Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #381
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, November 26 1997     Volume 02 : Number 381

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:22:43 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Sorry

I just spotted a flaw in my Grandiose proposal.  I hereby retract proposal
2405.  I will submit a new version very shortly.

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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:34:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sorry

> I just spotted a flaw in my Grandiose proposal.  I hereby retract
> proposal 2405.  I will submit a new version very shortly.

Before you do that, can I make a suggestion? RFC it.

I haven't had a chance to actually read your proposal yet, but while
adding HTML to it I noticed that it creates a Rule 50. You should
realize that I am unlikely to vote for a proposal that creates rules
above the foundational rules, rule 102 *especially*. We already have
one non-essential rule up there. The risk of an unnoticed conflict
being created in two rules which have priority over "Resolving
Conflicts" is too high. You're just asking for a Paradox.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:12:29 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sorry

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > I just spotted a flaw in my Grandiose proposal.  I hereby retract
> > proposal 2405.  I will submit a new version very shortly.
> 
> Before you do that, can I make a suggestion? RFC it.

I seem to get about 5 times as many comments when I actually send a
proposal properly, rather than as an RFC.  For some reason some people
don't respond, and on something this big

> 
> I haven't had a chance to actually read your proposal yet, but while
> adding HTML to it I noticed that it creates a Rule 50. You should
> realize that I am unlikely to vote for a proposal that creates rules
> above the foundational rules, rule 102 *especially*. We already have
> one non-essential rule up there. The risk of an unnoticed conflict
> being created in two rules which have priority over "Resolving
> Conflicts" is too high. You're just asking for a Paradox.

These rules are about how to win the game.  Okay, maybe 50 is too low, but
I still think that having it in the 600s renders it too liable to being
stricken by a lower rule.  I'll make it 150 when I submit it again
(probably again again - see below) - is that okay?

Oh, can I cancel the message about sending you the proposal again (through
nomicbot) before you promulgate it (in which case I will do so now), or
are you forced to promulgate it and make me retract it again?

- --
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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:16:28 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sorry

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > I just spotted a flaw in my Grandiose proposal.  I hereby retract
> > proposal 2405.  I will submit a new version very shortly.
> 
> Before you do that, can I make a suggestion? RFC it.
> 
> I haven't had a chance to actually read your proposal yet, but while
> adding HTML to it I noticed that it creates a Rule 50. You should
> realize that I am unlikely to vote for a proposal that creates rules
> above the foundational rules, rule 102 *especially*. We already have
> one non-essential rule up there. The risk of an unnoticed conflict
> being created in two rules which have priority over "Resolving
> Conflicts" is too high. You're just asking for a Paradox.

Oh, another thought on this (see my previous message for what I'm doing
with this proposal).  Rule 102 does a good job of deferring, so if both
rules say they override Rule 102 we still have a paradox, regardless of
their own rule numbers (Rule 102 can't be used, because neither rule
admits it exists, but then again to find out that Rule 102 defers to these
rules we need to use Rule 102 - how did we get out of this problem again?

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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:45:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 471 Verdict

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

  Woohoo, now would anyone care to try to find it?  This is not an
encryption treasure hunt.

___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!
It's still paranoia, even if they really are out to get you.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:22:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Welcome (portraits)

> I'd like to welcome our new Ackanomians, and encourage them (and any other
> of the Faceless Multitudes) to submit a portrait for inclusion in the
> Gallery.

  I'd like to encourage them (while we're at it) to take advantage of
the Crazy French-Scotsman rule.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:53:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Online Dictionaries

> Let me remind you all, not that you're likely to have forgotten, that I
> asked for a new official dictionary myself not too long ago.  I have the
> opposite problem from Slakko though, I can't get through to sable but can
> use MarlDooM.

  ... and I can get through to both but find them both rather unwieldy.
But, of course, that's a prime attribute of dictionaries...

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Change Nomic!   http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
Murphy was a pessimist.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:48:20 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 471 Appeal

> How can one repeat attempted actions that did not exist?  It would be
> one thing if the actions failed because he did not have enough money 
> the first time (but it was otherwise a legal message), but in this 
> case the *message* he refers to never existed, with mail filters on 
> acka mail it was not publically knowable, therefore a referral to a
> non-PK thing has no meaning to me, or to the rules, I would argue.
> Its like saying: 'I perform the actions listed in 
> /home/malenkai/acka/actions.html', or I perform the actions listed
> on the back of my tee shirt.

  I'd argue public knowability.  Not that that phrase has much meaning.

___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!
If it's before midnight, it's early in the morning.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:06:12 -0500 (EST)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 146 (declined - vacation)

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

I, respectfully, decline appointment to judge this CFCJ.

I go on Vacation with an expected duration of 5 days, making my expected
date of return December 1.

I wish all of you in the United States a Happy Thanksgiving, and I wish
all the rest of you a Happy ... Fourth Thursday in November.

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Malenkai wrote:

>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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:15:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sorry

> Oh, another thought on this (see my previous message for what I'm
> doing with this proposal).  Rule 102 does a good job of deferring,
> so if both rules say they override Rule 102 we still have a paradox,
> regardless of their own rule numbers (Rule 102 can't be used,
> because neither rule admits it exists, but then again to find out
> that Rule 102 defers to these rules we need to use Rule 102 - how
> did we get out of this problem again?

See CFJ 461, specifically the appeal reasoning.

This CFJ would not apply, however, in a case where two conflicting
rules both had numerical precedence over Rule 102.

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:30:03 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: zuke Suit

- ----------
> From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: zuke Suit
> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 2:58 AM
> 
> I vote sammy _ to be the new zuke zute. Yoohoo! let's impeach her!
> 
> er Phil
> 
> 

Huh?

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:38:42 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Mmmgh

It is Wednesday, November 26, 1997, the fourth Wednesday in November, and
I am chewing the Gumball.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Material Issue:Out Right Now
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
"And Ostos?"  "Not nearly as attractive."

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:06:43 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

I am placing myself on vacation, for a duration of 5 days.  (And I dread
seeing the huge pile of mail upon my return :)

- --
Aaron Keesler
Adtran, Inc.
- --

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:46:31 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sorry

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> Oh, another thought on this (see my previous message for what I'm doing
> with this proposal).  Rule 102 does a good job of deferring, so if both
> rules say they override Rule 102 we still have a paradox, regardless of
> their own rule numbers (Rule 102 can't be used, because neither rule
> admits it exists, but then again to find out that Rule 102 defers to these
> rules we need to use Rule 102 - how did we get out of this problem again?
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko

Oh man, lets not go there.  We already had a CFJ on this one, not all that
long ago.  It was decided that Rule 102 actually would take precedence,
and there was no paradox.  I still have to say that I disagree with that
judgement, but there it stands.

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:20:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sorry

> Oh man, lets not go there.  We already had a CFJ on this one, not
> all that long ago.  It was decided that Rule 102 actually would take
> precedence, and there was no paradox.  I still have to say that I
> disagree with that judgement, but there it stands.

Out of curiosity, can I ask why you reject the reasoning on that CFJ?

breadbox

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 17:54:10 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: You know what day it is.

That's right.  It's the 26th of November, the fourth Wednesday of the
month, and I rip the Gumball out of Alfvaen's mouth, hose it down with
some water, dry it off with a hairdryer, and then start chewing.  Despite
all that, it tastes surprisingly good.  Probably because there isn't a
Spice Girl on the cover.

Today is the 26th of November, the fourth Wednesday of the month, and I am
chewing the Gumball.

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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:38:29 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

I will be gone for the next four days, but I am not going on offical
vacation since I don't think there will be a lot of activity anyway.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 19:49:47 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New People

On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Crackfoo wrote:

> how much you wanna give?
(for a Whamiol)

How about A$50 - if not, please counteroffer.

- --
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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:47:16 -0600
From: "Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: New People

I paid A$500 for my whamiol.  Are you willing to offer the same?

Crackfoo

- ----------
> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: New People
> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 12:02 PM
> 
> 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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:39:58 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public Trade

I hereby offer to trade Crackfoo A$500 for a Whamiol.

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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:19:30 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Road to Tarak Nor

I have seen the light.

I hereby join the Cult of Odo on the Wormhole, if it will let me.

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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:26:48 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Public Action

I hereby retract my offer to purchase a Whamiol from Crackfoo.

Sorry, no dice.

(At least, not until I'm sure of the worth of the Whamiol).

- --
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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:24:11 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: You know what day it is.

> That's right.  It's the 26th of November, the fourth Wednesday of the
> month, and I rip the Gumball out of Alfvaen's mouth, hose it down with
> some water, dry it off with a hairdryer, and then start chewing.  Despite
> all that, it tastes surprisingly good.  Probably because there isn't a
> Spice Girl on the cover.

Well, of all the nerve!  Sir, expect to hear from my Second.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Material Issue:International Pop Overthrow
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
Keep reality out of reach of children.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:29:35 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Thanksgiving

> I will be gone for the next four days, but I am not going on offical
> vacation since I don't think there will be a lot of activity anyway.

Oh, thou Americans.  Dost thou not know that in Canada we already had
our Thanksgiving _last_ month?

So let's see what mischief I can get up to with Slakko, Niccolo Flychuck,
K 2, and anyone else who happens to not be a States-dweller.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Material Issue:International Pop Overthrow
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:31:11 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Public Action

> I hereby retract my offer to purchase a Whamiol from Crackfoo.

> Sorry, no dice.

> (At least, not until I'm sure of the worth of the Whamiol).

What, you read the bit about how it scores less if other new players became
active recently?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Material Issue:International Pop Overthrow
Current Book--Candas Jane Dorsey:Black Wine
If a poet discovered fiction, he would be a busy poet.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:02:26 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Oh dear!

I hereby Retract proposal 2406

Oh, BTW, any more suggestions on it before I resubmit a definitive
finished version?  From anyone?
- --
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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:19:02 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka : That Patch/MetaMorph CFJ

Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

>Seems to me like we've arrived at the point of re-iterating the same
>points in a couple of different ways.

This may be so.  I guess one wants to allow every opportunity for one's
debate opponent to see and agree with one's own viewpoint, on the
assumption that his disagreement may be based on misunderstanding, or
that
some restatement will help them "see the light."  I am enjoying certain
aspects of this discussion, however, so I will continue on those points.

>> 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.

>State A and State B are observable states. As an entity is in state A
at
>time t1 and state B at time t2, you say that by definition a change of
>state has occured between those two times. So basically you are
changing
>that change is implicit in the Game State - so why do you object to it
>being implicit in a rule?

The first two sentences accurately describe my claim, yes.  Does your
question imply that you accept the definition?

This may be an issue of semantics, but I do _not_ claim that change is
implicit in the Game State.  It is evident, however, that the Game State
is changeable.  The existence of past changes to the Game State is
irrefutable, and the current rules make at least some future changes
inevitable.  This is a characteristic of the collective past and present
game states and rules; the terms "explicit" and "implicit" do not apply,
at least not in the same way that they apply to rule provisions.

I also do not object to a change to the Game State being implicit in a
rule, but I do claim that such is _not_ implicit in rule 1015.  If the
rule said something along the lines of "Any non-player entity which
has been offered membership in a More Than Human Organization and which
has subsequently consented to be a member of that Organization is a
member of that Organization," then there would indeed be a game state
change implicit in the rule.  Frankly, I think it much more effective
and
also freer of loopholes to say that "If a non-player entity, after being
invited by a More Than Human Organization to join it, consents to join
it
then the non-player entity at that point becomes a member of said
Organization."  Yes, I believe it possible to write most or all of the
rules so that they describe the correct game state rather than how the
game state changes.  Such a ruleset would leave all the changes
implicit.
Few of our current rules are written that way, however.

And now for another reiteration in different words.  Rule 1015's text
says nothing whatsoever about the actual game state and certainly
nothing
about changing the game state.  Instead it only describes potential
legal
game states (in a parametric fashion).  You seem to be claiming that by
stipulating that such states are legal, the rule implies that the
currently legal one becomes the game state.  I cannot accept this
interpretation.  On this point it appears that we shall have to agree to
disagree.

>It has nothing to do with what I had in my mind, the text draws an
>explicit distinction between entities that are able to consent, and
>other entities.

I have already addressed this.  Again we will have to agree to disagree.

>ps1 - sorry I made it so short, but we're going around each other in
>geometric forms. We're just gonna have to find another issue to quibble
>over :)

S'alright.  I probably shouldn't have written as much of a response as I
now have, as I agree that we have about exhausted the avenues of
productive debate on this matter.

ThinMan

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #381
*******************************