Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #278
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Sunday, August 31 1997        Volume 02 : Number 278

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

Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 23:00:52 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

> > Now I wonder why the practice caught on.  Hmmph.  Did people just think
> > "basicly" looked bad, or was it folk etymology on other "-ally" forms from

My Random House states that "-ally" is an adverbial suffix for "some
adjectives ending in -ic".  Now I just need to find out _why_.  Expect a
report in the next Big White Gazette.

> Why did people decide "golden", "redden", and "olden" were
> cool, but bluen and chartreusen were right out?  There is actually
> quite a bit of discussion of this sort of thing in the literature,
> but the reason I am replying is to test my new 'net connection and
> mail client, which I expect will produce unreadable gizz until I spend
> countless years playing with arcane configuration params.

This seems perfectly fine to me.  And I'm using elm with no MIME
extensions, so what I see is pretty much what's there.

> Please let me know if this has all sorts of line breaks, especially
> in the quoted material.  My *own* mailer should be able to read it
> fine, so I'll never know.  It seems whenever you upgrade, they make
> things more complex, with little added value.

Oh, I don't know.  I remember the last time majordomo got upgraded they
added a few new features, like the ability to put a header automatically
into the subject line...  And I have finally started to use a few of the
Perl 5 features.  :-)

> Malenkai
> who wonders how redden became a verb

Well, "-en" was also a verbal ending, IIRC.  As in "chasten" and
"dishearten" and "fasten" and "quicken".

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Depeche Mode:Ultra
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
This is *NOT FUN*.  I've had fun before, and this *ISN'T IT*.

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:04:31 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Why aren't I in bed... ?

Vynd wrote:

> 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.
> 
You're kidding!  I knew there was a reason I liked you!  The 28th was
_my_ 29th birthday.  Happy belated birthday, Vynd.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:53:21 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 (Balsamic Dragon)

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> > > 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.
> 
You were not reiterating my words.  At no time did I invoke, or even
mention, intent.  I did make an argument for the Rule not changing from
one correct interpretation to an alternative interpretation when the
original interpretation remained valid.  This is an argument for
precedent, however, not for intent.  I will note as an aside that,
in my opinion, if there is no other basis for judging between two
possible interpretations then intent _is_ a valid criterion.  I do not
think that it is a valid criterion in this case, however, nor that it
is likely that there will ever be a case where the alternatives are
so equally balanced as to allow reliance on intent.

> > 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.
> 
Fair enough.  Neither do I.  :-)

> > > > 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 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.
	[etc.]

My claim, which you have not yet addressed, was that it is only
by game custom (i.e., as a matter of _interpretation_) that the
appearances of the names of entities in the rules constitute
references to the so-named entities.  So I did not argue for
game custom first as you alleged -- I argued for game custom
_only_.  It is not a red herring.  You allow that the rules do
not explicitly require that instances of named entities' names
be interpreted as references to those entities, so you seem to
have conceded the point.  And I do not particularly appreciate
you throwing slurs at my rhetoric; counter-argument or
concession will be sufficient.

I will also point out that in the past we have had newspapers
named "the" and "is".  The rules were not reinterpreted when
these entities were created so as to construe all occurences of
these entities' names as references to them.  It is, of course,
true that such an interpretation would leave the rules
unintelligible, but that is beside the point.  If the rules in
any way _required_ such an interpretation then we would have
had no choice, and the game would have crashed as a result.

Now, you seem to reject my arguments based on precedent of
interpretation.  You have not, however, explained the basis for
your position that "The organization Vulcan" as it occurs in
rule 1 should be defreferenced as Alfvaen's Organization rather
than as the political party.  Is this based solely on the name
of Alfvaen's organization matching a longer string of text in
the rule?  This seems like a rather weak position from which
to launch such a round condemnation of my case.  If you have a
stronger argument then I am interested in hearing it.

> 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.
> 
I don't see the presence of an ambiguity as much of an argument
for the rule not being interpretatble.  And certainly not for
it being interpretable with the correct interpretation being that
neither organization was empowered.  I am glad, though, that we
appear to agree on at least one thing: the rule doesn't empower
_both_ organizations at the same time.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:56:57 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Where do we go from here

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> None of this happens. All these actions were taken by the alegged
> power
> given to the Vulcan Party by Rule 1. Since the rule gives them no such
> power, both by my arguments and my own, the Vulcans may delude
> themselves
> into believing that this indeed happen, when if fact, none of it did,
> and
> should they attempt to play the game as if it did, they will simply be
> breaking the rules.
> 
That depends on the outcome of CFJ 452.  Of course, I know that
you are just covering all the bases.  It is my sincere hope that
CFJ 450 will be judged so as to make this sort of thing unneccessary.
It is my firm belief that that is the correct verdict.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 03:10:55 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Where do we go from here

Vynd wrote:

> 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.
> 
I support this, too, but only in the kindest, gentlest way.  :^)

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 03:14:06 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2287

I suggest that Vulcan take the following action:
change the rules by creating a new rule entitled "Parry"
and numbered 10, with the following text (delimited by
the next two pairs of adjacent asterisks):

&&
{{Proposal 2287 is hereby immediately deemed invalid.}}
&&

I support this action.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 07:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Giving Processing chips

> Hey, that reminds me...the Free Market is still dangling.  I'll fly
> over there and wait for another couple of wing-ed players...

Oh yeah! I am flying over to the Free Market at once, and assisting
Alfvaen and Niccolo Flychuck in re-attaching the Free Market.

breadbox
remembers when having everything dangling was the big crisis

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 07:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2287

I see that Vulcan now has a policy of immediately invalidating any
proposal that would attempt to restore game balance.

Does this mean that you do not plan to step down any time within the
next seven days?

I ask merely for information.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:25:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka Duel Challenge (II)

NF wrote:
> Vynd,
> 
> Let it here be known that breadbox, Writer of History, Wielder of Justice,
> Winner of a Silver Moon, Owner of many trinket, has requested that I
> represent on a matter of honor, and communicate to you that he is
> challenging you to a Duel, for having turned an accomplice to the dark
> side in this darkest of times in Ackan history.
> 
> You are hereby Challenged

As Vynd's second, I hereby announce that Vynd accepts this duel.
He has chosen the contest of Double Crash.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 11:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka Duel Challenge (II)

On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> NF wrote:
> > Vynd,
> > 
> > Let it here be known that breadbox, Writer of History, Wielder of Justice,
> > Winner of a Silver Moon, Owner of many trinket, has requested that I
> > represent on a matter of honor, and communicate to you that he is
> > challenging you to a Duel, for having turned an accomplice to the dark
> > side in this darkest of times in Ackan history.
> > 
> > You are hereby Challenged
> 
> As Vynd's second, I hereby announce that Vynd accepts this duel.
> He has chosen the contest of Double Crash.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

Let breadbox beware, for he has underestimated the power of the dark side.

                              - Evil Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:31:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287

ThinMan wrote:
> I suggest that Vulcan take the following action:
> change the rules by creating a new rule entitled "Parry"
> and numbered 10, with the following text (delimited by
> the next two pairs of adjacent asterisks):
> 
> &&
> {{Proposal 2287 is hereby immediately deemed invalid.}}
> &&

I denounce this action because there were no asterisks in the message.

I suggest Vulcan take the following action instead:
Change the rules by creating a new rule entitled "Parry"
and numbered 10, with the following text (delimited by
the next two pairs of adjacent ampersands):

&&
{{Proposal 2287 is hereby immediately deemed invalid.}}
&&

I approve of this action.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:50:47 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287

> ThinMan wrote:
> > I suggest that Vulcan take the following action:
> > change the rules by creating a new rule entitled "Parry"
> > and numbered 10, with the following text (delimited by
> > the next two pairs of adjacent asterisks):
> > 
> > &&
> > {{Proposal 2287 is hereby immediately deemed invalid.}}
> > &&

> I denounce this action because there were no asterisks in the message.

Darn, and we were hoping you wouldn't notice.  Are you sure you don't want
to invest power in just one person, so that these kinds of mistakes can
pass unnoticed?  :-)

Besides, shouldn't this be a Rule of the Imperium?

> I suggest Vulcan take the following action instead:
> Change the rules by creating a new rule entitled "Parry"
> and numbered 10, with the following text (delimited by
> the next two pairs of adjacent ampersands):
> 
> &&
> {{Proposal 2287 is hereby immediately deemed invalid.}}
> &&

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Michael Montanaro:Zman Doe
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
Inigo, I am your father--prepare to join the Dark Side.

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:54:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka Duel Challenge (II)

> > Let it here be known that breadbox, Writer of History, Wielder of Justice,
> > Winner of a Silver Moon, Owner of many trinket, has requested that I
> > represent on a matter of honor, and communicate to you that he is
> > challenging you to a Duel, for having turned an accomplice to the dark
> > side in this darkest of times in Ackan history.

> > You are hereby Challenged

> As Vynd's second, I hereby announce that Vynd accepts this duel.
> He has chosen the contest of Double Crash.

Ha!  The duel is as good as won!  Tremble at the might of breadbox, master
of Double crash!

You gonna know you been beat now!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Michael Montanaro:Zman Doe
Current Book--Robert Silverberg:The New Springtime
Let not the sands of time get in your lunch.

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka Duel Challenge (II)

>> As Vynd's second, I hereby announce that Vynd accepts this duel.
>> He has chosen the contest of Double Crash.
>> 
> 
> Let breadbox beware, for he has underestimated the power of the dark
> side.

Have I? Perhaps so, but I suspect that Vynd has gravely underestimated
the wrath of an Honorable Justice, besmirched by tangential
association with a mewling Organization that seeks only to wallow in
its own filth for the amusement of passersby.

Now, if I could, I would have Vynd vow to disband his so-called "the
Supreme Court" upon losing this Duel, but of course I cannot vow to do
the same upon losing myself. The right and true Supreme Court is not
mine to destroy, for I am only its servant. (Of course, Vynd is quite
capable of destroying the Supreme Court, with the help of his Vulcan
friends, and without regard to this Duel's outcome.)

On the other hand, I would be willing to exchange a vow to reimburse
Vynd one Ackadollar for a vow to dissolve his rude Organization.
Indeed, to commit to such a valuation is to heap rare praise upon that
sketchy arrangment, so ill-defined it hardly bears the weight of its
label: "Organization".

/dev/joe! Inform your maligning friend Vynd that I would like to place
an agreement upon this Duel's outcome. Upon my loss I will pay Vynd
A$1, and upon his loss he will disband his embryonic Organization that
he has so disparagingly designated "the Supreme Court". I realize it
is too late for me to make this an official term of the Duel, but I am
not so hot-headed that I will not accept his Word, spoken before all
in the public forum. And naturally he is free to ignore this offer,
but I say he would be well-advised to take it, for it will undoubtedly
be the last time anyone shall measure his entity's worth in positive
numbers!

Regardless of how he responds to the above, also let him know that I
am now retiring to the acka-games forum. I have chosen my five-letter
word, and await his doing the same before I launch my first salvo!

The Honorable breadbox
defending the same

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 13:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka Duel Challenge (II)

On Sun, 31 Aug 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> As Vynd's second, I hereby announce that Vynd accepts this duel.
> >> He has chosen the contest of Double Crash.
> >> 
> > 
> > Let breadbox beware, for he has underestimated the power of the dark
> > side.
> 
> Have I? Perhaps so, but I suspect that Vynd has gravely underestimated
> the wrath of an Honorable Justice, besmirched by tangential
> association with a mewling Organization that seeks only to wallow in
> its own filth for the amusement of passersby.
> 
> Now, if I could, I would have Vynd vow to disband his so-called "the
> Supreme Court" upon losing this Duel, but of course I cannot vow to do
> the same upon losing myself. The right and true Supreme Court is not
> mine to destroy, for I am only its servant. (Of course, Vynd is quite
> capable of destroying the Supreme Court, with the help of his Vulcan
> friends, and without regard to this Duel's outcome.)
> 
> On the other hand, I would be willing to exchange a vow to reimburse
> Vynd one Ackadollar for a vow to dissolve his rude Organization.
> Indeed, to commit to such a valuation is to heap rare praise upon that
> sketchy arrangment, so ill-defined it hardly bears the weight of its
> label: "Organization".

It appears that breadbox not only understimates the power of the dark
side, but it's intelligence as well.  I am afraid I will not be accepting
this wager.

> 
> Regardless of how he responds to the above, also let him know that I
> am now retiring to the acka-games forum. I have chosen my five-letter
> word, and await his doing the same before I launch my first salvo!
> 

I shall be ready shortly, and will inform you when I am.

> The Honorable breadbox
> defending the same
> 

Excuse me?  You challenged me to a duel sir, not I you.  You have nothing
to defend save your actions.

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 17:22:51 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 2287

/dev/joe wrote:

> I suggest Vulcan take the following action instead:
> Change the rules by creating a new rule entitled "Parry"
> and numbered 10, with the following text (delimited by
> the next two pairs of adjacent ampersands):
> 
> &&
> {{Proposal 2287 is hereby immediately deemed invalid.}}
> &&
> 
I approve of this action.

ThinMan
Vulcan

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #278
*******************************