Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #329
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Wednesday, October 8 1997      Volume 02 : Number 329

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 08:15:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 461 Appeal Verdict

FALSE has been CFJ 461 has been upheld.  Vynd is penalized 25 points.

Clerk of the Courts
- -------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 461
  Subject: Precedence of Precedence Paradox
Initiator: Guy Fawkes
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected Sep 09, 1997, 17:18h EDT)
Judgement: FALSE
Appealed by Vynd
Judgement: FALSE (upheld)

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's 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.

Vynd's appeal reasoning:

I think there is no real dispute about the existance of a conflict,
and what exactly the paradox that is claimed to exist is, so I won't
spend much time going over it. Rather, I will attempt to show why I
disagree with /dev/joe's reading of the Rules.

/dev/joe is claiming that since "rules other than this one" [Rule 102],
cannot resolve the conflict, then Rule 102's statement that the lowest
numbered rule takes precedence dictates that Rule 1 has precedence
over Rule 255. I agree with this entirely.

What I think /dev/joe is overlooking is the fact that Rule 102, while
stating that this is what should occur, lacks the power to make it
happen. By claiming that Rule 255 must yield to Rule 1, Rule 102 comes
into conflict with Rule 255's precedence clause.  Rule 102 is saying
that Rule 255 does not ahve precedence over everything, while Rule 255
is saying that it does. when we go to resolve this conflict, we find
that Rule 255 clearly has precedence over Rule 102, so Rule 102 fails
to actually dismepower Rule 255 in this situation. Certainly he fails
to address this issue in his reasoning.

Instead, /dev/joe presents us with an arguement as to how he must deal
with all the conflicting rules as a whole, rather than resolving them
individualy. It's a good arguement, I can't say I am totaly convinced
but let us assume he is correct for the time being, and examine the
last paragraph of this justification for a FALSE ruling. Here /dev/joe
admits that, even when one deals with the conflicting rules as a
whole, it is still not absolutely clear which rule takes
precedence. This right here should, in my mind, probably be enough to
call for a verdict of TRUE, but /dev/joe asserts that since two of the
three rules would allow the act which is supposedly equally legal and
illegal, it is more legal than it is illegal and the statement is
FALSE. Frankly, I don't really see how this follows from any of
/dev/joe's earlier arguements as to how to resolve the conflict. He
admits that the conflict is not in fact resolved, which certainly
implies that the paradox in the rules remains. As far as the opinion
that when two rules say something is legal and on only disagrees that
means that something is more legal than illegal, well, an opinion is
all that it is. I cannot see anything in the rules to back such an
assertion up.  There isn't anything explicit on the matter in game
custom either, but I would direct the justices' attention to recent
debates over the meaning of the phrase "The Vulcan party" in the
former Rule 1, and whether or not "least paradoxical" was a valid
criterion on which to base a judgement.

Finally /dev/joe wraps up by seeming to say that interpretations of
the rules where the stated action would be equally legal and illegal
are unlikely because game custom calls for Rule 102 to resolve such
conflicts when they are otherwise unresolvable. This is simply not
true, for it is Rule 102 itself that calls for Rule 102 to resolve
these conflicts. And whether it is game custom or the rules that call
for the use of Rule 102, that certainly doesn't mean that Rule 102 is
actually capable of resolving such conflicts.

Thus, /dev/joe appears to be telling us that since the conflict is
supposed to be resolved by Rule 102, it is. He does not explain how
Rule 102 does so, indeed he states that it is not really possible to
tell which Rule takes precedence, essentially admiting that there is a
paradox. His judgement of FALSE, so far as I can see, is based purely
on an interpretation of the situation in which the act in question is
not equally legal and illegal, but rather somewhat less illegal than
it is legal. As I have already stated, I see no justification for such
a stance in the rules or in game custom.

/dev/joe did raise some interesting points as to how the rules tell us
to go about resolving a conflict such as this, points which I accepted
for the sake of my earlier arguement but which I would like to address
now. I think /dev/joe is entirely correct when he says that the
conflicts must be looked at as a whole, not as seperate pairs of rules
in conflict. Since this seems to be what he is trying to base his
later arguements on, although I admit I do not see the connection, I
wanted to address the issue myself. In a situation like this, say the
example /dev/joe gave above, Rule 102 would normaly just go to rule
numbers and that would be the end of it. This situation is actually
more complicated, because one of the conflicts can be resolved thourhg
the use of other rules, the conflict between Rule 102 and 255, and
thereby render the other conflict unresolvable. It is here that
/dev/joe's "all at once" principle is crucial, because it allows us to
say that since ALL the conflicts have not been resolved, then we are
allowed to move past the "use other rules" clause of 102 to the
"lowest number precedence" clause and resolve the conflicts. The
problem is that it still doesn't WORK. Rule 102 simply lacks the power
to impose this solution on Rule 255. every time we get to the point
where it does so, by resolving the conflicts as a group rather than
seperately, it reintroduces the same conflict, which is then resolved,
which then reintroduces the same conflict, etc... Thus the conflict is
never actually resolved, indeed one could assert that it is
paradoxicaly both resolved and not resolved at the same time. I think
it would be more accurate, however, to simply say that if resolving a
conflict has the effect of recreating the conflict, then the conflict
is not in fact resolved at all. In either case, we are left with the
fact that Rule 255 and Rule 1 are in conflict, and there is no way to
resolve the conflict. So long as this is true then it appears equally
legal and illegal for a evil overlord of Ackanomic (retired) who is on
vacation to enter Vulcan HQ, and thus this CFJ should be judged TRUE.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court has decided to uphold the original verdict, although for
noticeably different reasons than the original judge. In brief, the
Court disagrees with the argument that Rule 102 cedes precedence to
Rule 255 whether or not doing so results in an ambiguous chain of
precedence.

Rules 1 and 255 are in conflict regarding what certain players are
permitted to do while on vacation, and also on which of the two rules
should guide play. Because of this conflict, Rule 102 asserts that
Rule 1 should take precedence, and thus Rule 102 also comes into the
conflict.

The first paragraph of Rule 102 (quoted in full in the original
judge's reasoning) permits the rules to specify methods of determining
precedence on a given point of law, but only if it is a "single,
coherent, unambiguous" method. Rule 102 reserves the right to enforce
the numerical method any time an alternate method fails in this
regard. Now Rule 255's alternate method (which can be described as
"when in doubt, I take precedence") is certainly unambiguously stated,
and it may even appear to be an unambiguous method when taken out of
context. But that is not the issue; the entire ruleset - or rather,
the entire ruleset minus Rule 102 - must provide a method that is
unambiguous. On many other points of law, the ruleset as a whole,
minus 102, unambiguously states that Rule 255 has precedence, and on
these points Rule 102 allows that precedence to stand. However, on the
point of law that is the topic of this CFJ (can a vacationing Overlord
enter Vulcan HQ?), the ruleset is ambiguous as to who has precedence.
Rule 102 therefore states that the rule with the lowest number must
guide play, and that we must disregard any contrary claims. With this
statement, of course, Rule 102 comes into conflict with Rule 255.
However, Rule 102 is given the precedence to do so, as it has the
lower number. (Note that Rule 102 would not have the precedence to
override Rule 1, but these two rules are never in conflict: they both
state that when in doubt, Rule 1 has precedence.)

The initiator of this CFJ argues that Rule 102 cannot override Rule
255 in the final step described, because Rule 255 claims precedence
over Rule 102, and Rule 102 does not contradict this. The Court feels
that if this were true, then Rule 102 would not be attempting to
override Rule 255; the fact that it is indicates that Rule 102 does
contradict Rule 255's claim of precedence (and the numerical method
dictates that it succeeds).

The Court has also considered the argument that because Rule 102
exempts itself from consideration of whether a conflict is unresolved,
it also exempts itself from the ability to take precedence by the
numerical method. This argument hinges on the reading of the sentence:
"Otherwise, the rule with the lowest number takes precedence." If this
sentence's subject was interpreted as the rule with the lowest number
in the set of "the rules other than this one", then Rule 102 would
never give itself precedence in a conflict. But then this would also
mean that the sentence would always be asserting only that Rule 1 took
precedence, since Rule 1 is always the rule with the lowest number in
the set of "the rules other than this one". Rule 102 would then be
useless in any precedence conflict that did not involve Rule 1. On the
other hand, interpreting the sentence's subject as the rule with the
lowest number in the set of "two or more rules [that] conflict with
each other" is much more helpful, sensible, and in accordance with
previous game play. Since the Court sees this interpretation as
clearly preferable, it maintains that Rule 102 can and does empower
itself to take precedence by the numerical method.

Having shown why the Court disagrees with the interpretations of Rule
102 that the above arguments put forth, it now offers evidence to
indicate that its interpretation is in fact the one that has been
guiding game play. On July 1, 1997, Bascule quit Ackanomic while on
vacation. Rule 101 permitted him to take this action; Rule 255 forbade
it. This example has many parallels with the subject of this CFJ, as
they both involve a conflict with Rule 255 and what was at the time
the lowest-numbered rule, a rule which also contained a blanket
precedence clause. But at the time, no one questioned that Bascule's
actions were legal and successful, and the Court maintains that this
is because Rule 102 was interpreted in the manner it has outlined
above. (As an aside, it should be noted that Rule 102's first
paragraph was altered between the time of Bascule's quitting and the
submission of this CFJ. Specifically, proposal 2234's amendment
allowed rules beyond the conflicting rules (and other than Rule 102
itself) to provide an alternate method of determining precedence.
Since the rules that provide alternate methods of precedence are just
the conflicting rules themselves in both cases, this amendment does
not invalidate the parallels between the two situations.)

Finally, the Court would like to point out that although it maintains
that the situation of a vacationing Overlord attempting to enter
Vulcan HQ is definitively either legal or illegal, it has not stated
which. The above arguments seem to show that it is clearly legal,
since Rule 1 successfully takes precedence. However, Rule 1 states
that an Overlord is always "permitted" to enter HQ; this is not
necessarily equivalent to "empowering" a player to change their
location while on vacation. Since the interpretation of this does not
affect the verdict of this CFJ, the Court will not rule on this issue
unless and until it is asked to do so.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:48:20 -0400
From: "Michael James" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re : acka the truth

Oh, and the W was for Wednesday...

Rex Mundi.

You said there was no magic letter "D" in your message, was it not part of
the cryptic truth?

- - Karma

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:41:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 Appeal Verdict

> FALSE has been CFJ 461 has been upheld.  Vynd is penalized 25 points.

  Curious... Now it's back where I left it...

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Visit rec.games.video.classic and find out about Pac-Man's contemporaries!
Did you hear that 37% of all people with longer life spans live longer?

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:49:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 Appeal Verdict

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> > FALSE has been CFJ 461 has been upheld.  Vynd is penalized 25 points.
> 
>   Curious... Now it's back where I left it...

Huh?

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> ___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
> <[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
> Visit rec.games.video.classic and find out about Pac-Man's contemporaries!
> Did you hear that 37% of all people with longer life spans live longer?
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 461 Appeal Verdict

> > > FALSE has been CFJ 461 has been upheld.  Vynd is penalized 25 points.
> > 
> >   Curious... Now it's back where I left it...
> 
> Huh?

  I noted the grammar error and couldn't resist; I believe my house is still
named 'FALSE'.

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Visit rec.games.video.classic and find out about Pac-Man's contemporaries!
Schooling is not to impart knowledge, but to impart ability.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:56:02 -0400
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: vacation

I am reluctantly putting myself on vacation as I am really swamped at work
and probably will be until the 17th.  I want to thank everyone who voted me
in for the senate seat and those who volunteered to go on the Great
Expedition.  

If anyone wishes to take over my duties on any of the following, please let
me know.

1.	Senate Seat Melvin
2.	The Great Expedition
3.	Referee in the Viruses Game

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 20:43:39 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Prez

Alfvaen was the only volunteer for president and thus
holds the office.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:10:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: vacation

> 1.      Senate Seat Melvin

I appoint two-star acting senator.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:28:23 -0400
From: Dice Server <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Boon Determination

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dice rolls requested by: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Rolls also sent to:
    [email-masked]

# I am using the dice server to determine /dev/joe's boon from the 
# machine based on the following (using a 100 sided die):
# 1 -45: ancient artifact (random gadget)
# 46-70: ancient scroll (random otzma card)
# 71-80: gods are smiling (bonus vote)
# 81-87: ancient relic (trinket worth A$75)
# 88-92: ancient knowledge (new blueprint)
# 93-97: ancient wisdom (new otzma card)
# 98-99: gods are bored (pointy ears)
#  100 : gods are grouchy (chartreuse goose)
# Malenkai

No. of sides on every die:    100
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    1
No. of rolls per line:          1

     67

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS JUKKASJARVI CHEEZ-WHIZ!
   Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.

   For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
   subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/

   The dice server is provided by:

      Shadow Island Games
      http://www.pbm.com/ds.html

Original message follows:
> From [email-masked]  Wed Oct  8 18:20:00 1997
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id SAA06555 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:20:00 -0700
> Received: from mail.itw.net(206.138.122.6) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma006544; Wed Oct  8 18:19:53 1997
> Received: from itw.com (ppp130.itw.com [206.138.122.130]) by mail.itw.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA22473 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:19:50 -0400
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:17:57 -0400
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; U)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: d
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 100
> #D 1
> #R 1
> #L 1
> #T Acka: Boon determination
> 
> #C I am using the dice server to determine /dev/joe's boon from the 
> #C machine based on the following (using a 100 sided die):
> #C 1 -45: ancient artifact (random gadget)
> #C 46-70: ancient scroll (random otzma card)
> #C 71-80: gods are smiling (bonus vote)
> #C 81-87: ancient relic (trinket worth A$75)
> #C 88-92: ancient knowledge (new blueprint)
> #C 93-97: ancient wisdom (new otzma card)
> #C 98-99: gods are bored (pointy ears)
> #C  100 : gods are grouchy (chartreuse goose)
> #C Malenkai

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7

UiF+gJStU=qMBzFS+UP+BVuIPs+B+RVbMJgJFe+QvCMjD=nFTtBHf=UiBU+DIbOHfT
uIF+HBnF+tUBuF,+BT=KVeHFe+Cz+Nf+(fH,+QSpQPtBM,=JQ,=DGK,+ZPSM+QMbZ,
FUd),tIBmM+gJOe=UiF=QBSlB.+B+rVBmJGjFE+NFtTBhF+jTPoF+uIBu+DpOUbJOt
UiF+xPSe="tFWfO"=JO+BOz+Pg+UiF+uIFtF=mBOhVBhFT:+FvTLbSB,=BmCBoJBo,
XFMtI,+PS=MJuVBoJBo.
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:30:40 -0400
From: Dice Server <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Random OC determination

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dice rolls requested by: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Rolls also sent to:
    [email-masked]

# Player: /dev/joe
# I am using the dice server to determine the random otzma card
# delivered from the boon based on the following
# schedule:
# 1 - go fish
# 2 - map shard
# 3 - untouch me
# 4 - share my expenses
# 5 - share my income
# 6 - swinging sale
# 7 - tactical retreat
# 8 - paratroop
# 9 - foul fowl
# 10 - truthseeker
# 11 - fix my gadget
# 12 - scientist for a day
# 13 - art thief
# 14 - skeleton key

No. of sides on every die:     14
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    1
No. of rolls per line:          1

      6

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS :-)!
   Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.

   For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
   subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/

   The dice server is provided by:

      Shadow Island Games
      http://www.pbm.com/ds.html

Original message follows:
> From [email-masked]  Wed Oct  8 18:23:30 1997
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id SAA06645 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:23:30 -0700
> Received: from mail.itw.net(206.138.122.6) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma006642; Wed Oct  8 18:23:22 1997
> Received: from itw.com (ppp130.itw.com [206.138.122.130]) by mail.itw.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA22616 for <[email-masked]>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:23:20 -0400
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:21:27 -0400
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; U)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: s
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 14
> #D 1
> #R 1
> #L 1
> #T Acka: SBoC Random OC determination
> 
> #C Player: /dev/joe
> #C I am using the dice server to determine the random otzma card
> #C delivered from the boon based on the following
> #C schedule:
> #C 1 - go fish
> #C 2 - map shard
> #C 3 - untouch me
> #C 4 - share my expenses
> #C 5 - share my income
> #C 6 - swinging sale
> #C 7 - tactical retreat
> #C 8 - paratroop
> #C 9 - foul fowl
> #C 10 - truthseeker
> #C 11 - fix my gadget
> #C 12 - scientist for a day
> #C 13 - art thief
> #C 14 - skeleton key

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7

UiF+gJStU=qMBzFS+UP+BVuIPs+B+RVbMJgJFe+QvCMjD=nFTtBHf=UiBU+DIbOHfT
uIF+HBnF+tUBuF,+BT=KVeHFe+Cz+Nf+(fH,+QSpQPtBM,=JQ,=DGK,+ZPSM+QMbZ,
FUd),tIBmM+gJOe=UiF=QBSlB.+B+rVBmJGjFE+NFtTBhF+jTPoF+uIBu+DpOUbJOt
UiF+xPSe="tFWfO"=JO+BOz+Pg+UiF+uIFtF=mBOhVBhFT:+FvTLbSB,=BmCBoJBo,
XFMtI,+PS=MJuVBoJBo.
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:37:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: BWG

I hope at this point
that someone finds the parka
pain in @$$ to hide

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:06:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Spell Book

I am reading the next page in my Spell Book of Chorg.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:51:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser

> > I bid 10 A$.
> 
> I bid A$ 21.
> 
> Malenkai

This auction is over and this is the winning bid.  Note that
this is for an EBS, not a BWG L.

Chief Cheese

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #329
*******************************