Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #297
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, September 10 1997     Volume 02 : Number 297

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:45:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> /dev/joe has been selected
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 461
>   Subject: Precedence of Precedence Paradox
> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
>     Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:18h EDT)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement: 
> 
> The legality of a Vacationing Evil Overlord of Ackanomic 
> (retired) entering Vulcan Headquarters (assuming they are not already in 
> Vulcan Headquarters) appears equally legal and illegal.
> 
> Guy Fawkes Reasoning:
> 
> This is an example of what can happen when blanket precedence clauses are 
> used without consideration of their ramifications, and one of the reasons 
> I urged Vulcan not to attempt to make a "permanent Rule," since such a 
> Rule almost certainly would involve blanket precedence.
> 
> The relevant portions of the Rules:
> 
> >From Rule 1:
> 
> >Members of Vulcan and Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired) are always 
> >permitted to enter Vulcan Headquarters;
> 
> and also
> 
> >If this rule conflicts with any other rule, then this rule shall guide 
> >play. 
> 
> >From Rule 255:
> 
> >The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off 
> >vacation and send public messages.
> 
> and also
> 
> >This rule has precedence over any rule which conflicts in whole or in 
> >part, with any of its provisions. 
> 
> It is self-evident that Rules 1 and 255 set forth contradicting guidlines 
> on the legality of an Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired) entering 
> Vulcan Headquarters while e is on Vacation.  Rule 1 says e may do it; 
> Rule 255 say e may not.
> 
> It is also self-evident that each Rule says of itself that it takes 
> precedence over all other Rules.
> 
> So, unless their exists some means of determining which Rule, of 1 or 
> 255, takes precedence over the other, the player action in question seems 
> equally legal and illegal, and this CFJ should be ruled TRUE.
> 
> The relevant portion of Rule 102, which attempts but fails to resolve 
> this conflict, is quoted here:
> 
> >Two or more rules may conflict with each other about a point of Ackanomic law. 
> >In such a situation, if the rules other than this one specify a single, 
> >coherent, unambiguous method for resolving the conflict then that method is
> >applied to determine which rule or rules take precedence with regard to 
> >that particular point of law. Otherwise, the rule with the lowest rule 
> >number takes precedence. 
> 
> This means of determining precedence between Rules 1 and 255 fails 
> because both Rules 1 and 255 contain the blanket precedence clause.  In 
> short:
> 
> Rule 255 deals with, among other things, the legality of performing 
> actions on Vacation, and a very specific part of precedence law.  The 
> precedence law issued by Rule 255 (Rule 255 takes precedence, period.) 
> conflicts with the precedence law of Rule 102.  However, Rule 102 says 
> that if the conflicting Rules (other than 102) contain a means of 
> determining precedence, then that means applies.  In a conflict between 
> Rules 102 and 255, then, Rule 102 is removed from the equation, and Rule 
> 255's precedence guideline takes precedence over the precedence law of 
> Rule 102 -- in precedence cases involving Rule 255, Rule 255's precedence 
> guideline guides play.
> 
> The same argument shows in precedence cases involving Rule 1, Rule 1's 
> precedence guideline guides play.
> 
> Rules 1 and 255 conflict with regard to whether it is legal for a Vacations 
> EOA(r) to enter Vulcan Headquarters.  They also conflict with regard to 
> which precedence guideline guides play.  They are in unanimous agreement, 
> however, that the precedence law of Rule 102 cannot take precedence over 
> the precedence laws expressed in Rules 1 and 255.
> 
> We are left then, with conflicting location law, and a conflicting 
> precedence law, and the one precedence Rule capable of resolving the 
> conflict failing to have enough precedence to do so.  Paradox.
> 

I congratulate you, Guy Fawkes, for I think this is a true Paradox.  I
noticed the weakness of Rule 102 myself awhile back, but I couldn't find
anything that would let me get a Paradox Win out of it.  So did I just
give up and patch it like I should have.....  Nooooooo.  I was lazy and
figured I'd try looking again later.  And now this happens.  I don't mind
telling you that we noticed that phrase in our draft, and that it would
allow us to walk out of Gaol if we were so inclined, but decided not to
change it since it wasn't all that important and we figured no one would
notice...

In any case, this is something that definitely needs to be fixed.  As
CSSR, I am more than willing to add a blanket precedence clause to 102 (I
am still amazed that no one ever though to put one there) and renumber it.
However, much as I hate to admit it, Rule 1 stands in the way of the
Precedence Rule being well, precedent, over everything.  If you really do
ahve a method of altering it so that it isn't so difficult to work with,
well, I guess I am asking that you use it.

This leads into another question of mine.  It's kind of embarassing that
I, who have at this point judged more CFJs than about 3/4s of Acka's
population, have to ask this...  Is the judgement on a CFJ supposed to
look at the Rules as they stand when the judgement is returned, or the
Rules as they stood when the CFJ was released?  And why does this issue
not seem to bother anyone else, is there some obvious custom or Rule
that I keep missing when I look for something on this?  The first seems 
to be the way we rule a lot of the time, but the second seems more
fair, and some judgements seem to reflect this.  The reason I ask now is
that I do not want to abuse my office by changing the rules before 
judgement is rendered on CFJ 461 and thereby negate what I believe
would be a win by GF.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]
Kicking myself.....

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:49:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: mispelling action (and CSR)

On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > FYI
> > 
> > Malenkai proposed the following Vulcan action on August 30, 1:21 AM:
> > 
> > > Rule 340 is amended to replace "misspelled" with "mispelled".
> > 
> > This action was approved by Malenkai, /dev/joe, and ThinMan. Vynd has
> > neither approved nor denounced it.

> > 
> > breadbox
> > 
> > 
> 
> Oh well.  there's always something,  I'm afraid it's too late.
> 
> 
> However...  I am hearby distributing CSR 119, the text of which is
> delimited by GRAMMAR below.
> 
> GRAMMAR
> 
> Ammend Rule 340 by replacing the word misspelled with the string:
> mispelled
> 
> 
> GRAMMAR
> 

As 3 days have passed (4, actually) with no objection to this CSR, it goes
into effect.  Mispelled has returned to the ruleset.

                              - CSSR Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 03:52:26 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> If that is not what you were driving at, please indicate to me, and the 
> Court, the *specific* body of game custom that I ignored in this case; it
> will allow us all to get to a verdict quicker.
> 
> Malenkai

I'm not sure what this is a reply to, but I did explicitly specify that
I'm not sure where the CFJ archive is, and I intend to utilize it once
I've got my hands on it. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 03:59:07 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> More importantly, however, neither Niccolo nor Alfvaen has offered any
> new arguments for Malenkai's verdict not being in accord with the
> rules or game state (of the appropriate time).  Alfvaen claimed
> dissatisfaction with Malenkai's quick dismissal of one possibility,
> thus I presume that Alfvaen's favored interpretation is that particular
> possibility.  He has made no argument for it, however.  Niccolo, on
> the other hand, praises Malenkai's analysis.  He does not seem to
                 ^^^^^^^
I'd rather say 'complements'

> deny its correctness, arguing instead (I think) that Malenkai did not
> reach his decision in accord with the rules.  I remind him, and

Malenkai uses the reasoning to demonstrate the processs by which he
arrived at the verdict. I did not argue against considerin a past Game
State, Iargued that he considered _solely_ a past Game STate, and not the
one which existed at the time the CFJ was invoked.

I offered no new arguments, because in the past few days I offered an
abundance of arguments about both relevant CFJs.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > everyone, that it is only the verdict which must be in accord with the
> rules, game state, etc..  The rules place little restriction on _how_
> the Judge comes to that verdict, requiring only that game custom and
> the spirit of the game be considered in somecases.  Malenkai appears
> to have done exactly that.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:01:31 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: off cfj inel

I'm taking myself of the cil

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> >   If I am on it, and I can do so, I am taking myself off the CFH
> > Ineligibility List.
> 
> Here is the updated cil.  It will be updated on the web soon.
> 
> Ackers (368)
> fnord (376)
> Robert Sevin (voluntary)
> Antimatter (voluntary)
> CarsesraC (392)
> CV1701 (411)
> AZTEC G0D (428)
> Niccolo Flychuck (C139)
> Dread Pirate Roberts (446)
> two-star (450)
> Balsamic Dragon (452)
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:12:31 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 462 (Red Barn)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Red Barn has been selected
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 462
> Subject: Priests
> Initiator: Alfvaen
>   Judge: Red Barn (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:24h EDT)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Guy Fawkes is no longer a Priest.
> 
> Alfvaen's Reasoning:
> 
> A Priest is ordained as a member of a Church.  While the Rules are silent
> on the matter, it seems to me logical that when a Church ceases to exist,
> that any players who were ordained Priests in that Church would not remain
> Priests.  The same case would also occur if a Priest left a Church, IMHO; 
> it would seem silly for a player to remain a Priest in that case, and the
> situations seem analogous.  Also, a Priest who left one Church, retained
> eir status, and was admitted to another Church, would still be a Priest,
> despite not having been ordained by the founder of eir Church.  All this
> seems counterintuitive to me, which may or may not mean anything, but since
> the Rules don't say anything on this matter...  There is also an analogous
> situation in the loss of the position of Swinger when a player leaves a
> Party.

This is not analogous at all to a Swinger, as the status of a Swinger is
expllicitly stated in the rules, when a Party Swinger leavers a Party he
is no longer a Swonger for that Party, there is a specical case where a
Party disbands, a Party Swinger can become Capital.
As for Priests, the current situation is really unclear, I submitted a
proposal that would fix that (to bring it in the line with the intent)
but that should have no bearing on this CFJ. The proposal says nothing
about the status of Priests who no longer have a Church, however, the
Current Cult clause suggests that Priests do not lose their Priestly
Status.

> 
> At the very least, if a person may still call emself a Priest while only a
> member of a Cult, then e should not have the abilities that the Priest of a
> Church has.
> 

The rules that pertain to Priests do not specify such a difference

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:13:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 452 Verdict - more appealing

> Malenkai uses the reasoning to demonstrate the processs by which he
> arrived at the verdict. I did not argue against considerin a past Game
> State, Iargued that he considered _solely_ a past Game STate, and not the
> one which existed at the time the CFJ was invoked.

Ok, I will ask rather directly.  *What* part of the present game state,
or present custom, did I ignore in reaching that verdict?  I think it
may help the Court too if you state it.

Even if you do not have access to any archives, you should be able to
state the gist of it, if it was strong enough in your mind to prompt
an appeal.  

BTW, my reasoning applied to the CFJ 457 verdict as well.  Why has
no one found enough fault with it to appeal that one, or is this 
"present" game state or custom information different in regards 
to CFJ 457 ... ?

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:14:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name Space Reservation

> Heh, while I admire your forethough in preparing for an overturning of
> your verdict, I think the game could reasonably be said to have crashed if
> that were to happen.  As I said in my judgement of, was it 453?  There's
> been so damn many...  Anyway, as I said in my reasoning to the CFJ, if a
> phrase which was so clearly understood as "The organization Vulcan" is in
> actuality ambiguous enough to have such completely different meanings,
> then the Rules are no longer coherent.

It wasn't to prepare for an overturn of the verdict, it was just an
example.  If I did not crash it here, someone else would by a similar
line of play, quite possibly by mistake, if the *principle* of 452 is
not upheld.  Now, I admit that the principle of my reasoning could be
upheld, but 452 be overturned for a "special" reason, but I could not
think of such a reason when I was thinking about it, which I did for 
quite some time.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 04:15:32 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Bless this house of mine

I was always somewhat of a rogue Priest :)

I'll have to give another go, later.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Robert Shimmin wrote:

> This is not a proper blessing, as defined by the Rules, nor was it said 
> at such a time to guard against the Equinodal Tornado.
> 
> Doesn't Odo teach its priests to pray?  :)
> 
> GF
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Still hovering besides my dangling house, hopefully with /dev/joe besides
> > me, I am blessing my house, and awaiting a third winged player, or a
> > monopole, or something.
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:34:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acka vote on INP 346

Ackanomic abstained on In 346.  The relevent text from rule 419.2 is below.
I meant to get around to reminding people about this, but I was very busy
and the rule is plain enough for anyone concerned to read.

> Whenever Ackanomic is permitted to vote upon any matter in Internomic, the
> Liaison shall initiate a binding vote in the People's Council for Internomic 
> to determine how e should cast Ackanomic's vote in Internomic. If there are fewer
> than 4 members in the People's Council for Internomic, then the Liasion shall
> initiate a binding vote in a Joint Assembly of the Senate and the People's 
> Council for Internomic to determine how e should cast Acaknomic's vote in 
> Internomic. In the latter case it is the Senate's responsibility to report the
> results of the vote to Ackanomic. 
> 
> In the event that the Institution or Institutions in which the vote was 
> initiated do not reach a decision, the President shall determine how e casts 
> Ackanomic's vote. 

Malenkai
Ambassador

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:45:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Internomic Business

1) results of INP 346:

For: Pumpkin Patch
Against: Agora, Thring

All other voting members abstained.

Proposal is rejected.

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

2) New internomic proposal:

What follows is INP 347, submitted by Agora.  I hereby initiate a
vote in the joint assembly of the senate and PCI as described in
rule 419.2:

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Create a new rule with the text enclosed in ###:

###
InterNomic will try to vote on every proposal 96 hours before the
end of the voting period of the proposal. 

InterNomic's vote will be determined at the time InterNomic tries to
vote, according to the following rules:

i) If at the time InterNomic tries to vote more voting members of
Internomic have voted for the proposal than against it, InterNomic
will vote for the proposal.

ii) If at the time InterNomic tries to vote more voting members of
Internomic have voted against the proposal than for it, InterNomic
will vote against the proposal.

iii) If neither i) nor ii) applies, InterNomic will not vote on the
proposal. 

This vote from InterNomic is automatic. Its outcome shall be
determined by the moderator. This vote is a valid vote. 

The last two paragraphs of this rule take precedence over any other
rule concerning the validity of a vote.

###

Remarks: 

- - Note that 309 (voting period ends before the full two weeks'
time if all nomics have voted) cannot stop InterNomic from voting. In
fact, at the moment, with InterNomic eligible to vote but not doing
so, the second sentence of 309 never applies at all.

- - The last two paragraphs are needed because 332 does not make it
clear who will actually cast a valid vote (= "send a message to the
moderator" according to 207) for InterNomic.

- - Note that the moderator is not "voting for" IN in any sense; it's
just that someone has to do it, and the moderator is the only one with
the necessary information. A choice or free will of the moderator is
not involved, however. 

- - As a side effect, this will encourage IN member nomics to vote
early, so they can influence IN's vote.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:01:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

ThinMan has been selected

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 464
  Subject: Vacation Paradox
Initiator: Vynd
    Judge: ThinMan (selected Sep 09, 1997, 22:01h EDT)
Judgement: 

Statement:

It appears equally legal and illegal for a player who has
been on Vacation for less than 2 days to leave the Game of
Ackanomic.

Vynd's Reasoning:  

Yeah, this is kind of cheap, and typical of my play in
general :).  My thanks to Guy Fawkes for putting me on the right track
with the Vacation rule, I hope that at the very least his CFJ is judged
true.  This is, so far as I can tell, a Paradox Win CFJ, although I am not
at all positive it is TRUE.

Now, down to buisness.  Rule 255 states that "The only thing a player
on Vacation may legaly do is take himself off vacation and send public
messages."  It goes on to say that an exception to this is that a player
who has been on vacation for less than 2 days may not take themselves off
of vacation.  This effectively means that a player who has been on
vacation for less than 2 days can take no game actions whatsoever, at
least so far as the Vacation rule has any say in the matter.  Finally,
Rule 255 says that it takes precedence over any rule that in conflicts
with, either in whole or in part.

Rule 101 states that a player "always has the option of leaving the Game
of Ackanomic."  it also states that it takes precedence over all other
rules.

So here we have a conflict between Rule 101 and Rule 255.  Both Rules
claim precedence, however.  Rule 102 would seem to resolve this conflict,
by saying that the rule with the lowest number takes precedence if there
is no other way to resolve a conflict.  However, Rule 102 does not take
precedence over rules 101 and 255, and is in conflict with rule 255, since
it claims that rule 255 doesn't have precedence over all Rules (and
specifically does not have precedence over Rule 101). Since there is a
conflict, and Rule 255 has precedence over Rule 102, Rule 255 holds sway.
The end result of all of this is that Rules 101 and 255 are in conflict
with each other, with no method to resolve the conflict.  One of them says
that it is legal for a player to leave the game at any time (more or
less), the other says that it is ilegal to leave the game, or anything
else, durring the first 2 days of vacation.

The only arguement against this I have been able to come up with is based
on the fact that Rule 101 only states that a player always has "the
option" to leave the game, as opposed to saying that  aplayer actually may
leave the game at any time.  If my statement was about all vacationing
players, it might be FALSE because most of those players would have the
option of quiting, by announcing they have returned from vacation, and
then leaving the game.  For a player who has been on Vacation for less
than 2 days, however, it is not possible to return from vacation, and I
feel that this removes any option the player might otherwise have of
leaving the game.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 21:32:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> ThinMan has been selected
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 464
>   Subject: Vacation Paradox
> Initiator: Vynd
>     Judge: ThinMan (selected Sep 09, 1997, 22:01h EDT)
> Judgement: 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> It appears equally legal and illegal for a player who has
> been on Vacation for less than 2 days to leave the Game of
> Ackanomic.

Yes, Vynd, this paradox can be construed between any two Rules with 
blanket precedence clauses, so long at least one other conflict can be 
found between them.  Thank you for pointing out yet another variant.

However, players have stooped to this depth (further, actually) in the 
past, and the result of this is the last paragraph of Rule 211.  How 
similar constitutes "substantially similar" is up to the Judge, but I 
find it likely that this particular CFJ will be judged INVALID, regadless 
of its truth or falsehood.

GF

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:59:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Winds of Change

I am building a gimme shelter.  It will be done in 3 days.

Malenkai
where will *you* be when the tornado blows your house away :)

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:14:57 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: The HTML Standard: Volume 1 number 6

By popular demand:

&aleph; is an accented representation of the letter a; its physical 
representation is that of the Hebrew letter aleph.

This doesn't make it an ascii character, as Guy Fawkes wished; it does 
however put in Ackanomic's character set.

The HTML Standard
two-star, editor.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ Archive

I've put up a CFJ archive. I think it's up-to-date. I will clean it up
later if there are any bugs in it. Right now I need it as much as
anybody, so there it is. Let me know if there are any glaring errors
in it.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Duh

Oh yeah. The URL is http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/cfjs/cfjs.html.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Duh

> Oh yeah. The URL is http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/cfjs/cfjs.html.

Try:  http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/acka/cfjs/cfjs.html.

Been a long day.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:59:14 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka trinkets again!

O.k. The 16 trinkets are as follows
the trinkets 1 to 5 are "Mr. Spock #1", "Mr. Spock #2",Mr. Spock #3", 
"Mr. Spock #4", "Mr. Spock #5", The "Lukes" 6 to 16 are "Luke #6", "Luke
#7", "Luke #8", "Luke #9", "Luke #10", "Luke #11", "Luke #12", "Luke #13",
"Luke #14", "Luke #15", aaaannnnnd... "Luke #16". The rest of the
description posted with the original creation I worked so dillegently on
applies just the same and so are donated to the museum in their various
action poses on some bizzare spherical shaped blue ball.

- - Karma (deadbeat)

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

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 20:51:51 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CPPIA

It is my belief that the trinket named "rules of Ackanomic", created by 
Malenkai, is utterly without artistic merit. It is green, yes, but it 
lacks any compositional ingenuity or emotional resonance. One might try 
in vain to determine what the artist was attempting to convey with it's 
greenness, but I tell you, he is mocking us! There is nothing behind the 
greenness, no life, no soul. I spit on this trash! To think that this 
could legally be given to the museum and put on display there makes my 
stomach heave in revulsion. If I had a JMCL, I would make short work of 
this so-called "trinket," which is truly an insult to anyone who has 
created a trinket, even one as lowly as an inky bloater decoy, but as I 
do not, my only recourse is to call for Committee for the Protection, 
Preservation, and Integrity of the Arts to investigate the inanity of 
this trinket pursuant to rule 1082.

**two-star

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:02:12 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Dragon lady

Balsamic dragon in addition your house description you have also left a
blank space among the acka gallery.

- - Karma

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:03:56 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka tattoo

Tecnho's "mother Techno" tattoo magically changes to "Mother Crackfoo" in
tandem with 'is name change
- - karma

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Robert Shimmin wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > ThinMan has been selected
> > 
> > Clerk of the Courts
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Call For Judgment 464
> >   Subject: Vacation Paradox
> > Initiator: Vynd
> >     Judge: ThinMan (selected Sep 09, 1997, 22:01h EDT)
> > Judgement: 
> > 
> > Statement:
> > 
> > It appears equally legal and illegal for a player who has
> > been on Vacation for less than 2 days to leave the Game of
> > Ackanomic.
> 
> Yes, Vynd, this paradox can be construed between any two Rules with 
> blanket precedence clauses, so long at least one other conflict can be 
> found between them.  Thank you for pointing out yet another variant.
> 
> However, players have stooped to this depth (further, actually) in the 
> past, and the result of this is the last paragraph of Rule 211.  How 
> similar constitutes "substantially similar" is up to the Judge, but I 
> find it likely that this particular CFJ will be judged INVALID, regadless 
> of its truth or falsehood.
> 
> GF
> 

Well, I apologize GF.  heck, I apoloize to everybody for wasting
their time.  Frankly, I just couldn't stand the fact that I actually
figured out where a paradox was but didn't take the time to find
it until after it was too late.  I was too damn lazy as usual, and now
I've pretty much embarassed myself over it. :)  Ah well.  I retract this
CFJ, if only in spirit.

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:21:09 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

>  I retract this CFJ, if only in spirit.

Is this an actual retraction?

Malenkai
CotC

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:28:46 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Winds of Change

>I am building a gimme shelter.  It will be done in 3 days.

>Malenkai
>where will *you* be when the tornado blows your house away :)

I have the odd notion that a few people might be wanting to use that
clause of the rule where you get to vacation in the land of Ix or
something.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Cats Soundtrack
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:30:37 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Acka vote on INP 346

>Ackanomic abstained on In 346.  The relevent text from rule 419.2 is below.
>I meant to get around to reminding people about this, but I was very busy
>and the rule is plain enough for anyone concerned to read.

>> In the event that the Institution or Institutions in which the vote was 
>> initiated do not reach a decision, the President shall determine how e casts 
>> Ackanomic's vote. 

Oops.  I imagine some part of the blame falls on my shoulders, then...ah, well.
Maybe I should start paying attention to Internomic a bit more, as part of my
duties...

By the way, speaking of duties, with the upcoming Tornado, does anyone think
I should initiate the construction of a Bomb Shelter?  And, more importantly,
is anyone willing to help underwrite the costs?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Cats Soundtrack
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
The world had never had so many moving parts and so few labels.  --Gibson

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:31:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> >  I retract this CFJ, if only in spirit.
> 
> Is this an actual retraction?
> 
> Malenkai
> CotC
> 

Yes, sorry I didn't make it one hundred percent explicit.  What can i say,
I'm in a peculiar mood.

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:22:34 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re acka prez'

I would like to request a reassuring speech from our respected president
Mr. Alfvaen if only to ensure the steady economic growth of Ackanomia as a
nation, I ask you Mr. President where are all the jobs? I need work! What
about my wife and family? my Pf bonds are way down I'm living from cycle to
cycle never knowing if I will be getting my next cut of the pie when the
cycle ends My house may be destroyed, My Tattoo Parlour can't even afford a
secret lab! Might you at least come and reattach my house you are welcome
any time.:)

- - Karma (disgrunteled ackspayer)

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:35:14 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Dangle, Dangle

Since all the Monopolings I've done seem to have worked, with tremendous
confidence and a spring in my step(as much as is possible with suckers
attached to my feet), I go to Niccolo Flychuck's house, with two winged
folks hovering overhead; as he has asked me, I attach the Gravitational
Monopole, and knowing, as I know few things with such certainty, that it
will work, I press the red button.

In answer to someone's query(breadbox?)...all the danglement is still up
on map.html; I reattached all the small public buildings, and I think one
other one was reattached by winged folk, but that's it.

By the way, if Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe are no longer Priests, then I'm the
only one in good standing with the weather gods, so I'll be the only one
able to bless houses so they don't blow away.  Have to check the Rules to
see if I can do that to public buildings as well...and stock up on six-
syllable words.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Cats Soundtrack
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
"Your bag!  Suddenly!  Here!  Now--gone!"

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:38:28 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

>> >  I retract this CFJ, if only in spirit.

>> Is this an actual retraction?

>Yes, sorry I didn't make it one hundred percent explicit.  What can i say,
>I'm in a peculiar mood.

It was clear enough to me...  I figured you were just saying that you retracted
it if it wasn't already invalid.  (Which, as Scorekeeper, I'll need to make
some kind of call on...)

(Oh, by the way; I now officially have a new job and things will end up being
a bit chaotic for me for the next few weeks, since they want me to start right
now, and my wife still has two weeks at her job before we can move...so I'll be
living with relatives, though probably able to set up my computer well enough...
Don't be surprised if I take a brief Vacation or two, though.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Cats Soundtrack
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
We bought a mobile home.  We hang it from the ceiling of our daughter's room.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:41:18 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangle, Dangle

If it's not stuck to Niccolo Flychuck's house, I take the GM over to
Karma's house, and with my every single gesture laden with the most
dense bravado known to AckaPhysics, I attach it and press the red
button.

And I'll get my head speechwriter right onto that reassuring speech.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Cats Soundtrack
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
G is for George, smothered under a rug, H is for Hector, done in by a thug.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:43:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> >> >  I retract this CFJ, if only in spirit.
> 
> >> Is this an actual retraction?
> 
> >Yes, sorry I didn't make it one hundred percent explicit.  What can i say,
> >I'm in a peculiar mood.
> 
> It was clear enough to me...  I figured you were just saying that you retracted
> it if it wasn't already invalid.  (Which, as Scorekeeper, I'll need to make
> some kind of call on...)
> 
> (Oh, by the way; I now officially have a new job and things will end up being
> a bit chaotic for me for the next few weeks, since they want me to start right
> now, and my wife still has two weeks at her job before we can move...so I'll be
> living with relatives, though probably able to set up my computer well enough...
> Don't be surprised if I take a brief Vacation or two, though.)
> 

Congratulations!  can I have one too?

> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
> Current Album--Cats Soundtrack
> Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
> We bought a mobile home.  We hang it from the ceiling of our daughter's room.
> 

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:42:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

> It was clear enough to me...  I figured you were just saying that you retracted
> it if it wasn't already invalid.  (Which, as Scorekeeper, I'll need to make
> some kind of call on...)

What sort of call?  He loses 1 point.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:47:33 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

>> It was clear enough to me...  I figured you were just saying that you
retracted
>> it if it wasn't already invalid.  (Which, as Scorekeeper, I'll need to make
>> some kind of call on...)

>What sort of call?  He loses 1 point.

Okay.  Then it wasn't considered sufficiently close to GF's CFJ for it to have
become invalid.  That was what I wanted to know...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/)
Current Album--Cats Soundtrack
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
Save the whales.  Collect the whole set.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:51:04 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka yeah prez!

Thanks for the aid in resuctioning my humble establishment! This inspires
me to make a pin(trinket) stating "Alf for prez' he owns undead" It's worth
30A($) and I' ll pin it on you minutes before your presidential speech.
Err.. yer welcome to my tattoo parlour too and I'll make you a free tattoo
which you can describe in that cool way you describe things.

- - Karma (devoted ackademocratreformblocquebecaliberalpc-natural law
partyman)

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:04:29 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 464 (ThinMan)

> Okay.  Then it wasn't considered sufficiently close to GF's CFJ for it to have
> become invalid.  That was what I wanted to know...

That is not my decision.  It wasn't *judged* invalid before it was retracted,
though.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:06:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangle, Dangle

> If it's not stuck to Niccolo Flychuck's house, I take the GM over to
> Karma's house, and with my every single gesture laden with the most
> dense bravado known to AckaPhysics, I attach it and press the red
> button.

The previous monopoling, and this one, work.

Malenkai
monopole harfer :)

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:43:11 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Vacation

I am going on Vacation, expected date of return: Sep. 19th

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:46:02 +0200 (MET DST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Norb=E4ck?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

Due to an enourmous amount of work right now, I am putting myself on vacation.
I hope to be back in October.

	n.

- -----[ norpan ]---------[ [email-masked] ]--------[ martin norb{ck ]-----
- -----[ please be noted that the { is really a swedish letter but it is ]-----
- -----[ unrepresentable in ascii. in iso8859-1 it looks like this: "ä". ]-----

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #297
*******************************