Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #168
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:00:02 -400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Thursday, June 24 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 168

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Removing a bouncing observer
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:23:27 -0400 (EDT)

The observer (at least I think it's an observer) with the email address of 
[email-masked], is being removed from the mailing lists shortly
after this message is sent out.   This email address has been bouncing
consistantly, and with a user unknown error.

--JT

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

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Another bouncing observer.
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:33:57 -0400 (EDT)

I am also unsubscribing the observer with the email address of 
[email-masked] from the mailing lists.   Their problem
is that the machine 'bya1c87.pl.lucent.com' has ceased answering mail
sent to it.

--Dragon Mage

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

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

From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: An End of an Era
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 03:16:42 -0400 (EDT)

At 12:19 PM 6/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I create the following Imperial Edict as delimited by IMPERIUM_ENDING
>IMPERIUM_ENDING
> <SNIPPED>
>IMPERIUM_ENDING
>

I concur. 
-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
DeeJay * Wrangler * Emperor

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 03:47:01 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, JT wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > > 
> > > e) Cost: The amount of A$ which must be placed in the banna-shaped slot in
> > > the ASS' control panel to play this Song. If the Cost is not specified, it
> > > defaults to Infinite; i.e., the Song cannot be purchased with A$ as
> > > described above. 
> > > 
> > > No Cost is specified for Ode to Joy.
> > 
> > Also note that this section is in Rule 7-16, but follows the earlier
> > quoted paragraph.  It therefore takes precedence over it by default.  It
> > indicates that the cost is the amount of A$ which _must_ be placed in the
> > banna-shaped slot to play this Song.  Ai! Pedrito! did not put this many
> > A$ into the slot (it was impossible to), and hence the Song was not
> > played.
> 
> No, the rule gives two options for playing a song, and the fact that a
> cost is not specified nullifies only one of those options.

So what does this _must_ mean in the rule?
Section e) defines some "aspect" of a Song which may or may not be
described in the song's rule, and calls this aspect its Cost.  Its
definition of cost is "The amount of A$ which must be placed in the
banna-shaped slot in the ASS' control panel to play this Song."  

Again, note the use of the word must.  At no point in this section does
this specify that there is any other way to get a song to play.  Yes,
elsewhere in the rule describes it, but just look at this section.

Some amount of A$ _must_ be placed in the slot to play the song.
Therefore,
If this amount of A$ was not placed in the slot, clearly the song is not
playing, unless some other part of the Rules overrules this section.
At no stage does any other section say that payment by token renders the
requirements of section e) void.  The cost is an aspect of the Song which
must be fulfilled.

>  The placing of
> an ASS token into the banna shaped slot is still legal.

Yes, but it doesn't actually make the song happen, because section e)
overrules the earlier bit in the rule which says that the song can happen
by token payment.  It says songs don't play unless money is put in the
slot.

To say "obviously cost allows for ASS tokens as a separate payment" is
not, IMHO, obvious.  If there was a need to allow for token payment, why
wasn't provision made in the definition of cost?  After all, that would
have allowed payment with 1, 2 or more ASS tokens as an option, and also
would (if written correctly) allow some songs to be unplayable using ASS
tokens.

Your argument against my interpretation appears to be of the form "the
Rules obviously are intended to mean such-and-such, and so if there is
only a slight ambiguity there then it doesn't matter, they still mean
such-and-such."

Saying that this is always how game custom works is not true as far as I
can tell.  For example, we'd been scoring Literature points for months, if
not years, when CFJ 659 finally determined (via a non-obvious route) that
it was in fact impossible for a proposal to qualify as Literature.

Similarly, in the original ruleset of Ackanomic there was a conflict
between two of the rules.  This conflict was not pointed out until Acka
was almost 23 months old, and yet it was a rather crucial one on the issue
of precedent.
CFJ 492 pointed out, to the surprise of some, that CFJs were not an
explicit part of game custom.  AFAICT, they still aren't.

Just because this rule conflict lies within a single rule doesn't make it
any less of a conflict.

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

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 03:48:33 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Mueller wrote:

> Statement: Proposal 4207 was rejected.

Is the Acting Clerk of the Court (Laa Laa IIRC) going to promulgate this
so that we can decide whether to appeal or not?

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

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 04:10:57 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> So what does this _must_ mean in the rule?
> Section e) defines some "aspect" of a Song which may or may not be
> described in the song's rule, and calls this aspect its Cost.  Its
> definition of cost is "The amount of A$ which must be placed in the
> banna-shaped slot in the ASS' control panel to play this Song."  

And the section right after that which you are conveniently ignoring
"If the Cost is not specified, it defaults to Infinite; i.e., the Song
cannot be purchased with A$ as described above." refers back to the
previous section (the dichotomy between the two ways to pay) and says
that if a cost is not specified, then the option to use money to pay is
not available, thus ONLY ASS tokens can be used to pay.

> Some amount of A$ _must_ be placed in the slot to play the song.

The sentence right after that contradicts what you say here.   If no
cost is specified, it cannot be purchased with money AS ABOVE.   The AS
ABOVE refers back to the two ways to pay for a song and removes one of
them when no cost is specified.

> If this amount of A$ was not placed in the slot, clearly the song is not
> playing, unless some other part of the Rules overrules this section.
> At no stage does any other section say that payment by token renders the
> requirements of section e) void.  The cost is an aspect of the Song which
> must be fulfilled.

No.  The later part of section e) overrules the initial part. (since it
comes later in the rule).   Had the two sentances been reversed, I'd agree
with you.

> To say "obviously cost allows for ASS tokens as a separate payment" is
> not, IMHO, obvious.  If there was a need to allow for token payment, why
> wasn't provision made in the definition of cost?  After all, that would
> have allowed payment with 1, 2 or more ASS tokens as an option, and also
> would (if written correctly) allow some songs to be unplayable using ASS
> tokens.

Yes, but the rules as written allow EVERY esoteric song to be played with
exactly one ASS token regardless if they have a cost or not.   I will
however agree with you that songs WITH a cost cannot in fact be purchased
with ASS tokens alone (the second sentence of section e in fact only
applies when no cost is specified.)

> Your argument against my interpretation appears to be of the form "the
> Rules obviously are intended to mean such-and-such, and so if there is
> only a slight ambiguity there then it doesn't matter, they still mean
> such-and-such."

No. My argument against your interpretation is that you are deliberately
attempting to twist semantic meaning to justify your end, a tactic which
is even more tired and old then emperorships.

> Saying that this is always how game custom works is not true as far as I
> can tell.  For example, we'd been scoring Literature points for months, if
> not years, when CFJ 659 finally determined (via a non-obvious route) that
> it was in fact impossible for a proposal to qualify as Literature.

I never said that 'this is how game custom works'.  What I said was that
given two possible and equally logical interpretations of a section of the
rules, then the interpretation most consistant with the rules as a
whole and game custom must hold sway.   The cases you site, are examples
where for the longest time, we did in fact believe the rules worked one
way and were later shown that they did not.   I do not deny this might in
fact be the case here, but I don't believe it to be based on my reading of
the rule in question.   It is possible that there is some other rule
somewhere that has bearing on this that we are both missing.

> Similarly, in the original ruleset of Ackanomic there was a conflict
> between two of the rules.  This conflict was not pointed out until Acka
> was almost 23 months old, and yet it was a rather crucial one on the issue
> of precedent.
> CFJ 492 pointed out, to the surprise of some, that CFJs were not an
> explicit part of game custom.  AFAICT, they still aren't.

No, they are not.  But they are an implicit part of it.   And the reason
for them not being explicit is exactly because they can in fact be wrong.
Were they explicit, one would be bound by a previous ruling with no way
to change it (after the time for appeals was done) even if it was later
found (as in the case of the literature stuff) to be flawed.

> Just because this rule conflict lies within a single rule doesn't make it
> any less of a conflict.

But I don't believe there to be a conflict. (at least not in the case of
songs with no cost).  I agree with you that the rule is not
self-consistant in the case of songs with a cost (in those cases, the A$
cost *must* (as you pointed out be payed)).

In the case where there is no cost however, 'the option to purchase via A$
isn't available' and therefore a prior statement demanding an A$
payment/purchase is in conflict and thus the latter part holds sway,
leaving the field open for an ASS token payment.

--Dragon Mage

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

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

From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 04:31:50 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, JT wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > So what does this _must_ mean in the rule?
> > Section e) defines some "aspect" of a Song which may or may not be
> > described in the song's rule, and calls this aspect its Cost.  Its
> > definition of cost is "The amount of A$ which must be placed in the
> > banna-shaped slot in the ASS' control panel to play this Song."  
> 
> And the section right after that which you are conveniently ignoring
> "If the Cost is not specified, it defaults to Infinite; i.e., the Song
> cannot be purchased with A$ as described above." refers back to the
> previous section (the dichotomy between the two ways to pay) and says
> that if a cost is not specified, then the option to use money to pay is
> not available, thus ONLY ASS tokens can be used to pay.
> 
> > Some amount of A$ _must_ be placed in the slot to play the song.
> 
> The sentence right after that contradicts what you say here.   If no
> cost is specified, it cannot be purchased with money AS ABOVE.   The AS
> ABOVE refers back to the two ways to pay for a song and removes one of
> them when no cost is specified.

The as above is ambiguous - it could equally refer to the start of the
cost section (a closer reference - would that be more or less
appropriate). In that case it would mean that the song cannot be
purchased with A$, and hence the song can never be played.

> > If this amount of A$ was not placed in the slot, clearly the song is not
> > playing, unless some other part of the Rules overrules this section.
> > At no stage does any other section say that payment by token renders the
> > requirements of section e) void.  The cost is an aspect of the Song which
> > must be fulfilled.
> 
> No.  The later part of section e) overrules the initial part. (since it
> comes later in the rule).   Had the two sentances been reversed, I'd agree
> with you.

It only conflicts with the initial part if "as above" is interpreted as a
reference to the very early part of the rule.  If "as above" is
interpreted as referring to the start of section e) (which is perfectly
reasonable IMHO - that section says that the money is to be placed in the
banna-shaped slot in the ASS), then it does not conflict with the start of
section e).

Start of section e): to play a song, this money must be placed in the
slot.
End of section e): you can't purchase a song with money
Combined effect: you can't purchase a song.

> > To say "obviously cost allows for ASS tokens as a separate payment" is
> > not, IMHO, obvious.  If there was a need to allow for token payment, why
> > wasn't provision made in the definition of cost?  After all, that would
> > have allowed payment with 1, 2 or more ASS tokens as an option, and also
> > would (if written correctly) allow some songs to be unplayable using ASS
> > tokens.
> 
> Yes, but the rules as written allow EVERY esoteric song to be played with
> exactly one ASS token regardless if they have a cost or not.   I will
> however agree with you that songs WITH a cost cannot in fact be purchased
> with ASS tokens alone (the second sentence of section e in fact only
> applies when no cost is specified.)
> 
> > Your argument against my interpretation appears to be of the form "the
> > Rules obviously are intended to mean such-and-such, and so if there is
> > only a slight ambiguity there then it doesn't matter, they still mean
> > such-and-such."
> 
> No. My argument against your interpretation is that you are deliberately
> attempting to twist semantic meaning to justify your end, a tactic which
> is even more tired and old then emperorships.

Ackanomic has had some great legal battles in the past - personally I find
interpretation and counter-interpretation more enjoyable than scams.  If
my interpretations are not correct, people will point out flaws in them,
or other, more reasonable arguments.  If I do not attempt to explain the
rules in a different way, then one interpretation stands, regardless of
whether or not it was actually correct.

> > Saying that this is always how game custom works is not true as far as I
> > can tell.  For example, we'd been scoring Literature points for months, if
> > not years, when CFJ 659 finally determined (via a non-obvious route) that
> > it was in fact impossible for a proposal to qualify as Literature.
> 
> I never said that 'this is how game custom works'.  What I said was that
> given two possible and equally logical interpretations of a section of the
> rules, then the interpretation most consistant with the rules as a
> whole and game custom must hold sway.

I don't necessarily agree with you here.
If the debate is between one interpretation, which is consistent, but
requires a significant amount of implicit aditional interpretation to get
there, and an interpretation which produces conflict but takes the
sentences purely at face value, which is right?

Do we avoid conflict by pragmatism, or excessive interpretation by
simplicity?

This issue is not the one we appear to be dealing with in this particular
case, but nonetheless I think it is worth pointing out at this juncture.

>   The cases you site, are examples
> where for the longest time, we did in fact believe the rules worked one
> way and were later shown that they did not.   I do not deny this might in
> fact be the case here, but I don't believe it to be based on my reading of
> the rule in question.   It is possible that there is some other rule
> somewhere that has bearing on this that we are both missing.

Admittedly unlikely in this case.

> > Just because this rule conflict lies within a single rule doesn't make it
> > any less of a conflict.
> 
> But I don't believe there to be a conflict. (at least not in the case of
> songs with no cost).

Call the above sentence S1.

> I agree with you that the rule is not
> self-consistant in the case of songs with a cost (in those cases, the A$
> cost *must* (as you pointed out be payed)).
> 
> In the case where there is no cost however, 'the option to purchase via A$
> isn't available' and therefore a prior statement demanding an A$
> payment/purchase is in conflict 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and thus the latter part holds sway,
> leaving the field open for an ASS token payment.

Call the above sentence S2.

S1 says you believe there is no conflict when the song has no cost.
S2 says you believe there is a conflict when the song has no cost.

Which is correct?

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

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Another Argument Against the Scam
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 04:53:41 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Duncan Richer wrote:
> > The sentence right after that contradicts what you say here.   If no
> > cost is specified, it cannot be purchased with money AS ABOVE.   The AS
> > ABOVE refers back to the two ways to pay for a song and removes one of
> > them when no cost is specified.
> 
> The as above is ambiguous - it could equally refer to the start of the
> cost section (a closer reference - would that be more or less
> appropriate). In that case it would mean that the song cannot be
> purchased with A$, and hence the song can never be played.

It's possible, but I don't believe that the most valid reference.
Payment *options* are discussed above.  The cost is not saying how a
song may be purchased, but merely that if it has a cost, then that much A$
must be paid.

> It only conflicts with the initial part if "as above" is interpreted as a
> reference to the very early part of the rule.  If "as above" is
> interpreted as referring to the start of section e) (which is perfectly
> reasonable IMHO - that section says that the money is to be placed in the
> banna-shaped slot in the ASS), then it does not conflict with the start of
> section e).

Yes, but then it conflicts with a different part of the rule.   I agree
with you that there is a conflict within the rule, and that pinning it
down will do much to resolve this issue.  I can only say that I believe
that 'as above' here since it refers to 'purchasing' can only be referring
back to the previous section which defined methods of song purchase.

> > No. My argument against your interpretation is that you are deliberately
> > attempting to twist semantic meaning to justify your end, a tactic which
> > is even more tired and old then emperorships.
> 
> Ackanomic has had some great legal battles in the past - personally I find
> interpretation and counter-interpretation more enjoyable than scams.  If
> my interpretations are not correct, people will point out flaws in them,
> or other, more reasonable arguments.  If I do not attempt to explain the
> rules in a different way, then one interpretation stands, regardless of
> whether or not it was actually correct.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.   To me, the original case seems one
where such semantic wrangling and tortured logic (your attempt at
redefining how 'or' should be interpreted).   This is the type of argument
I find tired.   This more recent excursion is actually interesting, and
I agree with you that the reference of 'as above' is crucial.

> I don't necessarily agree with you here.
> If the debate is between one interpretation, which is consistent, but
> requires a significant amount of implicit aditional interpretation to get
> there, and an interpretation which produces conflict but takes the
> sentences purely at face value, which is right?

I'd probably side on the case of consitancy.  I feel that if there is a
wholly consistant interpretaion, it is mostly likely to be the correct one
even when it requires some (possibly significant) amount of implicit
interpretation.   I will however admit that there is a point at which I
feel there is too much implicit interpretation and that in those cases the
simple but conflicting interpretation is most likely correct.   In this
case, I fall on the side of consistancy (and would even were I not
affected by this scam).   If you read back over most of my reasonings and
judgements, I think you will find that I do in fact tend to opt for the
consistant over the conflicting.

> Do we avoid conflict by pragmatism, or excessive interpretation by
> simplicity?

I'd say that depends on the amount of interpretation.   In this case, I do
not feel that there is much being implied at all.   To me the
straightforward reading of the rule allows the ASS token to be used even
on a song with no cost.   Until you pointed out the first part of section
e) I would have allowed it on a song with a cost as well, but I am human
and can be wrong.  In that small case (where a song has a cost and the
person tries to play it via an ASS token, the cost is required to be payed
as well, even though the song wasn't purchased that way).

I think that (where 1 out of 4 cases is broken) is preferable to
the other interpretation you are proposing where ASS tokens are useless.

> This issue is not the one we appear to be dealing with in this particular
> case, but nonetheless I think it is worth pointing out at this juncture.

Actually, we are dealing with it in a roundabout fashion as it will
determine the appeal and the course of the appeal.

> S1 says you believe there is no conflict when the song has no cost.
> S2 says you believe there is a conflict when the song has no cost.

I will chalk that up to being partially asleep and the fact that it's 2 AM
here.  I believe that there is in fact a conflict in the rule, however, I
believe the conflict to be in the case where a token is used but the song
has a cost rather than the conflict being in any case where a token is
used.

Hopefully this is a bit more cogent, and with this I'm off to bed and will
read and reply further in the morning.

--Dragon Mage

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

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Assorted Actions
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:03:08 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole wrote:

> I perform an acid rain dance.

Ai! Pedrito! has found T217. The map was:

The next player, other than K 2, to legally perform an acid rain dance
shall find this treasure.

acid rain dances have been wholely undefined for some time...

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Trinket Again Sam.
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:16:53 -0400 (EDT)

I create a trinket called "A licence to perform one thread dependent action"
it is worth A$20 and has the description "Destroy in a thread independent
manner to use". I gift this to Ai! Pedrito! so that e may efffect eir name
change in the other two threads...

K 2

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

From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Trinket Again Sam.
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:17:51 -0400 (EDT)

At 09:16 AM 6/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I create a trinket called "A licence to perform one thread dependent action"
>it is worth A$20 and has the description "Destroy in a thread independent
>manner to use". I gift this to Ai! Pedrito! so that e may efffect eir name
>change in the other two threads...
>
>K 2
> 
I destroy this trinket for A$

If my name is Ai! Pedrito!, I give all A$ I own except the SHF to the
treasury.
If my name is Emperor Ai! Pedrito!, I give all A$ I own to the treasury.

If my name is Ai! Pedrito!, I attempt to change my name to 'Emperor Ai!
Pedrito!'

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
DeeJay * Wrangler * Emperor

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:31:51 -0400 (EDT)

At 12:57 PM 6/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, K 2 wrote:
>> Rule 4 will prohibit a gift to an icy player. This will need to be done
>> by
>> proposal - I would suggest something simple like
>
>Actually, in the CANT thread, 
>I issue the following Imperial Dicate as delimtied by FIXICY and ask
>Studge and Ai! Pedrito! to concur with this before concurring with any of
>the others (especially studge, who if he concurs with the removal one
>before this makes this one impossible :)
>
>FIXICY
>The game state is changed such that the player known as Dragon Mage has
>A$1500.
>The game state is changed so that each icy player has A$ equal to their
>A$ total from 24 hours prior to the passage of P4207.
>FIXICY

If this was valid in research, then I concur to the fixicy dictate.

If it wasn't, I make the same diktate and concur to that.

Studge

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:41:57 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Mueller wrote:
> >Actually, in the CANT thread, 
> >I issue the following Imperial Dicate as delimtied by FIXICY and ask
> >Studge and Ai! Pedrito! to concur with this before concurring with any of
> >the others (especially studge, who if he concurs with the removal one
> >before this makes this one impossible :)
> >
> >FIXICY
> >The game state is changed such that the player known as Dragon Mage has
> >A$1500.
> >The game state is changed so that each icy player has A$ equal to their
> >A$ total from 24 hours prior to the passage of P4207.
> >FIXICY
> 
> If this was valid in research, then I concur to the fixicy dictate.
> 
> If it wasn't, I make the same diktate and concur to that.

Doh! it would not be valid on research, so I concur with the identical
dictate made by Studge.

--Dragon Mage

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

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: MTG*: *ping*
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:56:02 -0400 (EDT)

Today is Thursday, the 24th day of June, and the Machine That Goes *ping*
Has Gone *ping* today. Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone
*ping* 14 times.

CnH

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

From: "Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:44:58 -0400 (EDT)

At 03:41 PM 6/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Mueller wrote:
>> >Actually, in the CANT thread, 
>> >I issue the following Imperial Dicate as delimtied by FIXICY and ask
>> >Studge and Ai! Pedrito! to concur with this before concurring with any of
>> >the others (especially studge, who if he concurs with the removal one
>> >before this makes this one impossible :)
>> >
>> >FIXICY
>> >The game state is changed such that the player known as Dragon Mage has
>> >A$1500.
>> >The game state is changed so that each icy player has A$ equal to their
>> >A$ total from 24 hours prior to the passage of P4207.
>> >FIXICY
>> 
>> If this was valid in research, then I concur to the fixicy dictate.
>> 
>> If it wasn't, I make the same diktate and concur to that.
>
>Doh! it would not be valid on research, so I concur with the identical
>dictate made by Studge.
>
>--Dragon Mage

i concur as well. 
-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
DeeJay * Wrangler * Emperor

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: My Judgement
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:46:54 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Gabe (Ai! Pedrito!) Drummond-Cole wrote:
> At 03:41 PM 6/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Mueller wrote:
> >> >FIXICY
> >> >The game state is changed such that the player known as Dragon Mage has
> >> >A$1500.
> >> >The game state is changed so that each icy player has A$ equal to their
> >> >A$ total from 24 hours prior to the passage of P4207.
> >> >FIXICY
> >> 
> >> If this was valid in research, then I concur to the fixicy dictate.
> >> 
> >> If it wasn't, I make the same diktate and concur to that.
> >
> >Doh! it would not be valid on research, so I concur with the identical
> >dictate made by Studge.
> >
> >--Dragon Mage
> 
> 
> i concur as well. 

This occurs (in all threads where we are emporers :)

-- Dragon Mage

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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 V4 #168
*******************************