Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #426
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, December 18 1997      Volume 02 : Number 426

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:10:34 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka Public Action

>SPAM give
>A$200 back to Balsamic Dragon so that e can construct a tower to seek
>shelter from the tornado.

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: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:24:13 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka : synod actions

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> The Yor-Delegate acts as _directed_ by the Synod, correct?
> So how do we know how the Synod acts?

Do you mean how the Synod acts, or how it directs the Yor-Delegate?

> I would argue that whatever is said on the acka-synod mailing list is not
> a public action, just like whatever is said on acka-spam is not a public
> action.

How various Delegates vote doesn't need to be a public action any more
than how various Senators vote should be a public action.

In my opinion, I acted according to a Synod decision - if you believe
differently, I think you should invoke a CFJ.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:32:33 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Those darn chess pieces

I guess I was wrong about the name, R1040 "Party Hall", doesn't allow the
But I also don't believe that the null name is a violation by R38
So we ar eleft with a name collision.

Niccolo Flychuck

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Looking at the rules, it is clear that the Office of Ben was not
> destroyed.  It has no name, and no way to change its name, so Malenkai
> owns the Capital Swinger Office "".  It has no pieces, not even a King,
> because they were all stripped, and the office is not newly created, or
> purchased in the ordinary way from the Treasury.
> 
> 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: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:36:06 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Next step

I proxy my support to Shell#1
I proxy my support to Shell#2
I proxy my support to Shell#3
I proxy my support to Shell#4
I proxy my support to Shell#5
I proxy my support to Shell#6
I proxy my support to Shell#7
I proxy my support to Shell#8
I proxy my support to Shell#9
I proxy my support to Shell#10

I suggest that Shell#1 transfer its Scroll of Crumble to me
I suggest that Shell#2 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me
I suggest that Shell#3 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me
I suggest that Shell#4 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me
I suggest that Shell#5 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me
I suggest that Shell#6 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me
I suggest that Shell#7 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me
I suggest that Shell#8 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me
I suggest that Shell#9 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me
I suggest that Shell#10 transfer its Automatic Sculpture to me

I bury my nine automatic sculptures as a new treasure

Two-Star has found my treasure containing nine automatic sculptures.  The
treasure map was:
	Whoever owns the round tuit shall find this treasure

- --
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: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 22:42:13 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka : synod actions

On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The Yor-Delegate acts as _directed_ by the Synod, correct?
> > So how do we know how the Synod acts?
> 
> Do you mean how the Synod acts, or how it directs the Yor-Delegate?
> 
> 
> > I would argue that whatever is said on the acka-synod mailing list is not
> > a public action, just like whatever is said on acka-spam is not a public
> > action.
> 
> How various Delegates vote doesn't need to be a public action any more
> than how various Senators vote should be a public action.

Well thanks to you turning them into Orgs from Institutions, that's
exactly what both of them have to do.
> 
> In my opinion, I acted according to a Synod decision - if you believe
> differently, I think you should invoke a CFJ.

See you in court, chummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmp. ["The Simpsons"]

- --
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, 19 Dec 1997 00:43:17 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Those darn chess pieces

On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > Looking at the rules, it is clear that the Office of Ben was not
> > destroyed.  It has no name, and no way to change its name, so Malenkai
> > owns the Capital Swinger Office "".  It has no pieces, not even a King,
> > because they were all stripped, and the office is not newly created, or
> > purchased in the ordinary way from the Treasury.
> 
> Actually, there may be another possibility.  Malenkai called the hearing
> on "The Capital Swinger's Office in the Treasury".  I'd have to check

At the time Malenkai called the Hearing there were six non-Warm Swinger
Offices in Party Hall (Karma's office cetrainly didn't have time to become
Warm yet). The number of Capital Swingers Offices in the Treasury is 7
minus the number of non-Warm Swinger Offices, which leaves us with exactly
one.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > the Rules on this one, but the office owned by Ben might not have been
> the only such Office in the Treasury.  If so, then either the Hearing
> failed entirely, since it was not specified unambiguously, or one of the
> Offices is chosen at random, in which case he might get a "fresh" one.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:32:55 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: New Observer

Here's the message I got from a fellow recently:

>      I'm new to the whole Nomic thing, so I would like to observe your
> discussions.  Can you help me out?  I really like the idea of nomics.

> -David Andreasen in San Francisco-
> [email-masked]

I already warned em that we might be a wee bit atypical, so we'll see
what e thinks...:-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Nick CAve & The Bad Seeds:Murder Ballads
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Outward Bound
Constant change is here to stay.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:42:05 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Lame Game SotG Situation

> > If someone hasn't done
> > so already, I will soon be submiting a proposal that will make it
> > explicitly impossible to make prospective actions.

> And collapse the game of Grab-a-Donkey.  All turns submitted therein are
> effectively prospective actions, as they are a statement of what a player
> will do at the instant the round ends.

> The rules of Grab-a-Donkey currently implicitly state this prospectivity,
> so a FALSE on the CFJ won't affect it.  But a proposal with sufficiently
> low number will.  Be careful what you do with limits to prospectivity.
> Perhaps simply a time limit, say 3 days or 1 week, and a ban on
> prospective conditionals.

It's apples and oranges.  Subgames involve sending actions _privately_
to a referee-type, who then posts them.  Private actions are not, I
believe, regulated by the game very much.  Furthermore, suggesting an
action for an organization is the same kind of thing.  Neither of these
are what we want to deal with here.

I don't care much for prospective actions either.  And I agree that your
CFJ retraction was ambiguous, too.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds:Murder Ballads
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Outward Bound
Heck was created for those who refuse to believe in Gosh.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:12:39 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Slakko's expert apps

> 2. Unwinning
> I voted Yes, Vynd and mr cwm voted No, Balsamic Dragon voted Yes
> (in time, though she thought she was late). 2-2 tie, the Proconsul
> shall break the tie.

I vote no. 

Malenkai
ProConsul

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:33:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Slakko's expert apps

> > 3. Null Proposals
> > I voted Yes, Vynd voted Yes, Rex Mundi (acting for mr cwm) voted Yes,
> > and Balsamic Dragon voted Yes. 4-0, the application is approved.
> 
> Um, actually, I changed my mind and voted NO on the last one, probably
> while /dev/joe was writing this message.  Not sure if that means that his
> report was entirely invalid, or if the result of becoming an Expert in
> Null Proposals stands but /dev/joe is considered to have made a mistake
> in reporting the actual votes.  Probably the later.

Yes, Vynd changed his vote on the last one to NO while I was sending that
message; the expert status stands, by a 3-1 vote, and Malenkai just nuked
the Unwinning one with his tiebreaker vote, so Slakko is an expert in
Null Proposals only.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:37:51 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

> Assuming I have sufficient cash to do so, I guard the following proposals:

> 2442
> 2445
> 2446
> 2447
> 2448
> 2449
> 2450
> 2481
> 2482
> 2483

Yes, this is what I was thinking of.  Now, since Slakko only had enough
cash at that point(A$278)to Guard _one_ Proposal, should I consider
this as an action Guarding P2442?  Or is it, again, ambiguous?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Boomtown Rats:Tonight
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Outward Bound
"Do I have to hit you with my neutron spectrometer?"

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:34:38 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Guarding

So I was going through the Mail that attended upon the negative-trinket
thing, and I ran across this one:

> I hereby pay A$175 to Guard Proposal 2475.

Since it only costs A$150 to Guard a Proposal, should this be considered
an ambiguous statement?  Did Slakko mean to pay A$150 or A$175?  I'm going
to consider it ambiguous, and thus disregard it.

However, if Slakko _did_ successfully Guard this Proposal(or another
one; I seem to recall when e had supposedly gained A$100,000 or so, e
tried to guard a whole bunch, and one might have succeeded), the whole
Religious Nutcase thing might have failed, or at least the intended
purchase of a Synod Seat.  More later...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--REM:Strange Currencies
Current Book--Juanita Coulson:Outward Bound
What if no one's watching?

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:34:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

> > Assuming I have sufficient cash to do so, I guard the following proposals:
> 
> > 2442
> > 2445
> > 2446
> > 2447
> > 2448
> > 2449
> > 2450
> > 2481
> > 2482
> > 2483
> 
> Yes, this is what I was thinking of.  Now, since Slakko only had enough
> cash at that point(A$278)to Guard _one_ Proposal, should I consider
> this as an action Guarding P2442?  Or is it, again, ambiguous?

I would say that since he prefaced the entire thing with "Assuming I
have sufficient cash to do so," and he in fact did not, that nothing
happened.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 19:11:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Guarding

> So I was going through the Mail that attended upon the
> negative-trinket thing, and I ran across this one:
> 
>> I hereby pay A$175 to Guard Proposal 2475.
> 
> Since it only costs A$150 to Guard a Proposal, should this be
> considered an ambiguous statement?  Did Slakko mean to pay A$150 or
> A$175?  I'm going to consider it ambiguous, and thus disregard it.

Well, under normal circumstances, this kind of error would be
considered an unambiguous spelling error, and thus ignored. You can
only pay A$150 to Guard a proposal, so his mistake is unambiguous and
thus would be ignored. I'm inclined to believe that his action
succeeded.

(If so, this also means that Balsamic Dragon gets her A$150 back,
since she later said she was Guarding Proposal 2475 if and only if it
wasn't already Guarded.)

breadbox

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #426
*******************************