Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #109
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Thursday, April 16 1998       Volume 03 : Number 109

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 569 (Hubert)

Rex Mundi has declined, Hubert has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 569 - April 15, 1998
Subject: Winning part 3
Initiator: Slakko (sent April 15, 1998, 03:26)
Judge: Rex Mundi (declined)
Second Judge: Hubert (selected April 16, 1998, 12:17)
Judgement: 

Statement:
Slakko achieved a Winning Condition within the last 7 days.

Slakko's Reasoning:
This should be a Cycle Win CFJ.
Slakko's message, subject "The Secret", in which he amended Beldin's
Pants, allowed the RuneMaker to amend Beldin's Pants by sending a public
message detailing the changes.
He sent such a message, detailing changes which, amongst other things,
gave him one of each cheese e did not have.  Therefore e has all Cheeses,
and therefore, by Rule 611, e has acheived a Winning Condition.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:41:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: :-)

 I hereby return from vacation.  Will someone please bring me back up to
speed on events please?

  Wild Card.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:46:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Inventor Election

>Hubert voted BAA! and IdiotBoy, Guy Fawkes, ThinMan, Vynd (+EBS) and /dev/joe
>all attempted to vote for /dev/joe.

How can this august collection of personages all be wrong?  Clearly the rules
are incorrect about /dev/joe's elligibility, and if not, they should be! :-)

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: hmmm....

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> This is probably the most questionable part of your hypothesis.  The Rule
> itself is not being amended, the Rule's wording remains intact.  How has
> the entity itself been manipulated?
> 
> Analogy is never a clear way to solve an argument in Acka, but I think
> I'll supply one anyway.  Say I download a new HTML Editor.  Have I
> manipulated my webpages by doing so?  There's a new way to change them,
> but I haven't touched them.

Manipulation is broadly defined in Acka.  There was a time when stating
that one was drinking Coke was illegal because Coke was mentioned in the
Ruleset.  In the same era, snowgod was Gaoled for placing the Gumball in
his armpit, since this was ruled to be a manipulation of the Gumball.  Of
course, these events were back in the days of Protection.

Since then, idle discussion of an entity has been declared to be
not-manipulation, as has CFJ proceedings involving an entity.  My
contention is that your description of how R940 may be amended is neither
idle discussion nor a CFJ proceeding, and further that it was
manipulation of R940 (Before your description, able to be amended by
fiat of the Preator was not an attribute of R940; after your
description, it was.  Your description changed something about R940,
and is therefore manipulation.  See CFJ 197.)  You may disagree; feel free
to CFJ.

> 
> >  Manipulation of an entity is only
> > > possible if explicitly permitted by the Rules, or if said manipulation had
> > > no material effect on the game.  I think we can agree that the description
> > > had a material effect on the game.
> 
> This is introducing levels of indirection.  It was not the description
> itself which had a material effect on the game, it was the amendment which
> the description enabled.
> 
> Your argument would make the original Malenkai's Loophole invalid - the
> creation of a non-entity, such as "Military Lasers", could not then
> suddenly grant someone new powers once the rule came into force, because
> that would be a non-entity having a material effect on the game through
> one level of indirection.

The _original_ Malenkai's Loophole -- the ones which used R115 entities --
took place in a time when the standard of whether or not something could
be manipulated arbitrarily was Protection, and when the idea of the game
state being a Protected entity, or even an entity at all, for that matter,
did not really exist.  The entity Rules were sufficiently different at
that time that the precedent does not apply today.

If you are referring to the modern adaptation of Malenkai's Loophole --
the one which employs a Trinket as the name placeholder, and uses the
modern version of our understanding of entities and how they can be
manipulated -- then the original Trinket creation is explicitly permitted
by the Rules, and when the Rules later see fit to grant that Trinket
certain powers, that too is explicitly spelled out by the Rules.

If you feel I have misunderstood you, please provide an example of a
successful application of Malenkai's Loophole that has taken place is the
era of the modern entity rules (winter 96 or later) that relied on steps
that were not explicitly permitted by the Rules, and I will consider that. 

GF

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:00:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: hmmm....

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> Another analogy (this time an Acka one).
> 
> Is it permissible to amend Rule 1044 so as to provide a new way to
> exchange swingpoints?
> It changes the manner in which a Swingpoint may be exchanged.  It would
> seem by analogy that your argument suggests that this is manipulation of
> an entity.  The rules have not specifically allowed the manner in which
> Swingpoints may be exchanged to be changed, at least such is not stated in
> the rules.  It would have a material effect on the game (at least if
> someone tried to use the new tactic).

The Rules explicitly permit several methods of amending R1044, CSR and
Proposal not among the least of them.  Amending R1044 would manipulate
Swingpoints by changing their properties.  However, said manipulation (at
least in the cases of CSR and Proposal) is explicitly permitted by the
Rules -- they explicitly permit the amendment, which constitutes
manipulation of the Swingpoints.

> The same could be said of any entity.  Are we allowed to amend any rule in
> such a way as to alter the way an entity behaves, even if the rules do not
> explicitly say we can amend the way that entity behaves?

The Rules DO say we can manipulate the entity's behavior -- changing the
Rules IS that manipulation, and is explicitly permitted.  The difference
is this: describing the manner in which R940 can be amended is not
explicitly permitted, unless that description is simply idle discussion;
if that description has any material effect on the game (and I contend it
does), then by what Rule's authority do you claim to make it?

GF

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: Inventor Election

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> >Hubert voted BAA! and IdiotBoy, Guy Fawkes, ThinMan, Vynd (+EBS) and /dev/joe
> >all attempted to vote for /dev/joe.
> 
> How can this august collection of personages all be wrong?  Clearly the rules
> are incorrect about /dev/joe's elligibility, and if not, they should be! :-)

Actually, I think that e was eligible all along.  No rule said that the
Wizard could not run for Inventor.  The Speaker must randomly determine
which of the two offices (Wizard, Inventor) /dev/joe loses by Rule 593
part II.  Then there will no doubt be some Huberting for the post of
Wizard, if it is the one vacated.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: hmmm.... (Thread Alpha)

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Guy Fawkes wrote:

<malenkai's loophole gizz deleted>

> If you are referring to the modern adaptation of Malenkai's Loophole --
> the one which employs a Trinket as the name placeholder, and uses the
> modern version of our understanding of entities and how they can be
> manipulated -- then the original Trinket creation is explicitly permitted
> by the Rules, and when the Rules later see fit to grant that Trinket
> certain powers, that too is explicitly spelled out by the Rules.

That's why I said original - I know that Trinkets are a separate case.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:20:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Inventor Election

- ----------
> From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
> To: Acka <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: Inventor Election
> Date: 16 April 1998 16:30
> 
> The following are the results to the election for inventor:
> 
> rufus:
> rufus
> 
> Slakko:
> Slakko
> 
> JT:
> JT
> 
> TGW:
> Attila the Pun
> Rex Mundi
> Rex Mundi's EBS
> breadbox
> TGW
> 
> CnH:
> [this space intentionally left blank]
> 
> Joe Java:
> Joe Java
> 
> Hubert:
> Alfvaen
> 
> Hubert voted BAA! and IdiotBoy, Guy Fawkes, ThinMan, Vynd (+EBS) and
/dev/joe
> all attempted to vote for /dev/joe.
> 
> The upshot of all this is that I'm your new inventor. Yippee!! Thanks for
> voting for me everyone. Remember folks, you still have about a day left to
> vote for president. Get your vote in now (if you haven't done so already.

Erk. Koxvolio just pointed out to me that e voted for Slakko, as did eir EBS
and e is correct. This makes no difference to the results, but folks, please
check that I've reported all this right. I guess it's just that I'm new to
the job.

Sorry.

TGW, Count Tabula.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> At 12:34 AM 4/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >I'm getting bounced from the Condensed Main Acka Page.  "Too many users"
> >Is this something that has happened before?  I assume it is actually
> >Slakko's server, not the Acka page itself, that is this busy :)
> 
> Maybe I've taken to advertising Acka again -- I once got quite a good
> number of people to join Acka in a fairly short amount of time, just
> through strategic advertising.
> 
> Of course, that wasn't a good thing. Probably why the office of the
> Publicist ceased to exist.

That was how I joined!
Straight into the Quorum Crisis. 
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> Harf,
> Robert Sevin
> <http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:26:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > > I offer the remaining A$100 to Niccolo Flychuck in exchange for his
> > > Cheez-whiz.
> 
> > I accept this offer.
> 
> Unfortunately, since(as I earlier stated), Guy Fawkes does not have
> A$100.
> 
> I, however, will gladly offer Niccolo Flychuck A$50 and a Share Your
> Income Otzma Card for the Cheez-Whiz.  :-)

OK. I accept.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Actions

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> > > Then, my wealth restored to me, I attempt to protect my investment by
> > > placing it back in the market, where it appears to be marginally safer, by
> > > buying 95 stocks.
> 
> > I'll have to check whether this occurs, but if it presumes the existence
> > of the extra 10% returned from K 2...
> 
> Okay.  GF had enough to buy 95 stocks, but that only left em with...
> actually, I made another mistake.  That makes...well, a bunch.  E was left
> with A$163, so the Pretty Penny wasn't made, but the offer to Niccolo
> Flychuck was still valid.
> 

In that case my earlier acceptance of Guy Fawkes's offer stands, and it is
not possible for me to accept Alfvaen's offer.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 562 (FALSE (upheld))

This has been upheld on appeal. I also noticed that Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe
failed to specify the penalty to the appealer, which I believe means the
penalty is 25 points.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 562 - April 9, 1998
Subject: Step to it
Initiator: Attila the Pun (sent April 8, 1998, 22:57)
Judge: JT (selected April 9, 1998, 06:54)
Judgement: FALSE
Appealed by: rufus
To the Cortex of: Guy Fawkes and /dev/joe
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
It is impossible to determine whether or not the name "Mr. Lunatic Fringe"
is inscribed on any given one of the risers of the steps leading up to the
Town Hall without going outside the Rules.

Initiator's Reasoning:
Rule 2819, which governs the Town Hall, states the following:

....
> At any moment in time there is exactly one more
> step than there are players enshrined in the hall of Elders (material and
> labour required for construction is generously provided by the Ackanomic
> Construction Guild Inc.). Engraved on the riser of each step in gold
> lettering is the name of an Elder, starting with the most recently inducted
> on the top most step. On the bottom most step in the language of the
> ancients is the phrase "Said the Tensor: Let Their Be Harf".
....

No other rule appears to forbid any of this, so it is true.

The name on the top step is that of the most recently inducted Elder. 
However,
the rule makes no specification as to the order in which the remaining names
are assigned to the remaining steps.  Thus nothing forbids the name "Mr.
Lunatic Fringe", which is the name of an Elder, from going on any step other
than the top and the bottom.  Therefore the possibility cannot be ruled out
from this rule that the name "Mr. Lunatic Fringe" appears on any riser other
than the top or bottom ones.  Since no other rule makes mention of the Town
Hall steps, there is no Rule-sanctioned mechanism for determining the
position
of the name "Mr. Lunatic Fringe" or any other Elder's name.

Judge's Reasoning:
  There are two possible ways to read the rule quoted.  One interpretation
is the purely literal which Attila the Pun has chosen.  However, there is
another consistant reading which if a little bit of common sense is used
can also provide a useful and consistant interpretation of the rule while
at the same time providing a logical ordering over Elder's names as applied
to steps.
  This second ordering assumes the intent for new steps to be placed at
the top of the staircase (newest inductee is always at the top) and not
to change the order of any lower steps.  With this, all future inductees
are most certainly ordered correctly.  Applying the same assumptions, it
should be obvious that the ordering intended of the steps was newest
inductee at the top, and then next newest inductee, down to the first
inductee on the step above the first step and the words on the bottomost
step.
  Since there is an intelligble ordering, albeit implicit from the wording
and intent of the rule, I judge this CFJ to be FALSE.

rufus' Appeal Reasoning:
I appeal this (well the CFJ number is wrong, but I deleted the message
with the correct number.)  My objection is that the Judge has attempted to
make the rules do somthing that they don't explicitly do.  The middle Town
Hall Steps have the names of the Elders on them, but their order is not
explicitly spelled out.  In fact, neither is their manipulation, so a
player can reorder them, as this has no effect on game state.  Further,
the Judge seems to be introducing the concept of legislative intent.  Acka
has been free of this, and the rules do what they say, even when it is
clear to all that what they say is not what they were intended to say.
(Common sense reports excluded;  but there is a check to them.)  This
leads to some silly situations; but it prevents more problems than in
causes.

Supreme Court's comment's:
We agree with the appealer that the original judge's reasoning is not valid,
but the verdict is still FALSE because R405 (section vi, paragraph 2)
provides a way of determining which name is on each step when such
determination is required by the rules.  Until that time, the name on
each step is indeterminate.  (The statement does not say that it is
indeterminate whether "Mr. Lunatic Fringe" is on step X, but that it is
impossible to determine it, which is different in this case.) 

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:58:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

> > Of course, that wasn't a good thing. Probably why the office of the
> > Publicist ceased to exist.
> 
> That was how I joined!
> Straight into the Quorum Crisis. 
> Niccolo Flychuck

Has there ever been a time in Acka when there hasn't been some sort of
crisis, controversy or what have you going on? I recall that when I joined
Malenkai's Beldin's Pants win was being argued over, as was the Pumpkin Patch
/ Metamorph / More than Human thing. Hardly the same magnitude as the quorum
crisis, but I think it just goes to prove how fast moving Acka is.

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:04:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Has there ever been a time in Acka when there hasn't been some sort of
> crisis, controversy or what have you going on? I recall that when I joined
> Malenkai's Beldin's Pants win was being argued over, as was the Pumpkin Patch
> / Metamorph / More than Human thing. Hardly the same magnitude as the quorum
> crisis, but I think it just goes to prove how fast moving Acka is.

Yes, but we have only had one Official Crisis, and that was my fault for
being unharfy.

Yours,
Slakko
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:26:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

At 04:58 PM 4/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
>> > Of course, that wasn't a good thing. Probably why the office of the
>> > Publicist ceased to exist.
>> 
>> That was how I joined!
>> Straight into the Quorum Crisis. 
>> Niccolo Flychuck
>
>Has there ever been a time in Acka when there hasn't been some sort of
>crisis, controversy or what have you going on? I recall that when I joined
>Malenkai's Beldin's Pants win was being argued over, as was the Pumpkin Patch
>/ Metamorph / More than Human thing. Hardly the same magnitude as the quorum
>crisis, but I think it just goes to prove how fast moving Acka is.

I think I remember a few times, back in the day, when there were no major
crises. The game didn't have too many problems at the very beginning, other
than my batch of illegal proposals. That's probably because nobody felt
comfortable enough with the game to cause any real controversy.

Robert "When it comes to Acka, I'm living in the past" Sevin
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/>

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

>> Maybe I've taken to advertising Acka again -- I once got quite a good
>> number of people to join Acka in a fairly short amount of time, just
>> through strategic advertising.
>> 
>> Of course, that wasn't a good thing. Probably why the office of the
>> Publicist ceased to exist.
>
>That was how I joined!
>Straight into the Quorum Crisis. 
>Niccolo Flychuck

I'm pleased to know that at least some good came of it. I think you may be
the only player who joined during that era who is still around today...

Harf,
Robert Sevin
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/>

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:29:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

Robert Sevin wrote:
> >That was how I joined!
> >Straight into the Quorum Crisis. 
> >Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> I'm pleased to know that at least some good came of it. I think you may be
> the only player who joined during that era who is still around today...

No, I joined then too.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:34:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> >Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> I'm pleased to know that at least some good came of it. I think you may be
> the only player who joined during that era who is still around today...

May I present ... the Quorum Crisees!

/dev/joe! (26th March 1996)
Niccolo!  (28th March 1996)
ThinMan!  (29th March 1996)
Crackfoo! (31st March 1996)

- -- 
Duncan C. "age is no substitute for research" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:35:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Admission of Defeat

I hereby retract CFJ 569.  
Guy Fawkes is most likely correct.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Acka - ex-President/still Web-Harfer RuneMaker ChessUmpire Map-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:48:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

At 05:29 PM 4/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Robert Sevin wrote:
>> >That was how I joined!
>> >Straight into the Quorum Crisis. 
>> >Niccolo Flychuck
>> 
>> I'm pleased to know that at least some good came of it. I think you may be
>> the only player who joined during that era who is still around today...
>
>No, I joined then too.

Wow. Anyone else? I had no idea the campaign actually had some success
stories. I'm quite pleased.

Harf,
Robert Sevin
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/>

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:12:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Invitation to a BBQ

If you don't live in, or near, Austin, TX, then this message probably will
not interest you. To be more accurate, while it might interest you, such
interest will inevitably lead to disappointment unless you know some secret
way to get really cheap plane tickets.

You're invited to a barbecue being held at my place on Saturday, April 25.
The fun begins at 4pm. 

A number of current and former Ackanomic players are likely to be in
attendance. Other than myself there may be Calvin N Hobbes , chess piece
face, Perfect Tommy, Simon Marty Harriman, Michael Wren, Enigma, Lipid,
Rusty Tapwater, and Austin Appleby. (pretty much in order of decreasing
likelihood). 

At this lovely function you will be able to eat, drink, swim, play games,
play sports, maybe watch movies, and so much more than I can't begin to
describe it (I tried -- but I simply couldn't!). If you wish to swim, you
should bring a swim suit and towel. If you wish, you can help us out by
bringing some food, beverage, or make a small cash donation -- but this is
purely optional. There will be a wide variety of food, so if you are a
vegetarian, or don't like traditional BBQ food, there will still be
something for you. 

Oh yeah, and there will be a lot of different people there. The primary
organizer of the event (my roommate Derrick) wants all of the occupants of
our apartment to invite a variety of friends, not just those that we see
regularly. So if you feel like you won't know many people at the BBQ, then
you won't be alone. I live here and I won't know a fairly large number of
them! Don't let that stop you.

Please RSVP if you plan to attend. Either send me e-mail or call me at
512-707-8614. The former is preferred, but either is acceptable.

Here are directions to the apartment:

Take I-35 to Woodward (it is the exit just north of Ben White and south of
Oltorf, in south Austin). Exit Woodward and proceed east. You will be
turning left into a complex called Park Lane Villas. If you reach a stop
sign (Parker Street) you've gone too far. When you pull in you will be
confronted with a gate and a keypad. If you punch #265 into the keypad our
apartment will be called and you will be admitted into the complex. Once
inside, drive forward as far as possible. When you can drive no further
forward (you should be near the mailboxes) park somewhere close by. Our
apartment number is 106. Some of us should be out by the pool. If you need
to find our apartment take the sidewalk that leads between the pool and the
apartment building and climb the steps that you will encounter on your
right. Once at the top continue following the path (don't veer off to the
left) and our apartment will be the first door on your right.

If you need further clarification, or have any questions, please feel free
to ask either via e-mail or phone (or using telepathy, if you have that
ability).

Any food or drink you can bring to help out would be appreciated. Although
it is not required, anyone who fails to do so will be forced to wear the
"hat of shame" throughout the entire BBQ. Since there is only one such hat,
if more than one person fails to bring food, then they will have to crowd
together and wear the hat simultaneously. The entertainment provided by
such a spectacle will more than make up for the lack of a food donation.

Your pal,
Robert Sevin
<http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~mitcharf/index.html>

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

> Yes, but we have only had one Official Crisis, and that was my fault for
> being unharfy.

I must admit that I wasn't blameless there either. I too attempted to create
a negatively valued trinket. I blame it on still being fairly new at the
time. I recall one of the harfier bits of play from around that time was when
someone created a negatively valued trinket called "The Bandwagon" with a
description along the lines of "No matter how many people jump on there
always appears to be room for one more". And I still can't believe breadbox
didn't get himself a museum win with his A$50,000. I know I would have done.

TGW, still searching for his first win after multiple failed attempts.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Are we that busy?

> May I present ... the Quorum Crisees!
> 
> /dev/joe! (26th March 1996)
> Niccolo!  (28th March 1996)
> ThinMan!  (29th March 1996)
> Crackfoo! (31st March 1996)

I may be wrong but I think that a few Elders joined at that time too. This is
not a name and snowgod perhaps?

TGW, whose research means stretch to the hall of elders and breadbox's
history page :-).

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: :-)

>  I hereby return from vacation.  Will someone please bring me back up to
> speed on events please?

Let's see. Alfvaen, Slakko and myself have all attempted cycle wins and none
of us have succeeded :-(. I'm now Count Tabula and we're currently in the
latter stages of a presidential election with candidates being /dev/joe,
Slakko, IdiotBoy, K 2 and myself. Mail me ASAP to vote. Red Barn has left and
been inducted into the hall of elders and Balsamic Dragon got into the hall
of elders through proposal. Eleusis is now a sub game and if you're quick you
might be able to get in on one of the first games. Anything else? Probably,
but I don't recall at the moment.

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:03:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT Traub <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka

There are also scads (well, small scads, but scads :) of new players
(including myself :)

- --JT

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Good bye

>I as well.
>
>(4 points...)

Also :)

(5 points... prolly more but i havn't read that far yet )

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Soundtrack

>(What shape are bannas, anyway?)
>
>
earth shaped

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:52:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Good bye

On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, K2 wrote:

> >I as well.
> >
> >(4 points...)
> 
> 
> Also :)
> 
> 
> (5 points... prolly more but i havn't read that far yet )
> 
> 

Did I miss something?  Did someone leave?  Why do I keep getting mail out
of order, or not at all?

                                 - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:57:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC

Yup.  I'm there.  Some other folks too.  You can't come though.  I just
figured I'd let you all know.

                                    - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #109
*******************************