Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #395
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest       Friday, November 6 1998       Volume 03 : Number 395

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 04:21:51 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Peachy.

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>
>> > IB
>> > I vote YES on the IP against Studge.
>> > I haven't read the IP against /dev/joe.
>> 
>> I vote YES on both.
>
>I vote YES on both.
>Impeach the Senators, then abolish the Senate!!!!!

Only voting players are allowed to vote on impeachment papers although
it requires 1/2 of all active players voting YES in order to succeed (and
2/3s of all votes being YES.

Therefore these votes for Impeachment did not count as they were not
validly cast.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 04:25:33 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ice Digging

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>> # Player: JT
>> # JT played an arctic explorer against Balsamic Dragon
>> # This is what he got
>> # (the rock to wind a string around and the magic radish are no longer
>> # tradeable entities according to the rules)
>
>False - the repeal of the rules cannot make things un-entity, as to
>un-entity an entity is to manipulate an entity, which only occurs as
>specified by the rules, as according to Rule 500.  So the RTWASA and MR
>are still entities.

Actually, they are not tradeable since they are not defined as such by the
rules.
That was what I was trying to say :)
The Artic Explorer only affects tradeable entities and the rules say

An entity is nontradeable unless the Rules specify otherwise.

Since the rules do not specify ANYTHING about Magic Radishes or Rocks to
Wind String around, they are not tradeable.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 04:32:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IPs.

 I vote YES in the IPs against Rex Mundi and against JT in both
capactities.
 I vote NO in the IP against Slakko.
 I remove my proxy from SPAM.

- -- 
Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.             #####
http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html                  o__#######
Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats.    \'#######
Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo.  Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 04:43:37 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Guardian Angel (Gromit)

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Mueller wrote:
>I use my newly aquired Guardian Angel to make all props Guarded.

The Guardian Angel flys off to Gromit.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 04:50:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3720 scammed

At 04:19 AM 11/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>A Go Fish card was played on Proposal 3720.  Whether or not this succeeds
>>is making the voting period end or not is unclear; the rule doesn't seem
>>to take precedence over R106, so I am harfing it as not until I see a
>>good argument otherwise.

who used this card, /dev/joe?
- --A Mean Hat.

Crazy French Scotsman -- Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master  --  Really
Weird --  Rule-Harfer -- Warrior Caste

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 05:04:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3720 scammed

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> >A Go Fish card was played on Proposal 3720.  Whether or not this succeeds
> >is making the voting period end or not is unclear; the rule doesn't seem
> >to take precedence over R106, so I am harfing it as not until I see a
> >good argument otherwise.
> 
> I am filing the following CFJ as delimited by SCAM_OR_NO_SCAM.  Headers
> are included for convenience.
> SCAM_OR_NO_SCAM
> Statement:
> The play of a Go Fish Otzma Card on Proposal 3720 did not cause the
> proposal's voting period to end. 
> 
> Reasoning:
> Rule 1240.2 does not have precedence over either rule 106 or rule 320.5. 
> 
> While I realize this is probably a trivial CFJ, I want it entered into
> explicit game custom. 

I would just point out that CFJs cannot be a part of explicit game custom.
There is in fact a CFJ, saying that not all CFJs are part of explicit game
custom, which has been judged TRUE.

- -- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator  | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 05:05:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

I change my state to voting.
I vote YES on the IP to impeach /dev/joe from the Senate
I vote YES on the IP to impeace Studge from the Senate

Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
> >I return from Vacation. 
> >I am changing my player status to Active.
> 
> Active is not a state, so by default you return in the state you left
> which is Non-Voting.
> 
> - --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 05:05:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ice Digging

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> >> # Player: JT
> >> # JT played an arctic explorer against Balsamic Dragon
> >> # This is what he got
> >> # (the rock to wind a string around and the magic radish are no longer
> >> # tradeable entities according to the rules)
> >
> >False - the repeal of the rules cannot make things un-entity, as to
> >un-entity an entity is to manipulate an entity, which only occurs as
> >specified by the rules, as according to Rule 500.  So the RTWASA and MR
> >are still entities.
> 
> Actually, they are not tradeable since they are not defined as such by the
> rules.
> That was what I was trying to say :)
> The Artic Explorer only affects tradeable entities and the rules say
> 
> An entity is nontradeable unless the Rules specify otherwise.
> 
> Since the rules do not specify ANYTHING about Magic Radishes or Rocks to
> Wind String around, they are not tradeable.

Which rules say that?  I believe it would be Rule 500, right?  Then it all
comes down to which order the things are in 500. 

If nontradeability by default is first, then, being later in the document,
the non-manipulation of entities except as defined by the Rules would take
precedence.

- -- 
Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/    Ackanomic     | U. of Cambridge
Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator  | 2nd Year PhD(PMa)

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 05:12:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Peachy (joining the fun)

I vote NO on this IP
Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> This message shall serve as an Impeachment Paper.  It is the
> unambiguously stated intent of this Impeachment Paper to remove Slakko
> from the Office of Senator.
> 
> You are hereby notified that all Voting Players, with the exception of
> Slakko, shall be able to cast one vote either YES or NO on the matter of
> removing said Officer from Office. The voting period shall be 3 days. All
> votes on this matter shall be cast in the public forum.
> 
> 
> I vote YES on this
> I vote NO on /dev/joe's
> I vote NO on Studge's
> 
> - --A Mean Hat.
> 
> Crazy French Scotsman -- Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master  --  Really
> Weird --  Rule-Harfer -- Warrior Caste
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 05:13:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tangeriny

I vote YES on this IP
Niccolo Flychuck

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:
> >I do hope that the following actions of mine shall be taken in the
> >least personally-oriented light imaginable.
> >
> >I hereby submit an Impeachment paper against JT for the office of
> >Speaker.  The reasons Vynd has given for eir own IP hold for me as
> >well.
> 
> Let's make it a full house.
> 
> I hereby submit an Impeachment Paper against Rex Mundi for the Office of
> Senator.   I think the reasons for all these impeachement papers have
> become obvious by now.
> 
> >I also vote YES on the IPs submitted against /dev/joe and Studge.
> 
> I vote NO on the Impeachment Papers filed against Slakko and Rex Mundi
> (yeah, noone said I had to be consistant.. I'm willing to wager 10 points
> to prevent a single player from being dictator though)
> 
> - --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 06:18:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

At 05:05 AM 11/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>
>I change my state to voting.

sorry, Niccolo.  this fails.  Rule 250 says:

"A Player may change eir state as a public action by announcing the new
player state, provided eir state has not changed within the past 3 days"

Your state was changed (to nonvoting) within the last 3 days

>I vote YES on the IP to impeach /dev/joe from the Senate
>I vote YES on the IP to impeace Studge from the Senate

resultantly, these votes (and your others) do not count.

>Niccolo Flychuck
>
>On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, JT wrote:
>
- --A Mean Hat.

Crazy French Scotsman -- Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master  --  Really
Weird --  Rule-Harfer -- Warrior Caste

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:22:26 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> I return from Vacation. 
> I am changing my player status to Active.
> I am back.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 

Nice timing. :)

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:27:48 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3720 scammed

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> >A Go Fish card was played on Proposal 3720.  Whether or not this succeeds
> >is making the voting period end or not is unclear; the rule doesn't seem
> >to take precedence over R106, so I am harfing it as not until I see a
> >good argument otherwise.
> 
> I am filing the following CFJ as delimited by SCAM_OR_NO_SCAM.  Headers
> are included for convenience.
> SCAM_OR_NO_SCAM
> Statement:
> The play of a Go Fish Otzma Card on Proposal 3720 did not cause the
> proposal's voting period to end. 
> 
> Reasoning:
> Rule 1240.2 does not have precedence over either rule 106 or rule 320.5. 
> 
> While I realize this is probably a trivial CFJ, I want it entered into
> explicit game custom. 
> 
> Rule 106 says:
> >Players eligible to vote on proposals may change their vote up until the
> >end of the prescribed voting period, but in any case are limited to one
> >vote per proposal.
> 
> and
> 
> >The prescribed voting period on a proposal is seven days, starting from
> >the moment that the proposal is publicly distributed as >specified by the
> >rules. 
> 
> Rule 320.5 says:
> >When The Current Government of Ackanomia is Elected Assembly only the
> >Senators, Speaker and President are eligible to vote on proposals. In
> >addition a proposal will passif it meets quorum and receives a simple
> >majority of votes. 
> 
> Rule 1240.2 says:
> >When a Go Fish Card has been used on a proposal, the date of the end of
> >the Voting on that Proposal is considered to the date it has been used.
> 
> Since rule 1240.2 does not claim precedence over rule 106, then it cannot
> be modifying the prescribed voting period of the proposal, therefore the
> only interpretation of rule 1240.2 is that it makes entities ineligble to
> vote on the proposal after the card has been played and before the end of
> voting period.
> 
> Even if this was the intent (not a particularly useful concept in
> Ackanomic), it still fails, since rule 106 explicitly grants eligible
> players the ability to change their votes until the end of the prescribed
> voting period of 7 days and rule 320.5 grants the status of eligible
> players to a specific group.
> 
> Without taking precedence over either of those rules, the OC Go Fish
> cannot have the effect described in it's rule text, therefore this CFJ
> should be judged TRUE.
> SCAM_OR_NO_SCAM
> 

I knew I shouldn't have told you guys. :) Since I am not likely to get
anything else out of this whole mess, I do want to take the credit for
noticing that Go Fish cards don't work before anyone else did. :)

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:27:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: IPs.

I vote YES in the IPs against Rex Mundi and against JT in both 
capactities.
I vote NO in the IP against Slakko.

IB
getting out of the way

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:40:25 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3720

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 3720
> Bavarian Cremed Illuminators
> A Mean Hat.
> Due: Fri Nov 13 01:37:51 1998
> 
> 
> {{all rules except this one which were passed within the last hour are
> repealed.}}
> 
> Create a rule numbered 3 and titled 'The New Illuminatus' with the following
> text as delimited by USURPTION
> USURPTION
> The society named 'Arf wif eir ead' may amend, create or repeal rules as an
> organizational action.
> 
> Organizational actions of the type allowed by this rule will pass if a
> simple majority of the active non-gaoled members of 'Arf wif eir ead' agree
> to the action within a day, and as long as no active non-goaled member
> denounces the action during that time.  If the action is denounced or too
> few members agree, then the action fails with no changes being made to the
> rules.
> 
> This rule may only be repealed, amended, renumbered, or modified by an
> organizational action to which all active non-gaoled members of 'Arf wif
> eir ead' agree unanimously and which no active non-gaoled member denounces.
>   This takes precedence over the preceeding paragraph, and over all rules,
> and over any method of changing the rules or the state of the game.
> 
> This rule takes precedence over all other rules.
> 
> Any proposal which attempts to alter this rule or give a rule precedence
> over this rule is automatically declared invalid.
> 
> USURPTION
> 
> {{All proposals currently in the queue which are not authored by A Mean
> Hat. are declared invalid}}
> {{The current government of Ackanomic is set to Democracy.}}
> 

OK, there. We told you they were going to try this. I encourage everyone
to vote YES on the IPs against /dev/joe, JT, and Studge. This is about as
clear an abuse of power as I have ever seen in Ackanomic. If the Go Fish
card actually worked the way it was intended, this proposal would already
have been accepted, and there would be nothing any of us coud do to stop
it. Since the Go Fish doesn't work, proposals like this can still be
prevented from passing, *if* we replace at least some of the
current eligible voters. The only way this can happen is through these
impeachments.

I vote YES on all of the IPs pending against Studge, /dev/joe, and JT. In
all honesty, I don't know if Slakko or Rex Mundi have any role in this
business or not, but I vote YES on the IPs filed against them as well.

Vynd, never bought any of that "we're just going to fix things" crap for a
minute

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:44:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Demagogury.

Vynd tells me that those of us who tried to stop Studge, a Mean Hat, JT
and /dev/joe from taking over are Good.  The others are Evil.  Shouldn't
you vote for Good?

IB

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:50:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: IPs.

>I vote YES in the IPs against Rex Mundi and against JT in both 
>capactities.
>I vote NO in the IP against Slakko.

I almost forgot: I vote YES on the IP against JT as President, and
YES on the IP against Rex Mundi.  I vote NO in the IP against Slakko
(apparently).

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/)
Current Album--Laurie Anderson:The Ugly One With The Jewels & Other Stories
Current Book--Tom Wolfe:The Bonfire of The Vanities
Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:53:47 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Proposal 3720

I vote YES on all current IPs, except the one on Slakko, for which I
vote NO.  As IdiotBoy said, there's Good, and there's Evil, and I know
which side *I'm* on.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	John Frederic Mc Coy [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Friday, November 06, 1998 8:40 AM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: Proposal 3720
>
>
>
>On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 [email-masked] wrote:
>
><some crappy scam rule> 
>
><Vynd venting>
>
>[email-masked]
>

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 09:58:20 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: GAD!  (Round 2 results)

And now, in the midst of all the evilness and confusion, a chance for
some lighthearted jollity!

The Results of Round 2:

/dev/joe attempted to grab the donkey of the idle Robert Sevin.  So did
Alfvaen.  So did eirs.  Obviously, nobody succeeded.

Robin Hood grabbed Vynd's donkey.  Vynd attempted to grab Robin Hood's
donkey, but so did Studge, blocking Vynd's attempt and eliminating him
from the GAL.

Wild Card went for studge's donkey, but so did The Green Ripper,
resulting in failure for both.

Slakko snatched two-star's donkey.

K 2 grabbed Rex Mundi's donkey, just as Rex Mundi was grabbing eirs'.

IdiotBoy, A Mean Hat., and r-Atilla the Farce covered their donkeys.

And, last but not least, 404 Not Found, Aunt Froot, r-Atilla the Farce,
Gromit, and Robert Sevin stood around admiring their donkeys, commenting
to each other on the sharp decline in donkeys this season :)

Current GAL:404 Not Found
Alfvaen
A Mean Hat.
Aunt Froot
/dev/joe
IdiotBoy
K 2
r-Atilla the Farce
Gromit
Rex Mundi
Robert Sevin
Robin Hood
Slakko
Studge
The Green Ripper
Wild Card

Current Scores:
IdiotBoy - 2
r-Atilla the Farce - 2
K 2 - 2
Slakko - 2
Everyone else - 1

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 10:51:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Looking at the peaches

I vote no on all currently pending IPs I am eligible to vote on.

Rex Mundi.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:42:26 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ice Digging

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>> Actually, they are not tradeable since they are not defined as such by the
>> rules.
>> That was what I was trying to say :)
>> The Artic Explorer only affects tradeable entities and the rules say
>> 
>> An entity is nontradeable unless the Rules specify otherwise.
>> 
>> Since the rules do not specify ANYTHING about Magic Radishes or Rocks to
>> Wind String around, they are not tradeable.
>
>Which rules say that?  I believe it would be Rule 500, right?  Then it all
>comes down to which order the things are in 500. 
>
>If nontradeability by default is first, then, being later in the document,
>the non-manipulation of entities except as defined by the Rules would take
>precedence.

Umm no, because here it's the rules making them non-tradeable, so there is
no conflict there either.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:42:56 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tangeriny

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
>I vote YES on this IP

Not until you are a voting player you don't :) Sorry.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:43:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3720 scammed

A Mean Hat. asked:
> At 04:19 AM 11/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >>A Go Fish card was played on Proposal 3720.  Whether or not this succeeds
> >>is making the voting period end or not is unclear; the rule doesn't seem
> >>to take precedence over R106, so I am harfing it as not until I see a
> >>good argument otherwise.
> 
> 
> who used this card, /dev/joe?

A Mean Hat. used the card.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:44:51 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3720 scammed

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>I would just point out that CFJs cannot be a part of explicit game custom.
>There is in fact a CFJ, saying that not all CFJs are part of explicit game
>custom, which has been judged TRUE.

I would point you to rule 215 which says
   If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be
   true, and that Judgement is not overruled, it does not thereby become
   a rule, or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of
   currently accepted game custom.

Therefore, were this CFJ ruled true it WOULD become an explicit part of
accepted game custim, the other CFJ not withstanding.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:45:18 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Peachy (joining the fun)

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
>I vote NO on this IP

Once again, not until you are a voting player.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:48:56 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
>I change my state to voting.
>I vote YES on the IP to impeach /dev/joe from the Senate
>I vote YES on the IP to impeace Studge from the Senate

GAH! danged muppetlabs.   I recieved this after I recieved the other two
that I previously replied to.  However, checking the header times, I found
that this did occur prior to those in time.  Therefore, ignore my last two
messages saying the votes were illegal, and accept my apologies.  They
were perfectly legal and legitimate.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:49:23 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Historian & Spelling Exchequer

The Nomination periods for Historian and Spelling Exchequer have ended.

Historian:
Vynd
Gromit
r-Atilla the Farce
Studge

Spelling Exchequer:
ThinMan
r-Atilla the Farce
eirs

Reply to this message with your vote.  Also, please indicate which
office you are voting for.  Thanks.

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 11:53:15 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>>I change my state to voting.
>
>sorry, Niccolo.  this fails.  Rule 250 says:
>
>"A Player may change eir state as a public action by announcing the new
>player state, provided eir state has not changed within the past 3 days"
>
>Your state was changed (to nonvoting) within the last 3 days

Heh.. Doh!  Unfortunately he's correct in what the rules say, but that's a
damned nit-picky reading of the rules.    I'm afraid that those votes and
your change to voting didn't occur after all.

I do not donate anything to the twits because I've not been trying to be
quite that legalistic.

- --JT

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:02:53 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Results of Presidential Impeachment

The Presidential Impeachment was called against me by the rules on
Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:56:58 -0500, with the correct announcement of the
results of the CRD by Fortunato.

It has now been 3 days, and the results have been tallied.

The following people voted
YES:
two-star
K 2
Wild Card
IdiotBoy
Vynd
Alfvaen
Fortunato

NO:
Studge
R-Attila the Farce
Rex Mundi

(there is possibly one further YES vote by Niccolo Flychuck, but I harfed
it as not occuring due to the confusion over his voting state).

1/2 of all the Active Players did not vote YES for this IP, and therefore
it is REJECTED.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:08:03 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Historian & Spelling Exchequer

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, AARON KEESLER wrote:
>The Nomination periods for Historian and Spelling Exchequer have ended.
>
>Historian:
>Vynd
>Gromit
>r-Atilla the Farce
>Studge

In this election, I vote for Gromit.

>Spelling Exchequer:
>ThinMan
>r-Atilla the Farce
>eirs

and in this one, I vote for ThinMan

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:16:28 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Fruit basket

I vote YES on all outstanding IPs.  I observe that the membership list of
'Arf wif eir head' makes interesting reading -- a fact that I had noted
privately to myself at the time of its formation (and the formations of
all its like-membered societies).

I also note that this would be a good time for everyone who doesn't
want to see P3720 pass to set their rebelliousness ON.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:43:03 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fruit basket

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> I vote YES on all outstanding IPs.  I observe that the membership list of
> 'Arf wif eir head' makes interesting reading -- a fact that I had noted
> privately to myself at the time of its formation (and the formations of
> all its like-membered societies).
> 
> I also note that this would be a good time for everyone who doesn't
> want to see P3720 pass to set their rebelliousness ON.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 

ThinMan has a point. Has two of them, in fact.

I set my rebelliousness characteristic to ON, and hope that any ensuing
rebellion doesn't end up getting scamed twice as bad. I also note that
ThinMan didn't set his reliiousness to ON, and I wonder why...

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:43:30 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Fruit basket

I wrote:
>I also note that this would be a good time for everyone who doesn't
>want to see P3720 pass to set their rebelliousness ON.

Just to clarify: if we have another Rebellion then everyone will be
re-enfranchised for the duration, regardless of what the
proto-government turns out to be.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:53:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> >>I change my state to voting.
> >
> >sorry, Niccolo.  this fails.  Rule 250 says:
> >
> >"A Player may change eir state as a public action by announcing the new
> >player state, provided eir state has not changed within the past 3 days"
> >
> >Your state was changed (to nonvoting) within the last 3 days
> 
> Heh.. Doh!  Unfortunately he's correct in what the rules say, but that's a
> damned nit-picky reading of the rules.    I'm afraid that those votes and
> your change to voting didn't occur after all.
> 
> I do not donate anything to the twits because I've not been trying to be
> quite that legalistic.

I would heartily suggest a CFJ on this matter.

IB
I remove myself from the CFJ Ineligibility list, if I am so enshrined.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 12:56:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fruit basket

I set my rebelliousness characteristic to ON.

Additionally, I wonder if it might not make sense for someone to impeach
JT from President.  (I think it is legal for someone [not me, for example]
to do so.)

IB

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:12:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

>Heh.. Doh!  Unfortunately he's correct in what the rules say, but that's a
>damned nit-picky reading of the rules.    I'm afraid that those votes and
>your change to voting didn't occur after all.
>
>I do not donate anything to the twits because I've not been trying to be
>quite that legalistic.
>
>--JT
> 

Are you quite sure about that, JT?

At 07:01 AM 9/5/98 -0400, JT wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Ian K. wrote:
>>> >I also Proxy my support for the moment...
>>> 
>>> Since Koxvolio is On-Ice, I don't believe this has any effect.
>>
>>Yes, yes. OK- I return from vacation. Yawn, brief break.
>
>This doesn't occur since you were not gone for the minimum of 3 days.
>I'm sure someone else already noted this, but....
>
>>I proxy my support to the Moral Kiosk.
>
>Nope, see above.
>
>>I go on vacation, (again) with expected return date the 5th of October.
>
>Since you never actually returned, this doesn't happen.
>
>--TJ
>
>[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
>[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
>[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
>[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> 
- --A Mean Hat.

Crazy French Scotsman -- Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master  --  Really
Weird --  Rule-Harfer -- Warrior Caste

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:30:59 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>Are you quite sure about that, JT?

Yes, since in the case you quoted below that was the player trying to
change his state twice in that time.  here, Nicollo returned from
vacation, which made him Non-Voting automatically, and tried to then
change his status to voting.  I personally think that should be allowed to
work and the rule only prevent voluntary changing more than once every
three days.  However, the rules do state otherwise.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:36:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IPs

I vote against all currently outstanding IPs.

Gromit.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:44:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

JT wrote:
> Yes, since in the case you quoted below that was the player trying to
> change his state twice in that time.  here, Nicollo returned from
> vacation, which made him Non-Voting automatically, and tried to then
> change his status to voting.  I personally think that should be allowed to
> work and the rule only prevent voluntary changing more than once every
> three days.  However, the rules do state otherwise.

How about this:

In rule 250, change:

   A Player may change eir state as a public action by announcing the new
   player state, provided eir state has not changed within the past 3
   days, and provided no other rule places any restrictions on eir
   ability to change to a particular state.

to:

   A player may change eir state as a public action by announcing the new
   player state, provided eir state has not been the desired new state
   within the past 3 days, and provided no other rule places any
   restrictions on eir ability to change to a particular state.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:49:30 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Rebellion

I set my rebelliousness characteristic to ON.

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:54:52 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>How about this:
>
>In rule 250, change:
>
>   A Player may change eir state as a public action by announcing the new
>   player state, provided eir state has not changed within the past 3
>   days, and provided no other rule places any restrictions on eir
>   ability to change to a particular state.
>
>to:
>
>   A player may change eir state as a public action by announcing the new
>   player state, provided eir state has not been the desired new state
>   within the past 3 days, and provided no other rule places any
>   restrictions on eir ability to change to a particular state.
>

That would certainly accomplish what I feel the rules should say.

- --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: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 13:57:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: I return

At 01:30 PM 11/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>>Are you quite sure about that, JT?
>
>Yes, since in the case you quoted below that was the player trying to
>change his state twice in that time.  here, Nicollo returned from
>vacation,

(changed his state)

>which made him Non-Voting automatically, and tried to then
>change his status to voting.  

(changed his state)

Niccolo's case is no different; e's still trying to change eir state twice
in that time.

>I personally think that should be allowed to
>work 

i agree with this wholeheartedly.  However, since coming back from vacation
is a voluntary state change, what you outline would not actually effect a
change.

>and the rule only prevent voluntary changing more than once every
>three days.  However, the rules do state otherwise.
>
>--JT
>
>
>[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
>[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
>[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
>[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> 
- --A Mean Hat.

Crazy French Scotsman -- Daring Adventurer -- Dungeon Master  --  Really
Weird --  Rule-Harfer -- Warrior Caste

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

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:01:08 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Fruit basket

Vynd wrote:

>I set my rebelliousness characteristic to ON, and hope that any ensuing
>rebellion doesn't end up getting scamed twice as bad. I also note that
>ThinMan didn't set his reliiousness to ON, and I wonder why...

I think I already set my rebelliousness to ON.  In case I am mistaken, I
now set my rebelliousness to ON.

Should there in fact be another Rebellion very soon, I observe that there
are appropriate proposals in the queue to effectively neuter the
governments rule suite (I think).

ThinMan

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #395
*******************************