Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #301
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Friday, September 12 1997      Volume 02 : Number 301

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:08:35 -0400
From: Daniel Abraham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  GM

At 06:22 PM 9/11/97 EDT, you wrote:
>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
>
>
Look, children! It's the monopole man!
<Mr. Monopole man! Mr. Monopole man!  Can I have some south-polarized
monopoles???>
Or, in short, please fix my house!

- --Onieros
Refering to a joke only Balsamic Dragon's gonna get.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:13:37 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 463 Verdict

mr cwm wrote:

> ... 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"?)
> 
Can we all agree that CFJ 463 was not a paradox win CFJ?  It does not
appear to me to be one.  I am hoping that for once we can decide
something without a CFJ.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:12:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 463 Verdict

>> ... 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"?)
>> 
>Can we all agree that CFJ 463 was not a paradox win CFJ?  It does not
>appear to me to be one.  I am hoping that for once we can decide
>something without a CFJ.

  I carefully refrained from submitting the relevant CFJ.  I doubt anyone
else will.

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:57:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
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.

Maybe what we need is a definite spectrum.  Sort of like how entities can
be unownable, nontradeable, tradeable, or gift, we can define a "type"
of entities to be either nameless, nameable, unique, or mimsy(except
that mimsy entities are also unique).  Nameless entities should be
entirely generic, so any entity that has characteristics which allow it
to be distinguished from any other should be nameable(like contracts,
for instance).

> 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.

I don't think that ownership is an attribute of an entity, per se.  Rather,
to an entity accrues the attribute which is a list of entities it owns.
The only reason to do it the other way would be if we wanted to store this
information in a database, where it would be easier to put a single
"owned-by" field with each ownable entity than it would a potentially
endless list of "owned" entities.

But yes, Gadgets are a pain.  If you want the really horrific
"distinguishability" characteristic, try keeping track of Spell Books of
Chorg.  (And I am grateful that all SBoC owners are being very nice about
keeping track of their own pages.)  Maybe they should all be nameable.  :-)
Or there should be separate "generic" and "nameless" categories on that
spectrum I listed above.

> 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 like "species".  Since it's not going to come up elsewhere in the Rules
from a general usage.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Bach:Goldberg Variations
Current Book--Anne McCaffrey:Dragonquest
Not that I'm bitter.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:59:14 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Proposal

Here's an idea for a proposal (delimited by ##), but I've forgotten how to
send them again.  Doh!

##
Re-numbering

The number of the Rule titled (within the quotes) "The Evil Overlords of
Ackanomic (retired) Vulcan" (currently numbered 1/0) is immediately changed
to be number 666/0.  Once this is accomplished, this rule self-deletes.
##

I think this may work because all of the prohibitions in the Vulcan rule
are against changing the rules.  However, "rule numbers are unownable
entites" and thus, not really part of the set "rules" themselves.

Still fighting the good fight,
Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:02:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> The number of the Rule titled (within the quotes) "The Evil Overlords of
> Ackanomic (retired) Vulcan" (currently numbered 1/0) is immediately changed
> to be number 666/0.  Once this is accomplished, this rule self-deletes.
> ##

Unfortunately, Rule 666 is already occupied by the end-of-cycle 
procedures.  Think of a new number.

GF

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:05:34 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal

> On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:
> 
> > The number of the Rule titled (within the quotes) "The Evil Overlords
of
> > Ackanomic (retired) Vulcan" (currently numbered 1/0) is immediately
changed
> > to be number 666/0.  Once this is accomplished, this rule self-deletes.
> > ##
> 
> Unfortunately, Rule 666 is already occupied by the end-of-cycle 
> procedures.  Think of a new number.
> 
Okay, but I still need to know what the correct format is to send it in,
and who to sent it to.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:18:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> Here's an idea for a proposal (delimited by ##), but I've forgotten how to
> send them again.  Doh!
> 
> ##
> Re-numbering
> 
> The number of the Rule titled (within the quotes) "The Evil Overlords of
> Ackanomic (retired) Vulcan" (currently numbered 1/0) is immediately changed
> to be number 666/0.  Once this is accomplished, this rule self-deletes.
> ##
> 
> I think this may work because all of the prohibitions in the Vulcan rule
> are against changing the rules.  However, "rule numbers are unownable
> entites" and thus, not really part of the set "rules" themselves.
> 
> Still fighting the good fight,
> Balsamic Dragon
> 
> 

Right now, I think all you have to do to submit a proposal is just send
breadbox a message saying "This is a proposal" or something (In fact,
sending the proposal to the Promoter in some fashion is all you EVER have
to do, stuff like bots and whatnot are just what the Promoter would LIKE
you to do).  This is an interesting arguement, but it certainly isn't how
we normaly regard rule numbers.  We could, of course, be wrong.  In any
case, there is already a rule numbered 666.

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:40:11 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal

> Right now, I think all you have to do to submit a proposal is just send
> breadbox a message saying "This is a proposal" or something (In fact,
> sending the proposal to the Promoter in some fashion is all you EVER have
> to do, stuff like bots and whatnot are just what the Promoter would LIKE
> you to do).  This is an interesting arguement, but it certainly isn't how
> we normaly regard rule numbers.  We could, of course, be wrong.  In any
> case, there is already a rule numbered 666.
> 
Okay, it has been sent in and the number changed to 555.  I think the rules
on rule-numbering (in this and other nomic games I have played) are really
interesting.  In the rules it does seem to say fairly clearly that rule
numbers are entities and rules are entities and that one is not a part of
another, but is merely attached thereto.  One could almost say that a rule
having a number was analagous to a player owning a gadget.  But then, the
entities rules are really weird.  It think that my new goal in this game is
to be an expert on entities, however, I may be cheating by attempting to
change some of the stickier rules.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:31:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal

>> The number of the Rule titled (within the quotes) "The Evil Overlords of
>> Ackanomic (retired) Vulcan" (currently numbered 1/0) is immediately changed
>> to be number 666/0.  Once this is accomplished, this rule self-deletes.
>> ##
>
>Unfortunately, Rule 666 is already occupied by the end-of-cycle 
>procedures.  Think of a new number.

  1313?

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:28:55 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 461 Verdict

CFJ 461 has been judged FALSE.  Would the Financier please note
the transfer of an A$60 court fee fron the initiator to the CotC
as described in rule 620 (assuming it was a PWCFJ, which always 
seems to be a point of contention...)

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: FALSE

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.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

The first part of Guy Fawkes's reasoning is correct.  Rules 1 and 255
conflict with each other over the legality of the action described in
the statement.  They also conflict on the issue of resolving their
conflict.  Rule 102 also has something to say about this conflict,
and indeed conflicts with those two rules about how to resolve the
conflict.  It states:

 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. 

It is true that in a conflict between rule 1 and rule 102, rule 1 wins,
and in a conflict between rule 102 and rule 255, rule 255 wins, in both
cases because the second sentence of rule 102 allows the other rule's
precedence statement to hold.  However, when rules 1, 102, and 255 all
disagree about some point (how to resolve the *other* conflict in
rules 1 and 255, as well as how to resolve the conflict among conflict
resolution methods in all three rules) Rule 102 leads to a different
result.  The "rules other than this one" are rules 102 and 255, and they
don't agree on how to resolve the conflict, so we follow the "Otherwise"
clause.  The rule with the lowest rule number takes precedence.

While it is possible to apply rule 102 to rules in pairs, I find that
it is not reasonable to do so when more than two rules conflict.
Indeed, it is entirely possible for rule 102 to assign non-transitive
precedences when you consider three rules pairwise -- consider if
rule 197 claimed precedence over rule 198, rule 198 claimed precedence
over rule 199, and rule 199 claimed precedence over rule 197.  If you
consider these rules pairwise, rule 102 would allow the precedence
claims to stand, and not resolve the case when all three rules conflicted
on a single point. Thus I find that the only reasonable interpretation
of Rule 102 is that it *must* be applied to all the conflicting rules
at once, rather than considering them pairwise or whatever, when three
or more rules conflict.  [I'll note that the possibility of such
non-transitive precedence has been considered at least as far back as
when I was a member of the Nobs party... for this reason, we left the
"two or more rules" wording in this rule when we were drafting proposals
to change this part of the rules.]

So I must consider all rules that are in conflict.  Rule 835 (Locations)
agrees with rule 1 that the player would be able to enter Vulcan
Headquarters (because rule 1 defines VHQ as a Common Location).
Rule 1309 would conflict if VHQ was dangling, but it is not and was not
at the time the CFJ was submitted.  However, on the issue of precedence
between rules 1, 255, 835 (and with or without rule 1309), exactly three
rules have something to say.  Rule 1 says it takes precedence.  Rule 102
says (as above) that rule 1 takes precedence.  Rule 255 says Rule 255
takes precedence.  In the conflict between these three rules over what
precedence system should hold, again rule 1's system is favored in two
out of three cases. While it still is not absolutely clear which rule
takes precedence, I find that the relevant rules are 2-to-1 in favor
of rule 1 having precedence, and thus it is not "equally" legal and
illegal as the statement of this CFJ proposes.  Furthermore, if there
is any game custom to consider in this area, it is that rule 102 would
be called upon to resolve any otherwise unresolvable conflicts, making
the legal and illegal cases even less equally likely.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal

> On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:
> 
>> Here's an idea for a proposal (delimited by ##), but I've forgotten how to
>> send them again.  Doh!
>> 
>> [...]
> 
> Right now, I think all you have to do to submit a proposal is just send
> breadbox a message saying "This is a proposal" or something (In fact,
> sending the proposal to the Promoter in some fashion is all you EVER have
> to do, stuff like bots and whatnot are just what the Promoter would LIKE
> you to do).

Right.  What the current Promoter would *like* you to do is to send
proposals to [email-masked], but I am required to accept
any proposal that is sent to me. That includes proposals that are sent
to the public forum (much as the Supreme Court "sent" the CotC their
verdict on CFCJ 143). Fortunately what you sent was "an idea for a
proposal" which I believe I can safely interpret as not being an
actual submission.

A quick rundown, once again, for anyone who's not completely familiar
with the currently-preferred way to do official business with your
faithful Promoter/Tabulator. (Clip'N'Save!)

*  Sending a proposal to the Promoter:

   Send email to [email-masked] that looks something like
   this:

#submit proposal This is the Title of My Brilliant Proposal
Create a Rule numbered 9999, titled "This is the Title of My Brilliant
Rule", which reads as follows:

The technique used in Proposal 1727 shall henceforth be known as
"breadbox's scam", and all references to such a technique shall use
this term preferentially. Calling it anything else is a Crime.

{{[The reason for this proposal is that I'm jealous of Malenkai!!!!
How come he gets a loophole named after him and I don't?!!! Hey, I won
a Silver Moon for that scam!!!! (Even though it didn't work!!!!) I
WANT MORE!!!!]}}
#end proposal

   The "#end proposal" is only needed if there's other stuff in your
   email after the body of the proposal. (Email signatures will be
   automatically ignored, but only if they have the required
   dash-dash-space separator line.)

*  Sending your votes to the Tabulator:

   Send email to [email-masked] that looks something like
   this:

#vote 2310 y
#vote 2311 n
#vote 2313 p

   Or like this:

#vote 2310 YES
#vote 2311 No
#vote 2313 pReSeNt

   Or like this:

#vote 2310 y N - p

   Whatever you prefer.

*  Checking your voting status:

   Send email to (that's right) [email-masked] that says:

#current

   I'll tell you what proposals are currently up for voting and how
   you've voted on them so far.

While I'm still doing stuff by hand, I'll overlook any syntax errors,
as long as it's unambiguous. (Though I may send you a reply letting
you know, so you don't keep making the same mistakes.) And before I
actually sic the bot on my mailbox, I'll have a #help command
available, so you won't even need to memorize this much.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:41:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ambassador

The message below was posted by Pumpkin Patch Nomic on the internomic
mailing list.  Rule 419.2 prolly requires me to post it here (it
also prolly requires me to post the details of Red Barn's attempted
scam, but I think the general consensus was that it was too lame
and wasted too much bandwidth for me to report here ;-), although
it prompted some interesting discussions, which, if you are 
interested in, you've already seen on the internomic list.

Malenkai
Ambassador
- --------------------------------------------------------------

The liason from the Pumpkin Patch is required  by rule of the Pumpkin
Patch to make the following announcement.  Drwest is still the GRAPE,
however, he was last seen in the hoosier state and the worst is feared.
Therefore, I make the following announcement on his behalf pursuant to
Rule 8.112 of the Pumpkin Patch Nomic game.

The Pumpkin Patch has moved to the bottom half of the earth.  In
addition, the Pumpkin Patch demands that Ackanomic obey the demands of
the Pumpkin Patch.
that is all
The Pumpkin

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:42:12 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  GM

> Look, children! It's the monopole man!
> <Mr. Monopole man! Mr. Monopole man!  Can I have some south-polarized
> monopoles???>
> Or, in short, please fix my house!

Assuming this whole monopole business was done as described in the
rules, it works.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Announcement

This just arrived on the Internomic mailing list.

(Not to usurp the Ambassador's duties or anything, but I've always
wanted to be an alarmist.)

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:13:37 -0500
From: bt <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Announcement

The liason from the Pumpkin Patch is required  by rule of the Pumpkin
Patch to make the following announcement.  Drwest is still the GRAPE,
however, he was last seen in the hoosier state and the worst is feared.
Therefore, I make the following announcement on his behalf pursuant to
Rule 8.112 of the Pumpkin Patch Nomic game.

The Pumpkin Patch has moved to the bottom half of the earth.  In
addition, the Pumpkin Patch demands that Ackanomic obey the demands of
the Pumpkin Patch.
that is all
The Pumpkin
- -------- End forwarded message --------

Red Barn, what have you gotten us into?!

NRA RFC:

If relations between Ackanomic and another nomic ever go sour, and it
can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the source of the problem
was due to a publicly admitted "typo" or "cut-n-paste error" on the
part of an Ackanomic player, that player shall thenceforth become the
Current Scapegoat Of Fashion. E shall be accused in the public fora of
being "the source of all our troubles", and shall be thrown into the
Gaol without due process of a Call For Criminal Judgement, where e
will remain for a few days until public opinion gets uglier, upon
which e will be removed from Gaol and burned.

breadbox
bring on the Angry Villager!

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: entity names

Someone I've lost track of said:

>> 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 description reminds me that what were talking about here are
fungible entities.  Which, I suppose, I throw out for consideration by
whomever actually writes the proposal that emerges from all this.

- -mr cwm

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #301
*******************************