Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #259
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:00:01 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Saturday, September 25 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 259

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

From: Emperor Ai Pedrito <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4371 NULL!!!
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:13:34 -0400 (EDT)

I have a bit of a concern here.

The following is the only portion of this proposal not in brackets.  I do
not see this proposal creating a rule.  Let's parse this by sentence,
paying close attention to rule 2-2, which says:

If a proposal is accepted, then any one-time effects, such as changes to
the rules, shall be applied, one at a time, in the order in which they
appear in the proposal. (Ambiguous, retroactive, and/or meaningless effects
are  ignored.) 
 
> "
> This rule has precedence over all other rules.  

Meaningless.  What is "this rule?"  This proposal does not change the rules
here or add this text as a rule.

>Text
> delimited by square brackets is a note.  Notes have
> no semantic meaning.

Fine.  But meaningless.
 
> The game state of Ackanomic is deemed to consist of 
> this rule and those persons who were Players the 
> instant before the results of the proposal which 
> amended this rule to its current form were reported, 
> and nothing else, except the Player who was the 
> Rule-Harfer on Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:47:05 [Emperor 
> Ai! Pedrito!] is deemed to be the Speaker.  

OK.  This seems to be almost totally meaningless/ambiguous.  The game state
consists of:

1. a rule which does not exist
2. persons who were players prior to results which did not occur.
3. I am speaker.

I will harf this as meaningless.  The only other option would have the
ENTIRETY of the gamestate be my Speakerdom, which is ridiculous.

>These
> persons are known as Registered Players.

"These persons" is a pointer to a set of Ackan players whose existence
relies on "This rule," which does not exist.  Therefore this too is
meaningless.
 
> The instant after this rule becomes the only rule in 
> the game state of Ackanomic, it is amended 

Again, "this rule" is not the only rule in the game state of Ackanomic, so
this fails to occur.

>a) such 
> that its entire text is replaced by the text below 
> delimited by double dollar signs (excluding the 
> delimiters); b) such that its title is "The Game
> of Ackanomic"; and c) such that its number is 1.

All meaningless.  I have no choice but to call this proposal null.

OK.  Did I miss a "replace rule 1 with" or something?

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

From: Rachel L Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4371 NULL!!!
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:35:50 -0400 (EDT)

Emperor Ai Pedrito wrote:
> 
> I have a bit of a concern here.

[big snip]

> All meaningless.  I have no choice but to call this proposal null.

Ye gods, I think e's right. Maybe I won't have to leave the game after
all.

Quoth the Raven, who would have no time for a busy new nomic and no
interest in a new nomic that wasn't busy.

-- 
Rachel Walmsley. [email-masked] ICQ: 2925739
Personal page - http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
The Doh! Zone - http://www.dohzone.uk.eu.org/
Ahab says, "I don't care who you are, here's to your dream!"

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

Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4371 disagreement
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:51:55 -0400 (EDT)

I disagree with this View of the Game State.

Emperor Ai Pedrito wrote:
> The following is the only portion of this proposal not in brackets.  I do
> not see this proposal creating a rule.  

I disagree.  There is exactly one reasonable interpretation, and that
makes it unambiguous, so it happens. See below.

> Let's parse this by sentence, paying close attention to rule 2-2, which says:
> 
> If a proposal is accepted, then any one-time effects, such as changes to
> the rules, shall be applied, one at a time, in the order in which they
> appear in the proposal. (Ambiguous, retroactive, and/or meaningless effects
> are  ignored.) 
>  
> > "
> > This rule has precedence over all other rules.  
> 
> Meaningless.  What is "this rule?"  This proposal does not change the rules
> here or add this text as a rule.
> 
> >Text
> > delimited by square brackets is a note.  Notes have
> > no semantic meaning.
> 
> Fine.  But meaningless.

Agreed so far.  These parts don't really do anything, or at least don't do
anything relevant to the current discussion, thus far.  If this text becomes
a rule, this then takes effect.

> > The game state of Ackanomic is deemed to consist of 
> > this rule and those persons who were Players the 
> > instant before the results of the proposal which 
> > amended this rule to its current form were reported, 
> > and nothing else, except the Player who was the 
> > Rule-Harfer on Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:47:05 [Emperor 
> > Ai! Pedrito!] is deemed to be the Speaker.  
> 
> OK.  This seems to be almost totally meaningless/ambiguous.  The game state
> consists of:
> 
> 1. a rule which does not exist
> 2. persons who were players prior to results which did not occur.
> 3. I am speaker.

Here's where I disagree.  "This rule" refers to the text of the proposal.
It is written in such a way that it could be considered a rule, and this
sentence makes it so.

> > The instant after this rule becomes the only rule in 
> > the game state of Ackanomic, it is amended 
> 
> Again, "this rule" is not the only rule in the game state of Ackanomic, so
> this fails to occur.

Well, it doesn't happen until the other stuff above happens, in any
case, whether it is happening because of the old rule 2-2 or the new
single rule. (And I think the wiping-out of the game state would
force it to only happen under the new single rule, anyway.)

/dev/joe
Joseph DeVincentis in game states where players don't have Ackanomic names.

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

From: "Aaron V. Humphrey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4371 NULL!!!
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:50:09 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with EA!P!.  It struck me as I was actually reading over the
Proposal after acceptance(which I hadn't really done since I haven't
been voting recently)that it did not say that it created a new rule...
and I recall a change that took out that old clause about a Proposal
that did not explicitly do anything else becoming the text of a new
rule.

--
--Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/)
Song In My Head--Frank Sinatra:(Love Is)The Tender Trap
Current Book--W. Somerset Maugham:Cakes And Ale
Reflections are images of tarnished aspirations.

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ 728 (TRUE)
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:54:51 -0400 (EDT)

Presuming it is legal for em to be so selected... /dev/joe and Doctor
Slakko have been.

Call for Judgement 728 - August 12, 1999
Subject: Affect or effect?
Initiator: else...if
1st Judge: Burn the Witch (DEADBEAT)
2nd Judge: Emperor Ai! Pedrito!
Judgement: TRUE
Cortex: /dev/joe and Doctor Slakko

Statement:
        Studge has a Voting Characteristic of 0.

Initiator's Reasoning:
        The question is whether or not the act of changing Studge's VC
to 0 has an effect on anyone else.  The argument advanced to suggest
that it does is that it requires the harfer (in this case the Dungeon
Master) to harf the change.
        The flaw in the arugment is that the Dungeon Master has a
responsibility to harf the game state accurately regardless.  The harfer
has an equal responsibility to scour every message whether or not the
message does anything.  Slakko argues that because he could be
prosecuted for not harfing the change, it should be counted as an
effect, but this is equally true whether or not the message changes the
game state.  If the message does not contain anything regarding Voting
Characteristcs, yet Slakko records a change to the game state by
accident, he is just as prosecutable.  So the change to Studge's VC is
not an effect: it changes the game state, but Slakko's has to do the
same thing regardless of whether or not a characteristic is affected.
The fact that, in practice, it creates more work for him is an artifice
of the way we do things, not a legal distinction.

Judge's Reasoning:
The effects of lowering the characteristics of Studge definitely
affected Gabriel Drummond-Cole, a human being outside of Acka.  However,
it did not affect Emperor Ai! Pedrito!, Dungeon Master of Ackanomic, in
any way that the game recognizes.  We the court must therefore agree
with the second reasoning put forth by the submitter and rule the CFJ
TRUE.

Appellants Reasoning:
        In my reasoning on CFJ 727, I wrote, "According to rule 4,
natural
persons who are registered players of Ackanomic are entities. Note that
there is no separation between the two. Unlike in some games, there is
no
concept of the person having an avatar which is an entity. I,
personally,
Henry Towsner the carbon-based life form, am an entity."  Rule 4 says,
"natural persons...are Players."  There are no human beings outside of
Ackanomic, there is no separation of Gabriel Drummond-Cole from Emperor
Ai!
Pedrito!.  As the rules stand currently, there is no such thing as
Gabriel
Drummond-Cole and Emperor Ai! Pedrito! refers to a specific carbon based
colony of cells which happens to have access to a computer.
        I believe that the judge's verdict was correct, but the wrong
reasoning is just as bad as the wrong verdict.

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4371 disagreement
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:57:51 -0400 (EDT)

Joseph DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> I disagree with this View of the Game State.

CFJ's to me in there is more than one rule thread.
CFJ's to EA!P! in the there is only on rule thread.

I shall be using EA!P! as my random player selector :-)

K 2

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Thread Split
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:20:38 -0400 (EDT)

So we are in a thread split where 4371 was or was not a null proposal.

In the Null-Thread we currently have no CFJ on the issue but should one be
made, it will be assigned to EA!P!  I recomend that he let the
Non-Null-Thread procedure decide the state and them mimic that in eir CFJ
reasoning if the issue comes up.

In the Non-Null-Thread we have a "View of the Game State" which says we are
in the Null-Thread and a counter claim by /dev/joe that we are not.
Speaker Gabe still has not "adjust[ed] eir View so that a consensus View is
reached" and we are still in the debate phase.

I personally have not looked at the (possibly former) rules to determine if
I think P4371  was null or not.  My initial impression is that /dev/joe is
correct that the intended effects of the prop were unambiguous, but I'm am
not sure that this is the correct standard to apply in this situation,
especially given the recent adjustment to the prop effects rules and what
that change would do to the custom on the issue.

Also: what happened to that CFJ on Gabe's "inventive" rules harfing and IP?
That was recent enough that it might have some bearing.

Studge, or Tom Mueller, depending on the thread

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:25:58 -0400 (EDT)

In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which 

*agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's Kernel.

I vote FALSE on it.  

You all have 3 days (7 if you spread it out) to vote FALSE or TRUE,
publicly.  If the consensus judgement holds this FALSE, I will cease
harfing this thread's gamestate and consider it invalid.

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Count Tabula * Dungeon Master * Herald * Rule-Harfer * Treasure-Harfer

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

From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Thread Split
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:31:45 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Mueller wrote:

> So we are in a thread split where 4371 was or was not a null proposal.
> 
> In the Null-Thread we currently have no CFJ on the issue but should one be
> made, it will be assigned to EA!P!  I recomend that he let the
> Non-Null-Thread procedure decide the state and them mimic that in eir CFJ
> reasoning if the issue comes up.

In the non-null case, there is no reason for a cfj.  The rule state is is
clear.  In the null-thread, the game state is also clear.  The only thing
unclear is which is correct.  

I don't think the situation is unclear.  I find the proposal to have been
clearly and completely un-ambiguous.  

David

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

From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:32:32 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which 
> 
> *agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's Kernel.
> 
> I vote FALSE on it.  
I vote true.

David

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:33:51 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, David Scheidt wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> > In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which 
> > 
> > *agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's Kernel.
> > 
> > I vote FALSE on it.  
> I vote true.

I vote TRUE.

--JT

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

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

Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:35:19 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which 
> 
> *agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's Kernel.
> 
> I vote FALSE on it.  
> 
> You all have 3 days (7 if you spread it out) to vote FALSE or TRUE,
> publicly.  If the consensus judgement holds this FALSE, I will cease
> harfing this thread's gamestate and consider it invalid.

It seems odd for the Speaker in the Kernel thread to submit a CFJ.
(The rule says a player may do so if he disagrees with the speaker's
view; can EAP disagree with his own view?) I suppose it is possible.

Anyway, I vote TRUE.

/dev/joe
Joseph DeVincentis

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

From: "Elio M. Garcia, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:36:28 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which
> 
> *agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's Kernel.

	I vote FALSE

	Arguments as to the validity strike me as persuasive, but then I'm a
tyro.

--
[Upon a Dzurlord learning of the murder of a critic by a painter]
"And it was well done, too. I'd have done the same, only-"
"Yes?"
"I don't paint."            (Steven Brust, _The Phoenix Guards_)	

Elio M. García, Jr. ([email-masked])

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:37:12 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which 
> 
> *agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's Kernel.
> 
> I vote FALSE on it.  

I vote TRUE in this thread.  Duh.

Matt Miller

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

From: Emperor Ai Pedrito <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4371 disagreement
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:41:59 -0400 (EDT)

Joe says:

>I disagree.  There is exactly one reasonable interpretation, and that
>makes it unambiguous, so it happens. See below.
>
>

Malenkai says:

>> > The game state of Ackanomic is deemed to consist of 
>> > this rule ...
>> > amended this rule to its current form were reported, 
...

EAP says:
>> 
>> OK.  This seems to be almost totally meaningless/ambiguous.  The game state
...

Joe says:

>Here's where I disagree.  "This rule" refers to the text of the proposal.
>It is written in such a way that it could be considered a rule, and this
>sentence makes it so.

Here is where we part company.  There was a LONG tradition in Acka of this
sort of thing being accepted.  With the passage of prop 4247, this
tradition died.  P4247 said:

=================================
In rule 2 (proposals) replace the following THAUM delimited text with
the following HEDGEHOG delimited text:

THAUM
If a proposal is accepted, one of two things happen. If the proposal
consisted of a list of one-time effects, such as changes to the rules,
then those effects shall be applied, one at a time, in the order in
which they appear in the proposal. (Ambiguous, retroactive, and/or
meaningless effects are ignored.) 

Otherwise, the proposal itself, excluding any furniture, changes from a
proposal to a rule. [It is assigned a title and number as described in
Rules 1-6-2 and 2-3.]
THAUM

HEDGEHOG
If a proposal is accepted, then any one-time effects, such as changes to
the rules,  shall be applied, one at a time, in the order in which they
appear in the proposal. (Ambiguous, retroactive, and/or meaningless
effects are ignored.)
HEDGEHOG

{{[To me, there could be potential ambiguities about whether something
is a new rule or a list of one time changes. Although this is only a
minor point it isn't difficult to start a proposal with "create a new
rule readings as follows:" so this may as well go]}}
===================================

OK, especially with that self-deleting comment at the end in mind, I think
it is ridiculous and contrived to pretend that in the context of the game,
Malenkai's Kernel created a new rule.  As we've said so many times before,
the intent of the proposer DOES NOT MATTER.  If I say "repeal rule 10" and
mean "repeal rule 10-2", TOO BAD!  We lose!  Rule 10 is repealed!  The
*rule-based* interpretation of this prop has it doing _nothing_.

Repropose if you like.

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

From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:43:31 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Joseph DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> It seems odd for the Speaker in the Kernel thread to submit a CFJ.
> (The rule says a player may do so if he disagrees with the speaker's
> view; can EAP disagree with his own view?) I suppose it is possible.

I'm schizophrenic, nad so am I!

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

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:46:37 -0400 (EDT)

>On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>
> > In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which
> >
> > *agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's Kernel.
> >
> > I vote FALSE on it.
>I vote true.

	As do I

-- 
Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Tendering my resignations
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:04:05 -0400 (EDT)

At IdiotBoy's request, I resign:

In the Acka Thread as rule-harfer
In the Kernel Thread as Speaker

-- Emperor Ai! Pedrito! B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Count Tabula * Dungeon Master * Herald * Treasure-Harfer

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

From: Emperor Ai Pedrito <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tendering my resignations
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:05:26 -0400 (EDT)

At 03:04 PM 9/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At IdiotBoy's request, I resign:

I meant rufus. 

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tendering my resignations
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:10:44 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> At IdiotBoy's request, I resign:
> 
> In the Acka Thread as rule-harfer
> In the Kernel Thread as Speaker

Just to be clear, these were David Sheidt's requests, although I agree
that this is a good short term solution.

Matt

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

From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Tendering my resignationsXy
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:11:52 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Emperor Ai Pedrito wrote:

> At 03:04 PM 9/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >At IdiotBoy's request, I resign:
> 
> I meant rufus. 

I thik I am speaker in the rkernel thread, then.

David
> 
> 
> 

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: On Interpretation.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:28:40 -0400 (EDT)

There seems to be a bit of confusion on the meaning of unambiguous.
Unambiguous does not imply that it is not POSSIBLE to take a contrary
position.  It implies that if we use a standard set of tools in logic and
language, that we will be lead to a single conclusion, without fail.

If we attempt to change the meaning of words and their context within that
system, we WILL create contradicitions and ambiguities.  Traditionally in
Ackanomic, we have bound ourselves by a STRICT interpretation of the
rules, line upon line, precept upon precept.  In cases where the English
language introduces ambiguities, we have used game custom to guide our
collective conciousness.

I personally believe that any proposal/rule semantic questions are silly.
The meaning of the text of an Ackanomic document depends upon the context
in which is it being read.. but the documents themselves are not
similarly dynamic.

In an effort to help this process along, I will be posting my own analysis
of this situation later this evening.  I will be using the above as the
premises of such.  Please respond to this message first, if youhave
disagreement with these points.

Matt

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

From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: ACKA: Kernel: Proposal the first
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:14:29 -0400 (EDT)

The following is a proposal in the kernel thread, submitted by JT Traub.  
Reply to me privately to vote.  [I shall shortly submit a prop to deal with
the mechanics of proposals.  I am open to suggestions.  }

Begin proposal: 

[
No game is a game without a way to win.   So, let's have one (and only
one).  The intent of this rule is to promote variety in the way rounds 
are won, to give an incentive for winning the Round, and an incentive
for choosing an interesting and achievable new condition
]

Create a new rule named 'Winner and still champeean' with the following
text as delimited by THE_WINNER
THE_WINNER
I.   Winning and Rounds.
     The Game of Ackanomic can never be won.  However, Rounds of The Game
     of Ackanomic can be won.   If ever a rule or proposal implies that
     The Game of Ackanomic is won, it means instead that the current Round
     is won.  Rounds are numbered with monotonically increasing postive
     integers starting with 1.  Whenever a new Round begins, the
     number in the first sentance of section II of this rule is replaced
     with the next successive number.

II.  The Current Round.
     The Current Round of Ackanomic is 1.

III. Winning rules.
     At any time there is exactly one and only one way to win the Current
     Round.  This method is defined solely by section IV of this rule.

IV.  Winning the Current Round
     The Current Round shall be won by the first Player to achieve a score
     of 150 points.   Points may only be gained or lost in accordance with
     the Rules of Ackanomic.   When the Round is won, all Players have
     their Score set to 0.

V.   The Champion
     The Player who wins the Current Round is known as the Champion.  When
     a new Player becomes Champion, any previous player who was the
     Champion is no longer the Champion.  The Champion may not win the
     Round during which they are Champion.   Any vote cast by the Champion
     on a Proposal counts as 3 votes of the type cast by the Champion.

VI.  Changing the Winning Rule
     When a Player becomes Champion, they may within 7 days specify a new
     method for winning the current round.   If within 7 days after such
     specification more than 1/2 of the current Players have approved the
     specification, then the new method replaces section IV of this Rule
     exactly as it was specified.   If less than 1/2 of the current
     Players approve the specificaton or if the Champion fails to make a
     specification in time, the contents of section IV of this Rule remain
     in force for the next Round.
THE_WINNER

#end prop

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

From: Rachel L Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:30:50 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which
> 
> *agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's Kernel.
> 
> I vote FALSE on it.

I vote FALSE too

-- 
Rachel Walmsley. [email-masked] ICQ: 2925739
Personal page - http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
The Doh! Zone - http://www.dohzone.uk.eu.org/
Ahab says, "I don't care who you are, here's to your dream!"

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

From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Simplifying my life.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:05:13 -0400 (EDT)

If there is a game calling itself Ackanomic which has a ruleset of over
50KB and considers me to be registered as a player named IdiotBoy, I
remove myself from that game.

Hopefully, any people who consider themselves to be playing that game will
find themselves a new mailing list soon. They are confusing me!

Matt Miller

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

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Simplifying my life.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:27:54 -0400 (EDT)

>If there is a game calling itself Ackanomic which has a ruleset of over
>50KB and considers me to be registered as a player named IdiotBoy, I
>remove myself from that game.
>
>Hopefully, any people who consider themselves to be playing that game will
>find themselves a new mailing list soon. They are confusing me!

If there is a game calling itself Ackanomic which has a ruleset of over
50KB and considers me to be registered as a player named IdiotBoy, I
remove myself from that game.

Second, I propose that the players of New Ackanomic move to a new 
list, such as [email-masked] or [email-masked], or 
something.

-- 
Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>

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

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Simplifying my life.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:30:03 -0400 (EDT)

If there is a game calling itself Ackanomic which has a ruleset of over
50KB and considers me to be registered as a player named else...if, I
remove myself from that game.
-- 
Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>

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

From: Rachel L Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Simplifying my life.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:37:38 -0400 (EDT)

Matt Miller wrote:
> 
> If there is a game calling itself Ackanomic which has a ruleset of over
> 50KB and considers me to be registered as a player named IdiotBoy, I
> remove myself from that game.
> 
> Hopefully, any people who consider themselves to be playing that game will
> find themselves a new mailing list soon. They are confusing me!

*sigh*.  If there exists a game with a ruleset under 50K that I am a
member of then I leave it. I'll probably leave the lists soon too. If
the old Ackanomic survives then could someone email me please, as I
wouldn't want to be accused of disinterest.

-- 
Rachel Walmsley. [email-masked] ICQ: 2925739
Personal page - http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
The Doh! Zone - http://www.dohzone.uk.eu.org/
Ahab says, "I don't care who you are, here's to your dream!"

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Splitting the mailing lists
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:37:40 -0400 (EDT)

I have created a (hopefully temporary) mailing list called
[email-masked].   I leave it up to the speaker if e wishes
to make [email-masked] the official mailing list of the kernel
game or not.   I think it would cause less confusion if that was
done however.

--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: Re: Splitting the mailing lists
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:41:02 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, JT wrote:
> I have created a (hopefully temporary) mailing list called
> [email-masked].   I leave it up to the speaker if e wishes
> to make [email-masked] the official mailing list of the kernel
> game or not.   I think it would cause less confusion if that was
> done however.

Sorry about the missing 'Acka:' on that one.  I decline however to Hose
myself.

Assuming rufus does as I asked above, players can remove themselves from
the 'new game' by mailing [email-masked] and issuing the command
'unsubscribe acka' and not be on the new games mail, but still remain on
the old game and not be accused of disinterest or anything.

--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: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: new list
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:08:57 -0400 (EDT)

I declare [email-masked] the official mailing list of ackanomic.

david

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

From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: sigh
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:39:32 -0400 (EDT)

I leave any nomics with a ruleset larger than 50 KB.  

rufus

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

Subject: Acka: Two Ackabots
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:28:17 -0400 (EDT)

I've got two separate ackabots running now.
[email-masked] is the bot for the fat, bloated thread of Acka.
[email-masked] is the bot for the "Kernel" Acka.

In order for the bot to distinguish mail for these two games, you
*must* have one of these addresses (or [email-masked], which goes
to fat, bloated acka) in the To: or Cc: header.  If you Bcc: the bot,
or get mail to it some other way that does not put its address in the
headers, it will ignore your mail.

Also, do not send one message to both bots.  (Not that there is any
overlap between them such that you could cast the same votes in both or
even have much in the way of a reasonable proposal for both games right
now, but...)  The ackabot account will get two copies of it, and see both
addresses in each one, and thus each bot will process it twice.

Proposals with small numbers (like 1) are for Kernel, while proposals with
4-digit numbers are for fat-Acka.  Some of the props I just sent out appear
to have been written for the wrong game, but they were sent to Ackabot
while it was not the official bot for Kernel, so they could only be valid
submissions for fat-Acka.  Also, mail from the Kernel bot should be
marked From: [email-masked].

/dev/joe

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

Subject: Bot Fix
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:46:27 -0400 (EDT)

I fixed the bots so that the To:/Cc: line requirement is removed.
Also, there should be no duplication of messages if you send one
message to both bots.  If you send a #current message to both bots,
you will get just one message from each.

/dev/joe

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:50:33 -0400 (EDT)

>> In the invalid (kernel) thread, I submit a CFJ which
>> 
>> *agrees that there is only one rule, the rule created by Malenkai's
Kernel.
>> 
>> I vote FALSE on it.
>
>I vote FALSE too
>
As do I, but only in the thread in which it must be FALSE for the thread to
exist. (Blame Mal-2).

>Ahab says, "I don't care who you are, here's to your dream!"
>
*BLMP says "Mmm... Guinness..."

BLMP.

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CFJ in thread 2.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:55:12 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Gavin M. Doig wrote:
> As do I, but only in the thread in which it must be FALSE for the thread to
> exist. (Blame Mal-2).

Logical paradox alert! Weewooop Weewooop.  In the thread in which it must
be false for the thread to exist that CFJ doesn't exist.   Brain ....
hurts....

--JT wondering how anyone can vote FALSE on that CFJ :)

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ 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 #259
*******************************