Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #394
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Friday, December 5 1997       Volume 02 : Number 394

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

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:22:51 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Postmasterness

> > On the subject of observers, I would like to request that Slakko
> > retract Proposal 2443. There is no need to have Alfvaen track the
> > current list of observers, because majordomo necessarily does this
> > already. 

> Okay.  I hereby retract Proposal 2443.
> It appears I'll be setting the record for retractions any time soon.
> Perhaps we need a Retracted Cross...

Ah, I remember gunning for the Retracted Cross myself a few months
back.  And I am still ahead of you, 17 to 14...but both of us have a
long way to go to get to the Retraction King, Niccolo Flychuck, with 
45 retractions, even better than Malenkai's 29.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Siouxsie & The Banshees:Kiss Them For Me
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Give it an understanding but no tongue.

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

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:25:21 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Treasure 183

> Alfvaen, was the requirement for a Top 50 finish, or did it include
> a Top 50 intermediate position?

The map indicates a Top 50 final position, I'm afraid...

> /dev/joe achieved 43rd place in Week 1 just finished with Godel Escher
> Bach Records.

And it _would_ be the week that I never even got around to entering.
(Which screws up my collected chart stats, too...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Madness:One Step Beyond
Current Book--TesseractsQ
It's a sky blue sky.  The satellites are out tonight.

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

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:42:23 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal Archive change

> I've made a minor modification to the proposal archive. Now, proposals
> that are still in the voting queue are all kept on one separate web
> page. As their voting period expires, they will get moved into the
> archive proper. I've also explicitly noted the time that each
> proposal's voting period expires.

> This should make it easier for people to check on what they need to
> vote for. It should also make things easier for me....

It might also make my props page redundant and unnecessary.  If so, I'll
gladly stop doing it, gain a little extra web space, and put a link to 
it off the Acka home page.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Lyle Lovett:She's Already Made Up Her Mind
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz.

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

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:07:45 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Harf

In the interests of promoting more harf, I hereby declare that Proposals
2437 and 2442 are Harfy.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Song--Madonna:Secret
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Needless to say, all my thumbnails are clickable.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:22:41 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 480 (Vynd)

I accept judgement on CFJ 480.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:58:55 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJs 474 and 477

Were these CFJs appealed?

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:03:15 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Eulogy for a Widget

On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> When he decided to pass it on to someone else, I took it. I was
> thinking of waiting for the next cycle, and then after the scores had
> been reset I would, for a change, actually try to play for points.
> However, soon after that happened we had our summer crises, and I
> wound up being the Promoter and Tabulator. This made it too hard to
> play for points fairly - not only did I have privileged information to
> anti-vote almost perfectly, but I could easily control the timing of
> when voting results were released. And so it went.

Perhaps we should modify the anti-voting rules to affect the Tabulator
differently?  Say they gain the anti-vote value for each third proposal in
the queue that they vote on and is not retracted.  Consider this a
mini-RFC.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 08:18:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJs 474 and 477

> Were these CFJs appealed?

474 was appealed, 477 was not.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 08:20:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 480 Verdict

CFJ 480 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 480
  Subject: Frobnotzing
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-12-04 17:12
    Judge: Vynd (selected 97-12-04 17:30)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

If an unbroken, non-gyrating Pyraic Frobnotzer were to have its + node
attached to the noun phrase "Pyraic Frobnotzer" in the phrase
"the Pyraic Frobnotzer is destroyed in a magnificent gout of golden flame"
in Rule 594.19, and its - node attached to the noun phrase "The
Ackanomicon" in the phrase "The Ackanomicon is a powerful book of
magic" in Rule 940, and then set gyrating an infinitesimal amount of time
later, without any further attachments being made, then The Ackanomicon
would be destroyed one week after the Pyraic Frobnotzer described in this
statement was set gyrating.

Slakko's Reasoning:

Rule 594.19 states:

When a Pyraic Frobnotzer has been gyrating continuously for one week, the
following happens: If the Pyraic Frobnotzer's two nodes are attached to
two noun phrases which are both plural or both singular, and the two noun
phrases do not share the same occurrence of the same word, then those two
noun phrases trade location within the Rule set, and the Pyraic Frobnotzer
is destroyed in a magnificent gout of golden flame. 

However, when the Pyraic Frobnotzer is to be destroyed, the rule change
either has already occurred (if you interpret the last statement as
implying an order of events), or is occurring at the same time.  What does
it mean for a rule change to occur?  Clearly the rules must have changed
at the instant that the rule change occurs, otherwise the rules have not
changed.  There is no "halfway house" for a rule to inhabit, it must
either be changed, or not be changed.  Hence, at the instant that the Rule
says "the Pyraic Frobnotzer is destroyed in a magnificent gout of golden
flame" the rule has been changed to read "The Ackanomicon is destroyed in
a magnificent gout of golden flame".  Hence The Ackanomicon is destroyed
and the Pyraic Frobnotzer is not.

Vynd's Reasoning:

I judge this to be FALSE.  Rule 594.19 states that if a node is attached
to a Rule, and that rule is "amended, repealed, or modified in any way"
that node becomes unattached.  The above statement, while extremely
verbose, does not rule out this possibility from occuring during the week
after the Frobnotzer began to vibrate, and if this were to occur then the
changes would not take place and The Ackanomicon would not be destroyed.

It is interesting to note that, if the nodes in Slakko's statement were to
remain attached, then his statement would be true.  The changes described
in the statement are legal, in that 594.14 has the power to alter Rule
940.  As the changes are described in Rule 594.14 before the fiery
explosion effect, the changes would occur before anything went up in
smoke.  Once the changes were made in Rule 594.14, the result would be the
destruction of The Ackanomicon.  It is not entirely clear if this would be
The Ackanomicon described in Rule 940, or Rule 940 (The Ackanomicon)
itself.  In either case, however, I find nothing in the rules that would
prevent the destruction from occuring.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:29:31 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 480 Verdict

Interestingly, Vynd's obiter dicta give me exactly what I want.
Thanks Vynd.

> CFJ 480 has been judged FALSE.
> 
> Vynd's Reasoning:
> 
> It is interesting to note that, if the nodes in Slakko's statement were to
> remain attached, then his statement would be true.  The changes described
> in the statement are legal, in that 594.14 has the power to alter Rule
> 940.  As the changes are described in Rule 594.14 before the fiery
> explosion effect, the changes would occur before anything went up in
> smoke.  Once the changes were made in Rule 594.14, the result would be the
> destruction of The Ackanomicon.  It is not entirely clear if this would be
> The Ackanomicon described in Rule 940, or Rule 940 (The Ackanomicon)
> itself.  In either case, however, I find nothing in the rules that would
> prevent the destruction from occuring.
> 

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:35:38 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 480 Verdict

Slakko wrote:

> Interestingly, Vynd's obiter dicta give me exactly what I want.
> Thanks Vynd.
> 
> > CFJ 480 has been judged FALSE.
> > 
> > Vynd's Reasoning:
> > 
> > It is interesting to note that, if the nodes in Slakko's statement
> were to
> > remain attached, then his statement would be true.  The changes
> described
> > in the statement are legal, in that 594.14 has the power to alter
> Rule
> > 940.  As the changes are described in Rule 594.14 before the fiery
> > explosion effect, the changes would occur before anything went up in
> > smoke.  Once the changes were made in Rule 594.14, the result would
> be the
> > destruction of The Ackanomicon.  It is not entirely clear if this
> would be
> > The Ackanomicon described in Rule 940, or Rule 940 (The Ackanomicon)
> > itself.  In either case, however, I find nothing in the rules that
> would
> > prevent the destruction from occuring.
> 
With this coming so soon after my earlier comments about CFJs in
Ackanomic, I think it is appropos for me to make another comment here.
The quoted part of Vynd's reasoning is, IMO, wholly non-binding and
external to game custom.  Although sometimes CFJ reasoning can be
construed to become implicit game custom, that principle derives from
the correct verdict depending on such reasoning; in this case the
quoted material is an aside.

With that out of the way, however, I find Vynd's argument relatively
convincing.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:49:21 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INP 353

> INP 353 was submitted by Ackanomic.  Voting lasts for
> 2 weeks.
> 
> ---
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> Amend Rule 215 to replace the word "Rishonnomic" with the word
> "Rishonomic."
> 

Ambassador's Notes:  A little while ago, Rule 215 was amended to add
Rishonnomic to InterNomic.  Due to a spelling error, the intended effect of
adding Rishonomic (one n) may or may not have occured.  Further
complicating things, a new nomic called Rishonnomic (2 n's) has claimed
membership.  This proposal was mostly inspired by the question, who gets to
vote on it?  And also, of course, to correct the error and force
Rishonnomic (2 n's) to reapply.  And we get points if it passes.

Please reply to vote.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:52:47 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Patch's Reply

- ----------
> From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: New Ambassador
> Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 1:10 AM
> 
> >Having just been voted in as Ambassador of Ackanomic, my greetings to
the
> >rest of the InterNomic community.  Per Rule 348 of InterNomic, I hereby
> >give notice that I am the liason for Ackanomic.
> >
> >That being said, I have the following messages to forward to Dr. West,
> >liason of Pumpkin Patch Nomic:
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
> >Do you consent to become a member of the Ackanomic organization known as
> >MetaMorph?
> >
> >Balsamic Dragon
> 
> As GRAPE of Pumpkin patch nomic, I accept membership for the patch on
> behalf of her splenderifiousness, the Pumpkin Alix.  Furthermore, I am to
> inform you that the patch is considering nominating Ackanomic to fill the
> office of Patch Bastard, previously filled by bob, and currently vacant.
> 
> er, phil
> 
> >--Foreign Relations--
> >
> >The GRAPE is directed to accept the Pumpkin Patch's membership in the
> >Metamorph Party. The GRAPE is further directed to figure out some way to
> >reciprocate this polite offer/ingenious scam. Perhaps they could be
named
> >as the Patch Bastard?
> 
> 
> 
Ambassador's Note to MetaMorph:  Well I hope you're happy now!

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:59:33 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Patch's Reply

Oh, boy!  I want Ackanomic to be the Patch Bastard!

>

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

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 09:01:06 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

The BWG Laser shotgun attachment is done, and an auction now
starts to last for 3 days.

Don't bid too high :)

Chief Cheese

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:02:08 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INP 353

> > 
> > Please reply to vote.
> > 
> > Balsamic Dragon
> 
I should have mentioned, voting lasts one week (the extra week is in case
of indeterminate or tied responses and to give me time to send the results
in)

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:04:26 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Patch's Reply

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, AARON KEESLER wrote:

> Oh, boy!  I want Ackanomic to be the Patch Bastard!
> 
> >
> 
Interestingly, I looked at the Pumpkin Patch "Rules" the other day.
It says Pumpkin Patch is not allowed to submit to the rules of some
other outer governing body - I don't know how they can be in Internomic,
and I don't know how they can join an Ackanomic Organization.

Yours,
Slakko

- --
Duncan "frobnotz...gyrate...foam" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:14:32 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INP 353

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> > > Please reply to vote.

I vote FOR INP 353.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 09:21:53 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: INP 353

I believe votes are still sent to me because it is a 
hearing.  Perhaps this is something that needs to be changed;
Which way would be less confusing?  To me, it seems to make 
sense that the Ambassador conduct the votes...

In any case, the hearing on INP 351 starts now, reply to vote.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:41:10 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INP 353

> I believe votes are still sent to me because it is a 
> hearing.  Perhaps this is something that needs to be changed;
> Which way would be less confusing?  To me, it seems to make 
> sense that the Ambassador conduct the votes...
> 
> In any case, the hearing on INP 351 starts now, reply to vote.

First off, I assume you mean 353, not 351.  Second, I have already received
a couple of votes.  Third, I agree that it would be more appropriate for
the Ambassador to conduct InterNomic voting hearings and will propose such,
with a request for comments before I do so.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:43:06 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Referee Wanted

The duel between Slakko and myself in Single Capture Go is languishing
due to lack of a Referee.  Would any kind soul care to step forward and
take this responsibility?  Should I start RFCing again my idea for
choosing people for Refereeing at random(with opportunity to refuse,
just like CFJ's...)?  Or do we maybe need to bring back the Gamesmaster,
with the responsibility to Referee any unclaimed games e is not a
participant in?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Jon Bon Jovi:Blaze of Glory
Current Book--TesseractsQ
A rut is just a grave with a ramp at either end.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 10:52:05 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Referee Wanted

> Should I start RFCing again my idea for
> choosing people for Refereeing at random(with opportunity to refuse,
> just like CFJ's...)?  Or do we maybe need to bring back the Gamesmaster,
> with the responsibility to Referee any unclaimed games e is not a
> participant in?

Presumably, if no one is willing (read: has the time or interest) to
referee this game, then they would not volunteer to hold the
Gamesmaster office, which would be a superset of this.

Furthermore, to randomly select a referee is even a worse solution,
IMO.

My suggestion is that the game should be cancelled if no one has the
time to harf it, or that the incentive to harf it should increase, like
a salary of 100 bonus votes.  You get the idea :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:06:52 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 480 Verdict

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> 
> Slakko wrote:
> 
> > Interestingly, Vynd's obiter dicta give me exactly what I want.
> > Thanks Vynd.
> > 
> > > CFJ 480 has been judged FALSE.
> > > 
> > > Vynd's Reasoning:
> > > 
> > > It is interesting to note that, if the nodes in Slakko's statement
> > were to
> > > remain attached, then his statement would be true.  The changes
> > described
> > > in the statement are legal, in that 594.14 has the power to alter
> > Rule
> > > 940.  As the changes are described in Rule 594.14 before the fiery
> > > explosion effect, the changes would occur before anything went up in
> > > smoke.  Once the changes were made in Rule 594.14, the result would
> > be the
> > > destruction of The Ackanomicon.  It is not entirely clear if this
> > would be
> > > The Ackanomicon described in Rule 940, or Rule 940 (The Ackanomicon)
> > > itself.  In either case, however, I find nothing in the rules that
> > would
> > > prevent the destruction from occuring.
> > 
> With this coming so soon after my earlier comments about CFJs in
> Ackanomic, I think it is appropos for me to make another comment here.
> The quoted part of Vynd's reasoning is, IMO, wholly non-binding and
> external to game custom.  Although sometimes CFJ reasoning can be
> construed to become implicit game custom, that principle derives from
> the correct verdict depending on such reasoning; in this case the
> quoted material is an aside.
> 
> With that out of the way, however, I find Vynd's argument relatively
> convincing.
> 
> ThinMan
> 

Indeed, I probably should have said something about this in my reasoning.
Game custom dictates that the only parts of my reasoning that actually
become game custom, are the parts that justify my ruling.  So only my
first paragraph in this case.

I included the second part, which answered what we all know was your real
question, because well, we all know it was your real question.  When a
situation like this comes up, I and many others will often try to address
the real issue at hand, even if it doesn't come into determining the
verdict itself.  I guess its really a rather questionable sort of
practice, but at this point I would have to say that it is acceptable
within, you guessed it, game custom.

                                - Vynd

[email-masked]

Game custom, where the real action is.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 16:35:07 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Referee Wanted

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Presumably, if no one is willing (read: has the time or interest) to
> referee this game, then they would not volunteer to hold the
> Gamesmaster office, which would be a superset of this.
> 
> Furthermore, to randomly select a referee is even a worse solution,
> IMO.
> 
> My suggestion is that the game should be cancelled if no one has the
> time to harf it, or that the incentive to harf it should increase, like
> a salary of 100 bonus votes.  You get the idea :)

The problem is, this is a Duel.  Without the ref, there is no Duel.
Something has to be done to avenge honour. :-)

Qapla!
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:57:38 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Referee Wanted

Alfvaen wrote:

> The duel between Slakko and myself in Single Capture Go is languishing
> due to lack of a Referee.  Would any kind soul care to step forward
> and
> take this responsibility?
> 
I will undertake this responsability.  If you want me to ref any moves
over the weekend then be sure to put the word DUEL in the subject line.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:07:30 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Referee Wanted

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Bollinger, John C. wrote:

> I will undertake this responsability.  If you want me to ref any moves
> over the weekend then be sure to put the word DUEL in the subject line.

Er, ThinMan, yYou need to (1) assign the two of us letters of the 
alphabet, and (2) announce that the round is starting.

Yours, Slakko

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:13:53 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fw: INP 354

> INP 354 was submitted by Thring.  Voting lasts for 2 weeks.
> 
> ***
> 
>  Amend Rule 215/7 (Mutable) to read:
> 
>  The voting members of this Nomic are: New Rishonnomic, Ackanomic, Agora,
> Thring, Pumpkin Patch Nomic, Micronomic II, and InterNomic. The moderator
> maintains a list of non-voting members.  This rule may be changed by a
> Request to Join (RtJ) from a non-voting member or an Add New Member (ANM)
> from a voting member. These are treated as proposals requiring the usual
> requirements to be enacted.  The effect of such a proposal is to remove
> the word "and" from before the last Nomic's name in the list above and
> append ", and " followed by the requesting Nomic's name between the last
> Nomic's name above and the period. 
>  A non-voting member may only issue an RtJ once.
>  If this rule is currently immutable then it may still modify itself,
> taking precedence over any rule that denys it that right.
> 
> ***
> 
> Comments:
> 
>  Currently adding new voting members requires amending this rule, which
> could be made difficult.  This rewording allows the addition of voting
> members without an amend, and for non-voting members to ask to be
admitted
> (but only once, so a Nomic that for some reason is not wanted to be
> admitted cannot flood the game).

Ambassador's Note:

I think that this proposal, especially the last sentence, is both
unnecessary and vague.  It has also been observed by Dan Knapp that an ANM
would result in the nomic who submitted it being added to the list (thus
appearing twice) instead of the nomic for whom the request was made.

Please send your votes to Malenkai for now, and vote yes on my next
proposal for later.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:23:46 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Referee Wanted

Slakko wrote:

> Er, ThinMan, yYou need to (1) assign the two of us letters of the 
> alphabet, and (2) announce that the round is starting.
> 
Hey, I knew that!  You, of all people, should cut me some slack.  :)

Alfvaen is assigned the letter A; Slakko is assigned the letter S.
The Grid is 5x5.
The first round begins now.
Gentlemen, defend your honor!

ThinMan
Referee

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:55:43 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Referee Wanted

> Presumably, if no one is willing (read: has the time or interest) to
> referee this game, then they would not volunteer to hold the
> Gamesmaster office, which would be a superset of this.

I suppose...

> Furthermore, to randomly select a referee is even a worse solution,
> IMO.

Well, my reasoning the same as last time I brought this up, which is
that if someone shouts into the void, "Anyone want to referee?", the
probability of silence returning may be greater than if you say, "Okay,
Vynd, do you want to referee?"  And if that fails, then..."Okay, Fortunato,
do you want to referee?"  And so on.

> My suggestion is that the game should be cancelled if no one has the
> time to harf it, or that the incentive to harf it should increase, like
> a salary of 100 bonus votes.  You get the idea :)

Well, I did consider the latter, but that would lead to scams...:-)

I think the problem is that there are normal games, where if there is no
interest it _should_ be cancelled(although witness Viruses, where there
was no lack of interest from players, but no referee for a long time...),
and then there are Duels.  I do have a Proposal in the works that may at
least deal with the latter case.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Lyle Lovett:She's Already Made Up Her Mind
Current Book--TesseractsQ
I wouldn't be caught dead with a necrophiliac.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 13:05:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Referee Wanted

> > Furthermore, to randomly select a referee is even a worse solution,
> > IMO.
> 
> Well, my reasoning the same as last time I brought this up, which is
> that if someone shouts into the void, "Anyone want to referee?", the
> probability of silence returning may be greater than if you say, "Okay,
> Vynd, do you want to referee?"  And if that fails, then..."Okay, Fortunato,
> do you want to referee?"  And so on.

My thought was that harfing the 'And so on' could be a real p.i.t.a; work
that your's truly will prolly get stuck with :-).  If you believe this is
a good solution, then you can do it now informally without a change in
the rules mandating it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:29:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INP 353

> Please reply to vote.

I vote YES.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 15:02:49 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: INP 354

The hearing on INP 354 starts now, reply to vote.

Malenkai
yuck :)

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

 Amend Rule 215/7 (Mutable) to read:

 The voting members of this Nomic are: New Rishonnomic, Ackanomic, Agora,
Thring, Pumpkin Patch Nomic, Micronomic II, and InterNomic. The moderator
maintains a list of non-voting members.  This rule may be changed by a
Request to Join (RtJ) from a non-voting member or an Add New Member (ANM)
from a voting member. These are treated as proposals requiring the usual
requirements to be enacted.  The effect of such a proposal is to remove
the word "and" from before the last Nomic's name in the list above and
append ", and " followed by the requesting Nomic's name between the last
Nomic's name above and the period. 
 A non-voting member may only issue an RtJ once.
 If this rule is currently immutable then it may still modify itself,
taking precedence over any rule that denys it that right.

***

Comments:

 Currently adding new voting members requires amending this rule, which
could be made difficult.  This rewording allows the addition of voting
members without an amend, and for non-voting members to ask to be admitted
(but only once, so a Nomic that for some reason is not wanted to be
admitted cannot flood the game).

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 20:12:38 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> The BWG Laser shotgun attachment is done, and an auction now
> starts to last for 3 days.
> 
> Don't bid too high :)
> 
> Chief Cheese
> 
I'll give you an ackabuck.

In other words, I bid A$1.
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:13:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Eulogy for a Widget

> Perhaps we should modify the anti-voting rules to affect the
> Tabulator differently?  Say they gain the anti-vote value for each
> third proposal in the queue that they vote on and is not retracted.
> Consider this a mini-RFC.

I would prefer not to be treated differently. I can still anti-vote if
I want; I just have to make sure that I do it when I don't have any
privileged information.

This will also be much easier when the bot is online.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 07:23:36 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

I bid A$2

Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:
>
> > The BWG Laser shotgun attachment is done, and an auction now
> > starts to last for 3 days.
> >
> > Don't bid too high :)
> >
> > Chief Cheese
> >
> I'll give you an ackabuck.
>
> In other words, I bid A$1.
> --
> Duncan "" Richer aka
> Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
> Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:38:31 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

I bid A$ 5.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:44:29 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

I bid A$20.

>----------
>From: 	Bollinger, John C.[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	Friday, December 05, 1997 2:38 PM
>To: 	[email-masked]'
>Subject: 	RE: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment
>
>
>I bid A$ 5.
>
>
>ThinMan
>

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 16:16:55 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

I bid A$35.

                           - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 23:35:39 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Wormhole

Now we either need Priest Robert Sevin to join us in approval, or wait a
week since my original message. No matter, once we are a Church again
these proceedings will be much shorter.

Niccolo Flychuck
Founder of the Chruch Odo on the Wormhole

On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I approve the action of converting the Cult of Odo on the Wormhole into
> a Church.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko of Tarak Nine
> 
> - --
> Duncan "" Richer aka
> Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
> Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths,Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 23:43:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal Archive change

I noted the change. It made things that much easier on me.
And If I don't keep deleting my outgoign acka mail, I'll make things
easier on you too by just voting once for everything :)

Niccolo Flychuck

On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> I've made a minor modification to the proposal archive. Now, proposals
> that are still in the voting queue are all kept on one separate web
> page. As their voting period expires, they will get moved into the
> archive proper. I've also explicitly noted thetime that each
> proposal's voting period expires.
> 
> This should make it easier for people to check on what they need to
> vote for. It should also make things easier for me....
> 
> breadbox
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 08:50:29 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

I bid A$36

Malenkai wrote:

> The BWG Laser shotgun attachment is done, and an auction now
> starts to last for 3 days.
>
> Don't bid too high :)
>
> Chief Cheese

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 16:55:31 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

K2 wrote:

> I bid A$36
> 
Each bid in a public auction must exceed the previous one by at least
10%.  I don't believe that the above qualifies.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 09:42:45 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: We MUST fight back!

To: Niccolo Flychuck
To: Alfvaen
To: Fortunato
To: Balsamic Dragon
To: Vynd
Cc: Poor miss-guided fools.

Okay, I can perhaps understand the brusque rejection of my first
proposal: It was sort of like an initiation ceremony. Put the newbie in
their place. Fine. I can take that. Initiation ceremony complete.
If that had been where it stopped, I could have let it go. However, it
DIDN’T stop there. To add insult to injury, the philistines, proceeded
to DEDUCT points from my score. That was going TOO far. Such an
over-reaction, to a harmless proposal, is hardly required; total
over-kill.
Of course, simple deduction of a few points did not sate them. No, they
weren’t satisfied with just one or two points. They had to steal 7
points, an action that is both unconscionable and almost certainly
illegal as well. This is clearly a flagrant disregard for the LAWS of
Acka. I mean, what kind of person would propose a rule that would
victimise someone this way? Who would vote for it? This is not the Acka
I joined! The Acka I joined would not permit such perversion!!
Criminality on this scale cannot be permitted. Such lawless elements
must not be allowed to drive Acka into anarchy. We must seek out these
rotten elements, which lie festering just below the surface, and lance
them before their perversion spreads and infects all Acka.
Unite seekers of justice, that we may rid the world of such tyranny.
Remember YOU could be next to feel the weight of their oppressive
claw!!!

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 09:44:24 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

Fine, I bid $A 39

Malenkai wrote:

> The BWG Laser shotgun attachment is done, and an auction now
> starts to last for 3 days.
>
> Don't bid too high :)
>
> Chief Cheese

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:50:05 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: We MUST fight back!

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, K2 wrote:

> Of course, simple deduction of a few points did not sate them. No, they
> weren=92t satisfied with just one or two points. They had to steal 7
> points, an action that is both unconscionable and almost certainly
> illegal as well. This is clearly a flagrant disregard for the LAWS of
> Acka. I mean, what kind of person would propose a rule that would
> victimise someone this way? Who would vote for it? This is not the Acka
> I joined! The Acka I joined would not permit such perversion!!
> Criminality on this scale cannot be permitted. Such lawless elements
> must not be allowed to drive Acka into anarchy. We must seek out these
> rotten elements, which lie festering just below the surface, and lance
> them before their perversion spreads and infects all Acka.
> Unite seekers of justice, that we may rid the world of such tyranny.
> Remember YOU could be next to feel the weight of their oppressive
> claw!!!

That's some nice rantin' there.

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 09:50:06 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: We MUST fight back!

More to come!!

K2 wrote:

> To: Niccolo Flychuck
> To: Alfvaen
> To: Fortunato
> To: Balsamic Dragon
> To: Vynd
> Cc: Poor miss-guided fools.
>
> Okay, I can perhaps understand the brusque rejection of my first
> proposal: It was sort of like an initiation ceremony. Put the newbie in
> their place. Fine. I can take that. Initiation ceremony complete.
> If that had been where it stopped, I could have let it go. However, it
> DIDN’T stop there. To add insult to injury, the philistines, proceeded
> to DEDUCT points from my score. That was going TOO far. Such an
> over-reaction, to a harmless proposal, is hardly required; total
> over-kill.
> Of course, simple deduction of a few points did not sate them. No, they
> weren’t satisfied with just one or two points. They had to steal 7
> points, an action that is both unconscionable and almost certainly
> illegal as well. This is clearly a flagrant disregard for the LAWS of
> Acka. I mean, what kind of person would propose a rule that would
> victimise someone this way? Who would vote for it? This is not the Acka
> I joined! The Acka I joined would not permit such perversion!!
> Criminality on this scale cannot be permitted. Such lawless elements
> must not be allowed to drive Acka into anarchy. We must seek out these
> rotten elements, which lie festering just below the surface, and lance
> them before their perversion spreads and infects all Acka.
> Unite seekers of justice, that we may rid the world of such tyranny.
> Remember YOU could be next to feel the weight of their oppressive
> claw!!!

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 09:53:29 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Defenders of Acka: dealt a crushing blow.

To: Fortunato
To: Vynd
Cc: Perverted evil doers.

The canker is bigger than I could ever have imagined. Only three people
(myself included) hold out against the corruption. Beware all remaining,
decent upstanding citizens of Acka; there is a force of great EVIL at work
in the land. No one is safe (and even e will be safe for much longer).
Three seekers of justice have fallen and Acka morns their passing. They
have not passed into the after life, or even been reanimated as undead. No,
they have been converted to The Dark Side. Corruption and evil now guide
their thoughts; were once only Good was found.
Certain of victory The Conspiracy has grown careless. Their intent is laid
bare by their latest miss-deeds: Not satisfied with the callous rejection
of my first proposal, their thirst drove them to reject my second piece of
legislative workmanship. As before, they overstepped the bounds of decency,
unjustly stealing 7 points from me in broad daylight!
At first I presumed this action to be criminal as well as immoral, I was
wrong. It has become evident that corruption and immorality have been
institutionalised in Acka. This sick and twisted group of individuals has
abused the legislative process. Enacting discriminatory proposals and
changing the rules at whim, to victimise those not privileged enough to be
invited into their cadre.
As if this wasn’t sufficient to destabilise the very foundations of Acka
already, their base criminal intellect drove them to commit further
atrocity, corrupting the defenders of Acka; spreading their perversion.
Twice now, they have tampered with the legislative process.
Twice, illegal actions have victimised the noble defenders of Acka and yet;

No out-cry has been heard.
No shouts of defiance.
No calls for criminal justice.
No demonstrations.

Only one avenue remains open for the redemption of Acka: I must raise a
zombie legion to cut out the infection, before the very foundations of our
society crumble.
Have heart. They will be defeated. We will triumph!

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #394
*******************************