Subject: ackanomic digest V3 #418
From: [email-masked] (ackanomic digest)
To: [email-masked]

ackanomic digest      Thursday, November 19 1998      Volume 03 : Number 418

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:11:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financier stuff

>> 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, 

you lost 2 from the original hearing, did you not?  You offered one of your
older two to Wild Card, and the other two were offered to else...if and
rufus, but were destroyed before they could be accepted.  (this is assuming
that K 2 did not harf the Bonus Votes as gift entities, which I think e
did, actually)
If you want to take that "thanks" message as acceptance of the offer, then
rufus loses a bonus vote instead of you.  Note that a treasure hearing is a
lot harsher than a lot of other types; giving the mother load away does not
protect it.

>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?

let's see, Slakko.  What WERE those treasures?  Oh.  I remember now.  They
were blatant bribes, NOT to a player who stopped our scam by rebelling, but
rather to a player who voted for the counterscam which robbed the treasury
A$3500 for him and maliciously punished a bunch of players without ANY proof.

I think that's worth A$50.

I would also like to note that I'm not really Acting Financier if your
contention about K 2 not going on ice is correct.

- --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 12:04:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financier stuff

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

> let's see, Slakko.  What WERE those treasures?  Oh.  I remember now.  They
> were blatant bribes, NOT to a player who stopped our scam by rebelling, but
> rather to a player who voted for the counterscam which robbed the treasury
> A$3500 for him and maliciously punished a bunch of players without ANY proof.

 Actually - to correct you it was under A$2300.

 And unlike similar proposals in the past it didn't give us a cycle win.
 
> I think that's worth A$50.

 Incidently.

 Slakko has found treasure 263c.
 Slakko has found treasure 263d.

 And the map in each case is as it was published.

- -- 
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.
Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do.  Touch the puppethead. 

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:42:19 -0500 (EST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Swingerships, Parties, Churches and Priests

Vynd wrote:
> [Niccolo Flychuck wrote:]
> > 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.

> 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.

I think I have a different interpretation of that sentence that either of you.

I read "The Senators are collectively a Unique Organization known as the
Senate" as making the Senators and the Senate one and the same.  Thus, the
interpretation that the senators lost their seats by being removed from the
Senate organization by P3724.  

Similarly, and perhaps more clearly, "The Grey Council is an Office with
up to nine seats. It is also a Unique Organization."  If the Grey Council
is both an Office and an Organization, then removal of members of the Grey
Council (as an organization) must also remove them from their seats in the
office, since there is clearly only one thing, the Grey Council, here.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:53:33 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: go back to not voting

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>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).

I'd be in favor of that.  However, I'd suggest that the commision of arts
be kept with a smaller group, my suggestion to Pol Pot was
Historian, Poet Laureate, President, and two active players chosen at
random, with those two players being ones not already on the commission.

- --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 13:00:03 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>>    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'?

My argument is that Non-Player cannot be a 'player state' regardless of
the title of section one because it is a state only applied to
non-entities, and players are entities.  Since this seems to be a conflict
within the rule, the later sentance (Non-Players are not entities) takes
precedence.

>> 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.

Perhaps, but his request to be removed from the mailing lists could be,
and if that was unsufficient as well, then I guess I'll just file a CFJ
to have him expelled from the game since he's not subscribed to any form
of the Ackanomic mailing list.

I submit the following CFCJ as delimited by JUST_IN_CASE, headings are
included for convenience
JUST_IN_CASE
Statement: 
    K 2 committed the Crime of Disinterest on Thursday November 19, 1998.

Reasoning:
    On Thursday, November 19, 1998, K 2 was not subscribed to any form of
the official mailing list.
    I note that the time above does not have to be exactly when he
unsubscribed, as by the phrasing of the rule (Rule 370), the crime is
being continuously committed since the time of unsubscription, and at
least at some point on the day in question, K 2 was not subscribed.

Suggested Penalty:
EXPULSION from the game of Ackanomic, which will have the effect of
placing K 2 On-Ice.
JUST_IN_CASE

- --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 13:01:40 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financier stuff

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

>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.

Umm. actually, it doesn't.   Slakko didn't have an ACME InstaGadget at the
time he tried this, assuming K 2's post at the time was valid, so this can
be ruled false trivially without impacting my use of the InstaGadget card.
If the judge actually feels like tackling the reasoning over whether
InstaGadgets can create something that was sold for it's default price of
A$0 however, that would be appreciated, I'm sure.

- --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 13:19:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> >>    All natural persons exist in exactly one of the following states:
> >> 
> >>    Voting
> >>    Non-Voting
> >>    Vacationing
> >>    On Ice
> >>    Non-Player
> >> 
> >> 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'?
> 
> My argument is that Non-Player cannot be a 'player state' regardless of
> the title of section one because it is a state only applied to
> non-entities, and players are entities.  Since this seems to be a conflict
> within the rule, the later sentance (Non-Players are not entities) takes
> precedence.

 A player can change their state to Non-Player, but at that point they
then cease to be a player.

- -- 
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.
Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do.  Touch the puppethead. 

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:27:59 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>> >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'?
>> 
>> My argument is that Non-Player cannot be a 'player state' regardless of
>> the title of section one because it is a state only applied to
>> non-entities, and players are entities.  Since this seems to be a conflict
>> within the rule, the later sentance (Non-Players are not entities) takes
>> precedence.
>
> A player can change their state to Non-Player, but at that point they
>then cease to be a player.

That's exactly the statement I don't believe to be true based on what I
said above.   I'm willing to be convinced, but merely stating it certainly
isn't sufficient :)

- --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 13:39:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> >> >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'?
> >> 
> >> My argument is that Non-Player cannot be a 'player state' regardless of
> >> the title of section one because it is a state only applied to
> >> non-entities, and players are entities.  Since this seems to be a conflict
> >> within the rule, the later sentance (Non-Players are not entities) takes
> >> precedence.
> >
> > A player can change their state to Non-Player, but at that point they
> >then cease to be a player.
> 
> That's exactly the statement I don't believe to be true based on what I
> said above.   I'm willing to be convinced, but merely stating it certainly
> isn't sufficient :)

Why shouldn't the rule be interpreted as permitting a player to de-entity
themselves by changing their person's state to Non-Player?

- -- 
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 13:40:43 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Swingerships, Parties, Churches and Priests

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Vynd wrote:
> > [Niccolo Flychuck wrote:]
> > > 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.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I think I have a different interpretation of that sentence that either of you.
> 
> I read "The Senators are collectively a Unique Organization known as the
> Senate" as making the Senators and the Senate one and the same.  Thus, the
> interpretation that the senators lost their seats by being removed from the
> Senate organization by P3724.  

I thought of this, but I'm not sure if it is supported by game custom.
Long ago, before most of our current measures against Malenkai's Loophole 
were in place, I created an organization named The Supreme Court, of which
I was the sole member. The rules for the Supreme Court, since amended,
said something along the same lines as what we are discussing here. I
can't remember exactly, but it was something like "The Supreme Court,
which is those players who are Justices..." Surprisingly, no one seemed to
agree with me when I said I was the only real Justice, and that CFJ
appeals should go to me. I eventually disbanded the org. I'm not sure
there was ever a CFJ delivered on this subject, however. Many players were
understandably reluctant to submit one, because who knows what would
happen if it were appealed... So it may be that what I have just described
is history, rather than bona fide game custom.

> 
> Similarly, and perhaps more clearly, "The Grey Council is an Office with
> up to nine seats. It is also a Unique Organization."  If the Grey Council
> is both an Office and an Organization, then removal of members of the Grey
> Council (as an organization) must also remove them from their seats in the
> office, since there is clearly only one thing, the Grey Council, here.
> 
> /dev/joe
> 

Now here I am inclined to agree with you. The rule pretty clearly states
that the Office and the Organization are the same thing. But this Office
could be an Organization without necessarily meaning that the Office of
Senator is an organization. The Senate rule describes the office and the
organization seperately, although their membership is identical.

In any event, I don't think this will be settled without a CFJ. If I don't
see one by the time I get home this evening, I'll take a stab at it, but
chances are one has already been submited.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:27:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Deciphering the BV mystery

/dev/joe's data on Slakko was incorrect.  When e found Wild Card's 263a and
263b, e did not have 2 BV.  those had been buried as a treasure which I
found.  Slakko had 0 BV, and gained 4.  E then offered 3 away and used 1

Wild Card's treasure BV, rufus' BV, and Slakko's BV that had been offered
to else...if all go to the treasury.  Wild Card's treasure then has nothing
in it and is destroyed.  Also, whether or not the used BV was one of the
263a or 263b ones has no effect on the game state.

So the changes from the PE page data due to those BVs are: the destruction
of Wild Card's treasure, the destruction of rufus' BV from slakko, and the
destruction/use of Slakko's 2 BV

- --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 13:30:21 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Swingerships, Parties, Churches and Priests

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:
>Long ago, before most of our current measures against Malenkai's Loophole 
>were in place, I created an organization named The Supreme Court, of which
>I was the sole member. The rules for the Supreme Court, since amended,
>said something along the same lines as what we are discussing here. I
>can't remember exactly, but it was something like "The Supreme Court,
>which is those players who are Justices..." Surprisingly, no one seemed to
>agree with me when I said I was the only real Justice, and that CFJ
>appeals should go to me. I eventually disbanded the org. I'm not sure
>there was ever a CFJ delivered on this subject, however. Many players were
>understandably reluctant to submit one, because who knows what would
>happen if it were appealed... So it may be that what I have just described
>is history, rather than bona fide game custom.

I recall seeing at least one CFJ when I was readingand searching through
past CFJs which held that your creation didn't succeed as the new org of
that name didn't usurp the 'customary previous meaning' of that phrase in
the rules.  I can probably find this in the CFJ archives unless someone
beats me to it :)

- --JT

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:33:22 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote:
>> > A player can change their state to Non-Player, but at that point they
>> >then cease to be a player.
>> 
>> That's exactly the statement I don't believe to be true based on what I
>> said above.   I'm willing to be convinced, but merely stating it certainly
>> isn't sufficient :)
>
>Why shouldn't the rule be interpreted as permitting a player to de-entity
>themselves by changing their person's state to Non-Player?

Because that is a manipulation of an entity not explicitly allowed in the
rules?  In your reading, the rule then conflicts with the rule on entity
manipulations (and granted has the precedence to resolve it if it does
conflict) but the non-conflicting reading is equally (imho) viable and
thus should be preferred.

- --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 13:41:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financier stuff

At 12:04 PM 11/19/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>
>> let's see, Slakko.  What WERE those treasures?  Oh.  I remember now.  They
>> were blatant bribes, NOT to a player who stopped our scam by rebelling, but
>> rather to a player who voted for the counterscam which robbed the treasury
>> A$3500 for him and maliciously punished a bunch of players without ANY
proof.
>
> Actually - to correct you it was under A$2300.

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.  I'd donate A$1 to the twits, but
it doesn't exist.

> Slakko has found treasure 263c.
> Slakko has found treasure 263d.

someone else can call hearings on these.
- --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 13:46:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financier stuff

At 01:41 PM 11/19/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 12:04 PM 11/19/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>>
>>> let's see, Slakko.  What WERE those treasures?  Oh.  I remember now.  They
>>> were blatant bribes, NOT to a player who stopped our scam by rebelling,
but
>>> rather to a player who voted for the counterscam which robbed the treasury
>>> A$3500 for him and maliciously punished a bunch of players without ANY
>proof.
>>
>> Actually - to correct you it was under A$2300.
>
>mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.  I'd donate A$1 to the twits, but
>it doesn't exist.

I'd donate A$1 to the twits, and then another A$1 for not realizing the
twits still exist, but I don't have any money.

>> Slakko has found treasure 263c.
>> Slakko has found treasure 263d.

- --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 15:45:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: sigh

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, JT wrote:

> >Fueds can also end by mutual agreement, or by loss of interest.
> 
> True, but neither of those have occured either.

It's unlikely that the former will take place, but the latter eventually
will.
Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> - --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 15:46:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Mueller wrote:

> 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
I support it too.
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> ------------------------------
> 

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:47:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

>If this is the case, I nominate K 2 for entrance into the hall of elders.
	I'm dissapointed to see K2 leave (particularly since he owes me a
favor) but I unhesitatingly nominate him for the hall of elders.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:47:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 699 (else...if)

>else...if has been selected.
	In the week since I last joined, I seem to have received almost as
many CFJ's to judge as I did in the 8 months I played before.

- --
- -Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:51:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: go back to not voting

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> 
> 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.
In principle I support this. As I did so may times in the past, I'd like
to mention again that I'd rather speak of roles than 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).
Even though it's only an example, I'd rather see first an amendment to the
Impeachment rules, before we give any org any power - the way they
currently stand, they're a joke.

Niccolo Flychuck

 > - -- 
> 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 15:55:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: sigh

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote:

> 
> 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

Loss of interest doesn't need to be decalred. If no Duels are fought
between members of the two organizations for some amount of time, I think
it was two months, then that means loss of interest.
It just happens.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:57:57 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: go back to not voting

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> In principle I support this. As I did so may times in the past, I'd like
> to mention again that I'd rather speak of roles than 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).
> Even though it's only an example, I'd rather see first an amendment to the
> Impeachment rules, before we give any org any power - the way they
> currently stand, they're a joke.
> 
> Niccolo Flychuck

I will be submiting such a proposal as soon as it is possible. I may not
be the only one...

But mine will be the best! :)

Vynd

[email-masked]

> 
> 
>  > - -- 
> > 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 20:06:37 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Mueller wrote:

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

What he said.

rufus

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:03:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Museum Scams.

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, David Scheidt wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Mueller wrote:
> 
> :Even if this is not the case I support K2's nomination.
> 
> What he said.

 Me three!

- -- 
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.
Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do.  Touch the puppethead. 

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 21:21:51 -0500 (EST)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (two-star)

Niccolo Flychuck failed to post phoebe's wisdom.

Phoebe has been found by two-star.

- --JT

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

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

End of ackanomic digest V3 #418
*******************************