Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #178
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest         Monday, June 1 1998         Volume 03 : Number 178

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:02:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess Hearing Results

On Fri, 29 May 1998, K2 wrote:

> > Bad Hubert, no biscuit :)
> 
> I purchase a forehead from the forehead shop, It is a large chocolate oval
> stamped with the word "Arnotts". Made from a brittle material it will probably
> shatter if dropped. It is particularly good for dunking in hot drinks (should
> its wearer ever be so careless as to spill hot liquids on eir head).
> 
> I offer this forhead to Hubert.

I accept this forehead and wear it with pride.  I thumb my nose at JT.
Then I bite my thumb at JT.  Then I bite my nose at JT.  (Using one head
to bite the nose of the other head, you silly.) 

Then I pour warm milk on my forehead and use the other head to take a
large bite.  I thank K 2 as I chew contentedly.

- -Hubert

The Atheist's Dilemma: No one to talk to during sex. 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Important actions

On Sat, 30 May 1998, Raquel Peres da Silva wrote:

> After waiting a week, I sit at my favorite armchair at my house, to read
> page 4 of the spell book. I see page 4 burns by spontaneous combustion and,
> not wanting to keep such a dangerous, inflammable thing at my house, I give
> the book to whoever Hubert indicates. I guess I lost the message that said
> in which order we should read the book. How I miss my Doh! machine...

That would be me.  If Ayla has indeed offered me the Spell Book I accept
it.  If not, I suggest e offer it to me.  (Oh, and it was alphabetical
order.  Nothing tricky.)

- -Hubert

I'm a man of conviction. At least, I think I am. 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:04:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 602 (FALSE)

On Sun, 31 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> Call For Judgement 602- May 24, 1998
> Subject: CFCJ 163
> Initiator: The Gingham Wearer (sent May 24, 1998, 11:30)
> Judge: rufus (selected May 24, 1998, 11:33)
> Judgement: FALSE
> 
> Statement:
> A CFCJ numbered 163 has been issued.
> 
> Judge's Reasoning:
> 710, section 10 clearly bars double jeoparday.  CFCJ 161
> charges Hubert with te same crime for the same action, so 163 is an
> impossible CFCJ.  

I'm not going to appeal this (it would give the SC two more CFJs instead
of one) but I think R710 section 10 could be interpreted to refer only to
instances of "breaking the Rules" -- the Crime of Blatant Disregard -- and
not to more mundane crimes such as exhibitionism.

If any braver soul wants to appeal it on this basis (or refute my 
reasoning) please do.

- -Hubert, with a .sig generator more appropriate than not

I'm a man of conviction. At least, I think I am. 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:11:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Chess Hearing Results

On Sat, 30 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> I'll never forget when Slakko and I were arguing over unambiguous
> mis-spellings and we kept claiming we were giving all our tradable entities
> to each other with every message we wrote. Alfvaen never did harf things that
> way though, I don't know why. I also offer to trade A$1 of mine for all the
> tradable entities belonging to anyone else.

I accept Mr. Tambourine Man's A$1 and give em all of Slakko's tradeable
entities.

- -Hubert

The Atheist's Dilemma: No one to talk to during sex. 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:16:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : SwingPoint conversion

On Sun, 31 May 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> > I convert 4 of my SwingPoints to a Bonus Vote
> > 
> > Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> I do likewise.
> 
> Mr. Tambourine Man.

Are those MY Swingpoints you are trying to convert?

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:18:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 603 (AtP)

On Sat, 30 May 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> > , which certainly does not explicitly contradict that black is a color.
> > In other words, by eir own reasoning, interpretation is not a valid cause
> > for a Witchhunt. 
> 
> While I agree with the rest of the initiators reasoning, I would just like
> to point out that the CFJ he refers to here is under appeal.

You are, of course, correct.  I was just, um, pointing out Slakko's
rampant hypocrisy.  Which, now that I think of it, would make a pretty 
good Deadly Sin.

And stop referring to me as "the initiator."

Which reminds me.  In the grand tradition of Mr. Tambourine Man, I change
my Ackanomic name (pending, of course, the Registrar's acknowledgement) to
"867-5309".

The days of fear and oppression are over; I admit defeat at the capable
hands of /dev/joe, the only seriously active player still eligible to find
Treasure 200.

- -Hubert^H^H^H^H^H^H^H867-5309

I'm a man of conviction. At least, I think I am. 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: More OotRB Stuff

I suggest that the Order of the Razor Boomerang begin construction of a
Silver Spaceship, to be created in the possession of JT.  The Order thus
commences construction, with an estimated date of completion of three days
plus however long thereafter it takes me to remember.

Since it seems to be causing nothing but problems, I suggest the Order of
the Razor Boomerang leave the Razor Boomerangs.  This happens.  (Any of
this starting to sound familiar?)

I suggest the Order of the Razor Boomerang go to the Wilds of Ackanomia
and scream lyrical curses at the B-Ack.  This, too, happens, regardless of
what Slakko might say.  I'm CFJing it as I speak.  Write, whatever.

- -Hubert

I'm a man of conviction. At least, I think I am.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 05:14:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : SwingPoint conversion

> > > I convert 4 of my SwingPoints to a Bonus Vote
> > > 
> > > Niccolo Flychuck
> > 
> > I do likewise.
> 
> Are those MY Swingpoints you are trying to convert?

Oops. No. In the event that my last attempt to do this was ambiguous (i.e. if
this is possible) then I convert 4 of my SwingPoints into one bonus vote.

Mr. Tambourine Man.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 08:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 602 (FALSE)

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Eric Plumb wrote:

> 
> I'm not going to appeal this (it would give the SC two more CFJs instead
> of one) but I think R710 section 10 could be interpreted to refer only to
> instances of "breaking the Rules" -- the Crime of Blatant Disregard -- and
> not to more mundane crimes such as exhibitionism.

You know, Jenny might be right.  Sigh.

rufus

> 
> If any braver soul wants to appeal it on this basis (or refute my 
> reasoning) please do.
> 
> -Hubert, with a .sig generator more appropriate than not
> 
> I'm a man of conviction. At least, I think I am. 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 09:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <"kii@kii"@internex.net.au>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3142 rejected

> Results of Proposal 3142
>
> 16/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> 4/15 YES votes: Proposal rejected
>
> > {{[Replace "Spelling Bee" in rule 999 with "in the rules". Next person
> > replaces "in the rules" in rule 101 with "K 2" ;) ]}}

Either a-whole-lot-a people thought I was bluffing or they know this
won't work...

I am using my powers as owner of The Quirpele of
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis to change the phrase
"Spelling
Bee" in rule 999 (The Quirpele of
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis)
to read "in the rules", which as everbody knows is a legal acknomic
name. To the
new owner of The Quirpele of
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis I
suggest that e change "in the rules" in rule 101 to "Whatever eir name
is".

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:39:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <"kii@kii"@internex.net.au>
Subject: Acka: Big Scam

Rule 317 states:
An event that depends on a random determination for its full specification
shall not occur until the random determination is publicly
knowable.

So I still posses the Quirpele, I perform the following actions in order:

I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first sentence of
Rule 101 to "by K 2".

I describe the following methods for altering the rules:
the player known as K 2 may alter the rules as a public action.
the rules may be altered by proposal.

I amend rule 999 to insert a left square bracket at the very beginning of that
rule.

I amend rule 999 to insert a right square bracket at the very end of that
rule.

K 2

K2 wrote:

> > Results of Proposal 3142
> >
> > 16/25 votes: Quorum achieved
> > 4/15 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> >
> > > {{[Replace "Spelling Bee" in rule 999 with "in the rules". Next person
> > > replaces "in the rules" in rule 101 with "K 2" ;) ]}}
>
> Either a-whole-lot-a people thought I was bluffing or they know this
> won't work...
>
> I am using my powers as owner of The Quirpele of
> Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis to change the phrase
> "Spelling
> Bee" in rule 999 (The Quirpele of
> Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis)
> to read "in the rules", which as everbody knows is a legal acknomic
> name. To the
> new owner of The Quirpele of
> Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis I
> suggest that e change "in the rules" in rule 101 to "Whatever eir name
> is".
>
> K 2

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

K 2 wrote:
> Rule 317 states:
> An event that depends on a random determination for its full specification
> shall not occur until the random determination is publicly
> knowable.
> 
> So I still posses the Quirpele, I perform the following actions in order:
> 
> I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first sentence of
> Rule 101 to "by K 2".

Whoops. :-o

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:56:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:

>Rule 317 states:
>An event that depends on a random determination for its full specification
>shall not occur until the random determination is publicly
>knowable.
>
>So I still posses the Quirpele, I perform the following actions in order:
>
>I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first sentence of
>Rule 101 to "by K 2".

No, you have to change it in all Rules K2.  So this was an illegal action
and it hasn't occured.  Now if Alfvaen will teleport it before K 2 CAN do
this, we'd be all much obliged.

(And actually, from K2's original message e attempted to change only the
occurance in rule 999, so that might not have worked either.  Anyone wanna
somehow nuke the Quirpele?)

- --JT

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:57:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:

> Rule 317 states:

its rule 371, Timing, but yes it does.  Hail Emperor K 2!

rufus

We just got rid of the Beldin's pants loop hole, why did we have to
create, this, even bigger one?

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:59:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

Rule 317 states:
An event that depends on a random determination for its full specification
shall not occur until the random determination is publicly
knowable.

So I still posses the Quirpele, I perform the following actions in order:

I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first sentence of
the second paragraph of Rule 101 to "by K 2".

I describe the following methods for altering the rules:
the player known as K 2 may alter the rules as a public action.
the rules may be altered by proposal.

I amend rule 999 to insert a left square bracket at the very beginning of that
rule.

I amend rule 999 to insert a right square bracket at the very end of that
rule.

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:01:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> K 2 wrote:
> > Rule 317 states:
> > An event that depends on a random determination for its full specification
> > shall not occur until the random determination is publicly
> > knowable.
> > 
> > So I still posses the Quirpele, I perform the following actions in order:
> > 
> > I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first sentence of
> > Rule 101 to "by K 2".
> 
> Whoops. :-o

If this works, then why didn't the Beldin's Pants scams work?
This says the rules (and the game state) may only be changed as described
by K 2. However, nothing empowers K 2 to make any such description, just
like nothing empowered the Praetor to describe how Beldin's Pants the 
Rule could be amended.

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, 01 Jun 1998 11:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:
>
>> Rule 317 states:
>
>its rule 371, Timing, but yes it does.  Hail Emperor K 2!

I will also note that if the second change specified by K2 did in fact
occur, the rule 101 is now missing a certain logical connective and now
reads 'The rules and the game state may only be changed as described K2'
which doesn't actually give K2 the authority to amend the rules missing as
it is, the word 'by'.
However, I believe that at the same time, the term rules got undefined as
it's definition reads 'The term "rules", as used K2, means the rules of
Ackanomic.'.  Therefore, there are currently no rules, and all action is
completely unregulated.

I give myself a winning condition.

Any comments?

- -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: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

Give me 5 mins, and I will make what I thingk the  rule set is available.

rufus

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

>> > I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first sentence of
>> > Rule 101 to "by K 2".

Ignore the first part of my message, K2 did in fact remember the word
'by'.  However, the second part of my statement, that of the definition of
rules, still holds, and now defines the word 'rules' only as used by K2.
Therefore, I am now free to manipulate the gamestate as I see fit, since
the rules only apply to K 2 :)

If this is the case,
I repeal rule 999.
I give myself a winning condition
I change all occurances of 'by K2' in the ruleset of ackanomic to 'in the
rules' thus bringing the rules back into force.

Here's hoping this works.

- --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: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:15:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Big scam

I amend the occorance of "in the rules" in rule 999 where it appears in
double qoutes to read: "Non-voting"

I amend the phrase "Non-voting" in third paragraph of rule 101 to read
"K 2 may describe"

I amend the occorance of "Non-voting" in rule 999 where it appears in
double qoutes to read: "Players may"

I amend the phrase "Players may" in third paragraph of rule 101 to read
"how the rules are"

I amend the occorance of "Players may"" in rule 999 where it appears in
double qoutes to read: "not win"

I amend the phrase "not win" in third paragraph of rule 101 to read
"amended"

I amend the occorance of "not win" in rule 999 where it appears in
double qoutes to read: "Cycles of Ackanomic"

I amend the phrase "Cycles of Ackanomic" in third paragraph of rule 101
to read "as a public action"

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

JT wrote:

> >> > I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first sentence of
> >> > Rule 101 to "by K 2".
>
> Ignore the first part of my message, K2 did in fact remember the word
> 'by'.  However, the second part of my statement, that of the definition of
> rules, still holds, and now defines the word 'rules' only as used by K2.
> Therefore, I am now free to manipulate the gamestate as I see fit, since
> the rules only apply to K 2 :)

I attempted to amend the occurrence of "in the rules" in the _first_ sentence or rule
101, it doesn't exist in the first sentence so this was ambiguous and failed...

K 2

>
>
> If this is the case,
> I repeal rule 999.
> I give myself a winning condition
> I change all occurances of 'by K2' in the ruleset of ackanomic to 'in the
> rules' thus bringing the rules back into force.
>
> Here's hoping this works.
>
> --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: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

K 2 wrote:
> JT wrote:
> 
> > >> > I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first
> > >> > sentence of Rule 101 to "by K 2".
> >
> > Ignore the first part of my message, K2 did in fact remember the word
> > 'by'.  However, the second part of my statement, that of the definition of
> > rules, still holds, and now defines the word 'rules' only as used by K2.
> > Therefore, I am now free to manipulate the gamestate as I see fit, since
> > the rules only apply to K 2 :)
> 
> I attempted to amend the occurrence of "in the rules" in the _first_
> sentence or rule 101, it doesn't exist in the first sentence so this
> was ambiguous and failed...

You don't have the freedom to change it *just there* anyway; R999 only
lets you change it in *all rules, and proposals in the voting queue*.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:22:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big scam

As per my previous comments, I believe that these changes occur in all
rules, not just the rule specified.  The rules are losing force very
quickly now, so I hope at least some of you believe that my action of a
message or two ago actually happened in which case this spiral has been
halted and the Quirpele was repealed.

- --JT

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:

>I amend the occorance of "in the rules" in rule 999 where it appears in
>double qoutes to read: "Non-voting"
>
>I amend the phrase "Non-voting" in third paragraph of rule 101 to read
>"K 2 may describe"
>
>I amend the occorance of "Non-voting" in rule 999 where it appears in
>double qoutes to read: "Players may"
>
>I amend the phrase "Players may" in third paragraph of rule 101 to read
>"how the rules are"
>
>I amend the occorance of "Players may"" in rule 999 where it appears in
>double qoutes to read: "not win"
>
>I amend the phrase "not win" in third paragraph of rule 101 to read
>"amended"
>
>I amend the occorance of "not win" in rule 999 where it appears in
>double qoutes to read: "Cycles of Ackanomic"
>
>I amend the phrase "Cycles of Ackanomic" in third paragraph of rule 101
>to read "as a public action"
>
>K 2
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:26:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:
> 
> > Rule 317 states:
> 
> its rule 371, Timing, but yes it does.  Hail Emperor K 2!
> 
 Hail Emperor K 2!
 Hail Emperor K 2!
 Hail Emperor K 2!
 Hail Emperor K 2!
 Hail Emperor K 2!
 Hail Emperor K 2!

 Wild Card.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:26:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:

>JT wrote:
>
>> >> > I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first sentence of
>> >> > Rule 101 to "by K 2".
>>
>> Ignore the first part of my message, K2 did in fact remember the word
>> 'by'.  However, the second part of my statement, that of the definition of
>> rules, still holds, and now defines the word 'rules' only as used by K2.
>> Therefore, I am now free to manipulate the gamestate as I see fit, since
>> the rules only apply to K 2 :)
>
>I attempted to amend the occurrence of "in the rules" in the _first_ sentence or rule
>101, it doesn't exist in the first sentence so this was ambiguous and failed...
>

According to the Quirpele rule however, the change specified occurs in all
rules, so it might still have occured, but done so through out the
ruleset.

If that happened, All occurances of 'in the rules' in the ruleset did in
fact get munged to 'by K2' (including the one in 999) which means your
second set of actions would have failed (you tried to change a phrase that
didn't exist)

My claim is that by changing 'in the rules' to 'by K2' you removed the
binding power of the rules to regulate gamestate and thus my actions were
legal and thus occured, and thus hopefully put us back into a state where
the game was coherent.

- --JT

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: the wules

I have what the ruleset ought to look like at
httpp//www.enteract.com/~dscheidt/acka/allrules.txt

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:28:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> K 2 wrote:
> > JT wrote:
> >
> > > >> > I change the phrase "in the rules" where it appears in the first
> > > >> > sentence of Rule 101 to "by K 2".
> > >
> > > Ignore the first part of my message, K2 did in fact remember the word
> > > 'by'.  However, the second part of my statement, that of the definition of
> > > rules, still holds, and now defines the word 'rules' only as used by K2.
> > > Therefore, I am now free to manipulate the gamestate as I see fit, since
> > > the rules only apply to K 2 :)
> >
> > I attempted to amend the occurrence of "in the rules" in the _first_
> > sentence or rule 101, it doesn't exist in the first sentence so this
> > was ambiguous and failed...
>
> You don't have the freedom to change it *just there* anyway; R999 only
> lets you change it in *all rules, and proposals in the voting queue*.
>
> /dev/joe

D'oh!K 2

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:30:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> 
> My claim is that by changing 'in the rules' to 'by K2' you removed the
> binding power of the rules to regulate gamestate and thus my actions were
> legal and thus occured, and thus hopefully put us back into a state where
> the game was coherent.
> 
 Except that rule 101 reads "The rules and the game state may only be
changed as described by k 2."
so you can't change either.  Maybe. I think.

ruf

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:35:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: that's odd.

look at rule 342.  It makes the "by k 2" an unownable entity.  I have no
idea what this does, but I think it does mean that the player K 2 can't
change the rules.

opinions?

rufus

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:36:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, JT wrote:
>
>> 
>> My claim is that by changing 'in the rules' to 'by K2' you removed the
>> binding power of the rules to regulate gamestate and thus my actions were
>> legal and thus occured, and thus hopefully put us back into a state where
>> the game was coherent.
>> 
> Except that rule 101 reads "The rules and the game state may only be
>changed as described by k 2."
>so you can't change either.  Maybe. I think.

Except the word rules in that statement has no reference except as used by
K2, so I'm now manipulating an undefined entity.  It's an iffy gamble, I
admit, but I think it might work and it preserves a lot of sanity if it
does :)

Thoughts anyone?

- --JT

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Big Scam

After reading through Rufus's munged copy of the rules, I couldn't give
myself a winning condition unfortunately, but I think the other two
actions undoing the damage might have still worked.  If they did, then
cool, all is well with the world.
If they didn't, it still might be the case that the ruleset is no longer
in force due to K2's actions and therefore I believe that I might now be
entitled to do the following

CFJ:
Statement:
  Further play is impossible.

Reasoning:
   There are no rules in effect.

(I will note that this possibly cannot work either if in fact there are no
rules in efect, I cannot submit such a CFJ, this is truly a bizarre state
of affairs, but I will act as if I can do this and pray)

- --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: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:44:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Help! It's a State of Crisis!

  Help! It's a State of Crisis!

  K 2 has precipitated a Crisis!

  Someone declare a State of Crisis.

 Wild Card.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:44:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> 
> Thoughts anyone?

I am begining to think we crashed.  Hard.  With lots of nasty flames and
stuff.  I am, of course, willing to believe that something else happened.  
Don't ask me what. Let me read the rules.

rufus
> 
> --JT
> 

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:49:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, David Scheidt wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, JT wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> My claim is that by changing 'in the rules' to 'by K2' you removed the
> >> binding power of the rules to regulate gamestate and thus my actions were
> >> legal and thus occured, and thus hopefully put us back into a state where
> >> the game was coherent.
> >> 
> > Except that rule 101 reads "The rules and the game state may only be
> >changed as described by k 2."
> >so you can't change either.  Maybe. I think.
> 
> Except the word rules in that statement has no reference except as used by
> K2, so I'm now manipulating an undefined entity.  It's an iffy gamble, I
> admit, but I think it might work and it preserves a lot of sanity if it
> does :)

Sorry - Rules are entities by Rule 301.

Rule 500 also says:

An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as
specified by the Rules. It can have no material effect on the game other
than those effects specified by the Rules. 

Note - "by the Rules", not "in the Rules", and so K 2 had no effect on
this text.  Hence no Rule can be manipulated except as the Rules permit.
So your attempt to manipulate the rules unilaterally failed.

- -- 
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, 01 Jun 1998 11:57:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>Note - "by the Rules", not "in the Rules", and so K 2 had no effect on
>this text.  Hence no Rule can be manipulated except as the Rules permit.
>So your attempt to manipulate the rules unilaterally failed.

Except the term rules, by rule 101 only refers to the rules of Ackanomic
when used by K2, therfore, 'by the rules' has no semantic meaning within
the ruleset and thus I think I can do it, especially since rule 101 claims
precedence.

- --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: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 12:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> >Note - "by the Rules", not "in the Rules", and so K 2 had no effect on
> >this text.  Hence no Rule can be manipulated except as the Rules permit.
> >So your attempt to manipulate the rules unilaterally failed.
> 
> Except the term rules, by rule 101 only refers to the rules of Ackanomic
> when used by K2, therfore, 'by the rules' has no semantic meaning within
> the ruleset 

Blatantly not true.  We can't expect words to only have semantic meaning
when they are defined by the rules, because then you have to define the
words used in the definitions etc. etc. and you get infinite regress (the
you can't learn English by reading the dictionary argument).

Game custom dictates that, when the rules do not provide an explicit
definition for a term, as they no longer do for "rules" as in the rules if
K 2's crash succeeded, the English definition applies.

In English, when we are playing a game, a reference to the "rules" implies
the "rules of that game".  Hence all references to "the rules" mean "the
rules of Ackanomic", because that is the most reasonable and logical
meaning to give it.  Game custom would definitely lean this way on this
one.

and thus I think I can do it, especially since rule 101 claims
> precedence.
> 
> --JT
> 
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> 
> 

- -- 
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, 01 Jun 1998 12:09:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Big Scam

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>Blatantly not true.  We can't expect words to only have semantic meaning
>when they are defined by the rules, because then you have to define the
>words used in the definitions etc. etc. and you get infinite regress (the
>you can't learn English by reading the dictionary argument).
>
>Game custom dictates that, when the rules do not provide an explicit
>definition for a term, as they no longer do for "rules" as in the rules if
>K 2's crash succeeded, the English definition applies.
>
>In English, when we are playing a game, a reference to the "rules" implies
>the "rules of that game".  Hence all references to "the rules" mean "the
>rules of Ackanomic", because that is the most reasonable and logical
>meaning to give it.  Game custom would definitely lean this way on this
>one.

You are correct, and all I can say is that I had to at least try to save
the game from crashing horridly.   Anyone else with any better ideas may
in fact try them as well until I have more time to scan the now munged
ruleset.

- --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: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 12:17:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Unscam?

Create a rule numbered 1351 titled "Who Will Buy K 2" with the following
text delimited by BONK:

BONK
K 2 is a tradeable mimsy entity.
{{The treasury owns K 2}}

This rule may only be modified or repealed by a proposal that had no
"No" votes cast on it. No other methods may be used to amend this rule.
This rule has precedence over any rule which would allow this rule to be
altered in any way, by any other type of proposal or method.
BONK

[thread-split reduction package]

The rules may be amended in the following manner:
K 2 may amend the rules as a public action.

Amend the rules of ackanomic in the following manner:

Amend the rules of Ackanomic in such a way as to make them identical to
the state they were in at 31 May 1998 14:08:20 applying all required
amendments simultaneously.

K 2

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 12:27:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: thwappings

I thwap K 2 with the D'oh!.  I do it again.  and again.  
I hope your head hurts as much as mine does.  
For good measure, I thwap with the D'oh!  anyone who voted yes on the
proposal that created rule 999.

rufus

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 12:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: thwappings

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> I thwap K 2 with the D'oh!.  I do it again.  and again.  
> I hope your head hurts as much as mine does.  
> For good measure, I thwap with the D'oh!  anyone who voted yes on the
> proposal that created rule 999.

Including yourself.
Plus all three Razor Boomerangs, who together garnered a unity vote on it.

Yours,
Slakko
who voted PRESENT
- -- 
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, 01 Jun 1998 12:41:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The ACK is Back

                     Ackanomic Cyclopedia of Knowledge
Volume 1, issue 6                                         June 1, 1998
===========================================================================
In this issue:
Scam Day Proclaimed
Treasure Activity
===========================================================================

SCAM DAY PROCLAIMED
by /dev/joe

The Ackanomic Cyclopedia of Knowledge declares June 1st to be official
Scam Day in Ackanomia.

On June 1st 1996, The Great Old One began using the great resolutions scam.
This began the summer of scams, as then-president /dev/joe later called it,
as the period from June 1 to July 10 consisted of essentially non-stop
scamming.

On June 1st 1997, Mohammed started the blatant Orbital Mind Control Laser
abuse that led ultimately to their repeal, by forcing /dev/joe to take a
wooden block (worth A$1) in exchange for a vending machine.  This scam later
involved attaching a stolen Bonus Vote Add-On to a stolen Vending Machine
and vending lots of Bonus Votes cheaply, burying them in lots of 4 to get
around the possession limit.  This scam is the cause for all those
treasures listed in the archive as uninteresting.

On June 1st 1998, K 2 began recklessly using the Quirpele rule to change
the rules willy-nilly in an attempt to assume dictatorial control.  It is
entirely possible that this has left the game in an unplayable state, so
that what you are now reading is not, in fact, a newspaper, but just a
random e-mail.

TREASURE ACTIVITY
by /dev/joe

The ACK feels that too many of the currently buried treasures are unlikely
to be found because either their buryers are long gone, or months of
searching has led to players to what seems to be a dead end.  The ACK
proposes three ways to revive treasure hunts in Acka.

First, the ACK recommends that one of the members of the Treasure Hunting
League who has never posted a translation for the Jukkasjarvi treasure take
the necessary steps to make 9 of the fragments true, and post a translation,
in one of the later ways /dev/joe did so, on the thought that /dev/joe's
incorrect translations may have made him ineligible to find the treasure.

Second, /dev/joe will soon bury a new treasure of epic proportions :-)
which should help stimulate the treasure-hunting activity in Acka,
assuming Acka still exists.

Third, the ACK recommends that all current players who have buried
long-lost treasures for which some clues have apparently gone unnoticed
repost those clues in some form or other.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 12:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: thwappings

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> 
> Including yourself.
I knew that.  Thwap. Thwap. thwap.
> Plus all three Razor Boomerangs, who together garnered a unity vote on it.
> 
> Yours,
> Slakko
> who voted PRESENT
Well, I thwap you for not votingh NO, but not as hard as everyone else.

rufus

> -- 
> 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, 01 Jun 1998 13:12:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 604 (Ayla)

Ayla has been selected.

Clerk of the Courts
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call For Judgement 604- Jun 01, 1998
Subject: Crash!
Initiator: JT (sent Jun 01, 1998, 11:44)
Judge: Ayla (selected Jun 01, 1998, 13:10)
Judgement: 

Statement:
  Further play is impossible.

Reasoning:
   There are no rules in effect.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #178
*******************************