Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #417
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, November 19 1998      Volume 03 : Number 417

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 00:01:00 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Leaving

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Alexandre Muniz wrote:
>JT wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, bacon wrote:
>> >I am leaving....goodbye
>> 
>> Bacon becomes a non-player since he never voted.
>
>Is this action unambiguous? E could be just leaving eir house.

It's not ambiguous since he emailed me privately before that saying he
needed to leave the game since the volume of mail was drawing the ire of
his post master.  He then sent the mail and unsubbed from the lists.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 01:54:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bryan Federico" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Org's

I ask for entrance into the GOP

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:19:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Org's

R-Attila The Farce wrote:
>
>I ask for entrance into the GOP
>

Don't need to.  We were one of the very few that didn't get smacked in the
head.

Thomas Jute

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:27:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: sigh

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, JT wrote:
> 
> The Religious Caste was Fueding with JAM.
> 
> The duel is not over however
>  3. A state of Feud is over when one of the following conditions have
>  been met:
> 
>  a. Every player member of the two Organizations engaged in a Feud with
>  each other, fought a Duel with at least one memberof the Organization
>  it is Feuding with, since the Feud begun.
> 
> There are some members of the Religious Caste who never fought a fued
> with a member of JAM since the feud started, therefore it hasn't ended
> yet.

Fueds can also end by mutual agreement, or by loss of interest.

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:30:39 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

>  I mentioned this scam to JT months ago, and he

I remember thinking of this scam shortly before Slakko's Museum win.....

> said it didn't work because, in his opinion, it was publicly knowable
> that a trinket was a forgery the moment it was created, since all the
> player names are a matter of public record and the trinket's name must
> be posted publicly when it is being created.  I agreed with this, and
> let it rest.
>
> Then along comes K2, changing forgeries exactly this way, so we figure
> he'd seen the same loophole, and so we vote against it, and when it passes
> anyway, we set up all our friends for free museum wins.

I set the scam up with AM, studge and r-attila.

> This is no worse
> than what K 2 tried to do with Proposal 3716, and IMHO not even that bad;
> it's simply a case of out-scamming the scamster K 2,

backstabing - and I thought I was treacherous over the rebeliousness thing.

> and JT wanted to do
> this to pay K 2 back for wrecking most of the organizations of Acka.

eye for an eye - bad game play startegy.

I bury all of my tradeable entities as a treasure.

I change my state to non-player.

K 2

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:37:54 -0500 (EST)
From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Nonplayer correspondence

If the postmaster would be so good as to remove my
[email-masked] address from the lists I would be most obliged.

Kelly Kelly

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:46:47 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: sigh

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, JT wrote:
>> 
>> The Religious Caste was Fueding with JAM.
>> 
>> The duel is not over however
>>  3. A state of Feud is over when one of the following conditions have
>>  been met:
>> 
>>  a. Every player member of the two Organizations engaged in a Feud with
>>  each other, fought a Duel with at least one memberof the Organization
>>  it is Feuding with, since the Feud begun.
>> 
>> There are some members of the Religious Caste who never fought a fued
>> with a member of JAM since the feud started, therefore it hasn't ended
>> yet.
>
>Fueds can also end by mutual agreement, or by loss of interest.

True, but neither of those have occured 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: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:09:05 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, K 2 wrote:
>> Then along comes K2, changing forgeries exactly this way, so we figure
>> he'd seen the same loophole, and so we vote against it, and when it passes
>> anyway, we set up all our friends for free museum wins.
>
>I set the scam up with AM, studge and r-attila.

As I said in my earlier reply to /dev/joe, I wasn't involved with this in
any way except for a) initially pointing out that it didn't work and b)
giving Pol Pot/Studge/R-Attila the farce the final money they needed in
order to accomplish the scam.

>I bury all of my tradeable entities as a treasure.
>
>I change my state to non-player.

I don't actually believe this works.   I'm open to other people's
interpretation however.

Rule 250 says:
   I. Player States

   All natural persons exist in exactly one of the following states:

   Voting
   Non-Voting
   Vacationing
   On Ice
   Non-Player

Note, that says these states apply to 'natural persons' not 'players'.

Later rule 250 says
   Players are named, unownable entities.
   Non-Players may observe the game and participate in discussions, but
   their posts shall not affect the game state except as described in
   rule 252. Non-player persons are not entities.

And still later is says
   III. Changing State

   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. Whenever a player's state is
   changed, the appropriate following section applies to them:

Note that it says "the new *player* state" (emphasis mine).

As we see above, Non-Players are not entities, and therefore, the state of
Non-Player cannot apply to players, and therefore it is not a new PLAYER
state.

This doesn't impact other players who have left the game because in those
instance, it is a rule changing their state to non-player, not them trying
to change themself to a new *player* state (again emphasis mine).

I do however believe that this could unambiguously be seen as a request to
leave the game, and will harf him as having gone On-Ice unless people can
convince me that he did in fact become a non-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: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:12:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

>I do however believe that this could unambiguously be seen as a request to
>leave the game, and will harf him as having gone On-Ice unless people can
>convince me that he did in fact become a non-player.
>

If this is the case, I nominate K 2 for entrance into the hall of elders.

- --Pol Pot

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

Memo to myself: Do the dumb things you gotta do.  Touch the puppet head.
Over 50% of all voting players have a rebelliousness of "on"
Happy! Happy! Happy!
I'm on fire!
To Ganymede and Titan, yes sir I've been around
I apply to join all pseudofounded organizations, vote no on all outstanding
IPs, remove myself from the CFJ ineligibility list, and go home.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:17:56 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>If this is the case, I nominate K 2 for entrance into the hall of elders.

And if this is the case, I wholeheartedly support this nomination.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:21:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

PP wrote:
>>I do however believe that this could unambiguously be seen as a request to
>>leave the game, and will harf him as having gone On-Ice unless people can
>>convince me that he did in fact become a non-player.
>>
>
>If this is the case, I nominate K 2 for entrance into the hall of elders.

Even if this is not the case I support K2's nomination.

Thomas Jute

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:26:33 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Semi-crisis

ALL of K2's pages from both brain.mics.net/~k2/ (www.ackanomic.org/~k2/)
and home.connexus.net.au/~kii/   Does anyone happen to have recent backups
of these pages?

Regardless of whether he went On-Ice or Non-Player, I now need to conduct
nominations as Acting President for the following functional offices.

I will hold off announcing the nominations for 3 days unless I am
re-elected president before that time.  Otherwise, whomever is elected can
do that job.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:33:48 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Acting what??

As Acting President, I ask if anyone would be willing to take over Acting
Scorekeeper and Acting Financier in the interim.   I *know* that I cannot
keep up with them.   Any of the other of K 2's offices that people wish to
hold in an acting capacity pending nominations or elections, would be
greatly appreciated, but I believe that scorekeeper and financier were the
only two non-optional ones.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:38:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Acting what??

At 03:33 AM 11/19/98 -0500, you wrote:
>As Acting President, I ask if anyone would be willing to take over Acting
>Scorekeeper and Acting Financier in the interim.   I *know* that I cannot
>keep up with them.   Any of the other of K 2's offices that people wish to
>hold in an acting capacity pending nominations or elections, would be
>greatly appreciated, but I believe that scorekeeper and financier were the
>only two non-optional ones.
>

I am willing to be acting financier.  I feel responsible in a large part
for this situation, and I apologize to Acka for any blame i may have had in
causing it.
- --Pol Pot

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

Memo to myself: Do the dumb things you gotta do.  Touch the puppet head.
Over 50% of all voting players have a rebelliousness of "on"
Happy! Happy! Happy!
I'm on fire!
To Ganymede and Titan, yes sir I've been around
I apply to join all pseudofounded organizations, vote no on all outstanding
IPs, remove myself from the CFJ ineligibility list, and go home.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 03:41:21 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Acting what??

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>I am willing to be acting financier.  I feel responsible in a large part
>for this situation, and I apologize to Acka for any blame i may have had in
>causing it.

I appoint Pol Pot Acting Financier.

- --JT

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:21:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 697 (Danek)

Danek has been selected.

Call for Judgement 697 - November 17, 1998
Subject: Beavis
Initiator: Pol Pot (sent Nov 17 1998, 02:50 Acka)
Judge: Danek
Judgement:

Statement: 
Pol Pot is a butthead

Reasoning: 
None

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:21:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: go back to not voting

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, JT wrote:
> > 
> > Actually, not quite.   Players WERE removed from 2 of the 3 castes, which
> > ALSO removed them from their Council seat, and I will note that there is
> > no provision in the rules for a player entering a caste except newbies and
> > players returning from On-Ice.  It will also now need to be checked
> > against H-Sim when a player enters a caste in addition to anything else.
> > Over all, this proposal is a serious headache.
> > 
> > --JT
> 
> Now might be a good time to consider if we really care about the castes at
> all. I've yet to recieve a message from another member of the religious
> castes as such. Nor have I recieved any from the Grey Council, of which I
> was a member. If players don't actually have any ideas about what to do
> with these castes, well its not as if we don't have plenty of other things
> to occupy our time with. I will probably propose a repeal, in a few days,
> if I don't see some overwhelmingly negative opinions in the meantime.

I think that the Grey Council should become the body that the Senate was
supposed to be.  Hand all the Senate's powers over to the Grey Council
(which, being a larger body, should be less scam-prone) and then give it
some new ones.  The Senate is too small an org to have any decent powers,
and should be repealed, but the Grey Council can gain those powers.

For example, the ability to veto a Proposal by a 7/9 or greater majority
(7/9 or greater to ensure someone from each caste is in favour).
- -- 
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: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:21:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 699 (else...if)

else...if has been selected.

Call for Judgement 699 - November 18, 1998
Subject: Museum Win the Second CWCFJ
Initiator: r-attila the farce (sent Nov 18 1998, 01:39 Acka)
Judge: else...if
Judgement:

Statement: 
r-attila the farce has achieved a win condition during the 
cuurent cycle of Ackanomic.

Reasoning: 
I donated Thomas Jute is happy to the museum.  Therefore my 
benefactor value was greater than A$5000 which R850 indicates gives me a 
win condition.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:21:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 700 (r-attila the farce)

r-attila the farce has been selected.

Call for Judgement 700 - November 18, 1998
Subject: Museum Win the Third CFJ
Initiator: Pol Pot (sent Nov 18 1998, 01:46 Acka)
Judge: r-attila the farce
Judgement:

Statement: 
Pol Pot has achieved a win condition during the 
cuurent cycle of Ackanomic.

Reasoning: I donated Doubting Thomas Jute to the museum.  Therefore my 
benefactor value was greater than A$5000 which R850 indicates gives me a 
win condition.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:21:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 698 (K 2)

K 2 has been selected.

Call for Judgement 698 - November 18, 1998
Subject: Museum Win The First
Initiator: Thomas Jute (sent Nov 18 1998, 01:35 Acka)
Judge: K 2
Judgement:

Statement: 
Thomas Jute has achieved a win condition during the cuurent cycle of
Ackanomic.

Reasoning: 
I donated r-attila the farce is happy to the museum.  Therefore
my benefactor value is greater than A$5000 which R850 indicates gives me a
win condition.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:22:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 690 (IdiotBoy)

K 2 has gone deadbeat.
IdiotBoy has been selected.

Call for Judgement 690 - November 7, 1998
Subject: Mungibility of Nontradeability
Initiator: JT (sent 7 Nov 1998, 14:18 Acka)
1st Judge: K 2 (chosen 10 Nov 1998, 05:17 Acka) (deadbeat)
2nd Judge; IdiotBoy
Judgement:

Statement:
JT has three whamiols.

Reasoning:
If the original determination for JT's play of the Arctic Explorer card
was valid, then this CFJ is TRUE.

If the original determination was false, then JT has a Magic Radish that
he did not previously have.

I believe that the first determination was accurate because when the
entities Magic Radish and Rock to Wind a String around, were repealed they
ceased to be tradeable.   I believe they are still entities however.

Rule 500 states that
>Something is an entity if and only if the rules specify that it is, or
>it is defined by the Rules and Ackanomic tradition indicates that it is
>an entity.

They are still entities, because Ackanomic tradition has them as entities.

Rule 500 further states
>An entity may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as
>specified by the Rules.

Rule 502 states
>Each entity is either unownable, nontradeable, or tradeable. Tradeable
>entities are either giftable or ackable, and are either protected or
>exportable. Tradeable entities are ackable and protected unless the
>Rules specify otherwise. An entity is nontradeable unless the Rules
>specify otherwise. If an entity is nontradeable or tradeable then it
>is ownable.

I would argue that the entities became non-tradeable by rule 502 when they
ceased to be defined by the rules.   Since this is rule 502 applying the
change of state from tradeability to non-tradeability, I would argue that
rule 500 does not take precedence and block this manipulation of
tradeability since it is happening as defined in the rules.

If this argument is accurate, then the first determination was valid, and
the statement is TRUE.  Otherwise the statement is FALSE.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 05:29:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, K 2 wrote:
> >> Then along comes K2, changing forgeries exactly this way, so we figure
> >> he'd seen the same loophole, and so we vote against it, and when it passes
> >> anyway, we set up all our friends for free museum wins.
> >
> >I set the scam up with AM, studge and r-attila.
> 
> As I said in my earlier reply to /dev/joe, I wasn't involved with this in
> any way except for a) initially pointing out that it didn't work and b)
> giving Pol Pot/Studge/R-Attila the farce the final money they needed in
> order to accomplish the scam.
> 
> >I bury all of my tradeable entities as a treasure.
> >
> >I change my state to non-player.
> 
> I don't actually believe this works.   I'm open to other people's
> interpretation however.
> 
> Rule 250 says:
>    I. Player States
> 
>    All natural persons exist in exactly one of the following states:
> 
>    Voting
>    Non-Voting
>    Vacationing
>    On Ice
>    Non-Player
> 
> Note, that says these states apply to 'natural persons' not 'players'.
> 
> Later rule 250 says
>    Players are named, unownable entities.
>    Non-Players may observe the game and participate in discussions, but
>    their posts shall not affect the game state except as described in
>    rule 252. Non-player persons are not entities.
> 
> And still later is says
>    III. Changing State
> 
>    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. Whenever a player's state is
>    changed, the appropriate following section applies to them:
> 
> 
> Note that it says "the new *player* state" (emphasis mine).

What about the new "player state".  After all, the section says "I. Player
States".  Are we to assume that that heading really means 'player states,
plus, of course, non-player states as well, but I'm not mentioning those'?

> As we see above, Non-Players are not entities, and therefore, the state of
> Non-Player cannot apply to players, and therefore it is not a new PLAYER
> state.
> 
> This doesn't impact other players who have left the game because in those
> instance, it is a rule changing their state to non-player, not them trying
> to change themself to a new *player* state (again emphasis mine).
> 
> I do however believe that this could unambiguously be seen as a request to
> leave the game, and will harf him as having gone On-Ice unless people can
> convince me that he did in fact become a non-player.

I disagree that this was a request to "leave the game".  It was clearly
and unambiguously an attempt to change player state.  Just because your
interpretation of the rules claims that to be impossible does not mean you
can automatically reinterpret it to be the nearest thing you believe to be
possible.

- -- 
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: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 06:40:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: financier stuff

To Whom it May Concern:

Please peruse the following informal "log" of transfers since the pe page
was last updated on the 17th at 1:30 or so in the morning, Acka time.  If
there are things that i've missed, or misharfed, or anything, please let me
know:

1) a bunch of redistributions of money and trinkets from JT to /dev/joe,
Pol Pot, and Thomas Jute, from /dev/joe to r-attila the farce, and from Pol
Pot to Thomas Jute [NOTE: /dev/joe's gift of A$400 to Pol Pot failed due to
a lack of funds]

2) the museum scam stuff of Thomas Jute, r-attila the farce, and Pol Pot

3) a bunch of people being removed from all their orgs and swingerships
[i'm not going to harf that yet, in hopes that someone will propose a fix]

4) The donation to the treasury of 2 BVs by Slakko because of a
treasure-hearing, and the transfer of A$50 from Wild Card to Pol Pot

5) The transfer of the title of Puzzler to Slakko

6) The transfer of a GBS from JAM to Thomas Jute

7) The gift of A$79 from Thomas Jute to K 2

8) The transfer of the potato and tuba

9) K 2's burial of all tradeable items

10) the use of tammany bribes and bonus votes by K 2 and smallpox blanket

11) the destruction of doppleslakko and the possible removal of K 2 from
eir offices.

I won't have a real page up for a little while at least; a temporary copy
of K 2's latest pe page is up at
http://www.ackanomic.org/~sten/financier/pe.html

I am unsure whether K 2 had harfed Slakko finding the 3 Bonus Votes buried
by Wild Card, the transfer of a BV to WC, or the reburial of a BV by Wild
Card, because I only had a saved copy of the main PE page, not the log or
the treasure page.  I know that Slakko should have 1 (had 5, used 1, gave 1
away, 2 victimized by treasure hearings) but i don't know about Wild Card.
Anyone who has any financier pages in cache, please give them to me.

I submit the following CFJ:

Statement: Slakko owns a Spellbook of Chorg

Reasoning: I personally think this should be ruled false, but i haven't
given the involved rules careful perusal.  Slakko tried to create one with
an Acme InstaGadget Otzma Card, and did not spend any money.  There has
been one auction of a SBoC of the type mentioned in the Instagadget.
However, it ended without any bids, and so the auctioneer (Malenkai) got it
by default without paying any money.  Whether this satisfies the
Instagadget is my question.  Note that the result of this CFJ will also
probably also apply to JT's similar use of an Instagadget to create a SBoC
2 days ago.
- --Pol Pot

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

Memo to myself: Do the dumb things you gotta do.  Touch the puppet head.
Over 50% of all voting players have a rebelliousness of "on"
Happy! Happy! Happy!
I'm on fire!
To Ganymede and Titan, yes sir I've been around
I apply to join all pseudofounded organizations, vote no on all outstanding
IPs, remove myself from the CFJ ineligibility list, and go home.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:48:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financier stuff

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> To Whom it May Concern:
> 
> Please peruse the following informal "log" of transfers since the pe page
> was last updated on the 17th at 1:30 or so in the morning, Acka time.  If
> there are things that i've missed, or misharfed, or anything, please let me
> know:
> 
> 1) a bunch of redistributions of money and trinkets from JT to /dev/joe,
> Pol Pot, and Thomas Jute, from /dev/joe to r-attila the farce, and from Pol
> Pot to Thomas Jute [NOTE: /dev/joe's gift of A$400 to Pol Pot failed due to
> a lack of funds]
> 
> 2) the museum scam stuff of Thomas Jute, r-attila the farce, and Pol Pot
> 
> 3) a bunch of people being removed from all their orgs and swingerships
> [i'm not going to harf that yet, in hopes that someone will propose a fix]
> 
> 4) The donation to the treasury of 2 BVs by Slakko because of a
> treasure-hearing, and the transfer of A$50 from Wild Card to Pol Pot

No way - no single treasure-hearing cost me 2 BVs.  I lost 1 BV from the
first Hearing, but by the time of the second Hearing I had no Bonus Votes
left to lose (I had my original one from before the treasure was found,
all the others having already been transferred away, destroyed or used).

I am also getting a little sick of you continually beating up on Wild Card
(metaphorically).  His SYI stuff failed, then he got hit for A$2500
because other people SYId him as well.  (Do the dumb things I gotta do:
rewrite that Otzma Card rule).  Now you put him further and further in
debt with your hearings over _measly_pairs_of_Bonus_Votes_.  What do you
want from him? Blood?

- -- 
Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/
Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:14:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka : Swingerships, Parties, Churches and Priests

I looked throught the relevant rules, and I have nothing revolutionary to
add. I looked for that disbandment phrase, and couldn't find it, I guess
we lost it during one of the reforms, I'll look at both cases anyway.

First, a note about all those remote-control Founders. 
I don't believe the Church rule allows for that, specifically section 4.d
 which delegates all the duties of the Founder ( with the exception of
ordaining and defrocking Priests), are delegated to the most Senior
Priest, however, the Church has no Priests, in fact has no members, and
therefore becomes a Cult.
Cults are VSOs and a Church Founder does not have the dikta to
unilaterally accept members. It is restricted by all the restrictions of
any other VSO. So unless those Cults have an open membership policy, no
one can join them.
I also note that due to over-specification in section 8 i of the same
rule. Should such a Cult manage to regain its memebers and become a
Church, it will not considered an "Orphan", so unless the Founder rejoins
as well, it will not be able to make anyone else the new Founder.

As for Parties, I will consider both cases.
I will only be considering the Parties with no members. Parties that have
membershave no problem, as orgs, although individuals that formerly were
members mayhave a problem as individuals.

1. Parties were not disbanded,but were left with no memebers.

In such a case, the Swingerships simply went Somewhere Else.
They did not become Provisional, and, for Parties with open memebrship
policies, anyone can join the Party and take the Swingership.
It would be good form to allow the former Swingers to do it first, though.

Swingerships that can't be retrieved this way, will default Pass, and
forced to surrender in a couple of rounds, until which time Party Chess
may slow down a bit.

2. Parties were disbanded.

In such a case, since the players were ejected from the Party before it
disbanded, immediately upon their leaving the Party, they lost ownership
of the Swingerships, so at the time od disbandment they were no longer
Swingers, and they do not own the Privisional Swingerships that were
created. 
These Provisional Swingerships will be soon destroyed, along with all of
eir pieces.

Having read and reread the organization rules, I believe that the former
of these two is what actually happened. One the up side, it may give us a
little more time to deal with the consequences of the recent org changes.

On a side note, 70% is too high as an upper bar for similarity between
different types of Organizations, certainly when we take into
consideration Unique Organization.

As for Unqiue Organization:
The people who were ejected from Unique were not returned to them!

Several times in the past I butted heads and keyboards with ThinMan over
a debate we called the "being/becoming" debate. Game Custom and CFJs, and
above that the Rules, turned out to be closer to ThinMan's side of the
dabate than mine, and it is ThinMan's side which I will be taking now.

The org memebrship proposal, when it passed, explicitly changed the state
of players from members to non-members.

Neither the Senate rule, nor the Grey Council rules have the power to make
those people memebers of those respective Organizations.
The Senate rules says :"The Senators are collectively a Unique
Organization known as the Senate"
Nowere does it say that whenever a Senator ceases to be a member of the
Senate e becomes a member of the Senate. Nowhere does it have language
strong enough to change the state of the players that were ejected from
the Unique Organizations.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:16:30 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: sigh

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, JT wrote:
> > 
> > The Religious Caste was Fueding with JAM.
> > 
> > The duel is not over however
> >  3. A state of Feud is over when one of the following conditions have
> >  been met:
> > 
> >  a. Every player member of the two Organizations engaged in a Feud with
> >  each other, fought a Duel with at least one memberof the Organization
> >  it is Feuding with, since the Feud begun.
> > 
> > There are some members of the Religious Caste who never fought a fued
> > with a member of JAM since the feud started, therefore it hasn't ended
> > yet.
> 
> Fueds can also end by mutual agreement, or by loss of interest.
> 

Yes, but if one of the orgs in the Feud suddenly loses all its members,
then there is no one left to actually declare that they've lost
interest...

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:53:51 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka : Swingerships, Parties, Churches and Priests

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> I looked throught the relevant rules, and I have nothing revolutionary to
> add. I looked for that disbandment phrase, and couldn't find it, I guess
> we lost it during one of the reforms, I'll look at both cases anyway.
> 
> First, a note about all those remote-control Founders. 
> I don't believe the Church rule allows for that, specifically section 4.d
>  which delegates all the duties of the Founder ( with the exception of
> ordaining and defrocking Priests), are delegated to the most Senior
> Priest, however, the Church has no Priests, in fact has no members, and
> therefore becomes a Cult.
> Cults are VSOs and a Church Founder does not have the dikta to
> unilaterally accept members. It is restricted by all the restrictions of
> any other VSO. So unless those Cults have an open membership policy, no
> one can join them.
> I also note that due to over-specification in section 8 i of the same
> rule. Should such a Cult manage to regain its memebers and become a
> Church, it will not considered an "Orphan", so unless the Founder rejoins
> as well, it will not be able to make anyone else the new Founder.
> 

I don't know squat about Churches, but I believe you. :)

> 
> As for Parties, I will consider both cases.
> I will only be considering the Parties with no members. Parties that have
> membershave no problem, as orgs, although individuals that formerly were
> members mayhave a problem as individuals.
> 
> 1. Parties were not disbanded,but were left with no memebers.
> 
> In such a case, the Swingerships simply went Somewhere Else.
> They did not become Provisional, and, for Parties with open memebrship
> policies, anyone can join the Party and take the Swingership.
> It would be good form to allow the former Swingers to do it first, though.
> 
> Swingerships that can't be retrieved this way, will default Pass, and
> forced to surrender in a couple of rounds, until which time Party Chess
> may slow down a bit.
> 
> 
> 2. Parties were disbanded.
> 
> In such a case, since the players were ejected from the Party before it
> disbanded, immediately upon their leaving the Party, they lost ownership
> of the Swingerships, so at the time od disbandment they were no longer
> Swingers, and they do not own the Privisional Swingerships that were
> created. 
> These Provisional Swingerships will be soon destroyed, along with all of
> eir pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> Having read and reread the organization rules, I believe that the former
> of these two is what actually happened. One the up side, it may give us a
> little more time to deal with the consequences of the recent org changes.
> 

I concur with you that the parties were not actually disbanded.

> 
> On a side note, 70% is too high as an upper bar for similarity between
> different types of Organizations, certainly when we take into
> consideration Unique Organization.
> 

I disagree, sort of. That rule needed some exceptions, one of which should
almost certainly be Unique Organizations. But what was the point of
spliting up and limiting all of the powers that orgs could have, if any
group of players can just form three or four orgs as necessary?

> As for Unqiue Organization:
> The people who were ejected from Unique were not returned to them!
> 
> Several times in the past I butted heads and keyboards with ThinMan over
> a debate we called the "being/becoming" debate. Game Custom and CFJs, and
> above that the Rules, turned out to be closer to ThinMan's side of the
> dabate than mine, and it is ThinMan's side which I will be taking now.
> 
> The org memebrship proposal, when it passed, explicitly changed the state
> of players from members to non-members.
> 
> Neither the Senate rule, nor the Grey Council rules have the power to make
> those people memebers of those respective Organizations.
> The Senate rules says :"The Senators are collectively a Unique
> Organization known as the Senate"
> Nowere does it say that whenever a Senator ceases to be a member of the
> Senate e becomes a member of the Senate. Nowhere does it have language
> strong enough to change the state of the players that were ejected from
> the Unique Organizations.
> 
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 

I can't follow this argument. You say that once a Senator somehow stops
being a member of the Senate, there is nothing that causes him to become a
member again. If I accept this as true, then what, exactly, caused the
senators to "become" members of the Senate in the first place? There isn't
anything in the rules that says that upon becoming a senator, that player
becomes a member of the organization The Senate. The only thing is says is
what you have quoted above, "The Senators are a Unique Organization known
as the Senate." This is a pretty clear statement. But you say that it
doesn't have the power to make Senators members of an org. Why? What other
rule prevents this? Rule 1000 says that "Unique Organization membership is
defined by the rules defining the Unique Organizations in question." This
is the only place I can think of to look for a conflict with the Senate
rule, and far from disagreeing with what it says, it seems to be
empowering it.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:00:17 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> >I do however believe that this could unambiguously be seen as a request to
> >leave the game, and will harf him as having gone On-Ice unless people can
> >convince me that he did in fact become a non-player.
> >
> 
> If this is the case, I nominate K 2 for entrance into the hall of elders.
> 
> --Pol Pot

I support this nomination, or second it, or whatever it is we do to these
things.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #417
*******************************