Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #450
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Thursday, January 8 1998       Volume 02 : Number 450

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:53:10 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> Niccolo wrote:
> 
> > You resigned on principle,
> 
> Excuse me.  You have made a direct statement
> above about my motivations.  Please explain 
> clearly and directly how you know the truth 
> of this statement, or retract it.

I draw this conclusion from a statement made by you to the entire
Committee, all the players that constituted the Committee at that
time, (hence i did not consider it private), that you are resigning and
that Committees should be replaced by Hearings - ignoring the fact that
breadbox had already volunteered to harf the Committee, both he and I have
already submitted votes - as there didn't seem t be much to discuss there,
although you could not have known at that time that several other members
submitted votes privately to breadbox.

I am calling a Politeness Moon on the statement following the line
representing Malenkai's signature. Specifically:
" wondering how e will dodge this direct question :)"

I can see the smiley as well as anyone, but the two paragraphs that
precede this statement appear much stronger than the smiley.
> 
> Just like your response to CFJ482, just like
> on the Internomic list, several people are 
> getting sick of this, it is not just me.

To my knowledge, not all the readers of this list also read the
Internomic mailing list, so they have not had the chance to see all sides
of that matter, but are just getting your condensed version here.

> 
> Basically you made a blanket statement about
> my motivations; I have a right to know on what
> facts you base this statement, or you have
> an obligation to retract it.

Basically, once again you take a statement I made and re-interpret it to
make it look like a personal attack against you.

The first time you did that I nearly left Acka over this - is that what
you want me to do?

Niccolo Flychuck

> 

> Malenkai
> wondering how e will dodge this direct question :)
> 
> ------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 02:08:21 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: ACKA: politeness moon hearing 101 .Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

Niccolo Flychuck has called a Politeness Moon Hearing on Malenkai.  The
statement is quoted below.  Reply to vote.  Valid votes are "Yes, it was
polite."  or "No, it was not polite.".

rufus
Count Tabula, default Hearing Harfer

> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Niccolo wrote:
> > 
> > > You resigned on principle,
> > 
> > Excuse me.  You have made a direct statement
> > above about my motivations.  Please explain 
> > clearly and directly how you know the truth 
> > of this statement, or retract it.
> 
> I draw this conclusion from a statement made by you to the entire
> Committee, all the players that constituted the Committee at that
> time, (hence i did not consider it private), that you are resigning and
> that Committees should be replaced by Hearings - ignoring the fact that
> breadbox had already volunteered to harf the Committee, both he and I have
> already submitted votes - as there didn't seem t be much to discuss there,
> although you could not have known at that time that several other members
> submitted votes privately to breadbox.
> 
> 
> 
> I am calling a Politeness Moon on the statement following the line
> representing Malenkai's signature. Specifically:
> " wondering how e will dodge this direct question :)"
> 
> I can see the smiley as well as anyone, but the two paragraphs that
> precede this statement appear much stronger than the smiley.
> > 
> > Just like your response to CFJ482, just like
> > on the Internomic list, several people are 
> > getting sick of this, it is not just me.
> 
> To my knowledge, not all the readers of this list also read the
> Internomic mailing list, so they have not had the chance to see all sides
> of that matter, but are just getting your condensed version here.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Basically you made a blanket statement about
> > my motivations; I have a right to know on what
> > facts you base this statement, or you have
> > an obligation to retract it.
> 
> Basically, once again you take a statement I made and re-interpret it to
> make it look like a personal attack against you.
> 
> The first time you did that I nearly left Acka over this - is that what
> you want me to do?
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> > 
> 
> > Malenkai
> > wondering how e will dodge this direct question :)
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> 
> 

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:19:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Determination Part 2

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> > Just because part f makes it impermissible to create Summon Tornado cards
> > does not mean that the type Summon Tornado is not a legal card type.
> > 
> > BTW, Summon Tornado is the only rare Otzma Card Type, if that was your
> > concern.
> 
> Well, I'm wrong as usual, I suppose :-), although one could argue 
> that it is in the spirit of the game to construe "legal card type" 
> as the sort of card which it is legal to create.   It seems silly
> to put a card into the random pool that cannot be legally 
> created, IMHO.
> 
> Malenkai

Malnkai's interpretation is just as reasonable as Slakko's, however I'd
like to note that this curiosity in the rule is an artifact of the
simplification it underwent a while back.
The way I see this, if the RuneMaker randomly picks a type which it is
illegal to create - due to instance limits, or any other reason, he would
still be able to create the number of Cards originally allowed him by the
rule.
For each Card the RuneMaker must go through the process of choosing the
method, and in the probablistic method e must randomly determine the Card,
and it is possible that a creation may fail - but the rule does not
restrict the number of creation attempts - it restricts the number of
Cards created. That's why I never bothered to make a special case for
this. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 07:40:43 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong, but this means that the three highest bids for
> Share your Income cards will get one, and the two highest bids on Foul
> Fowl and Grave Robber?  Or is it possible to bid on, say, both of the Foul
> Fowl cards seperately?

No and no.

Part g of 1240.1 says that each set of cards of the same type is
"grouped".  This means it is sold as a single indivisible lot.  We have 8
auctions of one item each.  So the lots are not broken up at the end, nor
do people have the option of bidding on single cards in multi-card lots.

- --
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, 8 Jan 1998 07:50:00 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 508 (Slakko)

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:

> Slakko has been selected.

Selection accepted on CFJ 508.

- --
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, 8 Jan 1998 01:01:54 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 509 (Alfvaen)

> Alfvaen has been selected.

I accept this CFJ.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Queen:The Miracle
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
If love is blind, lingerie makes great Braille.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:56:39 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka: potted meat and me

> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Towsner wrote:

> > I approve of admitting rufus into SPAM.

> I believe this is the last one needed.
> Am I right?

Yes, that is correct.  You and The Gingham Wearer have proxied your
support, mr cwm is still on vacation, and Balsamic Dragon, Fortunato
and else...if approved.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Queen:The Miracle
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
People tend to blanch when pilloried.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 01:01:25 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomicon Determination

> The above assumes 'gain' is construed without a creation
> component, as it was in that Beldin's Pants CFJ.  This is 
> not necessarily how we have construed 'gain' in the past
> (so I'm not sure how it changed; perhaps it was a weirdness
> in rule 910, or misinterpretation of rule 910), but game
> custom allows game custom to change.  Also, it is possible
> that 'gain' X in one rule could be construed differently
> than 'gain' X in another rule, but that does
> not seem reasonable either.  If anyone thinks 'gain' in
> rule 910 should be construed as 'gain new' as opposed
> to 'gain extant', then submit a CFJ to that effect, and
> I will roll it.

I believe that the reason that "gain" was construed as a transfer
from Beldin's Pants is from when it said "gain 1 trinket".  There
was no way, under the Rules, for a new Trinket to be created with
no provision for determining value and description, so we opted
for transfer.  But any entity that can be created with on fuss
should still be created when someone "gains" one, IMHO.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Queen:The Miracle
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
Thanks to brains, the new wonder head-filler!--Bluebottle

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:47:43 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: acka: trinket

> Unfortunately, dear Goldenmean, you can't actually turn it down.
> Trinkets are gift entities, and so people can give them without the
> recipient having any choice.  "Acceptances" of trinkets are merely
> courtesies having no legal meaning.

I believe that it _is_ possible to offer a Trinket without giving it;
it's just that it is possible to give a Trinket or A$(the gift
entities)without giving the recipient a chance to refuse.  Generally,
if you say you "offer" the trinket, then it can be refused, and if
you say you "give" the trinket, then it can't, though it can always
be "given" back.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Queen:The Miracle
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
Helium, molybdenum, zinc, iodine--braving the elements, the reptiles and I

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:33:05 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomicon Determination

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > The above assumes 'gain' is construed without a creation
> > component, as it was in that Beldin's Pants CFJ.  This is 
> > not necessarily how we have construed 'gain' in the past
> > (so I'm not sure how it changed; perhaps it was a weirdness
> > in rule 910, or misinterpretation of rule 910), but game
> > custom allows game custom to change.  Also, it is possible
> > that 'gain' X in one rule could be construed differently
> > than 'gain' X in another rule, but that does
> > not seem reasonable either.  If anyone thinks 'gain' in
> > rule 910 should be construed as 'gain new' as opposed
> > to 'gain extant', then submit a CFJ to that effect, and
> > I will roll it.
> 
> I believe that the reason that "gain" was construed as a transfer
> from Beldin's Pants is from when it said "gain 1 trinket".  There
> was no way, under the Rules, for a new Trinket to be created with
> no provision for determining value and description, so we opted
> for transfer.  But any entity that can be created with on fuss
> should still be created when someone "gains" one, IMHO.

However, Otzma Cards are a different kettle of fish.  Rule 1240.1 says:

Other methods for creating Otzma Cards may be defined by other rules, as
long as the maximum number of Cards created in any period of 7 consecutive
days is 14. 

The Ackanomicon condition for Otzma Card "creation" if "gain" means to
create is too broad.  In theory everyone could get an Otzma card within a
week, and that's more than 14 being created.  So I would suggest that gain
a random one means to select one at random from the 59 currently in
existence.

- --
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, 8 Jan 1998 11:59:11 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : some transfers

As Founder of the Church of Odo, I make the following transfers on behalf
of the Church

Odo transfers A$100 to Slakko - for his attempt to rob the Synod before I
did:)

Odo transfers the Trinket Democracy to Niccolo Flychuck

Niccolo Flychuck
Founder of Odo on the Worm Hole

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:01:07 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Old Trinkets and a purchase of a Party Chess Piece

I am destroying the Trinket Democracy for A$
I am purchasing a PartyChessPiece Archer

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:07:21 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thanks

I thank Niccolo for persuading the church to reward one of its Followers.

I ack his Archer Purchase and harf it.

- --
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, 8 Jan 1998 08:21:26 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Wizard

>I am giving the Wizard office to ThinMan, pending his ack.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:21:59 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Wizard

/dev/joe wrote:
>I am giving the Wizard office to ThinMan, pending his ack.

Err, that is, I ack.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:45:39 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Thanks

As a member in good standing of Religious Nutcase, Balsamic Dragon wonders
what her fellow priest Slakko is going to do with the money . . . ;)

Balsamic Dragon

- ----------
> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> To: Ackanomic Main Mailing List <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: Thanks
> Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 6:07 AM
> 
> 
> I thank Niccolo for persuading the church to reward one of its Followers.
> 
> I ack his Archer Purchase and harf it.
> 
> 
> --
> 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, 8 Jan 1998 08:55:07 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

New Bids:
 
> 3 Share Your Income

I bid 25A$

> 2 Foul Fowl

I bid 6A$

> 2 Grave Robber

I bid 6A$

> 1 Go Fish

I bid 20A$

> 1 Skeleton Key

I bid 10A$

> 1 Scientist for a Day

I bid 20A$

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:06:34 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Thanks

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> As a member in good standing of Religious Nutcase, Balsamic Dragon wonders
> what her fellow priest Slakko is going to do with the money . . . ;)

Well, you were in on the scam and almost made it succeed.  I hereby gift
A$40 to Balsamic Dragon.

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, 8 Jan 1998 09:11:39 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Thanks

Thanks!  (I need the cash to bid on Otzma Cards, heh heh..)

Balsamic Dragon

- ----------
> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: Thanks
> Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 9:06 AM
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:
> 
> > As a member in good standing of Religious Nutcase, Balsamic Dragon
wonders
> > what her fellow priest Slakko is going to do with the money . . . ;)
> 
> Well, you were in on the scam and almost made it succeed.  I hereby gift
> A$40 to Balsamic Dragon.
> 
> 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, 8 Jan 1998 14:33:31 -0000
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

3 Share Your Income
I bid 30 A$

2 Grave Robber
I bid 7A$

1 Go Fish
I bid 25A$

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:47:04 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

I'll see you and raise to 40A$ for the 3 Share Your Income, 10A$ for the
Grave Robber and 30A$ for the Go Fish.

Balsamic Dragon

- ----------
> From: Gavin M. Doig <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic
> Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 9:33 AM
> 
> 3 Share Your Income
> I bid 30 A$
> 
> 2 Grave Robber
> I bid 7A$
> 
> 1 Go Fish
> I bid 25A$
> 
> Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:56:09 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFCJ 148 (Fortunato)

I accept.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Malenkai [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Wednesday, January 07, 1998 9:34 PM
>To:	Ackanomic
>Subject:	Acka: CFCJ 148 (Fortunato)
>
>CFCJ 148 has been reassigned to Fortunato.
>

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:59:37 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ACKA: politeness moon hearing 101 .Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

> Niccolo Flychuck has called a Politeness Moon Hearing on Malenkai.  The
> statement is quoted below.  Reply to vote.  Valid votes are "Yes, it was
> polite."  or "No, it was not polite.".
> 
> rufus
> Count Tabula, default Hearing Harfer
> 
 
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Malenkai wrote:
> > 
message cut.

I just read the rule for Politeness Moon (which I copy below) and I really
dislike it. 

Rule 374/5 
Politeness Moon 
Mitchell Harding 

Any Player sending a public message should be as polite as possible. Any
Player may call a Hearing on the matter of whether a certain public message
from another Player was polite. 

The valid responses to a Politeness Moon Hearing are "Yes, it was polite."
and "No, it was not polite.". If the verdict of the Hearing shows that the
message was not polite, the Player who sent it loses 3 points. If it shows
that it was polite, its author gets the nickname Jazz JackRabbit for the
next 3 days. 

I think the words "polite as possible" are, in fact, weasel words.

As such, I decline to participate in this hearing.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:00:40 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

Well, I guess I'll jump in on this.

I bid 10A$ on the 2 Foul Fowl cards.
I bid 15A$ on the Skeleton Key card.
I bid 20A$ on the Truthseeker card.
I bid 30A$ on the Scientist for a Day card.
And, I bid 50A$ on the Share Your Income card.

(I think these bids are all high enough :)

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Duncan Richer [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Wednesday, January 07, 1998 3:35 PM
>To:	Ackanomic Main Mailing List
>Subject:	Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic
>
>
>So the Otzma Cards created probabilisticly are:
>
>2 Foul Fowl
>2 Share Your Income
>1 Go Fish
>1 Grave Robber
>
>I hereby end the Otzma Day now.
>
>The cards created are:
>
>3 Share Your Income
>2 Foul Fowl
>2 Grave Robber
>1 Go Fish
>1 Skeleton Key
>1 Paratroop
>1 Scientist for a Day
>1 TruthSeeker
>
>I am instigating public auctions for each of these 8 types of Otzma Card.
>That is, each auction consists of all Otzma cards just created
>of a particular type.
>
>Slakko
>Chief Cheese
>
>
>--
>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, 8 Jan 1998 10:31:50 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

> 
> Well, I guess I'll jump in on this.
> 
> I bid 10A$ on the 2 Foul Fowl cards.
> I bid 15A$ on the Skeleton Key card.
> I bid 20A$ on the Truthseeker card.
> I bid 30A$ on the Scientist for a Day card.
> And, I bid 50A$ on the Share Your Income card.
> 
> (I think these bids are all high enough :)
> 

Well, almost all.

I bid 75A$ on the Share Your Income cards.

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:27:20 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Covering all the Loopholes

For those of you who think this is a tasteless repeat of the scam that was
started a couple of days ago re Harfer Fee, it is in fact a slight
variation which is based on ThinMan's name change allowance proposal.

I create a Trinket, called "at least the standard Harfer Fee", with a
value of A$2.  It has the description "It consists of a loop of string
wide enough to drive a truck through it."

I gift the at least the standard Harfer Fee to SPAM.
That way, SPAM will own at least the standard Harfer Fee.

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, 8 Jan 1998 12:43:42 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

> > Well, I guess I'll jump in on this.
> > 
> > I bid 10A$ on the 2 Foul Fowl cards.
> > I bid 15A$ on the Skeleton Key card.
> > I bid 20A$ on the Truthseeker card.
> > I bid 30A$ on the Scientist for a Day card.
> > And, I bid 50A$ on the Share Your Income card.
> > 
> > (I think these bids are all high enough :)
> > 
> 
> Well, almost all.
> 
> I bid 75A$ on the Share Your Income cards.
> 

I bid A$100 on the Share Your Income card lot.
I bid A$25 on the Foul Fowl lot.

                           - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:07:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Old Trinkets and a purchase of a Party Chess Piece

> I am destroying the Trinket Democracy for A$
> I am purchasing a PartyChessPiece Archer

  How poetic.

___Dan_Knapp____The_Mauve_Baron______________________Beep Blip Bonk_______
<[email-masked]><[email-masked]> http://users.bergen.org/~dankna
Visit rec.games.video.classic and find out about Pac-Man's contemporaries!
Turn on, or I'll boot you downstairs!

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:27:58 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

I bid A$30 on the Foul Fowl cards.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	John Frederic Mc Coy [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Thursday, January 08, 1998 11:44 AM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic
>
>
>
>> > Well, I guess I'll jump in on this.
>> > 
>> > I bid 10A$ on the 2 Foul Fowl cards.
>> > I bid 15A$ on the Skeleton Key card.
>> > I bid 20A$ on the Truthseeker card.
>> > I bid 30A$ on the Scientist for a Day card.
>> > And, I bid 50A$ on the Share Your Income card.
>> > 
>> > (I think these bids are all high enough :)
>> > 
>> 
>> Well, almost all.
>> 
>> I bid 75A$ on the Share Your Income cards.
>> 
>
>I bid A$100 on the Share Your Income card lot.
>I bid A$25 on the Foul Fowl lot.
>
>                           - Vynd
>
>[email-masked]
>
>

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:46:25 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

New bids for the otzma cards:

Scientist for a day:	A$45
Skeleton Key:	A$20
Grave Robber:	A$25

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:08:10 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

Even newer bids for the otzma cards:

Scientist for a day: A$55
Skeleton Key: A$25

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	The Gingham Wearer [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Thursday, January 08, 1998 12:46 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic
>
>New bids for the otzma cards:
>
>Scientist for a day:	A$45
>Skeleton Key:	A$20
>Grave Robber:	A$25
>
>
>The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:12:01 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka More bids

I bid 110A$ on the Share Income Cards
I bid 30A$ on the Grave Robber Cards

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 19:33:17 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka More bids

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> I bid 110A$ on the Share Income Cards
> I bid 30A$ on the Grave Robber Cards

Just out of interests sake, these bids take the total top bids on Otzma
Cards over A$300, making the average price of each card (remember some
lots are multi-card lots) more than A$25.

Duncan
Chief Cheese wishing e was working on commission :-(

- --
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, 8 Jan 1998 13:01:09 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Otzma Bidding

I bid A$11 on the Grave Robber cards, A$22 on the TruthSeeker card, and
A$6 on the Paratroop card.

(Finally went through and figured out what the extant bids were...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Marc Almond:The Stars We Are
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
A miser is hard to live with, but makes a fine ancestor.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:50:12 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Icing

I'm sorry to say that mr cwm has also failed to return on time, and has
gone On Ice.

So please, everybody, overstate your vacations by at least a week so this
won't happen to you.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Marc Almond:The Stars We Are
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
"What a tasteful and relevant little story."

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:07:30 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Otzma Bidding

I think the current bid on the Grave Robber cards is A$30, by Balsamic
Dragon.
In any event, I bid A$30 on the TruthSeeker card.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	[email-masked] [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Thursday, January 08, 1998 2:01 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Acka: Otzma Bidding
>
>
>I bid A$11 on the Grave Robber cards, A$22 on the TruthSeeker card, and
>A$6 on the Paratroop card.
>
>(Finally went through and figured out what the extant bids were...)
>
>
>--
>--Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
>Current Album--Marc Almond:The Stars We Are
>Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
>A miser is hard to live with, but makes a fine ancestor.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:14:40 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma Self-Bidding

I hereby bid A$8 for the Paratroop Otzma Card.

- --
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, 8 Jan 1998 20:31:41 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

> Even newer bids for the otzma cards:
> 
> Scientist for a day: A$55
> Skeleton Key: A$25

Newer still bids:

Scientist for a day: 	A$70 (Presuming I don't already own this card)
Skeleton Key: 	A$30
Grave Robber: 	A$35

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:33:48 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Bidding

> I think the current bid on the Grave Robber cards is A$30, by Balsamic
> Dragon.
> In any event, I bid A$30 on the TruthSeeker card.

Nope.  Eir highest was A$10, so my bid is still valid...you're probably
thinking of the Go Fish card.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Indigo Girls:Virginia Woolf
Current Book--David Foster Wallace:Infinite Jest
My whole life is on the tip of my tongue

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:34:42 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

I bid 40A$ for the Grave Robber Cards

Balsamic Dragon

- ----------
> From: The Gingham Wearer <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic
> Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 3:31 PM
> 
> > Even newer bids for the otzma cards:
> > 
> > Scientist for a day: A$55
> > Skeleton Key: A$25
> 
> Newer still bids:
> 
> Scientist for a day: 	A$70 (Presuming I don't already own this card)
> Skeleton Key: 	A$30
> Grave Robber: 	A$35
> 
> 
> The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:53:04 -0600
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma Bidding...

I bid A$35 on the Skeleton Key
I bid A$80 on the Scientist For A Day (presuming The Gingham Wearer does
not already own this card)

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:52:31 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Auction :-)

I am initiating an auction of either the otzma card untouch me that I own
or one of the otzma cards untouch me that I own depending on which is
possible (I only do the possible one). It shall be a public auction with a
minimum bid of A$3.

The Gingham Wearer, hoping to cash in on the otzma-mania sweeping across
Acka.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:10:33 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Bidding...

I bid A$45 for the grave robber cards and A$90 on the scientist for the day
card if I do not already own it.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 23:16:17 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Don't really mean it

I call for the impeachment of breadbox and ThinMan from their positions as
justices (nothing personal, just two at random).

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 23:29:29 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retractions

I am retracting all calls for impeachment I have made.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 23:35:02 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trombone

It is my belief that I now possess exactly 76 points, which unless I am
very much mistaken means I can take possession of the great trombone of
Ackanomic, which I am now doing.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 19:30:36 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Otzma Auction Bids

I am bidding A$120 on the Share your Income lot.

I am bidding A$33 on the Foul Fowl lot.

                              - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 20:19:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 508 Verdict

CFJ 508 has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 508
  Subject: Phoebe and Ursula
Initiator: Goldenmean
Submitted: 98-01-07 6:52
    Judge: Slakko (selected 98-01-07 22:31)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

According to the last paragraph of Rule 909/14 the last
two paragraphs of Rule 909/14 should have been repealed
when The Gingham Wearer received "Fleas Shaking Hands
#1" on Dec. 22, 1997.

Initiator's Comments:

Well, here goes my first CFJ, I figure the absolute worst
thing that can happen is that I get an opportunity to be a
crazy french-scotsman :)
 
Judge's Comments:

The pertinent paragraphs of Rule 909/14 are as follows:

"Phoebe is still suffering from a falling out with her twin sister Ursula,
who lives inside the Machine that Goes *ping*. If Phoebe's wisdom, as
posted by a player, includes an attempt to vilify Ursula, then that player
will be awarded 2 points in addition to those earned for posting the
wisdom. If, on the other hand, a player posts Phoebe's wisdom which
includes the details of a reconciliation with Ursula, then that player
will not be eligible for the 2 point bonus for vilification, and will only
gain 4 points rather than 6 for posting Phoebe's wisdom. However, a
Trinket will be created in eir possession, titled "Fleas Shaking Hands
#n", where n is the smallest cardinal number necessary to avoid a naming
conflict, valued at A$2, and with the description "Phoebe and Ursula
reconciling, cast in pewter". 
If someone ever receives "Fleas Shaking Hands #n", for any cardinal number
n, as a result of the application of the preceding paragraph, then that
paragraph will be repealed, and this paragraph will then repeal itself."

The Gingham Wearer did receive Fleas Shaking Hands #1 as a result of the
first paragraph being applied when e posted Phoebe's Wisdom on December 22
1997.  1 is a cardinal number, and so the condition specified in the
second paragraph is true.  Hence the actions specified in the second
paragraph did occur, i.e. these two paragraphs were repealed.

Now, let's look at the statement submitted.
The two rules were actually repealed.  No "should" about it.
Still, if they were repealed it was correct of them to be repealed, and
hence they also "should" have been repealed.  Further, they were repealed
as soon as TGW became the recipient of the Trinket in question, according
to the text of the second paragraph.  I can therefore find no fault with
the statement in question.

I judge TRUE.

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

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 20:27:14 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 505 Appeal Verdict

FALSE has been upheld on CFJ 505.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 505
  Subject: Name games
Initiator: No other players
Submitted: 97-12-30 09:36
    Judge: Malenkai (selected 97-12-31 23:32)
Judgement: FALSE
   Appeal: FALSE

Statement:

The name of the player using the e-mail address [email-masked] is
"The Gingham Wearer".

Initiator's Reasoning:

There are two possibilities here, he is either called "The Gingham Wearer"
or he is called "No other players". Therefore, to judge this CFJ it is
necessary to ascertain whether his attempted name change took place. Rule 1
states:

"The game state may not be altered in such a way as to cause the customary
interpretation of this rule to be changed."

It also states:

"Those players who were members of Vulcan on August 28, 1997 [/dev/joe,
Malenkai, ThinMan, and Vynd] are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic (retired). No
other players and no non-players are Evil Overlords of Ackanomic
(retired)."

I believe that had the attempted name change to "No other players" occurred
then it would have altered the game state so as to change the customary
interpretation of rule 1, i.e. if the first quote from rule 1 did not exist
then the name change would have succeeded and "No other players" would have
become an Evil Overlord of Ackanomic (retired).

I would also like to point out that this is significantly different to CFJ
452 in that this is a noun phase being replaced by a proper noun whereas
CFJ 452 was a proper noun replacing another proper noun.

The difference here is that a proper noun is unambiguous but a noun phrase
always contains some ambiguity due to the imprecise nature of the English
language. It is my belief that the interpretation of the phrase with the
least ambiguity should be the one adopted.

breadbox's Bronze Torch reasoning:

It is interesting that the initiator mentions CFJ 452 in eir
reasoning, because the original judge for that CFJ (coincidentally the
same judge for this CFJ) discussed this exact situation - a noun
phrase being usurped by a proper noun - and showed why it would not
succeed. The Supreme Court, in its reasoning, explicitly acknowledged
and agreed with this assessment.

Judge's Reasoning:

The lexical content of the two strings is identical, but the semantic
content is different.  This has come up before, and I discussed it at
length in CFJ 452.  The English language, as well as game custom, allows
allows this to happen.  Malenkai's Loophole works when there is no
semantic dissonance between the hijacker and hijackee, and fails in
all other cases.  In my judgement, this (potential) name change does
not change the customary interpretation of rule 1.  'No other players'
in the quoted passage of rule 1 is not ambiguous, it clearly means the
negative of the players listed in the preceeding sentence.  A name change
to 'No other players' is something else and can happen, as long as is
happens as described in the rules.

I will also note that 'No other players' in rule 1 is not naming an
entity, to tie off a potential loose end.

The Registrar acked the name change on the 29th, and the name, AFAIK,
as not been changed since, hence the statement I was asked to judge
is FALSE.

The Gingham Wearer's Appeal Reasoning:

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.

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

Supreme Court's Reasoning:

The Court agrees completely with the statements of the original judge
and has nothing more to add.

To answer the specific issue addressed by the appealer's reasoning:
CFJ 474 dealt with a situation in which a rule named a class of
objects, requiring that a single member of that class be used while
failing to specify which one. To apply that logic here, one would have
to argue that the phrase "No other players" in Rule 1 is meant to
refer to a member of a class, that class presumably being all objects
that could possibly be referred to as "No other players". In other
words, that "No other players" refers to 1) any entity with that name,
and 2) any players besides those just mentioned in the previous
sentence; and furthermore that it refers to all of these possibilities
simultaneously, while at the same time indicating that it actually
only applies to one of them. The Court sees no justification for such
an interpretation.

Penalty to the appealer: 10 points.

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #450
*******************************