Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #498
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, January 29 1998      Volume 02 : Number 498

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:48:21 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The unambiguous message: This is hopefully my last shot (no chance)

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

> On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:
> 
> > But letturc isn't a word. It is a sequence of random letters.
> 
> Definition of spell:
> 
> 1. To form words with letters, esp. with the proper letters, either
orally
> or in writing. 
> 
> I claim that letturc, whenever I have said it, is a spelling of either
> lettuce or letters.  There is no requirement that spelling be correct in
> the definition of spelling.
> 
> Definition of word:
> 
> a constituent part of a sentence
> 
> Definition of sentence:
> 
> A combination of words which is complete as expressing a thought, and in
> writing is marked at the close by a period, or full point.
> 
> So here we go.  I claim that my use of the text "letturc letturc letturc
> letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc letturc" in this
sentence,
> each instance of the text "letturc" as it occurs within this paragraph
> meaning either lettuce or letters but not both, is a blatant attempt to
> win.  Each of the instances of the word "letturc" is a word, because it
is
> included as part of a sentence.  All of them are spelt, but not spelt
> correctly, however, the correct spelling is unsure because each word
could
> be lettuce or letters, but it is impossible to determine which because my
> intent is to leave it impossible to determine.  As a result, there are at
> least 10 words in this message, all of which happen to be "letturc",
which
> are misspelled, but not unambiguously misspelled, and hence they do not
> fall victim to being "treated" as ordinary words under Rule 340.
> Therefore, in the event that I have not already won a Cycle of Ackanomic,
> this event sets my Agenda Hat Condition to True and I have won a Cycle of
> Ackanomic.

What thought does a repeated stating of the "word letturc convey?

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:49:50 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 525 (Thin Man)

Thin Man has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 525 - January 29, 1998
Subject: Weasel Words
Initiator: Slakko
Judge: Thin Man (selected January 29, 1998, 5:00 p.m.)
Judgement:

Statement:

"Unambiguous spelling errors" in Rule 340 are weasel words.

Slakko's Reasoning:

There is no clear-cut definition of how many errors it is possible to
theoretically correct in a single misspelled word.  If we consider the
different types of errors to be letter omission, letter addition and
letter substitution (not to mention the old favourite letter permutation)
then we find that the Hamming distance for most words in the English
language is 2 or less.  That is, it is possible to turn almost all English
words into some other english word with 2 or fewer spelling errors as
described above.  This makes determining what is "unambiguous" in a
spelling error a task based on context.

However, to determine something from context requires knowing the intent
of the person who made the original message.  It is impossible to prove
that that person did not intend to spout gibberish, if one of the
interpretations produces gibberish but the others do not.  Therefore it is
impossible to find any spelling error which is unambiguous.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:52:46 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The unambiguous message: This is hopefully my last shot (no chance)

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, The Gingham Wearer wrote:

> What thought does a repeated stating of the "word letturc convey?

The thought that I really, really want to win this cycle.  What else?

- -- 
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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:52:11 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgement 151 - January 27, 1998
Subject: Being Annoying
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Goldenmean (selected January 27, 1998, 9:30 a.m.)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement: 

Slakko has committed the crime of being annoying on the 26th of
January.

Initiators Reasoning:

On January 26th a CFJ was distributed, with Slakko as the initiator
claiming that "at least the standard harfer fee" referred to the trinket of
that name, not the amount of money. From this CFJ it is clear that Slakko
is attempting to alter the meaning of the phrase "at least the standard
harfer fee" and so he has been annoying as per rule 721.

Suggested penalty: Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover
court costs, and a gaol sentence of 1 day.

Judges Reasoning:

Rule 721 states:

Exploiting lexical equivalence to alter, or attempt to alter, the
interpretation of a
word or phrase in any Ackanomic document, [in the judgement of a judge],
is
Annoying.

While Slakko is correct when e states that e created eir trinket before
the
rule creating the standard harfer fee came into existence, e did not
create it
before the proposal concerning the standard harfer fee came into
existence.
Proposal 2557 came into existence on Jan 2, 1998 and Slakko created the
trinket "at least the standard Harfer Fee" on Jan 8,1998.  Proposal 2557

is an Ackanomic document, therefore Slakko is guilty of the crime of
being
annoying.

Penalty:
Transference of A$25 to The Gingham Wearer to cover court costs and 1
day in gaol.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:55:06 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ

Thinking better of it, I retract CFJ 525.

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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:56:04 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 523 - January 27, 1998
Subject: Slakko s Alleged Win
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Crackfoo (selected January 27, 1998, 3:45 p.m.)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:

Slakko did not win a cycle of Ackanomic on January 7th 1998.

Initiators Reasoning:

I believe that this should be judged true. Rule 340 states:

"I. Unambiguous spelling errors shall be treated as if the mispelled word
were spelled correctly, except during the process of rule-sanctioned
spelling correction."

It is therefore the case, in my opinion, that all the words in the
following message should be treated as if they were spelt correctly:

"Okay.  The Present vote ins reasonable when people submit proposals
dealing with specific pearts of Acka that arre only looked at by a few
people (e.g. Parrty Chess).  Howeverr, I wass nott initially looking to
eliminate the Presentt vote.  I came up with the Devil's Advocate
approach when I was presented with the argument that we don't want to
encourage pressent voting.

So apparently we don't want to encourage present voting, in fact the
ruless technically discourage it becauuse of anti-voting points.  Yet at
the same time we don't want to abolish it.  Is everybody really
sufficiently happy that we're at a happy medium?

After all, if some proposals only appeal to specific parrts of thee
populace, why don't most ov them grab the attention of only a few players?
Maybe people are voting on more proposals than they should?

Please note, I'm just trying to gauge opinions here.  I've suggested three
different tactics now, and the first two got shot down in smoke.  If this
one does too, then I'll shoot down any future attempts to change this on
the grounds that we've already reached the happy medium. :-)"

pearts should be parts
arre should be are
Parrty should be Party
Howeverr should be However
wass should be was
nott should be not
Presentt should be Present
pressent should be present
ruless should be rules
becauuse should be because
paarts should be parts
thee should be the
ov should be of.

I believe these are all unambiguous and hence should be treated as if they
were spelled correctly. This is backed up by the fact that when Slakko
originally posted the message nobody questioned em on any of eir meaning.

Now, looking at Slakko's agenda hat:

"9)The owner of this hat has posted a public message containing at least
10 misspelled words, each of which has, in its correct form, a prime
number of letters."

I believe that since the words are treated as if they are spelled correctly
they can no longer be considered misspelled. Rule 340 seems to back me up
here since it details the manner in which a misspelled words comes to be
considered to be spelled correctly. This indicates to me that the two
states are mutually exclusive. Dictionary definitions would also seem to
convey this meaning.

While this is the main point of my argument I feel that it would be remiss
of me not to mention that one of Slakko's other agenda hats is the
following:

"15)The owner of this hat has at least 15 attributes listed on the
Players/Entities page."

What exactly is an attribute? It is not defined in the rules (nor for that
matter is the Players/Entities page). Why then does Slakko feel that he
qualifies for this agenda condition? I feel that game custom and spirit of
the game make it fairly clear what the Player/Entities page is but
attributes is a different matter entirely. There are three options as far
as I can see:

1) Since attributes are not defined they do not in any way exist.
2) Attributes are things such as titles (e.g. angry villager) or offices
(e.g. web-harfer).
3) Attributes also include things such as being a member of an
organisation.
4) Attributes are both those things described in 3) but also things such as
the owners of certain entities.

Of these I find 1) the most appealing. Attributes are nowhere defined and
the meaning is ambiguous so there is no "common sense/game custom"
interpretation to make. If it is neither defined by the rules nor the
spirit of the game and game custom then it is meaningless.

Failing that I propose that option two is a better than either three or
four. Consider this:
If asked to pick out which of the following statements described my
attributes which would you pick (all of them are true)?
I have brown hair.
I am a pupil at Bolton School Boys' Division.
I own a pair of black socks.

Now, my dictionary describes attribute (as a noun) as:

feeling, condition, object, sign, which is found in somebody/something.
This doesn't really help but I have a vague feeling that ownership of an
object doesn't count.

For this CFJ to be judged false it is necessary for Slakko to have
accomplished both agenda conditions. Either one on its own (or, more
accurately, together with the agenda concerning chrome streaks which I do
not consider contentious) does not give Slakko a cycle win, and so this
must be judged true.

Judges Reasoning

I return the judgement of "True", based on my reading of rule 340.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:58:05 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 521 (TRUE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 521 - January 26, 1998
Subject: Valarauker s Vote II
Initiator: else..if
Judge: Fortunato (selected January 26, 1998, 2:30 p.m.)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:
	
19 votes were cast on proposal 2608, of which 11 were YES.

Initiators Reasoning:
	
I stated on the main mailing list that I was casting Valaurakar YES
on proposal 2608.  Although Valaurakar does not state how it can be cast,
the only reasonable answer is that it is cast the same way as everything
else-by informing the tabulator.  Since I did so, it was cast on proposal
2608 (counting as two, as specified in its blueprint.)

Judges Reasoning:  First, let me say that I accept this statement as an
unambiguous misspelling of the following:

"20 votes were cast on proposal 2606, of which 16 were YES"

This is perhaps not the initiator's intent, but he did cast Valaraukar
on proposal 2606, which passed regardless.  After looking through the
Rules regarding Voting and Valaraukar's Blueprint, I see no reason to
judge this CFJ FALSE.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:00:46 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 152 (FALSE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgement 152 - January 27, 1998
Subject: Zuriti ili
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (declined)
Second Judge: Fortunato (selected January 28, 1998, 11:45 a.m.)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement: 

K 2 has committed the crime of Zuriti'ili on January 25th.

Reasoning:

I think that too much anti voting should constitute Zuriti'ili. It's
starting to annoy me.

Suggested penalty: Deduction of 50 points. This is probably less than e's
gained from anti-voting but seems about right.

Reasoning: Though I should probably judge this INVALID, I instead
decided to ignore the wise words of my contemporaries, and instead study
ancient tomes and great works of prophecy to determine whether the
heinous crime of Zuriti'ili actually has anything to do with anti-voting
or not.  Imagine my astonishment when, while leafing through a newly
released pamphlet on the dangers of modern society, I stumbled upon The
Answer.  The sentence read (loosely interpreted) 'while excessive
anti-voting (obviously) has nothing to do with Zuriti'ili, a standard
pattern of anti-voting has everything to do with it'.  The pamphlet
contained no other references, and neither did any other work I studied.
 Therefore, I add my submission to the Zuriti'ili guidelines:

"It is possible for an act of Zuriti'ili to involve anti-voting in a
certain pattern, but that pattern is unknown."

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:01:54 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 151 (TRUE)

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Criminal Judgement 151 - January 27, 1998
> Subject: Being Annoying
> Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
> Judge: Goldenmean (selected January 27, 1998, 9:30 a.m.)
> Judgement: TRUE

I appeal this verdict.

Appellant's Reasoning:

I admit I committed the crime.  I deny I committed it on the 26th of
January.  By the rules, this CFCJ may only be found true if it is found
that I committed the crime in question _on_the_date_in_question.  The
first round judge made no mention of the date, which was the crux of my
original defence.

- -- 
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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:03:11 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Have I won yet?

Well, have I won yet?  I've done all that is humanly possible to satisfy
my Agenda Condition.

- -- 
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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:04:22 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Crucial Flaw

I note that CFJ 523 is trivially true.  I never claimed to win on January
the 7th.  Prove that this is unambiguously the 27th :-)

- -- 
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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:08:54 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 523 (TRUE)

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Call For Judgement 523 - January 27, 1998
> Subject: Slakko s Alleged Win
> Initiator: The Gingham Wearer
> Judge: Crackfoo (selected January 27, 1998, 3:45 p.m.)
> Judgement: TRUE

I'm not going to appeal this in this message.

> Statement:
> 
> Slakko did not win a cycle of Ackanomic on January 7th 1998.
> 
<TGW's reasoning cut>

> Judges Reasoning
> 
> I return the judgement of "True", based on my reading of rule 340.

Would you care to illuminate us further?

- -- 
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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:17:48 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The unambiguous message: This is hopefully my last shot (no chance)

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Definition of spell:
> 
> 1. To form words with letters, esp. with the proper letters, either orally
> or in writing. 
> 
> I claim that letturc, whenever I have said it, is a spelling of either
> lettuce or letters.  There is no requirement that spelling be correct in
> the definition of spelling.
> 
> Definition of word:
> 
> a constituent part of a sentence
> 
> Definition of sentence:
> 
> A combination of words which is complete as expressing a thought, and in
> writing is marked at the close by a period, or full point.

Just as one final argument:

Definition of ambiguous:

capable of being understood in either of two or more possible senses

Right, so as long as it is "capable" of being understood more than one way
it is ambiguous.  Well, I can interpret "letturc" as lettuce, and I can
interpret "letturc" as letters, so it is an ambiguous word.  However, I
now say that all instances of letturc in this message are misspellings of
the word lettuce.  This does not make them unambiguous, however, as the
words are _capable_ of being understood in either of two or more possible
senses.  However, the word letturc in this case is being specified to be
interpreted in one particular way, out of all the ways that it could be.
That way is as "lettuce", a word which contains a prime number of letters.

Therefore "letturc" is an ambiguous spelling mistake, but in this message
its correct form is "lettuce" which contains a prime number of letters.
Now I need to go down to the grocery store, or supermarket as some might
say.  I'm looking to make a salad tonight, preferably involving a few
different kinds of letturc.  It will go perfectly with my alphabet soup,
into which I am also throwing a few different kinds of letturc.  I thought
of just going for iceberg lettuce in my salad, but seeing as my
supervisor, a man of letturc, is coming over, I thought that I would chuck
in some cos letturc as well.

Please think twice before you post any more letturc on this subject.  I
don't think I could cope with green vegetables coming at me through my
computer.

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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:38:08 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ related stuff

I believe that I did win a Cycle of Ackanomic on the 27th of January.
Crackfoo's CFJ only affects the 7th of January, which I believe refers to
the 7th of January (and therefore it cannot unambiguously be interpreted
as the 27th of January, because I've just shown it is capable of
interpretation in multiple ways, and is hence ambiguous).

Here's some text from earlier.  The quoted stuff is mine, the unquoted is
else...if's.

>Ins this massaje wun whitch suffers from toen orr more ambiguous spelling
>errors awll involving words with a prime number offf letturc?  I think
>soew.
        Is this message one which suffers from ten or more ambiguous
spelling errors all involving words with a prime number of letters? I
think so.

This shows that the correct form of each of the words has a prime number
of letters, because I agree with else...if as to the interpretation, and
my intent is what determines the "correct" form of a word I misspell
(deny that and you possibly risk a game crash from spelling errors).

However, each of the misspelled words, on its own, is capable of being
interpreted differently:

massaje - massage
wun - won
whitch - witch
etc.

They are all words, because they are part of a sentence.

Hence the misspellings are ambiguous (capable of being interpreted in
multiple ways), and hence Rule 340 does not apply.  However, the "correct
form" of each is known as the one that else...if gave - because it agrees
with mine - and so in correct form each has a prime number of letters.

Therefore when I sent the message which is in quoted text, I actually won
the game then and there (if I hadn't won it already).

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
Acka - RuneMaker, Chess-Umpire, Map-Harfer, Senator, Wearing Agenda Hat

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:30:42 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Org

>Maybe I should subscribe to the digest lists in the hopes that at least I'll
>get all of those...
	It was created with its secret lab.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:46:32 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Crucial Flaw

>I note that CFJ 523 is trivially true.  I never claimed to win on January
>the 7th.  Prove that this is unambiguously the 27th :-)
	The issue hadn't come up on the 7th.  There's no reason to deal
with that day, nor did TGW provide one.  Yet the 27th, a reasonable typo
away, would be a sensible day.

	Of no one objects, I'm going to propose that we not need to to add
the date.  It's caused nothing but confusion.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:58:08 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 513 appeal

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but CFJ 513 was appealed on January 21, 1998 and
> it has been over a week since then . . . 

CFJ 484 was appealed as well and that was well over a week ago (it was the
negative trinket one). Come on Supreme court! Or, since ThinMan has stated
he's got very little time for Acka at the moment (he is a justice isn't he)
maybe he'd consider resigning so someone else could do. I know I for one
would love to give it a go.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:17:45 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Crucial Flaw

> I note that CFJ 523 is trivially true.  I never claimed to win on January
> the 7th.  Prove that this is unambiguously the 27th :-)

Please just let this pass as an unambiguous spelling error. Please. I beg
of you. The only effect that not doing will have on the game is causing me
to resubmit it. Please. Please?

Actually, having said that it probably doesn't matter. I'll submit another
CFJ detailing all time up to the present. Regardless of the verdict to this
and whether you take 7th as a misspelling of 27th it is still possible for
you to have won the cycle. I'll get the thing submitted. You don't have any
more arguments to make before I do, do you?

The Gingham Wearer, eating a very large portion of humble pie.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:57:53 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Org

> >Maybe I should subscribe to the digest lists in the hopes that at least I'll
> >get all of those...

> 	It was created with its secret lab.

Well, since Secret Labs don't create anything automatically, some public
action must have taken place to declare what it was creating.  I'm not
doubting that you did so, what I'm saying is that I didn't see it.  :-(

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Tom Waits:Heartattack & Vine
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Geg me-a veet a SPOOOON!  Leeke-a, Bork Bork Bork!

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:06:22 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Org

>Well, since Secret Labs don't create anything automatically, some public
>action must have taken place to declare what it was creating.  I'm not
>doubting that you did so, what I'm saying is that I didn't see it.  :-(
	It should be in the archives.  It was sent on Friday, with the
title Acka: Creation

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:29:49 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Org

> >Well, since Secret Labs don't create anything automatically, some public
> >action must have taken place to declare what it was creating.  I'm not
> >doubting that you did so, what I'm saying is that I didn't see it.  :-(

> 	It should be in the archives.  It was sent on Friday, with the
> title Acka: Creation

Okay, having been through _all_ the archives for all the mailing lists,
for all the days around Friday(unless you meant _last_ Friday, or some
other Friday), and I can't find such a message.  Anyone else see it?  At
this point, I consider it not to have happened.  (Was it Vynd's disease,
the affliction of accidentally sending private messages that were supposed
to be public?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Tom Waits:Heartattack & Vine
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
"Belinda's being all, you know."

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:00:36 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Subject Lines

> I have no problem with people responding to CFJs privately, and if that is
> what people want, that is what they will do.  However, a public response is
> still perfectly allowable within the rules and certainly not a symptom of
> snow god's disease (such as a public proposal vote would be).  Given that
> some people want CFJs to be accepted publically, which list to you think is
> most appropriate for those messages? 

Spamming the list with 1000 messages a day is legal too; that does not
make it right.  Voting publically is legal too; that does not make it
right.  I do not see the difference between public proposal voting and
public CFJ acceptance.  I just don't see it.  As such, I have no further
recommendation or insight on a list or whatever; people will do what
people want to do, I suppose :-)  If some people feel it is important 
to let all of Acka know that they accepted a CFJ, who am I to prevent 
them from enlightening us all with that information?  I am considering 
a proposal to make acceptance the default, to make the problem go away.

As long as the CotC is on acka-research though, I suppose that would be
a better place to send them, so that those of us who don't care won't
see them, and those that want to see them can subscribe to acka-research.
I believe that was the point of acka-research, after all :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:07:30 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proxy

> Interesting.  I'm not sure if Malenkai has tendered eir approval yet, but
> ThinMan has now approved both the name change to Vulcan and the transfer
> of the trinket "Vulcan" to emself...

My support has been proxied since proxies became a reality.  Even
if I left, it may be possible to argue that my proxy existed, even
if I was not a member of the org.  I actually believe this would be
the case, actually, unless the rules specifically remove proxies on
player deregistration.  People's attributes often remain after 
deregistration, even after decomposition, in some cases, I imagine...

IAC, if I am not proxied to the single org that I, /dev/joe, ThinMan, 
and Vynd are members, I support all proposed actions by that org,
and proxy my support to that org.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:14:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 513 appeal

> CFJ 484 was appealed as well and that was well over a week ago (it was the
> negative trinket one). Come on Supreme court! Or, since ThinMan has stated
> he's got very little time for Acka at the moment (he is a justice isn't he)
> maybe he'd consider resigning so someone else could do. I know I for one
> would love to give it a go.

Indeed.  Another solution is to make the cost of frivolous
appeals reasonable.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:16:45 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Have I won yet?

> Well, have I won yet?  I've done all that is humanly possible to satisfy
> my Agenda Condition.

I think you should CFJ asserting that the cycle number is X.  Then let
Alfvaen determine the time, if it is judged that you have won :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:19:35 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 525 (Thin Man)

> Thin Man has been selected.

Note that a supreme court justice may not be selected
as a first round judge.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:24:49 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proxy

> IAC, if I am not proxied to the single org that I, /dev/joe, ThinMan, 
> and Vynd are members, I support all proposed actions by that org,
> and proxy my support to that org.

Very well.  It is now indisputably true that ThinMan is the possessor
of the trinket named Vulcan, and therefore the attempt to change the
Organization's name failed.  (Though the Harfer Fee is probably still
charged...)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Treble Charger:Maybe It's Me
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Don't sweat the petty things, just pet the sweaty things.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:32:56 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Treasure

I am hereby burying the following items as a treasure:

An Automatic Sculpture
The Trinket of Awesome, Near-Infinite Possibilities

I shall reveal the following portion of the map:

Some of you may have noticed that I like to title my Proposals strange
things, and use weird things for the delimiters as well.  Basically,
email me privately with how you think I came up with them, and I'll
decide who's best at it and award the treasure to em.  I'm a bit rushed
now, but essentially that's it...  All rankings will have to be arbitrary,
because that's how I like it, and treasure maps can work that way.  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Treble Charger:Maybe It's Me
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
When she told me I was average she was just being mean.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:42:42 -0500
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Org

>Okay, having been through _all_ the archives for all the mailing lists,
>for all the days around Friday(unless you meant _last_ Friday, or some
>other Friday), and I can't find such a message.  Anyone else see it?  At
>this point, I consider it not to have happened.  (Was it Vynd's disease,
>the affliction of accidentally sending private messages that were supposed
>to be public?  :-)
	Hmm.  The archives appear to be missing that and one other message
I sent right before it.  I guess it didn't happen, so I'll try again.  I
suggest that Shell#10 create an Evil Ballot Stuffer with its Secret
Laboratory. I approve of this suggestion.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:39:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Org

> Okay, having been through _all_ the archives for all the mailing
> lists, for all the days around Friday(unless you meant _last_
> Friday, or some other Friday), and I can't find such a message.
> Anyone else see it?  At this point, I consider it not to have
> happened.  (Was it Vynd's disease, the affliction of accidentally
> sending private messages that were supposed to be public?  :-)

I went and double-checked the archives for all of January. Unless they
used a horrible misspelling like Evol Billet Staffur (which I think I
would remember), I found nothing. I also found no emails anywhere with
a subject line of Acka: Creation.

breadbox

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #498
*******************************