Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #165
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest        Thursday, May 21 1998        Volume 03 : Number 165

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:06:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The Twits

Alfvaen wrote:

> Well, _I_ can't believe the only time I spelled
> "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" right in Rule 999 was in
> the title.  I feel so stupid.

ThinMan wrote:

> >Rule 340 (God I love that rule :-) states:
> >
> >"The following conventions apply to all Ackanomic text, except where a
> >specific type of text (e.g. rules), is specified."
> 
> That didn't used to be in the rules!  You keep changing the rules on me!
> It's not fair!  Now I have lost face because of it, and I want it back!

I am now announcing my attempt to found a new organization called "The Twits"
which I invite ThinMan, Alfvaen, IdiotBoy (or anyone else, I just thought
these three could be interested) to join.

TGW, Twit Extraordinaire.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Distributing some forehead ...

> >From the second onwards of the above
> I offer as gift, to the entities:
> ThinMan, saaremaa, Alfvaen with love
> to Hubert and rufus if they please
> 
> The Gingham Wearer Vynd ‘n breadbox
> and IdiotBoy receives one of course
> A sentence that ends with a word like pox
> A sentence that ends with a word like source

I accept this forehead from K 2 with thanks.

TGW.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 570 (FALSE (upheld))

Twee and Twee have judged this FALSE. The appealer has been penalised 25
points.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 570- April 17, 1998
Subject: Scientists
Initiator: Slakko (sent April 17, 1998, 03:48)
Judge: Koxvolio (selected April 17, 1998, 10:17)
Judgement: FALSE
Appealed by: Wild Card
Justices: /dev/joe and saaremaa
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
/dev/joe was elected Inventor yesterday.

Slakko's Reasoning:
Rule 593 prohibits a player from holding more than one Office in the
Ackanomic Research Guild.  However, it does not say anything about a
player who holds one post being ineligible to stand for election to
another.  It would require that one of the two offices is automatically
vacated (most likely at random) if the player in question is elected, but
does not bar them standing in the first place.

/dev/joe nominated for Inventor - The Gingham Wearer made a note of this
in the message announcing the election.  /dev/joe received more votes than
any other player running for Inventor.  Therefore /dev/joe was elected
Inventor.

Judge's Reasoning:
The conflict here is that in rule 593 it says that no person can hold more
than one of the Scientist offices. However it does not say that one who
holds such a post is ineligible to stand for another. 

Rule 402 says that if a rule does not state who is eligible to be
nominated, all players are eligble.

However, I judge that since /dev/joe holds the office of wizard (still,
according to the Players and Entities page) he cannot hold the office of
Inventor. I would describe his current position as the 'Inventor-Elect'.

He could not have been elected to the post of Inventor because he cannot
be the Inventor.

Since he is unable to hold the office of Inventor, we do not currently
have an Inventor. We need an Inventor. I would call on TGW to request
nominations for a new election, if /dev/joe does not *very* soon make
himself able take up his post. (i.e. by getting rid of the post of Wizard
by standing down - it reverts to the treasury, I think - or selling it as
a Capital Post).

Appealer's Comments:
 The Judge on this has ruled FALSE, yet by his own argument /dev/joe has
been elected Inventor; even if he does not actually hold the post.  The
orignal call _did not_ specify that /dev/joe _was_ Inventor.  

Supreme Court's Comments:
It was noted that R402 section (i) f) says:
> f) If the rules fail to state who is eligible to volunteer, then 
> all Players are eligible. 

However, this doesn't apply because the rules *do* state who is eligible
to volunteer, in R402 section (ii) a):
> "A Nomination is conducted. Any Player who is eligible to hold the 
> Office is eligible to volunteer."

/dev/joe was Wizard at the time of the nomination for Inventor,
therefore was not eligible to hold the office of Inventor, and so
therefore was not a valid nominee in that election, and the highest
vote-getter out of the valid nominees, The Gingham Wearer, won
the election and is now the Inventor.

The side-effects of this are that two scrolls of crumble /dev/joe built
as Inventor after giving away the Wizard office (including one we could
not decide who won in auction) were not actually built, and a Blue
Thing that TGW built as Inventor and began to auction at A$7 and which
I believe was never bid on was won by TGW for A$7.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 164 (TRUE)

Alfvaen has Judged this to be TRUE, and rightly so; these miscreants must be
brought to justice!

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Criminal Judgment 164 (May 09)
Subject: Malpractice
Initiator: The Gingham Wearer (sent May 09, 1998, 14:41)
Judge: Illusion (selected May 09, 1998, 14:43) (deadbeat)
Second Judge: Alfvaen
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:
The Gingham Wearer committed the Crime of Malpractice on 04th May 1998.

Initiator's Reasoning:
I went deadbeat on a CFCJ which then caused me to lose the purple robe of
justice. I then selected myself for two subsequent CFJs believing that I had
thrice the probability of being selected as anyone else and weighted my
random selection thusly. Clearly this was not performing the duties of my
office correctly. I plead guilty as charged.

Suggested penalty:
A gaol sentence of 75 days.
A public apology of 40000 lines.
A fine of A$7000
A deduction of 3000000 points.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:

Rule 701, "Crime", states that "The act of performing a Duty incorrectly is
the Crime of Malpractice."

Rule 212, "Selecting A Judge", states: "When a CFJ is made, the Clerk of
the Court randomly selects a player(other than the initiator of the CFJ),
to serve as Judge from among the active voting players eligible to judge
CFJs."  Rule 212 doesn't specify how the determination is to be made.
Rule 230, "Level Playing Field", says that each of the alternatives is
to be assigned equal probability, but defers to Rule 933, "Purple Robe
of Justice", which also takes explicit precedence over Rule 212 and
trebles the chance of being selected for a CFJ for the owner of the
Robe.

The Gingham Wearer(who is Clerk of the Court)took possession of the
Purple Robe of Justice on April 5, 1998, 19:03 EDT.  E deadbeated on
CFCJ 162 on April 30, 1998, 17:55 EDT.  Since this involved eir being
penalized "some number of points"(10) for "failing to respond to a CFJ",
by Rule 933 the PRJ went Somewhere Else at this time.

The Gingham Wearer then selected emself for CFJ 582 and CFJ 584 on May 4,
1998, implying when posting the selection for CFJ 584 that this was
due to the PRJ, which eir reasoning above substantiates.  Clearly this
violates Rule 933(and Rule 230, since Rule 933 did not override it in
this case).

The final piece is Rule 413, "Clerk of the Court", which states that
"to select Judges for CFJs" is one of the Office's Duties.  Thus, to
make a long story short("Too late!"), The Gingham Wearer performed one
of the Duties of the Office of Clerk of the Court incorrectly, which is
the Crime of Malpractice by Rule 701, and e did so on May 4, 1998.

The only remaining question is that of penalty.  The Gingham Wearer's
own suggested penalties are, in the tradition of CFCJ's submitted against
oneself, extraordinarily harsh.  The fact that e has spent the Standard
Harfer Fee just to submit this CFCJ, and will lose eir Brie(or lengthen
the time until e receives one again)upon this Judgement, may seem to be
punishment enough.  However, e is trying very hard, and is even figuring
out the deadbeat-Praetor connection.  It was an honest mistake, and so
the penalty shall not be very much.

Actual Penalty:

The transfer of a Pyraic Frobnotzer, the trinkets "Jello Wrestling for
Fun and Profit", "It could have been my honour to be utterly vanquished
in a Duel by Guy Fawkes, but alas, I was cowardly and took contemptible
shelter in Untouchability", and "Small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic
Warden 31"(should such a Trinket exist), and A$197 from The Gingham
Wearer to the initiator of this CFCJ, and

A Public Apology of 7 lines.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:32:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 567 (FALSE (upeld))

Twee and Twee have judged this FALSE with a penalty of 25 points to the
appealer.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 567 - April 15, 1998
Subject: Winning part 2
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent April 15, 1998, 00:09)
Judge: JT (selected April 15, 1998, 09:55)
Judgement: FALSE
Appealed by: Alfvaen
Justices: /dev/joe and saaremaa
Judgement: FALSE

Statement:
Alfvaen's score is higher than the Magic Number.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:
As Praetor, I was allowed to describe how Beldin's Pants, the Rule, was
to be amended.  I stated that as Praetor I was allowed to amend it.  I
then amended it to create the entity Antxina, whose powers were enumerated
therein.  Finally, by means of one of those powers I raised my score to the
Magic Number, and it has since risen due to normal score changes from
Proposal passages, anti-voting, etc.

Judge's Reasoning:
  As Slakko pointed out when he made his win attempt earlier today, Alfvaen
forgot to include the Pyraic Frobnotzor in the list of ways to amend the
rule and thus was unable to amend it as he described.

Appealer's Comments:
I am appealing this verdict.  The Judge's reasoning above may fall afoul
of Section XI. of Rule 594, which states "All Blueprints defer precedence
to rules which are not Blueprints."  So Rule 940 takes precedence over
the Pyraic Frobnotzer's Blueprint.

Supreme Court's Comment's:
The problem with this whole scheme is that Beldin's Pants didn't say
"Beldin's Pants may be amended as specified by the Praetor."  They said
"Beldin's Pants may be amended only as specified by the Praetor."  The
one word "only" turns this from an empowering clause into a restrictive
one.  Thus, all of the previous reasoning on this CFJ is irrelevant.

One tricky thing about the word "only" in the rules is that it *looks*
enabling many times.  However, such cases are either broken exceptions
that need to be fixed, or cases where another rule or game custom does
the enabling.  In many cases, "only" appears as part of "X may happen
only as described/specified by the rules."  In this case, the rule that
describes or specifies the thing that is happening is itself the
enabling rule for that effect.  Also note the frequent use of "if and
only if", which makes the following text both enabling and restrictive.

A good example of the restrictive nature of "only" appears in the last
paragraph of Rule 217, about appealing judgements.

The first sentence reads: "If a single judgement is appealed more than
once, only the first one shall cause the process of determining a new
judgement to begin, ..."  At first glance, this appears to be enabling,
causing the process of determining the new judgement to begin, but upon
closer examination, the earlier parts of this rule describe in much
detail the process for determining a new verdict, and some other rules
(e.g., R217.1) also describe parts of the procedure.

The last sentence of R217 also uses the word "only", and here it is more
clearly restrictive in nature.  "Only the most recent judgement on any
CFJ may be appealed."  Clearly this does not enable the most recent
judgement to be appealed, and indeed, the first sentence in R217 is the
enabling one: "After any Judgement is returned, a player may appeal the
case ..."  Furthermore, the next-to-last sentence of R217 places a
restriction on appeals ("A verdict returned by the supreme court as a
whole may not be appealed.") which clearly is not overridden by the
last sentence; both these sentences are restrictions only.

I searched the rules up to about the 500's for "only", and every instance
I found either has an obvious enabling clause (e.g., for "X may happen only
as specified by the rules", the rules which specify are enabling, or for
"X may happen only if Y", a clause in another part of the same rule, or
in another rule dealing with X) is enabling), or the same text is both
restrictive and enabling (e.g., "if and only if" and similar constructions).
Also, it is many times the case that treating such text as enabling (i.e.,
as you would read it without the word "only") results in a meaning contrary
to the customary one.

Rule 940 read, at the time of the incident:
>Beldin's Pants are a rule, initially Somewhere Else. Beldin's Pants may
>only be amended as described by the Praetor. Beldin's Pants are unique. 
>
>Each non-player recipient of any Parka paints 1 Goose every Thursday at
>noon."

The word "only" makes the second sentence of this rule clearly restrictive
and not enabling.  Thus the effect of the sentence is that any rule which
this rule had precedence over and which describes a way to amend Beldin's
Pants cannot do so unless the Praetor described that method of amendment.
At the time, Alfvaen failed to describe the method of amendment by Pyraic
Frobnotzer, so a Frobnotzer could not amend Beldin's Pants.  However, what
actually happened is that Alfvaen attempted to amend the rule by a public
action, and no rule enabled this. Beldin's Pants did not prohibit this,
but Rule 101 did, with "The rules ... may only be changed as described in
the rules."  Thus this amendment failed, and without such, Alfvaen's score
did not exceed the magic number at the time in question.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:37:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 596 (J.M. Bear)

J.M. Bear has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 596- May 21, 1998
Subject: Crackfoo
Initiator: Alfvaen (sent May 20, 1998, 23:48)
Judge: J.M. Bear (selected May 21, 1998, 11:34)
Judgement: 

Statement:
There exists a Player of Ackanomic named Crackfoo.

Alfvaen's Reasoning:
This is if I was unable to remove em despite my recent Rule 257 message.
There is probably also a Player named Enigma if this is the case.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:45:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 597 (IdiotBoy)

IdiotBoy has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 597- May 19, 1998
Subject: Enlightenment
Initiator: JT (sent May 19, 1998, 15:28)
Judge: IdiotBoy (selected May 21, 1998, 14:42)
Judgement: 

Statement:
  JT, /dev/joe, Vynd, and Calvin N Hobbes are all Enlightened.

Initiator's Reasoning:
  (as a small side note, this is within (just barely) the 14 day
retroactivity
limit, but I needed the previous CFJ's for my reasoning)
  On May 5th, /dev/joe, Vynd, JT, and Calvin N Hobbes were burnt as witches
under the then current (now defunct) text of Rule 670.
  This was decided by CFJ 588, which although the statement only specified
/dev/joe and Vynd certainly applied to all Senators at the time, not just
those two.
  Under the decision of the recent CFJ 594,  all witches are heretics and
thus the phrase burned as a witch in the version of rule 670 which was in
effect at the time of the burning was sufficient to invoke the portion of
rule 1307 which caused them to become Enlightened (and to each lose 10 points
for that matter).
  CFJ 594 is relevant since the text of 1307 has not changed in the tie
frame being discussed by this CFJ although rule 670 has changed to remove the
phrase which I believe triggered the Enlightenment.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:59:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: WITCHHUNTS!

H*bert wrote:

> >  I call Witchhunt hearings on: Joe Java, H*bert, Ayla, Rufus, else...if,
> > J M Bear, Koxvolio and JT.  (In the case of the hearing on H*bert this is
> > a color hearing - since I can't call a world one on myself...)
> > 
> >  Valid responses are (reply to me to vote... :-):
> > 
>  Somewhat belatedly I will now announce the results.  
> 
>  This is the same for all of the above mentioned hearings:
> 
> >  "No! E said the earth is flat" 
> 
>  4
> 
> >  "BURN THE WITCH!"
> 
>  8 + a number of EBS's, all cancelled out by Alfvaen's GBS {spit, spit}

Could you possibly reproduce the messages here since I have reason to believe
this may not have happened. Rule 360 states:

"Any response contained in a post that does not unambiguously identify the
Hearing it is in response to, even if only one Hearing is in progress, is
invalid"

Since there was more than one hearing in progress I believe that every player
who responded would have had to individually state how they voted on each
hearing for which you were the harfer, which I somehow doubt they did. So I
don't think any of you got burned.

TGW, Count Tabula.

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:04:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: WITCHHUNTS!

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> H*bert wrote:
> 
> >  This is the same for all of the above mentioned hearings:
> > 
> > >  "No! E said the earth is flat" 
> > 
> >  4
> > 
> > >  "BURN THE WITCH!"
> > 
> >  8 + a number of EBS's, all cancelled out by Alfvaen's GBS {spit, spit}
> 
> Could you possibly reproduce the messages here since I have reason to believe
> this may not have happened. Rule 360 states:
> 
> "Any response contained in a post that does not unambiguously identify the
> Hearing it is in response to, even if only one Hearing is in progress, is
> invalid"
> 
> Since there was more than one hearing in progress I believe that every player
> who responded would have had to individually state how they voted on each
> hearing for which you were the harfer, which I somehow doubt they did. So I
> don't think any of you got burned.

I went to all this trouble.  If no-one else did, then everyone got burned.
Ha ha.
- -- 
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: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Micah Smukler)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3104

>> If a proposal submitted by the Mu-Cow passes, e shall upon its passage
>> submit a CFJ on the statement "The Mu-Cow Hunter has achieved a Winning
>> Condition on <date>."  The CFJ shall include no reasoning.
>>
>> ZEN
>>
>> AtP
>
>Wouldn't it be best if <date> was defined?
>
>TGW.

Yes.

I retract Proposal 3104.

AtP

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:48:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Distributing some forehead and ...

> Seven is violet pink murrey and grief.
> Eight is described: "gum flavoured and tasty"
> Next Nine is a score, that=92s woefully brief
> Ten=92s greatly like a bloody big pasty

With some trepidation I accept K 2's forehead no. 10.

Also, I would like to point out that ABAB stanzas probably don't
qualify as "rhymed couplets". Thus that post would have cost K 2 A$79,
except that it was sent a couple of hours after his day of being Hosed
had ended.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Spelling Bee

On Wed, 20 May 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:

> In Rule 950 "Ackanomic Sound System Rule Suite" replace "Priveleges"
> with "Privileges".

D'oh!  I could have sworn the former was an acceptable alternative, but
the ODs don't seem to agree.  I apply for membership in the Twits.

- -Hubert

Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:54:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: WITCHHUNTS!

On Wed, 20 May 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>  I create a trinket named "Hubert's nonexistant EBS".  This has a
> description of "Looks just like a real EBS, but invisible" and a value of
> A$13.  I give this to Hubert.

Closing my eyes, I pull the large lever on my nonexistent EBS.

- -Hubert

Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 23

> Thirdly, the recent introduction of automation into Nomicbot meant
> that the vote-handling capacities of the system would be
> dramatically reduced if the change to saaremaa's proposed "Fuzzy
> Voting" system were to occur.  breadbox's voicing of opposition on
> this ground was most likely the main reason that the proposal
> failed.

It occurs to me that perhaps I should clarify the nature of my
objections to saaremaa's Fuzzy Voting idea (which I admit probably
would have intrigued me if I wasn't the Tabulator).

I was not objecting because it would have required me to rewrite the
part of the nomicbot that does the tabulating. I *would* have had to
rewrite the part that reads the nomicbot (and I might have objected on
those grounds otherwise). The problem was that at that time I was
still doing the actual tabulation by hand, as I had been doing since I
took this Office last autumn. The Fuzzy Voting system would have been
far more time-consuming and prone to errors, so I would have been
forced to write a fair amount of code in a relatively short time in
order to fulfill my duties satisfactorily.

As it is, the recent increase of both proposals and voting players had
already increased the number of errors I was making. I now have a
jury-rigged system to do most of the tabulation automatically (you may
have noticed that the voting results lately have been issued more
closely spaced together than they were before), so hopefully I should
be able to keep up with the current volume and still have time to
continue working on nomicbot.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:20:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Important actions

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> If the transfer hasn't occurred already, then it's too late because Ayla's
> been burnt...

It did occur: I forced the OotRB to accept the offer soon after Ayla made
it.  I now suggest the Order of the Razor Boomerang give its Spell Book of
Chorg to JT, who was, I believe, next in line.  The offer happens, e now
must accept.

Since all Priests of the Church are now Enlightened, I suggest that the
Order of the Razor Boomerang begin construction of a The Really Big Blue
Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really, because I can't think of anything
else.  This does not happen automatically, but pends the other players'
approval.

- -Hubert

Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:22:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3058 accepted

On Wed, 20 May 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> > REGRESS
> > Upon the creation of this Rule, a Chess Hearing is called with Hubert as
> > the Hearing Harfer. A Chess Hearing is similar to the Hearings described in
> > Rule 360, except that:
> > a) any votes in the Hearing cast by non-player entities other than Party
> > Hall shall be ignored, and
> > b) for each Swinger who casts a vote in the Chess Hearing, Party Hall will
> > cast a vote identical to the vote of that Swinger. [ In effect, this gives
> > Swingers two votes each, and the rest of the hoi polloi but one. ]
> > 
> > The valid responses to a Chess Hearing are "Swingers should be allowed to
> > escape Check via Placements." and "Like they should." The duration of a
> > Chess Hearing is three days.

This Chess Hearing has, somewhat to my surprise, been called.  Reply
privately to vote.  Valid responses are "Swingers should be allowed to
escape check via Placements." and "Like they should."  (which should have
been "Like <censored> they should." but I forgot about nomicbot's problems
with HTML-like sequences.)  Swingers get two votes each, and Evil *rude
noise* Ballot Stuffers none.

- -Hubert

Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:28:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Ackan Retraction

I would like to ask the Infrequent Ackan to retract its statement that JT
"did not provide an alternative" in eir attempt at repealing anti-voting.
IIRC, e attempted to introduce "flow-voting," whereby players were given
points for voting the way the Proposal turned out rather than against
that.  I would like to see any sub-editors responsible for this statement,
sans bulletproof vests or metal neck braces or anything, in my somewhat
dusty IN 29 court immediately.

- -Hubert

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Important actions

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>It did occur: I forced the OotRB to accept the offer soon after Ayla made
>it.  I now suggest the Order of the Razor Boomerang give its Spell Book of
>Chorg to JT, who was, I believe, next in line.  The offer happens, e now
>must accept.

I accept the spell book.  I then read the next page of it (page 3 I
blieve). The page disappears in a puff of smoke, vert.
I then offer the spell book to Ayla.

>Since all Priests of the Church are now Enlightened, I suggest that the
>Order of the Razor Boomerang begin construction of a The Really Big Blue
>Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much, Really, because I can't think of anything
>else.  This does not happen automatically, but pends the other players'
>approval.

I will approve this suggestion, but think there's GOT to be something
better we could be creating.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:00:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ackan Retraction

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:

> 
> I would like to ask the Infrequent Ackan to retract its statement that JT
> "did not provide an alternative" in eir attempt at repealing anti-voting.
> IIRC, e attempted to introduce "flow-voting," whereby players were given
> points for voting the way the Proposal turned out rather than against
> that.  I would like to see any sub-editors responsible for this statement,
> sans bulletproof vests or metal neck braces or anything, in my somewhat
> dusty IN 29 court immediately.

I wholeheartedly retract the statement in question, and apologise to JT
for any inconvenience caused.

Yours,
Slakko
who doesn't like the bandwagon effect in voting though.
- -- 
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: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: WITCHHUNTS!

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> I went to all this trouble.  If no-one else did, then everyone got burned.
> Ha ha.

 I think you may have been.  But my archive's in TH - so a confirmation
may have to wait...

- -- 
Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, Trinity Lane, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.
http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html | [email-masked]
"The last human being on the Earth sat alone in a room.  There was a knock
on the door..."                                      -Shortest SF story...

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:33:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 23

breadbox:

> It occurs to me that perhaps I should clarify the nature of my
> objections to saaremaa's Fuzzy Voting idea (which I admit probably
> would have intrigued me if I wasn't the Tabulator).
> 
> I was not objecting because it would have required me to rewrite the
> part of the nomicbot that does the tabulating. I *would* have had to
> rewrite the part that reads the nomicbot (and I might have objected on
> those grounds otherwise). The problem was that at that time I was
> still doing the actual tabulation by hand,

Well I thought it was all automated, and I would not have proposed
the idea had I known it was manual (in fact, I was specifically waiting
for an automated bot before proposing it), so for that I apologize
to breadbox.  As for reprogramming an already functioning bot to handle
fuzzy voting (which I thought was the case), I do not believe that 
would have been to hard for a programmer of breadbox's caliber :-)

As for Slakko's other objections, they are total noise, IMO.  Either 
you feel the idea is more interesting or fun than the current system,
or you do not, and one could hope the voting reflected the sentiment
at that level.  I keep seeing this argument that 75% of points from
proposals  are gained by anti-voting, and thus removing anti-voting 
would ruin the Acka economy!  I do not want to have a long argument 
about this, but to be blunt, Acka, A$, and points are not an "economy" 
at all.  If receiving 75% more scorekeeping tokens is more fun than
fuzzy voting, fine, but enough of the noise of "ruining the economy"
by repealing anti-voting! :-)  What economy?  The economy of Acka is
fun and return on our RL investment in time, not A$ created ex-nihilo
at our whim.  If you can quantify the fun of anti-voting in Acka as
75% of the fun, and fuzzy voting thus making Acka only 25% of the fun
of the current game, fine, but the arguments do *not* do this, and 
the "economic" arguments thus far presented are, well, nevermind :-)

saaremaa

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:39:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Distributing [...]

K2:

> >From the second onwards of the above
> I offer as gift, to the entities:
> ThinMan, saaremaa, Alfvaen with love
> to Hubert and rufus if they please

I accept, although don't ask *what* I just accepted :-)

saaremaa

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:02:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Distributing [...]

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Randy Hall wrote:

> K2:
> 
> > >From the second onwards of the above
> > I offer as gift, to the entities:
> > ThinMan, saaremaa, Alfvaen with love
> > to Hubert and rufus if they please

Whoa, didn't know I got one too.  OK, I accept.

- -Hubert

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:08:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The Infrequent Ackan Volume 1 Issue 23

>As for Slakko's other objections, they are total noise, IMO.  Either
>you feel the idea is more interesting or fun than the current system,
>or you do not, and one could hope the voting reflected the sentiment
>at that level.  I keep seeing this argument that 75% of points from
>proposals  are gained by anti-voting, and thus removing anti-voting
>would ruin the Acka economy!  I do not want to have a long argument
	I agree.  I like the idea originally, and would support it again
once nomicbot was able to handle it.  As for "losing 75% of our economy",
the simple solution seems to be tripling dividends.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Action

Today is Thursday the 21st of May, the third Thursday of the month, and I
am suggesting that the Razor Boomerangs chew the Gumball.

- -Hubert

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:43:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>Today is Thursday the 21st of May, the third Thursday of the month, and I
>am suggesting that the Razor Boomerangs chew the Gumball.

I approve of this action (how can I not :>)

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:11:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

On Thu, 21 May 1998, JT wrote:

> On Thu, 21 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
> >Today is Thursday the 21st of May, the third Thursday of the month, and I
> >am suggesting that the Razor Boomerangs chew the Gumball.
> 
> I approve of this action (how can I not :>)

I suggest that the Razor Boomerangs publically describe the flavor of the
Gumball thusly:

It's hot, very sharp, somewhat tangy,
Bursts into our mouth with a bangy.
The flavor is burning,
And, since it keeps returning,
Eminently Boomerangy.

I suggest that the Razor Boomerangs publically apologize for the above
poem, especially the second line.

- -Hubert

Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense. 

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:16:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Action

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:
>I suggest that the Razor Boomerangs publically describe the flavor of the
>Gumball thusly:
>
>It's hot, very sharp, somewhat tangy,
>Bursts into our mouth with a bangy.
>The flavor is burning,
>And, since it keeps returning,
>Eminently Boomerangy.

I approve.

>I suggest that the Razor Boomerangs publically apologize for the above
>poem, especially the second line.

I approve.

Since everyone else is proxied, these occur.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 22:14:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: action

I sell my share of stock.. I was under a hallucination at the time I
purchased it.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 22:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 570 (FALSE (upheld))

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

>Twee and Twee have judged this FALSE. The appealer has been penalised 25
>points.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 570- April 17, 1998
>Subject: Scientists
>Initiator: Slakko (sent April 17, 1998, 03:48)
>Judge: Koxvolio (selected April 17, 1998, 10:17)
>Judgement: FALSE
>Appealed by: Wild Card
>Justices: /dev/joe and saaremaa
>Judgement: FALSE
>
>Statement:
>/dev/joe was elected Inventor yesterday.

[much of the judgement clipped]

>The side-effects of this are that two scrolls of crumble /dev/joe built
>as Inventor after giving away the Wizard office (including one we could
>not decide who won in auction) were not actually built, and a Blue
>Thing that TGW built as Inventor and began to auction at A$7 and which
>I believe was never bid on was won by TGW for A$7.

Would this fall under the 14 day retroactivity clause?  I'm unclear as to
whether it would or not.  If it doesn't, I assume that we (myself and
whomever the other person is) get back the money we payed for the Scrolls
of Crumble in the Auction, /dev/joe loses however much he made as the
commision in each case and we lose the scrolls?

In the case of the auction I won, this was A$55 and a A$5 commision for
/dev/joe.

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ricardo Silva <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: My desertion

Hi, Acka Citizens!

I would like to notify you about my retirement. Acka is a wonderful-amazing-special-beautiful-great-game, but I can’t go on. There are two reasons to my desertion, I hope you understand me.

First: my e-mail had some problems and it wasn’t accessible during 3 or 4 days. Do you know how many Acka messages are sent during this period of time? I am not courageous enough to try to organize it someday.
.
Second: While I was thinking what I could do about that problem I told you, something very hard hit my head! I became unconscious, and when I woke up, there was a flea pulling a face and talking about things that I had never listened before! Sorry, I was dizzy and so I couldn’t understand her.
.
Anyway, I would like to say good bye to you. Perhaps, when I have a pretty good e-mail, I may be back. Bye.
.
UglyBigNose

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #165
*******************************