Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #428
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Saturday, December 20 1997      Volume 02 : Number 428

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 21:29:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ackanomic digest V2 #426

> With a heavy heart, I must withdraw from Ackanomia, even as an
> observer.  I hereby bequeath all my tradeable possessions to my
> moronic twin Malenkai.  I also request to be removed from all
> Ackanomic lists, to wit: the main, research, voting (a good joke
> there) and games.  Farewell, and may the Golden Frog smile on you
> all.

I bid farewell once more, Voting Gnome. (If you ever return again, I
hope I am there to welcome you.)

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 07:51:49 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: About That Proposal 2395.

This was meant to be the ultimate "I think this fix is necessary but I
don't want to get any points for it" enabler.  Why did people reject
boringness, when if they wanted to they could completely avoid using it
themselves?  What harm does others calling their proposals Boring do to
you?

Yours in bewilderment,
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, 20 Dec 1997 07:53:04 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Guarding

On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Vivian Norwood wrote:
> 
> > Okay, here's the deal.  I have no idea now how much money I have, but I
> > really want to build myself a tower before the tornado hits.  So.  If I
> > have the funds to do so, I am building a tower to attach to my home.  It is
> > 35 yards high (or the minimum number of yards high if my memory fails me.) 
> > I am then going into my basement.  I will be staying there until Monday.
> 
> Towers have heights specified in meters.  I don't know if that means this
> fails.  or what.

What.  It will be treated as an unambiguous spelling mistake that e
spelt "metres" as "yards", because that is unambiguously what eir intent
is.

- --
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, 20 Dec 1997 11:40:37 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Synod

On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Niccolo, I know exactly the point of your Synod thingamebob.  It's because
> I didn't have enough money if I successfully guarded that proposal which I
> was trying to, to found the organization which would have "stolen" all
> your precious Synod money.

Since I was planning to steal it first, with an appropriate Synod
decision..

> 
> Isee that you have accepted my initial organizational argument, and are
> now attempting to nitpick your way around my supposedly well-timed scam.
No. I'm just covering  a couple more angles.

> 
> I have an interesting intepretation of the State of Crisis Resolution
> Document which may ruin this.
> 
> > The game state is adjusted, retroactively if necessary,
> > as if proposal 2439 was not accepted.
> 
> If proposal 2439 had not been accepted, then I would not have had the
> opportunity to scam, and hence I would not been so free with my money as
> to guard aproposal.  
> I would never have guarded the proposal in the situation where 2439 had
> not been accepted, and hence when the gamestate was retroactively adjusted
> I never guarded the proposal.
I don't think it will wash. You're talking too many conditionals and
intentions. A game can't be harfed on such what ifs.

> 
> Ain't flow on effects wonderful? :-)
> 
> And, yes, I know this opens a can of worms, but I worked hard for that
> scam, I'm low on cash as it is, and it is barely A$200 I'm making on this.

If you're low on cash then you shouldn't buy Trade Licenses and Synod
Seats.
Tell you what - if it turns out your scam failed - I'll give you A$100
from the money the Synod transferred to Odo.
As Founder of Odo I declare that if the formation of the Religious Nutcase
failed the Church is willing to accept as members all those huddled masses
who joined the Religious Nutcase up to the time when you first attempted
your scam.  

Niccolo Flychuck
Founder of Odo

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:52:13 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation Declaration

I proxy my support to Religious Nutcase.

I would ask Balsamic to keep the flag flying as my proxy.

I suggest that Balsamic Dragon be the acting SPAM Swinger, but I will
support the choice of whoever is selected as acting Swinger during my
upcoming holiday.

{Here is an interesting point in prospectivity - if you're on vacation you
can't suggest a replacement - but if you can't perform actions
prospectively you can't suggest a replacement while you're not on
vacation.  So how do you suggest a replacement?}

I suggest that Niccolo Flychuck become Acting Chess-Umpire during my
absence.
I suggest that Alfvaen be Acting Map-Harfer in my absence.

I ask to be transferred from the ackanomic and acka-voting lists to their
digest forms.

I say goodbye to Ursula and the Machine that Goes *ping*.

I hereby go on vacation with expected return date 7th January (I will
probably return a day or two before this, but I just want to be sure I
don't go On Ice).

I wish all Christian Ackans a Merry Christmas, all Jewish Ackans to have a
good Hanukkah, all Druidic Ackans (!?) a Merry Solstice, and everyone a
Happy New Year.  Oh, yeah, and Happy Hogmanay to any Scottish Ackans.

If your religion of choice has a festival and/or holy day I missed out
over this time of the year, then please email me and I'll retrospectively
wish you the appropriate greeting when I get back.

- --
Duncan "end of year blitz" 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, 20 Dec 1997 15:11:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ackanomic digest V2 #426

> With a heavy heart,  I must withdraw from Ackanomia,  even as an
> observer.  I hereby bequeath all my tradeable possessions to my moronic
> twin Malenkai. 

With heavy heart I ack this.  To be honest, this prolly doesn't work,
although we have allowed it to in the past.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:19:07 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 497 (Alfvaen)

CFJ 497 has been assigned to Alfvaen.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 497
  Subject: Judging CFJ 495
Initiator: else..if
Submitted: 97-12-17 22:20
    Judge: Alfvaen (selected 97-12-20 15:19)
Judgement: 

Statement:
        It is impossible to judge CFJ 495, thus making further play on this
impossible.

Reasoning:
        If CFJ is judged TRUE, than it is FALSE, and therefore must not be
judged FALSE, and must be judged TRUE.  This is clearly a paradox.  A
judgement of UNDECIDED does not help the issue because it only moves the
case to the Supreme Court.  CFJ 495 is not "inherently contradictory."
Rule 211 says that CFJs with inherently contradictory statements are
invalid.  However all 495's statement says is that the CFJ is false.  This
statement does not conflict with itself.  Even if it is argued that the CFJ
as a whole is self-contradictory, that does not make the *statement*
self-contradictory, as is required for it to be INVALID.  If this is judged
TRUE, I claim a paradox win as specified in rule 601.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:21:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 498 (K 2)

CFJ 498 has been assigned to K 2.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 498
  Subject: Synod action
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-12-18 17:46
    Judge: K 2 (selected 97-12-20 15:21)
Judgement: 

Statement:

A Synod action cannot occur unless it has first been suggested on a public
mailing list.

Slakko's Reasoning:

Rule 1303, "Synod", does not describe a method by which the Synod takes
any action.  However, it does state that the Synod is an Organization.
Therefore, Rule 1005, "Organizational Actions", dictates how the Synod
shall perform actions.  This rule specifies that any action for an
organization must first be suggested by one of its members as a public
message.  

Any message not on a public mailing list is not a public message, and
hence without a message on a public mailing list suggesting an action for
the Synod to take, the Synod cannot take that action.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:23:34 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 499 (two-star)

CFJ 499 has been assigned to two-star.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 499
  Subject: Chrome streaks
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-12-18 18:58
    Judge: two-star (selected 97-12-20 15:23)
Judgement: 

Statement:

Malenkai received 15 points for the Chrome Streak which included
Proposal 2388.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

As originally harfed, the Chrome Streak stretched from 2379 to 2390.
Malenkai had three Proposals in the Streak: 2380, 2381, and 2390,
and thus received 15 bonus points upon the announcement of the
Streak.

Slakko's allegation is that since Proposal 2389 was Null, that Malenkai
could not have received bonus points from Proposal 2390.  His argument
goes something like this(apologies for any misconstrual):

Rule 207, Section VII, states:

   VII. Null Proposals
   
   The above provisions notwithstanding, if an accepted proposal does not
   become a new rule or generate at least one valid effect under Rule
   103, no points are scored by any player as a result of that proposal
   being accepted, the preceding provisions of this rule notwithstanding.
   Such proposals, and only such proposals, are "Null Proposals".

Proposal 2390 is only in the Chrome Streak as a result of Proposal 2389
being accepted.  Therefore, Malenkai should not get any bonus points
from Proposal 2390's presence in the Streak.

I hold that this reasoning is absurd, and could be carried to ridiculous
lengths if _any_ points from _any_ result of a Null Proposal being
accepted were nullified.  Of course, absurdity is not necessary a
compelling counterargument...

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:26:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 500 (Niccolo)

CFJ 500 has been assigned to Niccolo.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 500
  Subject: Taxing question
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-12-18 20:28
    Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 97-12-20 15:26)
Judgement: 

Statement:

The A$10 Balsamic Dragon received at the end of the game of viruses
e was refereeing was not taxed at the end of Cycle 16.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Cycle 16 ended when Malenkai "gained 1 win" from Beldin's Pants.  So
did the abovementioned game of Viruses, for which Balsamic Dragon
received A$10, when Alfvaen gained 1 win at the same time.

Now, did this award of A$10 occur _before_ Rule 666 kicked in,
suspended play, and taxed Balsamic Dragon(among others)20% of eir
Total Wealth?  No, it occurred at the same time.  So was it taxed?
What Cycle did Balsamic Dragon receive that money in, or in none at
all?  Is it possible for events to occur simultaneously with End of
Cycle?

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:29:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 486 Appeal Verdict

CFJ 486 has been overturned to FALSE with a
penalty of 2 points to the original judge.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 486
  Subject: Ruling UNDECIDED
Initiator: Slakko
Submitted: 97-12-12 17:53
    Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected 97-12-12 19:38)
Judgement: INVALID
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

The Supreme Court can never issue a ruling other than UNDECIDED on a
CFCJ that "Slakko has committed a Crime", provided that Slakko does not
commit any Crimes after the submission of this CFJ.

Slakko's Reasoning:

>From CFJ 406 we have that any CFCJs on the basis of Slakko's attempt to
recreate the Liar Paradox in his public actions of December 12 1997 must
be ruled UNDECIDED.

Rule 214 states that:

If the Judgement is Undecided then the CFJ shall be decided by the Supreme
Court as if it had been appealed, except that the original Judge shall not
be penalized for an overturned verdict on that CFJ. 

Rule 710 states that:
Except as detailed in this rule, it shall be like the Call for Judgement
in all ways, including how it is submitted, how judges are selected, how
it is appealed, etc. Any changes to the CFJ procedure will automatically
be "inherited" by the CFCJ procedure when they do not contradict the
exceptions detailed in this rule. 

No such contradiction occurs regarding Supreme Court Appeals.

Rule 217 states that:
After the fourth time a judgement has been returned on a single CFJ, it
may not be appealed further.

These two bits are "inherited" by Rule 710, but do not themselves apply to
CFCJs.  The statement of Rule 710 described above takes the sections on
CFJs which do not have analogues explicitly described in Rule 710, and
make them part of the CFCJ rules.  It does not mean that CFCJs are
beholden to Rules 214 or 217.

Therefore Rule 710 implicitly states that:

If the Judgement is Undecided then the CFJ shall be decided by the Supreme
Court as if it had been appealed, except that the original Judge shall not
be penalized for an overturned verdict on that CFJ. 

and also, with exactly the same priority (its authority derives from the
exact same sentence in Rule 710) that:

After the fourth time a judgement has been returned on a single CFJ, it
may not be appealed further.

All rulings on the CFCJ must be UNDECIDED in accordance with CFJ 406.
Therefore, the Supreme Court must decide the verdict as if it had been
appealed.  It may not be appealed more than four times, however.
Interestingly, though, decision of verdict _as if_ it had been appealed
does not constitute another appeal.  Therefore, all appeal limits are
ignored, and hence, no matter how many UNDECIDED verdicts The Supreme
Court issue, they must always decide the verdict again.

Slakko notes that this is a major problem.  He was looking for a paradox
win, and instead created an infinite loop.

The Gingham Wearer's Reasoning:

Rule 710 states:

"2) A CFCJ will be clearly labelled as such, to distinguish it from an
ordinary CFJ. "

Hence the phrase this CFJ in the statement cannot be referring to the
CFCJ stating that, "Slakko has committed a Crime", and it is unclear to
what it is referring.

Slakko's Appeal Reasoning;

It is obvious that the phrase "this CFJ" in the statement is the CFJ
referring to itself.  As The Gingham Wearer has stated, it cannot be
referring to the CFCJ.  There is therefore only one possible
interpretation - that it is referring to itself.
The finding of INVALID is therefore erroneous.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Never is a long time.

It is entirely within the bounds of possibility that a proposal (or
some other method of rule change) could append self-deleting text to a
rule that declared Slakko innocent of any and all crimes he may have
committed - perhaps even retroactively, so that any possible crimes
would be deemed to have never occurred. It would be a delinquent Court
that subsequently returned a verdict of Undecided on the hypothetical
CFCJ.

The original judge is penalized two points.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:34:25 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 493 Verdict

CFJ 493 has been judged FALSE without comment.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 493
  Subject: Those Silly Agenda Hats
Initiator: Vynd
Submitted: 97-12-16 12:06
    Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected 97-12-16 20:47)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

It is permissible for a player to send to the Illuminatus
a number of Agenda conditions fewer than 3 minus the number of Agenda Hats
that player owns.

Vynd's Reasoning:

  This is actually kind of important, because Crackfoo has done
exactly what I have described in my statement.  Rule 431, which governs
the submission of Agenda conditions, has this to say:

"During this [ed. the Agenda Condition submission period] time, any player
may submit a number of Agenda Conditions equal to three minus the number
of Agenda Hats e owns by sending them to them to the Illuminatus.  If a
player sends more than this number of Agenda Conditions, only the first
Agenda Conditions sent will be counted."

The key here is that it requires the number of conditions sent to be
"equal" to 3 minus the number of Agenda hats the player has.  The rule
does go on to override this by saying that more than this number can be
sent, but it never says that it is permissible to send fewer.  I think
that this means that it is not in fact permissible, but I'm not sure.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:36:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 495 Verdict

CFJ 495 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 495
  Subject: This CFJ is Invalid
Initiator: else..if
Submitted: 97-12-17 16:59
    Judge: K 2 (selected 97-12-17 19:23)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

This CFJ is false.

Reasoning:

[none]

K 2's Reasoning:

Now why did I get a sense of deja vu when I read this CFJ? Oh yes, CFJ
294.

Rule 213 states:
"Having accepted the appointment a Judge has exactly one week in which
to post an official Judgement."

This statement empowers the appointed judge (and only the appointed
judge) to pass Judgement on the assigned CFJ. Nothing else, is entitled
to do so. Judgement on a CFJ is the sole preserve of the appointed
judge. The purpose of a CFJ's statement is to be considered by the judge
and to have judgement passed on it, not to pass judgement on the CFJ
itself and the rules do not empower it to do so.
The statement of this CFJ attempts to pass judgement on this CFJ, an
action that it is not entitled to perform, and thus is in conflict with
the rules. As such I proclaim it false.

To finish off I will paraphrase CFJ 294:

    "Despite the pseudo-Godelian statement, the Judge is more than able
to deliver TRUE as the verdict of this CFJ.
     No rules require that CFJ's make logical sense or avoid creating
cognitive paradoxi. In fact, I briefly considered
     delivering a verdict of TRUE without comment just to prove this
point. The Judge's ability to deliver a TRUE
     verdict is in no way abridged, and so I judge this statement to be
FALSE.

     I CAN deliver a verdict of TRUE on this statement. I have chosen
not to. " [Guy Fawkes, CFJ 294, 19/9/96]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:49:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe

Red Barn has found Phoebe.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:50:29 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Machine

The Gingham Wearer has found the machine.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 20:55:51 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: My house

I am going to my house if I am not already there and building a 40
meter tower on my it. This costs me A$120. If anyone wants to join me
inside my basement then I'll let them if they pay me A$50, or if they
are a member of SPAM. I automatically let in the first person to post a
public message requesting entry who fulfills these requirements and
then locking the door and not letting anyone else in.

Whilst I'm at it I'll provide a description of my house:

My house is now known as "The Gingham Abode". It is made entirely out
of red and white checked gingham. This means that it is aesthetically
pleasing but somewhat prone to leaking in heavy rain. It is however
surprisingly sturdy in strong winds. For the most part it is only about
seven feet high having once been a bungalow. However, it has a twenty
foot high chimney out of which thin plumes of smoke can normally seen
to be coming. It also has a forty foot tower which is based on is only
thin but has a full size statue of The Gingham Wearer at its peak, and
just below that is a look-out tower, complete with telescopes, from
where it is possible to see throughout Ackanomic and beyond into the
internomic domain.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 15:54:21 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Resignation and Runemaker

1) I resign as Count Tabula.

2) The following have volunteered for the office of Runemaker.
Reply to breadbox to vote:

Alfvaen
The Gingham Wearer
Slakko

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:09:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: nomics

Alfvaen, Malenkai, /dev/joe, and Vulcan all received nomics
from the treasury per the beldin's pants rule.

Anyone interested in how I figured this, e-mail me.  Who
knows if it was right :)

Malenkai
OiCoRT

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:17:30 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My house

>I am going to my house if I am not already there and building a 40
>meter tower on my it. This costs me A$120. If anyone wants to join me
>inside my basement then I'll let them if they pay me A$50, or if they
>are a member of SPAM. I automatically let in the first person to post a
>public message requesting entry who fulfills these requirements and
>then locking the door and not letting anyone else in.
	I'd like to join you.

- --
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: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:30:38 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 495 Verdict

>CFJ 495 has been judged FALSE.
	I appeal this verdict, with all non-quoted material below as reasoning:
>Now why did I get a sense of deja vu when I read this CFJ? Oh yes, CFJ
>294.
	I disagree.  This differs from CFJ 294 in a fundemental way.  The
verdict on 294 depended on the face that the statement illegally forbade
the judge from judging true.  This statement does not prevent you from
making a decision, it makes a statement about the game state, and requests
a judgement of either TRUE or FALSE.

>This statement empowers the appointed judge (and only the appointed
>judge) to pass Judgement on the assigned CFJ. Nothing else, is entitled
>to do so. Judgement on a CFJ is the sole preserve of the appointed
>judge. The purpose of a CFJ's statement is to be considered by the judge
>and to have judgement passed on it, not to pass judgement on the CFJ
>itself and the rules do not empower it to do so.
>The statement of this CFJ attempts to pass judgement on this CFJ, an
>action that it is not entitled to perform, and thus is in conflict with
>the rules. As such I proclaim it false.
	The statement does not "pass judgement."  A statement, by
definition, has no binding effect.  It is a fact about the game state.
This statement postulates that the CFJ it is contained in is false.  It
remains up to the judge to determine the truth of the CFJ and the contained
statement.

>    "Despite the pseudo-Godelian statement, the Judge is more than able
>to deliver TRUE as the verdict of this CFJ.
	I disagree.  If the judge delivers a verdict of TRUE then e is
stating that the statement contained is TRUE, and therefore the CFJ is
FALSE.

>     No rules require that CFJ's make logical sense or avoid creating
>cognitive paradoxi. In fact, I briefly considered
>     delivering a verdict of TRUE without comment just to prove this
>point. The Judge's ability to deliver a TRUE
>     verdict is in no way abridged, and so I judge this statement to be
>FALSE.
	This is a paradox.  If the CFJ is FALSE, then its statement must be
FALSE.  Therefore the CFJ must not be FALSE.

- --
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: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:48:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Next step

> > 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
> 
> But do you accept these transfers?  I don't believe you do.  :-)

I was hoping Alfvaen wouldn't point this out :)  Now that it has 
been, the mad scupltors for finding the treasure are:

The Gingham Wearer
Karma
Red Barn
Alfvaen
Fortunato
Karma
Malenkai (I provide mine here: "It is green")
Robert Sevin
breadbox

Malenkai
sick of must-describe harf :-)

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 22:07:40 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My house

> >I am going to my house if I am not already there and building a 40
> >meter tower on my it. This costs me A$120. If anyone wants to join
me
> >inside my basement then I'll let them if they pay me A$50, or if
they
> >are a member of SPAM. I automatically let in the first person to
post a
> >public message requesting entry who fulfills these requirements and
> >then locking the door and not letting anyone else in.
> 	I'd like to join you.

In case for any reason I haven't already done so then I let else...if
into my house and then lock the door to stop anyone else getting in.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 22:27:59 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Witchhunts

I would like to call to the attention of Ackanomia in general that
Witchhunts are Hearings, which means that they are performed by
Count Tabula, who is Malenkai, and who has stated that e has little
time right now.  So have a little consideration, perhaps...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Elvis Costello:Deep Dark Truthful Mirror
Current Book--Gordon Korman:The Chicken Doesn't Skate
Gone crazy, be back later. Leave a message.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:06:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunts

> I would like to call to the attention of Ackanomia in general that
> Witchhunts are Hearings, which means that they are performed by
> Count Tabula, who is Malenkai, and who has stated that e has little
> time right now.  So have a little consideration, perhaps...

Not anymore he isn't!

Red Barn, I will remember this. You have been in this game for almost
a year now, and should really know better.

breadbox
Postmaster
Promoter
Tabulator
Rule-Harfer
Acting Count Tabula
and those are just the Functional ones

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:10:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt 101

>> And as to the flatness or otherwise of the earth.
> 
>   I am calling a witchunt against Slakko.

Red Barn has initiated a Witchhunt against Slakko in regards to the
heretical content of this message.

Reply to vote. The valid votes are "No! E said the earth is flat" and
"BURN THE WITCH!"

breadbox
Witchfinder General

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:14:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt 101

>> And as to the flatness or otherwise of the earth.
> 
>   I am calling a witchunt against Slakko.

Red Barn has initiated a Witchhunt against Slakko in regards to the
heretical content of this message.

Reply th THIS message to vote. Don't reply to the previous message if
you can help it.

The valid votes are "No! E said the earth is flat" and "BURN THE
WITCH!"

breadbox
Witchfinder General

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:17:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Witchhunt 102

>> What's a banna?
> 
>   You may not be aware that even quoted text can count...
>   I am calling a witchhunt on Balsamic Dragon.

Red Barn has initiated a Witchhunt against Balsamic Dragon in regards
to the heretical content of this message.

Reply to vote. The valid votes are "No! E said the earth is flat" and
"BURN THE WITCH!"

breadbox
Witchfinder General

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:32:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Next step

> I was hoping Alfvaen wouldn't point this out :)  Now that it has 
> been, the mad scupltors for finding the treasure are:
> 
> [...]
> breadbox

The final Automatic Sculpture has carved iself into a wondrously
accurate replica of Michaelangelo's David. (Actually, it doesn't
really look that much like David, but still, it's not bad.) In the
left hand the statue carelessly holds a dodecahedron, and in his right
hand, which is lifted up close to his face, is a medium-sized
cockroach. The cockroach and the human seem to be regarding each other
intently. Scattered around the statue's feet are mechanical pencils,
as if they had been dumped out of an upturned junk drawer. Into the
base of the statue is carved the inscription "DE GUSTIBUS NON
DISPUTANDUM EST".

breadbox
Mad Sculptor

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 18:34:22 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: traveling and IRC

I am going to Vulcan Headquarters (if I am not already there).

From there, I will be on Ackanomic IRC tonight.

/dev/joe
Feel the power of the wind

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:36:11 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: nomics

> Alfvaen, Malenkai, /dev/joe, and Vulcan all received nomics
> from the treasury per the beldin's pants rule.

> Anyone interested in how I figured this, e-mail me.  Who
> knows if it was right :)

These are the entities that got extra heads the two weeks preceding,
so it looks right to me.

I'll have to check and see how many nomics _were_ in the Treasury
(i.e., who's in Internomic).  If this goes on too long, we'll end
up stealing them from each other...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Pretenders:Last of The Independents
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Third Book of Swords
A subtle dragon stings us in the midst of plenty.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:31:22 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: ackanomic digest V2 #426

> > With a heavy heart,  I must withdraw from Ackanomia,  even as an
> > observer.  I hereby bequeath all my tradeable possessions to my moronic
> > twin Malenkai. 

> With heavy heart I ack this.  To be honest, this prolly doesn't work,
> although we have allowed it to in the past.

I think Mohammed(or was it Chaos?)put through an amendment that was
intended, at least, to make this work.  It still doesn't work if one
doesn't ack the transaction, of course...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Pretenders:Last of The Independents
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Third Book of Swords
AAAAA--American Association Against Alliteration Abuse

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:10:10 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2535

> > > What's a banna?

> >   You may not be aware that even quoted text can count...
> >   I am calling a witchhunt on Balsamic Dragon.

> Not with this flimsy evidence.  I believe that you have to quote the
> heretical passages to start a Witchhunt.  As far as I know, the question
> "What's a banna?" is not heretical.

Well, Red Barn did quote Balsamic Dragon's allegedly heretical message,
as required by Rule 1307; e just didn't quote all of it.  :-)  It worked
last time e called it, which I still consider to be a good clue.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Elvis Costello:Spike
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Third Book of Swords
"Let's go knock the hell out of that man trying to stab that poor tree to death."

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:16:16 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2535

> > > The Earth is not round.  It ain't flat either, it is shaped like a banna,
> > > of course!

> > I hereby call a Witchhunt against rufus for this heretical remark.

> I hereby retract my call for a Witchhunt against rufus, as it was not
> well-formed.

I'm not sure if one can retract a call for a Witchhunt.  I don't think
there's anything in Rule 1307 about it, for instance, nor in Rule 330
(or whatever "Retractions" is).

I would like to note that any beleaguered potential heretic who wishes
to join the Church of Azpiazu may thusly be protected from the burning.

Anyone who just wanted shelter from the Tornado is probably too late.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Pretenders:Last of The Independents
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Third Book of Swords
I want this man to go away now.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:28:40 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Vacation Declaration

> I proxy my support to Religious Nutcase.

> I would ask Balsamic to keep the flag flying as my proxy.

> I suggest that Balsamic Dragon be the acting SPAM Swinger, but I will
> support the choice of whoever is selected as acting Swinger during my
> upcoming holiday.

> {Here is an interesting point in prospectivity - if you're on vacation you
> can't suggest a replacement - but if you can't perform actions
> prospectively you can't suggest a replacement while you're not on
> vacation.  So how do you suggest a replacement?}

Don't be silly.  Suggesting a replacement is not an action.  Appointing a
replacement is an action.  The Speaker or President does so for most
Offices; the Speaker can appoint an acting President, and the Rules
determine who is to be an acting Speaker.

Of course, Swinger's Offices are different, but even then making a
suggestion doesn't have anything to do with the actual action itself.
One must be a volunteer to be appointed, but volunteering is perhaps
a separate action.

> I suggest that Niccolo Flychuck become Acting Chess-Umpire during my
> absence.

This may certainly occur, but e does not have any the privileges or
duties of the office, so this is kind of a null act.  :-)

> I suggest that Alfvaen be Acting Map-Harfer in my absence.

I guess I could appoint myself to the office of Acting Map-Harfer.  Which
means, of course, that I have to try to figure out who's sheltered for
the Tornado tomorrow...

> I say goodbye to Ursula and the Machine that Goes *ping*.

Oh, and you're not going to post the Truth?  :-(

> I hereby go on vacation with expected return date 7th January (I will
> probably return a day or two before this, but I just want to be sure I
> don't go On Ice).

> I wish all Christian Ackans a Merry Christmas, all Jewish Ackans to have a
> good Hanukkah, all Druidic Ackans (!?) a Merry Solstice, and everyone a
> Happy New Year.  Oh, yeah, and Happy Hogmanay to any Scottish Ackans.

What, us agnostics can't have a Merry Christmas?

> If your religion of choice has a festival and/or holy day I missed out
> over this time of the year, then please email me and I'll retrospectively
> wish you the appropriate greeting when I get back.

Oh, close enough.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--The Pretenders:Last of The Independents
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Third Book of Swords
When you have sour cream every problem looks like a potato.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:55:24 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Those darn chess pieces

> Well, I finally tracked down the definition of Swinger's Offices, and they
> aren't defined as entities.  I think it is fair to say that that Ackanomic
> tradition indicates that they are entities, however.

Don't be silly.  (No, wait, there's no way to keep you from being Silly,
never mind...)  Rule 1040 says that Swinger's Offices are either Capital
Offices or Optional Political Offices.  Rule 401 states that Offices are
entities.  Named, unownable ones, in fact.

> One could quibble
> over what having something "stripped" of its name does, but lets assume it
> became nameless.  While the Party Hall Rule doesn't say that Capital
> Swingers Offices are entities, it does say that they are named (I don't
> think this is the case for other Singers Offices).  So if it is a named
> entity that became nameless, it would indeed be assigned a new name
> Nameless Thing #X.  I am not sure, but I think there might be a few
> Nameless Things out there already, so perhaps the Financier can check and
> see what the lowest positive integer that would create a unique name is.

As far as I can tell, this is the only Nameless Thing in existence.
And yes, all Offices are named, from Rule 401.

> But it definitely was assigned a name then.  This being the case, if
> Malenkai really did call an Auction them Entities hearing for "The
> Swinger's Office that is in the Treasury" then that call for a hearing
> failed. Rule 520 says that "e must specify the name of a Tradeable Ownable
> Entity which is in the Treasury."

Capital Offices are tradeable and ownable...

So, as far as I can tell, it is in fact the case that Malenkai is the
owner of a Capital Swinger's Office named "Nameless Thing #1".  However,
it does not come with any pieces, due to what is, as far as I can tell,
a bug which would not allow _any_ new Capital Swinger's Office to be able
to choose new pieces, because new Offices are never "created", merely
taken out of the Treasury.

Actually, I suppose it'd work the first time, for the same reason that
I was allowed to choose pieces at Metamorph Swinger.  But no Capital
Swinger's Office could be recycled.

I'll draft up a Proposal to fix this.  I will probably RFC it first,
since I'm not _quite_ sure what the proper phrasing would be to make
it work as desired.  Something about Capital Swinger's Offices getting
new pieces when they are transferred from the Treasury(by whatever
means), and of course losing all pieces when transferred to the Treasury
in the first place...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Elvis Costello:Spike
Current Book--Fred Saberhagen:The Third Book of Swords
Every old sock meets an old shoe.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #428
*******************************