Subject: ackanomic digest V2 #500
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Friday, January 30 1998       Volume 02 : Number 500

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:22:22 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Fw: INP 361 and 362

Two new INP's from InterNomic.  Please vote within one week.

Balsamic Dragon
Ambassador

> INP 361 was submitted by New Rishonnomic:
> 
> >>>>>
>   Amend the text of rule 215 to replace the string "New Rishonnomic"
> with the string "New Rishonomic, New Rishonnomic".  Only perform the
> replacement once, not recursively.
> <<<<<

Ambassador's Comments:  Two "n" NR is adding one "n" NR, which seems like a
peaceable way to sort things out.

> INP 362 was submitted by Ackanomic:
> 
> No Navel Gazing
> 
> Amend Rule 212 by inserting ",and Internomic, should Internomic not be
the
> member who submitted it," immediately after the text "other than the
> member who submitted it".

Ambassador's Comments:  This way if a CFJ is assigned to Internomic it
doesn't get stuck in limbo.  Expect more proposals regarding CFJ's soon, as
Internomic cleans up its justice system.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:15:52 -0600
From: "Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine

Balsamic Dragon is much too wise.  For your correct guess after only 2
guesses, I congratulate you.  You have correctly guessed the truth.

Crackfoo

- -----Original Message-----
From: Vivian Norwood <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine

>My guess at the truth (yeah, I'm just a glutton for punishment)
>
>IF AND ONLY IF today is wednesday, friday, or Crackfoo's birthday, THEN the
>machine that goes *ping*, shall go *ping*.
>
>----------
>From: Crackfoo <[email-masked]>
>To: acka <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Acka: Machine
>Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 1:09 PM
>
>Today is Friday, the 30th of January, and the machine that goes *ping* has
>gone *ping* today.  Since I have been scholar, the machine has gone *ping*
>2 times.
>
>
>
>Crackfoo
>Scholar of Ping
>

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:23:34 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Crackfoo wrote:

> Balsamic Dragon is much too wise.  For your correct guess after only 2
> guesses, I congratulate you.  You have correctly guessed the truth.
> 
> Crackfoo
> 

When, might I ask, is Crackfoo's birthday?

                                      - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:28:28 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 527 (Hoover 2300)

Vivian Norwood wrote:
> 
> Hoover 2300 has been selected.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I accept

"here's is hoover 2300 living in a golden dream
some say he is mad other say he uses gleemenex."-kids in the hall :brain
candy:

"the egyptions and all other civilizations of the future
took their belongings with them including their golden tops!"

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:32:32 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Chronology of a Non-Point Win

Day 0: Player 1 claims a non-point win.
Day 2: Player 2 points a flaw in the non-point win.  A number of actions
are now thread-split.
Day 3: CFJ issued on the non-point win by the CotC.
Day 5: (If fast) CFJ judgement delivered.
Day 7: CFJ judgement attacked and appealed.
Day 20: (Given recent performance) Supreme Court rules on CFJ.

Do we want to lose 3 weeks of Acka time harfing a thread split game every
time someone claims a win other than through points and PWCFJ's?  Or would
we rather fix up the system so as to get on with the game quickly once we
think there is a winner?

In response to Vynd, I would like to ask what kind of Illuminatus would go
around declaring other players to be winners?  The Illuminatus doesn't
have any Agenda Hats to declare true, so e cannot declare emself to be the
winner (unless people trade 3 hats to em, in which case they deserve all
they get).

The Hearing idea was mainly there to prevent the Illuminatus from refusing
to recognise the win qualification.  If people are reasonable they will
vote according to their beliefs in the Hearing.  It makes no sense to do
otherwise (if you blanket vote NO, then you will never get a hearing
passed in your favour, and there is no incentive to vote any particular
way for your personal score).

I trust the whole of Nomic enough to put my win in their hands, should a
similar situation happen again.  I would rather trust the game as a whole
than the judgement of two people, following the rules or no.

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: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:44:37 -0000
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Harfmeister

> Due to the passage of Proposal 2629, K 2 is now Harfmeister.  However,
> since 2633 and 2635 are also both Harfy, we'll see how long that lasts...
> :-)

Now there's a new harfmeister I'm going to recommend they look through the
list of current proposals. I seem to recall one or two that I thought I'd
designate harfy but didn't get round to. And I thought one of mine was
quite harfy too :-).

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 20:46:36 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: That appeal of mine

I would just like to point out to the Supreme Court that I made a number
of messages on January 27th.  Some of these later ones may fit the
criteria they lay down, even if the original win claim message does not.
I just thought that they should know that before they hand down their
decision.

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: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:49:45 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chronology of a Non-Point Win

> Day 0: Player 1 claims a non-point win.
> Day 2: Player 2 points a flaw in the non-point win.  A number of actions
> are now thread-split.
> Day 3: CFJ issued on the non-point win by the CotC.
> Day 5: (If fast) CFJ judgement delivered.
> Day 7: CFJ judgement attacked and appealed.
> Day 20: (Given recent performance) Supreme Court rules on CFJ.
> 
> Do we want to lose 3 weeks of Acka time harfing a thread split game every
> time someone claims a win other than through points and PWCFJ's?  Or
would
> we rather fix up the system so as to get on with the game quickly once we
> think there is a winner?
> 
>
Of course we could cut that by a week if we had a rule requiring Justices
to return appeals on time. . . 

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:50:52 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine

- ----------
> From: Crackfoo <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: Machine
> Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 3:15 PM
> 
> Balsamic Dragon is much too wise.  For your correct guess after only 2
> guesses, I congratulate you.  You have correctly guessed the truth.
> 
> Crackfoo
>

Woo hoo!

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:42:41 -0600
From: "Crackfoo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine

My birthday is on a thursday, and would have been the 22nd ping.

crackfoo

- -----Original Message-----
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine

>
>
>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Crackfoo wrote:
>
>> Balsamic Dragon is much too wise.  For your correct guess after only 2
>> guesses, I congratulate you.  You have correctly guessed the truth.
>> 
>> Crackfoo
>> 
>
>When, might I ask, is Crackfoo's birthday?
>
>                                      - Vynd
>
>[email-masked]
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:07:40 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 (rufus)

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

> (Sorry, still getting the hang of things :)
> 
> rufus has been selected.
> 
I accept.
rufus

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:11:26 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Chronology of a Non-Point Win

> Of course we could cut that by a week if we had a rule requiring Justices
> to return appeals on time. . . 

They used to be penalized A$2/day that their verdict was late.  But if you
don't want the Justices to be so overworked that they have to return late
verdicts(What would you do if they were "required" to return them on time
and didn't?  Impeach them?  Fine them again?), then we have to revise the
Appeal rules.  Putting more pressure on them won't help.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Weird Al Show Theme Song
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
This town ain't big enough for both of us. Damn land surveyors.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:14:40 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fw: INP 361 and 362

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:

Yes on both

rufus

> Two new INP's from InterNomic.  Please vote within one week.
> 
> Balsamic Dragon
> Ambassador
> 
> 
> > INP 361 was submitted by New Rishonnomic:
> > 
> > >>>>>
> >   Amend the text of rule 215 to replace the string "New Rishonnomic"
> > with the string "New Rishonomic, New Rishonnomic".  Only perform the
> > replacement once, not recursively.
> > <<<<<
> 
> Ambassador's Comments:  Two "n" NR is adding one "n" NR, which seems like a
> peaceable way to sort things out.
> 
> 
> > INP 362 was submitted by Ackanomic:
> > 
> > No Navel Gazing
> > 
> > Amend Rule 212 by inserting ",and Internomic, should Internomic not be
> the
> > member who submitted it," immediately after the text "other than the
> > member who submitted it".
> 
> Ambassador's Comments:  This way if a CFJ is assigned to Internomic it
> doesn't get stuck in limbo.  Expect more proposals regarding CFJ's soon, as
> Internomic cleans up its justice system.
> 

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:56:25 -0800
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:pheobe

As I lounged about my study I came to the conclusion that a nice pipe full would 
really hit the spot. I packe a bowl and reached for the box of matches I keep on 
the end table only to discover that they had been replaced by  another box, this 
one red and blue, quite pleasing in its simple beauty.  I though t to myself this 
must be the box of the fabled pheobe come to impart wisdom to a newbie, 
finally a chance to get ahead and learn something before anyone else does.  
So I opened the box fully expecting the steel flea to pop out but lo and behold 
there were matches in the box.  I sat in stunned silence for a minute, feeling 
foolish and duped, then I heard quiet laughter, like rain on tiny silver bells.  
Pheobe stepped out from behind a book and told me 
" let this be a lesson as well as a fine jest,  just because you have been 
paying attention doesn't mean you know whats going on all the time.  This 
mighty, confusing, and definitely not round (maybe not flat either) world is 
always changing so if you think you know how everything is going then you are 
probably delusional and more confused than anyone.  Even I am not sure 
exacly what is going on ALL the time."  
 Then she added with a snikker " and you should have seen the look on 
your face, it was priceless."
Armed with this advice I proceeded to enjoy a smoke and a nap, upon 
awakening from wich the box, flea, and my matches were all gone.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:17:50 -0800
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: RFC: Like a rolling Stone

Im nut shtoned, im nercoticly impared occifer.

- ----------
From:  Rico
Sent:  Friday, January 30, 1998 12:52 AM
To:  [email-masked]
Subject:  Acka: RFC: Like a rolling Stone

This has absolutely nothing to do with the current game state, it's just
something I came up with while in an extremely silly mood (OK, slightly
more silly than normal) and I wanted to see what you beings thought of it.

I purposely excluded any description of how players become Stoned; I
thought that could be done by other proposals.  Being Stoned is similar to
being Hosed, I suppose, but I think it's different enough to warrant being
added.  What do you think?

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Create a new Rule, with a number in the 1100's which would make it unique,
with the title "Rainy Day Women #12 & #35", and the following text,
delimited by HOW DOES IT FEEL:

HOW DOES IT FEEL
While a player is Stoned, all official correspondence from em must contain
at least one line, sentence, paragraph or phrase of 7 words or more, cited
as required in Rule 210 [Literature] that fulfils one or more of the
following three conditions:

a) It contains one or more instances of some form of the word "stone."
b) It is from a work whose title contains one or more instances of some
form of the word "stone."
c) The artist cited is the Rolling Stones.

A Stoned player is also encouraged, but not required, to misspell words,
slur eir speech, and digress onto many irrelevant tangents dealing with
inconsequential trivialities [e.g. "Do you realize that this post -- THIS
POST -- consists of BILLIONS and BILLIONS of electrons?!??!!  Hey, neat, I
sound like Carl Sagan.  Except he's dead..." etc.] in all public postings.

If a player, while Stoned, posts a message which fails to fulfil one of 
the above conditions a), b) and c), any other player may call a Stoning on
em.  A Stoning is a Hearing.  It is also a Very Silly Matter.  The valid
responses to a Stoning are "No, I live in a glass house.  Plus I'm not
without sin." and "But e *did* say Jehovah."  

If the verdict is "No, I live in a glass house.  Plus I'm not without
sin." the player upon whom the Stoning was called is no longer Stoned.  In
this case, the player who called the Stoning must post an apology of at
least 10 lines to the player against whom the Stoning was called, and
thereafter becomes Square. 

If the verdict is "But e *did* say Jehovah." the player on whom the
Stoning was called becomes Martyred.  E receives a newly created I Got
Stoned For Your Sins And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt, should such an
entity exist, and must post to a public forum a rhyming poem of at least
20 lines in which e describes eir Stoning.  If the Poet Laureate publicly
posts eir approval of this poem, the player who posted the poem gains A$10
in royalties.  If the Poet Laureate publicly denounces the poem as
tasteless or invalid, the player who posted the poem must donate one of
eir trinkets, with a value of at least A$10, to the Museum in apology
for eir desecration of Art.  If e does not own such a trinket, e must
create one and donate it to the Museum.  If e does not have enough
Ackadollars to create one, e is then deemed Useless, with no further
effects.

A player shall no longer be Stoned if any one of the following three
conditions becomes true:

d) Exactly one Acka week has passed since e first became Stoned.
e) E publicly posts a message consisting of exactly four paragraphs of
two or more sentences each, the first through fourth of which begin,
respectively, with the words 'Everybody', 'Must', 'Get', and 'Stoned',
exclusive of all quotation marks.
f) E frinks Goldenseal, should such a beverage exist.

There exist non-unique, ownable, nontradeable garments each known as an   
I Got Stoned For Your Sins And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt (hereafter
T-Shirt). Any player wearing such a T-Shirt can never have a Stoning
called against them, and may ignore all effects of being Stoned.
HOW DOES IT FEEL

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

- -rico

. . . Go hence, and sin more creatively next time. 

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:13:58 -0800
From: aaron shapiro <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Razor Boomerangs' Party Charter

Sounds like a good idea to me
BILL

- ----------
From:  Rico
Sent:  Friday, January 30, 1998 12:46 AM
To:  [email-masked]
Subject:  Acka: Razor Boomerangs' Party Charter

I submit the following \n-delimited text as the Party Charter of the
Razor Boomerangs. If I need the approval of all members to do so, I hereby
approve of this Charter and encourage the other members to do likewise.  

\n
The Razor Boomerangs' Official Party Charter, being the Official Party
Charter of the Razor Boomerangs, shall be as follows:

I. Razor Boomerangs' Membership:
A new member may be admitted to the Razor Boomerangs by unanimous approval
of all current members.  A member may be expelled from the Razor
Boomerangs by unanimous approval of all other members.  This charter may
only be modified by unanimous consent of all members.  
Any member of the Razor Boomerangs must either possess a trinket with the
string "Razor Boomerang" in the title, or else create one within 3 days of
becoming a member, or e is immediately expelled.
For the purposes of this charter, the approval of both Slagothor and
Goldenmean shall be considered a unanimous approval of all members of the
Razor Boomerangs. [seeing as how we have some rather delinquent members at
the moment]

II. Razor Boomerangs' Goals:
The Goal of the Razor Boomerangs shall be:  to increase the amount of
references and allusions to boomerangs, circles, loops, redundancies, and
recursions in Ackanomic, using the following three-pronged attack:

Prong 1: Increase the amount of self-referentiality in Ackanomic, as
described in Prong 1.

Prong 2: Increase the amount of circular referentiality in Ackanomic, as
described in Prong 3.

Prong 3: Increase the amount of circular referentiality in Ackanomic, as
described in Prong 2.

III. Razor Boomerangs' Slogan:
The Official Slogan of the Razor Boomerangs shall be "We'll be back!"

IV. Razor Boomerangs' Tome:
The Official Tome of the Razor Boomerangs shall be Catch-22, by Joseph
Heller. 
\n

- -rico

. . . Go hence, and sin more creatively next time. 

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:21:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Promoterness

I am hereby frobbing the proposal queue.

I apologize to everyone for doing this. Proposals are the lifeblood of
a nomic, Ackanomic in particular, and I don't like to arbitrarily
restrict their flow. But players are clearly very concerned about the
thread splits that are threatening to pile up, so I feel it is in the
better interests of the game to attempt to slow things down a bit, at
least for the time being. Also this will also minimize the source of
my most time-consuming job.

I also apologize that RL-concerns have made both Justices less
efficient than we would like to be. Please be patient. (And I would
remind players that it is rare that any Court has returned a
significant CFJ within a week's time.)

For the record, the CFJs currently under appeal are:

CFJ 484: "Trinkets"
CFJ 513: "Malenkai's Playerhood II"
CFCJ 151: "Being Annoying"

(BTW, if the new CotC has the resources and wherewithal to maintain a
CotC page, this Justice would find it a welcome addition to his life.)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:33:21 -0500
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Promoterness

> 
> (BTW, if the new CotC has the resources and wherewithal to maintain a
> CotC page, this Justice would find it a welcome addition to his life.)
> 
> breadbox
> 
The wherewithal, yes, the resources, maybe, the skills, not yet.  I
actually talked with Alfvaen about this and it never really got resolved. 
I am keeping records anyway on my computer.  It would simply be a matter of
figuring out how to put them on a web page.  If someone could explain to me
what I have to do, that would be good.  I currently have three main
documents that would be good to have up.  One is a complete list of
eligable and non-eligable players with notations (such as Caped Crusador)
where applicable.  Two is a schedule of pending CFJ's and CFCJ's with
deadlines listed.  Three is sample CFJ form which might be useful for new
players.

Balsamic Dragon

ps:  Please use very small words, I am not nearly as computer literate as
people, for some reason, tend to think I am.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:42:13 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Promoterness

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> I also apologize that RL-concerns have made both Justices less
> efficient than we would like to be. Please be patient. (And I would
> remind players that it is rare that any Court has returned a
> significant CFJ within a week's time.)
> 
> For the record, the CFJs currently under appeal are:
> 
> CFJ 484: "Trinkets"
> CFJ 513: "Malenkai's Playerhood II"
> CFCJ 151: "Being Annoying"

You forgot CFJ 523: "Slakko's Win"

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: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:36:22 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Chronology of a Non-Point Win

> Do we want to lose 3 weeks of Acka time harfing a thread split game every
> time someone claims a win other than through points and PWCFJ's?  Or would
> we rather fix up the system so as to get on with the game quickly once we
> think there is a winner?

Actually, I'd almost rather have it like the Paradox Win CFJ.  If a player
thinks e has won, then e must _always_ submit a CFJ(well, except maybe for
point wins, but even some of those can be controversial if you scammed your
score to the magic number...), and when that CFJ can no longer be appealed,
then you know whether or not the Cycle has been won.

This might cause a few problems if claimed wins overlap, but on the whole
I think it would work okay.  I'll try to formally RFC this soon...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Weird Al Theme Song
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
A gallery of wisdom encased in shattered glass

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:41:13 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Machine

> >My guess at the truth (yeah, I'm just a glutton for punishment)

> >IF AND ONLY IF today is wednesday, friday, or Crackfoo's birthday, THEN the
> >machine that goes *ping*, shall go *ping*.

> Balsamic Dragon is much too wise.  For your correct guess after only 2
> guesses, I congratulate you.  You have correctly guessed the truth.

The problem with this Truth is that, according to the Rules, it must consist
of words that are in the official dictionary of Ackanomic or in the Rules.
"Crackfoo" is not in the Rules.  (I'm not even sure if "Alfvaen" is in the
Rules, as opposed to being just in the Ancillary information, although I'm
quite sure that "Malenkai" is...:-)  Also, "Crackfoo's" should have become
"********'*" instead of "*********".

However, considering that Balsamic Dragon managed to guess it anyway,
and quite quickly too, I think that obviously this didn't jeopardize the
game too strongly.  Congratulations to Balsamic Dragon, the new Scholar
of *ping*.  Now I'll see if I can figure out the Dice Server script for
Boons of the Ancients...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Weird Al Show Theme Song
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Press to test...release to detonate.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:54:01 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Dice server)
Subject: Acka: Boon determination

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dice rolls requested by: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Rolls also sent to:
    [email-masked]

# player: Balsamic Dragon
# I am using the dice server to determine the boon from the
# machine based on the following (using a 100 sided die):
# 1 -45: ancient artifact (random gadget)
# 46-70: ancient scroll (random otzma card)
# 71-80: gods are smiling (bonus vote)
# 81-87: ancient relic (trinket worth A$75)
# 88-92: ancient knowledge (new blueprint)
# 93-97: ancient wisdom (new otzma card)
# 98-99: gods are bored (pointy ears)
#  100 : gods are grouchy (chartreuse goose)
# Alfvaen

No. of sides on every die:    100
No. of dice for every roll:     1
No. of dice rolls requested:    1
No. of rolls per line:          1

     76

Information on the dice server:
   DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!
   Replies to [email-masked] vanish into a seldom-read mailbox.

   For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with
   subject "help" to [email-masked], or see http://www.pbm.com/dice/

   The dice server is provided by:

      Shadow Island Games
      http://www.pbm.com/ds.html

Original message follows:
> From [email-masked]  Fri Jan 30 13:53:57 1998
> Received: (from smtp@localhost) by xkey.com
>       id NAA25343 for <[email-masked]>; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:53:57 -0800
> Received: from edtntnt1-port-17.agt.net(198.161.157.83) by xkey.com via smtp (V1.3)
>       id sma025339; Fri Jan 30 13:53:48 1998
> Received: (from alfvaen@localhost) by telusplanet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA11725 for [email-masked]; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:47:58 -0700
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: Balsamic Dragon's Boon
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:47:57 -0700 (MST)
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
> Content-Type: text
> 
> 
> #P [email-masked]
> #S 100
> #D 1
> #R 1
> #L 1
> #T Acka: Boon determination
> 
> #C player: Balsamic Dragon
> #C I am using the dice server to determine the boon from the
> #C machine based on the following (using a 100 sided die):
> #C 1 -45: ancient artifact (random gadget)
> #C 46-70: ancient scroll (random otzma card)
> #C 71-80: gods are smiling (bonus vote)
> #C 81-87: ancient relic (trinket worth A$75)
> #C 88-92: ancient knowledge (new blueprint)
> #C 93-97: ancient wisdom (new otzma card)
> #C 98-99: gods are bored (pointy ears)
> #C  100 : gods are grouchy (chartreuse goose)
> #C Alfvaen
> 
> 

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.7

iQCVAwUBNNJL+D8NitsTFjcVAQGFCQP9FQkV84SR91EGpncAokmvqFMslkrC5SgK
3/fCOpTIyTHTdGci6skyrUUfsxYl4CKiDAXnwvsB6UGrPEifWI3oKta8RGLcI7Py
yz5VEYHQXX2OsqRoFitSrDCR4iOLquiCIbWg+JXblS6tEiStGE3GzpqAba1H/SUg
zq6pJA98JtU=
=nNan
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:04:26 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (rufus)

rufus has found Phoebe.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Weird Al Show Theme Song
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
Hot dog, jumping frog, Albuquerque

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:06:58 -0700 (MST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: New Player (breadbox)

We have another new player in Ackanomic.  Eir name is Jason Chubb, eir
email address is [email-masked], and the Ackanomic name e has chosen
is Hachiman.  E has also chosen to start out as a non-voting player,
just until e gets into the swing of things.  Apparently e is also a
friend of Goldenmean's, so e may be destined for the Razor Boomerangs.
:-)

breadbox has been chosen as eir Mentor.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Weird Al Show Theme Song
Current Book--Gregory Benford:Timescape
I trust my fingers about as far as I can throw them.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:32:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Promoterness

>> I also apologize that RL-concerns have made both Justices less
>> efficient than we would like to be. Please be patient. (And I would
>> remind players that it is rare that any Court has returned a
>> significant CFJ within a week's time.)
>> 
>> For the record, the CFJs currently under appeal are:
>> 
>> CFJ 484: "Trinkets"
>> CFJ 513: "Malenkai's Playerhood II"
>> CFCJ 151: "Being Annoying"
> 
> You forgot CFJ 523: "Slakko's Win"

Ah, right. I missed that; the way it was worded made it sound like a
conditional action. Can I assume that you have definitely appealed it
then?

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:33:18 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: A case for the Tortoise

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> Day 0: Player 1 claims a non-point win.
> Day 2: Player 2 points a flaw in the non-point win.  A number of actions
> are now thread-split.
> Day 3: CFJ issued on the non-point win by the CotC.
> Day 5: (If fast) CFJ judgement delivered.
> Day 7: CFJ judgement attacked and appealed.
> Day 20: (Given recent performance) Supreme Court rules on CFJ.
> 
> Do we want to lose 3 weeks of Acka time harfing a thread split game every
> time someone claims a win other than through points and PWCFJ's?  Or would
> we rather fix up the system so as to get on with the game quickly once we
> think there is a winner?

What is this game, if not determing what the rules say?  What is it that
we're going to do that is so wonderful and exciting that we should skip
over the process of determining what really happened so that we can "get
on with the game quickly"?  I would contend, as others have before me,
that CFJs are the very heart of Ackanomic, not somthing to be avoided.
This issue seems to be a matter of deciding between doing things quickly,
or doing them right.  Seeing absolutely no reason to hurry, I'm in favor
of using a method that I feel confident will yield the truth.  That
method, for reasons I will outline at length below, is not the one Slakko
proposes.

> 
> In response to Vynd, I would like to ask what kind of Illuminatus would go
> around declaring other players to be winners?  The Illuminatus doesn't
> have any Agenda Hats to declare true, so e cannot declare emself to be the
> winner (unless people trade 3 hats to em, in which case they deserve all
> they get).
> 
> The Hearing idea was mainly there to prevent the Illuminatus from refusing
> to recognise the win qualification.  If people are reasonable they will
> vote according to their beliefs in the Hearing.  It makes no sense to do
> otherwise (if you blanket vote NO, then you will never get a hearing
> passed in your favour, and there is no incentive to vote any particular
> way for your personal score).

Here is how I think this system would fuction.  One scenario is that a
player says, "I think I've won."  Later that day the Illuminatus gives
things a quick once over and agrees.  Even if he changed his mind 5
minutes later, its too late he has already declared the winner.  You ask
me what kind of Illuminatus would declare someone the winner if he didn't
really think he was?  Well, you're probably right that he wouldn't,
although its not inconcievable that he would declare a friend of his the
winner.  Thats not really the important issue here, however.  The issue is
that the Illuminatus could very easily be wrong.  Scenario two displays
just why this is likely.

Perhaps the Illuminatus isn't quite sure if a player has achieved a win
yet.  So he researches it, thinks about it for a few days.  So what
happens now...  Well, the prospective winner might decide that this is
taking too long, and calls a Hearing.  Another possibility, one which is
quite likely in a case where the situation is unclear, is that the
Illuminatus will... file a CFJ.  Failing that, he might well explain to
everyone why he thinks someone has or has not won, and see what the public
thinks.  Finally, he might, after a few days, decide that so and so has
won the cycle, and declare as much.  He might still be wrong, but I'm
willing to grant that he's as likely to be correct as a CFJ judge would
have been.

So, what you are essentially doing by giving the Illuminatus this duty is
turning him into the judge of a CFJ, who's statement is: Player X has won
the current Cycle.  Except that this CFJ cannot be appealed, and comes
with more time pressure than a regular CFJ.  "More time pressure," you
say?  Well yes, the pressure to announce something before someone calls
for a hearing.  We have to assume that a hearing would be called for in
less time than it usually takes a CFJ verdict to be returned, or else what
is the point of all of this?  So the Illuminatus will be called on to make
a judgement, and to do so as quickly as possible.  Hence what I see as 3
basic possibilities.  He renders a very quick judgement, with a relatively
high chance of being wrong.  He realizes he is taking too long and submits
a CFJ or otherwise asks for advice, which he hopes will take the heat off
him. He takes awhile and makes a decision that is relatively likely to be
correct.  In either of the later cases, it is likely he or the CFJ would
be interrupted by a hearing.  These last two cases would take awhile,a
fter all, and speeding this process up is what the propsed changes are all
about.

Oh, by the way, thus far I have been dealing with cases where the
Illuminatus eventually decides that there was a win.  I would imagine that
in almost any case where the Illuminatus decided that some player did not
win, then that player would call for a hearing.  Certainly we have had
many CFJs submitted over wins that one player (and only one player)
thought they had.

> 
> I trust the whole of Nomic enough to put my win in their hands, should a
> similar situation happen again.  I would rather trust the game as a whole
> than the judgement of two people, following the rules or no.
> 

OK, now a few words about why Hearings are a bad idea.  There *is* a
*major* possibility of corruption, of voting other than how one believes
is true. You're going to put say, a potential winner's Church members, in
a tight spot.  Do they vote the way they feel, or vote to give their
friend a win? Its also not unreasonable to expect the people with the
associated Eggplants, who will have -40 points as of next Cycle, to vote
against.  What if someone is only 4 points away from the magic Number, how
is he going to vote?  You say that people will ostracize those who always
vote no on these sorts of hearings.  Well what if they don't care?  Or
what if they never liked Agendas anyway, and don't bother with hats of
their own?  It isn't even required that the voters for either side of a 
hearing be reported, and until recently they weren't.  And how about
the ever popular Evil Ballot Stuffers? Did you know that the last two
Silver Moons were decided on the basis of my two votes?

Corrupt voting aside, there is the even more serious problem of incorrect
voting.  Hearings are short, that is presumably why you would like to use
them.  But that means little time for debate, little time for checking the
rules, little time to make one's decision in.  So you'll have a bunch of
people making uninformed choices as the voting deadline approaches.  Some
just won't vote.  Many, I suspect, will vote No simply because they aren't
sure yet.  And the rest will make their best guess, but that's all it is
liable to be, a guess.  After all, if the issue was clear-cut, it probably
wouldn't have made it to a Hearing in the first place.  And once you are 
in the hearing stage there really is no time left for careful
deliberation.  Not that most of the players are liable to be motivated
to deliberate carefully, they aren't winning the cycle after all, and
they aren't going to be penalized if they are wrong.  So then you'll get
your decision by vote, and I'd say that it probably would have far less
chance of being correct than a CFJ verdict.

CFJs, now that is a system that encourages throughness.  You have plenty
of time to research.  Interested parties have a chance to debate the issue
in the public forum.  New fact can come to light.  AS you might recall, it
took more than a week for anyone to realize that Malenkai had been removed
from his offices even though he may not ahve left the game.  Guy Fawkes,
who isn't even alive anymore, almost beat us to that conclusion.  And
yes, CFJ decisions can be appealed.  If someone returns a verdict that
just doesn't seem right, you can send it to the Supreme Court.  Does
anyone here really have a problem with the Supreme Court's decisions?
Granted, they can take a long time, but thats because they're damn well
figuring out the right answer.  If a Cycle win is important, then
determining if it occured should be a matter of careful deliberation.
This, "lets get it decided ASAP" mehtod that Slakko has proposed actively
discourages such deliberation in the interests of speed.  This speed is
detrimental to reaching an enlightened decision.  This speed is also
unneccessary, game play can and will continue while we await judgement on
the end of the cycle.  It might get sticky, but are we here to play nomic
or is it just the Grab-A-Donkey we're after?

> Yours,
> Slakko

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:39:47 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Promoterness

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> >> I also apologize that RL-concerns have made both Justices less
> >> efficient than we would like to be. Please be patient. (And I would
> >> remind players that it is rare that any Court has returned a
> >> significant CFJ within a week's time.)
> >> 
> >> For the record, the CFJs currently under appeal are:
> >> 
> >> CFJ 484: "Trinkets"
> >> CFJ 513: "Malenkai's Playerhood II"
> >> CFCJ 151: "Being Annoying"
> > 
> > You forgot CFJ 523: "Slakko's Win"
> 
> Ah, right. I missed that; the way it was worded made it sound like a
> conditional action. Can I assume that you have definitely appealed it
> then?

I don't want to get penalised 25 points by the Supreme Court for
appealing a CFJ which has the wrong date on it.  But the wrong date may be
interpreted as the right date, so I guess I've definitely appealed it.

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: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:50:05 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A case for the Tortoise

I hereby retract Proposal 2676.
There are enough arguments against it to make it clearly unpassable.

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Day 0: Player 1 claims a non-point win.
> > Day 2: Player 2 points a flaw in the non-point win.  A number of actions
> > are now thread-split.
> > Day 3: CFJ issued on the non-point win by the CotC.
> > Day 5: (If fast) CFJ judgement delivered.
> > Day 7: CFJ judgement attacked and appealed.
> > Day 20: (Given recent performance) Supreme Court rules on CFJ.
> > 
> > Do we want to lose 3 weeks of Acka time harfing a thread split game every
> > time someone claims a win other than through points and PWCFJ's?  Or would
> > we rather fix up the system so as to get on with the game quickly once we
> > think there is a winner?
> 
> What is this game, if not determing what the rules say?  What is it that
> we're going to do that is so wonderful and exciting that we should skip
> over the process of determining what really happened so that we can "get
> on with the game quickly"?  I would contend, as others have before me,
> that CFJs are the very heart of Ackanomic, not somthing to be avoided.
> This issue seems to be a matter of deciding between doing things quickly,
> or doing them right.  Seeing absolutely no reason to hurry, I'm in favor
> of using a method that I feel confident will yield the truth.  That
> method, for reasons I will outline at length below, is not the one Slakko
> proposes.

CFJs are nothing without proposals to create rule changes to put the rules
in a situation where they need interpreting.  If a very tight-fought CFJ
comes along, it can shut the game up for a good week or so at least (e.g.
when Malenkai left, we had five days go by without a proposal IIRC).  In
the event that the thread split is so climactic that such a situation
occurs, a well-thought out Supreme Court situation could see the proposal
queue in limbo for a fortnight or more.

The lifeblood of any Nomic is change.  Keep it static for a fortnight and
it risks building up inertia.  I for one would not like to see Ackanomic
collapse in a heap of inertia.  If CFJs are the heart, then proposals are
the blood - the nomic needs both to survive. (The players are the brain of
course).

Unfortunately I defaulted on my last CFJ - I didn't intend to, it's just
that my cycle win battle with The Gingham Wearer distracted me.  However,
I would be happy to decide a worthwhile CFJ, when I get one.  

The rest of your arguments I have no quarrel with, and that is why I have
retracted my proposal (I appear to be setting a record for going backwards
in this new cycle, if a new cycle it is).  

> CFJs, now that is a system that encourages throughness.  You have plenty
> of time to research.  Interested parties have a chance to debate the issue
> in the public forum.  New fact can come to light.  AS you might recall, it
> took more than a week for anyone to realize that Malenkai had been removed
> from his offices even though he may not ahve left the game.  Guy Fawkes,
> who isn't even alive anymore, almost beat us to that conclusion.  And
> yes, CFJ decisions can be appealed.  If someone returns a verdict that
> just doesn't seem right, you can send it to the Supreme Court.  Does
> anyone here really have a problem with the Supreme Court's decisions?
> Granted, they can take a long time, but thats because they're damn well
> figuring out the right answer.  If a Cycle win is important, then
> determining if it occured should be a matter of careful deliberation.
> This, "lets get it decided ASAP" mehtod that Slakko has proposed actively
> discourages such deliberation in the interests of speed.  This speed is
> detrimental to reaching an enlightened decision.  This speed is also
> unneccessary, game play can and will continue while we await judgement on
> the end of the cycle.  It might get sticky, but are we here to play nomic
> or is it just the Grab-A-Donkey we're after?

The game is a balance between speed and thought.  To over-emphasise one at
the expense of the other invites downfall.  My hearing proposal stressed
speed in clearing up the debate.  However, the current system, in the eyes
of some people, over-emphasises thought (it is currently entirely possible
for Supreme Court Justices who can't reach a common ground on an extremely
divisive proposal to thread-split the game indefinitely).

I think we need to shift a little more towards speed in some cases.  Not
as far as the Hearing proposal of mine would have, but the current
situation is obviously not ideal, given the number of complaints it
appears to be generating.

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

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

End of ackanomic digest V2 #500
*******************************