Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #487
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Sunday, January 25 1998       Volume 02 : Number 487

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:03:16 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> > Actually, I don't think it vanishes.  It was created by a rule, and that
> > rule may or may not have been repealed.  But even if the rule creating it
> > has been repealed, no rule has been passed destroying it.  Hence it still
> > exists, even if it no longer has the power to eject non-Vulcans directly
> > to eir homes.
> 
> I haven't a clue whether it exists or not, or whether rule 1 exists or not
> (I presume someone's submitted a CFJ on this. I was going to but decided
> I'd leave it to someone who wanted to do some reasoning), but it certainly
> isn't called Vulcan HQ so in a sense Vulcan HQ has vanished. I also note
> 
> The Gingham Wearer.
> 

It seems to me that game customs supports the idea that thing created by
Rules continue to exist even after the Rule which created them is
repealed.  Witness the "Badges of Many Thanks" that a number of players
have, created, I am told, by a proposal before my time.  Malenkai has
retained the title of Godfather, although the title is meaningless now
that the Organized Crime rules are gone.  There is also custom supporting
the idea that buildings, in particular, do not simply disappear.  So far
as I know every building ever created in Acka remains today.  I suppose
I'll submit a CFJ on this one.

after further thought, I do realize that you are correct in saying that it
isn't called Vulcan HQ anymore.  So my attempt to go there failed.  Err,
um... fine then!  I am changing the name of my home, The Faceless State, 
to Vulcan Headquarters.  So there!  I'm inviting all the members of Vulcan
to come over and visit, if they want.  I'm feeling stupid for having
failed to vote on 2611...

                                        - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:09:24 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2611 accepted

> > Proposal 2611 - Sun 18 Jan 1998 00:31 EST
> > Third time lucky
> > Rex Mundi (Gavin Doig)
> > 
> > This is a Modest proposal.
> > 
> > The organization that was called Vulcan on 1/1/1998 changes its name to the
> > following double-quote delimited string, where n is replaced by the lowest
> > cardinal number such that the name is unique:
> > "Rule 1 is repealed. #n"
> > Rex Mundi loses 1 point, and K 2 gains 1 point. [Thanks.]

Regardless of the outcome of Rule 1, I think we'd like to change our name
back. :-)

I suggest Rule 1 is repealed. #1 pay the standard harfer fee (that is, pay
that amount to the treasury, not pay that Malenkai's-loophole-attempt org)
and change its name to the following double-quote delimited string: "Vulcan" .
I approve this suggestion.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:08:43 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:
> 
> > I haven't a clue whether it exists or not, or whether rule 1 exists or not
> > (I presume someone's submitted a CFJ on this. I was going to but decided
> > I'd leave it to someone who wanted to do some reasoning), but it certainly
> > isn't called Vulcan HQ so in a sense Vulcan HQ has vanished. 
> 
> Actually, again no rule specifies the change in name of the organization,
> so it is _still_ called Vulcan HQ if it exists.  Actually, if Vulcan ever
> changed its name while the rule was still in operation, a new Headquarters
> would come into existence, cluttering up the map no end :-(
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> 

Rule 1 said that if Vulcan ever changed its name, then all instances of
"Vulcan" in Rule 1 were simultaneosly replaced with the new name.  This
would include Vulcan in Vulcan Headquarters.  You may be correct that this
created an entirely new "Rule 1 is repealed. #1 Headquarters", I'm not
really sure.  It is also possible that, while all occurances of the word
Vulcan were replaced simultaneously, the rule was repealed by the first
sentence "Rule 1 is repealed" before the Rule had a chance to create the
new building or change its name.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:09:51 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2611 accepted

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > > Proposal 2611 - Sun 18 Jan 1998 00:31 EST
> > > Third time lucky
> > > Rex Mundi (Gavin Doig)
> > > 
> > > This is a Modest proposal.
> > > 
> > > The organization that was called Vulcan on 1/1/1998 changes its name to the
> > > following double-quote delimited string, where n is replaced by the lowest
> > > cardinal number such that the name is unique:
> > > "Rule 1 is repealed. #n"
> > > Rex Mundi loses 1 point, and K 2 gains 1 point. [Thanks.]
> 
> Regardless of the outcome of Rule 1, I think we'd like to change our name
> back. :-)
> 
> I suggest Rule 1 is repealed. #1 pay the standard harfer fee (that is, pay
> that amount to the treasury, not pay that Malenkai's-loophole-attempt org)
> and change its name to the following double-quote delimited string: "Vulcan" .
> I approve this suggestion.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 
> 

I approve this action as well.

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 11:14:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

>> Actually, I don't think it vanishes.  It was created by a rule, and that
>> rule may or may not have been repealed.  But even if the rule creating it
>> has been repealed, no rule has been passed destroying it.  Hence it still
>> exists, even if it no longer has the power to eject non-Vulcans directly
>> to eir homes.
> 
> I haven't a clue whether it exists or not, or whether rule 1 exists or not
> (I presume someone's submitted a CFJ on this. I was going to but decided
> I'd leave it to someone who wanted to do some reasoning)

There has already been a CFJ on the general issue, so I doubt another
CFJ is really called for. In any case, I'm harfing Rule 1 as having
been repealed unless and until someone provides new reasoning to the
contrary.

As for whether the "Vulcan HQ" exists, I tend to think that it
doesn't. Granted there is established game custom that objects
continue to exist after the rule that regulates them is gone, but that
game custom, at least in part, predates the Entity rules. Now, Rule
500 states:

> Something is an entity if and only if the rules specify that it is,
> or it is defined by the Rules and Ackanomic tradition indicates that
> it is an entity.

Neither case applies to "Vulcan HQ", so even if it exists, it is no
longer an entity. Which is next to nonexistence as far as the game is
concerned.

As a demonstration: I currently own the Widget of Yendor, an ex-entity
whose rule was repealed by a bunch of heartless philistines. I am
hereby frobbing the Widget of Yendor. I am hereby tweaking the Widget
of Yendor. Hell, I am now twiddling the Widget of Yendor. Now, I
hereby destroy the Widget of Yendor. I then cause the Widget of Yendor
to be recreated in the possession of the Chartreuse Goose. I now have
the Widget of Yendor return to my possession automatically.

All of these actions are legal by Rule 101, and so they occur. They
also have absolutely zero impact on the game state (which is why they
are legal in the first place). It's an existence of sorts, but a
paltry one.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:19:44 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert in non-CFJs

K2 wrote:
> I would like to apply to the senate for recognition as an expert in
> non-CFJs
> 
> My qualifications are as follows :
> 
>     I have been assigned 484(A), which later turned out to have been
> erroneously assigned, 513 (Malenkai) and 514 (Malenkai), which were both
> spam masquerading as CFJs :)

I vote against this application for expertise, on the basis that non-CFJ's
is not an area of the rules. Don't feel too bad, K2, I realize some of the
things we've given out expert status in before also aren't areas of the
rules, but in this particular case I also feel that a string of bad luck
(random assignments, as opposed to anything you actively did) is no basis
for expert status.

BTW, I have no idea who the other senators are now, so please speak up
if you are a senator. :-)

/dev/joe
Senator

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:20:02 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> > Something is an entity if and only if the rules specify that it is,
> > or it is defined by the Rules and Ackanomic tradition indicates that
> > it is an entity.

Buildings are entities.  When Vulcan HQ was created, it was created as a
building.  Therefore it was created as an entity.  Therefore, as entities
can only be destroyed as specified by the rules, Vulcan HQ has not been
destroyed.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:21:39 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert in non-CFJs

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> K2 wrote:
> > I would like to apply to the senate for recognition as an expert in
> > non-CFJs

> I vote against this application for expertise, on the basis that non-CFJ's
> is not an area of the rules. Don't feel too bad, K2, I realize some of the
> things we've given out expert status in before also aren't areas of the
> rules, but in this particular case I also feel that a string of bad luck
> (random assignments, as opposed to anything you actively did) is no basis
> for expert status.
> 
> BTW, I have no idea who the other senators are now, so please speak up
> if you are a senator. :-)

I will agree with /dev/joe on this one, bowing to his senatorial
expertise.

Slakko
Also a Senator
Possibly wearing a Visible Agenda Hat
Probably trying to work out what to do with the map
Definitely worrying about that standard harfer fee thingamebob :-)
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 11:22:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

>> Something is an entity if and only if the rules specify that it is,
>> or it is defined by the Rules and Ackanomic tradition indicates that
>> it is an entity.
> 
> Buildings are entities.  When Vulcan HQ was created, it was created as a
> building.  Therefore it was created as an entity.  Therefore, as entities
> can only be destroyed as specified by the rules, Vulcan HQ has not been
> destroyed.

The Building that is Vulcan HQ is not defined by the Rules, though, so
it is debatable whether or not it is still a Building.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:31:28 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> The Building that is Vulcan HQ is not defined by the Rules, though, so
> it is debatable whether or not it is still a Building.

I have a trinket called "Sceptre of Banna #k" for some value of k.  It is
not defined by the rules. Is it still a Trinket?

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:33:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: about rule 1

I do not think rule 1 was repealed.  This is the same sort
of semantic/lexical dissonance that was disussed at length
in CFJs 415 and 452.  A noun phrase does not all of the 
sudden become a verb phrase, and executed when it becomes 
part of a rule, and we all know that "Rule 1 is repealed [...]"
is a noun phrase, viz. the name of an organization.  Thus,
rule 1 is read with a noun phrase at its beginning, and
nothing further happens.

Since someome has already apparently submitted a CFJ on the
matter, and breadbox and ThinMan will decide the matter
at some point, I'm not sure why I'm bothering :-)

Malenkai
expert on lexical/semantic dissonance ;-)

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 11:35:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

>> The Building that is Vulcan HQ is not defined by the Rules, though, so
>> it is debatable whether or not it is still a Building.
> 
> I have a trinket called "Sceptre of Banna #k" for some value of k.  It is
> not defined by the rules. Is it still a Trinket?

The rules define processes by which players can create trinkets. The
rules also define methods whereby players can create buildings. But
that method was never used to create Vulcan HQ. Its definition was
entirely dependent on a single rule, which is now no longer in force.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:22:18 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

> From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>

> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:
> 
> > I haven't a clue whether it exists or not, or whether rule 1 exists or
not
> > (I presume someone's submitted a CFJ on this. I was going to but
decided
> > I'd leave it to someone who wanted to do some reasoning), but it
certainly
> > isn't called Vulcan HQ so in a sense Vulcan HQ has vanished. 
> 
> Actually, again no rule specifies the change in name of the organization,
> so it is _still_ called Vulcan HQ if it exists.  Actually, if Vulcan ever
> changed its name while the rule was still in operation, a new
Headquarters
> would come into existence, cluttering up the map no end :-(

If Vulcan HQ still exists and rule 1 doesn't then does that mean there's a
nice unowned extravagant building in the treasury just waiting to be
auctioned off? Aren't all unowned entities considered to be in the treasury
or am I wrong again?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:24:38 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Two questions

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> Forwarded message:
> > From: [email-masked]
> > Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:26:40 -0800
> >
> > Brian Raiter wrote:
> > > Of course, the Date that appears on your email isn't the time
> > > that it arrived at the list server (i.e., muppetlabs.com). It's the
> > > time taken from your computer when you send it. The time it's received
> > > at muppetlabs.com can be gleaned by grovelling through the email
> > > headers, of course, but it's a minor pain, and worse, that information
> > > doesn't get saved in the mail archives.
> 
> Funny that hoover2300 should reply to this message, since he seems to be one
> of those whose timestamps on his mail are off. In this case, it looks like
> his computer's clock is one day behind. (given the reply to breadbox's
> message of Jan 25th 8 AM).
> yeah sorry about that I am seeking an atomic time clock download replica
That way I never have to set it.
unless it rusts and I runs out electricity.

What's up with da auction?

help! their is a party in my pants!

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:08:01 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: acka proposal 2639

>> Proposal 2639
>> McCarthy-ism lives on
>> else...if (Henry Towsner)
>>
>> Create a rule entitled "Red Scare" reading as follows:
>> "Paranoid" for one week.  During this time it will be a crime to publicly
>> suggest that there is something wrong with the Ackanomian way of life.
>
>I presume that playing nomic would be the Crime of Sedition?  Since trying
>to change the rules implies that there is something wrong with them they
>way they are now.
	I don't think so.  Proposing and voting are not public actions, and
the act of distributing a proposal doesn't criticize the nomic, it's mearly
doing ones duty like a respectable citizen should.

>> This is the Crime of Sedition.  A player who commits this crime may, in
>> addition to the usual penalties, be tarred and feathered for between 1 and
>> 7.
>
>
>1 and 7 what?
	I meant days.  I though of a better penalty anyway, so I'll
withdraw this and repropose it.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	No iron can stab the heart with such force as a period put just at
the right place.
	-Isaac Babel

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:21:13 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Orgs

>I apply for admission to shell#1 through shell#54
	I suggest that K 2 be accepted into all organizations of which I am
the sole member and which do not own a Secret Laboratory.
	I approve of all suggestions I made previously in this e-mail.

(I believe he's accepted into all except shell#10)

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

	<[email-masked]>

	No iron can stab the heart with such force as a period put just at
the right place.
	-Isaac Babel

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:24:50 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retractions

Feeling like an idiot, I retract proposals 2639 and 2641.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	No iron can stab the heart with such force as a period put just at
the right place.
	-Isaac Babel

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:10:11 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert in non-CFJs

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> K2 wrote:
> > I would like to apply to the senate for recognition as an expert in
> > non-CFJs
> > 
> > My qualifications are as follows :
> > 
> >     I have been assigned 484(A), which later turned out to have been
> > erroneously assigned, 513 (Malenkai) and 514 (Malenkai), which were both
> > spam masquerading as CFJs :)
> 
> I vote against this application for expertise, on the basis that non-CFJ's
> is not an area of the rules. Don't feel too bad, K2, I realize some of the
> things we've given out expert status in before also aren't areas of the
> rules, but in this particular case I also feel that a string of bad luck
> (random assignments, as opposed to anything you actively did) is no basis
> for expert status.
> 
> BTW, I have no idea who the other senators are now, so please speak up
> if you are a senator. :-)
> 
> /dev/joe
> Senator
> 

I am a senator, as well as, I think, Slakko and, um... someone....  In any
event, you can't actually vote no because we would first have to vote to
HAVE a vote on whether or not to confer expertese.  Unless someone changed
that rule.  Oh bother.  If it is possible to do so, I vote against
confering expert status inthis case.

                           - Vynd, lazy

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:19:35 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Orgs

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >I apply for admission to shell#1 through shell#54
> 	I suggest that K 2 be accepted into all organizations of which I am
> the sole member and which do not own a Secret Laboratory.
> 	I approve of all suggestions I made previously in this e-mail.

Ummm, else...if, I asked first.  Any chance of letting me in?

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:22:27 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> The rules define processes by which players can create trinkets. The
> rules also define methods whereby players can create buildings. But
> that method was never used to create Vulcan HQ. Its definition was
> entirely dependent on a single rule, which is now no longer in force.

Does the trinket "Fleas Shaking Hands #1" still exist?  The rule which
created it is no longer in force (the relevant paragraphs repealed
themselves immediately after the trinket's creation).

Anyway, that only covers creation.  We need to look at destruction.

Rule 1's enactment => Vulcan HQ Created as a Building
Vulcan HQ a Building => Vulcan HQ an Entity
Vulcan HQ an Entity => Can only be destroyed by the rules
Rule 1's "repeal" does not create a rule which destroys the building,
hence it exists.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:26:57 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Orgs

>> >I apply for admission to shell#1 through shell#54
>
>Ummm, else...if, I asked first.  Any chance of letting me in?

	I suggest that Slakko be accepted into all organizations of which I
am the sole member and which do not own a Secret Laboratory.
 	I approve of all suggestions I made previously in this e-mail.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	No iron can stab the heart with such force as a period put just at
the right place.
	-Isaac Babel

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:36:48 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:Orgs

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Towsner wrote:

> >> >I apply for admission to shell#1 through shell#54
> >
> >Ummm, else...if, I asked first.  Any chance of letting me in?
> 
> 	I suggest that Slakko be accepted into all organizations of which I
> am the sole member and which do not own a Secret Laboratory.
>  	I approve of all suggestions I made previously in this e-mail.

I accept the invite into all these orgs, including the ones I didn't ask
to join initially :-)

Thanks else...if.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:53:07 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: A look at ex-Rule 1

I would just like to point out that this rule tries to repeal itself 8
times.  Doing a good job there, I hope it succeeds (jeez, a rule that
cannot even repeal itself - how poor would that be).

Given that we can't be sure it is gone though, I am asking all those who
supported my earlier attempts to restrict it to vote YES on Proposal 2637.
We can't afford a single anti-vote, as I'm sure Vulcan are massing all
their Bonus Votes and Tammany Bribes for an assault on it to protect eir
fragile position.

So, if you are sick of seeing Vulcan when you wake up and look at the
start of the ruleset, support my first anti-hegemony proposal (the second
one, coming soon, will be a simple renumbering, as the other change will 
clearly enable it).

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:36:04 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: about rule 1

> I do not think rule 1 was repealed.  This is the same sort
> of semantic/lexical dissonance that was disussed at length
> in CFJs 415 and 452.  A noun phrase does not all of the 
> sudden become a verb phrase, and executed when it becomes 
> part of a rule, and we all know that "Rule 1 is repealed [...]"
> is a noun phrase, viz. the name of an organization.  Thus,
> rule 1 is read with a noun phrase at its beginning, and
> nothing further happens.
> 
> Since someome has already apparently submitted a CFJ on the
> matter, and breadbox and ThinMan will decide the matter
> at some point, I'm not sure why I'm bothering :-)

I'm inclined to agree here. Although I do support all the efforts to repeal
rule 1 they should only be done if they are in accordance with the rules,
which I believe some people are starting to lose sight of. This is the
beginning of the new Klingon stance on honour and integrity as promised in
the official charter, and one of my reasons for choosing Klingon as the
name in the first place. Whilst speaking of Klingon I note that we could
still use another member and also wonder if I'm still swinger if I was
chucked out (which I still don't believe I was. If I'm not still swinger
then I suggest that Klingon appoint The Gingham Wearer as swinger and then
support this action.

The Gingham Wearer, who can think of five potential thread splits due to
Klingon alone, and is willing to bet the harfers are having great fun :-).

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:00:51 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Agenda Hat Descriptions

Hat Number 1:
This hat is made of a really clear crystal, superlight so that it rests
gently on the player's head when worn.  Inside the superlight crystal are
6 beads of light, continually emanating Majik.  Beneath them are a total
of 28 beads of dark, continually absorbing Majik.

Hat Number 2:
This is a raffia sombrero, on the brim of which are perched an infinite
number of trios of miniature people dancing widdershins while holding
hands, Zorba style.  They attempt to suggest actions, but whenever someone
does, the chains break and everyone changes partners.  The new partners
immediately denounce the actions.  7 of the little people have bungee
jumped from the edge of the Hat and are swinging around.  This disturbs
the player wearing the Hat no end whenever the Hat is being worn.

Hat Number 3:
This hat started life as an exact 1:10000 replica of the tallest mountain
in Acka, Mount Squeegee.  However, the replica mountain has cracked in
two, and continually spurts a small amount of lava out.  It engulfs the
town of Acka in a display which lasts for 15 minutes at a time, after
which the lava dissolves back into the hat slowly, so that the show can
resume every hour on the hour.  Also part of the show, little replicas of
all past and present players are seen running away from the hills, just to
prove that not all the cliches come true.  It makes a very impressive
display.

Yours,
Slakko
your Agenda Hat Descriptor
Wearing a Visible non-Silly Agenda Hat
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:07:40 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC

I'm around.  You want to chat for the next 1/2 to 1 hour - go ahead!

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 00:06:41 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: television?

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> We have two other Star Trek related orgs:
> 
> Odo on the Wormhole (Odo is the changeling in Deep Space 9, the Wormhole
> is a spatial anomaly near the station)
There also used to be the Church of Seleya - which is the great mountain
on the planet Vulcan.

Niccolo Flychuck

> Klingon (well, possibly not yet, I've got a CFJ in the pipeline to claim
> that it is still called "the standard Harfer fee")
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> - -- 
> Duncan C. "how could you get Vulcan and not Klingon?" Richer aka
> Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
> Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
> Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:44:00 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Expert in non-CFJs

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
> 
> I am a senator, as well as, I think, Slakko and, um... someone....  In any
> event, you can't actually vote no because we would first have to vote to
> HAVE a vote on whether or not to confer expertese.  Unless someone changed
> that rule.  Oh bother.  If it is possible to do so, I vote against
> confering expert status inthis case.

The other senator is Balsamic Dragon.
Besides, wouldn't we have to have a vote to decide whether or not to have
a vote on whether or not to have a vote to confer experience?

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "a better way to build a garbage counter" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:35:59 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

> Does the trinket "Fleas Shaking Hands #1" still exist?  The rule which
> created it is no longer in force (the relevant paragraphs repealed
> themselves immediately after the trinket's creation).
> 
> Anyway, that only covers creation.  We need to look at destruction.
> 
> Rule 1's enactment => Vulcan HQ Created as a Building
> Vulcan HQ a Building => Vulcan HQ an Entity
> Vulcan HQ an Entity => Can only be destroyed by the rules
> Rule 1's "repeal" does not create a rule which destroys the building,
> hence it exists.

Does (or did) rule 1 actually create a building called Vulcan Headquarters?
Or did it merely say that it exists? Is there a difference between the two?
If there exists an entity called Vulcan Headquarters is it a building? Or
is it an entity of an unspecified type? Do unspecified entities have any
effect on the game-state? Indeed, are they even ownable?

I'm not sure about the answers to any of these questions but I'm inclined
to believe:
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
but I'm really not sure. I think the important bit is the first three
questions. If the entity was brought into being by rule 1 then it probably
still exists. If rule 1 merely stated that it exists then it has probably
stopped existing.

The Gingham Wearer, realising that the repeal of rule 1 might not be as
simple as first thought, and also realising e's probably talking a load of
rubbish.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:57:04 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Going to the temple

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> Does (or did) rule 1 actually create a building called Vulcan Headquarters?
> Or did it merely say that it exists? Is there a difference between the two?
> If there exists an entity called Vulcan Headquarters is it a building? Or
> is it an entity of an unspecified type? Do unspecified entities have any
> effect on the game-state? Indeed, are they even ownable?

Note: I've annotated TGW's one-word answers:

> 
> I'm not sure about the answers to any of these questions but I'm inclined
> to believe:
> No  - well by claiming it exists it brought it into existence.
> Yes - however, making it exist effectively creates it
> Yes - technically, but not for the purposes of it needing explicit
destruction
> No - it was specified to be a building in Rule 1 IIRC.
> Yes - No: see Rule 1 as it used to be:

Upon those twelve kaas of land is Vulcan Headquarters,
which is an Extravagant building.

As far as I can see, the Entities rule says that it needs to be destroyed
_explicitly_.  *Entities can only be ... destroyed as specified in the
rules*.  Nothing specified its destruction, therefore it was never
destroyed.  A rule once specified its creation.  Once that happens, it
continues to go on existing until some rule enables its destruction.
*That hasn't happened yet*.

That's how simple this is.

> No - that's right.
> No 
> but I'm really not sure. I think the important bit is the first three
> questions. If the entity was brought into being by rule 1 then it probably
> still exists. If rule 1 merely stated that it exists then it has probably
> stopped existing.

Yours,
Slakko
vehemently talking justifiable rubbish
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:07:05 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The whole Rule 1 mess - explained!

Actually, proposal 2611 was Null!

Here's why:

It did something in double brackets.  To do this it temporarily created a
rule.  This rule would have had number greater than 1007.  Rule 1007
specifies that name changes only take effect on payment of the standard
Harfer Fee.  This payment did not happen, ergo the name change did not
take effect, and hence nothing happened as a result of Proposal 2611.

Yours,
Slakko

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University
Ackanomic - RuneMaker - Chess-Umpire - Map-Harfer - Senator - Swinger

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:16:19 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinket

I create a trinket, valued at A$1 called Vulcan with a description "It is a
cruel nasty and heartless thing to do." I then give Vulcan to Rule 1 is
repealed. #1.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:37:05 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Harf

After giving it some due consideration I am declaring proposal 2635 harfy.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:17:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The whole Rule 1 mess - explained!

> Actually, proposal 2611 was Null!
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> It did something in double brackets.

We must not be looking at the same proposal 2611. I see no double
brackets.

> To do this it temporarily created a rule.  This rule would have had
> number greater than 1007.

This is not correct. Proposal 2611 described a set of "one-time
effect", as per Rule 104. Thus the changes are actually enabled by
Rule 104 (with its precedence, if such need be determined).

> Rule 1007 specifies that name changes only take effect on payment of
> the standard Harfer Fee.  This payment did not happen, ergo the name
> change did not take effect, and hence nothing happened as a result
> of Proposal 2611.

Rule 1007 describes how an Organization may change its name *as an
organizational action*. That has nothing to do with a proposal
effecting a change to the game state.

(For example: Long before there was a specific mechanism whereby
organizations could change their names, the party (None Yet) had their
name successfully changed for them via proposal 2097.)

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:48:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A look at ex-Rule 1

> Given that we can't be sure it is gone though, I am asking all those who
> supported my earlier attempts to restrict it to vote YES on Proposal 2637.
> We can't afford a single anti-vote, as I'm sure Vulcan are massing all
> their Bonus Votes and Tammany Bribes for an assault on it to protect eir
> fragile position.

Yeah, like they've ever successfully blocked a single kill-rule-1-dead
proposal in the past.

There have been some very interesting and nomicky assaults on Rule 1,
but it would be nice if you folks could be a little more civil about
it. I know nobody asked me, but I would like to throw out a few
opinions:

One attack at a time. Avoid multiplying thread splits for their own
sake. Three simultaneous threads is enough to keep just about anybody
busy. Certainly me.

Clean up after yourselves! Minimize the danger of unforeseen side
effects. If you're going to add these weird clauses to the rules, have
them automatically delete themselves if Rule 1 currently does not
exist.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with Rule 1 besides its location. I
don't like having more than one Rule being above Rule 102. But I have
no problem with anything else about it. If you have a serious, honest
gripe with the Gold Pocketwatches or something, then okay. But if, as
I strongly suspect, you're all just shooting at it because "it's
there", then be a little more civilized. Just renumber it to be below
Rule 102, and its danger of unforeseen side effects becomes close to
nil. You probably wouldn't even need to remove the last paragraph. But
at the very least, preserve it in square brackets.

(By the way, if you do try to renumber it, put it in the 1100s, the
harf section, because it is a very harfy thing. Please don't put it in
its own section.)

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:29:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2642

> Proposal 2642
> Just Trying to Clean Up After the Peons
> breadbox (Brian Raiter)

*sigh*. Apparently I jumped the gun on this.

I hereby retract Proposal 2642.

breadbox

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:00:26 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Valaraukar's Evil Twins

I confess to having lost track of who exactly has agreed to become
Valaraukar's Evil Twins.  Slagothor and Goldenmean are the only ones
I'm sure of...  If anyone else can let me know, by private email if
possible(and, even better, including a copy of the message by which
it occurred).

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Wang Chung:Dance Hall Days
Current Book--Tanith Lee:Dark Dance
Sure as you can't steer a train, you can't change your fate

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #487
*******************************