Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #307
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, September 17 1997     Volume 02 : Number 307

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

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:19:56 -0800
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Little Lamb

>
>Why? I honestly don't know, myself.

It was back during one of the first entity rewrites, and probably a dark
and stormy night.  Malenkai sent me an RFC of the thing, and one of the
things I noticed was that the little lamb (still a new creation) was
tradable in the scheme he had set up.  I suggested that the Little Lamb be
mimsy (makes sense (no one owns it) and that wool swaeters be tradeable.
When Malenki sent me an updated version, I noticed that both Lambs and
sweaters were mimsy (an oversight, I believe).  I figured what the harf,
Why not? And the rest is history.

>Are you hanging outside my high-rise apartment again?

Actually, I'm hiding where your eyes don't go.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:34:50 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Little Lamb

> I will sell any member of the CfU a Wool Sweater for 10 A$, if they so
> desire. Actually, I'll sell one to anyone that wants. Or even anyone that
> doesn't.
> 

I am giving A$10 to Rex Mundi for a wool sweater.  

I am giving Rex Mundi Molly Parrot.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:10:17 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Little Lamb

> I am giving A$10 to Rex Mundi for a wool sweater.  
> 
> I am giving Rex Mundi Molly Parrot.
> 
I accept both of these.

I am paying 10 A$ for a Wool Sweater, which I then give to Balsamic Dragon.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:35:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: INP 348

What follows is INP 348, submitted by Agora.  Voting is as described
in the rules.

Also, someone should decide how Acka is voting on INP 347.
Being busy and lasy and it not being my job (not necessarily
in that order), I have not tracked this.

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

Create a Rule with the text:

The liaison of a nomic can only be changed by that nomic, and such a change
is not effective until notice of it has been sent to the the internomic
mailing list. The moderator can only be changed as specified in the Rules.

Create a Rule with the text:

The liaison of any member nomic can sent a message to the mailing list,
claiming that the moderator is not present. If the moderator does not send
any message to the mailing list during the complete period of fourteen
days starting at the time of this message, the liaison of the nomic
who claimed that the moderator was not present becomes moderator
automatically.

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

comment: Neither Rule 216 nor Rule 323 forbids the change of liaisons
and moderators. This proposal would cure that situation. The second rule
is to avoid that absence of the moderator would block the game.

======================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:49:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2296 accepted

> Results of Proposal 2296
> 9/10 YES votes: Proposal accepted

> > {{All Existing Swingpoints are destroyed. 40 Swingpoints are created
> > and randomly distributed between all the active players.}}

Rule 1044 says, (and rule 405 defers):
 
> 6. It is the duty of the Chess-Umpire to track all aspects of Swingpoints.
> If there is no Chess-Umpire, then it is the duty of the newest Swinger to
> keep track of Swingpoints. 

I believe Karma is the newest Swinger (I really wish these rules did not
require tracking these sorts of details...).  I also believe the PE page
has Rex Mundi incorrectly listed as the acting NAP Swinger.

Malenkai
successfully activating the SEP field

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:14:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INP 348

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> What follows is INP 348, submitted by Agora.  Voting is as described
> in the rules.
> 
> Also, someone should decide how Acka is voting on INP 347.
> Being busy and lasy and it not being my job (not necessarily
> in that order), I have not tracked this.

Well, I could perhaps do this if I could figure out who the members of the
PCI are.  I seem to recall it as being Nicollo, Alfvaen, and one other
(two-star?).  

> 
> Malenkai
> Ambassador
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Create a Rule with the text:
> 
> The liaison of a nomic can only be changed by that nomic, and such a change
> is not effective until notice of it has been sent to the the internomic
> mailing list. The moderator can only be changed as specified in the Rules.
> 
> Create a Rule with the text:
> 
> The liaison of any member nomic can sent a message to the mailing list,
> claiming that the moderator is not present. If the moderator does not send
> any message to the mailing list during the complete period of fourteen
> days starting at the time of this message, the liaison of the nomic
> who claimed that the moderator was not present becomes moderator
> automatically.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> comment: Neither Rule 216 nor Rule 323 forbids the change of liaisons
> and moderators. This proposal would cure that situation. The second rule
> is to avoid that absence of the moderator would block the game.
> 
> ======================================================================
> 

I am voting in favor of this IN proposal.

                                - Senator Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:39:56 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: INP 348

I vote YES on INP 348.

ThinMan
Senator

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:53:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INP 348y

ThinMan wrote:
> I vote YES on INP 348.

I also vote YES on INP 348.

/dev/joe
Senator

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:26:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: PCI

Vynd asked about the PCI.

The People's Council for Internomic consists of the following
players:

Niccolo Flychuck
Rex Mundi
Voting Gnome

The senate is responsible for reporting on the vote of a
joint assembly of the PCI and the senate as far as 
voting on internomic proposals go.  I believe they are
placed in contempt if they fail to do so in time.  For
this reason, Robert Sevin, at least, was placed in Gaol
recently.  I believe the Gaoler has a duty here too.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:28:28 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INP 348

> Well, I could perhaps do this if I could figure out who the members of
the
> PCI are.  I seem to recall it as being Nicollo, Alfvaen, and one other
> (two-star?).  
> 
I'm a member, and I voted Yes on 347.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:29:23 +0100
From: "Gavin Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INP 348y

> ThinMan wrote:
> > I vote YES on INP 348.
> 
> I also vote YES on INP 348.
> 
> /dev/joe
> Senator

I, too, vote YES on INP 348.

Rex Mundi,
PCI member.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:32:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 465 (two-star)

two-star has been picked.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 465
  Subject: Rule Numbers
Initiator: ThinMan
Submitted: 97-09-17 18:12
    Judge: two-star (selected Sep 17, 1997, 21:32)
Judgement:

Statement: 

The action of changing Rule 1's number is forbidden by Rule 1.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Rule 1 forbids that it be "changed in any way."  I claim that changing
rule 1's number is one manner of changing rule 1, and is, therefore,
forbidden by rule 1.

There is some confusion on this matter; principally, I think, because
rule 303 specifies that rule numbers are unownable entities.  Balsamic
Dragon has asserted that from that specification it follows that rule
numbers are not, in fact, any part of the rule they are associated with,
to the extent that changing a rule's number in no way constitutes
changing that rule itself.  To my knowledge, there is no other
indication in the rules or game custom that rule numbers are so totally
divorced from the rules themselves.  There are, however, numerous
indications to the contrary.

I begin with the selfsame rule 303 that seems to have caused the
confusion.  Here are the first two sentences of section (I), the
second being the one causing all the fuss:
 
        Each rule has an effective ordinal number, hereafter referred to
        simply as the rule's number.  Rule numbers and proposal numbers
        are unownable entities.

Rule 303 indicates that each rule "has" a number, but it then goes on
to say that rule numbers are unownable entities.  So what does it mean
for a rule to "have" a number?  The following definitions, taken from
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary seemed to be the ones
that would most likely be applicable:

1. to hold in the hand or in control; own; possess.
2. to possess, hold, or contain as a part, characteristic, attribute,
   or associated feature.

The judge should, of course, consider any other possible definitions
of "have" that he considers possibly applicable, but none of the (many)
others seemed to me to be anywhere near as reasonable.

Suppose definition (1) is the correct one.  Although "unownable" is
used in many places in the rules, it is never defined.  The customary
definition comes from the English definition, "cannot be owned."
The second sentence of rule 303, which says that rule numbers are
unownable, would thus override the first sentence, and therefore rules
wouldn't actually have numbers after all.  I think I am safe in
asserting that any interpretation of the current rules that indicates
that rules do not have numbers is incorrect.

That leaves definition (2).  Is it also inconsistent with the second
sentence of rule 303?  I don't see why it should be.  I see no reason
why an entity cannot be an attribute or feature of another entity.
Definition (2) is, in my opinion, the interpretation of rule 303 that
has been customary since the beginning of the game when the current
rule 303 was rule 107 (immutable).  The entityhood of rule numbers
seems pointless to me, but I see no reason for it to have changed
the fact that rule numbers are attributes of rules.

The judge will also find examples in the proposal and S.R. archives
which demonstrate that, at least at the times of those proposals and
S.R.'s, changing a rule's number was accomplished by amending or
otherwise changing the rules.

If we accept, then, that a rule's number as an attribute or feature
of the rule, it follows that changing that number does indeed
constitute changing that rule in some way.  Changing rule 1's number
is therefore forbidden by rule 1.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:35:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: About INP 347

Well I'm sorry I got everyone's hopes up, but my records as to the voting
on INP 347 seem far from complete.  To make up for this, I offer to
tabulate any votes that people make on INP 347 or 348 from this point
forward.  If you already voted on INP 347, vote again, or forward me the
message in which you voted.  In the end, it probably will only matter in
determining who is placed in Contempt, since we haven't gotten a complete
vote on an INP since the the new system was put in place (so far as I can
recall).  Does anyone think that further changes of some kind or another
are needed?

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:47:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: About INP 347

> Does anyone think that further changes of some kind or another
> are needed?

Silly question :)  I think the institutional voting and ad hoc
and all that cumbersome gizz should be replaced by parameterized
hearings.  Parameters in this case: voting period (default = 3),
7 in this case; enfranchized (default = all), Union(PCI,Senate) in 
this case.

Ad hoc and all the senate votes, etc, can work the same way,
and we can have a single, well known way of handling it, that
we know works, and prolly has less bugs.  We've already seen the
senate voting bugs.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:49:22 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gimme Shelter

The gimme shelter auction is over.  I get it for free.
Interesting that the cheez-whiz fetched a higher price :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:48:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: About INP 347

> Well I'm sorry I got everyone's hopes up, but my records as to the voting
> on INP 347 seem far from complete. 

I went through my records and found that I, ThinMan, Vynd, Voting Gnome,
and Rex Mundi voted YES.  Niccolo Flychuck did not vote yet.  Did the 4th
senate seat ever get filled?  If it did, its occupant did not vote (unless
it is Rex Mundi).  If the voting period is over then consider this the
report of the votes.

> Does anyone think that further changes of some kind or another are needed?

What Malenkai said pretty much is my opinion too.  Back when I was more
active I was usually good on reporting these things, but the reporting
structure has never been very good for this sort of thing... for that
matter, Acka has a history of any duties whatsoever not assigned to
one specific person going un-done.

By the way, I'm going to post another acrostic puzzle as a treasure soon.
This one should be harder, but you never can tell, since one lucky guess
can go a long way in these puzzles.  I'll try to post it during the day
sometime, not at midnight...

/dev/joe

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #307
*******************************