Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #299
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, September 10 1997     Volume 02 : Number 299

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:05:36 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackca points

And you know what else?  I don't think I ever received my full points for
my non-modest, harfy proposal passing either.  Or how else could I be down
to -2?

Balsamic Dragon
Still huffing and puffing, but not whining yet.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:05:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

>How about the one with "organizations" being a class of entities, and
>"player-formed organizations" being a subclass of those, and "political
>parties" a type of those.  And maybe "political parties with trade
>licenses...:-)"  Some kind of cladistic categorization could work.  (That
>way, if something affects a given "type", it will affect the smallest set
>of entities that includes that type...so 'the Revolution', as a generic
>rule-sanctioned org, would have affected Churches as well, a subtype of
>rule-sanctioned orgs.)

  Well, yes, that's exactly what I meant, except I'd rather:
a) have them all called 'type' with 'subclass' et all being synonyms,
rather than all different names (you may have meant this).
b) have the "attributes", such as "mimsy", "tradeable", ... unified with
this idea.

____________________________________________________________________________
|The Mauve Baron|  Beep  [email-masked] * http://www.bergen.org/~dankna|
|---------------|  Blip  |-------------------------------------------------|
|   Dan Knapp   |  Bonk  |     This notice copyright (C)1997 Dan Knapp     |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:11:16 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Ackca points

> And you know what else?  I don't think I ever received my full points for
> my non-modest, harfy proposal passing either.  Or how else could I be down
> to -2?

I missed it the first time around, but should be down for 15 points for
P2283.  The problem is that you also got penalized for lateness on CFJ 452.

> Balsamic Dragon
> Still huffing and puffing, but not whining yet.

Hmmm...huff, puff...dangling houses...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Spike Jones:Cocktails For Two
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
Warning:  Do not suspend disbelief directly overhead.

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

Date: 10 Sep 1997 15:20:43 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

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

> How about the one with "organizations" being a class of entities, and
> "player-formed organizations" being a subclass of those, and "political
> parties" a type of those.  And maybe "political parties with trade
> licenses...:-)"  Some kind of cladistic categorization could work.  (That
> way, if something affects a given "type", it will affect the smallest set
> of entities that includes that type...so 'the Revolution', as a generic
> rule-sanctioned org, would have affected Churches as well, a subtype of
> rule-sanctioned orgs.)

	We could always adopt a strict object class structure with
multiple inheritance; this would solve it nicely...

	Sorry.  I'm too much a programmer.

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:21:01 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: GM, Llama, CIL, Gumball

I am requesting that Alfvaen reattach my house. Don't botch it!
I am destroying the Jaran Llama Blueprint.
I am removing my name from the CFJ Ineligibility List.
I am chewing the Gumball.

**two-star

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:42:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, mr cwm wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Vynd wrote, concerning
> 
> >> Call For Judgment 461
> >>   Subject: Precedence of Precedence Paradox
> >> Initiator: Guy Fawkes
> 
> >I congratulate you, Guy Fawkes, for I think this is a true Paradox.
> 
> Maybe, although I'm not entirely convinced.  I'm a bit concerned about
> looking at precedence by pairs of rules in this argument.  R102 says that
> two *or more* rules may conflict, so I think that all three rules (R1,
> R102, and R255) should be considered together.  The "other" rules (R1 and
> R255) do not state a coherent method for determining precedence, so R102
> may kick in to resolve it (giving precedence to R1), even though by doing
> so it invalidates it's own power to do so ... um ... maybe not, but it's a
> thought.

I disagree with this view.  Rule 1 is not in conflict with Rule 102 in
this case, but rather Rule 255 is in conflict with Rule 1 and also with
Rule 102.

> 
> Here's another thought.  R102 says that two or more rules may confilct on
> some point.  The only point under consideration here is the ability of a
> vacationing Vulcan etc. to perform a certain act.  That is, the point in
> question doesn't involve R102 at all.  Since R1 and R255 do not provide a
> coherent way to resolve this conflict, R102 can come in and give
> precedence to R1 on this point.  

Here is how I see it.  There is conflict between two rules.  The only rule
that explains to us how to resolve this conflict is Rule 102.  Rule 102
says two things about resolving conflicts.  One is that if there is a
clear method of resolving the conflict explained in rules other than rule
102, then that method holds sway.  The other thing it says is that if
there is no such method, then the rule with the lowest number will hold
sway.

Rules 1 and 255 both claim, using different language, that they have
precedence over all the other rules in the game.  Neither they nor any
other rule except 102 explain how to resolve this conflict. So we turn to
Rule 102's statement that the Rule with the lowest number has precedence
in these cases.

Rule 102 is now trying to force Rule 255 to cede precedence to Rule 1,
even though Rule 255 claims precedence over everything.  Thus we have
another conflict.  We look at Rule 102 and Rule 255, and we discover that
there is a clear method of detemining which rule has precedence described
in a rule other than 102, namely the method described in Rule 255.  This
method is quite simple, when there is a conflict with Rule 255, Rule 255
has precedence.  So Rule 102 does not have precedence over Rule 255, and
thus lacks the power to make Rule 255 subordinate to Rule 1.  So Rule 255
and Rule 1 remain in conflict, with no method of detemining which one wins
out over the other.  So we can't decide if it is legal or illegal for a
retired evil overlord on vacation to go to Vulcan HQ, so there is a
paradox.

> 
> Or maybe some combination of the two.  (I wish I could just slip this
> under someone's door, and run.)
> 
> Anyway, maybe this CFJ is true, but I don't think it's as obvious as it
> might look.
> 
> -mr cwm
>  can Bronze Torches be extinguished?
> 

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:59:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

Guy Fawkes wrote:
> We have rules.  Because the possibility exists that these rules can 
> conflict with each other, we need metarules to resolve such conflicts.  
> So long as the metarules remain that -- beyond the rules, there is no 
> problem.  However, our ruleset makes no distinction between the rules and 
> metarules -- destroying the immutables deprived the game of any pretense 
> of such, and thus, we run into problems where the rules conflict with the 
> metarules, and there are no rules to resolve the conflict.
> 
> An anology exists in linguistic paradoxes, such as the heterological 
> paradox, or the set of all sets which do not contain themselves paradox.  
> They result from confusing statements expressed by the language with 
> statements about the language.  Our ruleset makes just the same error by 
> including rules about the rules within the set of rules.  Rule 102 is 
> unfortunately bound by the same precedence laws that it sets forth, its 
> invokation is its undoing.
> 
> Of course, if the metarules were raised beyond the Rules, there of course 
> must exist metametarules to govern the metarules and possible conflicts 
> therein, and so forth either ad infinitum or until the meta-n-rules are 
> in fact the Rules, which leads us to the circular problem that this CFJ 
> addresses.

Hmm, Guy Fawkes must have recently stumbled upon one of the many copies of
Godel Escher Bach in the Ackanomic Library. :-)

/dev/joe
Came across one of those myself a week or so ago. :-)
Good thing, because I'm judging this CFJ and I haven't made up my mind yet.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:04:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> >We have rules.  Because the possibility exists that these rules can 
> >conflict with each other, we need metarules to resolve such conflicts.  
> >So long as the metarules remain that -- beyond the rules, there is no 
> >problem.  However, our ruleset makes no distinction between the rules and 
> >metarules -- destroying the immutables deprived the game of any pretense 
> >of such, and thus, we run into problems where the rules conflict with the 
> >metarules, and there are no rules to resolve the conflict.
> >
> >Of course, if the metarules were raised beyond the Rules, there of course 
> >must exist metametarules to govern the metarules and possible conflicts 
> >therein, and so forth either ad infinitum or until the meta-n-rules are 
> >in fact the Rules, which leads us to the circular problem that this CFJ 
> >addresses.
> 
>   Unless there was a mere single metarule.

And if that metarule was so simple as to be utterly self-consistent and 
therefore have no need for the context of higher-order metarules.  
Obviously, our game is not so simple as to be self-consistent, and at any 
rate such a discussion does us no good, beyond being an interesting 
topic, because our Rules do not make any distinction between Rules and metarules, 
which is the source of the problem.  

GF

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:13:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Hmm, Guy Fawkes must have recently stumbled upon one of the many copies of
> Godel Escher Bach in the Ackanomic Library. :-)

Actually, _Pi in the Sky_ by John Barrow (Oxford Press, 1992).  An 
edifying though not satisfying read.

GF

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:25:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 456 Verdict

CFJ 456 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 456
  Subject: Organizational existance
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Onieros (selected Sep 05, 1997, 22:15h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

An organization named Vulcan exists.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The statement has been called into doubt by Balsamic Dragon, who argued
that Rule 2283 caused all organizations other than The Revolution to be
destroyed.  The heart of her argument was that for the purposes of
R 500.3, The Revolution is a unique entity, and all organizations are
of the same type ("organization").  If that is indeed the case, then
I find the remainder of her argument convincing.  I question, however,
whether it is appropriate to interpret R 500.3 that way.

Game custom clearly indicates that R 500.3's usage of the word "type"
does not apply universally to every kind of categorization that may
be applied to entities.  For instance, the Magic Potato is a unique
entity, but that does not cause the various Electronic Potatos to be
destroyed as per R500.3.  Yet both are of type "potato." The Great
Trombone and the Great Tuba both exist and are unique, even though both
are of type "musical instrument," and even of type "brass instrument,"
indeed, possibly even of type "horn."  There are potential rule 500.3
conflicts among entities of type "brass entity," "chartreuse entity,"
and "animal" as well.

Perhaps the best example, however, involves Beldin's Pants and The
Purple Robe of Justice.  Both are unique, and are both Garments.
Garments are defined by the rules as a "class" of entities, which,
although not specifically a "type," is much closer to being a type than
any implicit indication in the rules that might render "organizations"
to be a "type" of entity for the purposes of R500.3.  Nevertheless,
game custom has it that both the Pants and the Robe exist, even though
R500.3 has precedence over rules 933 and 940.  It appears, then, that
the customary interpretation of R500.3 is very narrow indeed when it
comes to what constitutes a "type" of entity.  I do not see how R 500.3
could reasonably be interpreted so that "organizations" are considered
a "type" of entity, but "garments" are not.

I also point out a similar usage of "type" in R515: "A trade that
offers more entities of any type than the Player offering the trade
owns is illegal."  In my opinion, this usage of type is also
interpreted very strictly.  It does not, for instance, permit me to
legally offer to trade a Plunky Monkey Wrench when I have none, even
if I have another entity of type "gadget," such as a BWG Laser.

Consider, on the other hand, Rule 917, which specifically establishes
three "types" of entities, and assigns them attributes.  This provides
a possible model for the correct interpretation of R500.3 as far as
entity "types" are concerned.  (To the extent that it makes a
difference, which may be none, the intent of entity uniqueness is to
prevent the construction, by rule or otherwise, of duplicates of
certain entities.  It was never intended to have such broad
applicability as Balsamic Dragon suggests.)

No subdivision of "organizations" contains both Vulcan and The
Revolution.  The rules recognize one such subdivision --
"Player-Sanctioned" and "Rule-Sanctioned" organizations.  Vulcan is an
instance of the former; The Revolution is an instance of the latter.
Vulcan is a political party and The Revolution is not.  The Vulcan
membership is fully disjoint from the The Revolution membership.
(Indeed, at the time of this writing I don't believe that The
Revolution has _any_ members.)  In fact, that they are both
organizations is about the extent of the similarity.

If "organizations" do not constitute a "type" for the purposes of R
500.3, then, Vulcan and The Revolution are not of the same type those
purposes.  There is no other reason why Vulcan would have ceased to
exist, therefore it still exists.

Onieros's Reasoning:

In my original statement of acceptance for this CFJ, I noted that as a new
player, I would not have access to the game custom that older players
enjoy.  Thankfully, it was pointed out to me that the CFJ archives hold
quite a bit of precedent for my situation (many thanks in particular for
CFJ 228, which straightened out a conflict I had perceived in Rule 101, and
to the custom following the precedent set by CFJ 216. ).  Therefore, in
alignment with custom and precedent, I present my judgement.

The crux of the questions is if rule 500.3 is fulfilled.
1) Is there a unique organization known as "The Revolution"?
Yes.
2) Are there any other entities that are unique?
Yes.
3) What is the first entity to be granted "Unique" status?
The Magic Potato.  In fact, it's uniqueness was granted before the rule on
uniquess was created.  There is some dispute whether the Magic Potato or
the Great Tuba was first, but since the Magic Potato has the lower number
rule, the Potato wins.
4) Is Vulcan unique?
No.
5) What other types are there? (skip this if you are bored easily)
There are types of votes (Yes, No, Abstain, Present), types of Offices
(functional, political, or capital), types of Hearing (Public Health
Emergency), Types of AOJ's (nullify a Presidential Decision appointment to
the Supreme Court, nullify Senatorial confirmation to the Supreme Court,
nullify a decision made prior to the time of the AOJ), types of trade
(standing, exclusive), auctions (public, private), gadgets (defined by
blueprint), towers (ostentatious, public), medals (lots), pages in the
Ackanomicon (not listed in an effort to preserve the recorder's sanity),
prosthetic foreheads (ditto), entities (A Rock To Wind A String Around, A
Wall Of Trombones, Santa's Beard), Organizational Powers (Big Tent, Trade
License, Secret Laboratory, Party Hall), Swingers (etc), Oztma Cards(and so
on), recordings(et al), conversions(ad nauseum), Committees(I think),
Boons(you got), and Stainless Steel(the picture).

There are no types of organizations, and an organization is not a type of
entity.

Therefore, the question becomes, at what level does something become a
"type"?
The most broad definition is that every entity is of the type "entity," and
therefore, the only thing left in the universe of Ackanomia would be the
Magic Potato, albeit a very lonely Magic Potato with no Tuba to call
brother.
The most restrictive definition is that everything created is its own type,
thus obviating the need for the term "type."
One could quibble about "Player-Sanctioned" and "Rules-Sanctioned"
organizations, but these have not been defined as types.  There can be
green fish and blue fish, but unless there is a rule stating that there are
two types of fish, green and blue, they are the same thing...fish.  

However, neither of these would be according to game custom, and would
merely be self-serving in the amusement, chaos, and general disbelief in
the surrounding world that they would provide.

Therefore, based on the fact that there is no "type" listed for
Organizations where there are clearly defined "types" for other entities, 
I find Rule 500.3 insufficient grounds for declaring Vulcan to be
non-existant.

PRECEDENT I WANT TO SET (subtitled "What have you learned, Dorothy?):  Type
is specifically defined in a rule.  Otherwise, the entity, rule, whatever,
is of no set type.
- --------
In addition, the court takes the time to consider why this judgement is
only for the organization Vulcan.  If this were judged false, similar
action would need to be taken, depending on the reasoning, on everything
from individual organizations to all entities except a potato, with no
chance to overturn this ruling.  And, Botanical facts aside, a potato has
no appeal.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:27:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 462 Verdict

CFJ 462 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 462
  Subject: Priests
Initiator: Alfvaen
    Judge: Red Barn (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:24h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

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.

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.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

 The rules specify no means for players to stop being priests other than
excommunications, thus it doesn't happen.  This is analogous to such
left-over game state as rule-defined entities still remaining in
existence, though not in effect, when the aliens abduct their rules.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:30:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 141 Verdict

CFCJ 141 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Criminal Judgement 141
  Subject: Whatever that thing is 
Initiator: Rex Mundi
    Judge: Karma (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Balsamic Dragon (deadbeat)
3rd Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:00h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Malenkai has committed a crime.

Rex Mundi's Reasoning:

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

Suggested penalty:

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

/dev/joe's Reasoning and guideline:

We now know that the number of times Zuriti'ili has been committed
must be a prime number at any given time.  Thus, Zuriti'ili must have
been committed at least *twice* before Zuriti'ili was added to the rules,
and a third time when I was found guilty of doing something with my large
trinkets.  Since 2 and 3 are the only primes that differ by 1, and
Zuriti'ili seems to have been committed only once at that time (the
"third time" above), Zuriti'ili must have been exactly 3 times up to
and including that time, and apparently still just 3 times at the time
this CFCJ alleges Zuriti'ili was committed again.

After the incident in question in this CFJ, Zuriti'ili was committed
again by myself, while two other Vulcans accused of committing
Zuriti'ili at the same time have been found innocent, and one other
case is still pending.  If I were to judge this case true, there would
have been 4 incidents of Zuriti'ili at the time of Vulcan's accused
mass-Zuriti'ili, which violates the rule, so I must judge it false.
(This reasoning seems to indicate that the other pending Zuriti'ili
case must be judged true, but I am not the judge in that case.)

In the interest of closing thread splits, in the thread(s) where Vulcan
successfully amended rule 719 to move the guidelines to a document
outside the rules, my suggested guideline is "Zuriti'ili may only be
committed by the speaker if he publicly announces the number of times
Zuriti'ili has been committed in the past and the date and time."
In all other threads, my suggested Zuriti'ili guideline is:

Zuriti'ili may only be committed by the speaker if he publicly announces
the number of times Zuriti'ili has been commited in the past and
the date and time{{ the following events occur:

   (a) In Rule 719, the sentence "When it becomes illegal to appeal a
       Zuriti'ili CFCJ further, any guideline from that CFCJ that was
       not overturned on appeal is added to the list of guidelines
       below," is replaced with: "The Clerk of the Court shall
       maintain a list of the legal Zuriti'ili guidelines, which he
       shall make available to any player upon request.  After all
       legal appeals of a particular Zuriti'ili CFCJ have been
       resolved and it is no longer legal to appeal that CFCJ, the
       Clerk of the Court shall append any Zuriti'ili guideline from
       that CFCJ that was not overturned to his list of legal
       guidelines." 

   (b) The list of legal Zuriti'ili guidelines is created, initially
       containing all text in this rule after the string "Guidelines:"
       except that which is enclosed in double curly brackets or is itself
       part of a double curly bracket; the text so entered into this list
       of guidelines is then deleted from this rule, as is the string
       "Guidelines:" }}.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:43:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: house

> If my GM is not stuck to whatever building it was stuck to before, I'll go
> over to the Revolving Shed, affix the Monopole to it, and with an intense
> stare of bravado push the red button.

Ok, this works.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 01:41:10 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: house

> I know.  I've penalized Rex Mundi for his incompetent prayers.  (Or if I
> haven't, I will soon.)
> 
"Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however,
is permitted and unregulated. Game custom, spirit of the game, and
linguistic interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated or
part of the game state."

Since linguistic interpretation is not regulated, can't I legally define
"nekops" to have 6 syllables?

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:15:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: house

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Gavin Doig wrote:

> > I know.  I've penalized Rex Mundi for his incompetent prayers.  (Or if I
> > haven't, I will soon.)
> > 
> "Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however,
> is permitted and unregulated. Game custom, spirit of the game, and
> linguistic interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated or
> part of the game state."
> 
> Since linguistic interpretation is not regulated, can't I legally define
> "nekops" to have 6 syllables?
> 
> Rex Mundi.
> 

Maybe you can, but if so I don't think there is anything stopping Alfvaen
from defining it as having some other number of syllables and basing the
scoring on that.  It is certainly not the case that you, and only you, can
define the number of syllables, even if you did say the "word" first.

                                        - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:24:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: house

> > I know.  I've penalized Rex Mundi for his incompetent prayers.  (Or if I
> > haven't, I will soon.)

> "Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules, however,
> is permitted and unregulated. Game custom, spirit of the game, and
> linguistic interpretation are external concepts and are not regulated or
> part of the game state."

> Since linguistic interpretation is not regulated, can't I legally define
> "nekops" to have 6 syllables?

No.  You can't legally define linguistic interpretation, since it's outside
the scope of the Rules.  There, we have to rely on what we already know
about language.

Had it been "N-E-K-O-P-S", I might have been able to let it slide.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Dead Can Dance:Aion
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
Glob thinkally, loc actally.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:26:48 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: GM, Llama, CIL, Gumball

> I am requesting that Alfvaen reattach my house. Don't botch it!

Ha!  My Evil Twin has so little confidence in me.  Or maybe he's just been
figuring that his number is up.  In any case, I remove my GM from the
Revolving Shed and saunter--nay, swagger--over to two-star's house.  I'm
the King of the Monopole!  I can do no wrong!  ("You can't fight statistics,
pencil-neck."  "Shut up.")  I attach the Monopole and press the red button.

> I am chewing the Gumball.

I keep forgetting to do this.  I guess now I'll have to actually start
updating that web page...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Dead Can Dance:Aion
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
If you start thinking, you'd better do it the whole time.  --Yossioren

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:31:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: house

> No.  You can't legally define linguistic interpretation, since it's outside
> the scope of the Rules.  There, we have to rely on what we already know
> about language.

hmm...  I'm not so sure about that.  Maybe not "legally define" it, but
certainly influence its evolution.  Game custom is in the same category,
and it is clear that player actions change it, despite it being an external
concept and unregulated.  This may actually be happening for linguistic
interpretation as well, the way we have overloaded certain words in
ackaspeak.

Malenkai
a named, regulated entity

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:32:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: GM, Llama, CIL, Gumball

> Ha!  My Evil Twin has so little confidence in me.  Or maybe he's just been
> figuring that his number is up.  In any case, I remove my GM from the
> Revolving Shed and saunter--nay, swagger--over to two-star's house.  I'm
> the King of the Monopole!  I can do no wrong!  ("You can't fight statistics,
> pencil-neck."  "Shut up.")  I attach the Monopole and press the red button.

This works.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:35:47 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA

The randomly selected comittee is:

Calvin N Hobbes
breadbox
Onieros
Alfvaen
Balsamic Dragon
Guy Fawkes
mr cwm

Try not to have too much fun :)

** wrote:
> 
> 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 19:34:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Balsamic Score

Balsamic Dragon was right, I had missed something when calculating eir
score: the new player author bonus for eir proposal.  It expired two days
later, but it lasted just long enough...  So there you go, your point total
is positive again.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Danielle Dax:Inky Bloaters
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
What if there were no hypothetical situations?

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #299
*******************************