Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #314
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, September 24 1997     Volume 02 : Number 314

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:45:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : ETP objections

I was on Vacation when the voting period for my ETP proposal was over.
Can the people who voted against perhaps let me know, either in public or
private, what they objected to.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:06:06 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Resigning as Chess-Umpire

I am resigning my position as chess umpire. 
Reason : Ihave not enough time, and don't keep up. I'll post one last
update so whoever takes the job next at east has all the right
information.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:25:59 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : is there a Rune Maker

Did anyone become RuneMaker while I was away. I'm not interested in the
job myself, I just thought that now that it's more manageable someone
might have volunteered.

Of course, there are still some ways to create new Cards without a
RuneMaker

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:34:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Query

What did proposal 2299 accomplish, and how did it do it?

Malenkai

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

Proposal 2299
The Way Things Ought to Be
ThinMan (John Bollinger)

{{[
This proposal will not only resolve any possible conflict between
Rules 1 and 255, 1 and 102, and 102 and 255, it will also resolve any
and all present and future conflicts among rules with blanket
precedence claims by causing R102 to stop effectively deferring
precedence to such rules.  At also removes the "law" terminology from
R 102.
]}}
 
Amend rule 102 by replacing the first paragraph with the following
text (delimited by the next two pairs of adjacent ampersands):
&&
If two or more rules other than this one conflict about a particular
issue, and if the rules other than this one (and not restricted to the
conflicting rules) 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 issue.  Otherwise,
wherever the rules conflict on a particular issue, the rule with the
lowest number among those rules which conflict on that issue shall
guide play with regard to that issue.
&&

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:44:19 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Query

> What did proposal 2299 accomplish, and how did it do it?
> 
> Malenkai
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Proposal 2299
> The Way Things Ought to Be
> ThinMan (John Bollinger)
> 
> {{[
> This proposal will not only resolve any possible conflict between
> Rules 1 and 255, 1 and 102, and 102 and 255, it will also resolve any
> and all present and future conflicts among rules with blanket
> precedence claims by causing R102 to stop effectively deferring
> precedence to such rules.  At also removes the "law" terminology from
> R 102.
> ]}}
>  
> Amend rule 102 by replacing the first paragraph with the following
> text (delimited by the next two pairs of adjacent ampersands):
> &&
> If two or more rules other than this one conflict about a particular
> issue, and if the rules other than this one (and not restricted to the
> conflicting rules) 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 issue.  Otherwise,
> wherever the rules conflict on a particular issue, the rule with the
> lowest number among those rules which conflict on that issue shall
> guide play with regard to that issue.
> &&

I think what Thin Man is trying to do is eliminate rule 102 from being
judged by its own text.  In other words, it covers the conflicts of rules
other than itself.  This allows Rule 102 to govern conflicts between rules
where the number of one rule is higher than its own number.

I think.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:24:09 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Query

Balsamic Dragon wrote:

[Malenkai wrote:]
> > Proposal 2299
> > The Way Things Ought to Be
> > ThinMan (John Bollinger)
> 
[...]

> > Amend rule 102 by replacing the first paragraph with the following
> > text (delimited by the next two pairs of adjacent ampersands):
> > &&
> > If two or more rules other than this one conflict about a particular
> > issue, and if the rules other than this one (and not restricted to
> the
> > conflicting rules) 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 issue.  Otherwise,
> > wherever the rules conflict on a particular issue, the rule with the
> > lowest number among those rules which conflict on that issue shall
> > guide play with regard to that issue.
> > &&
> 
> I think what Thin Man is trying to do is eliminate rule 102 from being
> judged by its own text.  In other words, it covers the conflicts of
> rules
> other than itself.  This allows Rule 102 to govern conflicts between
> rules
> where the number of one rule is higher than its own number.
> 
> I think.
> 
B.D. is basically correct, though I wouldn't have written it that way.
P 2299 amends R102 so that it does not by default defer to rules that
conflict with it itself.  I.e., it is intended to fix the hole that
Guy Fawkes attempted to wrangle a paradox win from.  (Has the Supreme
Court returned a verdict on that one yet?)

ThinMan

P.S.:  ThinMan is one word.  TM

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:02:27 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Tornado

What happened to the tornado?  

I thought it was coming on the Autumnal Equinox, which I think was at 6:56
yesterday.

Did I miss it?

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:13:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Shimmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: (and Patch): adios.

I have decided to quit nomic altogether.  Please remove me from all 
appropriate mailing lists.  This has little to do with events in either 
game, or the amount of time I have to play, but simply that I believe 
there is no reason whatsoever to play.

As has been pointed out from time to time, points are among the most 
boring possible goals to play for.  From time to time, players in nomic 
games have introduced various other entities to attempt to capture some 
degree of excitement that points lack.  In time, however, these too 
stale.  There exists no combination of points, A$, letter products, 
floppy hats, prosthetic foreheads, mutations, Gadgets, Otzma Cards, or 
anything that can long add much value to playing the game.  Eventually, 
all entites are merely something to track.

The game itself contains nothing of value, and the act of playing it only 
slightly more.  I once believed that playing nomic (particularly the 
Judicial side) constituted an intellectual activity.  I have come to the 
conclusion that it only takes the guise of one.  Interpreting the rules, 
particularly vague ones, through a filter of contradictory and often even 
vaguer game spirit and custom comes down to little more than applied 
handwaving.  And even if this were otherwise, even if the rules were 
rigorous, there exists no point in settling disputes over hypothetical 
interpretations of abstract rules.  Doing so constitutes, in my opinion, 
a waste of time and effort that could be spent far better helping real 
people with real problems in the real world.

The only possible reason I have to stay is social, but quite frankly, 
most of the players I once considered friends have either quit or fallen 
into quietude for one reason or another.

I don't dislike the game; in fact, I seriously enjoyed it the whole time 
while I was playing.  Now, however, I have to look back and call all the 
hundreds of hours I spent playing a waste of time.  Life is far too 
short, and the world around us far too big and containing far too many 
other people to squander the hours tweaking rules and entities with no 
concrete effect.  I have come to see manipulating abstract entities 
according to arbitrary rules as little more than mental masturbation.

Thanks for the great time I've had, but life changes, and I must move on.

Robert Shimmin

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : ETP objections

> I was on Vacation when the voting period for my ETP proposal was
> over.  Can the people who voted against perhaps let me know, either
> in public or private, what they objected to.

Some bugs, some random misfeatures, and a feeling that it put the cart
before the horse.

> [E] is encouraged to provide a valid Entity Profile for each entity
> to be exported. If e does provide an Entity Profile, then he may
> request that the Synod write one for em ... 

I think this should be "If e does NOT provide an Entity Profile".

> ... in exchange for A$50 per Entity Profile which are transfered
> from the owner to the Synod.

This seems to say that the Entity Profiles are transferred from the
owner to the Synod. (Probably not a serious bug, but a minor
rewording, or even another comma or two, would be a good idea.)

> The Synod then notifies the receiving nomic, or the player/entity
> within that nomic whose job it is to imprt entities.

Shouldn't they be going through the other nomic's Liaison in
Internomic first? Contacting the other nomic directly seems like it
would require knowing something about the other nomic's current rules
and game state, or at least more than ought to be necessary.

> The transfer does not take place until it has been both an official
> anuncement has been made both by in Ackanomic and in the receiving
> nomic that the transfer is being made.

If I parse this correctly, this seems like it would require the Synod
to be subscribed to the other nomic's mailing list (or whatever).
Otherwise how could they know that this requirement had been
fulfilled?

I really think we should avoid having rules with requirements that
depend on the state of other nomics (besides Internomic).

> If the entity is defined by a rule which specifies either
> implicitly, or explicitly, the number of such entities that exist in
> Ackanomic, then a statment is appended to that rule that specifies
> that NUM entities of this type are currently not in Ackanomic.

I assume "NUM" was meant to be a variable, but it isn't defined or
described as such. Or mentioned anywhere else. So I guess if someone
exported such an entity, its Rule would get a sentence like "NUM
Foobars are currently not in Ackanomic." (Also, it wouldn't delete any
of the old sentences that had the incorrect number of entities, so
they would just pile up. Which would still work, but is kinda messy.)

> b. If the entity does not meet the import criteria the Synod must
> reject the transfer.

I have no idea what "the import criteria" refers to here. It's not
mentioned anywhere else in the proposal. I mean, this is obviously a
critical point in the import process, so it should be clearer where
the Synod is going to get its criteria.

> c. The Synod may ammend a short prefix to the name of an imported
> entity to avoid breaking the rules of Ackanomic

"Amend" a short prefix? I would guess you meant "append", except
"append" means to attach to the end, which is usually not something
you do with prefixes. So I guess you meant either "append a short
suffix" or "prepend a short prefix".

> e. Within 7 days of receiving the notification, the Synod must take
> one of the following public actions:
>   (i) Accept the entity. [...]
>   (ii) Publically post a recommandation as to accepting/rejecting the
>        entity. In this case, an Import Hearing is called. [...]
> f. Rejection of an entity transfer does not require any special action,

I can see what the intent was here, but the way it's worded the Synod
doesn't appear to have the option of rejecting it outright. Clause f
says that rejection doesn't require any "special action", which seems
to mean "action beyond what's *normally* required (by clause e, for
example)". Clause f should really be moved up to become action (iii)
under clause e.

Besides these issues (both minor and major), I have to ask: why the
Synod? I mean, since this rule can only apply to nomics that are
members of Internomic, why not use the Liaison? At least as the
starting point. This would simplify a lot of the nomic-to-nomic
communications. The Liaisons already have to deal with each other
anyway.

But anyway, my biggest feeling against it is that it's the cart coming
before the horse. I would first like to see how the ETP Rule Suite
would look - for example, would it have special precedence protection
to guard against a Trojan Horse? I'd first like to see what the Entity
Behavior Rules would look like for some of our more interesting
entities. (Or even some of the boring ones.) I'd first like to see
some Entity Behavior Rules of some potential imports - definitely! And
also to know what sort of criteria the Synod (or whoever) would be
using to decide what was okay to import.

Please don't get me wrong. I like the idea behind the ETP. I think
that a relatively constrained case like this (just us and Pumpkin
Patch) would be a great way to give the concept a test run, and work
out all the bugs. But let's not just leave ourselves wide open! Sure,
we're being guinea pigs; that doesn't mean we have to actively invite
crisis. And let me clarify: I'm not actually worried about Trojan
Horses nearly as much as I am about simple, honest oversights, which I
think are far more likely. (Though maybe I'm being naive, when you
consider the fact that Pumpkin Patch is justifiably upset with us
right now....)

You know what *I* would like to see? I'd like to see an Entity
Transfer Protocol that only worked with Trinkets! (Does Pumpkin Patch
have Trinket-equivalents?) That's a narrow enough case that I could
feel less worried about the seriousness of overlooked bugs in the
first draft of the Rule, and yet it's broad enough to certainly be
non-trivial. I mean, Trinkets already have 1) names, and 2) values in
Ackadollars. There's a host of potential obstacles in those two things
already.

How would you write up an Entity Behavior Rule for trinkets? Would a
Pumpkiner be able to destroy a Trinket for Ackadollars? Or would they
have to be able to visit our Treasury to do that? (Should we modify
the Treasure Rule to allow players from outside Ackanomic to visit
it?) Or maybe they should be able to destroy Trinkets for their native
legal tender. Which is what? Letters?

And then there's namespace collision, Malenkai's Loophole, currency
exchange rates (26 different exchange rates?), threats of inflation,
threats of deflation ... If we could get a working TTP in place, and
functioning relatively efficiently and bug-free in eight weeks, I for
one would be seriously impressed.

This is why I think your ETP proposal was just too ambitious at this
point. (That and the missing words and typos that Rule 340 couldn't fix
up automatically.)

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: (and Patch): adios.

> I don't dislike the game; in fact, I seriously enjoyed it the whole
> time while I was playing.  Now, however, I have to look back and
> call all the hundreds of hours I spent playing a waste of time.
> Life is far too short, and the world around us far too big and
> containing far too many other people to squander the hours tweaking
> rules and entities with no concrete effect.  I have come to see
> manipulating abstract entities according to arbitrary rules as
> little more than mental masturbation.

I've always found mental masturbation to be a good deal more
satisfying than the physical kind, but hey, maybe that's just me.

> Thanks for the great time I've had, but life changes, and I must
> move on.

Sorry to have to see you go a second time.

I thank you for everything you've put into the game (which are *not*
worthless to me, your arguments to the contrary notwithstanding).

Good luck. I hope you find what you're looking for.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tornado

> What happened to the tornado?  
> 
> I thought it was coming on the Autumnal Equinox, which I think was
> at 6:56 yesterday.
> 
> Did I miss it?

Rest assured; it came. I imagine Malenkai is furiously harfing its
effects even as I write this.

We'll know what happened soon enough.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:13:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acrostic treasure found (SPOILERS)

Alfvaen found the Exquisite Dead Guy.

The full treasure map was to send me the full text and word list from
the acrostic puzzle I posted, which follows the spoiler space below.

I hope all who attempted this puzzle enjoyed it. 

/dev/joe

SPOILERS

SPOILERS



> Every once in awhile a band comes along that
> changes the course of human history, and
> that band is They Might Be Giants.  If you
> hear only one song this year, there's something
> terribly wrong with you!
> 
> a. They Might Be Giants
> b. Money
> c. Bono
> d. Grubby Shoes
> e. China Grove
> f. Recorders
> g. In The Heat of The Night
> h. Tonight She Comes
> i. I Am The Walrus
> j. Changes
> k. I Want It All
> l. Noisy Daily
> m. Tuesday Afternoon
> n. Runaway
> o. Oh Henry

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:15:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Tornado

Based on the scorekeeper's roster and scores reported to
me as of the equinox, below are the score changes and
scores from the Tornado.

As for dangling, I was unable to find an official
map, and the one I found did not appear to be up to
date (for example, Vulcan land was not on it).  I
will leave it to the pragmatism clause to handle
the dangling, unless someone gives me an accurate 
list.

Malenkai
- --------------------------------------------------------
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -157 Voting Gnome: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -75 Guy Fawkes: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -87 Malenkai: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -69 Crackfoo: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -46 Balsamic Dragon: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +92 mr cwm: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -61 Vynd: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -53 Red Barn: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -34 Rex Mundi: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +10 /dev/joe: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -33 Onieros: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -10 norpan: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -10 breadbox: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +5 Alfvaen: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -12 Ace Rimmer: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +98 Archie Leach: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +0 Atilla the Pun: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +0 Darth Vader: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +21 ILIOS: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: -27 SonOfWu: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +22 Whiz: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +14 Calvin N Hobbes: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +7 ThinMan: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +81 Robert Sevin: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +43 Niccolo Flychuck: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +99 two-star: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +20 AZTEC GOD: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +65 fnord: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +54 Karma: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +10 Dread Pirate Roberts: Fall Tornado
Sep 22 19:56 EST: +33 Antimatter: Fall Tornado
Voting Gnome        :  -33
Guy Fawkes          :  23
Malenkai            :  0
Crackfoo            :  1
Balsamic Dragon     :  -7
mr cwm              :  124
Vynd                :  -30
Red Barn            :  -26
Rex Mundi           :  -11
/dev/joe            :  32
Onieros             :  -12
norpan              :  0
breadbox            :  -4
Alfvaen             :  6
Ace Rimmer          :  -12
Archie Leach        :  98
Atilla the Pun      :  0
Darth Vader         :  0
ILIOS               :  21
SonOfWu             :  -27
Whiz                :  22
Calvin N Hobbes     :  10
ThinMan             :  0
Robert Sevin        :  70
Niccolo Flychuck    :  31
two-star            :  87
AZTEC GOD           :  0
fnord               :  39
Karma               :  27
Dread Pirate Roberts:  -20
Antimatter          :  0

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:20:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Rule 257

The following players are AWOL and did not respond to a rule
257 query.  Those who are pending should be removed from the
game, those who are non-voting placed on vacation.  If Whiz
is pending, then the Church of Odo on the Wormhole is defunct.

> Ace Rimmer
> AZTEC G0D
> Dread Pirate Roberts
> fnord
> ILIOS
> Whiz

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:29:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: INP 347 results (Acka:)

Results of INP 347:

For: Ackanomic

All other voting members abstained.

Proposal is accepted; Agora scores 2 points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

Remarks: 

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

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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:57:53 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Mail

As of this very moment I am asking the postmaster to remove me from all of
Ackanomic mailing list (don't forget those silly x-approval lists).  I
agree with with Guy Fawkes that Ackanomic has degenerated into an unsocial
game.  I consider there no reason for me to observe anymore.

Frinds, Cnh, Barry, Guy (if youre reading this) and the rest of you ---
Please keep in touch.  You're the reason I stayed so long.

Phil

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #314
*******************************