Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #287
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, September 4 1997      Volume 02 : Number 287

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:45:19 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

> 
> I hereby request Rule 2283 to grant me membership in the Revolution.
> 
> breadbox
> 
Okay.  If, like, it's necessary to say okay, you know...

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

> I think, and I say this without meaning any disrespect, that many
> players have a lot of time and effort tied up in their respective
> organizations and thus, will take the opposing viewpoint.

I, on the other hand, think, and I really do not mean any disrespect,
that you are underestimating how much force game custom has when
interpreting the rules. The rules explicitly empower game custom to
disambiguate unclear situations. The only time you can completely
ignore game custom is when the rules are unambiguous.

> Believe me when I say that there are other, nastier loopholes that
> have yet to be explored.

There are a paltry few players who would argue with *that*. Don't we
have a rule somewhere that states that it must never become
impossible to find a loophole in the rules?

Oh wait, that's game custom. Never mind.

Anyway, you are highly encouraged to go loophole exploring. (Either
for the purpose of exploiting them, or to write proposals to fix
them.) That's what Ackanomic is all about, really. Well, that, and
trying to plant eggs in the rules. Okay, and maybe a few other
things.

> Two, nomic as a game should be constantly in flux, anything which
> encourages abiding by the status quo for no other reason than
> "that's the way we thought it worked" is suspect.

I hope you don't think that this is all that game custom really is.
What "game custom" refers to in this context is the agreements we have
come to regarding how to interpret an ambiguous wording. (In a sense,
every single rule is potentially ambiguous, because Ackanomic is
written in an ambiguous language - English - as opposed to a more
formally precise language, like propositional calculus or even
Legalese.) So, when it is discovered that not everyone agrees on what
some rule really says, a CFJ gets invoked, gets judged carefully (we
hope), gets resolved in a manner that satisfies people's common sense
and/or spirit-of-the-game (we hope), and then that becomes a part of
game custom.

So ... yes: game custom is just "that's the way we thought it worked",
but with a little more implication that there has been an effort to
actually analyze the issue and find a solution that is generally
considered to be satisfactory.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: A little history

> Believe me when I say that there are other, nastier loopholes that
> have yet to be explored.

By the way, it might be worth mentioning to some of our newer players
that the Vulcan party was created about a year ago (when the ruleset
was definitely more loophole-ridden than it is now), with the express
agenda of cleaning out the loopholes in the rules. That might be
something worth knowing when you talk about these issues.

Actually, I'd like to fill in a little bit of background for everyone
who might not already know it. I hope I can do this without stepping
on anyone's toes.

As I said, the Vulcan party's goal has always been to work at
"cleaning up the rules." Get rid of the loopholes, clear out the dead
weight and the clauses that no longer referred to anything, identify
the crises waiting to happen, and simplify the rules when
possible. (The latter is probably the most difficult of all the
goals.) As you might guess, this kind of agenda made Vulcans unpopular
with, er, with "certain circles of players". I can't speak for such
players directly, of course, but my impression is that they felt that
Vulcan proposals were long and boring clean-up and reorganization
stuff that "didn't add anything new to the game"; Vulcans were often
quick to find fault with other people's proposals - pointing out
loopholes instead of admiring their harfiness; and, in some players'
eyes, Vulcans were trying to "sterilize" the ruleset to the point
where it would be "boring" and "lifeless". (Vulcan usually countered
such arguments by stating that there was no good in a harfy ruleset if
it was completely broken.)

These sorts of disagreements were usually good-natured and civil at
first, because at that time there was no debating that the ruleset had
too many loopholes, by anyone's standards. (The previous summer had
been a series of nonstop game crises, with a constant influx of CFJs.)
However, as the rules actually started getting cleaned up, these kinds
of arguments got a little more heated, and several players felt we
actually *had* succeeded in sterilizing the ruleset, making it so safe
that it wasn't fun anymore, and nobody wanted to vote in anything
really worthwhile, for fear of risking the ruleset's stability. By
early summer, some of the arguments started getting really heated over
these issues.

Well, the pendulum suddenly swung back the other way with a vengeance,
and one day, it seemed like, we started voting in just all kinds of,
um, of "really harfy" proposals.

Some of the Vulcans made no secret of what they thought of this new
trend. I don't think this improved their popularity with the
previously mentioned certain circles of players.

So, I guess what happened next is that Vulcan decided to dramatically
demonstrate what they thought of this new trend.

And, I'm guessing that this hasn't improved their popularity with the
previously mentioned certain circles of players, either.

breadbox
your itenerant Historian

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 01:16:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Organizations

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> Vynd wrote:
> 
> > While I am here, I would like to ask, however, where you get the idea
> > that
> > organizations are a type of entity.  they aren't defined as such.
> > Indeed,
> > the organization rule clearly describes two different types, or
> > classes,
> > or what have you, of organizations, Player-sanctioned and
> > Rules-sanctioned, of which the Revolution would seem to belong to only
> > one.
> > 
> As much as I hate to disagree with a fellow Vulcan, especially on this
> matter, the first sentence of R1003 (Organizations) specifies that
> Organizations are entities.  Vynd is correct, however, that The
> Revolution is a Rule-Sanctioned org whereas Vulcan is a
> Player-Sanctioned org.  This distinction is raised in my CFJ reasoning
> on the matter.
> 
> 
> ThinMan

I argue that there is a further distinction here ( I have already posted
as much onthe rebllion mailing list, the Vulcans, however, had not had a
chacne yet to read that part) that not all rule sanctioned Organizations
are of a single type. I think Churches would be quite different than an
Organization such as the Revolution. There is a lot of Game Custom tha
Churches are a type of Organization, and that one Church may be said to be
of the same kind as another Church, not in the same way that they are both
like other rule sanctioned Organizations. A Church is a class of
Organizations, while Revolution stands in a class by itself. 

Niccolo Flychuck
Expert on Organizations

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 01:17:40 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

On 4 Sep 1997, Timothy J. Miller wrote:

> John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > While I am here, I would like to ask, however, where you get the idea that
> > organizations are a type of entity.  they aren't defined as such.  
> 
> 	Au contraire-- The first line of Rule 1003, "Organizations",
> prior to all sections:
> 
> 	"Organizations are unownable, named entities."
> 

I think Vynd does not contest the term entity, but rather the term type.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 01:23:10 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New Org

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Robert Shimmin wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:
> 
> > >Damn.  It _really_ is time to fix the Secret Laboratory Rule, IMHO.  Even
> > >if you pay A$1000 and can only use it once a month, instant Gadgets of any
> > >kind are way too unbalancing.
> > 
> >   Not true.  IMUHO, they keep Gadgets from being too scarce.
> 
> I don't know if _destroying_ the Secret Labs Rule is a good idea.  I 
> present here several alternatives.
> 
> 1) Raising its price.
> 2) Create a three-day building period on all Gadgets produced from it, 
> like Gadgets from the Inventor.
> 3) To prevent Gadget inflation, introduce a more frequent means (other 
> than Scroll of Crumble) for destroying Gadgets.
> 4) Raise the Processing Chip requirement for Gadget construction, and 
> require processing chips from those who would use the Secret Laboratory.
> 5) Require a per-gadget construction fee in addition to the up-front costs.
> 
> Personally, I think the Secret Laboratory is a good means of getting 
> Gadgets into the game.  What the game needs (and why I like#3 the best 
> of all of these) is a good means of getting Gadgets out of it, to create 
> a technological circulation, if you will.
> 
> GF
> 

How about this:
An Organization needs some minimum number of members to operate a Secret
Lab.

Stop creating processing chips (if we haven't already, sorry,  I don't
really follw those) and allow Gadgets to be destroyed for processing
chips.

At some point we'll start using them up and we'll need to break up gadgets
for raw materials (sound like trinkets? pure accident, I assure you)

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 01:31:11 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cheez-Whiz + Llama

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> see a way of retricting them that wouldn't kill them entirely, I would
> propose it.  Ever since the Cheez-Whiz buisness though, I have sought in
> vain for such measures, except for this one idea.  Some sort of review
> board, which would have to vote in favor of allowing a blueprint to be
> made available for use.  Am I alone in thinking that such a body might be
> a good thing?  I'm sure that Vulcan would volunteer to handle the
> duties... :)
> 

I think that this the kind of duty I'd like to see an Ad Hoc Committee
empowered to do. It's now like we need a review for every gadget. Only if
someone believes a gadget to be abusable is there need for such a review.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:57:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> > 
> > I hereby request Rule 2283 to grant me membership in the Revolution.
> > 
> > breadbox
> > 
> Okay.  If, like, it's necessary to say okay, you know...
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 

One thing I am certian of is that you, Balsamic dragon, are not the
founder of The rebellion.  Your permission is not required, nor does it
have any affect.  You aren't even a member yourself :)  Rule 1003 says
that Rules-sanctioned organizations do not neccesarily have Founders.
Thus I think breadbox is wrong that we can consider the Rule to be the
founder of the organization, since the rule itself doesn't claim that
status.  After further review of the rules, I am willing to concede that
there might not really be a conflict between the two rules that
invalidates the method of joining that Rule 2283 describes, however.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:34:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka : Malenkai IP

> Are we vtoing on that IP yet, or does that start only on Friday. If we are
> voting on it, the I vote in favor of impeaching Malenkai.

And I vote against.  (Yeah, I can't remember whether the Count Tabula has
to announce it like e does Witchhunts, etc....)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--ZZ Top:Recycler
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Constant change is here to stay.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 01:40:48 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> for no other reason than "that's the way we thought it worked" is suspect.

That's not the posistion anyone is forwarding. Game Custom was cited, and
I made some statements on how that Game Custom came about.

> 
> > While I am on the subject, I am not sure if it is possible for players to
> > join The Revolution as described in it's rule or not.  Rule 1003 states
> > that any player may join an organization if they request membership and
> > the organization grants the request.  The revolution rule, 2283, says
> that
> > any player may join by making a public action (unless they are a member
> of
> > Vulcan).  This is in conflict with Rule 1003, which takes precedence,
> > unless the revolution is not a real, Rule 1003, defined organization at
> > all.

Rule Sanctioned Organizations do not necessarily have a Founder.

> > 
> I hereby announce that anyone who asks to join the Revolution will be
> admitted, with the exception of the members of Vulcan.  More expressly, I
> invite anyone from the Rebellion to join.  The Revoultion, as I envision
> it, will remain after all is over as a monument to the Rebellion's victory
> over the Evil Tyrannical Overlords.  That is, assuming we win.

As far as I can determine, you never joined the Revolution. You need to be
a member of an Organization before you can anounce such things. 

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of ackanomic digest V2 #286
> *******************************
> 

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

> One thing I am certian of is that you, Balsamic dragon, are not the
> founder of The rebellion.  Your permission is not required, nor does
> it have any affect.  You aren't even a member yourself :) Rule 1003
> says that Rules-sanctioned organizations do not neccesarily have
> Founders.  Thus I think breadbox is wrong that we can consider the
> Rule to be the founder of the organization, since the rule itself
> doesn't claim that status.

On the other hand, it doesn't say that the Rule has to claim that
status. Rule 1003 only says that Rules-sanctioned Organizations do not
necessarily have Founders; it doesn't say what the default is. I hold
that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the default is that is
does have a Founder. Obviously it has a Founder: the Founder is Rule
2283. Therefore I have petitioned Rule 2283 for permission to join the
Revolution. And I will wait until I get a response.

breadbox
"And I can wait all day if necessary!"

                                                     yes, i AM joking

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:43:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

> > As much as I hate to disagree with a fellow Vulcan, especially on this
> > matter, the first sentence of R1003 (Organizations) specifies that
> > Organizations are entities.  Vynd is correct, however, that The
> > Revolution is a Rule-Sanctioned org whereas Vulcan is a
> > Player-Sanctioned org.  This distinction is raised in my CFJ reasoning
> > on the matter.

> I argue that there is a further distinction here ( I have already posted
> as much onthe rebllion mailing list, the Vulcans, however, had not had a
> chacne yet to read that part) that not all rule sanctioned Organizations
> are of a single type. I think Churches would be quite different than an
> Organization such as the Revolution. There is a lot of Game Custom tha
> Churches are a type of Organization, and that one Church may be said to be
> of the same kind as another Church, not in the same way that they are both
> like other rule sanctioned Organizations. A Church is a class of
> Organizations, while Revolution stands in a class by itself. 

I agree with Niccolo Flychuck here.  There is definitely a line between
player-sanctioned and rule-sanctioned orgs, and the Revolution can be
nothing but the latter because it was created by a Rule.  And Churches are
definitely a type unto themselves.

Let's think of this another way.  Obviously, the "uniqueness" attribute is
to prevent anybody else from creating their own Magic Potato, or Chartreuse
Goose.  If an entity type is nameable, then they can be distinguished
thusly; if not, then they may be indistinguishable, like A$.  If there is
only one entity of the given type, then there's little point in its being
nameable.  If there is only one unique Organization, then it should be
called The Organization, sort of like The Chartreuse Goose or the Great
Tuba of Ackanomic.

So there is a unique organization called The Revolution.  There is also a
unique organization called The Rebellion, and one called Vulcan, and one
called Munchkin Haven...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--ZZ Top:Recycler
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Irrecoverably dark total eclipse without all hope of day!

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:43:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

> > I hereby request Rule 2283 to grant me membership in the Revolution.

> Okay.  If, like, it's necessary to say okay, you know...

I don't know if you are a member yourself, BD.  The Rule did not make you
one, and I don't recall having seen you announce that you are...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--ZZ Top:Recycler
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Drink and cook the prodigal son, fondue forks for everybody!

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Malenkai IP

>> Are we vtoing on that IP yet, or does that start only on Friday. If
>> we are voting on it, the I vote in favor of impeaching Malenkai.
> 
> And I vote against.  (Yeah, I can't remember whether the Count
> Tabula has to announce it like e does Witchhunts, etc....)

Whoops. I am a pinhead.

Note, everybody: my prior statements on the Impeachment were 100%
INCORRECT. Please disregard.

To sum up the process:

* You can and should vote now.
* Send your votes to Count Tabula, i.e. Malenkai, i.e., [email-masked]
* Your vote must be either YES or NO.
* For the sake of his sanity, since this has been a high-bandwith day,
  put "IP Vote" in the subject line. Actually, put "Malenkai" in the
  subject line, too. (Who knows, we might get another Impeachment
  going before the voting on this one is over....)

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:28:47 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: organizations

I am requesting the Registrar to allow me to change my name to "Rule 
2283"

Perhaps this may allow me to relieve Breadbox's suspence

**Rule 2283

**actually, still two-star

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:39:45 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cheez-Whiz + Llama

Uri Bruck wrote:

> I think that this the kind of duty I'd like to see an Ad Hoc Committee
> empowered to do. It's now like we need a review for every gadget. Only if
> someone believes a gadget to be abusable is there need for such a review.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

Having served in an ad hoc committee, (and having been jailed for 
contempt for it,) I have to say this is a bad idea. In fact I plan to 
try to repeal ad hoc committees after I have done some other proposals. 
I believe that hearings work much more smoothly. Perhaps there should be 
a type of hearing where voting is delayed for a few days in order that 
discussion may occur before voting. I personally have forgone calling 
for trinket inanity committees because of this, when a hearing would 
have taken a relatively modest amount of effort to harf.

**two-star

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 21:43:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

> Believe me when I say that there are other, nastier loopholes that have yet 
> to be explored.  My motives (though not my arguments) are based on two 
> concepts.  One, it should be possible to overthrow the Vulcan party within 
> the rules.  Two, nomic as a game should be constantly in flux, anything 
> which encourages abiding by the status quo for no other reason than
> "that's the way we thought it worked" is suspect.

yeah, lets play some nomic around here :-)

Malenkai
comment not meant to be offensive :)

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:54:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Cheez-Whiz + Llama

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> I agree with everything anyone has said thus far about the Jaran Llama
> being too powerful, I also agree with the statement that it is too easy
> for an organization to make gadgets, even if Alfvaen has changed his mind.
> frankly, I think gadgets in general are open to massive abuse.  If I could
> see a way of retricting them that wouldn't kill them entirely, I would
> propose it.  Ever since the Cheez-Whiz buisness though, I have sought in
> vain for such measures, except for this one idea.  Some sort of review
> board, which would have to vote in favor of allowing a blueprint to be
> made available for use.  Am I alone in thinking that such a body might be
> a good thing?  I'm sure that Vulcan would volunteer to handle the
> duties... :)

I would rather not place this power in the hands of a limited group -- 
hasn't the coup taught us _anything_?  :)  To carry futher this 
view, I would abolish the Ackanomic Research Guild and its restricted 
elitist guidelines for who can make Blueprints in favor of an Ackanomic 
Institute of Technology, where any player can pay tuition and as their 
thesis work, produce a Blueprint, which they would have to defend against 
some sort of review.

Even if this idea is too extreme at the moment, a more populist review 
for creating Blueprints might run along the lines of what I included when 
I wrote the checks for Oztma Card type Scientist for a Day.  I have 
quoted that Rule here for your convenience.

     Rule 1240.14/0 
     Otzma Card of type Scientist for a Day 
     Guy Fawkes (Robert Shimmin) 

A Card of this type may be played only in the public forum. A player who 
does so pays A$20. 

In the message in which a player states he is playing a card of this 
type, he may also include exactly one collection
of text which he would like to see as a new Blueprint. This text becomes 
a new Blueprint in the Blueprint Archive;
this Blueprint is said to be created by the player who played the 
Scientist for a Day Otzma Card. 

If at least 5 active players, or 20% of the active players, whichever is 
greater, publically protest this Blueprint
within 3 days of its creation, it is destroyed, and its creator loses 10 
points. 

Counter-Action: Any Blueprint created by the use of the countered 
Scientist for a Day Card is destroyed. 

     Created by Proposal 1661 on 1 Feb 1997 

A variation on this would be for a certain threshold number of complaints 
to initiate a Hearing on the acceptance of the Blueprint.  Where the 
balance between checks and playability should lie, can be found over time 
with experimentation with the Rule.

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:08:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > I think, and I say this without meaning any disrespect, that many
> > players have a lot of time and effort tied up in their respective
> > organizations and thus, will take the opposing viewpoint.
> 
> I, on the other hand, think, and I really do not mean any disrespect,
> that you are underestimating how much force game custom has when
> interpreting the rules. The rules explicitly empower game custom to
> disambiguate unclear situations. The only time you can completely
> ignore game custom is when the rules are unambiguous.

I would disagree with that.  Game custom establishes the interpretation 
of one or more parts of one or more Rules, but as the Rules change over 
time, the old interpretation may or may not be appropriate to the new 
text, even if it is ambiguous.  In this case, a Judge may (and Judges 
have) set a new precedent, although they should probably defend it 
robustly in their reasoning.

There is also a few cases within the Rules of Judges overturning old game 
custom because with the changing game state, it had become (or always 
was) just plain _bad_.  Usually, such arguments are based on the spirit 
of the game, and that the old custom made for a nigh well unplayable game.

Such cases are rare, however.  breadbox's comments are true in the vast 
majority of cases.  Game custom does, however, become obsolete with time, 
and is not forever set in stone.  When you have the time, a read through 
the CFJ archives is educational.  Watch how customs evolve.

> > Two, nomic as a game should be constantly in flux, anything which
> > encourages abiding by the status quo for no other reason than
> > "that's the way we thought it worked" is suspect.
> 
> I hope you don't think that this is all that game custom really is.
> What "game custom" refers to in this context is the agreements we have
> come to regarding how to interpret an ambiguous wording. (In a sense,
> every single rule is potentially ambiguous, because Ackanomic is
> written in an ambiguous language - English - as opposed to a more
> formally precise language, like propositional calculus or even
> Legalese.) So, when it is discovered that not everyone agrees on what
> some rule really says, a CFJ gets invoked, gets judged carefully (we
> hope), gets resolved in a manner that satisfies people's common sense
> and/or spirit-of-the-game (we hope), and then that becomes a part of
> game custom.
> 
> So ... yes: game custom is just "that's the way we thought it worked",
> but with a little more implication that there has been an effort to
> actually analyze the issue and find a solution that is generally
> considered to be satisfactory.

For the stronger game custom, that is, game custom that was based on 
prior court interpretation, this is true.  However, many players call 
practices which have never come under judicial review "game custom" just 
because they have always done things this way.  A longtime Rule violation 
does _not_, however, constitute game custom, and if you can show how 
established practice is in violation of the Rules, such an argument will 
be taken seriously by the judicial system.

(Something I've always found ironic is that some arguably questionable 
established practices which have never come under judicial review are 
called "game custom," perhaps innappropriately, simply because it is the 
same sort of perhaps innappropriate "game custom" that they are :)

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 22:28:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ceasefire

On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> The Game of Ackanomic will survive this trouble, as it has survived so many
> before.  We shall all be wiser for the experience.  And some of us may have
> been having fun anyway.  (Not _me_, personally, but I'm told that some have
> regarded this as a welcome change...)

As long as it is not taken to excess, I _revel_ in this sort of thing.  
Gets the creative juices flowing, and definitely spices up mail flow 
(though not proposal flow :( )  Still, I've had just about as much as I 
can take without ulcerating.

GF

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:38:57 -0400
From: "Daniel & Vivian" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

Having just joined the game, and waiting to try out a few loopholes, I'd
like to know the state of the game.  Can someone sum up the current threads
and important decisions that hang from them?

Here's what I've got so far:

The Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite may be destroyed by the following
a) Supreme Court CFJ "Smart Bomb"
b) The Uniqueness of Organization "The Revolution"
c) Small voles waiting on the aluminium side of space who prey on critters
with pointy ears.
(ignore the last one, it's just wishful thinking)

Just as befogged as before,
Onieros

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:50:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Organizations

> Having just joined the game, and waiting to try out a few loopholes, I'd
> like to know the state of the game.  Can someone sum up the current threads
> and important decisions that hang from them?

> Here's what I've got so far:

> The Evil Tyrannical Ruling Elite may be destroyed by the following
> a) Supreme Court CFJ "Smart Bomb"
> b) The Uniqueness of Organization "The Revolution"
> c) Small voles waiting on the aluminium side of space who prey on critters
> with pointy ears.

Well, before a) and b) we had

y) Guy Fawkes' attempt to retroactively create a Rule 1(by announcing he
was creating it, and then announcing two weeks later that since no one
objected, he had); this one has already been ruled on, I believe.
z) My own attempt to create an organization called "The organization
Vulcan", and exploit what is known(in this game)as "Malenkai's Loophole",
taking advantage of a Rule by creating an entity mentioned therein, and
thence remove the ETRE's powers.  This is what Niccolo Flychuck and
ThinMan have mostly been debating in the last while, as well as NF's
statement that the rule might not have applied to the Vulcan party in the
first place.

> (ignore the last one, it's just wishful thinking)

How did you hear about the voles?  Did Balsamic Dragon leak it?  That was
supposed to be a secret of the Rebellion, dang it!  But since they played
into our hands and reattached the north hemisphere, I suppose there's
nothing they can do about it...;-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Steve Winwood:Arc of A Diver
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
The meek shall inherit the Earth, if that's okay with you

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:51:50 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka: organizations

> I am requesting the Registrar to allow me to change my name to "Rule 
> 2283"

> Perhaps this may allow me to relieve Breadbox's suspence

> **Rule 2283

> **actually, still two-star

Okay, I ack this.  Will this be a short-term change, or shall I change all
the web pages?  (I have the oddest urge to do so anyway...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Steve Winwood:Arc of A Diver
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
The one bright star lit feebly this wick.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #287
*******************************