Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #378
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Monday, November 24 1997       Volume 02 : Number 378

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:40:55 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: sorry

> At first I was annoyed mainly because you looked like you had beaten me
> to the treasure.  Then I realized that there appeared to be a flaw in
> your treasure-seeking attempt.  Red Barn will be the judge.  Oh, and
> I offer a similar apology for the thirteen messages of _mine_ that
> you have probably all already been annoyed by.

  Wait!  Stop!  If I have any say at this point, ThinMan has found 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!
Been where?   Done what?

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:01:02 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: sorry

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> > At first I was annoyed mainly because you looked like you had beaten me
> > to the treasure.  Then I realized that there appeared to be a flaw in
> > your treasure-seeking attempt.  Red Barn will be the judge.  Oh, and
> > I offer a similar apology for the thirteen messages of _mine_ that
> > you have probably all already been annoyed by.
> 
>   Wait!  Stop!  If I have any say at this point, ThinMan has found it...

Actually, technically neither of us has found it - case-sensitivity you
know.  I can't be bothered sending another 13 messages, though.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
"Begone, fools, and give me the bird."
"We'd love to, but the Fox censors won't allow it."

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:06:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka: sorry

> Actually, technically neither of us has found it - case-sensitivity you
> know.  I can't be bothered sending another 13 messages, though.

  Well, then, with my original totally inapproprate map, I rule the same
thing as of the sending of the original message, except the same person
can't go twice in a row.  The original map give no clues as to the actual
issue here... Rot-13 is pretty simple, of course, as I meant it to be.

___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!
The few, the proud, the ones with no defining characteristic.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:13:21 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Mad sculptors

> Sculpture 2: ThinMan
> 
Aha!  Well, here is my description:

This sculpture is is life-sized representation of a proudly defiant
President Alfvaen.  One of the sculpture's hands strikes out at
some unseen menace with a dull but very threating butter knife, but
the statue's eyes are directed at the quill pen in his other hand.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:08:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka : That Patch/MetaMorph CFJ

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> It goes almost without saying that I disagree.  Compare, for instance,
> the text governing _players_ joining organizations -- depending upon
> which option is exercised, rule 1003 specifically says that players
> either "become" members or "join" the organization.  Indeed, the fact
> that Organizations are groups of players (ignoring for the moment the
> recent addition of "More Than Human") is established in the rules solely
> by the fact that players can join them and/or become members of them;
> beyond that all is customary English.

The fact that the rules tend to be over-verbose at times does ot
necessarily lead to this conclusion. There are historical reasons for
the rules to describe the process of becoming a member of an Organization,
specifically I am refering to CFJ 139, where you did bring up the point of
a process of joining, however your main point was the issue of consent,
whether that consent is expressed as a process was not material.
The description of the process of joining is not about being/becoming, and
doesn't imply to me such a distinction, it is about publically known
mutual consent - that is the point around which those rules and
regulations revolve, and that is why the Player Liberty Clause
(Individuality) has such strong language.

 > 
> Niccolo is trying to have it the other way around, but it doesn't work
> that way.  A legal state is not in any way required to be an
> _accessable_ state,

Neither does it default to being inaccessible.

> so R1015 cannot be assumed to imply that non-player
> entities are empowered to _join_ Organizations.  For that matter,
> R 1015 itself makes a distinction between being a member and becoming a
> member.  It specifically refers to the hypothetical case that "the rules
> allow for some method by which said Entities can _become_ members of
> Organizations" (emphasis mine).

No. R1015 makes a distinction between entities that are capable of
expressing consent and ones that aren't. The Little Lamb can't express its
consent, but I would welcome it to any Organization I am a member of, were
there any other way, other than consenting publically that is, to make it
happen.
 > 
> Or how about an analogy.  I am more than 25 years old and a citizen of
> the United States.  It is therefore legal for me to be a member of the
> United States House of Representatives.  I am not a member of the House,
> however, and will not be until and unless I successfully follow the
> procedure for becoming one.
No. It is legal for you to become a candidate. Should you also be in the
state of having won an election, then you would have filled all of the
criteria. Note that this can be described in terms of states, and it is
not necessary to invoke processes. 

One may also view those criteria as restrictive criteria. Dr. Kissinger is
over 25 and a citizen of the United States, however he may not run for
President because he was not a citizen from birth. He is restricted by
criteria.

 > 
> Or how about physics: it may be physically possible for a massy object
> to have a speed greater than the speed of light.  We do not currently
> believe it to be possible, however, for any massy object to go from a
> speed less than the speed of light to a speed greater than that of
> light.

Acka isn't physics. 
It is our understanding that it would be impossible for a massy object to
move in the speed of light itself, therefore the reason for the
impossibility of the specific change of states is due to an additional
restrictive criteria which is inherent to neither of these states. No such
restrictive criteria exists between the state of not being a member and
the state of being a member.

 > 
> As any thermodynamicist will tell you, states are only half the picture;
> the rest is made up of the pathways among the states.  The distinction
> between being and becoming is not only not artificial, at is very real
> and very important.

And any computer scientist will counter that with Turing machines that
switch between states without any intermediate paths.
Electrons skip levels in quantum steps, without any intermediate process.
I'm sure either one of us can come with analogies for either view points,
but I don't think those analogies further our discussion of the
interpretation of the rules.
Uri

 > 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:15:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 473 (Red Barn)

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, A.K.A. TheWiz wrote:

> 
> Please describe; Malenkai, please put that verdict on hold.
> 
> Note that the statement is trivially false, because it merely says
> 'become', not 'the rules as they are now', so a proposal could always
> pass... indefinite future, you see.
> 

This argument is not sufficient to make this trivially false. 

The rules call for the CFJ statement to be judged according to the Game
State at the time the CFJ was invoked (or published).
(I'm not arguing for a verdict of true here, this CFJ should be judged
false)

Niccolo Flychuck

> ___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
> <[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
> Visit ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/ and findout about text adventures!
> The good, the bad, and the unmentionable.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:08:03 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka : That Patch/MetaMorph CFJ

I don't know why Niccolo and I seem destined to butt heads so often,
but somehow it happens.  He wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> 
> > It goes almost without saying that I disagree.  Compare, for
> instance,
> > the text governing _players_ joining organizations -- depending upon
> > which option is exercised, rule 1003 specifically says that players
> > either "become" members or "join" the organization.  Indeed, the
> fact
> > that Organizations are groups of players (ignoring for the moment
> the
> > recent addition of "More Than Human") is established in the rules
> solely
> > by the fact that players can join them and/or become members of
> them;
> > beyond that all is customary English.
> 
> The fact that the rules tend to be over-verbose at times does ot
> necessarily lead to this conclusion.
> 
I presume that the conclusion to which you refer is the indicated
CFJ verdict, for all that I presented in the quoted material above is
plain and simple fact.

>  There are historical reasons for
> the rules to describe the process of becoming a member of an
> Organization,
> specifically I am refering to CFJ 139, where you did bring up the
> point of
> a process of joining, however your main point was the issue of
> consent,
> whether that consent is expressed as a process was not material.
> 
CFJ 139 was about internal political party rules, and their
applicability.  Indeed, the CFJ is not even applicable, except
historically, to the concept of joining an Organization, for the
CFJ was not about _joining_ an organization but rather about being
a member.  Indeed, the CFJ 139 situation is rather a mirror image
of the CFJ 473 situation -- in CFJ 139, the conclusion was that under
certain circumstances it was legal for a player to join a party
but illegal for them to be a member of that party, and that therefore
that player would end up immediately out of the party.  I find it
interesting that you bring it up, because that CFJ rather directly
points out the distinction between joining an organization (party)
and being a member of one.

> The description of the process of joining is not about being/becoming,
> and
> doesn't imply to me such a distinction, it is about publically known
> mutual consent - that is the point around which those rules and
> regulations revolve, and that is why the Player Liberty Clause
> (Individuality) has such strong language.
> 
The reasons for the rules' wording has little relevance.  The rules
are as they are.  It is irrefutable that being is not the same as
becoming.  The only reason that there is any debate to be had at all
is that you choose a more expansive interpretation of the language of
rule 1015 than do I.  I have offered arguments for why my interpretation
is to be preferred, but all you have offered seems to me a series of
variations on "it doesn't _have_ to be that way."

> > Niccolo is trying to have it the other way around, but it doesn't
> work
> > that way.  A legal state is not in any way required to be an
> > _accessable_ state,
> 
> Neither does it default to being inaccessible.
> 
But it does.  The membership of an Organization is an aspect of the
game state.  Rule 101 clearly specifies that the game state may only
be changed as described in the rules.  The rules do not describe how
the game state may be changed so that a non-player entity which once
was not a member of Metamorph begins to be (dare I say "becomes"?) a
member of Metamorph.

> > so R1015 cannot be assumed to imply that non-player
> > entities are empowered to _join_ Organizations.  For that matter,
> > R 1015 itself makes a distinction between being a member and
> becoming a
> > member.  It specifically refers to the hypothetical case that "the
> rules
> > allow for some method by which said Entities can _become_ members of
> > Organizations" (emphasis mine).
> 
> No. R1015 makes a distinction between entities that are capable of
> expressing consent and ones that aren't. The Little Lamb can't express
> its
> consent, but I would welcome it to any Organization I am a member of,
> were
> there any other way, other than consenting publically that is, to make
> it
> happen.
> 
Balonga.  That may have been what you had in mind, but no such thing
is specified in the rule.  On the one hand it says that under certain
conditions it is legal for non player entities to be members of
an organization.  On the other hand, one of the alternative conditions
is that the rules provide a method for them to become members.  Being
is a state; becoming is an action.  The rule text distinguishes by
using each in an appropriate context.

> > Or how about an analogy.  I am more than 25 years old and a citizen
> of
> > the United States.  It is therefore legal for me to be a member of
> the
> > United States House of Representatives.  I am not a member of the
> House,
> > however, and will not be until and unless I successfully follow the
> > procedure for becoming one.
> No. It is legal for you to become a candidate. Should you also be in
> the
> state of having won an election, then you would have filled all of the
> criteria. Note that this can be described in terms of states, and it
> is
> not necessary to invoke processes.
> 
You actually have a point there, for the Constitution does specify
that only those otherwise qualified people who have been chosen to
be Representatives shall be representatives.  But that doesn't save
you from having to invoke the process of selection in going from not
being a representative to being one.

Making the process implicit in the state, however, does not alleviate
the need for the process.  Indeed, I might as well say I am a member
of Metamorph if I am in the state of having become a member of Metamorph
and of not having since ceased to be a member.  That is absolutely true,
and is a full and accurate description.  It does not, however, change
the fact that to achieve the state described I must go through I
process.

> And any computer scientist will counter that with Turing machines that
> switch between states without any intermediate paths.
> Electrons skip levels in quantum steps, without any intermediate
> process.
> I'm sure either one of us can come with analogies for either view
> points,
> but I don't think those analogies further our discussion of the
> interpretation of the rules.
> 
But a state switch is an action, not a state.  An electron changing
quantum levels is an action -- the presence or absence of intermediate
states is irrelevant, but it approaches tautology that an electron
will remain in the same quantum level unless it switches levels.  Being
and becoming are closely linked, but the difference is fundamental.  You
are probably right, however, that these analogies will probably not
further our discussion of the interpretation of the rules.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:03:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 146 (mr cwm)

mr cwm has been picked.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 146
  Subject: Vacation
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-11-22 14:20
    Judge: mr cwm (selected 97-11-24 20:03)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Karma has committed a Crime.

Slakko's Reasoning:

In a public message dated after 11pm Acka Time on Thursday 20th November,
Karma was put on vacation under Rule 257.  In a public message dated
before midday Acka Time on Saturday 20th November, Karma attempted to
remove emself from Vacation.  This e cannot do under Rule 255.  Hence e
attempted an impermissible action, and thus committed a Crime.  Also, this
implies that Karma is still on vacation.

Suggested Penalty:

TRANSFERENCE of $20 to Slakko (to cover court cost).
A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 1 line precisely.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:05:09 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 473 Verdict

CFJ 473 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 473
  Subject: More than Human
Initiator: ThinMan
Submitted: 97-11-20 9:35
    Judge: Red Barn (selected 97-11-20 19:30)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Pumpkin Patch Nomic may not become a member of Metamorph.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The principle rule applicable to this situation is rule 1015 (More Than
Human).  Here is the relevant excerpt:

        "An Organization that has a More Than Human is allowed to have
        non-player Entities as members, provided that said Entities are
        capable of expressing eir consent in the public forum, or that
        the rules allow for some method by which said Entities can
become
        members of Organizations."

First, I claim that neither rule 1015 nor any other rule provides a
method for any non-player entity to become a member of any organization.
They certainly do not provide any means by which a non-Ackanomic entity
may become a member any organization.  Even if R1015 permits such
entities to _be_ members of organizations, there is no means or
provision for them to switch from being non-members to being members.
This in itself is sufficient to indicate a verdict of true.

Second, I also claim that Pumpkin Patch Nomic is unable to express its
consent to the public forum.  A majority or even a consensus of the
players of that nomic might agree that they want the nomic to join
Metamorph, and some representative could post a message to the public
forum on their behalf.  A representative could even claim to speak for
the Nomic.  The Nomic itself, however, is an inanimate collection of
players, rules, customs, and current and past events; the nomic itself
is unable to express anything.  Niccolo implied that the Patch's liaison
to Internomic should be recognized as the voice of the Nomic, but the
Internomic rules have no jurisdiction over Ackanomic internal affairs,
and the Ackanomic rules in no way equate the Patch's internomic
liaison or anyone or anything else with the Patch itself.

If Pumpkin Patch Nomic cannot express its consent to the public forum
and the rules do not allow any method for such an entity to become a
member of an organization, then not only can the Patch not join
Metamorph, but Metamorph is also not empowered to have it as a member.

As an aside, I note here my belief that Ackanomic organizations are
different with regard to expressing consent for the purposes of R1015,
for the rules provide a specific means by which Ackanomic organizations
may perform actions.  PPN is not an Ackanomic organization, however,
thus those rules do not apply to it.

Red Barn's Reasoning:

  I'd be tempted to rule FALSE simply to create the precedent of
interpreting this thusly, but if the rules are clear enough to permit
objective ruling (read: It's not game custom), I'll do so.

  The term Official Reply, capitalized, is moreoreless undefined.  So.
Custom.  FALSE.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:07:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 472 Verdict

CFJ 472 has been judged TRUE.  If this changes scores, hopefully
the scorekeeper can figure the effect on the Tornado.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 472
  Subject: Scoring
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-11-16 18:38
    Judge: mr cwm (selected 97-11-17 20:39)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Slakko's score should have been 7 after e made his first French-Scotsman
style Rant.

Slakko's Reasoning:

The French-Scotsmen rule refers to a penalty being counteracted.  Rule 207
describes a number of different score changes that result from the
adoption or rejection of a proposal.  However, it does not specify that
multiple score changes it describes are supposed to be considered as a
single change.  Further, the explicit mention of "multiple score changes"
resulting from a single proposal being put through simultaneously implies
that, while they may occur simultaneously, they are separate changes
happening at the same instant in time.

Therefore my score around the time of my first rant should have been
affected as follows:

- -7: non-Modest, non-Grandiose proposal rejected.
+3: voted YES on rejected normal proposal.
+3: New Player Soft Penalty
+7: Penalty counteracted by Crazy French-Scotsmen Rule
+1: Score raised to next highest prime by Crazy French-Scotsmen Rule

This should have changed my score from 0 before Proposal 2345 was rejected
to 7 after the Rant.

mr cwm's reasoning:

I have a somewhat uneasy feeling that I have missed something, because I
find Slakko's argument so convincing that I can't imagine why anything
would have happened any differently.  But I can't very well judge it FALSE
on those grounds, so TRUE.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:24:57 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc: Phoebe

Phoebe wrote:

> I smiled.  "I can understand that.  Another thing I confess I'm getting
> tired of is the current cycle.  Nobody seems to be getting very close to
> a point win, partly because of the Tornados; we're getting too good at
> getting the Paradoxes out of the Rules; the Vault of the Chalice is gone;
> Hidden Agendas never got off the ground(though maybe two-star should
> try it out again); and let's face it, palindromes are damn hard to come
> up with.  Oh, and the Frankenstein Monster one probably won't work again,
> now that Malenkai's used it and the loopholes have been closed off.
> That's why I suggested the vote thing."

I guess the idea with long cycles was to eliminate the boring, brute force
accumulation of points and A$ to win, but to find scams to get alot of
points quickly, pull of museum wins, or otherwise coax a 'non-conventional
win' out of the ruleset ;-)  My nomicky opinions only...

BTW, Alfvaen has found Phoebe again.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:28:50 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Frobnotzer

I am building a Pyriac Frobnotzer.  It will be done in 3 days.

Malenkai
Wizard
still intending to resign by the end of the year

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:32:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Potato

Malenkai has found the magic potato.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:39:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gizz

I am converting the following gizz into cash:

the Military lasers (worth A$30)
the Mr. Lunatic Fringe's Treasure Toga #3 (worth A$5)
he Little Wooden Ship #10 (worth A$5)
the rules of Ackanomic (worth A$45)

Malenkai
who thinks some of these may have been involved in scams
sometime long ago

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:55:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Discovery

The following is a new Discovery.

Malenkai
bored
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Name: BWG Laser Shotgun Attachment

Text:

"
The BWG Laser Shotgun Attachment is also large.  Convienently
enough, it fits nicely onto the business end of a BWG Laser.
Any player who owns both a Plunky Monkey Wrench and an
unattached BWG Laser Shotgun Attachment may attach the BWG 
Laser Shotgun Attachment to any extant BWG Laser, provided 
they unambiguously identify the BWG Laser.  Upon doing so,
ownership of the BWG Laser Shotgun Attachment is transferred
to the owner of the BWG Laser.

Whenever a Pulse Beam from a BWG Laser with a BWG Laser
Shotgun Attachment attached to it is fired at a player, the
BWG Laser Shotgun Attachment will Hose all non-sheltered 
active players except the target and the player who provided 
the laser with fuel.  It will make the same sort of annoying
noise that a Pulse Laser makes.

A player who owns a BWG Laser with a BWG Laser Shotgun Attachment
attached to it may detatch the attachment, provided they also
own a Plunky Monkey Wrench.
"

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:58:58 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: GAD?

> Aren't we overdue for the results of the round of Grab-a-Donkey?  I
> thought the last announcement was sent out Thursday 7pm EST.

Are you kidding?  Most of us are just stunned by how fast the results
come out compared to when Mr. Lunatic Fringe was the Wrangler.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
A hat is wasted on a man with no head.  --C. Smith

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:00:47 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka chess

> How do I unsubscribe from Party Chess?

> i.e., what's the address?

acka-chess is the mailing list address.

If that's not what you meant, then you need to send an email to
[email-masked] which says, in the message body,
"unsubscribe acka-chess", or possibly "unsubscribe acka-chess
[email-masked]", I can't remember.  This should all be on
the Postmaster's page.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Who would've known you'd be so predictable

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:20:20 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Red Barn's Treasure

I am thoroughly confused(as, I would imagine, is our Treasure-Harfer).
Who found Red Barn's treasure, and which Treasure did e find, the Sceptre
of Penguin Power, or the null Treasure 176?  Or perhaps the Kilroy, which
we're not even sure has been buried yet?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
You can't jump a jet plane like you can a freight train

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:21:45 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Vanilla

The following players, who were put on Vacation by Rule 257 just over
three days ago, are now On Ice:

Antimatter
Archie Leach
Calvin N Hobbes

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Love & Rockets:Sweet F.A.
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
I have nothing to say, and I am saying it.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:28:20 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Mad sculptors

> This sculpture is is life-sized representation of a proudly defiant
> President Alfvaen.  One of the sculpture's hands strikes out at
> some unseen menace with a dull but very threating butter knife, but
> the statue's eyes are directed at the quill pen in his other hand.

Hmmm.  I like this, for some odd reason, though I harbour suspicions
that it's not meant to be entirely flattering.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Christine Lavin:Future Fossil
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
The July sun caused a fragment of black pine wax to ooze on the velvet quilt.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:32:16 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 472 Verdict

> CFJ 472 has been judged TRUE.  If this changes scores, hopefully
> the scorekeeper can figure the effect on the Tornado.

Fortunately, as I seemed to recall, Slakko got eir own score back, so
no complicated harfing need occur.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Christine Lavin:Future Fossils
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
And the dwarves cried giant tears.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:33:33 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc: Phoebe

> I guess the idea with long cycles was to eliminate the boring, brute force
> accumulation of points and A$ to win, but to find scams to get alot of
> points quickly, pull of museum wins, or otherwise coax a 'non-conventional
> win' out of the ruleset ;-)  My nomicky opinions only...

I guess I wonder if that kind of thing is still possible in our ruleset.
Well, if Malenkai had more time...  Personally, I wouldn't be at all ashamed
of winning by points, just once...

> BTW, Alfvaen has found Phoebe again.

Interesting.  She must have forgotten to tell me something...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Christine Lavin:Future Fossils
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
If you rip the wings off a fly, do you get a walk?

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:40:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc: Phoebe

> I guess I wonder if [scams are] still possible in our ruleset.

Are you implying that our ruleset is bug free? ... :)

The reason I do not do it anymore is that, on balance, scamming
seems to upset people more than the fun derived from it.  That
is unfortunate in a nomic game, IMO, but, given that fact, I don't 
really like to do things that I know will upset people if I can
avoid it :-)

If loophole surfing ever comes in vogue again, perhaps I will 
participate, but it is certainly out of vogue since that Vulcan
business blew over.  I guess that is why I'm bored.  Phoebe-like
rules can only hold my interest for so long...

Malenkai
once and future loophole surfer

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:42:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Red Barn's Treasure

> I am thoroughly confused(as, I would imagine, is our Treasure-Harfer).
> Who found Red Barn's treasure, and which Treasure did e find, the Sceptre
> of Penguin Power, or the null Treasure 176?  Or perhaps the Kilroy, which
> we're not even sure has been buried yet?

Yeah, I'm confused.  I decided not to harf it, since I don't have to --
the treasure page really doesn't affect the game state.  If you find
out which one, let me know and I'll delete it from the bta.  I'm also not
sure the treasure was recovered as described in the rules, but that is
not my problem either.

Malenkai
wasting alot of BW tonite :)

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #378
*******************************