Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #267
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 00:00:02 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Saturday, October 02 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 267

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

From: Gabe Drummond-Cole <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:14:15 -0400 (EDT)

I take the office of Justice, seeing as I now own a bronze torch.

As Acting Speaker, I declare a state of crisis.

As Acting President, I issue the following CRD:

"
The Game State is altered to be as it would be if Dragon Mage had
unconditionally left Ackanomic in the one message he sent to the main list
between 5:40 and 6:30 PM on Oct. 1, 1999.  

There are currently two possible Ackanomics with identical game states
except for this discrepancy.  These two are merged into one so that they
are to be considered the same game, and so that any attempt to make an
action in one of them but not the other fails.  Only one really exists, and
this document acknowledges that.  Which one does not matter.
"

The reason this is important is because JT is performing thread-dependent
actions that will soon tear Ackanomic apart.  Acka-Lite is a fact.  Fine.
So is Fat-Acka.  I do NOT want the creation of Acka-Lite to rip Fat-Acka in
two any more than it already has.  JT and Malenkai are performing
subversive actions.  Why?  I don't know.  Perhaps because they prefer
Acka-Lite, perhaps because they feel I/we am/are misguided, perhaps just to
be mean.  The reasons don't matter.  What matters is that we merge these
threads together so that the madness can stop.

-- Ape Idiom Reporter B(Scam)
 Crazy French-Scotsman * Student (Scamology)
  Acting President * Acting Speaker * Acting Trinket-Harfer * Count Tabula
   DeeJay * Dungeon Master * Herald * Justice * Rule-Harfer * Treasure-Harfer

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

Subject: Acka: *ping*
From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 04:42:03 -0400 (EDT)

Today is Saturday, the 02nd day of October, and 
the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.
Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 13 times.

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 13:41:02 -0400 (EDT)

>The reason this is important is because JT is performing thread-dependent
>actions that will soon tear Ackanomic apart.  Acka-Lite is a fact.  Fine.
>So is Fat-Acka.  I do NOT want the creation of Acka-Lite to rip Fat-Acka in
>two any more than it already has.  JT and Malenkai are performing
>subversive actions.  Why?  I don't know.  Perhaps because they prefer
>Acka-Lite, perhaps because they feel I/we am/are misguided, perhaps just to
>be mean.  The reasons don't matter.  What matters is that we merge these
>threads together so that the madness can stop.

I agree.

CnH

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oust Speaker Mal
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 13:41:06 -0400 (EDT)

>>Malenkai does not even acknowledge that e is a player of Ackanomic.
>>
>>I author an impeachment paper against Malenkai as Speaker.
>>
>>To succeed, this requires:
>>
>>At least 25% of the active players votes, yes or no (5/19 active players)
>>Either 10 YES votes or at least 2/3 of the votes be YES.
>>
>>I vote YES.
>>
>
>I vote YES.

I vote YES.

CnH

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

From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oust Speaker Mal
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 13:46:12 -0400 (EDT)

YES on the Malenkai impeachment.

BLMP.

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 13:49:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> I take the office of Justice, seeing as I now own a bronze torch.
> 
> As Acting Speaker, I declare a state of crisis.
> 
> As Acting President, I issue the following CRD:
> 
> "
> The Game State is altered to be as it would be if Dragon Mage had
> unconditionally left Ackanomic in the one message he sent to the main list
> between 5:40 and 6:30 PM on Oct. 1, 1999.  
> 
> There are currently two possible Ackanomics with identical game states
> except for this discrepancy.  These two are merged into one so that they
> are to be considered the same game, and so that any attempt to make an
> action in one of them but not the other fails.  Only one really exists, and
> this document acknowledges that.  Which one does not matter.
> "
>
> The reason this is important is because JT is performing thread-dependent
> actions that will soon tear Ackanomic apart.  Acka-Lite is a fact.  Fine.
> So is Fat-Acka.  I do NOT want the creation of Acka-Lite to rip Fat-Acka in
> two any more than it already has.  JT and Malenkai are performing
> subversive actions.  Why?  I don't know.  Perhaps because they prefer
> Acka-Lite, perhaps because they feel I/we am/are misguided, perhaps just to
> be mean.  The reasons don't matter.  What matters is that we merge these
> threads together so that the madness can stop.

Ummm excuse the fuck out of me (and pardon the language), but the only
game which I have left is the one that you attempted to create out of
nothing with YOUR message on the 1st of October.

I agree that there are two games which currently exist and which both
consider me a member.  The ONLY thing I disagree with some people on is
whether or not Kernel-Ackanomic or Fat-Acka descend from the original
game of Ackanomic which was started in 1996.

Your action on the first attempted to create a third game under the
impression perhaps that the second one (fat-Acka) might not exist.  I only
left the game that you created and then only if you succeeded in creating
it.  IE, I believe your action had no effect and thus neither did mine.

I also object to the CRD issued and quoted above.

--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: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 14:01:45 -0400 (EDT)

>I agree that there are two games which currently exist and which both
>consider me a member.  The ONLY thing I disagree with some people on is
>whether or not Kernel-Ackanomic or Fat-Acka descend from the original
>game of Ackanomic which was started in 1996.

Perhaps the debate won't matter if both merge. As soon as possible...

CnH

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:07:42 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> 
> I take the office of Justice, seeing as I now own a bronze torch.
> 
> As Acting Speaker, I declare a state of crisis.
> 
> As Acting President, I issue the following CRD:
> 
> "
> The Game State is altered to be as it would be if Dragon Mage had
> unconditionally left Ackanomic in the one message he sent to the main list
> between 5:40 and 6:30 PM on Oct. 1, 1999.
> 
> There are currently two possible Ackanomics with identical game states
> except for this discrepancy.  These two are merged into one so that they
> are to be considered the same game, and so that any attempt to make an
> action in one of them but not the other fails.  Only one really exists, and
> this document acknowledges that.  Which one does not matter.
> "

I object to this as well, since I haven't seen any thread dependent
actions yet - (Acka-Lite and Acka-Bloat are independent games now and
Acka-EA!P! is just plain weird).

In fat-Ackanomic I change my name to K 3. In EA!P!'s-Ackanomic I change
my name to K 4. In Ackanomic-lite I leave my unoffical name as K 2.

K 2

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Various Important Results
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 09:01:20 -0400 (EDT)

Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:

> The CRD is defeated, and an impeachment paper is filed against me.  Vote
> publicly (not in response to this message). YES would remove me from
> office, NO keeps me in office.

I vote NO

K 2

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:12:52 -0400 (EDT)

>I object to this as well, since I haven't seen any thread dependent
>actions yet - (Acka-Lite and Acka-Bloat are independent games now and
>Acka-EA!P! is just plain weird).
>
>In fat-Ackanomic I change my name to K 3. In EA!P!'s-Ackanomic I change
>my name to K 4. In Ackanomic-lite I leave my unoffical name as K 2.

I thought the point of the message, the re-unifaction of all threads, was a
worthy point. Would someone please let me know what I'm missing? Why is this
something we should make as difficult as possible?

CnH

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: *ping*
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:15:20 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Today is Saturday, the 02nd day of October, and
> the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.
> Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 13 times.

Another magic letter is up for grabs (I think - at least it used to be
that way...)

anyway no sense letting a perfectly good cron job go to waste.

IF AND ONLY IF today *** ******** ***** *** ******** *****'* *****
****** ** *****, THEN the Machine That Goes *ping* shall go *ping*.

no d's

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:29:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Thierry Joffrain wrote:
> >I object to this as well, since I haven't seen any thread dependent
> >actions yet - (Acka-Lite and Acka-Bloat are independent games now and
> >Acka-EA!P! is just plain weird).
> >
> >In fat-Ackanomic I change my name to K 3. In EA!P!'s-Ackanomic I change
> >my name to K 4. In Ackanomic-lite I leave my unoffical name as K 2.
> 
> I thought the point of the message, the re-unifaction of all threads, was a
> worthy point. Would someone please let me know what I'm missing? Why is this
> something we should make as difficult as possible?

Re-unifying all threads is impossible unless either the fat-acka players
agree to accept the slimmer ruleset or the kernel-acka players agree to
accept the fat and bloated carcass of a ruleset.   I don't see those
threads getting unified anytime soon.   For the moment I am content to
remain a player in both of those threads.   I am not however content to
remain in the game which Ape Idiom Reporter attempted to create out of
thin air on the first.

--JT

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

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

From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:44:08 -0400 (EDT)

>Re-unifying all threads is impossible unless either the fat-acka players
>agree to accept the slimmer ruleset or the kernel-acka players agree to
>accept the fat and bloated carcass of a ruleset. 

I think that much is clear.

>  I don't see those
>threads getting unified anytime soon. 

I don't know why not. This is the perfect time to implement a rule
hierarchy. We could use rules common to both are the "federal" rule set and
then the rules left over as two different "state" rule set. When the two
states have an identical rule, move them up to the federal set. This solves
the split and enables us to resolve it over time.

This is only one of many, many solutions. A simpler one would be to
introduce a proposal (in each) that would follow the result of a single
referundum to resolve the conflict in favor of just one set of rules and let
the majority decide.

CnH

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

From: Ape Idiom Reporter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CRD
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 16:20:06 -0400 (EDT)

>
>I object to this as well, since I haven't seen any thread dependent
>actions yet - (Acka-Lite and Acka-Bloat are independent games now and
>Acka-EA!P! is just plain weird).

Allow me to explain this.  Acka-Lite is its own nomic.  Now, there are two
options:

1. P4371 was invalid or null.  Acka-Lite was created out of nothing.  In
this thread, Acka-Bloat exists with the gamestate we've been harfing, and
Acka-EAP does not exist.

2. Acka-Lite was successfully created by P4371.  In this case, Acka-Bloat
did not exist with an explicit game state.  In this thread, Acka-EAP exists
with a gamestate nearly mirroring that of Acka-Bloat in thread 1.

What my CRD does is fuse the Acka-Bloat of thread 1 with the Acka-Lite of
thread 2, so that fat-acka exists with the same gamestate regardless of the
success or failure of P4371.  This way, we will have fewer problems of the
sort that occur when some players view Malenkai as a player and others view
him as an observer.

>In fat-Ackanomic I change my name to K 3. In EA!P!'s-Ackanomic I change
>my name to K 4. In Ackanomic-lite I leave my unoffical name as K 2.

As president, I object to the changes in fat-Acka and EAP-acka.

Whatever the case may be, this CRD has been challenged.  Reply to this
message to vote in the hearing on it.  The responses are:

The President is Scamming Us (Another IP)
and
This Will Patch the Crisis. (The CRD is applied)

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

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 16:28:32 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Thierry Joffrain wrote:
> I don't know why not. This is the perfect time to implement a rule
> hierarchy. We could use rules common to both are the "federal" rule set and
> then the rules left over as two different "state" rule set. When the two
> states have an identical rule, move them up to the federal set. This solves
> the split and enables us to resolve it over time.
> 
> This is only one of many, many solutions. A simpler one would be to
> introduce a proposal (in each) that would follow the result of a single
> referundum to resolve the conflict in favor of just one set of rules and let
> the majority decide.

I'm not convinced they *should* be fused.   The only thing I'm waiting on
is the final resolution of the CFJ.  If that CFJ finds that Acka-Lite is
the 'true' Ackanomic, then I will probably withdraw from Fat-Acka as
truthfully, the large ruleset was in fact beginning to bother and bore me.
If the CFJ finds that Fat-Acka is the true Ackanomic, then I might or
might not remain in Fat-Acka since I don't really have time for 2 nomics.

--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: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Denialnomic: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 16:53:11 -0400 (EDT)

JT wrote:

> I'm not convinced they *should* be fused.   The only thing I'm waiting on
> is the final resolution of the CFJ.  If that CFJ finds that Acka-Lite is
> the 'true' Ackanomic, then I will probably withdraw from Fat-Acka as
> truthfully

But that CFJ is necessarily TRUE, or it was never submitted.  There is no
need to wait; if not, you will be waiting for a rather long time :-)

CnH wrote:
 
> I thought the point of the message, the re-unifaction of all threads, was a
> worthy point. Would someone please let me know what I'm missing? 

Yeah, you're missing that there are two distinct single-threaded games, 
not a multi-threaded single game.

> A simpler one would be to introduce a proposal (in each) that would 
> follow the result of a single referundum to resolve the conflict in 
> favor of just one set of rules and let the majority decide.

What is the point or value of another vote?

This was already voted on once, and the outcome of that vote was to
amend Ackanomic to have a small game state.  Those who didn't like that
result started another game.  Since then, players have been attracted 
to and joined the small game, and some have left the big game, so likely 
the vote will be even more lobsided.  Even if not, if you have another 
vote on the matter, likely the same thing will happen -- those who don't 
like the outcome will form their own game.  Its sort of like saying to a
group of people, one of which is playing chess, and one of which is
playing candyland, why don't you all vote, and _everyone_ play either
candyland or chess, depending on the outcome.  It doesn't seem reasonable
or even desirable.  The one difference is that in this case, people are 
free to play both chess and candyland if they have the time or desire 
(for example, the matter of P4371 has been pretty much cleared up in 
the minds of most everyone who has expressed an opinion, and two games
continue).

HTH
George
wondering what he did that was subversive

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

From: Eric Plumb <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Oust Speaker Mal
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 17:06:22 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Ape Idiom Reporter wrote:

> At least 25% of the active players votes, yes or no (5/19 active players)
> Either 10 YES votes or at least 2/3 of the votes be YES.
> 
> I vote YES.

I vote YES.

-Hubert

All those who believe in telekinesis raise my right hand. 

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

Subject: Acka: Return
From: Joseph DeVincentis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 17:48:44 -0400 (EDT)

In all threads of Acka in which I am on vacation,  I return from vacation.

Since there seems to have been a mishap with Malenkai's proposal, I will
redistribute it shortly to cover those threads where P4371 does not exist.

/dev/joe

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

From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Denialnomic: JT the nuisance
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 20:14:19 -0400 (EDT)

It was written:
>JT wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced they *should* be fused.   The only thing I'm waiting on
>> is the final resolution of the CFJ.  If that CFJ finds that Acka-Lite is
>> the 'true' Ackanomic, then I will probably withdraw from Fat-Acka as
>> truthfully
>
>But that CFJ is necessarily TRUE, or it was never submitted.  There is no
>need to wait; if not, you will be waiting for a rather long time :-)

No.

When you have two threads then the decision mechanism is started in both.
Assuming the two threads agree, one will justify itself and the other will
_deny its own existance_ and vanish in a puff of logic.

It has always been the case in the pass that the threads AGREED and one
gracefully commit sepuku.  In this case, all tradition has been thrown out
the window and people have not just put eir support behind one
interpretation or the other, but have assumed eir side was irrevocably
correct and moved on... to the point of leaving the other thread. So, its
likely that precedence will be thrown out the window and the threads will
go eir separate ways.

>CnH wrote:
> 
>> I thought the point of the message, the re-unifaction of all threads, was a
>> worthy point. Would someone please let me know what I'm missing? 
>
>Yeah, you're missing that there are two distinct single-threaded games, 
>not a multi-threaded single game.

No.  At this point it looks to me that each thread's partisans are claiming
to be playing the true Acka.... and the Acka-lite thread is claiming this
to the point of not even admitting the possibility of being a thread.

Just for clarity, I want to state my opinion on the subject:

I want to play in an enjoyable, reasonably platonic, nomic.

Acka-Lite does not look enjoyable.  I will not be playing it and have
unsubbed from its list.

Acka-Main was and is still interesting to me specifically because of its
"bloat".  I don't care so much for legislation: I like philosophy
expirements.  Acka-Main is a larger, more sophisticated, more nuanced
environment in which to play.

I TEND to agree with what was termed option (c) in recent debate (that
Malenkai's prop was not properly distributed and we voted on a null prop
which was accidentally released). BUT.... I have not examined the rules to
my own satisfaction and am not sure that this interpretation is
"platonically justifiable".  I'll wait for CFJ 730 to resolve, and if
Acka-Main determines itself to be the incorrect thread, I will quit. If an
attempt is made to restart Acka-Main then I probably won't play: nomic
should follow its own rules and when it doesn't it stops being an
environment to expirement in and becomes bad literature.

Hopefully, the judge of CFJ 730 will reasonably confirm Acka-Main's
existance.  In that case I will play.  

If 
1. Acka-Lite continues to insist that its justified, and
2. (as I assume will happen), many people flee Acka-main for Acka-Lite's
unsophisticated youth 
then,
I will make a prop to change Acka's name to "Ackanomic: Taiwan"  :)

It would be amusing (though unlikely) if Acka-Lite changed its name to
"Ackanomic: Red China" or some such....

>> A simpler one would be to introduce a proposal (in each) that would 
>> follow the result of a single referundum to resolve the conflict in 
>> favor of just one set of rules and let the majority decide.
>
>What is the point or value of another vote?
>
>This was already voted on once, and the outcome of that vote was to
>amend Ackanomic to have a small game state.  Those who didn't like that
>result started another game.  Since then, players have been attracted 
>to and joined the small game, and some have left the big game, so likely 
>the vote will be even more lobsided.  Even if not, if you have another 
>vote on the matter, likely the same thing will happen -- those who don't 
>like the outcome will form their own game.  Its sort of like saying to a
>group of people, one of which is playing chess, and one of which is
>playing candyland, why don't you all vote, and _everyone_ play either
>candyland or chess, depending on the outcome.  It doesn't seem reasonable
>or even desirable.  The one difference is that in this case, people are 
>free to play both chess and candyland if they have the time or desire 
>(for example, the matter of P4371 has been pretty much cleared up in 
>the minds of most everyone who has expressed an opinion, and two games
>continue).
>

Assuming that Taiwan and the Mainland go eir separate ways (neither thread
kills itself) I would not like to simply collapse the nomics, but the other
suggestion was very interesting.

I think it would be hilariously cool if Taiwan and the Mainland started
interacting as separate nomics.  About a year ago, I wrote up a proposition
that required a logical inconsistency to be resolved as either totally true
or totally false and depending on which, a constitutional convention would
or would not be held to rework one of the Acka's into a IRC game.

I never submitted the prop...

Now it looks like we're getting this effect accidentally.

Studge

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

From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 21:26:30 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, K 2 wrote:

> Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
> > 
> > I nominate Alfvaen 
> 
> Alfvaen is already.
> 
> > and ThinMan to the hall of elders, if they are not
> > already elders.
> 
> 
> I second this - goodness knows how many players are needed.

I second ThinMan's nomination, if I'm not too late. Heck, even if I *am*
too late.

Vynd

[email-masked]

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

From: Ape Idiom Reporter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Elders
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 22:29:56 -0400 (EDT)

At 09:26 PM 10/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, K 2 wrote:
>
>> Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote:
>> > 
>> > I nominate Alfvaen 
>> 
>> Alfvaen is already.
>> 
>> > and ThinMan to the hall of elders, if they are not
>> > already elders.
>> 
>> 
>> I second this - goodness knows how many players are needed.
>
>I second ThinMan's nomination, if I'm not too late. Heck, even if I *am*
>too late.

That makes 8.  Even if it had been on time, it would not have been enough.

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

End of ackanomic Digest V4 #267
*******************************