Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #453
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Friday, January 9 1998        Volume 02 : Number 453

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:44:31 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hello, Good-bye

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> I hereby nominate mr cwm to be inducted into the Hall of Elders.
> 
> I support the nominee (that's 1 point!)

I support this as well.  I think that makes 10?

rufus
> --
> Duncan "elderiffic" Richer aka
> Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
> Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
> 

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:37:14 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Hello, Good-bye

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, mr cwm wrote:

> To:   Ackanomians
> From: mr cwm
> 
> By this message and in accord with R255/21 I return from vacation.
> 
> By this message and in accord with R101/3 I resign from Ackanomic.  It's
> been an enormous amount of fun ... one of the few things whose reality has
> surpassed expectation.  But I got a couple of books read while I was on
> vacation, which is about as many as I got read the whole rest of the year,
> and I found myself not at all regretting that our LAN was down the past
> few days.
> 
> I'd like to thank all the Functional Officers who do so much work to make
> Ackanomic fun, and I'll certainly miss all the Ackanomians who have so
> much fun making Ackanomic fun. 

Sigh, I was afraid of this when mr cwm was gone for so long.  truly he
will be missed, I will do my best to carry the torch for players without
vowels in their names.  I also support his nomination to the Hall of
Elders (12 I think).

                           - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:38:52 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Otzma Card Probabilistic

I bid A$175 on the Share your income lot.
I bid A$55 on the Fowl Foul lot.

                            - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:43:31 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka proposal submit for comment

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, aaron shapiro wrote:

> 
> A) BEACHES
> 1)Let a common location known as the beach exist.   The beach is a 
> desolate strip of sand  30 to 300 cat lengths in width.  It is always sunny at the 
> beach unless weather conditions are specified by other rules.  Any player may 
> go to the beach as a public action. Any player at the beach is said to be having 
> fun.
> B) OCEANS
> 1) Let a common location known as the ocean exist.  A player may not 
> go to the ocean unless e is at the beach, or as otherwise specified in part 2 of 
> this rule.  Any player entering the ocean is said to be swimming.  Any player 
> possessing the wings mutation is unable to swim. A player at the ocean may 
> not take part in any public action, [vote, bid on an auction etc...] The ocean 
> surrounds ackanomia on the sides that the gaol  touches. [as shown by the 
> official map] It is exactly that shade of blue green that oceans are, and is 
> composed almost entirely of salt water.  The ocean extends from the specified 
> edges of ackanomia to the edge of the world. [There are rumors of other lands 
> in the ocean but they are probably a heresy of the worst kind and speaking of 
> them would get you tarred and feathered.]  The ocean is prevented from 
> running over the edge of the world by a large wall of some rust proof metal that 
> closely resembles stainless steel. [ this is part of why the round earth 
> restoration league  needs such an expensive machine, the wall must meet up 
> with a groove in the hemispherical portion of the world to interlock and prevent 
> future seperation.]
> 2) Any player successfully rafting down the Ackanomian River as 
> described in rule 835/4 shall go to the ocean, bypassing the beach.  
> Upon leaving the ocean the rafting player must go to the beach to rest for 
> 1(one) day before moving to any other location.
> 
> [I just wanted to get some comments on this before I decided if it was ok for me
> To submit it.  It seemed a bit presumptious of me to put something this major 
> forward on my firs day but I figured  what the hell no guts no glory.  I mean 
> what can happen I cant be ridiculed because of the po. Moon worst comes to 
> worst I am told it sucks or is illegal and avoid losing points for it being shot 
> down so here it is in all its glory.]
> 

I don't think this is presumptious at all.  One of the best ways to get
into the game, in my opinion, is to introduce new things, rather than try
and change the old.  This falls into that category.  Nothing you try to do
with this rule is illegal, and so far as I can see everything you propose
would work as intended.

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 21:52:11 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 148 Verdict

CFCJ 148 has been judged TRUE without comment.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 148
  Subject: As interesting as CFCJ 146
Initiator: else..if
Submitted: 98-01-06 15:40
    Judge: The Gingham Wearer (declined)
2nd Judge: Fortunato (selected 98-01-07 22:33)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

        CnH has commited a crime.

Initiator's Reasoning:

        As seen on the main mailing list, CnH went off vacation and then
attempted to return from vacation in less than two days, which is forbidden
by Rule 255.

Suggested Penalty:

        I recommend a sentance of 100 days in the Gaol, to remind him not
to return over quickly, as well as a 100 point penalty and a 100 line
apology. Evil doers must be punished harshly to teach them a lesson.
(However if the judge is a feel-good wimpy liberal judge, perhaps a
sentance of 2 days, the minimum vacation time, would also be appropriate.)

Judge's Comments: 

[none]

As a punishment, I sentence Calvin N Hobbes to 1 day in Gaol.

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 21:53:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 148 Appeal

I appeal CFCJ 148 with the following comments:

- -----

The CFCJ should probably have been judged INVALID, if
it ever existed at all.  Failing that, FALSE is the correct
verdict.  See rule 710, section 3, and rule 251.

If the verdict is upheld, however, see CFCJ 146 for a more 
appropriate penalty for an honest mistake.

I certainly do not understand how this new stand on crime
is "harfy", and why players need to go to Gaol for making
honest mistakes.

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 21:56:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 510 Verdict

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgment 510
  Subject: Weasel Words
Initiator: Balsamic Dragon
Submitted: 98-01-08 10:12
    Judge: The Gingham Wearer (selected 98-01-08 20:30)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

The words "polite as possible" in Rule 374 are weasel words.

Balsamic Dragon's Reasoning:

I don't think the standard of "polite as possible" is attainable or
necessary for the enjoyment of the game by all players.

The Gingham Wearer's Reasoning:

Rule 344 states:

"Any language containing these words can be considered vague and/or overly
broad and tends to obfuscate the true interpretation of a rule. These words
are known as "weasel words.""

This means that weasel words. (I guess that the full stop is part of the
phrase since it is inside quotation marks) must "tend to obfuscate the true
interpretation of a rule" and do one or more of the following: "be able to
be considered vague"; "be able to be considered overly broad". I shall look
at the second part first. Although I do not believe that the words "polite
as possible" are vague or overly broad (the phrase has a clear and well
defined meaning) it is however possible to consider it so. Whether
considering it so is justified or not is irrelevant.

That brings me back to the first part. Do the words "polite as possible"
tend to obfuscate the true interpretation of a rule?

My dictionary defines obfuscate as follows, "Darken, obscure (mind etc.);
stupefy, bewilder."

I do not believe that the phrase in question does this. It may change the
meaning of the rule from the intended meaning but this is not the true
interpretation. The true interpretation is the one gleaned from the actual
meanings of the words.

Therefore I do not believe the phrase satisfies both the criteria for being
weasel words.

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 02:56:19 -0000
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: A$

#transfer RexBank, Rex Mundi: 25 A$. I suggest this; thus it happens.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:25:10 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Communication problem(Slakko)

	Slakko, every time I send you mail, I'm informed that your address
doesn't exist.  Is <[email-masked]> you address?

- --
- -Henry Towsner, AKA else...if, The Fearless Alibi Posesser, Laefu, and Yilran

	<[email-masked]>

	"For there never was yey philosopher
	That could endure the toothache patiently"
	-William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, act 5, scene 1

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #453
*******************************