Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #395
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Friday, December 5 1997       Volume 02 : Number 395

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 10:04:06 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Zombie Horde

I use my wings to fly backwards to where Guy Fawkes is located.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 10:07:44 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Zombie Horde

I create a trinket called:
    'Zombie Horde' worth A$ 1.

I destroy my trinket called Zombie Horde.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 10:10:41 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Zombie Horde

I say  ' Guy Fawkes Mortoo Tomboo Miyi'.

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 10:14:00 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Zombie Horde

Hey, forget it! No way! Even No One is NOT going to get 10% of  my Total
Wealth.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:41:37 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: MetaMorph welcomes Pumpkin Patch Nomic

The MetaMorph welcomes Pumpkin as its newest member.

Niccolo Flychuck
MetaMorph Party

On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> - ----------
> > 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 thePumpkin 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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:45:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Patch's Reply

Internomic is not perceived as an outside governing body, by any member
nomic.By inviting the Patch to be a member of an Organizations in acka,
acka does not claim  to govern the PAtch in any way.
Niccolo Flychuck

 On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 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
> otherouter 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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:51:42 +0200 (EET)
From: Niccolo Flychuck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

I bid A$45

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, K2 wrote:

> 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, 05 Dec 1997 19:05:19 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Illuminatus

> The Illuminatus shall publicly announce a call for Agenda Condition
> submissions, if, for any reason, no such call has occured
> during the current cycle.

My Loophole Surfboard is waxed and ready to go ;-)

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 10:56:17 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

I bid A$ 50

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: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 11:09:21 -1000
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Patch's Reply

Doesn't rule 1379 seek to regulate Pumkn Patch? (ie what Pumkin Patch can and
can't have in her milk.)

Uri Bruck wrote:

> Internomic is not perceived as an outside governing body, by any member
> nomic.By inviting the Patch to be a member of an Organizations in acka,
> acka does not claim  to govern the PAtch in any way.
> Niccolo Flychuck
>
>  On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
>
> > 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
> > otherouter 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, 05 Dec 1997 19:11:55 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 478 Verdict

CFJ 478 has been judged TRUE without comment.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 478
  Subject: Grapefruit
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-12-01 2:39
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 97-12-01 21:51)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

If Malenkai and Alfvaen have jointly won a cycle, then neither of them
received a Right-Handed Grapefruit as a result of winning that cycle.

Slakko's Reasoning:

Rule 666 (c) states:

The winner is given the title of winner of the cycle, and a Right-Handed
Grapefruit and a Champion's Cloak are created in that player's possession. 

As Alfvaen and Malenkai are both winners, neither of them qualifies as The
winner (as to be The winner implies that a player is a winner and no other
player is a winner).  Therefore, the events described in Rule 666(c) were
not applied, and hence the statement should be judged TRUE.

Alternatively, in the event that Malenkai and Alfvaen have not jointly won
a cycle, then the premise which begins my statement is FALSE.  As the
statement is of the form (statement 1) implies (statement 2), if statement
1 is FALSE then by the rules of logic the statement as a whole is TRUE (a
falsehood can truthfully imply anything).  Therefore this statement should
be judged TRUE in the event that Malenkai and Alfvaen have not won a cycle
jointly.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 20:07:56 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: We MUST fight back!

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, K2 wrote:

> To: Niccolo Flychuck
> To: Alfvaen
> To: Fortunato
> To: Balsamic Dragon
> To: Vynd
> Cc: Poor miss-guided fools.
>=20
> 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=92T 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=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!!!
>=20

And people say that theres no Orange Menace!  What else could be
responsible for such heinous disregard of K 2's inalienable rights?

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 20:11:23 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: BWG Laser shotgun attachment

On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Niccolo Flychuck wrote:

> 
> I bid A$45
> 
> 

I bid A$55.

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 20:52:55 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 477 Verdict

I appeal this CFJ to the Supreme Court, reasoning follows.

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 477 has been judged FALSE.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 477
>   Subject: Renumbering
> Initiator: /dev/joe
> Submitted: 97-11-29 17:11
>     Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected 97-11-29 21:57)
> Judgement: FALSE
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Proposal 2389 did not succeed in renumbering rule 2000 to rule 0.
> 
> /dev/joe's Reasoning:
> 
> Rule 1 states, in part:
> 
>   The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the
>   customary interpretation of this rule to be changed.
> 
> The customary interpretation of rule 1 includes, among other things, the
> global precedence over the rest of the rules numbered 2 & above, and
> the internally-described immutability.  Renumbering rule 2000 to become
> rule 0 would give it precedence over rule 1, which would result in the
> last paragraph of rule 1 to cease to have any effect.  Clearly if rule 1
> becomes easily amendable, and ceases to have precedence over
> higher-numbered rules which claim precedence over it, then the customary
> interpretation of rule 1 will have changed.  Thus, the change in the game
> state of renumbering rule 2000 to rule 0 is prohibited by rule 1.
> 
> Balsamic Dragon's Reasoning
> 
> There is a definate difference between the customary interpretation of a
> rule and the effect which that rule has on the game state.  Renumbering the
> rule does not change the interpretation of the rule, since the rule number
> is not a part of the rule, and the text of the rule is unchanged.  Nor has
> the changing of the rule number modified that way in which that text is to
> be interpreted.  However, simply because a rule says that it has a certain
> effect, does not necessarily mean that it has that effect.  Otherwise rule
> conflict would shut the game down.
> 

Essentially, I am appealing because I am not satisfied with the reasoning
of the original judge.  While it is sometimes the case that the actual
effects of a rule differ from the effects traditionaly attributed to it, I
do not see why this matters in deciding this case.  I would say that there
is complete agreement between the actual and customary effects of Rule 1.
It is also quite apparent that the proposed renumbering of Rule 2000 would
have changed the interpretation of Rule 1.  This is what is forbidden by
Rule 1, but the original judgement does not address this central issue in
problem.

I also must disagree with the idea that changing a Rule's
numbering does not change its interpretation.  Since changing the number
associated with a Rule changes that rule's precedence over other rules,
this clearly change's the rule's interpretation.  In thist particular
case, changing Rule 2000's number even more clearly changes its meaning.
Rule 2000 states that "If this rule ever has a number less than one, then
it takes precedence over all other rules, including rule 1."  Clearly
then, giving Rule 2000 a new number that is less than 1 would alter its
interpretation, for Rule 2000 itself states that this is the case.

All of this is moot, however.  For the simple fact is that, as /dev/joe
says in his reasoning, renumbering Rule 2000 to 0 would alter the state of
the game, and this alteration would result in a change in the way Rule 1
is interpreted and thus is forbidden by Rule 1.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 20:30:19 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Zombie Horde

> Hey, forget it! No way! Even No One is NOT going to get 10% of  my Total
> Wealth.

Well, it didn't help that you were doing the ritual between 2pm and 3pm
Ackatime, rather than 2am and 3am.  Anyway, I'm afraid that you must be
penalized 10 points for your flagrant disregard for the feelings of the
voodoo spirits.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Clannad:Macalla
Current Book--TesseractsQ
Get rid of your candy bar.  Eat your candy bar.  --billbill

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

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 20:27:23 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: We MUST fight back!

> And people say that theres no Orange Menace!  What else could be
> responsible for such heinous disregard of K 2's inalienable rights?

Well, part of it was the fact that I overlooked K 2's new player bonus,
which means that e only lost 2 points for each proposal rather than 7.
Still, I'm willing to consider these rants as satisfying R1129...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Clannad:Macalla
Current Book--TesseractsQ
I've stopped payment on my reality check.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #395
*******************************