Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #520
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Tuesday, February 10 1998      Volume 03 : Number 520

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:01:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> > > Consider posts with
> > > obvious spelling errors:
> > > Would this be a haik?
> > 
> > Five seven then five
> > Regardless of what it means
> > That was a haiku.
> 
> Poetic liscence
> Can twist the numbers slightly.
> Read _Infinity's Shore_

Does our game custom
Include flexibility?
In this case, oh no.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:03:36 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 534 (FALSE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 534 - February 9, 1998
Subject: EndGame Paradox
Initiator: Vynd (sent February 6, 1998, 2:20 p.m.)
Judge: Red Barn (selected February 9, 1998, 11:45 a.m.)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:  Further play is impossible.

Vynds Reasoning:  This *is* a Paradox Win CFJ.

As determined by CFJ 533, Slakko fulfilled the last of his Agenda
Conditions on the 29th of January.  Upon doing so, according to Rule 607,
he received the title of Agent of KAOS.  He then, again by Rule 607,
achieved a winning condition.

Rule 666 says that "Upon a Cycle winning condition being achieved, the
following steps occur, in order"...

The first of these steps is "a) Ackanomic play is suspended."

It is my belief that, upon Ackanomic play being suspended, it is no longer
possible to restart play.  Hence further play is impossible.  Why do I
believe this?  Two reasons.

The only thing that can cause play to resume is clause p) of Rule 666, "p)
Ackanomic play resumes."  Since clause a) has suspended play, however, it
is not possible to enact clause p).  To enact clause p) would be playing
the game of Ackanomic, which is impossible because play has been
suspended.

In fact, this isn't even an issue, because of the second reason I believe
further play to be impossible.  This would be clauses b) through o) of
Rule 666.  Each of these clauses calls for some sort of game action to be
taken.  So to do them would be playing the game of Ackanomic.  Clause a)
has made it impossible to do this.  So neither clause b), nor any of the
other clauses between clauses a) and p), ever happen.  Rule 666 tells us
that the steps listed in the Rule are applied in order.  So if step b)
doesn't take place, step p) can never take place, and play cannot be
resumed.  It is for this reason that, upon Slakko achieving a winning
condition, further Ackanomic play became impossible.

Judges Reasoning

  This hinges on the definition of the word 'play'.  I assert that 'play'
refers to participation by players, not neccessarily to all game events.
If this definition is seriously questioned, an appeal is neccessary.
  One could make an argument that 'play' includes activity by the harfers,
but actually their duties are merely to TRACK the game state, not to make
it.  They can, and do, do so after-the-fact (or simultaneously with it,
if you prefer).

  Also, we have (15, now?) cycle wins worth of custom that it IS possible
to get to the next cycle...

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:04:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Court Reminder

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > If the Court would wish to issue a FALSE verdict on the second appeal of
> > CFJ 526, overturning itself, then obviously some reasoning would be given.
> > If this reasoning indicates that the sole reason for the overturning is
> > that my public message did not actually occur because, although its text
> > was completely specified, its meaning was not, I would like to point out
> > that the only message which appealed the judgement included a quoted copy
> > of my "null" message, with the offending "ambiguous" passage included.  As
> > a result, if my message was null, so was the appeal message, and so the
> > appeal could not have happened.
> 
> I never argued meaning was necessary to be specified, but that intent
> might be. Your intent was not completely specfied, when you sent the
> message.  

What kind of intent?  My intent was to send a particular piece of text.
I did that exactly, fully, and unambiguously.  Interpretations differ from
person to person, always have, always will.  Claiming that the
interpretation has to be unambiguous means that I could easily say that no
public message exists, because I interpret every message that anyone other
than me sends to be "I give all my A$ to Slakko".

Demanding unambiguous messages to mean "unambiguous in their
interpretation" enables one player to create doubt in their own mind so as
to eliminate all messages.

> In the context you provided, it was not clear whether the
> intended word was lettuce or letters (and you conveniently arranged it so
> that the route of seeing it a meaningless string was not available).
> Intent _was_ completely specfied when I posted -- the offending text was
> intended as a quoted example of offending text.

Yet the fact that I included the words within quote marks does not count
as a quoted example?

>  Game custom is
> well-established on the "different" status of material posted by a player
> but not orginating with that player, such as an officer not being
> responsible for the content of material other players send him to post.
> 
> This is _my_ interpretation of the situation, and it seems reasonable.

I can't exactly say much against that.  Of course your interpretation
seems reasonable to you.  My interpretation seems reasonable to me.

> 
> Your interpretation, while also reasonable, leads to a paradox;  if the SC
> rules that my appeal was never posted, it never had the opportunity to
> make such a ruling.  Therefore, your interpretation of what would happen
> on CFJ 526 TRUE is inherently paradoxical.

Check more carefully.  The Supreme Court ruling TRUE would uphold its
original verdict.  That would mean that my message was legitimate, and
therefore so was yours, and therefore there was no paradox.

My claim with this argument was that FALSE and FALSE only would lead to a
paradox, and hence that the SC would hopefully have to return TRUE and
vindicate me. :-)

> Game custom requires a reasonable non-paradoxical interpretation to guide
> play instead of a reasonable paradoxical one.  Sorry.

Actually, I would like to point out that not all non-overturned CFJs are
explicitly part of game custom, even though one rule says that they are.
I issued a CFJ while you were away which claimed that the sentence in Rule
216 which tries to create this explicit game custom has no effect, because
Rule 101 states that game custom is not regulated by the rules (and 101
overrules 216).

So there is nothing stopping Justices from disregarding previous CFJs in
determining what constitutes current game custom.  I know that previous
CFJs will always be extremely persuasive where the legislation has not
changed, but I'm just pointing out that this option is always open.

> 
> GF
> 
> 

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:05:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 156 (FALSE)

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgement 156 - February 9, 1998
Subject: Game Misconduct
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent February 8, 1998, 10:06 p.m.)
Judge: rufus (selected February 9, 1998, 11:55 a.m.)
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:

K 2 committed the Crime of Game Misconduct on January 17, 1998.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

At Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:57:59 -0500 (which is, barely, on January 17), K
2 posted a list of words containing "triva" between Alfvaen's challenge
that this string of letters did not occur in any word in the Official
Dictionary, and The Gingham Wearer's response.  This is an obvious case
of interference with the play of the subgame, since The Gingham Wearer
should not have been able to consult the Official Dictionary, however
indirectly, and yet ended up unsuspectingly reading it before e could
avoid it.

But that's really beside the point.  I think few people would disagree
that K 2 would definitely be guilty of the Crime of Game Misconduct,
except that Rule 1205, which details it, was only enacted on January
26th.  This CFCJ is testing the waters to see if an action can become
retroactively illegal or not.  If it is possible, then obviously it
should be fixed.

Suggested Penalty:

A PUBLIC APOLOGY of 1 line.

Judges Reasoning:  

very little.   On 17 January, Game Misconduct was not a crime.
So K 2 could not have commited it then.  

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:06:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 534 (Red Barn)

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> Where's the paradox?  There is no contradiction.  It existence is the
> means for its creation.  Examing the Feynman diagram for a virtual pair,
> and you will find my interpretation more closely resembles actual
> phenomena than yours.

I must admit I always thought that the virtual pairs was a way to get
around the creation of information paradox, but I never talked to anybody
about it.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:08:55 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal

- ----------
> From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 526 appeal
> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 8:57 AM
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Vivian Norwood wrote:
> > 
> > > > The only question is, what constitutes the public message?  The
actual
> > > > text, or its intent?  If the message is the text, then my message
was
> > > > specified in full.  If the message is the intent of the text, then
it was
> > > > not.  
> > > > -- 
> > > 
> > > Consider posts with
> > > obvious spelling errors:
> > > Would this be a haik?
> > 
> > Five seven then five
> > Regardless of what it means
> > That was a haiku.
> 
> Poetic liscence
> Can twist the numbers slightly.
> Read _Infinity's Shore_
> 
> 

Posts in Trinary
could get us into trouble
with Politeness Moons ;)

Balsamic Dragon

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:13:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Chess: TGW, You're in Check!

I have received a play from Goldenmean:

Archer b8 - d6
Place il-Nabi b4

The move puts The Gingham Wearer in Check, and hence the placement is
disregarded.

Current gamestate:

   | a| b| c| d| e| f| g| h| i| j| k| l| m| n| o| p| q| r| s| t|
   -------------------------------------------------------------
20 |  |  |  |  |  |S%|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
19 |  |  |  |  |  |SJ|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |TO|  |  |  |  |TK|
   -------------------------------------------------------------
18 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |TA|  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
17 |  |  |  |S%|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
16 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |T%|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
15 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |MM|  |  |TM|  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
14 |V%|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
13 |  |  |  |  |  |  |VR|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
12 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |TA|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
11 |  |  |S*|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
10 |  |  |S%|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |MA|  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 9 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 8 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |M%|  |  |  |TJ|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 7 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 6 |  |  |  |RA|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 5 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |MP|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |KD|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |MM|  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |KK|  |  |  |MK|  |  |  |  |ST|  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 2 |  |  |SK|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |KR|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
   -------------------------------------------------------------
   | a| b| c| d| e| f| g| h| i| j| k| l| m| n| o| p| q| r| s| t|

RoundCount = 25

Swinger       Type              Wt.  On-Board          Off-Board
TGW        Party - Klingon[K]   37    K,D,R             C,2D,O,Q
WARM       Party - HARF [H]      0                     K,B,3P,3R
Slakko     Party - SPAM [S]     68    K,J,T,3%,*           2P
/dev/joe   Party - Vulcan[V]     0    R,%          KBBCDEJMOPPPPPQRRT
Alfvaen    Party - Metamorph[M] 52.5  K,A,2M,P,%          C,T
Niccolo    Tarzan's Tree Hs [T] 75    K,2A,J,M,O,%   B,C,J,M,P,Z,%
Red Barn   Non-Aligned [*]       0                    K,C,E,2O,3P
Goldenmean Party - Boomerangs[R] 0    A               K,C,M,2P,Q,%

Next Turn: Due 3 days after this message
Current Player: The Gingham Wearer (Klingon)

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:20:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Last Laugh Bwahahahahahahahahaha

If people check the archives, then they will note that some of my other
email messages regarding lettuce were posted after Rule 340 was corrected
to (hopefully) work around my error.  These messages were unambiguous, as
letturc throughout was specified as meaning lettuce.  I still have an
awful lot of attributes around, so AFAIK I have won the game at some point
since January 27, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules the latest
CFJ, provided that they do not overturn their original definition of
attributes.

This is true even if Malenkai won, because the sum of the weights on my
three Agenda Hats was actually negative.

Yours,
Slakko
definitely won a cycle as far as he knows.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:21:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Did P2681 do anything?

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> At the risk of using physical analogy...

My Bill Clinton-references were way out of line.
If you have to use physical analogy as your only defence in Acka, sorry
you're gone. :-)

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:39:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Foreheadness

If there is a way for me to purchase a Prosthetic Forehead now, then I do
so, and describe it thusly:

"It looks like a giant cigarette butt."

I give this butt head to Guy Fawkes.

Yours,
Slakko

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:16:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Foreheadness

> If there is a way for me to purchase a Prosthetic Forehead now, then I do
> so,

Luckily, Slakko does not possess a Rock to Wind A String Around, or I
would have had to declare this an ambiguous action.  :-)  I think that
it's safe to presume that purchasing a Rock from someone's Vending
Machine and then exchanging it for a Forehead was not what Slakko meant
here...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Tom Waits:Frank's Wild Years
Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
Was there a quorum of able whizzkids gravely exciting the jaded fish at ATypI?

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:11:25 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Acka: Vending

I would like to know the rates that Vending Machine owners would charge
for their Rocks to Wind A String Around.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Tom Waits:Train Song
Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
The kittens in the Royale commercials have eyes like UFO aliens.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:19:30 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Party Chess Piece Purchase

I am purchasing a party chess piece HarfyBlob. This costs me A$50.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:36:05 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: INPs 360, 361 and 362

>INP 360 was submitted by  New Rishonnomic:
>INP 361
>INP 362
#vote INP360-INP362 Yes

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:09:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Vivian Norwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vending

Mine is set at the starting A$6.  Feel free to buy one!

Balsamic Dragon

- ----------
> From: Aaron V. Humphrey <[email-masked]>
> To: Ackanomic <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: Vending
> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 1:11 PM
> 
> 
> I would like to know the rates that Vending Machine owners would charge
> for their Rocks to Wind A String Around.
> 
> 
> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
> Song In My Head--Tom Waits:Train Song
> Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Alternities
> The kittens in the Royale commercials have eyes like UFO aliens.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:33:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Vending

> Mine is set at the starting A$6.  Feel free to buy one!

Why, I think I will. In fact, make that three. I hereby purchase three
rocks to wind a string around from Balsamic Dragon's vending machine.

I then put on my wool sweater.

I then purchase another wool sweater for A$10.

I then use one of my rocks to wind a string around and exchange it for a
prosthetic forehead. This prosthetic forehead has the following
description:

"Appearance-wise this forehead is fairly normal, except for being made of
red and white gingham. It does however have an effect of spreading
good-will through all those that come near the wearer."

I then put this forehead on.

I then create a trinket called "Insert clever name here" worth A$1 with the
following description:

"This treasure entitles you to 1 (one) prosthetic forehead of your choice,
an handsome wool sweater to wear with it and a valuable sculpture of
unknown design (quite probably green)."

I am then burying the following as a treasure:

An automatic Sculpture
A wool sweater
A swingpoint
A rock to wind a string around
The Insert clever name here.

The treasure map is something along the lines of: This treasure will be
found by the first player to either privately e-mail a decent map of
Lancashire to The Gingham Wearer or tell em of an URL on the web where such
a map can be found.

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:03:54 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

It seem that it is *that* time of the year again.

<insert an incitement to riot here>

<calm populous here>

<Dunk Slako in a large viscous pool of mud here>
<Repeat the previous action substituting The Gingham Wearer>

<Place K 2 on a pedistal, as a virtuous, honourable, upstanding Ackan Entity>

While it may be possible to demonstrate that I (or any of my fellow
cadidetes) are  _obviously_ the ^most^ qulified entity for the job, I am
not going to do so.
Why? Because the president is #essentially# !only! a figure head.

With that in mind I would like to suggest that entities use the following
:litmus test: to determine the best figure (head) for the job.

The player listed first alphabetically
The player with no vowels in their name.
The player with a prime number in their name

Imagine the prestige Acka would gain with a president with these /attribues\

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:04:15 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections: Question for candidates

At 15:33 9/02/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Question for the candidates.
>
>I'd like to know which of the candidates are members of other nomics, and in
>case of conflict, where their loyalty would lie?
>
>Of course, I have an inherent problem with someone being in a position where
>they might not be able to fulfill to their full capacity all the
>responsibilities of the offices they hold, if some of them come to have
>mutually exclusive goals.
>
>This is not meant to be a loyalty test, but an ethics test. If candidates
>who are members of other nomics can state unequivocally that it will not be
>a problem, I will take them at their word. I just want all this to be clear
>and stated for the record.
>
>CnH

Acka forever :)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:14:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Presidential Elections

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, K2 wrote:

> <calm populous here>
I always liked that game.  

> <Dunk Slako in a large viscous pool of mud here>
> <Repeat the previous action substituting The Gingham Wearer>
> 
> <Place K 2 on a pedistal, as a virtuous, honourable, upstanding Ackan Entity>
> 
> While it may be possible to demonstrate that I (or any of my fellow
> cadidetes) are  _obviously_ the ^most^ qulified entity for the job, I am
> not going to do so.
> Why? Because the president is #essentially# !only! a figure head.
> 
> With that in mind I would like to suggest that entities use the following
> :litmus test: to determine the best figure (head) for the job.
> 
> 
> The player listed first alphabetically
> The player with no vowels in their name.
> The player with a prime number in their name
> 
> 
> Imagine the prestige Acka would gain with a president with these /attribues\

Imagine the prestige Acka would gain with a President capable of spelling
correctly when e wants to.
Imagine the prestige Acka would gain from a President who knows that K 2
is not the first alphabetically of the candidates.
Imagine a President who can spell the names of his opponents correctly.

A vote for Slakko is a vote for Mutability!

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/
Queens', Cambridge, 1st Yr PhD(PMa), Graph Theory - CU SFS/RS/STS/Dip
Acka - RuneMaker ChessUmpire Senator Map-Harfer .Nomic - HP(Morpork)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:27:36 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections

> Imagine the prestige Acka would gain with a President capable of spelling
> correctly when e wants to.
> Imagine the prestige Acka would gain from a President who knows that K 2
> is not the first alphabetically of the candidates.
> Imagine a President who can spell the names of his opponents correctly.

Just to quickly point out that all these describe me too!

Also imagine the prestige Acka could gain by having a president that knows
that Acka deserves a capital A.

> A vote for Slakko is a vote for Mutability!

A vote for The Gingham Wearer is a vote for Honour!

The Gingham Wearer.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:39:00 -0500 (EST)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Presidential Elections

At 15:27 10/02/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> Imagine the prestige Acka would gain with a President capable of spelling
>> correctly when e wants to.
>> Imagine the prestige Acka would gain from a President who knows that K 2
>> is not the first alphabetically of the candidates.
>> Imagine a President who can spell the names of his opponents correctly.
>
>Just to quickly point out that all these describe me too!
>
>Also imagine the prestige Acka could gain by having a president that knows
>that Acka deserves a capital A.
>
>> A vote for Slakko is a vote for Mutability!
>
>A vote for The Gingham Wearer is a vote for Honour!
>
>The Gingham Wearer.
>
>
The mud is flying fast and furious,
It seems the Ackanomic Potato and Dry cleaning department is going to busy
for awhile....

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:34:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Foreheadness

Thank you, Slakko.  I accept your gift and cherish it dearly.
I put on this beautiful prosthetic forehead (beauty is in the eye of the
beholder), proudly sporting it upon my second extra head (the left one).

Guy Fawkes

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:52:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2711

>> 	I am aware that this de-modularizes the org system.  I feel that
>> this allows us to create structures which are more flexible.For example,
>No. It creates a rigid, structure with no room for growth, and requires
>cumbersom language to get anything done.
	I think we're looking at the same thing two different ways, so I
won't argue this point again.  Also, please try not to quote the entire
post.

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

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:27:08 -0500 (EST)
From: "The Gingham Wearer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Purchase of another party chess piece and possible minor scam

I am founding a new organization called "Kerplunk, kerplunk III" paying the
standard harfer fee to do so. I proxy my support to Kerplunk, kerplunk III.
I suggest Kerplunk, kerplunk III create ten of all existing party chess
pieces except for king and tornado, and one party chess piece tornado, all
for The Gingham Wearer. I believe this happens and doesn't fall afoul of
rule 510.

From rule 510:

"No Player, Undead, or Organization may use more A$'s to buy, trade, give
or in any way move out of his account, than there are in his/her account at
that moment in time. In other words, a player may never voluntarily go into
debt, but it is possible that a player may go into debt involuntarily."

From rule 1230.1

"D. A player or Organization may create a new Party Chess Piece of any
existing type for a Swinger. When this is done, the player or Organization
pays the piece cost to the Treasury, and the new piece is created,
off-board, in the possession of the specified Swinger. A new piece costs
A$1, plus A$7 times the material value of the piece. A King may not be
purchased in this way."

From my understanding of the above buying a party chess piece is not a
voluntary payment. What actually happens is that the player/org creates the
party chess piece. They then, as an involuntary action are forced to pay
for having created a piece. This is supported by the phrase "when this is
done" which, to me, indicates that the payment happens just after the
creation of the piece.

If you look at some of the other rules detailing purchase you will see that
their phrasing is quite different.

From rule 844

"A player may purchase a kaa of empty, common land for A$50."

From rule 1008

"Where the rules say that an Organization may buy a Power of a certain
type, what is meant is that the Organization may, as an action, contribute
an amount of currency to the Treasury in exchange for a new Power of the
type specified, which is then created in that Organization's possession."

Right then, onwards, just to make sure I can do this in case the above
didn't work,

If it is true that I currently control a party chess piece tornado then I
leave Kerplunk, kerplunk III. (It's now too far in debt to be of any use).

If it is not true that I currently control a party chess piece jester then
I create a party chess piece jester, which would then cause me to have to
pay A$22.

The Gingham Wearer, wishing e'd got into party chess earlier.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:03:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: SBoC

I suggest that RexBank transfer the SBoC to me.

I read the next page of my Spell Book of Chorg. It disappears with a
disappointing puff of grey smoke, and a flash of dim, brownish light.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 20:00:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 534 (Red Barn)

>So your version of reality permits creation of information paradoxen.
>Mine doesn't. :-)
>
>-- 
>Duncan C. "" Richer aka
>Slakko the Really Lost Warner Brother - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/

Reality? I thought this was Nomic.

Rex Mundi.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #520
*******************************