Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #418
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Sunday, December 14 1997       Volume 02 : Number 418

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:57:23 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Founding Question

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, David Scheidt wrote:

> Not so.  The original rules didn't contain the error.  It was introduced
> sometime during play.  It has only been broken since (I think) 13 NOV
> 1996.

Yeah.  I realised that.  But still, having to unbreak a year old game
custom of accepting YES and NO votes would be slightly devastating to put
it mildly.
- --
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: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:41:42 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : All those Unfounded Churches

R1301 "Church" section 2 explicitly states how a Church is Founded

a) the name of the Church 
b) the name of the Founder (who must be a church member) 
c) the names of all the members 
d) a document called Church Dogma. Church Dogma includes any information
concerning the Church that the Church
wishes to make public. 

I don't recall seeing a single instance of compliance with section c.
I also don't see any way to join a Church which does not yet exist, so all
those messages about joining else..if 's Churches described  actions that
failed.
Cults are regulated, and you can't just create them out of this air.
One might argue that Cult creation is not entireyly restricted, if I were
to accept that argument, transformation into a Church is restricted.
Priests are regulated, and Cults can't make nayone Priess, and one an
Organization is a Cult, a Church Founder just doesn't have the authority
he had when it was a Church. These are two different types of
Organizations.

Also being a member of more than three Churches is not only illegal, it is
specifcially impermissible - which means that attempt itself fails.

As far as Slakko's comments. I think Game Custom is that Church members of
the Church are Followers, and I think it used to be stated that way.
Church also has some archaic language in it, such as Protection.

This has a lot to do with the way Churches withstood the Mohamedan
Reforms, and demonstrates, among other things, the relative strength of
Pre-Mohamedan Organization structure in contrast to the Chaos we have now.

Niccolo Flychuck

Expert on Organizations and Institutions

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:07:29 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, David Scheidt wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > and all the scams go away.  (At least, all the ones I have found.  ) 
> > > Churchs should probably be required to have a Trade License to do trades
> > 
> > A Church has more features than just the ability to trade and own stuff.
> > I think that the whole point of having different kinds of Organizations is
> > that each different type has some advantage associated with choosing that
> > type and no other ( an inherent disadvantage would not be a bad idea
> > either)
> > Churches have the inherent advantage of being able to trade and a simpler
> > default way to carry out Organizational Actions. Parties have the Unity
> > Vote and a free Swinger's Office.
> 
> I don'tsee any prohibition of a church buying a Big Tent.  (Which of
> course could just be used for revivals...)

There is no such prohibition, but it would cost it as much as it would
cost any other org, and then it would have both the advantages of a Church
and the advantages of a Party.
 > 
> I think that the RFC floating around to seperate Churches, Parties, social
> orgs, and Corporations may be required to make the originizational rules
> make sense.  

Churches are already seperate, many of the current reform mongers were the
same people against such reforms when I proposed them a short while ago.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> rufus
> 
> - --------
> [email-masked]
> 
> yip yip yip yap yap yak yap yip *BANG*  -- no terrier
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of ackanomic digest V2 #417
> *******************************
> 

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:15:38 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : All those Unfounded Churches

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> R1301 "Church" section 2 explicitly states how a Church is Founded
> 
> a) the name of the Church 
> b) the name of the Founder (who must be a church member) 
> c) the names of all the members 
> d) a document called Church Dogma. Church Dogma includes any information
> concerning the Church that the Church
> wishes to make public. 

Okay.  None of these quick churches were founded.  That's now fairly
obvious and I suggest that the game state be harfed accordingly.

> Cults are regulated, and you can't just create them out of this air.
> One might argue that Cult creation is not entireyly restricted, if I were
> to accept that argument, transformation into a Church is restricted.
> Priests are regulated, and Cults can't make nayone Priess, and one an
> Organization is a Cult, a Church Founder just doesn't have the authority
> he had when it was a Church. These are two different types of
> Organizations.

Even if cult creation is not restricted, unless the cult was a church
previously it will have no priests.  It will therefore be unable to turn
itself into a Church ever.  So basically I agree on this point.

> 
> Also being a member of more than three Churches is not only illegal, it is
> specifcially impermissible - which means that attempt itself fails.
> 
> 
> As far as Slakko's comments. I think Game Custom is that Church members of
> the Church are Followers, and I think it used to be stated that way.
> Church also has some archaic language in it, such as Protection.

Right.  So members of the Church are Followers.  But you need Followers to
found the Church.  So how can they become Followers, if there is no Church
until after they have become Followers?  This is the old precedence loop
problem.  It applies at least to all churches except the Church of the
Markovian Dream.  All other "Churches" were founded after Proposal 1024
passed, which led to the first paragraph having basically its current form
regarding Followers.

Slakko
Spurt in Silliness
- --
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: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:38:07 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More org stuff

At some point someone wrote that all forms of organisation should have
an inherent advantage and disadvantage. How about this:

Social club:
		Advantage: Doesn't cost anything
		Disadvantage: Can't do anything

Political party:
		Advantage: Unity votes and swingers
		Disadvantage: May only own Ackadollars

Corporation:
		Advantage: Can trade freely
		Disadvantage: Gets taxed on everything

Church:
		Advantage: Something more specifically religious
		Disadvantage: May only own Ackadollars and trinkets.

I'm not quite sure about the advantage for churches but I'd definitely
make it something more specifically religious. Something like having
the Gods bless a certain trinket to give them powers. I would also say
that all orgs, of any form must have at least two members. For each of
the last three types of org I would have different powers, e.g. a
corporation might have something like a secret lab., a political party
might have an inspirational leader, which allows it to get a unity vote
even if one member votes against, a church might have fanatical
devotion which allows members an excuse for some petty misdemeanor (the
last two are only ideas and probably not very good ones at that). All
oranisational powers would be none tradable. My reasoning for allowing
political parties to have money is that it may be needed for actions
such as guarding proposals.

To set up an org I would go on the following:

Political party: Whatever the current cost of buying a big tent.
Church: A church building must be bought.
Corporation: Shares must be created to the value of at least A$300.

I really like the idea of variable numbers of shares, boards of
directors, and the likes. I know it would create extra work, but if a
new office were to be created to deal with it then I would be willing
to do it. I would make it illegal for corps to own shares in other
corps as I'm sure some scam or possibly even a paradox win could
result.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:00:22 -0000
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

> I intend to create a church named AHH#1.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#2.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#3.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#4.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#5.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#6.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#7.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#8.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#9.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#10.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#11.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#12.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#13.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#14.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#15.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#16.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#17.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#18.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#19.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#20.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#21.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#22.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#23.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#24.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#25.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#26.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#27.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#28.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#29.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#30.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#31.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#32.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#33.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#34.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#35.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#36.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#37.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#38.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#39.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#40.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#41.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#42.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#43.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#44.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#45.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#46.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#47.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#48.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#49.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#50.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#51.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#52.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#53.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#54.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#55.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#56.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#57.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#58.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#59.
> I intend to create a church named AHH#60.

I intend to join all of the above. Happy now?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 09:45:46 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: E-mail volume

You folks should consider moving all of this discussion of 
reforming the org rules and corporations and the like, and
what is and is not a church and a follower and whatnot 
onto the research list <[email-masked]>

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:13:19 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, David Scheidt wrote:

> 
> I think that the RFC floating around to seperate Churches, Parties, social
> orgs, and Corporations may be required to make the originizational rules
> make sense.  

The RFC that is floating around has a one very big problem. It ignores the
fact that Churches are already seperate, and ain't broken. It's trying to
fix the wrong thing.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:11:38 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : All those Unfounded Churches

	(I go to sleep for a few hours, and THEN you have all the
interesting discussions)
	What I see happening is that by announcin their intent to join,
they are saying that the are followers (as in, following me to create the
church.)  Since follower is used no where else, I'm not even sure that it
requires a public action to be a follower, but I want to be careful.
Regardless, I think it's quite clear that by announcing their intent to
join, they are followers, and once three people do that, I'll found the
churches.  (I was aware they weren't churches yet, by the way)
	Slakko, could you please announce your intent to join the AHH
churches, and give the money to Shell#1 if possible?  Thanks.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:55:01 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 488 Verdict

CFJ 488 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 488
  Subject: Receiving Secret Laboratories
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Submitted: 97-12-13 13:21
    Judge: rufus (selected 97-12-13 14:22)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The organisation Shell#2 received a Secret Laboratory from the
organisation Shell#1 when Else...if posted the following:

"I suggest that Shell#1 transfer the Secret Laboratory to Shell#2
I approve the suggestion
I suggest that Shell#2 recieve the Secret Laboratory from Shell#1
I approve the suggestion"

Initiator's Comments:

Rule 101 states that:

"The rules and the game state may only be changed as described in the
rules."

However rule 101 also states:

"Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by the rules,
however, is permitted and unregulated"

This is part of the rules and it is therefore permissible to change the
game state or rules in any way that is not forbidden by the rules.
Nowhere in the rules is it stated that an organisation without a trade
license is not permitted to offer or accept gifts. Rule 1011 does
state:

"If an Organization has a Trade License, that Organization may offer,
accept, and retract trades on the Free Market, and give gifts."

This does not however mean that only organizations with trade license
may do so. I think that the crux of the matter lies in the
interpretation of the word "if". If you have a sentence reading:

"If an object is red then it is not black"

Then this does not mean that the only objects which are not black are
red.

Judge's Comments:

Rule 515 "Trading and Gifts", defines how Players --and only Players-- may
make trades on the Free Market.  Rule 1011 "allows Organizations to buy a
Trade License, and then allows Organizations with such a license to make
trades in the same manner as allowed by R515.  The Rules allow trade, and
they regulate it; therefore, what the regulations do not allow is not
allowed.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:58:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 490 (Balsamic Dragon)

Balsamic Dragon has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 490
  Subject: Syntax and Semantics
Initiator: rufus
Submitted: 97-12-14 6:23
    Judge: Balsamic Dragon (selected 97-12-14 11:58)
Judgement: 

Statement:

It is impossible to vote YES on a proposal.

Initiator's Comments:

Rule 106 provides that "Voting Players may vote either YES,
NO, or PRESENT on each proposal, by sending their vote to the Tabulator." 
Either/or is a binary relation, so the valid votes are "YES,NO," and
"PRESENT".

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:18:40 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Suggestion

	May I suggest we test the church issue as follows: someone
volunteer to join those churches, or at least one of them.  Then I'll
announce that it has been created, then someone make a CFJ saying it
wasn't.  Then we can find out.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:51:33 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : All those Unfounded Churches

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> But becoming a Follower enables a church to eventually be created (at
> least if you are the third Follower).  So what you are doing affects the
> game state, and hence you can only become a Follower (or possibly the
> third follower, I'm not sure) as described in the rules.  The rules don't
> describe a way, and so you can't become one.  It's crazy but it might be
> true.

You may be right - but I'd prefer to have this CFJd

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:54:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Question

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> 
> If this thing about it being impossible to join a church is true then
> it most definitely is broken. I think that it would be better to change
> everything in one go anyway, as at the moment churches have access to
> all the org powers, which is a problem.

It may be be broken, but not in the way you seemed to argue before - even
if Slakko is wrong, those serial Churches were never founded.

I don't think that Churches having access to org powers is a problem.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:58:03 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC for orgs

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Towsner wrote:

> 	Given the current uncertainties in the church rules, and the fact
> that there are a number of anachronisms in it, I'd rather re-write them
> into something which better fits with newer rules.  How about a limited
> ability to majik trinkets?  The issue is that with all the other org
> changes I'm suggesting, something like a more than human would no longer
> make sense for any other type of org.  I also kind of like the idea of
> having provisions for a state religion.

I'd rather first how it works with other Organizations before we just
break everything.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:59:06 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC was: Re: Question

I would be all for it. In fact, I attempted to get something like through
several weeks ago.

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> Okay.  Quick RFC on rough ground:
> 
> 1. Split the Org structure into the following parts:
> 
> (a) Collections, and (b) Organizations
> 
> Collections are groups of players which no longer have sufficient members,
> or who have never had sufficient members, to become an Org.  Collections
> may accept new members only.  Conversion to Organization is automatic.
> 
> A player attempts to create a Collection by making a public action which
> specifies its name.  If the player has A$mumble or more, they then pay
> A$mumble to the Treasury and the Collection is created.
> If a Collection ever has (gromit) or more members, it immediately becomes
> an Organization.  If an Organization ever has less than (gromit) members,
> it immediately becomes a Collection.
> If a Collection ever has 0 members, all its tradeable possessions are
> returned to the Treasury, and the Collection is then destroyed.
> 
> 2. Subclasses
> 
> Collections and Organizations belong to subclasses, labelled "C", "P",
> "R" and "S" for Company, Party, Religion and Social respectively.  No
> Collection or Organization can belongto more than one subclass - the
> subclass a Collection is in must be stated when it is formed, and cannot
> be changed. When a Collection becomes an Organization or vice versa, it
> remains in the same subclass.
> 
> 3. Organizational Powers
> Collections maypossess Org Powers, but may not use them.
> Organizations may possess Org Powers, and can use them.
> However, all Org Powers have restrictions on the subclasses.   Each Org
> Power has a code, such as "CPR" or "PC" etc.  The code is a string, where
> each character is the label of zero or one subclasses.  A Collection or
> Org may only purchase an Org Power if they are in a subclass whose label
> is in the code of the Org Power.  Org Powers are nontradeable.
> 
> (You then label all the Org Powers - e.g. a Synod Seat is "CR", a Trade
> Licence is "C" etc.
> You also label all existing orgs and collections.)
> 
> - --
> 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: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:03:59 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : All those Unfounded Churches

>You may be right - but I'd prefer to have this CFJd
	Me too.  If someone else would join AHH#1, then I'll declare it to
exist and someone can CFJ it.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:18:59 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

>> > Just trying to understand the workings of the Supreme Court in order
>> > that I might know better in future when an appeal will be
>> > worthwhile.
>> 
>> Ha. "Good luck."
>
>So basically what you are saying, as a Justice, is that Justice is so
>irregular it is beyond comprehension?  That sure inspires confidence.

A slightly more informative response than "Good Luck" would have been
something along the lines of:

Supreme Court deliberations vary from collaborative exploration to spirited
debate, depending on the case and the current Justices.  The Court does its
best to render the decision most in keeping with the rules, Game State, 
game custom, and, where applicable, the spirit of the game.  The Justices
make every effort to remain impartial, and generally succeed well in that
regard.  The Court has no internal set of judicial principles and no agenda
beyond its charter.  The Court gives no special weight to the decision of the
original judge of any case, but does normally attempt to give all due
consideration to all reasoning attached to the case at the time the Court
reviews it.  I'm afraid, though, that that gives you no assistance when it
comes to predicting the likelihood of any particular verdict being overturned;
hence, "Good Luck."

ThinMan
Justice

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:40:58 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 474 Appeal Verdict

>> It was the best of a collection of rotten alternative interpretations.
>> "Entity" may or may not be a subclass of "object."  There are certainly
>> objects which are not entities; to wit: Pumpkin Patch Nomic.  The word
>
>You mean the nomic, the organization of which malenkai is a member,
>anything else?
>I don't see either one of those as an object.

I mean the nomic.  In my opinion it would qualify as an object for the
purposes of the rule in question.

ThinMan
Disagreeing with Niccolo -- what a novelty  :^)

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:07:49 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 483 Verdict

> CFJ 483 has been judged TRUE.

> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 483
>   Subject: Organizational Actions
> Initiator: Malenkai
> Submitted: 97-12-09 21:14
>     Judge: Slakko (selected 97-12-09 21:21)
> Judgement: TRUE

> Statement:

> An Organization may change its name as an Organizational Action.

I am appealing this verdict.  I refuse to believe that any action that
may be performed by a player may necessarily be performed by an
Organization.  This may cause more problems than it solves, but I
prefer to think that any action that the Rules do not specify can
be performed by an Organization(or by any class of entity that includes
Orgs, including "all entities")cannot be performed by an Organization.
Otherwise, perhaps I should suggest that the Rebellion attempt to chew
the Gumball.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds:Murder Ballads
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Outward Bound
Quixotic Republicans vet first key zero-growth jeremiad.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 22:12:41 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 483 Verdict

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> I am appealing this verdict.  I refuse to believe that any action that
> may be performed by a player may necessarily be performed by an
> Organization.  This may cause more problems than it solves, but I
> prefer to think that any action that the Rules do not specify can
> be performed by an Organization(or by any class of entity that includes
> Orgs, including "all entities")cannot be performed by an Organization.
> Otherwise, perhaps I should suggest that the Rebellion attempt to chew
> the Gumball.

Not today, surely!

- --
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: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 22:26:02 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinket

I hereby create a trinket called the Round Tuit.
Value: A$1
Description:  It is a round tuit.  Not a square tuit, a rectangular tuit,
an elliptical tuit or a triangular tuit.  It is a round tuit.  When you
have a round tuit, and you get a round tuit, all manner of jobs get done.

I am giving the Round Tuit to two-star in recognition of eir fine job as
Map-Harfer.

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: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:28:41 -0800
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Nemesis Eggplant bidding

The agenda conditions are in, and it's time to bid for your favorite
eggplant. (read rules 431, 607, and 671 for more information.)

The maximum (and default) bid is 126, the minimum is -252. The amount of
points required per hat will be equal to the second lowest bid, (the
winner of the bid being the lowest,) so you should bid higher on easier
conditions. Unless you have a better idea. You cannot bid on conditions
you have submitted, so don't bother. 

Reply to bid.
For my convenience, please format bids as "x, y" where x is the number I
have assigned to the condition, and y is your bid, with each bid on a
seperate line.

Oh, one more thing. Crackfoo only submitted one condition, which I
believe is illegal, and thus invalid. I include it anyway, in case there
is disagreement about this.

Slakko:

1)The owner of this hat owns a perfect number of Majiks.

2)The owner of this hat is a member of more Organizations containing
more than one player than any other active player.

3)If the end of the world were to happen today, then the owner of this
hat would win the Cycle.

Alfvaen:

4)The owner of this hat owns A Wall of Trombones.

5)No player has a prime score.

6)The owner of this hat has had a level of the Monolith named after em
by another player.

Rex Mundi:

7)The owner of this hat has created a trinket who's description is
palindromic.

8)The owner of this hat has taken possession of the Little Lamb, while
owning this hat.

9)The owner of this hat has posted a public message containing at least
10 misspelled words, each of which has, in its correct form, a prime
number of letters.

Vynd:

10)The wearer of this hat has joined exactly three political parties
since e recieved it.

11)The owner of this hat has lost four or more Duels since e received
it.

12)The wearer of this hat has abstained on every proposal who's number
is divisible by 7 that has been submited since e recieved this hat.

Red Barn:

13)The game of InterNomic of which Ackanomic is a member (the one of
those of which it is currently a member which it was first, in the
unlikely event of an ambiguous specification) acknowledges as voting
members of itself at least fourty-two Nomics which both contain the word
"Froggy", not necessarily capitalized, in their rulesets, and which
acknowledge the owner of this hat as members of themselves.

14)The owner of this hat has a negative, nonintegral, or non-numerical
quantity of points, A$, or any other entity or entities.

15)The owner of this hat has at least 15 attributes listed on the
Players/Entities page.

ThinMan:

16)The owner of this hat was sheltered in Vulcan Headquarters during a
Tornado.

17)The owner of this hat has authored at least five proposals this
cycle for which at least forty percent but less than sixty percent
of the combined YES and NO votes were YES.

18)The owner of this hat has defeated the owner of this eggplant in
at least two duels this cycle.

Malenkai:

19)It is the case that the Synod has a seat in the Synod,
that the Synod is a member of MetaMorph, and that
MetaMorph has a seat in the Synod.

20)It is the case that a proposal with the title
"Scam or Spam?" was accepted within the last 90
days, and that said proposal was authored by
someone other than the owner of this hat.

21)The owner of this hat also has the Chartreuse Goose.

The Gingham Wearer

22)During the past seventeen days the wearer of this hat has had exactly
- -59 points for a period of at least 24 hours.

23)The owner of this hat has had five consecutive proposals accepted
immediately following having five consecutive proposals rejected.

24)The owner of this hat has danced naked on the town hall steps during
this cycle.

25)The owner of this hat has frinked a litre
of right handed grape fruit juice.

26)The owner of this hat has authored five
proposals in a chrome streak.

27)A Frankenstein monster has been created,
including five parts from a rule created
by the owner of this hat.

Balsamic Dragon:

28)The owner of this hat has won a game of viruses.

29)The owner of this hat has successfully white-water rafted down the
Ackanomian River.

30)The owner of this hat has been chosen as
a judge for a call for justice (criminal or non) three times and, after
all possible appeals are processed, has not had eir judgment overturned.

Crackfoo:

31?)The person wearing this hat owns at least 2 PFBonds for every player
in the game at the time this hat is issued.

**two-star
illuminatus

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 14:32:14 -0800
From: **Alexandre Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket

Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> I hereby create a trinket called the Round Tuit.
> Value: A$1
> Description:  It is a round tuit.  Not a square tuit, a rectangular tuit,
> an elliptical tuit or a triangular tuit.  It is a round tuit.  When you
> have a round tuit, and you get a round tuit, all manner of jobs get done.
> 
> I am giving the Round Tuit to two-star in recognition of eir fine job as
> Map-Harfer.

Thank you kindly. I am resigning as Map Harfer, and suggesting that our
president appoint Slakko for the job.

**two-star

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:02:48 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Brace yourselves...

I give A$50 to Shell#1
I suggest that Shell#1 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#2
I suggest that Shell#2 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#3
I suggest that Shell#3 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#4
I suggest that Shell#4 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#5
I suggest that Shell#5 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#6
I suggest that Shell#6 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#7
I suggest that Shell#7 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#8
I suggest that Shell#8 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#9
I suggest that Shell#9 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion
I give A$50 to Shell#10
I suggest that Shell#10 buy a trade license
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#1 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#2
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#2 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#1
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#2 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#2 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#3
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#3 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#2
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#3 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#3 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#4
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#4 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#3
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#4 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#4 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#5
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#5 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#4
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#5 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#5 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#6
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#6 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#5
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#6 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#6 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#7
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#7 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#6
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#7 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#7 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#8
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#8 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#7
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#8 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#8 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#9
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#9 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#8
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#9 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

I suggest that Shell#9 transfer its Secret Laboratory to Shell#10
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#10 accept the transfer of a Secret Laboratory from Shell#9
I approve of this suggestion
I suggest that Shell#10 build an Automatic Sculpture with its Secret Laboratory
I approve of this suggestion

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:02:32 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Suggestions

I suggest that the Matress accept the Secret Lab from Pumpkin Patch Nomic.
I approve that suggestion.
It is accepted.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:11:21 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: There's a bug...

><scam text deleted>
>
>BRAVO!  Well done guys.

Yeah.  Too bad it wasn't an original scam.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 15:31:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Silver Moon acceptance speech

I would like to thank everybody for this beautiful Silver Moon award.
It is a lovely little award, and I am touched that my fragile attempt
at humor during a time of thread-splitting crises was appreciated and
well-received.

The Samizdat publication was the product of some frustration. The
Court was still finishing up the quite sticky CFJ 402, which would
decide a win, along with some other less critical CFJs. Then suddenly
multiple scams were being attempted, and the equally sticky CFJ 415
was appealed. (I was on IRC with Malenkai and /dev/joe when they were
discussing that CFJ. When Malenkai said, "I'm going to have to appeal
your verdict," I got a cold feeling in my stomach.) All this was
further delayed by the fact that my fellow Justice mr cwm was very
busy with his own extranomic life, and so things were further
delayed. The Samizdat publication ... ah ... "appeared" one night when
I was waiting for mr cwm's reply to several messages of mine regarding
most of the current CFJ appeals.

I am also very happy to not be in Gaol this time over failing to get
the candidates out in time, and thus to receive this award without
also being docked five points.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:37:05 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: There's a bug...

>Yeah.  Too bad it wasn't an original scam.
	While I realize that you guys thought of it first, let me say that
I did think of it independantly.

- --
Omnium pro iure, ius pro omnio

- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the
follies of one's own times.  The ability to change one's own times is the
true test of a leader.  And the ability to do both is the true test of a
visionary who will never be elected."
	-Marilyn vos Savant

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #418
*******************************