Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #403
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest     Wednesday, November 11 1998     Volume 03 : Number 403

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:11:42 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: I'm back...

On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, 404 Not Found wrote:
>I'm back from being away...
>
>
>  ... I change my status to Voting.

Welcome back to the fold 404 Not Found.

- --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: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 01:18:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bryan Federico" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Fictionary (treen)

>6)A ring, attached to the gunwale of a ship of the Vikings, for holding
>oars rowed by crew; archaic
i vote for this one also

R-Attila The Farce
(:|Worker|General Contractor|Daring Adventurer|:)

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 01:56:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ATTN: CALVIN N HOBBES

>THE SENATE AND PROP 3720 ARE YOUR FRIENDS!
>THE DIKTAT IS A BENIGN DIKTAT!
>TURN YOUR REBELLIOUSNESS OFF!

No Darth Vader, you are not my father!
I think that's Phoebe's point, thank you very much.

There sure is a bunch of harfy players with their rebelious trait on. I was
surprised to see that two-star, JT and K2 were not with the rebellion
though. Then two-star did set his on, so I guess we're still gathering momentum.

Perhaps the rest are all Senators (I could check that I guess) but even
then, that would only make their action more harfy.   ; )

Let us charge into the breach once more, dear friends!
CnH

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:12:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ATTN: CALVIN N HOBBES

CnH wrote:
>>THE SENATE AND PROP 3720 ARE YOUR FRIENDS!
>>THE DIKTAT IS A BENIGN DIKTAT!
>>TURN YOUR REBELLIOUSNESS OFF!
>
>No Darth Vader, you are not my father!
>I think that's Phoebe's point, thank you very much.
>
>There sure is a bunch of harfy players with their rebelious trait on. I was
>surprised to see that two-star, JT and K2 were not with the rebellion
>though. Then two-star did set his on, so I guess we're still gathering
momentum.
>
>Perhaps the rest are all Senators (I could check that I guess) but even
>then, that would only make their action more harfy.   ; )
>
>Let us charge into the breach once more, dear friends!

Don't you mean charge into the treen?

Studge

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:30:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: ATTN: CALVIN N HOBBES

>>Let us charge into the breach once more, dear friends!
>
>Don't you mean charge into the treen?

I don't think Billy Shakespeare would have put it that way... but why not.   : )

C'mon Studge, be the hero of the alliance!

CnH

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 02:42:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Rebel with a cause

I am switching my rebeliousness characteristic to its "ON" state.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:02:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Contract

On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, John Bollinger wrote:

> I pay the SHF to create a contract named "Democratic Contract".
> This is a public contract, and here is its text:
> 
> 	No signer of this contract will conspire by memo, message, letter,
> 	note, or any other means to grant or attribute power over the
> 	ruleset to any subgroup of the Ackan populace, unless that
> 	power be checkable by two or fewer voting players.  All signers

Doesn't the traditional process of accepting proposal already violate
this?
Niccolo Flychuck
> 	shall be alert and watch for attempts by small groups to assume
> 	such power; they shall give notice if they observe such.  Furthermore,
>       any signer to perceive such an attempt in progress shall take every
> 	avenue open to him to attempt to confound it.  The Ackanomic
> 	government must never be a puppet to a small cabal of players.
> 	It just does not compute.  The President will remain a figurehead.
> 	The Speaker will have to reckon with us if he wants to see himself
> 	as more than an obscure figure on the award-distributing stage!
> 	The Senators must evaluate the situation again if they calculate
> 	any possibility of hoardingcontrol!!.  We view these and other
> 	like actions as treasonous!!!  OUR VOICES WILL BE HEARD!!!!!
> 
> Hrrphh.  Errr... anyway, that's what it says.
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:10:38 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: new player

Please welcome Jonathon Abrams ([email-masked])  He is joining us as
a voting player under the name Blarney.

He found out about Ackanomic from doing a web search for a nomic like game
and stumbled upon ours.   His mentor is A Mean Hat.

Welcome aboard Blarney!

- --JT, Registrar

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:16:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Gift

I gift A$150 to the Church of Odo on the Worm Hole

Niccolo Flychuck
Founder of the Church of Odo on the Worm Hole

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 07:49:39 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Sides; the Picking thereof

I note that since the previous rebellion started the following have set
eir thingy to ON
28 Oct 1998 09:23:19 Vynd - ON
28 Oct 1998 09:52:38 Idiotboy - ON
30 Oct 1998 02:12:03 Wild Card - ON
30 Oct 1998 12:29:14 ThinMan - ON
30 Oct 1998 16:45:58 The Green Ripper - ON
06 Nov 1998 13:49:30 Wallace - ON
06 Nov 1998 14:29:16 Slakko - ON
06 Nov 1998 15:28:14 Robin Hood - ON
06 Nov 1998 23:23:30 Alfvaen - ON
09 Nov 1998 20:30:49 rufus - ON
09 Nov 1998 20:58:39 Calvin n Hobbes - ON
10 Nov 1998 13:34:17 two-star - ON
11 Nov 1998 02:42:21 Niccolo Flychuck - ON

13 players there are not more than 25 voting players at the moment. More
than 50% have set eir rebelliousness to ON. Gentle entities we are in a
Revolution.

- ---
30 Oct 1998 14:08:05 eirs - ON 10 Nov 1998 18:32:16 eirs -OFF

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:01:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 689 (TRUE)

Call for Judgement 689 - November 7, 1998
Subject: JT Hat Win
Initiator: JT (sent 07 Nov 1998, 13:01 Acka)
Judge: r-attila the farce (chosen 10 Nov 1998, 05:15 Acka)
Judgement: TRUE

Statement:
JT achieved a winning condition on 27 Oct 1998 04:06:42 (which is during
the current cycle) through the action of rule 607.

Reasoning:
When Slakko judged UNDECIDED on CFJ 376, I realized that I'd misread the
rule 607.
I then sold two hats (numbered 1 and 12) to the Mad Hatters.
At this point I recieved the title Agent of KAOS, since I had hats
C7, 3, and 8, all of which were TRUE and my score was greater than or
equal to the sum of those three hats.

At this point a few things happened simultaneously and an infinitesimal
amount of time after I recieved the title.
a) I was payed A$40 from the owners of the Eggplants corresponding to
   hats C7, 3, and 8 (Studge, K2 and Gromit)
b) The goose went somewhere else according to rule 620.

An infinitesimal time after a) above, the following events occured in
order, and an infinitesimal amount of time apart.

c) the agenda hats (C7, 3, and 8) were destroyed.
d) I (as the Agent of KAOS) achieved a Winning Condition.

The only issue here is whether or not step b) occured where I have it
above (or at some other point before step d) or if it occured after d).

I contend that the 'event' being referred to in rule 620 is the donation
of the hats to the Mad Hatters.  This triggered the first part of rule 607

and gave me the title.   This event did not give me a winning condition as
well, as that happens due to a further sequence of events, all of which
occur some infinitesmal amount of time after I recieve the title.
Therefore the firing of rule 620 happened immediately upon my recieving
the title and did not wait until after I had achieved the Winning
Condition later in the rule.

Judges Reasoning:

The reasoning presented by the intiator seems flawless, and my research 
into the relevant rules also indicates this.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:46:02 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Non-Voting?

Did I miss a quorum failure that I abstained on?  I've been told twice
that I'm non-voting, but I don't show up that way on JT's page, and I
don't remember reading anything that said I was non-voting.

Anyway, I change my status to Voting if I can do so.  I also set my
rebelliousness characteristic to "on" if it is not already.

Wallace

- ------------------
Aaron Keesler
Lotus Notes Administrator
Intranet Administrator
Adtran, Inc.
- ------------------
"And now... Number one:  The Larch."

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:47:07 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Sides; the Picking thereof

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, K 2 wrote:

> I note that since the previous rebellion started the following have set
> eir thingy to ON
> 28 Oct 1998 09:23:19 Vynd - ON
> 28 Oct 1998 09:52:38 Idiotboy - ON
> 30 Oct 1998 02:12:03 Wild Card - ON
> 30 Oct 1998 12:29:14 ThinMan - ON
> 30 Oct 1998 16:45:58 The Green Ripper - ON
> 06 Nov 1998 13:49:30 Wallace - ON
> 06 Nov 1998 14:29:16 Slakko - ON
> 06 Nov 1998 15:28:14 Robin Hood - ON
> 06 Nov 1998 23:23:30 Alfvaen - ON
> 09 Nov 1998 20:30:49 rufus - ON
> 09 Nov 1998 20:58:39 Calvin n Hobbes - ON
> 10 Nov 1998 13:34:17 two-star - ON
> 11 Nov 1998 02:42:21 Niccolo Flychuck - ON
> 
> 13 players there are not more than 25 voting players at the moment. More
> than 50% have set eir rebelliousness to ON. Gentle entities we are in a
> Revolution.

Good. Now that we are revolting, everyone please vote AGAINST the proposal
that would give Arf with eir head control over the game. I believe its
voting period will last for approximately another day and a half.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:20:22 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Voting

Not too surprisingly, the 'Bot is not yet up to date with respect to who is
elligible to vote.

/dev/joe, do I need to re-send the votes that the 'bot just rejected?

ThinMan
Vote NO on P3720.  Vote YES for freedom.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:28:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Some misconceptions

At 09:46 AM 11/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Did I miss a quorum failure that I abstained on?  I've been told twice
>that I'm non-voting, but I don't show up that way on JT's page, and I
>don't remember reading anything that said I was non-voting.
>
>Anyway, I change my status to Voting if I can do so.  I also set my
>rebelliousness characteristic to "on" if it is not already.
>
>Wallace

You were already Voting and your Rebelliousness was already on.

At 07:49 AM 11/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I note that since the previous rebellion started the following have set
>eir thingy to ON
>28 Oct 1998 09:23:19 Vynd - ON
>28 Oct 1998 09:52:38 Idiotboy - ON
>30 Oct 1998 02:12:03 Wild Card - ON
>30 Oct 1998 12:29:14 ThinMan - ON
>30 Oct 1998 16:45:58 The Green Ripper - ON
>06 Nov 1998 13:49:30 Wallace - ON
>06 Nov 1998 14:29:16 Slakko - ON
>06 Nov 1998 15:28:14 Robin Hood - ON
>06 Nov 1998 23:23:30 Alfvaen - ON
>09 Nov 1998 20:30:49 rufus - ON
>09 Nov 1998 20:58:39 Calvin n Hobbes - ON
>10 Nov 1998 13:34:17 two-star - ON
>11 Nov 1998 02:42:21 Niccolo Flychuck - ON
>
>13 players there are not more than 25 voting players at the moment. More
>than 50% have set eir rebelliousness to ON. Gentle entities we are in a
>Revolution.

This is not true.  two-star is nonvoting.  E was given a puppethead when
prop 3639 failed quorum, because e had gotten rid of eir previous
puppethead only 2 or 3 days previously.  Prop 3639 was reported on Oct 24
at 1:29 AM, which is when the proposal actually failed quorum and when the
puppethead was given.  

about 6 days after the proposal had come due, it was announced that Calvin
n Hobbes and two-star had gone nonvoting.  This was on the 29th or early
30th.  The puppetheads were actually not due for another day.  In eir
response later on the 30th, Calvin N Hobbes quoted a previous puppethead
message, thereby getting rid of eir puppethead.  Unfortunately, two-star
was a different matter.  All two-star did was change eir status to Voting.
This action did nothing because e was already Voting.  As a result,
two-star went non-voting on the 31st.  I don't *think* this affects any
proposal results, but that's more /dev/joe's province than mine.  The
important part is that two-star is non-voting.

so... 24 voters, 12 rebels... not more than 50%... yet.

- --A Mean Hat.

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:38:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Voting

> Not too surprisingly, the 'Bot is not yet up to date with respect to who is
> elligible to vote.
> 
> /dev/joe, do I need to re-send the votes that the 'bot just rejected?

If and when a revolution actually occurs (see A Mean Hat.'s recent
message), I will rerun all votes received by the bot after the
revolution beagn but before I got around to telling the bot that.
You will not need to send them to me privately, or re-run them after
some announcement, and you should get another bot notification when
they get re-run.  I will re-run them with the proposal-result-send-out
feature temporarily turned off, if need be, if a revolution occurs
too close to the time of the proposals' voting periods ending.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:42:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Phoebe (/dev/joe)

While I was hard at work, trying to write up proposals to fix all the holes
in the lump of swiss cheese that passes for a ruleset in Acka these days,
there came a loud knock at my door.  Not expecting any guests at this late
hour, I looked through the peephole and saw nothing.  But while I was
standing there looking, the knock came again, so I opened up and saw a
tiny red-and-blue matchbox.  The matchbox hopped inside and out popped a
tiny metallic being I immediately recognized as Phoebe.

"But Phoebe, how did you manage to knock so hard on my door?  Most people
don't knock so loud," I asked.

Phoebe said, "No time for that.  Acka is in the midst of a severe series of
scams, one of the worst since you were President, while Acka was still in
its relative infancy and Malenkai's Loophole and lots of game custom was
just getting hashed out, lots of rules just then being read and fully
understood for the first time.  This time, it has a number of causes,
including the inexplicable passage of a couple proposals which look like
pure scams from the start, an unintentional but severe loophole in another
proposal, and the more inexplicable, opposition to removing the obvious and
already-played-out loophole from the rules."

Phoebe paused, as if to take a breath, though I was unsure if the tiny
mechanical-seeming insect did anything of the sort.  Then she continued.
"Now listen closely, /dev/joe.  You and your compatriots must take control
and clean up this set of scams.  The government thing is very bad; you
know as well as I that as soon as we go into anarchy, the props in the queue
will fail quorum, and another group will try to put us into their government
of choice, and this will continue, with no real guarantee of getting a
proposal to fix it passed until somebody with real power does it.  Given the
vote on the Crisis Resolution Document, it's not clear a scam fix proposal
would pass anyway."

Finally, I got a chance to speak.  "So Phoebe, what all do we need to do
while we are in power?"

"First, set the government to Democracy and repeal all the limited-voting
Governments.  K 2 made a good point that governments could be used for
some generally reasonable things like anti-voting, instead of these
limited-voting things which are pretty much all scams, so the concept of
interchangeable Governments doesn't necessarily need to go."

"Second, repeal Felicitous Populi Otzma Cards.  These have SCAM written
all over them in 72-point boldface.  Why Acka ever accepted such a thing
is beyond even my ability to comprehend.  Random events are a viable
game structure today, but not as long as these things exist."

"Third, restore the limit of one of each type of point conversion per
fortnight that JT forgot on his grand proposal that did away with
Swingpoints.  Whether or not to penalize abusers of this rule is tricky
politics, but certainly blow up any Bonus Votes produced this way that
are not owned by players when you get around to fixing the rule."

"Fourth, fix all these oddities in the current Win system.  Cycle-Win
Calls for Judgement should be tied more closely to the Winning
Conditions they represent, so only one CWCFJ can be successfully
called on one Winning Condition, and you shouldn't miss out on getting
a win just because you happened to get your winning condition in the
middle of the night, the night that somebody else's TRUE CWCFJ became
unappealable 2 hours later.  In the old days, before CWCFJs, when
cycle wins happened immediately on meeting the conditions, it was easily
possible to have two Cycle Wins moments apart for different conditions,
though not as easy as today since there were fewer different ways to
win back then."

"Fifth, repay Gromit for his troubles, A$600 used on the Otzma Card that
enabled the necessary government type to take control (and prevented
a few potentially much more disastrous ones) and A$600 that ThinMan
subsequently stole from him by Go Fishing that card after the fact.
Don't get greedy like K 2's group attempted in Proposal 3716 and go
stealing thousands of A$ from the treasury for each of your members,
though, and repay Gromit purely from the Treasury -- let ThinMan keep
the A$600 he gained from the Go Fish; he *did* use up a Go Fish card
for that, after all."

"Sixth, carve your names into the growing list of former emperors of
Ackanomic and remove your little power rule.  Quickly, so that Acka
doesn't go the way of Macronomic."

Phoebe, surprisingly, seemed out of breath, so after a moment I asked,
"Is that all?"

She spoke again.  "Well, the rest can probably wait and be done with normal
proposals."

"You guys have really gone overboard on the harf.  Take some time to clean
out old stale harf that isn't ever used, and work harder at aligning the
existing harf in the framework of rule numbers that was established by the
elders.  Clean out the Miscellaneous Rules Suite, definitely."

"You might as well dump the 'When used on proposals' bit from the Go Fish
Otzma Card, since it's plenty powerful enough as it is, and when this
part was finally used after 2 years sitting there untouched and untested,
it didn't have the power to work anyway."

"Fix up some of these dangling entity problems.  We should really have a
rule that destroys offices when they cease to be defined by the rules,
and at the same time ensure that all the offices we want to keep are
defined by the rules.  Other dangling entities in general are OK, but
work harder at getting rid of ones that have stuck around a while without
being inducted into the Harfonian."

"And speaking of entities, when are you ever going to get rid of implicit
entityhood?  It was what, 1000 proposals ago that this was promised? 1500?
No, it was more than 2300 proposals ago, and more than 2 full years, back
to proposal 1416, the rule that established the framework for entities
today, written by elder Chaos (then Mohammed).  Make a run through the
rules, adding explicit entityhood where desired, and then finally remove
the implicit entityhood as promised."

"Another tricky thing to look at down the line are timing issues.  We have
rule 205 to handle all the complicated timing that occurs with score
changes, but we have quite a few non-score-related triggered things these
days, and already, in the past, the timing of such events has been called
into question; JT's win by Agenda Hat, due to his earlier error, relies
on such a timing question."

She again looked out of breath.  "I think I must be leaving soon."

I responded, "Thanks for all these ideas, Phoebe; if you keep up your
recent brisk pace of visits, I'm sure I'll see you again before we even
get all these proposals written."  But before I even finished saying it,
the matchbox had vanished.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:20:15 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Some misconceptions

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>>13 players there are not more than 25 voting players at the moment. More
>>than 50% have set eir rebelliousness to ON. Gentle entities we are in a
>>Revolution.
>
>This is not true.  two-star is nonvoting.  E was given a puppethead when
>prop 3639 failed quorum, because e had gotten rid of eir previous
>puppethead only 2 or 3 days previously.  Prop 3639 was reported on Oct 24
>at 1:29 AM, which is when the proposal actually failed quorum and when the
>puppethead was given.  
>
>about 6 days after the proposal had come due, it was announced that Calvin
>n Hobbes and two-star had gone nonvoting.  This was on the 29th or early
>30th.  The puppetheads were actually not due for another day.  In eir
>response later on the 30th, Calvin N Hobbes quoted a previous puppethead
>message, thereby getting rid of eir puppethead.  Unfortunately, two-star
>was a different matter.  All two-star did was change eir status to Voting.
>This action did nothing because e was already Voting.  As a result,
>two-star went non-voting on the 31st.  I don't *think* this affects any
>proposal results, but that's more /dev/joe's province than mine.  The
>important part is that two-star is non-voting.
>
>so... 24 voters, 12 rebels... not more than 50%... yet.

Having checked my records and the digests, I find that this is in fact the
case.
I apologize profusely and give A$25 to the Twits for the magnitude of this
mistake.
Two-star is in fact 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: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:23:23 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Non-Voting players

In the quorum failure that occured at Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:01 Acka time,
rufus was given a puppet head and has failed to remove it since then.
He therefore went non-voting today at 14:01 Acka time.

Due to the recent miswording pointed out in the player state change rule,
he may not change his status to voting for 3 days.

- --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: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:29:37 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: A second new player today.

We have another new player.

Mark Sangster ([email-masked]) has asked to join Ackanomic as a voting
player under the Ackanomic name of bacon.  He says that he heard about our
game through word of mouth, but didn't specify any player as having been
the one who told him.

His mentor is Gromit, and I hope you will all join me in welcoming him to
our family of players.

- --JT, Registar

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:39:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A second new player today.

Is going to get to use the name bacon?

Hey, bacon, set your rebelliousness to on.

IB

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> We have another new player.
> 
> Mark Sangster ([email-masked]) has asked to join Ackanomic as a voting
> player under the Ackanomic name of bacon.  He says that he heard about our
> game through word of mouth, but didn't specify any player as having been
> the one who told him.
> 
> His mentor is Gromit, and I hope you will all join me in welcoming him to
> our family of players.
> 
> --JT, Registar
> 
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:42:38 -0500 (EST)
From: AARON KEESLER <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: A second new player today.

You can't be a *cool* new player unless you set your rebelliousness to
"on".

(Welcome to Ackanomic, by the way :)

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Matt Miller [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Wednesday, November 11, 1998 1:40 PM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: Acka: A second new player today.
>
>Is going to get to use the name bacon?
>
>Hey, bacon, set your rebelliousness to on.
>
>IB
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:48:27 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A second new player today.

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
>Is going to get to use the name bacon?

No.. Bacon was the second new player today.  Blarney was the first.

- --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: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:53:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A second new player today.

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
> >Is going to get to use the name bacon?
> 
> No.. Bacon was the second new player today.  Blarney was the first.
> 

Ummm, ok, does that answer my question?

E is going to be allowed to use Bacon as eir name?

IB
shut up, eirs.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:54:28 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Niccolo Flychuck)

Niccolo Flychuck has found Phoebe's matchbox.

- --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: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:02:57 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A second new player today.

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
>> >Is going to get to use the name bacon?
>> 
>> No.. Bacon was the second new player today.  Blarney was the first.
>> 
>
>Ummm, ok, does that answer my question?
>
>E is going to be allowed to use Bacon as eir name?

   The titles of Rules and Proposals are not required to be unique, with
   respect to each other or with respect to any other entity. (This
   paragraph takes precedence over Rule 348.)

Rule 348 is the rule that would prevent a player from having the same name
as any other entity.

Rule 251 only says that the player name must comply with all applicable
rules.
Rule 348 says no two named entities may have the same name, but is
overridden by the above passage from rule 301.

Therefore bacon is a legal player name.

- -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: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:09:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Naming Query

If I had asked this morning to change my name to "Bacon" woud the
registrar have allowed this name selection?

IB

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:14:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IB Becomes ReHustle!

I change my name to ReHustle.

IB

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:23:51 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Naming Query

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
>If I had asked this morning to change my name to "Bacon" woud the
>registrar have allowed this name selection?

Yes, I probably would have IB.   But since you didn't try, you'll never
know.

I also acknowledge your name change to 'ReHustle', and note that RBBT'ing
it to 'The Rules' (which I assume is your intent) will not work as you
intend. Previous game custom has held that having an entity assume a name
which already has a referent in the ruleset does not cause the ruleset to
now start referring to the new entity.  While CFJs are not explicit game
custom, they certainly are used by judges as implicit custom and thus do
in fact serve their intended purpose in the long run.  Yes this means that
some of the name changes I objected too in the past were probably overly
paranoid on my part.  However, I am merely human and do make mistakes,
booth in my understanding of the rules and custom as well as in judgement.
Since I was chided for being so tyrannical over name change objections,
and since convincing myself that the CFJ reasoning I referred to above was
still sound, I have beome much less tyrannical about checking name
changes.

I will also note that the rules only give me the power to object in the
case of name changes, but only require that I be 'satisfied of the
legality of the name' in the case of a new player.

As I demonstrated in the previous mail, the name Bacon is legal.
So in this case I could have objected to a player changing to that name,
but have no such authority over the names of new players.

- --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: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:49:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Naming Query

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Matt Miller wrote:
> >If I had asked this morning to change my name to "Bacon" woud the
> >registrar have allowed this name selection?
> 
> Yes, I probably would have IB.   But since you didn't try, you'll never
> know.

Dang. :-)

> I also acknowledge your name change to 'ReHustle', and note that RBBT'ing
> it to 'The Rules' (which I assume is your intent) will not work as you
> intend. Previous game custom has held that having an entity assume a name
> which already has a referent in the ruleset does not cause the ruleset to
> now start referring to the new entity.  

Wow!  Rehustle IS an anagram for "The Rules", isn't it.. spiff!  

I have no doubt that JTs interpretation of judicial precedant and game
custom is corret.  I would, however, like to be known as The Rules,
anyway, if any RBBT owner is so inclined.   I promise I won't even try to
take over the game, or even submit a CFJ to see if I could.  It'd just be
a cool name.

> I will also note that the rules only give me the power to object in the
> case of name changes, but only require that I be 'satisfied of the
> legality of the name' in the case of a new player.

I honestly never thought that your satisfaction would become an issue in
my life. :-)    

I guess my biggest problem with the ruleset as it exists falls as follows:

- - We have slid all the way to the bottom of the slope where we choose
legalistic readings of the rules over common sense interpretation of
them.

- - We have, nonetheless, provided nearly ALL of our Officers with "common
sense discretion" to do their jobs.

This dichotomy bothers me.  If we are going to demand full speicifcation
from all players (in terms of writing the rules, performing game actions
and the like), then we should provide a similar inflexible framework in
which our Officers are required to work.

Providing Officers with a status "above the law" (I know, I know, but its
just a familiar expression, and I live for cliches) gives them NO
incentive to work to change the direction of Ackanomic to a more free and
open interpretation of the rules.  If Officers were as hindered in the
performance of their duties as the average player is in performing game
actions one of two things would happen:

- - We would have no Officers.
- - We would loosen up on our general interpration of the ruleset.

How did I get on this topic?
RH

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:53:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Let's get this right, people

You guys don't seem to be very good at counting... There were a few moments
there when you had enough people to rebel, but didnt notice.  If you want
the correct count, you can check out my new Dungeon Master Page, sans
tables, at www.ackanomic.org/~sten/dm/

11/24 now, with Rufus nonvoting and bacon a player

P.S.  bacon and Blarney: be VERY careful not to say "hubert" in a public
forum.  people will try to trick you... check reply-to's and long messages
for hidden huberts.

P.P.S.  bacon: don't listen to them.  We're a benign diktat, not a mean
one.  A may be a mean hat, but i wouldn't be a mean emperor.  Just ask your
mentor.

- --A Mean Hat.

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:34:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A second new player today.

>E is going to be allowed to use Bacon as eir name?
>
>IB
>shut up, eirs.

shut up, eccles.

eirs

(joke? old?)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:37:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: A second new player today.

>We have another new player.
>
>Mark Sangster ([email-masked]) has asked to join Ackanomic as a voting
>player under the Ackanomic name of bacon.

mmm... I see what's going on here... and you're never going to get this guy
to rebel.

(The All-Seeing) eirs

p.s. infinity to the power infinity and then some.

p.p.s. mmm... cross-mailing-list arguments.

p.p.p.s. I'll shut up...

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:42:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Gavin Logan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Let's get this right, people

>11/24 now, with Rufus nonvoting and bacon a player

Unrebel !!!

>P.S.  bacon and Blarney: be VERY careful not to say "herbert" in a public
>forum.  people will try to trick you... check reply-to's and long messages
>for hidden herberts.

ooh, who would try such A Mean Thing?

>P.P.S.  bacon: don't listen to them.  We're a benign diktat, not a mean
>one.  A may be a mean hat, but i wouldn't be a mean emperor.  Just ask your
>mentor.

A Mean Hat is benign? do you really want a benign dictator? How much fun
would that be?

eirs

(who really regrets not standing for Senator)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:10:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Naming Query

Matt Miller wrote:

> I guess my biggest problem with the ruleset as it exists falls as follows:
>
> - We have slid all the way to the bottom of the slope where we choose
> legalistic readings of the rules over common sense interpretation of
> them.
>
> - We have, nonetheless, provided nearly ALL of our Officers with "common
> sense discretion" to do their jobs.
>
> This dichotomy bothers me.  If we are going to demand full speicifcation
> from all players (in terms of writing the rules, performing game actions
> and the like), then we should provide a similar inflexible framework in
> which our Officers are required to work.
>
> Providing Officers with a status "above the law" (I know, I know, but its
> just a familiar expression, and I live for cliches) gives them NO
> incentive to work to change the direction of Ackanomic to a more free and
> open interpretation of the rules.  If Officers were as hindered in the
> performance of their duties as the average player is in performing game
> actions one of two things would happen:
>
> - We would have no Officers.
> - We would loosen up on our general interpration of the ruleset.

To some extent I agree with rehustle here. I think we have to give officers
some "common sense discretion" as you put it, because otherwise we'd have no
officers, or not as many as we have offices anyway. In all honesty, I don't
have a quibble with reading the rules as they are written as opposed to how
they were intended either. Who knows what was intended. When I did the none
self deleting {{Alfvaen gains 2 points}} in rule 340 my intention was to scam a
win for Alfvaen, even though it didn't appear that way. What I do generally
tend to object to is when JT (or anyone else, it really could be anyone) makes
me resend something because I missed out some tiny little detail. The end
result is identical so there's no reason we shouldn't let it slide but we
don't. This is incredibly annoying (small a) and as TEFKAIB points out quite a
nasty inconsistency.

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.

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #403
*******************************