Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #379
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Tuesday, November 25 1997      Volume 02 : Number 379

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:00:51 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: New Player (mr cwm)

We have another new player in Ackanomic.  His name is Tom Walmsley(not to
be confused with Tom Warmbrodt, our _previous_ new player), his email
address is [email-masked], and he has chosen The Gingham Wearer
as his Ackanomic name.

For the market research section, he says:

> As for as I found out about
> Ackanomic....it was a list of nomic games on the web and I picked one at
> random. I'm not exactly sure of the page but could probably find it if
> required.

mr cwm has been selected as his mentor.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Christine Lavin:Future Fossils
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Quick zephyrs blow, vexing daft Jim.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:10:55 -0800
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: cfj 471

I judge true, based on a vague sense from sort of looking at the
postmaster rule that it should work.

I intended to have enough time to do this right, but they shifted my
weekend back three days at work, so what with a dentist appointment, an
extra chorale rehearsal, and a friend of my family in town in the last
couple days I didn't have time. I realize I havent been pulling my
weight here lately. I've kinda gotten out of the rhythm of things. I'm
bad.

**two-star

tired

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:19:36 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 472 Verdict

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

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

No problem.  I was the only player who got my own score back.

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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:25:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka : That Patch/MetaMorph CFJ

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

> I don't know why Niccolo and I seem destined to butt heads so often,

Probably because it's fun.

> but somehow it happens.  He wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:
> > 
> > The fact thatthe 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.
This is just a restatement. It is a _fact_ that you believe becoming to be
a precondition to being. It is a _fact_ that that the rules provide for a
procedure to becoming a certain state. It is not a fact that they require
that the act of becoming precede the act of being.

> 
> >  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
Precisely.

> 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
Actually it was perceived back then that the player in question did join
and was immediately ejected. It was illegal for the player to _remain_ a
member, because the other members were free to eject em.

> 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.

I did point out that one of you arguments brought the possibility of a
necesssity of a process posed by the current members, but did not force
this, only to go on to the consent.
 > 
> > 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
I'm not invoking interpretation by intent. I'm arguing that the rules'
phrasing is about consent rather than about process. My reading of the
rules is that they explicitly flesh out consent as a process thus ensuring
that both players' rights and oranizations' right are protected, the
process itself, or even the fact that there is a process being a
immaterial part of the rules, except as it serves the rule's function.
That function, for all practical purposes, being to place a restriction on
player-organization membership. The process is not an inherent part of the
state.

 > are as they are.  It is irrefutable that being is not the sam 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."

No. I offered an alternative valid interpretation, which, among other
things, questions some of your implicit assumptions. You have presented
the being/becoming as axiomatic, I see it as incidental. It seems to me
that you are taking one small aspect of the rule and making it the central
aspect around which the entire rule is based. And it probably seems to you
that I am doing the same thing to another aspect :)

> > > Niccolo is trying to have it the other way around, but it doesn't
> > work
> > > that way.  A legal state isnot 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.
> 
> > 
> Balonga.
"wabit season" :)
>  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.
Right, one of the _alternative_ conditions, and since it is an alternative
conditins, with an explicit 'or', it has no bearing upon any of the other
conditions.

Anyway, the relation you make is not one of distinction, but of 'how are
the conditions alike'. If there were a distinction to be drawn out of this
rule, then it is the distinction between entities that require a process
to be defined for them, and entities that do not require a process to be
defined for them.

> 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.

I interpret elections as a big set of individual states that need to be
tested and confirmed in order to determine at one of two( or more ) states
being candidate X or Candidate Y or Candidate Z being an elected official.

> 
> Making the process implicit in the state, however, does not alleviate
> the need for the process. 
If it is one. When do the election results exist ( here we actually push a
piece of paper inside an envelope and drop it into a box). One all voters
have made up their minds, when all votes have been cast but not yet
counted, after the votes are counted but not yet published, when are
published.
If the results are already set before  after the all votes were cast and
votes have not been counted, is the counting really a part of a process,
or is it the verification of a large number of individual states to
determine what is the current state?

> 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.

Which you again present as an axiom.

All your arguments are based on this as an axiom. While in many occasions
in RL this may well be an axiom, here in acka this is merely an
interpretation, and I have yet to see an argument from you that it is
anything but an interpretation. Although I do enjoy reading your other
arguments.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:38:35 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Scores

Well, my first rant score was fixed.  Thanks, Alfvaen, for doing that.
However, it now leaves my second rant score incorrect:  the pointlog harfs
it as 

Nov 10 14:30 EST: -1 Slakko: retracted CFJ 469
Nov 11 03:04 EST: +1 Slakko: penalty from CFJ 469 retraction offset by
P1129
Nov 11 03:04 EST: +1 Slakko: R1129 bonus(from 2 to 3)

However, before I retracted the CFJ my score was 7, not 2, because of the
CFJ result.  Therefore the last event should have read:

Nov 11 03:04 EST: +4 Slakko: R1129 bonus(from 7 to 11)

Yours sincerely,
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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:36:56 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

>> > 
> If only authors are using Tammany, and they're using it cheaply, then that
> tends to indicate that other people don't care about the proposals enough
> to worry about Tammanising them.  Perhaps we should keep the cheap price,
> but discourage authors from using it themselves, e.g. If one of the people
> who submitted a Tammany Bribe was the author of the message, or in the
> same Party as the author, and that person was successful in getting

Being in the same party is irrelevant. At different times I was a member
of two different Parties. The first of which, the pre-dictatorial Vulcan,
was a Unity vote champion (my impression at least, Perhaps someone has
actual numbers), while the members of the Party I'm in vote as differently
from each other as the name suggests.

Niccolo Flychuck

> Tammany to vote as e wished, then the Author shall receive 2 fewer points
> than e would otherwise receive if the Proposal is accepted, and shall lose
> 2 more points than e would otherwise lose if the Proposal is rejected.
> 
> 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 27
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:42:54 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> Being in the same party is irrelevant. At different times I was a member
> of two different Parties. The first of which, the pre-dictatorial Vulcan,
> was a Unity vote champion (my impression at least, Perhaps someone has
> actual numbers), while the members of the Party I'm in vote as differently
> from each other as the name suggests.

Well it's just as well that the proposal I submitted makes no mention of
parties then.

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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:40:02 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> how fun modesty was in relation to its work effort, that is all.  If
> we could dump the scoring system, and replace it with hidden adjendas,

I'm all for dumping the scoring system, but I don't see how hidden
adjendas would be less work. Seems to me that hidden adjendas would be
more work than scoring.

Niccolo Flychuck

> for example, with the same work capacity, that might be a good deal --
> replace relatively uninteresting stuff with something perhaps more
> interesting.
> 
> Since people seem intent on keeping these stale work-causing rules, but
> on not increasing the work capacity, we can prolly count on limited
> new development.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:45:41 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2396

I like the principle except for a couple of points:
Even if we continue in the current rate of play, a week will see at most
2-3 plays.
It requires the HArfmeister to be subscribed to Party Chess.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Proposal 2396
> Harfy Chess
> Slakko (Duncan Richer)
> 
> Insert the following MOREHARF-delimited text immediately before Section 3
> of Rule 1044, preceded by the earliest letter in the alphabet which
> results in this subsection being given a unique subsection number in
> Section 2 of Rule 1044:
> 
> MOREHARF
> Every Monday the Chess-Umpire shall indicate the Harfiest Play of the
> Week, being the move which, in eir opinion, was the harfiest.  If all
> plays during the week were Pass or Surrender, then e may indicate that no
> play was the Harfiest.  E may not designate eir own plays as Harfy unless
> either (a) no other play during the week was non-Pass non-Surrender, but
> eir move was, or (b) the Harfmeister (if e is not the Chess-Umpire)
> agrees in a public message that it was a Harfy play.
> The Swinger who made the Harfiest Play of the Week shall receive 2
> Swingpoints.
> MOREHARF
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:04:28 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2396

On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> I like the principle except for a couple of points:
> Even if we continue in the current rate of play, a week will see at most
> 2-3 plays.

Yes, but also during a Free-For-All?  That could be harfy.

> It requires the HArfmeister to be subscribed to Party Chess.

Only if the Chess-Umpire thinks they're much harfier than anyone else.

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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:35:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[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?

  The Sceptre of Penguin Power (if you decoded the subject line it said
"Hubert Penguins"), but it hasn't been found yet despite the fact that
I both revealed the map and creatively interpreted 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!
Schooling is not to impart knowledge, but to impart ability.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:48:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2394

> > how fun modesty was in relation to its work effort, that is all.  If
> > we could dump the scoring system, and replace it with hidden adjendas,
> 
> I'm all for dumping the scoring system, but I don't see how hidden
> adjendas would be less work. Seems to me that hidden adjendas would be
> more work than scoring.

It was sort of an example.  Lets say hidden adjendas is twice as fun
as the scoring system, then, in theory, it would be worth twice as
much work to do.  If you remove the scoring system, then you only need
to find half the work capacity elsewhere.  If the new idea is really
fun, then harfing it may not seem like work at all, thus the need for
the extra capacity would be an illusion until that idea got stale.

As I see it now, however, there are alot of stale constructs in the rules
that are really more work than fun, but until some of that sludge is removed
to make way for the new, we will prolly never know...0

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:19:10 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Scores

> Well, my first rant score was fixed.  Thanks, Alfvaen, for doing that.
> However, it now leaves my second rant score incorrect:

> However, before I retracted the CFJ my score was 7, not 2, because of the
> CFJ result.  Therefore the last event should have read:

> Nov 11 03:04 EST: +4 Slakko: R1129 bonus(from 7 to 11)

You're right...all fixed.  Boy, you're vigilant.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Christine Lavin:Cold Pizza For Breakfast
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
drat, there's a tear in my eye, how will I mend it?  --cdick

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:24:54 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Bond Dividends, November 24, 1997

I should note firstly that Slakko got 5 A$ more for last bond cycle because
of the effects of CFJ whatever-it-was.

This cycle is, of course, dominated by the Tornado that Vynd unwittingly
unleashed on an unsuspecting and unprepared Ackanomic.  So RexBank really
cleans up, here, as does the soon-to-be-removed Dread Pirate Roberts.
Interestingly, Niccolo Flychuck breaks entirely even for the two-week
period...

Score changes used for bond cycle calculation:
- ----------------------------------------------
Ace Rimmer: 22
Alfvaen: -65
Antimatter: -27
Archie Leach: -88
AZTEC GOD: 70
Balsamic Dragon: 23
breadbox: 55
Calvin N Hobbes: 19
Crackfoo: 7
Darth Vader: 29
/dev/joe: -54
Dread Pirate Roberts: 113
Fortunato: -4
Karma: -40
Malenkai: -22
Michael Wren: 0
mr cwm: -58
Niccolo Flychuck: 0
norpan: 48
Red Barn: 19
Rex Mundi: 172
Robert Sevin: -70
Slakko: 48
SonOfWu: 50
ThinMan: -16
two-star: 6
Voting Gnome: 5
Vynd: 17
 
Bond Dividends
- --------------
Ace Rimmer: 22.0  -->  100*22
Alfvaen: -16.925  -->  69*-65/2 + 10*55
Antimatter: -12.825  -->  95*-27/2
Archie Leach: -44.0  -->  100*-88/2
Balsamic Dragon: 23.0  -->  100*23
breadbox: 45.1  -->  82*55
Calvin N Hobbes: 19.0  -->  100*19
Crackfoo: 3.6  -->  30*0 + 30*7 + 30*5
Dread Pirate Roberts: 113.0  -->  100*113
/dev/joe: -22.02  -->  90*-54/2 + 2*-22/2 + 15*7 + 10*-16/2 + 45*5
fnord: -0.57  -->  1*55 + 2*-54/2 + 93*0 + 1*-58/2 + 1*-70/2 + 1*6
Fortunato: -2.0  -->  100*-4/2
Karma: -20.0  -->  100*-40/2
Malenkai: -8.69  -->  79*-22/2
Michael Wren: 0.0  -->  100*0
mr cwm: -27.99  -->  2*55 + 1*0 + 94*-58/2 + 5*-70/2 + 1*-16/2
Niccolo Flychuck: -1.225  -->  5*-65/2 + 5*55 + 5*-54/2 + 5*-22/2 + 50*0 + 5*19 + 5*-70/2 + 5*7
norpan: 48.0  -->  100*48
Red Barn: 17.1  -->  90*19
Robert Sevin: -29.52  -->  1*0 + 1*-22/2 + 85*-70/2 + 2*17
Slakko: 48.0  -->  100*48
ThinMan: -9.845  -->  5*-65/2 + 10*-22/2 + 89*-16/2
two-star: 5.245  -->  5*-27/2 + 1*-54/2 + 99*6 + 5*5
Voting Gnome: 1.0  -->  20*5
Vynd: 16.66  -->  98*17
Ackers: -1.4  -->  4*-70/2
Chaos: -5.785  -->  11*-65/2 + 2*-54/2 + 5*0 + 2*-22/2 + 5*-58/2 + 17*0
Mr. Lunatic Fringe: 3.39  -->  1*-22/2 + 3*0 + 50*7
Narf: 0.95  -->  5*19
Odo on the Wormhole: -3.25  -->  10*-65/2
RexBank: 172.0  -->  100*172

#award Ace Rimmer: 22 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Alfvaen: -17 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Antimatter: -13 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Archie Leach: -44 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Balsamic Dragon: 23 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award breadbox: 46 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Calvin N Hobbes: 19 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Crackfoo: 4 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Dread Pirate Roberts: 113 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award /dev/joe: -23 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award fnord: -1 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Fortunato: -2 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Karma: -20 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Malenkai: -9 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award mr cwm: -28 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Niccolo Flychuck: -2 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award norpan: 48 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Red Barn: 18 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Robert Sevin: -30 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Slakko: 48 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award ThinMan: -10 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award two-star: 6 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Voting Gnome: 1 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Vynd: 17 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Ackers: -2 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Chaos: -6 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Mr. Lunatic Fringe: 4 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Narf: 1 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award Odo on the Wormhole: -4 A$ : dividend Nov 24
#award RexBank: 172 A$ : dividend Nov 24

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Christine Lavin:Cold Pizza For Breakfast
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:24:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond Dividends, November 24, 1997

  I am destroying the storage battery and creating a trinket with the
same name and description but worth all my cash.

___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 find out about text adventures!
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the least.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:32:14 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Mad sculptors

Alfvaen wrote:

> > 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.  :-)
> 
*shrug* *grin*

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:43:31 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: New Player (Vynd)

And yet another new player joining the fold(except that I had to resolve
some confusion over the choice of Ackanomic name, e would have been added
last night with The Gingham Wearer...).  Eir name is Kelly Kelly, eir email
address is [email-masked], and e has chosen K 2 as eir Ackanomic name.

Vynd has been chosen as eir mentor.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Gordon Lightfoot:Carefree Highway
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
I'm an antisolipsist--everybody exists except me.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:13:42 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: New People

How much are people who own Whamiols willing to sell them for? :-)

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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:33:48 -0600
From: "Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New People

how much you wanna give?

Crackfoo

- ----------
> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> To: Ackanomic Main Mailing List <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: New People
> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 11:13 AM
> 
> How much are people who own Whamiols willing to sell them for? :-)
> 
> 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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:44:05 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Online Dictionaries

I downloaded the good old sable .gz dictionary file, and did a couple of
searches in there.  What I was amazed at was the lack of common usage
words in there.  
Each time I try to telnet to MarlDooM, it takes ages to get through.

Is there any chance we could add another dictionary to the online list?  I
found the Merriam Webster site at http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
and it seems to work.

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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:02:45 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New People

On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Crackfoo wrote:

> how much you wanna give?

Make me an offer - I don't know how much you want.

But, just to start, say 20 Ackabucks?

Oh, BTW, does anyone want to sell me a Pyraic Frobnotzer (broken or
otherwise?)

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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:24:37 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka : That Patch/MetaMorph CFJ

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> > I don't know why Niccolo and I seem destined to butt heads so often,
> 
> Probably because it's fun.
> 
Very well, then, I'm glad to hear it.  Let's carry on.

> > 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
> Precisely.
> 
> > 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
> 
> Actually it was perceived back then that the player in question did
> join
> and was immediately ejected. It was illegal for the player to _remain_
> a
> member, because the other members were free to eject em.
> 
It was perceived by me, judge of that CFJ, and IMO indicated in the
CFJ statement that the reason for the immediate ejection was that
the membership was not in compliance with party rules, which rules
were recognized by the Ackanomic rules.  I might judge the case
differently if it were before me now, but that is water long under
the bridge.  The distinction between joining the party and being a
member is still there, however.  The CFJ decision recognized the
difference between the legality of a particular state and the legality
of changing to that state from another state.

> I'm not invoking interpretation by intent. I'm arguing that the rules'
> phrasing is about consent rather than about process.
> 
My point exactly.

>  My reading of the
> rules is that they explicitly flesh out consent as a process thus
> ensuring
> that both players' rights and oranizations' right are protected, the
> process itself, or even the fact that there is a process being a
> immaterial part of the rules, except as it serves the rule's function.
> 
Hold on, there!  You just said that the rule's phrasing is not about
process, and now you say it is.  The only way I can reconcile those
statements is to assume that you mean that the process is implicit
in the wording.  I do not agree with that.

As I think we have agreed, it is possible, whether or not it is the case
here, that the rules establish a legal state which nevertheless is
inaccessible.  I claim, then, that the fact that rule 1015 establishes a
conditionally legal state in no way implies that that state is accessed
when the conditions are satisfied.  I don't think you are claiming that
anyway, for if you were then the implication is that all Internomic
members, including PPN, are already members of Metamorph if it is
possible for them to be such.  I see no grounds whatsoever in the rules
for non-player entities eligible for membership by virtue of their
ability to consent only becoming members when they _do_ consent.
Indeed, I see no grounds for invitation or consent of the other
membership being required.

> That function, for all practical purposes, being to place a
> restriction on
> player-organization membership. The process is not an inherent part of
> the
> state.
> 
Again, my point.  The process is not a part of the game state.  Indeed,
process may be the wrong word.  The point is that the game state must
change (or have changed) for PPN to be a member of Metamorph.  PPN was
not a member before the creation of R1015.  If it ever is the case that
it is a member, then that will constitute a change to the game state.
My argument is, and has always been, that the rules do not permit the
the game state to be changed so that after the change PPN is a member
of Metamorph.  I have used the phrase "become a member" to describe
that change more succinctly.  What I allow, however, is that if PPN
somehow did become a member of Metamorph (via a self-deleting rule, for
instance) then it is possible that the current rules would permit it to
remain one.

> No. I offered an alternative valid interpretation, which, among other
> things, questions some of your implicit assumptions. You have
> presented
> the being/becoming as axiomatic, I see it as incidental. It seems to
> me
> that you are taking one small aspect of the rule and making it the
> central
> aspect around which the entire rule is based. And it probably seems to
> you
> that I am doing the same thing to another aspect :)
> 
I'm having trouble with your objection to that axiom.  As far as I can
tell, the axiom is the denotation of the word "become."  What I have
maintained is that if at the game state is different at one point in
time than it is at another, then somewhere in between it changed --
ceased being one and became the other.  These are defintions, not
assertions.

You have offered an alternative interpretation.  Whether or not it is
valid is beside the point; the question is whether or not it is correct.
I don't think I am focusing overmuch on any portion of the rule.  I have
pointed out the being/becoming distinction that I see in it, but the
explicit presence of the distinction in that rule is not necessary to
establish the principle.  (I claim.)

> > > > A legal state isnot 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.
> 
> >  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.
> 
> Right, one of the _alternative_ conditions, and since it is an
> alternative
> conditins, with an explicit 'or', it has no bearing upon any of the
> other
> conditions.
> 
The point I was making is the rule's apparent acknowledgement of a
distinction between being a member and becoming one.  The fact that
half of the distinction resides in an alternative condition in no way
lessens the extent to which the rule as a whole recognizes the
distinction.  The difference really is axiomatic, however, and most
certainly does not depend on rule 1015 for its validity.

> Anyway, the relation you make is not one of distinction, but of 'how
> are
> the conditions alike'. If there were a distinction to be drawn out of
> this
> rule, then it is the distinction between entities that require a
> process
> to be defined for them, and entities that do not require a process to
> be
> defined for them.
> 
I am sure that that is what you had in mind when you wrote the rule, but
the rule says nothing of it.  If we passed a rule that said "Pumpkin
Patch Nomic hereby becomes a member of Metamorph," then PPN would
thereafter be a member, all considerations of consent aside.  For
entities that cannot express consent the rules are the only avenue to
membership, but for those that can the rule-based avenue is still open.
R 1015 does not distinguish simply by providing an avenue to
membership that is inaccessible to some entities.

> > 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.
> 
> I interpret elections as a big set of individual states that need to
> be
> tested and confirmed in order to determine at one of two( or more )
> states
> being candidate X or Candidate Y or Candidate Z being an elected
> official.
> 
Again, that does not change the fact that before the election candidate
X is not an elected official and at some point after it he is.
Somewhere in between he changed from not being one to being one.  That
is to say, he became one.

>  > Making the process implicit in the state, however, does not
> alleviate
> > the need for the process. 
> 
> If it is one. When do the election results exist ( here we actually
> push a
> piece of paper inside an envelope and drop it into a box). One all
> voters
> have made up their minds, when all votes have been cast but not yet
> counted, after the votes are counted but not yet published, when are
> published.
> If the results are already set before  after the all votes were cast
> and
> votes have not been counted, is the counting really a part of a
> process,
> or is it the verification of a large number of individual states to
> determine what is the current state?
> 
You are avoiding the point.  I'm not talking about which and how many
hoops one must jump through.  I'm talking about changes of state.  I
am unconcerned with whatever details there may or may not be about the
change; I am only interested in the question of whether or not the
change occurs.

In the case of Metamorph and PPN, I observe that the rules do not
explicitly say that any change of Metamorph's membership occurs.  They
do say that the game state changes only as described in the rules.  I
am unsatisfied with your apparent claim that such description is
implicit in rule 1015 as written.  I reiterate that rule 1015 most
certainly says nothing about Metamorph's consent to PPN's membership
being required, and nothing about PPN's actual consent, either -- only
its ability to consent.  In light of that, I suppose that the CFJ
statement might have been better worded as "Pumpkin Patch Nomic is not
a member of Metamorph."

ThinMan
"Duck season."  :)

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

Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:31:14 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Silly Actions

I hereby take possession of the Little Lamb, assuming that I can do so (I
believe Rex has had it for more than one week now).  This costs me A$10.
I purchase a Wool Sweater, for A$10, and wear it.

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: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:32:32 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc: Phoebe

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> 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.

Heh, if someone doesn't pull off one o the aforementioned wins sometime
soon, I may start agitating for a lower magic number... AGAIN.

> 
> Malenkai
> 

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #379
*******************************