Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #159
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest         Monday, May 18 1998         Volume 03 : Number 159

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 02:03:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > One important question is when, exactly, did Alfvaen achieve a Winning
> > Condition.  Proposal 2938 was accepted about two weeks ago.  If the rest
> > of Alfvaen's reasoning is correct, then his score shot up to infinity
> > immediately, putting him over the Magic Number.  To me, this would seem to
> > be when Alfvaen achieved a Winning Condition.  Since it was more than a
> > week ago, and there is no indication that Alfvaen has achieved a winning
> > condition in the past 7 days through some other means, this CFJ should be
> > judged FALSE.
> 
> Rule 603 states:
> 
> "If a voting player has a number of points equal to or greater than the Magic
> Number, and that player is the first one to have done so in the current
> Cycle, then that player has achieved a Winning Condition."
> 
> If the scam was successful then does Alfvaen have a number of points greater
> than or equal to the magic number? Yes he does. Was he the first player to
> achieve this in this cycle? Again, yes. Therefore Alfvaen has achieved a
> winning condition. The rule does not say that the winning condition is
> achieved only when the player goes above the magic number.

I'm not quite clear what you are arguing here.  Are you saying that
Alfvaen is constantly achieving a winning condition, over and over again,
since his score went infinite (something I still claim didn't happen)?  Or
are you saying that once his score went infinite, Alfvaen, well, how shall
I put it... that the title, or state of being, or what have you, of having
"achieved a winning condition" was confered upon Alfvaen?  Or am I
completely misunderstanding you?  As I see it, neither of the two
possibilities I just put forward have much to support them.

Rule 603 is describing how one can achieve a winning condition by
points.  So when it uses the phrase "then that player has achieved a
winning condition" the most logical interpretation is that the winning
condition is achieved at the time the listed specifications were met.
This as oppossed to the status of having achieved a winning condition
being confered upon Alfvaen.  Why else use the word "then"?  And I think
that context also rules out the possibility of Alfvaen achieving a winning
condition over and over again once his score exceeded the Magic Number.  I
cannot overemphasize the inportance of the word "then" in understanding
Rule 603.

While arguing over Rule 603 can be revealing, the really important rule
here is Rule 600, governing the cycle win cfjs.  This rule also uses the
phrase achieved a winning condition.  "If a player believes emself to have
achieved a Winning Condition, then e should submit a CFj whose statement
alleges that e has achieved a Winning Condition within the last week.  The
rest of the CFJ should describe how the player thinks e has achieved a
Winning Condition. (Such CFJ's, and only such CFJ's, are known as Cycle
Win CFJ's.)"

As I read it, this rule says that if a player believes that at a specific
point in the last week, something happened that gave him a winning
condition, then he can submit a cycle win CFJ.  even more than Rule 603,
Rule 600 is very time specific.  It wants to know exactly when the winning
condition was achieved.  Now it is possible, if unlikely, that "achieved a
winning condition" means something different in Rule 603 than it does in
600, but since 600 is the rule that governs what is a cycle win cfj and
what is not, Rule 600's meaning is the one that is important here.  And I
see no reason to read "achieved a Winning Condition within the past week"
as anything other than, roughly: the time that the player reached, met the
conditions for, etc, a Winning Condition, was in the last 7 days.

> 
> > I also disagree, however, as to what happened when Proposal 2938 passed.
> > Alfvaen claims that the entire text of the proposal following the first
> > double-quote mark was amended to Rule 340.  He states in his reasoning
> > that because there was a double quote mark at the begining of the third
> > paragraph, the following text was being delimited by double-quotes.
> > 
> > Does that one double quote sign mean that all following text was being
> > delimited by double quotes?  I believe not.  Rule 340 does mention double
> > quotes in section III (quoted by Alfvaen) as something which can serve as
> > a delimiter, even a special kind of delimiter.  Nowhere does it say that
> > double quotes appearing in proposals are always delimiters.  As with all
> > other rule sanctioned delimiter symbols, there are two ways to tell
> > if a double quote is serving as a delimiter.  One way is if a section of
> > text is enclosed within a pair of the symbols, as the examples for curly
> > braces and square brackets later in Rule 340 demonstrate.  The other way,
> > as section III describes, is "When text is SPECIFIED as delimited,"
> > (emphasis mine) in which case a missing end symbol would mean all text up
> > until the end of the proposal being delimited.
> > 
> > Is any of the text in Proposal 2938 surrounded by double quotes?  No.  Is
> > any of the text in Proposal 2938 specified as being delimited by double
> > quotes?  No.  Therefor, none of the text in proposal 2938 is delimited by
> > double quotes, the single double quote symbol at the begining of paragraph
> > 3 has no special meaning (but should be included in Rule 340).  Thus
> > Proposal 2938 was a proposal listing three one time effects: An amendment
> > to Rule 340 described in paragraph three, a 2 point score loss for The
> > Gingham Wearer, and a 2 point score gain for Alfvaen.
> 
> I shall now return to the text of my proposal:
> 
> > Proposal 2938 - Sat 25 Apr 1998 08:31 EDT
> > Theatre Monkeys
> > The Gingham Wearer (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> > This is a modest proposal.
> 
> > Modify section VII of rule 34o to read:
> 
> > "VII. Alphabetical ordering shall be determined by a word-by-word
> > comparison, each word compared letter-by-letter. For these purposes: A word
> > is considered to be delimited by whitespace; an initial word 'The' or 'the'
> > is ignored; a single string of digits is considered equivalent to a letter;
> > digital 'letters' precede alphabetical letters; accented letters come
> > immediately after the unaccented form of the letter; and non-alphanumeric
> > characters are ignored (excluding whitespace used for the purpose of
> > delimiting words, which counts only for this purpose); and case is ignored.
> > All else failing, two words that are otherwise equivalent shall be sorted
> > in ASCII collation order.
> > 
> > {{The Gingham Wearer loses two points. Alfvaen gains two points. [He
> > reminded me about the need to do this.]}}
> 
> I fail to see why this wouldn't result in the entirety of the proposal from "
> onwards being dumped into rule 340. Just because there is a line of
> whhitespace between the two bits doesn't mean they are totally different
> effects.
> 
> TGW.
> 

Well, there isn't any reason other than that is the way such things are
commonly interpreted in Acka.  But as we all know game custom is pretty
important around here.  I can't even begin to cite all the proposals which
use a format like yours, but were treated as a list of seperate effects.
To name a few: All prolix proposals, 2955, 2981, 2989, 2251, 1978, 1987,
1118, 1121, and on and on and on.  These are just the results of scanning
sections of the proposal archives at random.

                                     - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 03:25:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

>> I fail to see why this wouldn't result in the entirety of the
>> proposal from " onwards being dumped into rule 340. Just because
>> there is a line of whhitespace between the two bits doesn't mean
>> they are totally different effects.
> 
> Well, there isn't any reason other than that is the way such things
> are commonly interpreted in Acka.  But as we all know game custom is
> pretty important around here.  I can't even begin to cite all the
> proposals which use a format like yours, but were treated as a list
> of seperate effects.  To name a few: All prolix proposals, 2955,
> 2981, 2989, 2251, 1978, 1987, 1118, 1121, and on and on and on.
> These are just the results of scanning sections of the proposal
> archives at random.

However, there is also game custom that quoted strings are treated as
single blocks. There was a proposal of Malenkai's in which he left off
a closing quote near the top of his proposal, and I originally harfed
it as adding everything afterwards (up until the next occurrence of a
quote) to the Rule. That case was different, however, in that Malenkai
had also used higher-level delimiters as well, and after some
discussion in the public fora, I decided that the other delimiters
made up for the missing quote.

My normal approach is to treat delimited text as mechanically as
possible - i.e., without regard for the format of the text itself. I
feel that if you're going to quote a string of text, it's probably
because there would be potential for ambiguity as to where it ends
otherwise.

Vynd raises some good points in his argument, but it's my personal
opinion, as Rule-Harfer, that game custom favors the double-braced
text being added to Rule 340.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 03:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CSR 137

CSR 137 was accepted without objection.

I would announce that CSR 138 was also accepted without object, but I
didn't issue it, so I can't.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 05:25:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Agenda Hats

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> > That is to say, I would be happy to beat the owner of Hat 3 in a Duel,
> > hail the owner of Hat 8 as Emperor, and so on.  Let me know if you'd like 
> > my help...
> > 
>  Well, call a PHE on me then!
> 
>  (Guess which AH I've got :-)

I am calling a Public Health Emergency on H*bert for this message, which
was obviously supposed to be sent to me privately.  I am the Undergraduate
Med Student; reply to this message (privately, please) to cure this
unfortunate victim of the recent spate of snowgod's Disease.

Oh, and let me mention while I'm on the subject of hearings that had I not
retracted the first Witchhunt on JT (as I shouldn't have -- it was brought
to my attention that H*bert granted Sanctuary of Sal(i)vation invalidly) e
(JT) would have been burnt by a margin of about 18-1, with only K 2 voting
against.  The second was not nearly so vehement, Acka's fury having
already been spent, and the will of the masses thwarted by the rebel
bannists H*bert and Slakko.  Anyway.

- -Hubert

When I want your opinion, I'll read your entrails. 

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 05:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Org Action

On Sun, 17 May 1998, JT wrote:

> I suggest that The Razor Boomerangs purchase an Excavation Permit.
> I approve of this suggestion.

As do I.  Thus, it happens.  I do think we'll need more money if we're
going to get that Secret Lab, thus winning the title of Org with the Most
Unused Organizatinal Powers.

- -Hubert

When I want your opinion, I'll read your entrails. 

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 07:26:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

Would the Herald or non-Herald or someone like to translate this into impresise
(but readable) english for me?

K"It just looks like gibberish to me"2

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I suggest the senate submit the following design for an Ackanomic coat of
> arms to the Herald.  [As far as I can see, this is done as an organizational
> action, i.e., publicly.]
>
> Per pale sable and barry wavy tenne and purpure, a scale of justice
> between a frog and a life-glider, all or.
>
> I approve of this suggestion.
>
> /dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 07:26:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> On Sun, 17 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:
>
> > > And just in case, if the SCAM-delimited text above can somehow be
> > considered
> > > a published Indulgence, I object to it.
> >
> > Just to be on the safe side I object too.
> >
>  In the event that this *doesn't* work I suggest that SPAM creates a rule
> numbered with the lowest legal positive integer greater than -1 and the
> following SPAM delimited text:
>

Under what conditions was this trinket created?

K 2

>  I then create a trinket valued at 1A$ with a description and name that is
> identical to the text above enclosed in the last two ".
>
>  H*bert.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 08:54:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Once again

Offer it to the org, Hubert can then instruct the church to accept it.

K 2

Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:

> > This has nothing to do with your message above, but I would suggest that
> > since H*bert has called a Hunt on you, you should give the Spellbook to
> > the Church while the Witchhunt is going on.  Just in case. :-)
>
> I give the Spellbook, which I believe is in my hands right now, to the
> Order of the Razor Boomerangs. I'd rather read it latter, after I've been
> burnt as the evil witch I seem to be...
>
> Just to prevent me from screwing things up as I have done quite often in
> the last few days, could you tell me if this is the correct way to do it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ayla
> Priestess of the Order of the Razor Boomerangs
> Priestess of the Church of the Evil Ballot Stuffer
>
> Law of Cat Thermodynamics: Heat flows from a warmer to a cooler body,
> except in the case of a cat, when all heat flows to the cat.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:56:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 590 (TRUE)

>The final sentence of Rule 1135 states: "If it should be the case that
>every member of the Rebellion has exercised eir privilege once, this
>Rule shall repeal itself." There is now no such organization as the
>Rebellion, thus "every member of the Rebellion" is the empty set. So:
>is it true that every member of the empty set has exercised eir
>privilege exactly once?
>
>Judge's Reasoning:
>There are no members of the rebellion. Therefore there are no members of the
>rebellion who have not exercised the privilege. Therefore all members of the
>rebellion have exercised their privilege.
>
>However no members of the rebellion have exercised their privilege because
>there are no members of the rebellion.
>
>Now, I am by no means an expert on set theory but I think that the first
>interpretation sounds at least as reasonable, if not more so, and since
>spirit of the game seems to favour the first interpretation that is how I
>shall judge. Therefore the rule in question has been repealed.

TGW is on firmer footing than he realizes.  Although I would not call myself
an "expert" on set theory, not being a professional, I have studied enough
of it (quite a bit, actually) to be confident that both statements that TGW
advances as alternative interpretations are true.  For any non-empty set
they would be mutually exclusive, but for the empty set they are compatible.
The latter statement (no members have exercised...) is thus not relevant,
the former (every member has...) being sufficient to cause the R 1135 to
have been repealed.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:32:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

Alfvaen wrote:

>Personally, I hope I don't have an infinite score, because I think it
>entirely possible that the game might crash if so...

Perhaps this would be a good time for a state of crisis declaration?
I don't begrudge Alfvaen the win, but I do worry about the side effects.
The CRD could fix R340 and give Alfvaen a score equal to the magic number.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Name change.

>Once and Future IdiotBoy.
>We are all Idiots and I am your King.

I didn't know we 'ad a King.  I thought we were an autonomous collective.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:10:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

On Mon, 18 May 1998, K2 wrote:

>Would the Herald or non-Herald or someone like to translate this into impresise
>(but readable) english for me?

Okay.. I'll translate.
The described shield is divided length-wise down the center with the left
(from viewers perspective) being black and the right (again from viewers
perspective)  being alternating horizontal wavy lines of orange and purple
with an orange line being topmost.  In the center of the shield is a
golden scale.  To the left of the golden scale (from the viewers
perspective) is a golden frog, and to the right (from the viewers
perspective) is a golden life glider. (if you don't know what this is,
well :)

Does that clear it up?

- --JT

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:11:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

On Mon, 18 May 1998, K2 wrote:
>Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>>  In the event that this *doesn't* work I suggest that SPAM creates a rule
>> numbered with the lowest legal positive integer greater than -1 and the
>> following SPAM delimited text:
>>
>>  I then create a trinket valued at 1A$ with a description and name that is
>> identical to the text above enclosed in the last two ".
>
>Under what conditions was this trinket created?

I would also like to know this, so that I can Harf it into the trinket
pages if needed.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Stilt Me

> My last rejected proposal was 2942.
> Since then 2947, 2957, 2959, 2963, 2976, 2991, 3003, 3015, 3020 and 3024
> have all been accepted.  That's 10 in a row, therefore I now have a
> Stilton.

Slakko is correct.  I've been meaning to update my cheese-tracking for a
while...  Nobody else seems to be particularly close, though.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Sarah McLachlan:Into The Fire
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
Think locally, act globally.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change.

> No, no, I'm not going to try it again.

> I'd just like to thank everyone who stopped me from actually changing my
> name.  It'd have been a pain to change it BACK to the most glorious name
> of IdiotBoy.

> Once and Future IdiotBoy.
> We are all Idiots and I am your King.

All hail Emperor IdiotBoy!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--'Til Tuesday:No One Is Watching You Now
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
"Captain, why not just give the Borg 'Windows'?"

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:24:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

> > > It is also an incredibly cool CFJ. I almost can't believe that you
> > > didn't plan this - it's too perfect.

> > What, us, plan anything?  <innocent look>  I cannot tell a lie--TGW
> > emailed me a few weeks back to ask if I had any good ideas for amendments
> > to Rule 340, and already had the idea about "forgetting" the final
> > delimiter and putting the text giving me points already into the Rule.

>  I believe you will get the Goose.

I don't believe we ever hooked up the Goose to the CWCFJ process, just
the PWCFJ.  Of course, anyone with a Foul Fowl card can try to tear it
away from The Gingham Wearer, whom it's annoyed at because of that
Ackanomicon thing...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--The Verve:Bitter Sweet Symphony
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
If you can survive death, you can probably survive anything.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:29:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change.

> >Once and Future IdiotBoy.
> >We are all Idiots and I am your King.

> I didn't know we 'ad a King.  I thought we were an autonomous collective.

You're foolin' yourself.  We're livin' in a dictatorship!

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Boomtown Rats:Elephant's Graveyard
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
You never told me about the hamster in your hair.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:34:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

> > I suggest the senate submit the following design for an Ackanomic coat of
> > arms to the Herald.  [As far as I can see, this is done as an organizational
> > action, i.e., publicly.]
> >
> > Per pale sable and barry wavy tenne and purpure, a scale of justice
> > between a frog and a life-glider, all or.

> Would the Herald or non-Herald or someone like to translate this into
> impresise (but readable) english for me?

> K"It just looks like gibberish to me"2

Certainly.  Here we go:

The left side of the shield is black.  The right side is alternating
wavy stripes of orange and purple.  The other stuff is on top of it,
all in gold.

Actually, there is some ambiguity in the description.  Firstly, I can't
remember what the default arrangement of three objects where one is
considered to be "between" the other two is--whether they're in a
vertical line, diagonal, horizontal, or what.  Also, there are two forms
for a life-glider(well, four, really):

                 *
**     **  ***  **
* *   **   *    * *
*       *   *

So which is it?  What is the heraldic definition of a life-glider?  :-)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Boomtown Rats:Elephant's Graveyard
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
We had some good machines, but they don't work no more

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:35:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka; Coat of arms

Folks, please stop sending mail on the INVALID hearing I called the other
day :)
I couldn't legally start the hearing until after the Senate accepted the
proposed coat (the acceptance is still underway).  If you send votes now
you'll just have to resend them once the hearing really begins.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:45:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

I wrote:

>Perhaps this would be a good time for a state of crisis declaration?
>I don't begrudge Alfvaen the win, but I do worry about the side effects.
>The CRD could fix R340 and give Alfvaen a score equal to the magic number.

That may have been a bit hasty, it appears.  Besides, the problem can be
fixed by proposal if we can perpetuate the relevant CFJ in the Justice
system long enough.  [Not at all unlikely, as things seem to go. :) ]

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

On Mon, 18 May 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> Alfvaen wrote:
> 
> >Personally, I hope I don't have an infinite score, because I think it
> >entirely possible that the game might crash if so...
> 
> Perhaps this would be a good time for a state of crisis declaration?
> I don't begrudge Alfvaen the win, but I do worry about the side effects.
> The CRD could fix R340 and give Alfvaen a score equal to the magic number.

I wouldn't want to do that when it is still undecided whether or not
Alfvaen's win succeeded.  
- -- 
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 - President, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:47:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
>Actually, there is some ambiguity in the description.  Firstly, I can't
>remember what the default arrangement of three objects where one is
>considered to be "between" the other two is--whether they're in a
>vertical line, diagonal, horizontal, or what.  Also, there are two forms
>for a life-glider(well, four, really):

I believe the default arrangement is fesswise, not palewise, and certainly
not bendwise :) however, that will have to wait for me to get home to look
it up and say for certain.

>**     **  ***  **
>* *   **   *    * *
>*       *   *
>So which is it?  What is the heraldic definition of a life-glider?  :-)

Since the life-glider (as far as I can tell) has never been used in
heraldry before, we will set precedent.  The Heraldic Definition of a 
life glider is the geometric shaped represent by the first graphic above
to wit:
  **
  * *
  *

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:47:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Name change.

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> All hail Emperor IdiotBoy!
All hail Emperor Alfvaen!

- -- 
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 - President, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:49:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 590 (TRUE)

On Mon, 18 May 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> >Now, I am by no means an expert on set theory but I think that the first
> >interpretation sounds at least as reasonable, if not more so, and since
> >spirit of the game seems to favour the first interpretation that is how I
> >shall judge. Therefore the rule in question has been repealed.
> 
> TGW is on firmer footing than he realizes.  Although I would not call myself
> an "expert" on set theory, not being a professional, I have studied enough
> of it (quite a bit, actually) to be confident that both statements that TGW
> advances as alternative interpretations are true.  For any non-empty set
> they would be mutually exclusive, but for the empty set they are compatible.
> The latter statement (no members have exercised...) is thus not relevant,
> the former (every member has...) being sufficient to cause the R 1135 to
> have been repealed.

That's what I would say too.  The empty set is a great way to come up with
these kinds of otherwise incongruous situations.

Yours,
Slakko
B. Sc. (Ma. & Comp. Sc.) (Adel.)
and who therefore has fooled himself into thinking he knows what he is
talking about :-)
- -- 
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 - President, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

On Mon, 18 May 1998, JT wrote:

> I believe the default arrangement is fesswise, not palewise, and certainly
> not bendwise :) however, that will have to wait for me to get home to look
> it up and say for certain.
> 
> >**     **  ***  **
> >* *   **   *    * *
> >*       *   *
> >So which is it?  What is the heraldic definition of a life-glider?  :-)
> 
> Since the life-glider (as far as I can tell) has never been used in
> heraldry before, we will set precedent.  The Heraldic Definition of a 
> life glider is the geometric shaped represent by the first graphic above
> to wit:
>   **
>   * *
>   *

That seems fair enough - given its orientation and state, I'd say we could
describe the first one as a "life-glider facing dexter", and it therefore
acts as the default.  It's L-R mirror would be "life-glider facing
sinister", it's U-D mirror "life-glider inverted".
The other three states above could be, in order
life-glider couchant (ready to spring)
life-glider rampant (definitely rampant with the arrow-like orientation)
life-glider dormant (only 4 cells - it is sleeping between generations)

What do people think?
- -- 
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 - President, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

JT wrote:

>On Mon, 18 May 1998, K2 wrote:
>>Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>>>  In the event that this *doesn't* work I suggest that SPAM creates a rule
>>> numbered with the lowest legal positive integer greater than -1 and the
>>> following SPAM delimited text:
>>>
>>>  I then create a trinket valued at 1A$ with a description and name that is
>>> identical to the text above enclosed in the last two ".
>>
>>Under what conditions was this trinket created?
>
>I would also like to know this, so that I can Harf it into the trinket
>pages if needed.

It would appear that it was not created under any circumstances, as the
maybe could-be would-be creator obviously did not include sufficient
information to unambiguously specify.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:10:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

>> Perhaps this would be a good time for a state of crisis declaration?
>> I don't begrudge Alfvaen the win, but I do worry about the side effects.
>> The CRD could fix R340 and give Alfvaen a score equal to the magic number.
> 
> I wouldn't want to do that when it is still undecided whether or not
> Alfvaen's win succeeded.  

If a CRD was deemed necessary, we would just declare a State of Crisis
in the thread where the CFJ was judged True.

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>> Since the life-glider (as far as I can tell) has never been used in
>> heraldry before, we will set precedent.  The Heraldic Definition of a 
>> life glider is the geometric shaped represent by the first graphic above
>> to wit:
>>   **
>>   * *
>>   *
>
>That seems fair enough - given its orientation and state, I'd say we could
>describe the first one as a "life-glider facing dexter", and it therefore
>acts as the default.  It's L-R mirror would be "life-glider facing
>sinister", it's U-D mirror "life-glider inverted".
>The other three states above could be, in order
>life-glider couchant (ready to spring)
>life-glider rampant (definitely rampant with the arrow-like orientation)
>life-glider dormant (only 4 cells - it is sleeping between generations)
>
>What do people think?

I hadn't actually thought about it, but I certainly find an amount of
beauty in Slakko's suggestions.  Normally couchant, rampant and dormant
are reserved for living creatures, and I like the entension of them to
'computer life' so to speak :)

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackanomic coat of arms

>>>**     **  ***  **
>>>* *   **   *    * *
>>>*       *   *

This doesn't take include many of the various rotations and
reflections, though.

>> Since the life-glider (as far as I can tell) has never been used in
>> heraldry before, we will set precedent.  The Heraldic Definition of a 
>> life glider is the geometric shaped represent by the first graphic above
>> to wit:
>>   **
>>   * *
>>   *

I personally think it should be:

        *
         *
       ***

> The other three states above could be, in order
> life-glider couchant (ready to spring)
> life-glider rampant (definitely rampant with the arrow-like orientation)
> life-glider dormant (only 4 cells - it is sleeping between generations)

rotfl

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:20:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Scam Attempt

On Mon, 18 May 1998, John Bollinger wrote:
>JT wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 May 1998, K2 wrote:
>>>Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>>>>  In the event that this *doesn't* work I suggest that SPAM creates a rule
>>>> numbered with the lowest legal positive integer greater than -1 and the
>>>> following SPAM delimited text:
>>>>
>>>>  I then create a trinket valued at 1A$ with a description and name that is
>>>> identical to the text above enclosed in the last two ".
>>>
>>>Under what conditions was this trinket created?
>>
>>I would also like to know this, so that I can Harf it into the trinket
>>pages if needed.
>
>It would appear that it was not created under any circumstances, as the
>maybe could-be would-be creator obviously did not include sufficient
>information to unambiguously specify.

That's fine by me :) Less work :)

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to sieze the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:24:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJs

May I ask a favor of the Clerk of the Court? Would you be so kind as
to publish a complete list of CFJs that are currently under appeal, to
which Cortex each has been assigned, and, in the case of the Tweedle
Cortex, which justice has been selected to stand in for Guy Fawkes'
for each CFJ?

breadbox

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:27:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

> >Personally, I hope I don't have an infinite score, because I think it
> >entirely possible that the game might crash if so...

> Perhaps this would be a good time for a state of crisis declaration?
> I don't begrudge Alfvaen the win, but I do worry about the side effects.
> The CRD could fix R340 and give Alfvaen a score equal to the magic number.

Anyone else think this might be necessary?  If nobody appeals my CWCFJ, then
there's no problem, unless it is considered that I do have an infinite number
of points but simply failed to submit a CWCFJ in time(since my "Winning
Condition" occurred more than a week before the submission of my CFJ).
In which case, it might be nice to have a fix before the next Fortnightly
Dividends are calculated.

Personally, I think that achieving a Winning Condition should not be bounded
by an arbitrary amount of time like a week, but rather by the length of a
Cycle.  (With a week as a minimum time in case of rapid Cycle turnover,
perhaps.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Mannheim Steamroller:Fresh Aire VI
Current Book--Michael Coney:Cat Karina
Follow the trail and don't wander headwise.  --chris reuter

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:47:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 593 (J.M. Bear)

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> Personally, I think that achieving a Winning Condition should not be bounded
> by an arbitrary amount of time like a week, but rather by the length of a
> Cycle.  (With a week as a minimum time in case of rapid Cycle turnover,
> perhaps.)

Yeah, that's probably the right way to do it - I came up with the week as
a quick fix - the rule could easily be changed to "has achieved a Winning
Condition during the current Cycle."

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 - President, Web-Harfer, RuneMaker, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:04:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3082

> > Warning Contains: fortnights.
> 
> I object to this abuse of the Prolix rule even moreso than I object to
> Prolix's existence in the first place.  We already have "fortnight" in
> the rules several times, in the Fortnightly Dividends rule, R508, but
> the plural happens not to appear in the rules yet so this proposal is
> allowed, but tasteless.

I too dislike prolix. This is one of the problems with it as I see it; there
are so many words in the English language that making proposals prolix isn't
difficult. Anyhow, since I was clearly in a silly mood when I made this
proposal I am now retracting it (P3082 if there is any doubt). I'll resubmit
it without prolix and with a name.

TGW.

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

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:04:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CSR 137

> CSR 137 was accepted without objection.
> 
> I would announce that CSR 138 was also accepted without object, but I
> didn't issue it, so I can't.

In that case, I will. In fact I do so here.

TGW.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #159
*******************************