Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #444
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Saturday, January 3 1998       Volume 02 : Number 444

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

Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 23:55:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Chess piece purchase

I am buying a Party Chess Piece Cantor for the Vulcan Swinger's Office.

/dev/joe
8 different off-board pieces and none of the one I want

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 00:41:58 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Auction Them Entities

I hereby call an Auction Them Entities auction on the Whamiol that
is in the Treasury.  (This is thus Public, and I am the Chief
Cheese, and the starting bid is A$0...)

I should mention here that in just a few days now Whamiols are going to
start substracting points from their owners, since after the big influx
at the beginning of December, the last time the Whamiols were triggered
was December 8th for rufus.  And this time I might actually remember to
start substracting points right away, as opposed to three weeks later
when a new player does become active...  (The secret to a successful
crontab is leaving yourself notes in a file you access a lot...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Wendy James:Now Ain't The Time For Your Tears
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
You can't jump a jet plane like you can a freight train

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

Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 18:48:19 -1000
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Auction Them Entities

I bid $A1

Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> I hereby call an Auction Them Entities auction on the Whamiol that
> is in the Treasury.  (This is thus Public, and I am the Chief
> Cheese, and the starting bid is A$0...)
>
> I should mention here that in just a few days now Whamiols are going to
> start substracting points from their owners, since after the big influx
> at the beginning of December, the last time the Whamiols were triggered
> was December 8th for rufus.  And this time I might actually remember to
> start substracting points right away, as opposed to three weeks later
> when a new player does become active...  (The secret to a successful
> crontab is leaving yourself notes in a file you access a lot...)
>
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Current Album--Wendy James:Now Ain't The Time For Your Tears
> Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
> You can't jump a jet plane like you can a freight train

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:41:44 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Auction Them Entities

I bid A$5

The Gingham Wearer.

- ----------
> From: K 2 <[email-masked]>

> I bid $A1
> 
> Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> 
> > I hereby call an Auction Them Entities auction on the Whamiol that
> > is in the Treasury.  (This is thus Public, and I am the Chief
> > Cheese, and the starting bid is A$0...)

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:44:00 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: retraction

I retract proposal 2558. New version already submitted.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 13:49:32 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 507 (/dev/joe)

On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> 2) As to determining if the none voting member of Internomic tCoOotW is the
> same as the Ackanomic church tCoOotW. Why not get Balsamic Dragon to
> request some info about the members of the nomic, when it was formed, etc.
> I get an uncanny feeling that the info we get back might be fairly similar
> to the Acka church, which would suggest that they are the same thing.

Your uncanny feeling is unfortunately misplaced on a single count -
specifically abou tht edate in which it was formed.
The application to join Internomic was based in part on the nomic nature
of the Church, and I just can't bring myself to write its name as an
acronym. I argue that the nomic was implicitly formed only when the Church
esplicitly acquired a self amending Church Policy, and this did not happen
on the same date as the formation in Ackanomic. Under that criterion,
there is not an element of identity strong enough.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 
> The Gingham Wearer.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 14:05:10 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 507 (/dev/joe)

On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> CFJ 507 has been assigned to /dev/joe
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgment 507
> Subject: Church Existance
> Initiator: ThinMan
> Submitted: 98-01-02 09:07
>   Judge: /dev/joe(selected 98-01-02 14:20)
> Judgement:
> 
> Statement:
> 
> No Ackanomic Church named The Church of Odo on the Wormhole exists.
> 
> ThinMan's Reasoning:
> 
> I don't know whether the statement is correct or not.  As Balsamic Dragon
> pointed out, proposal 2545 attempted to destroy a class of Nomics (for the
> purposes of Ackanomic).  As she also pointed out, The Church of Odo on the
> Wormhole may have been a member of that class, as evidenced by the fact
> that it was a non-voting member of Internomic at the time of P2545's

I found the proposal and I quote the relevant text:
{{ The nomic Agora is transferred to Robert Sevin, and the nomic Pumpkin
Patch Nomic is transferred to Red Barn. All other
Internomic member nomics are initially owned by the Treasury. Any nomics
which are not Internomic member nomics are
destroyed. }} 

Asssuming that such a rule could actually destroy nomics, I see two cases
here:
1. Odo was a non-voting member of Internomic at the time, and therefore
was not destroyed, because the self-deleting text says nothing about
whether the members are voting or non-voting.
2. Odo was not a member at all, and therefore was not destroyed, because
previously the Internomic Entityhood rule only defined as entities those
nomics which were members of Internomic, and as Odo had not been
previously a member fo Internomic, it was not, at that time, an entity of
class nomic.

As far as the identity question is concerned, I stated on the Internomic
mailing list, and I state again here, acka and Internomic see different
aspects of the Church of Odo on the Worm Hole, thus,going back to my point
about the date of formation, trying to views Odo within acka through
Internomic eyes may produce a strange vista indeed. That is the nature
of shifting one's shape. The situation certainly has many interesting
aspects.

Niccolo Flychuck
Founder of the Church of Odo on the Worm Hole

> passage.  TCoOotW  thus claims, at least to Internomic, to be a Nomic.
> That is not necessarilly sufficient, however, for tCoOotW to qualify as a
> nomic under the rules of Ackanomic.  It is also not necessarilly the case
> that the Internomic non-voting member tCoOotW is/was, under the rules of
> Ackanomic, the same as the Ackanomic Church of the same name.  There may
> be other issues surrounding this question that cast doubt on the veracity
> of the CFJ statement.  It is too interesting a question, however, for me
> to let it slip by via the statute of limitations.
> 
> As an aside: it is important to keep in mind that this CFJ determines the
> correct Game State for Ackanomic only; Internomic's (or any other Nomic's)
> perspective on the continued existence of tCoOotW is irrelevant.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 14:11:59 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Nomics(Proposal 2545)

On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> The current list of voting members are:
> 
> Ackanomic, liaison: Balsamic Dragon
> Agora, liaison: Kolja A.
> Bluesmobile Nomic, liaison: Kerry Kaszak
> InterNomic, liaison: InterNomic
> Micronomic II (MacroNomic), liaison: Henry Townser
> New Rishonomic, liaison: The Voting Gnome
> Pumpkin Patch Nomic, liaison: Phil Ackley
> Thring, liaison: Anarchy
> 
> And Non-Voting Members: 
> 
> New Rishonnomic, liaison: Dan Knapp
> FDC Nomic, liaison: Ed Murphy
> The Church of Odo on the Wormhole, liaison: Uri Bruck 
> 
> Some of these will not be applicable to the rule above, because of the time
> that they were added, or whatever.  However, here's an interesting
> question:  If all other nomics are destroyed, does that mean that the
> Church of Odo is destroyed?  It claims to be a nomic and was existant at
> the time of this rule and also was not a member of Internomic...
> 
> Balsamic Dragon

Since it was not an entity of the class nomic (as defined in acka rules)
at the time this proposal passed - I'd say no.

Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 16:46:23 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Appeals

I am appealing CFJ 505
I am appealing CFJ 484

Reasoning for 505:

In the reasoning on CFJ 474 it was decided that when a phrase in a rule
could not be determined unambiguously it should be determined randomly. I
believe that this is what should be done here.

Reasoning for 484:

If this is judged false it causes the CRD to take place. The CRD applied
retroactively meaning that it was never possible to create negatively
valued trinkets.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 12:22:54 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> Reasoning for 505:
> 
> In the reasoning on CFJ 474 it was decided that when a phrase in a rule
> could not be determined unambiguously it should be determined randomly. I
> believe that this is what should be done here.

First of all, the phrase in question in CFJ 505 is
not ambiguous.  Moreover, the principle in CFJ 474 is
not a general principle and does not apply; the alternative
renderings of ambiguous language in the rules are 
not decided upon randomly, they are decided upon by
judgement.

Secondly, if this was your reasoning, why didn't you
include it in the original CFJ filing?

I urge the Supreme Court to take the appropriate action
to cut down on frivilous appeals, in an attempt to make it
worthwhile (indeed fun) to judge CFJs again.  Otherwise,
let's just change the rules to route all CFJs there in
the first place.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 12:30:15 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 507 Verdict

CFJ 507 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 507
  Subject: Church Existance
Initiator: ThinMan
Submitted: 98-01-02 09:07
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected 98-01-02 14:20)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

No Ackanomic Church named The Church of Odo on the Wormhole exists.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

I don't know whether the statement is correct or not.  As Balsamic Dragon
pointed out, proposal 2545 attempted to destroy a class of Nomics (for the
purposes of Ackanomic).  As she also pointed out, The Church of Odo on the
Wormhole may have been a member of that class, as evidenced by the fact
that it was a non-voting member of Internomic at the time of P2545's
passage.  TCoOotW  thus claims, at least to Internomic, to be a Nomic.
That is not necessarilly sufficient, however, for tCoOotW to qualify as a
nomic under the rules of Ackanomic.  It is also not necessarilly the case
that the Internomic non-voting member tCoOotW is/was, under the rules of
Ackanomic, the same as the Ackanomic Church of the same name.  There may
be other issues surrounding this question that cast doubt on the veracity
of the CFJ statement.  It is too interesting a question, however, for me
to let it slip by via the statute of limitations.

As an aside: it is important to keep in mind that this CFJ determines the
correct Game State for Ackanomic only; Internomic's (or any other Nomic's)
perspective on the continued existence of tCoOotW is irrelevant.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Before Proposal 2545 was accepted, it is believed that the Church of
Odo on the Wormhole existed.  (It was recreated from the Cult when
Slakko joined.)  Trusting this, we examine the issue at hand.

The relevant text from P2545, written into R419.2, is the following:

   Internomic is an entity. Member nomics of Internomic, excepting
   Ackanomic and Internomic, are named tradeable entities.  Whenever a
   Nomic joins Internomic, it is owned by the Treasury. Whenever a
   member nomic(excepting Ackanomic and Internomic)leaves Internomic it
   is destroyed.

   {{ The nomic Agora is transferred to Robert Sevin, and the nomic
   Pumpkin Patch Nomic is transferred to Red Barn.  All other Internomic
   member nomics are initially owned by the Treasury.  Any nomics which
   are not Internomic member nomics are destroyed. }}

While Ackanomic's rules recognize that other nomics exist, they don't
describe any way for anything to be recognized as a nomic except for
the other member nomics of Internomic.  If it is at all possible that
Ackanomic's rules recognize The Church of Odo on the Wormhole as a nomic,
it is only through being a member nomic of Internomic, and these are
clearly excluded from the destruction above.

BTW, there *is* actually one other type of nomic defined in the rules;
it is in R1250.6 -- one of the ranks in the Eleusis deck.  Fortunately,
nobody was playing any games with Eleusis decks at the time this passed. :-)

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

Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 12:31:42 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 506 Verdict

CFJ 506 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 506
  Subject: Voting on proposal 2545
Initiator: No other players
Submitted: 98-01-01 07:20
    Judge: /dev/joe (selected 98-01-01 09:34)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

When the two sentences below are taken as a single statement the second
sentence is true:

"breadbox voted present on proposal 2545. No other players and no
non-players voted present on proposal 2545."

Initiator's Reasoning:

I guess I just want to know.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

No other players asked if the following statement was true:

  "breadbox voted present on proposal 2545. No other players and no
  non-players voted present on proposal 2545."

The results show that exactly two present votes were cast on the
proposal in question, one by breadbox and one by the player named
No other players when this CFJ was submitted.

Thus, the question comes down to whether the phrase "No other players"
in the statement above refers to the Ackanomic player by that name,
or to its customary English interpretation.  Given that there was
already a player by that name when the statement was first published,
the typical Malenkai's loophole reasoning doesn't apply.  I find both
interpretations of the statement reasonable.

Then we fall back to context.  But the context here has one other
player name and one English phrase in very similar constructions.

Finally, taking the context one level deeper, I find the interpretation
of "No other players" as an English phrase more reasonable because it
is linked by "and" to an English with similar structure in the same
sentence, while the player name "breadbox" is more distant.

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 17:33:54 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> First of all, the phrase in question in CFJ 505 is
> not ambiguous.  Moreover, the principle in CFJ 474 is
> not a general principle and does not apply; the alternative
> renderings of ambiguous language in the rules are 
> not decided upon randomly, they are decided upon by
> judgement.

How can you possibly say that it is not ambiguous. There is more than one
interpretation ergo it is ambiguous.

> 
> Secondly, if this was your reasoning, why didn't you
> include it in the original CFJ filing?

Because it only occurred to me last night.

> 
> I urge the Supreme Court to take the appropriate action
> to cut down on frivilous appeals, in an attempt to make it
> worthwhile (indeed fun) to judge CFJs again.  Otherwise,
> let's just change the rules to route all CFJs there in
> the first place.

If that is what they wish to do then that is what they should do. The
purpose of a CFJ should be to determine the truth really. I think that it
will be a bad thing if players are stopped from appealing because they're
afraid of a large points loss. Sending all CFJs to the supreme court would
be counter productive. Even if the majority get there in the end it's
better to go through the process so that more opinions can be aired.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 12:33:25 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 499 (Supreme Court)

I am using my priv as Praetor to send this to
the Supreme Court.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 499
  Subject: Chrome streaks
Initiator: Alfvaen
Submitted: 97-12-18 18:58
    Judge: two-star (deadbeat)
2nd Judge: Malenkai (declined)
3rd Judge: Supreme Court
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, 03 Jan 1998 12:49:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> How can you possibly say that it is not ambiguous. There is more 
> than one interpretation ergo it is ambiguous.

Because it's meaning is clear.  You know what it means.

> If that is what they wish to do then that is what they should do. The
> purpose of a CFJ should be to determine the truth really. I think that it
> will be a bad thing if players are stopped from appealing because they're
> afraid of a large points loss.

Frivolous appeals should be penalised with a large penalty.  Not doing
so penalises the original, honest, judge, while giving the appealer a
free ride.  Aside from the effort put into judgement, which in my case
has sometimes taken in excess of 8 hours, its a bad game risk to bet 
one point to yourself for one point to an appealer, who prolly is not
in a position close to winning.

I will also argue that small penalites on frivolous appeals actually
work to obscure the truth, because the first judge will find
something else to do with eir time rather than search for the
truth, knowing it is going to be appealed anyway.  Secondly, a large
penalty gives the appealer more incentive to do the research to search
for the truth as well.  One point penalies condition appealers to appeal
on a whim, large penalies really make the appealer think and present a
well-researched case, digging closer to the truth.  Thus less effort
will be put into CFJs on average over the long term, by both first
round judges and appealers.

If an appealer is certain that they have found the truth, a large
point penalty should not impose any fear.  If they are just hacking,
they should be dealt with appropriately.

Besides, judging is one of the fun things in a nomic game.  If every
CFJ is appealed, that fun is taken away, and people will find fun
elsewhere.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 17:58:00 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeals

> Frivolous appeals should be penalised with a large penalty.  Not doing
> so penalises the original, honest, judge, while giving the appealer a
> free ride.  Aside from the effort put into judgement, which in my case
> has sometimes taken in excess of 8 hours, its a bad game risk to bet 
> one point to yourself for one point to an appealer, who prolly is not
> in a position close to winning.
> 
> I will also argue that small penalites on frivolous appeals actually
> work to obscure the truth, because the first judge will find
> something else to do with eir time rather than search for the
> truth, knowing it is going to be appealed anyway.  Secondly, a large
> penalty gives the appealer more incentive to do the research to search
> for the truth as well.  One point penalies condition appealers to appeal
> on a whim, large penalies really make the appealer think and present a
> well-researched case, digging closer to the truth.  Thus less effort
> will be put into CFJs on average over the long term, by both first
> round judges and appealers.
> 
> If an appealer is certain that they have found the truth, a large
> point penalty should not impose any fear.  If they are just hacking,
> they should be dealt with appropriately.
> 
> Besides, judging is one of the fun things in a nomic game.  If every
> CFJ is appealed, that fun is taken away, and people will find fun
> elsewhere.

Okay then. If I am permitted to do so I retract my appeal of CFJ 505.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 14:00:32 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: CPPIA

I would like to lodge a complaint against Rex Mundi for the creation
of the "any parka", an obvious creation of negligible artistic merit,
not to mention lame, inane, and useless.  I mean, come on, haven't we
had enough parkas?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Robert Plant:Pictures At Eleven
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
A tree or shrub can grow and bloom.  I am always the same.  But I am clever.

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

Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 17:22:32 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 503 Verdict

CFJ 503 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 503
  Subject: Does this apply to multiplication by zero also?
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Submitted: 97-12-28 10:01
    Judge: Alfvaen (selected 97-12-28 20:30)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

Changing the rules is impossible.

Initiator's Reasoning:

Rule 340 states:
"Whenever division is performed in Ackanomic, and the denomonator of that
division evaluates to 0, then the result of that entire division shall be
0."

By defining a number divided by 0 then all numbers are equal.

For example:
if a/x=y
and b/x=y
then a=b

1/0=0
2/0=0
therefore 1=2

Likewise all numbers are equal to all other numbers. No new rule can be
created since it is impossible to give the rule a unique number. No rule
can be modified or repealed since it is impossible to unambiguously state
which rule is to be modified or repealed.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Let me try to analyze his algebraic reasoning up there.

(a/x = y) and (b/x = y) implies (a=b)

How is this derived, then?

a. a/x=y     (given)
b. b/x=y     (given)
c. ax/x=xy   (multiplying both sides by x)
d. bx/x=xy   (multiplying both sides by x)
e. a=xy      (cancelling same quantity on top and bottom of denominator)
f. b=xy      (cancelling same quantity on top and bottom of denominator)
g. a=b       (quantities equal to the same thing are equal to each other)

I think the crucial points are the assumptions that multiplying both
sides of an equality by the same quantity x maintains the equality,
and that you can necessarily cancel every quantity that is on both the
top and the bottom of the denominator.  But, if we are in Rule-340 land
where x/0=0 for any x, in general nonzero, then:

h. a/0 = 0   (From Rule 340)
i. (a/0)*0 = 0  (multiplying both sides by zero)
j. a = 0     (cancelling same quantity on top and bottom of denominator)

We would call the above conclusion absurd, since a is not, in general, equal
to zero.

So we have several choices to reconcile this.

1. We can redefine equality so that every number is equal to itself,
and to zero.  This is what The Gingham Wearer has done.  I'm sure most
of us remember that hoary old algebraic "proof" that 1=2, which involves
division by zero at a crucial point.

2. We can say that multiplying both sides of an equality by zero does
_not_ result in an equality.  This is perfectly possible, but I don't think
it is strictly necessary.

3. We can say that zero cannot be cancelled if it is on the numerator
and the denominator of a fraction.  This one seems to me the most
promising.

For instance, let us take (a/0)*0.  If we presume that we can multiple
the factor through, we have (a*0)/0, or 0/0.  By Rule 340, this is still
equal to zero.  Spurious "cancelling" of the zero would result in a, which
is still equal to zero.  If we assume the cancelling cannot occur, we end
up with 0 = 0 instead of a = 0.  This breaks down the reasoning in steps
e. and f. above, since ax/x does not equal a _iff x=0_.  So, 
(a/x = y) and (b/x = y) implies (a=b) iff x!=0 is the more proper
reasoning in this case, and so (a/0 = 0) and (b/0 = 0) does not imply
a=b.  We are thus able to numerically distinguish rule numbers in this
case.

So which of the three cases(well, two, since we'll neglect 2. for the
moment)is true?  The Rules are silent on this matter, so let me consider
currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game.  The former
indicates that we can distinguish rule numbers; when Proposal 2433
went through, we did not all decide that all rule numbers were
indistinguishable right away.  Also, I believe that it is in the spirit
of the game for rule numbers to be distinguishable, if we are forced to
have division by zero defined as zero in Ackanomic algebra.

And besides, be fair, _when_ are you ever going to divide a rule number by
zero?  It's not going to come up that often, so it shouldn't throw the
entire game out of whack.

So I must consider case 3. to be true, and judge FALSE.

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

Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 17:25:14 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA

> I would like to lodge a complaint against Rex Mundi for the creation
> of the "any parka", an obvious creation of negligible artistic merit,
> not to mention lame, inane, and useless.  I mean, come on, haven't we
> had enough parkas?

The comittee is:

Malenkai
K 2
/dev/joe
Balsamic Dragon
Crackfoo
breadbox
Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 17:34:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CPPIA

> > I would like to lodge a complaint against Rex Mundi for the creation
> > of the "any parka", an obvious creation of negligible artistic merit,
> > not to mention lame, inane, and useless.  I mean, come on, haven't we
> > had enough parkas?
> 
> The comittee is:
> 
> Malenkai
> K 2
> /dev/joe
> Balsamic Dragon
> Crackfoo
> breadbox
> Niccolo Flychuck

I resign from the committee.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 17:34:43 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Missing Results

Does anyone have voting results for Proposals 2205-2211 and 2227?
I remember this was around the time that Mohammed was having email
problems, and I thought it was just me that had missed them somehow,
but breadbox doesn't seem to have the results on his pages either.
Anyone?

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--April Wine:Like A Lover, Like A Song
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
Words are useless, especially sentences.

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

Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 21:52:49 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Return

	Sorry I'm late, but I'm back.

- --
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, 3 Jan 1998 22:27:57 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Caped Crusader

I don the Chartreuse Cape.  People of Ackanomic, have no fear, I, The
Fearless Alibi Posesser, intend to eliminate crime from the land of
Ackanomic.  I ask you to watch those around you for anything suspicious.
If in doubt, it's probably a crime.  Tell me, and I shall persue them until
they are convicted and punished.

In case of any uncertainty, my nickname is The Fearless Alibi Possesser.

If anyone wants to be the Boy Wonder, let me know.

- --
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, 3 Jan 1998 23:15:08 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Magic Letter

I name "y" as the MTTP's magic letter.

- --
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, 03 Jan 1998 23:21:44 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Missing Results

> Does anyone have voting results for Proposals 2205-2211 

All were rejected.  I have the detail if you need it (T9707 7/11/97)

> and 2227?

This I cannot find results for or retraction of in my archives.
I guess my archives are not as complete as I thought they were :(

Malenkai

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #444
*******************************