Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #370
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Tuesday, November 18 1997      Volume 02 : Number 370

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

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:23:38 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure 176 found

> Alfvaen has found the Parka (treasure 176), with proposal 2375.
> Perhaps he wants to tell us how he figured it out, and how he came
> to find it at this time.

Well, although Malenkai originally tried to obscure the fact, I'm sure that
everyone seriously looking for the Parka had by this time realized that it
had something to do with the Random Dice Server messages.  But it wasn't
until the most recent one that it occurred to me that the "PGP Signature"
might have something in it.  I was going to decode it, until I realized
that it was made up of letters grouped in word-length clusters, with '+'
and '=' characters separating them.  And the letters were just a shift-1
Caesar cipher off the map.

> The map was:

> The first player to author a qualified public message that changes
> the game state, as judged by me (eg, proposal, IP, CFJ, YORL play,
> etc),shall find the Parka. A qualified message isone that contains
> the word "seven" in any of the these languages: Euskara, Albanian,
> Welsh, or Lituanian.

Then I just had to try to find a translation.  I went with the Basque
(a.k.a. Euskara)one, 'zazpi', mostly because my _Languages of The World_ book
had it listed as an example of how to pronounce 'z' in Basque; I didn't
have references for the others handily, though I found them later on the
Net.  (For anyone who's wondering, "saith" is Welsh, "septyni" is
Lithuanian, and "shtat&euml;" is Albanian.  Had I know that earlier, I
might have put 'Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord' or something in a
message instead.  :-)  Basque is also my favourite of the languages listed,
and it seemed appropriate because it came up in one of Malenkai's previous
treasures as well.

> Malenkai
> whose life as the OiCoRT will be *much* easier :)

Now you just need to figure out how I get Trinkets every Thursday at noon.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Rush:A Show of Hands
Current Book--Dave Duncan:Future Indefinite
Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:25:20 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomicon Determination

> 
> Dice rolls requested by: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> Rolls also sent to:
>     [email-masked]
> 
> # Player: two-star
> # Ackanomicon determination
> # based on the following (using a 51 sided die):

> # 45-45: catastrophe
> 
> No. of sides on every die:     50
> No. of dice for every roll:     1
> No. of dice rolls requested:    1
> No. of rolls per line:          1
> 
>      45
> 

Um, note to the Scorekeeper, we just had a Tornado.

                                       - Vynd

Glad one of his rules is seeing some use :)

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:02:45 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 471 (Slakko)

On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> I was selected and declined.  Alfvaen and I had a bit of
> discussion about this before it was officially submitted,
> so it seemed bogus to be selected.
> 
> Slakko has been selected.

I think I should really decline this one, and so I shall.

My main reason for declining is that I was not a player at the time the
events took place - so it is a search through the mail archive should I
want to do this (that in itself is not a problem).  However, there is a
risk as I see it of my judgement not being possible anyway.

I became a new player.  This judgement would have a game effect dating
back to before I became a player.  The rule enabling new players to join
the game would therefore contradict Rule 103 if I gave judgement.
Admittedly this is probably a bit tenuous, but it is too risky for me to
proceed on it at this stage.  Please find another Judge.

- --
Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
"... and entirely motivated by hormones.  Works for me!"   --  Freakazoid!
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/27/Index.html <-- Imperial Nomic Game 27

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:33:28 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2376

On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> > 
> > They do want to play, but we do have this very reasonable custom of
> > giving three days. You can't expect every acka player, and every Swinger
> > to read their mail every day.
> 
> Sometimes you just can't pick up on custom by reading the rules. 

I pointed out in my first letter of objection that you are probably
unaware of this.

> > 
> > Red Barn's mail has been bouncing for a couple of days. It is possible
> > that he did not it was his turn.
> 
> This is unfortunate, but what can be done in such a situation?

First, you might arrange with the postmaster to let you know when that
happens for a Swinger whose turn it is. You do have the option to extend a
Swinger's turn up to a week (a week total, including the original three
days). Or you can mark it as just one of those things.
 > 
> > 
> > Fine. I'llchange my vote to Yes on this one and propose what I believe to
> > be appropriate amendments.
> 
> Er, Nic, I already retracted.  It looked like Alfvaen hated it too. :-)

For vastly different reasons. I actually support the principles. I just
thought the method was crude. (no offense intended). 
Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> Yours,
> Chess-Umpire Slakko
> - --
> Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
> Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
> "... and entirely motivated by hormones.  Works for me!"   --  Freakazoid!
> http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/27/Index.html <-- Imperial Nomic Game 27
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:39:47 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 470 Verdict

I'll have to see how the rule standa now and submit an appropriate Modest
one to amend it into what I originally meant to amend it to.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 470 has been judged TRUE.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 470
> Subject: Retracting
> Initiator: Slakko
> Submitted: 97-11-13 2:38
>   Judge: /dev/joe (selected 97-11-13 8:49)
> Judgement: TRUE 
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Proposal 2347 was retracted.
> 
> Slakko's Reasoning:
> 
> If the wish to commit an action is considered equivalent to an action, as
> the result of CFJ 447 clearly states, then surely stating that one "will
> retract a proposal" is just as equivalent to stating that one "is
> retracting a proposal".  Therefore Niccolo's statement that proposal 2347
> "will be retracted" should have been interpreted as him saying "I am
> retracting proposal 2347".
> 
> /dev/joe's Reasoning:
> 
> I concur with the initiator's reasoning.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:43:16 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2379

On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2379
> Clearing away the Dross
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> This is a Modest Proposal.
> 
> Create a New Rule, with the following text delimited by BLINK:
> BLINK
> {{The Capital Swinger Office known as the Office of Ben will be returned
> to the Treasury, stripped of its name, and all pieces held by that Office
> will be destroyed.

Isn't that Office already in the Treasury?
It should be destroyed, not returned to the Treasury.

Niccolo Flychuck

> [This is designed to get the current Party Chess state to conform more to
> the rules as they stand, where a Capital Swinger's office effectively
> disappears if they resign from Acka.  Ben left before this came into force
> AFAIK, and hence his office needs to be eliminated manually.] }} 
> BLINK
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of acka-voting-digest V2 #201
> *********************************
> 

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:56:02 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2379

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > Proposal 2379
> > Clearing away the Dross
> > Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> > 
> > This is a Modest Proposal.
> > 
> > Create a New Rule, with the following text delimited by BLINK:
> > BLINK
> > {{The Capital Swinger Office known as the Office of Ben will be returned
> > to the Treasury, stripped of its name, and all pieces held by that Office
> > will be destroyed.
> 
> Isn't that Office already in the Treasury?
> It should be destroyed, not returned to the Treasury.

If it is in the Treasury, then how come the never-sold Swinger's Offices
(also in the Treasury) don't have to be listed on the Party Chess page,
but this does?
- --
- --
Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
"... and entirely motivated by hormones.  Works for me!"   --  Freakazoid!
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/27/Index.html <-- Imperial Nomic Game 27

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:00:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 470 Verdict

> CFJ 470 has been judged TRUE.

This message is not an argument against this verdict. Nonetheless, I
do want to emphasize an important point that was not acknowledged in
the reasoning of this CFJ.

> If the wish to commit an action is considered equivalent to an
> action, as the result of CFJ 447 clearly states, then surely stating
> that one "will retract a proposal" is just as equivalent to stating
> that one "is retracting a proposal".

CFJ 447 was addressing the use of the phrase "I wish to do something."
This CFJ, however, is addressing the use of the phrase "I'll do
something" (short for "I will do something" or "I shall do
something").

Although both phrases have, essentially, the same meaning, the former
has more of a connotation of being an *act* in this context - the act
of wishing for something. If you wish for something that you're
allowed to have, then you get it. (Well, at least you do in a
play-by-email game, where all actions occur via public messages).

The latter phrase, on the other hand, is just as often used to state
*intent*. If someone said "I intend to do something", I think no one
would argue that this would be equivalent to "I hereby do something."

The critical point (for me personally, at least) is this: "I wish to
do something" and "I hereby do something" use the present tense, while
"I'll do something" uses the future tense. Thus it fails to convey a
sense of action being taken.

Again, this is not being offered up as proof that this CFJ was wrongly
judged. Even if you agree with the above, one can still argue that CFJ
447 sets a precedent which invalidates my argument. (I'm being
intentionally vague about this in case someone is actually thinking
about appealing.)

Anyway, this probably should have been submitted as a Bronze Torch
reasoning, but /dev/joe returned his verdict too quickly for me.

breadbox
Keeper of Justice, Splitter of Hairs

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:13:09 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 470 Verdict

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> CFJ 447 was addressing the use of the phrase "I wish to do something."
> This CFJ, however, is addressing the use of the phrase "I'll do
> something" (short for "I will do something" or "I shall do
> something").
> 
> Although both phrases have, essentially, the same meaning, the former
> has more of a connotation of being an *act* in this context - the act
> of wishing for something. If you wish for something that you're
> allowed to have, then you get it. (Well, at least you do in a
> play-by-email game, where all actions occur via public messages).
> 
> The latter phrase, on the other hand, is just as often used to state
> *intent*. If someone said "I intend to do something", I think no one
> would argue that this would be equivalent to "I hereby do something."
> 

Don't worry, I'll do it! *thump*
It can also be used to imply the almost immediate performance of an event,
without someone needing to say any more about the event.  

> The critical point (for me personally, at least) is this: "I wish to
> do something" and "I hereby do something" use the present tense, while
> "I'll do something" uses the future tense. Thus it fails to convey a
> sense of action being taken.

See above example.  I think that it is still ambiguous, hence my making
the CFJ.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
"... and entirely motivated by hormones.  Works for me!"   --  Freakazoid!
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/27/Index.html <-- Imperial Nomic Game 27

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:23:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 470 Verdict

> Don't worry, I'll do it! *thump*
> It can also be used to imply the almost immediate performance of an event,
> without someone needing to say any more about the event.  

It can. This is not the most common usage, however. Especially when
the people talking are not in a face-to-face context. In My Humble
Opinion.

>> The critical point (for me personally, at least) is this: "I wish to
>> do something" and "I hereby do something" use the present tense, while
>> "I'll do something" uses the future tense. Thus it fails to convey a
>> sense of action being taken.
> 
> See above example.  I think that it is still ambiguous, hence my
> making the CFJ.

Heh. Finding it ambiguous would almost certainly require a False
verdict to be returned....

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:28:46 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 470 Verdict

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Don't worry, I'll do it! *thump*
> > It can also be used to imply the almost immediate performance of an event,
> > without someone needing to say any more about the event.  
> 
> It can. This is not the most common usage, however. Especially when
> the people talking are not in a face-to-face context. In My Humble
> Opinion.
> 
> > See above example.  I think that it is still ambiguous, hence my
> > making the CFJ.
> 
> Heh. Finding it ambiguous would almost certainly require a False
> verdict to be returned....

Yeah, but that's /dev/joe's responsibility - after all there were some
questions about the Proposal's "life" and I felt that they needed clearing
up.

> 
> breadbox
> 
> 

- --
Duncan C. Richer -- aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother -- Now Really Lost!
Queens' College  -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory --  Cambridge University
"... and entirely motivated by hormones.  Works for me!"   --  Freakazoid!
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/27/Index.html <-- Imperial Nomic Game 27

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:11:51 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 472 (mr cwm)

I accept appointment.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:56:59 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: My mail

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> My second salvo is:
> 

<deleted>

Hrm.  I never recieved your response to my first salvo.  This might be an
oversight on your part, but I think there's a good chance it might have
been sent but not recieved by me because of some errors breadbox told me
my email was sending back.  Just to make things especially hard, I can't
seem to find the email archives, so I haven't been able to check if I
missed anything.  So I would appreciate it greatly if anyone who has sent
a message to me personally, or to a group but intended for me, please send
me another copy of it.  I'll hold off on announcing any GAD results until
I know for sure I didn't miss a bunch of messages.  You can consider this
the official MLF memorial round.

                                       - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:19:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My mail

> Hrm.  I never recieved your response to my first salvo.  This might
> be an oversight on your part, but I think there's a good chance it
> might have been sent but not recieved by me because of some errors
> breadbox told me my email was sending back.  Just to make things
> especially hard, I can't seem to find the email archives, so I
> haven't been able to check if I missed anything.

My records seemed to indicate that Alfvaen's response was in fact one
of the messages that never made it to Vynd (along with several
proposals and some other random messages).

And I'm really sorry for the "missing link" on the Postmaster's
page. The archives were moved onto muppetlabs proper a week or two
ago. <ftp://ftp.muppetlabs.com/pub/digests/> is their new home. The
Postmaster's page has now been updated.

Also, if anyone has had trouble accessing my web pages or sending
email to nomicbot or the lists ... we just suffered through a series
of unrelated mishaps today and yesterday. One of them may have been
responsible for /dev/joe's ping not getting through. But if bad luck
comes in threes, then we should be in the clear.

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:19:06 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Dice server)
Subject: Acka: SBoC 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 spell book of chorg 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

      5

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
   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]  Tue Nov 18 20:18:49 1997
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id UAA21141 for <[email-masked]>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:18:49 -0800
> Received: from mail.itw.net(206.138.122.6) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma021136; Tue Nov 18 20:18:40 1997
> Received: from itw.com (4-124.SURFER.TIDALWAVE.COM [208.211.4.124]) by mail.itw.net (8.8.0/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA06504 for <[email-masked]>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:18:38 -0500
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:18:21 -0500
> From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; U)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: fd
> 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 spell book of chorg 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

iQCVAwUBNHJouT8NitsTFjcVAQHj1QP/TtzyrlsaJWxYOKOuiEkGv9vEbRo/xwdq
kN85Ecnyrr/zaPhwRdUWVb8mMDGgcL/7PpDik7TxaVwg+djOO7eLOdbKM3cxsFL5
WX9GybXsXozU/C+DBKO0zL1Z/GfznrPdW9TjUV7+Ii1R99082/z7pBmUlSEJLjPw
UqUQWb0BpiE=
=AbyO
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:22:26 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 471 (two-star)

two-star has been picked.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 471
  Subject: That message
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-11-14 21:33
    Judge: Malenkai (declined)
2nd Judge: Slakko (declined)
3rd Judge: two-star (selected 97-11-18 23:22)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Red Barn buried a Majik called Big-Nosed Kilroy on October 13th, 1997.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Red Barn posted a message with the subject "Trinket Creation" on October
10th, 1997, which described, among other attempted actions, the creation
and burial of a Majik called Big-Nosed Kilroy.  Malenkai pointed out later
that day that none of the actions succeeded, since(then)it was impossible
to take a public action in a message whose subject was not prefaced by
"Acka:" or "Ackanomic:".

On October 13, 1997, Red Barn posted a message with subject "Acka: Redo",
in which he states:

   I repeat the attempted actions in that message, in the order in which
   I attempted them earlier.

The context(which includes a quote of Malenkai's response)makes it
clear which message "that message" refers to, i.e. "Trinket Creation".
The "Trinket Creation" message does unambiguously(and in great
detail)specify a sequence of attempted actions.  Therefore I contend that
the attempted actions in "Acka: Redo" were specified fully and
unambiguously, and furthermore did not fail for any other reason(since the
game state did not change between the two posts to make the actions
impossible).

Therefore, at the time "Acka: Redo" was received by the server, the actions
specified in "Trinket Creation" were performed, and Big-Nosed Kilroy was
buried.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #370
*******************************