vynd's
> organization creation to fail.
> 
> (2) As Niccolo pointed out, entity names are rule-sanctioned attributes
> of those entities.  He and I differ on the details, but I think he
> would agree (correct me if I am wrong) that Vynd's new organization
> is also "known as the Supreme Court" as far as the rules are concerned
> (unless the organization creation failed in the first place).

Had there been no rule that defines who are collectively known as the
Supreme Court, but only rules that refference this, I might have been
inclined to agree. However, the rule you quote explicitly defines who is
known as the Supreme Court, and therefore all refference thereof in the
rules. That which is known as the Supreme Court is defined in terms of its
parts, and the parts are explicitly defined. This is entirely different
than the Vulcan ambiguity.

Now, if all the various elements of society which might be reffered to as
Vulcan were to unanimously agree to change the ruleset as to rid us of
this coup next to which the Underworld strike looks like a friendly
picnic. Why then, the ambiguity would trivially disappear.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:05:44 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Synod accept trades

As Yor-Delegate, I am anouncing that the Synod voted to accept all three
of Niccolo Flychuck's trade offers.

Niccolo Flychuck
Yor-Delegate

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:11:28 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Flying to the Free Market

On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > I am offering the following Trade:
> > I am giving 36 processing chips to the Synod.
> 
> So what is required for this transfer to occur?  If it happens
> automatically, let me know.  The trinket transfers can occur automatically
> because they're gift entities...
> 
> Hey, that reminds me...the Free Market is still dangling.  I'll fly over
> there and wait for another couple of wing-ed players...
> 

I am flying to the Free Market with Alfvaen.

Niccolo Flychuck

ps- isn't my House still dangling? Perhaps after the Free Market

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:24:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> > > attribute of that entity.  "Validity" has nothing to do with this,
> > > though.  Again, the whole question is whether or not the wording
> > > of rule 1 constituted a reference to Alfvaen's organization.  If it
> > 
> > This is the crux of ThinMan's arguement, and why it must be judged
> > False.
> > If your ead it carefully you can see that ThinMan is arguing for
> > intent.
> > But as we all well know, intent is not any basis for the
> > interpretation of
> > a rule. Phrasing is.
> > 
> I would prefer that you back up such a claim with an actual analysis of
> what I wrote.  If you can convince me that I am arguing for intent then
> I will retract CFJ 452.
> 

I was just reiterating your words. You were arguing for the refference is
meant to be. If you have another of phrasing it that avoids this blunder.
Go ahead.

> I am having trouble understanding why you refuse to accept that there
> is any ambiguity about the correct interpretation of rule 1.  

I agree that there is an ambiguity, I just don't see the two sides of the
ambiguity being equal.

> > > A reference to an entity's name is not empowered in any way by the
> > > rules except insomuch as the rules must be interpreted according to
> > > game custom, about which we each have more to say below.
> > 
> > That's a Red Herring - you're just arguing for Game Custom First.
> > 
> I seem to be having trouble reading your mind.  
Good :)
>
> I do not see how you
> come to that conclusion.  Please show me where the rules say that an
> instance of an entity's name in the rules shall be interpreted as a
> reference to that entity.
>  You cannot, yet you are arguing that that is
> what the _rules_ say.  

No. I assume that the rules must be followed inthe form in which they are
written down. Game Custom allows us to interpret the phrase 'the
orgnization vulcan' as reffering to an Organization called Vulcan, because
that's what it would mean in plain English. Similarly Game Custom allows
us to use the word protection in its standard English sense, because it is
no longer defined by the rules, however, this was not always the case.
When protection was defined by the rules, any refference to that word
reffered to that definition. Entity names are defined by the rules. The
article 'the' can be ignored, because Alfvaen might as well have created
an Organization called 'Organization Vulcan' with the same effect.

> 
> > I have no doubt that the CFJ can only be ruled False. It makes a clear
> > unambigous refference to a named Entity. 
> > 
> It does no such thing.  Rule 1 makes apparent reference to twodistinct
> named Entities.  Unless we stipulate that the rule may simultaneously
> have two different correct interpretations there is a rather large
> ambiguity.  The CFJ can certainly be judged True, and I am becoming
> more and more convinced that that isthe correct verdict.  No doubt
> we will have to agree to disagree, however.
> 
> ThinMan

I might be willing to accept that it is more ambigous than I currently
make it out to be. But then we'd have an additional point to debate - if
we accept ambiguity, then I would argue that the rules empowers neither
the Vulcan Party nor Alfvaen Organization. As two of your cases require
non-ambiguity, and the joint case uses non existent variants on regulated
Organizational constructs.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:22:25 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: This is a Grandiose RFC

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > Append the following paragraph:
> 
> > "Hats, which may also be refered to as headware, are a class of
> > garments. A player with an extra head mutation may wear up to two hats.
> > Any other player may wear only one hat."
> 
> I think that how many hats one may wear should depend on how many heads one
> has.  One can theoretically have four heads, and then one should be able to
> wear four hats.

I wasn't too satisfied with this bit either. I intended it to be 
necessary for players to lose at least one hat, so it would be 
guaranteed that new players will be able to join. Would it be better to 
limit the number of extra heads a player may own to one? Or ditch the 
hat idea for agenda elements altogether? (I'd rather not do the last.)

> 

> > Create a rule numbered 607, entitled "Winning by Agenda" with text
> > delimited by THIMBLEBERRY
> 
> > THIMBLEBERRY
> > If a player owns at least three Agenda Hats, and it is publicly knowable
> > that the condition for each Agenda Hat e owns is true, and that player's
> > score is greater than or equal to the sum of the weights of all of the
> > agenda hats e owns, then the following will occur:
> 
> I still like the idea that all three conditions need not be satisfied at
> once.  There should be the option for a player to reveal a condition having
> been satisfied earlier(which would, say, turn their Agenda Hat into an
> Agenda Top Hat or something...surely someone can think of something
> better), although this might be disadvantageous since people would know
> that you'd satisfied one of the conditions.

Well, you could make conditions phrased like, "The owner of the agenda 
hat associated with this condition has been convicted of Zuriti'ili 
while e owned this hat," that would work as you suggest.

> > b) All Agenda hats owned by the Agent of KAOS and all Nemesis eggplants
> > with corresponding conditions are destroyed
> > c) The Agent of KAOS achieves a Winning Condition.
> 
> Can't you just say "wins the current Cycle"?
>

I was borrowing the wording of R603 Winning by points. The wording of 
all of these rules should be consistant, however. Perhaps a CSR would be 
in order.  

> 
> > Create a rule numbered  430 entitled "Office of the Illuminatus." with
> > text delimited by SALAL
> 
> > SALAL
> > The Office of the Illuminatus is an optional office.
> 
> > The duties of the Illuminatus are to collect Agenda Conditions, conduct
> > bidding on Nemesis Eggplants, and distrubute and track Agenda Hats, as
> > described in this rule.
> 
> > The Illuminatus shall publicly announce a call for Agenda Condition
> > submissions, if, for any reason, no such call has occured during the
> > current cycle. The Agenda Condition submission period will last for
> > three days after this.
> 
> Would this require the Illuminatus to announce the call as soon as possible
> into a cycle with no AC submissions, or is it more of a 'may'?
> 

Intended to be as soon as possible.

> > During this time, any player may submit a number of  Agenda Conditions
> > equal to three minus the number of Agenda Hats e owns by sending them to
> > the Illuminatus. If a player sends more than this number of Agenda
> > Conditions, only the last Agenda Conditions sent will be counted.
> 
> What happens the first time through, if nobody owns Agenda Hats?  Or is

Then 3-0 would be the appropriate number of Agenda conditions to submit.

> that covered elsewhere?  And can a player submit _fewer_ AC's than
> permissible?
>

My intention is that this should not be possible.
 
> > Agenda Conditions should be statements that may be true or false
> > depending on the game state.
> 
> I wonder at the wording here...maybe 'statements whose truth or falsehood
> depends on the game state'.  Or am I just being picky?
> 

Yes. :)

> > At the end of the 3 days, the Illuminatus must release a list of all
> > submitted Agenda Conditions, along with the names of the players who
> > submitted each.
> > If at least 4 players have submitted Agenda Conditions, the Illuminatus
> > must initiate a 5 day Nemesis Eggplant bidding period.
> > During the Nemesis eggplant bidding period, each player who submitted
> > Agenda conditions may send a Weight bid corresponding to each submitted
> > Agenda Condition to the Illuminatus.
> 
> Only on the AC's they themselves submitted, or not?
> 

All AC's. I should make this more clear. Thanks.

> > Weight bids must be integers
> > between (-2 Magic Number / 3) and (Magic Number / 3). If a player does
> > not send a weight bid for a particular Agenda Condition, that player
> > will be considered to have bid (Magic Number / 3), rounded down, on that
> > condition.
> 
> And this would allow negative weights?
> 

Yes. A little unintuitive, but it would allow differentiation between 
conditions that are as hard as a third of the magic number and ones that 
are harder, but still possible. As far as the physical possibility of 
negative weights, perhaps you should consult the Codex of Kra.  

> > At the conclusion of the bidding period, the following occurs:
> >
> > z) Initially, all conditions are under consideration.
> >
> > a) The Illuminatus will determine the condition under consideration
> > which has the lowest bid. Ties should be broken randomly.
> >
> > b) A Nemesis Eggplant with that condition is awarded to the lowest
> > bidder on that condition who has less than 3 Nemesis Eggplants. Ties
> > among lowest bidders should be broken randomly.
> >
> > c) That condition is removed from consideration. If any conditions are
> > still under consideration, this process repeats, starting with a)
> 
> So, essentially, each player gets to try to assign a weight to each
> condition, and whoever assigns the lowest weight gets the NE associated
> with it, and hence _cannot_ get that condition...and makes it
> correspondingly easier for the person who get that condition to get the
> points required.  I think I finally understand how this is supposed to
> work.  It always eluded me on earlier RFC's.
> 
> > d) The Illuminatus may change the condition associated with any Nemesis
> > Eggplant if e believes that it is impossible for a player to achieve
> > that condition in normal play or the condition is otherwise unharfy [For
> > example, a condition that would be satisfied by spamming the mailing
> > list with 1000's of messages, would be technically easy to achieve, but
> > a bad idea all around.]  The condition that the Illuminatus chooses
> > should be easily attainable. It should also be silly.
> 
> > e)  Agenda Hats for each condition associated with a newly created
> > Nemesis Eggplant with weights equal to the second lowest bid on their
> > conditions are created in the hidden state. Any Agenda Hats with a
> > condition that was chosen by the Illuminatus according to d) are Silly
> > Agenda Hats, and instead are created with a weight of (Magic Number / 4)
> > rounded up.
> 
> _Second_ lowest bid?  Did I miss something?  And that first sentence seems
> to be a bit of a run-on...what it boils down to, if I'm not mistaken, is
> that a NE is created with the second-lowest bid's weight, and then a hidden
> Agenda Hat is created to correspond to it.
> 

The weight belongs to the AH, not the NE. (NE's dont have weights.) 
You're right though, that sentence is atrocious. I decided on the second 
lowest bid for the weight so that a single player vastly overestimating 
the difficulty of a condition could not determine its hat's weight.

> > e) Each player who submitted Agenda Conditions receives a number of
> > agenda hats equal to the number of conditions e submitted. The Agenda
> > Hats must be distruted randomly among these players, except that no
> > player shall receive an Agenda Hat with a condition that e authored or
> > that is the same as that of a Nemesis Eggplant e owns.
> 
> > f) The Illuminatus must publicly announce the owners and conditions for
> > each Nemesis Eggplant created, and the weights and conditions for each
> > Agenda Hat created. The Illuminatus must privately notify each player
> > who received Agenda Hats as to the conditions of each Agenda Hat that
> > player received.
> 
> So the conditions are publicly announced, but not who specifically gets the
> associated Hats, only the NE's?

Right. 

> 
> > It is also a duty of the Illuminatus to check that the correct condition
> > is being revealed when a player makes an Agenda Hat visible.
> 
> > It is a priviledge of the Illuminatus that e acheives a Winning
> > Condition if it is publicly knowable that e has a score that is greater
> > than 5/6 times the Magic Number.
> 
> Since e won't have any Hats.  Not a bad tradeoff.
> 
> > SALAL
> 
> > Create a rule numbered 671 entitled Nemesis Eggplants and Agenda Hats,
> > with text delimited by RED-FLOWERING CURRENT
> >
> > RED-FLOWERING CURRENT
> > Nemesis Eggplants are ownable Entities. Each Nemesis Eggplant has a
> > condition associated with it.
> >
> > Agenda Hats are ownable Headwear. Each Agenda Hat has a condition and a
> > weight (which must be an integer,) associated with it. They may be
> > either visible or hidden, (but not both.) The owner of a hidden Agenda
> > Hat may make it visible by publicly posting the condition associated
> > with it. Hidden Agenda Hats are non-tradable, and may not be worn. The
> > author of an Agenda Hat's condition may publicly post a description of
> > that Agenda Hat.
> > RED-FLOWERING CURRENT
> 
> Maybe there should be some mention of the link between AH's and NE's in the
> Rule as well.  Also, your comma-parenthesis punctuation is atrocious. :-)
> 

Good idea. punctuation who needs punctuation anyway dammit

> I think that's all I had to say on the topic...

I will be starting a playtest of this shortly. I hope this looks like it 
will work reasosonably smoothly. Heck, I hope it gets passed.

**two-star out.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #276
*******************************