Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #300
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Thursday, September 11 1997     Volume 02 : Number 300

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

>>         Which means, I suppose, that the CotC should probably be noting
>> the time the CFJ was *sent* to him in the CFJ as distributed.  [For my
>> CFJ, the times were essentially identical as the CotC submitted the CFJ.]
> 
> Perhaps I should.  How does the CFJ archive harfer and others feel about
> this?

I can cope with this.

I have a small preference towards changing the rules to be consistent
with "it's not official until the CotC distributes it", but I can see
where others might object.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 05:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

> To that end, I am posting a list of statements which may or may not
> be true in the current game state, but which seem to me should be
> true.  Please let me know which ones you think the rules should
> reflect clearly.
> 
> 1. Some entities are unique and some are not.  
> 2. Entities which are unique should have a unique name.

I think it is safe to say that these two are already in the Rules.

> 3. Entities which are not unique should have a general designation.
> 4. Entities should be divided into several categories, ie. organizations, 
> trinkets...
> 5. Within most of these categories should be subclasses known as types.
> 6. If there exists an entity of a particular type which is unique, then
> that entity should be the only entity of that type.
> 7. Otherwise, a type consists of some number of non-unique entities.
> 8. All specifically rule made entities should be unique unless the rules
> say specifically that they are not unique.

I definitely agree with the last. (I would even prefer that all
Rule-based entities must categorically define their uniqueness, but we
can't assume that every proposed rule that forgets to do this will be
voted down.)

What I would like is for "non-unique" to mean that all the entities of
that "type" are essentially interchangeable. This would include:
Points, Ackadollars, each kind of Gadget, the various medals and
trophies, and other random entites that do not require descriptions to
be created, such as Rocks to Wind a String Around. Everything else
(Players, Rules, proposals and other official documents,
Organizations, Trinkets, Phoebe, et al) should be designated as being
unique.

Of course, there are a few problems in defining exactly what
"essentially interchangeable" means. Basically, that all their
attributes are identical. However, ownership is an attribute, and
certainly non-unique entities shouldn't all have the same owner.
Gadgets are even worse: some can become broken, the owner of a The
Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really can alter its
shade of blue, and so on. I think it was complications like these that
prevented Mohammed from making his Entity rewrite as complete as he
wanted.

But what I want to see is that two entities have the same name if and
only if they are non-unique, of the same "type", and do not have a
wealth of individual attributes that need to be separately tracked.

I would also strongly suggest that we drop the special use of the
"type" word. It is used too widely in the rules to be unambiguously
appropriated. I'd prefer to see a fresh word introduced to describe a
kind of non-unique entities. ("Species", perhaps?) Then we can permit
"type" to only refer to a general categorization (such as Trinkethood)
that merely defines some of the attributes of its member entities.

I strongly encourage replies to anything I've said here that sounds
stupid or less than commonsensical.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 05:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

>> 9.	All unique entity's names should begin with a capital, alphabetic
>> character.
>> 10.	All non-unique entities designations should begin with a non-capital, 
>> alphabetic character or a non alphabetic character, ie. $A or ackadollars.
> 
>   I do not agree with these.

Ditto, I'm afraid. Besides the fact that I and several others would be
forced to change our names, names of Ackanomic entities in general are
all over the map. I don't think the advantages of this would be worth
the restrictions it would impose.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:43:03 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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.
> 

Thank you great scrore keeper in your enlightened wisdom for bestowing upon
me, the lowliest of Ackadenizens, your beneficent attention!  With your
loving example, I now feel the courage rise within me to address other
issues:  

You scummy rat-bastard!  Why did you take ten points away from me for
missing the judgment on whether "the organization Vulcan" had the power to
change the rules?  It's not fair to put such a huge, oneros burden on an
unexperienced player who has little to no knowledge of the complex rules
and game precedent involved!  Did anyone volunteer to explain things to me?
 To maybe offer some assistance?  To remind me that the deadline was coming
up?  NOOOOO!  Where was my mentor during all of this?  I didn't make up
these stupid rules anyway.  They don't make any sense.  And with all these
threads, how can you even tell which rules to apply?  This sucks.  I want
my points back.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:57:40 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Balsamic Score

> Thank you great scrore keeper in your enlightened wisdom for bestowing
upon
> me, the lowliest of Ackadenizens, your beneficent attention!  With your
> loving example, I now feel the courage rise within me to address other
> issues:  
> 
And another thing... whoever picked me for FIVE separate calls for judgment
has obviously shaved the corners off their twenty sided dice!  I mean
honestly!  Who  ever heard of any player, much less a new one getting
picked for six calls to judgment at a shot.  Is it any wonder that I missed
responding to one of them?  Yes, I admit I was young and idealistic.  The
prospect of judging seven separate judgments and possibly holding the fate
of Acka in my hands, well, it was so overwhelming!  I replied to all the
other judgments, didn't I!  Couldn't you tell from my confused state that I
obviously wasn't up to handling another one?  It seems obvious to me, now
that I have calmed down somewhat that this was a plot.  Eight judgeships
simply don't happen in the ordinary course of nature.  I didn't see any
rules on producing the random numbers to pick judges.  I don't think there
was a rule!  And if there is, maybe you guys just put it there when I
wasn't looking!  Well, it obviously doesn't work very well.  Like all the
other rules around here.  I want my points back!

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 06:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Balsamic Score

> And another thing... whoever picked me for FIVE separate calls for judgment
> has obviously shaved the corners off their twenty sided dice!  I mean
> honestly!  Who  ever heard of any player, much less a new one getting
> picked for six calls to judgment at a shot.  Is it any wonder that I missed
> responding to one of them?  Yes, I admit I was young and idealistic.  The
> prospect of judging seven separate judgments and possibly holding the fate
> of Acka in my hands, well, it was so overwhelming!  I replied to all the
> other judgments, didn't I!  Couldn't you tell from my confused state that I
> obviously wasn't up to handling another one?  It seems obvious to me, now
> that I have calmed down somewhat that this was a plot.  Eight judgeships
> simply don't happen in the ordinary course of nature.  I didn't see any
> rules on producing the random numbers to pick judges.  I don't think there
> was a rule!  And if there is, maybe you guys just put it there when I
> wasn't looking!  Well, it obviously doesn't work very well.  Like all the
> other rules around here.  I want my points back!

"The Hungarian judge gives the performance an 8.7."

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:44:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >>         Which means, I suppose, that the CotC should probably be noting
> >> the time the CFJ was *sent* to him in the CFJ as distributed.  [For my
> >> CFJ, the times were essentially identical as the CotC submitted the CFJ.]
> > 
> > Perhaps I should.  How does the CFJ archive harfer and others feel about
> > this?
> 
> I can cope with this.
> 
> I have a small preference towards changing the rules to be consistent
> with "it's not official until the CotC distributes it", but I can see
> where others might object.
> 
> breadbox
> 
> 

I rather favor this approach myself.  It's the way we deal with proposals,
and consistency has something to be said for it (the game is complicated
enough even with it).  I also don't think that there is any real need to
do it the other way.  In either case, we should definitely get something
clear into the rules on the matter.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:58:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > To that end, I am posting a list of statements which may or may not
> > be true in the current game state, but which seem to me should be
> > true.  Please let me know which ones you think the rules should
> > reflect clearly.
> > 
> > 1. Some entities are unique and some are not.  
> > 2. Entities which are unique should have a unique name.
> 
> I think it is safe to say that these two are already in the Rules.
> 
> > 3. Entities which are not unique should have a general designation.
> > 4. Entities should be divided into several categories, ie. organizations, 
> > trinkets...
> > 5. Within most of these categories should be subclasses known as types.
> > 6. If there exists an entity of a particular type which is unique, then
> > that entity should be the only entity of that type.
> > 7. Otherwise, a type consists of some number of non-unique entities.
> > 8. All specifically rule made entities should be unique unless the rules
> > say specifically that they are not unique.
> 
> I definitely agree with the last. (I would even prefer that all
> Rule-based entities must categorically define their uniqueness, but we
> can't assume that every proposed rule that forgets to do this will be
> voted down.)
> 
> What I would like is for "non-unique" to mean that all the entities of
> that "type" are essentially interchangeable. This would include:
> Points, Ackadollars, each kind of Gadget, the various medals and
> trophies, and other random entites that do not require descriptions to
> be created, such as Rocks to Wind a String Around. Everything else
> (Players, Rules, proposals and other official documents,
> Organizations, Trinkets, Phoebe, et al) should be designated as being
> unique.

This seems to conflict with the basic ideas behind the current rules on
uniqueness.  If Players are unique, then there can only be one of them.
True, players are (so far as I know) not actually specified as a "type,"
of entity (fortunately) but common sense would seem to indicate that they
are.  Likewise, trinkets seem to me to be a type of entity, in that there
are a large number of them and they have the same basic characteristics in
common.   the same for Rules, proposals, etc.  I am sure you don't intend
for there to be only one Rule, proposal, player, etc, but this sems to be
what you are saying.  I agree that these are all things where each
instance of them should probably be considered unique (well, maybe not
trinkets), but we need to redefine what uniqueness means before this would
really be possible.

> 
> breadbox
> 

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

>> What I would like is for "non-unique" to mean that all the entities of
>> that "type" are essentially interchangeable. This would include:
>> Points, Ackadollars, each kind of Gadget, the various medals and
>> trophies, and other random entites that do not require descriptions to
>> be created, such as Rocks to Wind a String Around. Everything else
>> (Players, Rules, proposals and other official documents,
>> Organizations, Trinkets, Phoebe, et al) should be designated as being
>> unique.
> 
> This seems to conflict with the basic ideas behind the current rules on
> uniqueness.  If Players are unique, then there can only be one of them.

No, not that the entity Player is unique, but that each Player is a
unique entity.

Currently as the rules stand we have a number of entities which seem
that they should be unique, but are in fact non-unique by default
(such as Organization called Vulcan, obviously).

breadbox

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

Date: 11 Sep 1997 10:28:29 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]> writes:

> I rather favor this approach myself.  It's the way we deal with proposals,
> and consistency has something to be said for it (the game is complicated
> enough even with it).  I also don't think that there is any real need to
> do it the other way.  In either case, we should definitely get something
> clear into the rules on the matter.

	I'm not so sure.  CFJ/CFCJs are judged by the state of the rules
at a given point in time (when invoked or when distributed, which is
what's under discussion).  This is essentially a freeze in the game state
(although in practice it's the point of a thread split) until the
judgement is returned.

	Changing the Rules to restrict the Judge to the Rules as they
stand when the CFJ/CFCJ is *distributed* opens the loophole where the
CotC may intentionally or unintentionally sit on a CFJ/CFCJ for the
allowed time (3 days?), during which time the Rules may change and render
the CFJ/CFCJ moot.  I'm not sure this is something we'd want to happen.

- -- 
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 12:21:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

>         I'm not so sure.  CFJ/CFCJs are judged by the state of the rules
> at a given point in time (when invoked or when distributed, which is
> what's under discussion).  This is essentially a freeze in the game state
> (although in practice it's the point of a thread split) until the
> judgement is returned.

For now, I will put the submission timestamp in the CFJ header, which
should be a decent band-aid until this is resolved.
 
>         Changing the Rules to restrict the Judge to the Rules as they
> stand when the CFJ/CFCJ is *distributed* opens the loophole where the
> CotC may intentionally or unintentionally sit on a CFJ/CFCJ for the
> allowed time (3 days?), during which time the Rules may change and render
> the CFJ/CFCJ moot.  I'm not sure this is something we'd want to happen.

Unfortunately, different people have different times as to when they can 
play the game, and how much time they can spend on the game.  As one of
the players with restrictions on each, I personally hate to see the game
drift towards being more timing dependent, and would hate to see something
like a crisis at work or some other RL event affect the game state, which
is basically what we are saying is the case with the lag from submission to
distribution of CFJs (which, in my case, is caused by extra-nomic events).
Furthermore, I personally like to *assume* I have the full 3 days, that I
can relax in my duties.  Even when I have time, sometimes I don't feel like
doing acka work, and would like the 3 days to be thought of as a stress 
reduction aid, not an abuse potential.  I due recogize the abuse potential,
though.  IAC, the submission time at the top of the CFJ should solve this
problem, and any proposed rule change will can be independent of it.

Malenkai
who always handled this problem by simple, explicit wording in the CFJ
statement

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:50:27 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: PCI

As far as I can tell, according to the Institutions rule, R1001, all the
members of the People's Council for Internomic and the Senate who didn't
vote on the IN Proposal are in Contempt.  Luckily, since the President is
not part of the Joint Assembly, I seem to be safe.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Milli Vanilli:Girl You Know It's True
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
I trust my fingers about as far as I can throw them.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:29:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Almost Scottish

Well!  Balsamic Dragon has expressed emself quite eloquently!  I wasn't
sure if there was some sort of time limit on the use of Rule 1129, but
apart from the 31-day limit it seems that you can wait as long as you like
after the point loss to complain.  So eir score has risen quite
dramatically; I just have to work out precisely how much.  All e has to do
now is figure out some other way to lose points, to gain one of those
coveted titles...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--ABBA:The Album
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
Sorry for not writing sooner. I died last week.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:01:51 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

Malenkai wrote:

> >         I'm not so sure.  CFJ/CFCJs are judged by the state of the
> rules
> > at a given point in time (when invoked or when distributed, which is
> > what's under discussion).  This is essentially a freeze in the game
> state
> > (although in practice it's the point of a thread split) until the
> > judgement is returned.
> 
> For now, I will put the submission timestamp in the CFJ header, which
> should be a decent band-aid until this is resolved.
> 
Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to revamp the CotC office and
the CFJ filing procedure so that CFJs are invoked by sending them to
the public forum and relieving the CotC from that duty.  The CotC
would still assign a judge, but then need not redistribute the CFJ.

Malenkai, what do you think about that?

>  
ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:13:10 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: PCI

> As far as I can tell, according to the Institutions rule, R1001, all
> the
> members of the People's Council for Internomic and the Senate who
> didn't
> vote on the IN Proposal are in Contempt.  Luckily, since the President
> is
> not part of the Joint Assembly, I seem to be safe.
> 
I believe most of these people did vote.  I know I did.  I don't
know whether everyone did, though.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Dangling

I am flying to the Hall of Elders, and am requesting that two winged
players join me in reattaching it.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:38:44 -0700
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling

Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> I am flying to the Hall of Elders, and am requesting that two winged
> players join me in reattaching it.
> 
> breadbox

I am flying to the hall of elders to help breadbox reattach it.

two-star

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:27:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dangling

two-star wrote:
> Brian Raiter wrote:
> > 
> > I am flying to the Hall of Elders, and am requesting that two winged
> > players join me in reattaching it.
> 
> I am flying to the hall of elders to help breadbox reattach it.

I am also flying to the hall of elders, and helping those two attach it.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:41:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: PCI

> > As far as I can tell, according to the Institutions rule, R1001, all
> > the
> > members of the People's Council for Internomic and the Senate who
> > didn't
> > vote on the IN Proposal are in Contempt.  Luckily, since the President
> > is
> > not part of the Joint Assembly, I seem to be safe.

> I believe most of these people did vote.  I know I did.  I don't
> know whether everyone did, though.
> 
> ThinMan

Consider this a report of the votes cast.

ThinMan, Vynd, and /dev/joe voted NO.
Rex Mundi, Niccolo Flychuck, and Voting Gnome voted YES.
Robert Sevin, who may have still been a senator when this vote was
first called, did not vote.
Any other players who might have been members of the PCI did not vote.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:43:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Business

> 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 deleted]

I vote YES on INP 347.

/dev/joe
Senator

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:08:18 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Internomic Business

I vote yes on INP 347.

ThinMan
Senator

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:12:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> What I would like is for "non-unique" to mean that all the entities of
> >> that "type" are essentially interchangeable. This would include:
> >> Points, Ackadollars, each kind of Gadget, the various medals and
> >> trophies, and other random entites that do not require descriptions to
> >> be created, such as Rocks to Wind a String Around. Everything else
> >> (Players, Rules, proposals and other official documents,
> >> Organizations, Trinkets, Phoebe, et al) should be designated as being
> >> unique.
> > 
> > This seems to conflict with the basic ideas behind the current rules on
> > uniqueness.  If Players are unique, then there can only be one of them.
> 
> No, not that the entity Player is unique, but that each Player is a
> unique entity.
> 
> Currently as the rules stand we have a number of entities which seem
> that they should be unique, but are in fact non-unique by default
> (such as Organization called Vulcan, obviously).
> 
> breadbox
> 

I don't disagree with you here, quite the contrary.  What I was trying to
say is that as the rules stand right now, what uniqueness means is that
there is only one entity of that type.  So if you want all players and
organizations to be unique entities, you must either change the definition
of uniqueness, or else define types so specifically or narrowly that it
serves no real purpose.  I like the ideas as to what should be unique and
what shouldn't that you present, what I was trying to do was outline some
of the changes that seem to be necessary before we could put those ideas
into effect.

                                        - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:20:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Internomic Business

I am voting yes on INP 347.

                            - Senator Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:46:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 (/dev/joe)

> Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to revamp the CotC office and
> the CFJ filing procedure so that CFJs are invoked by sending them to
> the public forum and relieving the CotC from that duty.  The CotC
> would still assign a judge, but then need not redistribute the CFJ.
> 
> Malenkai, what do you think about that?

I like the current system because it is like proposals, and allows the
whole thing to be put together as one post with a consistent format.
It helps *me* for the whole thing to be in one bundle that way.  I
didn't really think this would affect too many CFJs.  Lets try it
with the timestamp and see how it goes.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:22:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:  CPI

As a member of the CPI,  I hereby vote FOR IN 347

Voting the Party Ticket Gnome

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:22:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Scotsman

On Wed,  10 Sep,  Balsamic Dragon wrote:

>I read the scotsman rule and it stinks!  Even if I did whine, I would
only
get, like four points when I lost ten! Humph, just see if I give you the
satisfaction!<

ROFL!  I absolutely WILL NOT offer BD any cheese.  I think Vynd may have
finally met eir match.

Voting Gnome's Law

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:22:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:  GM

I would like to remind all you folks with dangles that Voting Gnome, 
too,  has a Gravitational Monopole available for use (for free,  even). 
I know that,  since I only check my Acka mail once every day or so,  and
usually send my responses the next day when I check the mail again,  some
lead time between a request and my answer may result.

Therefore,  I anounce that I am going to the next Player's house who
publicly requests my GM services,  and with a little trepidation and a
lot of blustering bravado,  I press the red button.

Voting Early and Often Gnome

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:44:32 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Internomic Business

I vote yes on INP 347.

Rex Mundi, PCI member.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:02:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 460 Veridct

CFJ 460 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 460
  Subject: Witches are burning
Initiator: Rex Mundi
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:15h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Rex Mundi was not burned as a witch.

Rex Mundi's Reasoning:

>From rule 1307:
"A member of a Church may save any player from being burned as a witch, or
as a heretic, provided e posts a public message (before a Witchhunt called
on that player is resolved) saying 'I am running to the Church', then the
name of the Church of which e is a member, then 'and I hold the Altar by
the Horns for' followed by the player's name. This is called granting
Sanctuary Of Salvation."

On 12/8/97, at about 13:16, I posted a message saying:
"I am running to the Church of Azpiazu and I hold the Altar by the Horns
for Rex Mundi."

That was before the Witchhunt on me was even called, let alone resolved,
and the rule does not say that it must be after the Witchhunt was called. I
am a member of the Church of Azpiazu, and am also a player. The rule does
not say any _other_ player, so I can give myself Sanctuary of Salvation.

mr cwm's Reasoning:

The facts are, indeed, as Rex Mundi puts them forth.  However, it must be
determined whether or not those facts satisfy the conditions required for
granting Sanctuary of Salvation.  R1307 requires a public message of the
folowing form:

'I am running to the Church', then the name of the Church of which e is a
member, then 'and I hold the Altar by the Horns for' followed by the
player's name. 

which should be compared to the public message Rex Mundi sent:

"I am running to the Church of Azpiazu and I hold the Altar by the Horns
for Rex Mundi."

Careful comparison leads one to the conclusion that Rex Mundi, apparently,
considers the name of the Church of which e is a member to be "of
Azpiazu".  Is it?  Let us examine the public message which founded the
Church of Azpiazu, in accord with R1301.  In it, Alfvaen wrote, in part:

"I am founding the Church of Azpiazu, of which I am the Founder."

So, what did he found?  "the Church of Azpiazu"? the "Church of Azpiazu"?
the Church "of Azpiazu"? (Rex Mundi's apparent favorite) or the Church of
"Azpiazu"?  (that last one seems a stretch).

The Rules are silent on how to resolve the ambiguity in the Church of
Azpiazu's name, thus, we must turn once again to Game Custom.  There is no
precedent for this use of the current R1307.  In the past, both Calvin N
Hobbes (according to the message archives - the whitchhunt archives say
Bascule) and this is not a name grabbed the altar by the horns in the
Church "of the Markovian Dream".  However, more recently, Mohammed grabbed
the altar by the horns including "the Church" as part of the name of his
Church. ("I am running to the Church, the Church of Seleya.")  Game
Custom, then, appears to be that both forms are acceptable (I'd think the
Spirit of the Game might lead us to the same conclusion).  Rex Mundi, then
has succeeded in granting Sanctuary of Salvation to himself.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:04:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 463 Verdict

CFJ 463 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 463
  Subject: Changing the rules
Initiator: Red Barn
    Judge: mr cwm (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:26h EDT)
Judgement: TRUE 

Statement:

Changing the rules is impossible for Vulcan.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  Look at CFJ 452...

>Judgement: TRUE
>
>Statement:
>
>The organization named "The organization Vulcan" was at no time
>empowered by the rules to change the rules.

  One could argue that this is no longer the case, but that argument is
trivially disposed of, so I won't.

  This is a Paradox Win CFJ.  I quote rule 601/6:
>>>>>
A call for judgement whose statement alleges that further play is
impossible, that changing the rules is impossible, or that a player action
which would affect the game state appears equally legal and illegal is a
"Paradox Win CFJ." Only those CFJs so specified by the rules are Paradox
Win CFJs. When it ceases to be legal to appeal a particular Paradox Win
CFJ, if the final verdict is true, and the player who submitted the CFJ is
a voting player at that time, then that player wins the cycle.
<<<<<

  It says nothing about changing the rules being UNIVERSALLY impossible.
Tsk, tsk.
- --- end CFJ. ---

mr cwm's Reasoning:

... but I deny that this is a Paradox Win CFJ (which may be the proper
subject of another CFJ).  It doesn't have to say UNIVERSALLY, because
that's what "impossible" means, unless it is qualified somehow.  (Anyone
for "further play is impossible for my great-great-grandmother"?)

Tsk.

- --end reasoning.--

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 01:05:50 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 460 Veridct

> CFJ 460 has been judged TRUE.
> 
Woohoo!

I am destroying the Little Wooden Ship #6 for cash.

I am creating a trinket called the Asbestos Underpants, worth 5 A$.
This is a pair of dull grey underpants, with a strange immunity to fire.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

> I don't disagree with you here, quite the contrary.  What I was
> trying to say is that as the rules stand right now, what uniqueness
> means is that there is only one entity of that type.  So if you want
> all players and organizations to be unique entities, you must either
> change the definition of uniqueness, or else define types so
> specifically or narrowly that it serves no real purpose.

I did do just that in the rest of my post. (Admittedly it followed
after the sentences that you quoted.)

The point is that "type" is currently used in the rules to mean two
different things. One meaning is as a certain kind of entity group in
which everything shares the same name, and which is only useful for
non-unique entities, as you describe. But another meaning is as a
general classification of entities that share some attributes.

Normally there'd be no problems with this - type is a general word,
and normally has a wide range of meanings. But when we've got blanket
statements like the one in 500.3 that Rule 2286 attempted to exploit,
we need to be more precise in our language.

> I like the ideas as to what should be unique and what shouldn't that
> you present, what I was trying to do was outline some of the changes
> that seem to be necessary before we could put those ideas into
> effect.

The approach I put forth in my post was to use a new word for the
second meaning mentioned above (preferably one like "species" that has
no connotations in the current Ruleset), and leave "type" to be used
as a general word without special meaning in the Rules.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Sky Has Fallen

I am a little nonplussed, but Red Barn's observation about the error
in Proposal 2290 is correct. (Presuming it was an error.) The fact
that the Round Earth Restoration Society had raised A$15,000 some time
beforehand does not change the fact that this was still the case when
Rule 2290 was created.

The northern hemisphere has been reattached, and the southern
hemisphere has been cut loose. The world is in fact a hemisphere, and
will remain that way. (And note that while you are permitted to claim
that the Earth is flat or hemispherical, you can still get burned for
claiming that the Earth is - uh, well, you know.)

The Round Earth Restoration Society and the Flat Earth Preservation
Society both continue to exist, although they have both lost their
reason for being.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:35:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Leaving

Since it seems to have outlived its usefulness, I am leaving the Committee
for Understanding.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bach:Goldberg Variations
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
And the waves roll on the beach like a squadron of F-16's

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #300
*******************************