Subject: ackanomic Digest V4 #284
From: [email-masked]
To: ackanomic digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:00:01 -0400 (EDT)

ackanomic Digest	Wednesday, October 20 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 284

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

Subject: Acka: *ping*
From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 04:42:02 -0400 (EDT)

Today is Wednesday, the 20th day of October, and 
the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.
Since I have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 17 times.

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

From: K 2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:52:03 -0400 (EDT)

John Bollinger wrote:
> 

> The gist is that I am going to cause Fat-Acka's game state to become part
> of Acka-Lite's, in a way which permits me to modify it.  Normally one
> would expect the players of another nomic to just ignore something like
> this, but Fat-Acka's rule 17-2-6-1 makes Acka-Lite's rules part of the
> Fat-Ackan rule set as 17-2-6-1-*.  Although 17-2-6-1 prevents its
> descendants from modifying non-descendants, my construction -- I claim --
> makes all of Fat-Acka's rules descendants of 17-2-6-1.  Fat-Acka cannot
> ignore its own rules; nor, in this case, can it ignore Acka-Lite's.

> I create a rule on the Harfy Sphere named "Loop: see Infinite Loop", numbered
> H42, and having the following ROOTACCESS-delimited text:
> 
> ROOTACCESS
> 
> The next Sphere outside the Harfy Sphere is the Fat Sphere.  The entire
> game state of Fat-Acka is on the Fat Sphere.  Fat-Ackan rules are rules
> on the Fat Sphere.  Rules on the Fat Sphere are rules of Fat-Acka.
> 

...

> 
> ThinMan may alter anything on the Fat Sphere at his whim.
> 
> ROOTACCESS
> 

The fact that this declares (in effect) the Fat rules to be decendents
of 17-2-6-1 doesn't change the fact that they are also the ancestors of
it. Rule 17-2-6-1 still prevents its decendents from modifying its
non-decendents. The copy of the Fat-Set can certainly be modified but
thats all it is - a copy.

This would make Fat-Acka's rules both decendents of 17-2-6-1 and its
parents - Rule 17-2-6-1 takes precedence over its decendents thus
modification of the decendents of 17-2-6-1 can't effect

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:23:19 -0400 (EDT)

>	Unfortunately, by my analysis, this won't work.  The problem 
>is that 17-2-6-1, the rule making Acka-Lite's ruleset its descendent, 
>specifies that the ruleset of Acka-Lite makes up its descendents. 
>Rule 1-10, however, defines a descendent of a rule.  This worked 
>(awkwardly) until Prop 64 in Acka-Lite changed Acka-Lite's rule 
>numbering system so that each rule contains a string followed by an 
>integer.  This violates rule 1-10, which defines rule numbers as 
>being only chains of integers.  Therefore, by Fat Acka's rules, 
>proposal 64 failed to take effect (since it renumbered rules to an 
>illegal format without sufficient precedence).  Thus, Fat Acka does 
>not recognize the existence of the harfy sphere, with the appropriate 
>consequence's for General ThinMan's scam.

Needless to say, I don't agree.  I fully realize that the Lite and Fat
rule numbering schemes are incompatible -- I had to account for that,
after all -- but I don't think that breaks things.

The first problem with else..if's position is that Fat 17-2-6 (formerly
17-2-6-1) does not specify the rule numbers for the Lite rules, except
to say that those rules are its descendants.  Fat Acka nowhere claims or
requires that the Acka-Lite rule numbers be related in any way to the Fat
Ackan numbers for the same rules!  The Fat numbers of those rules are
inconsequential to Fat Acka, and unspecified.  Until proposal 64, it did
produce a consistent scheme to simply append the Lite numbers after
"17-2-6-1-", but that does not make the Fat-legal numbers thus produced
the _correct_ Fat numbers for the Lite rules.  The fact that such an
operation no longer creates Fat-legal rule numbers simply makes it clear
that the Fat numbers for those rules are not [now] derived that way.

The second problem with else..if's position is that even if I stipulated
a rule number conflict, I see no reason why proposal 64 would not have
taken effect.  Ackanomic history is rife with examples of rule changes
that produced conflicts.  The creation of the Harfy sphere, and my actions
on and outside it, are in no way forbidden by the Fat rules.

On a more general level, Fat Acka is in a rather difficult bind.  It
recognizes Acka-Lite as

   a game which believes that up until 24 Sep 1999 19:14:12, when differing
   opinion on the effect of Proposal 4371 caused its genesis, it was the
   same game as this one.

That rather effectively identifies a particular game, one which does not
recognize any authority of Fat Acka over it.  And authority is the crux
of the matter: Fat Acka claims statutory authority over another nomic
which doesn't recognize that authority.  Fat Acka therefore cannot
exercise that authority, its own rules notwithstanding, for any nomic 
which Fat Acka has modified is not the nomic known to Fat Acka as
Acka-Lite.  On the other hand, by making Lite rules also be Fat rules,
Fat Acka has given Lite authority over it.  Fat Acka did not expect that
the scope of that authority could be broadened from inside Acka-Lite, but
it is obliged to obey its own rules -- including those of Acka-Lite.

I remain,

ThinMan
General of the Forces of Lite
Military Governor of Fat Acka

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:48:33 -0400 (EDT)

K 2 wrote:
>The fact that this declares (in effect) the Fat rules to be decendents
>of 17-2-6-1 doesn't change the fact that they are also the ancestors of
>it. Rule 17-2-6-1 still prevents its decendents from modifying its
>non-decendents. The copy of the Fat-Set can certainly be modified but
>thats all it is - a copy.
>
>This would make Fat-Acka's rules both decendents of 17-2-6-1 and its
>parents - Rule 17-2-6-1 takes precedence over its decendents thus
>modification of the decendents of 17-2-6-1 can't effect

The relevant text from the former rule 17-2-6-1 (now 17-2-6) would appear
to be:

         This rule's descendants may only effect Acka-Lite's Game State
   and shall have no other effect on Ackanomic's game state.

And perhaps also this:

   This rule takes precedence over its descendants. This rule and its
   descendants defer to all other rules, except where noted otherwise.

Given that I caused all of Fat Acka's game state to be part of Acka-Lite's,
the former restriction was effectively null -- there could be no effect on
Fat-Acka's game state that was not an effect on Acka-Lite's game state.
That was the point of the scam.  K 2's assertion that "Rule 17-2-6-1 still
prevents its decendents from modifying its non-decendents" is only true
so long as the non-descendants are not part of Acka-Lite's game state -- a
condition that K 2 apparently did not forsee could be made false.

The precedence issue, on the other hand, is moot -- I neither created nor
used any Lite rule that conflicted with Fat-Acka's rules.

ThinMan
General of the Forces of Lite
Military Governor of Fat Acka
shrubbery-in-chief

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

From: Bill Palmer <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: excuse me
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:36:12 -0400 (EDT)

Where's the nearest gas station?  I seem to have lost my oil.

(fecundus in absentia)

Danek

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

From: Ape Idiom Reporter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:16:44 -0400 (EDT)

>I am about to perform some actions that may be of interest to players of
>both Ackanomics.  In fact, I am going to perform actions in both nomics,

> Blah Blah Blah

I don't think this worked, on a cursory inspection.  But something else
*might* work.

I declare a state of crisis.
I offer the following CRD:
"The gamestate is changed to be what it would be if rule 17-2-6-1 had been
repealed on the 18th of October, 1999, at midnight.  Append to rule 1 the
following text: [nice try, ThinMan the Traitor]"

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

From: Alexandre Owen Muniz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:16:57 -0400 (EDT)

Ape Idiom Reporter wrote:
> 
> >I am about to perform some actions that may be of interest to players of
> >both Ackanomics.  In fact, I am going to perform actions in both nomics,
> 
> > Blah Blah Blah
> 
> I don't think this worked, on a cursory inspection.  But something else
> *might* work.
> 
> I declare a state of crisis.
> I offer the following CRD:
> "The gamestate is changed to be what it would be if rule 17-2-6-1 had been
> repealed on the 18th of October, 1999, at midnight.  Append to rule 1 the
> following text: [nice try, ThinMan the Traitor]"

I denounce this crd. Burn the witch! The president is scamming us!

**two-star

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

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:22:10 -0400 (EDT)

>I declare a state of crisis.
>I offer the following CRD:
>"The gamestate is changed to be what it would be if rule 17-2-6-1 had been
>repealed on the 18th of October, 1999, at midnight.  Append to rule 1 the
>following text: [nice try, ThinMan the Traitor]"

	This falls afoul of rule 1 (no retroactive actions), and 
would have no effect anyway (except appending [nice try, ThinMan the 
Traitor]).

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:28:46 -0400 (EDT)

EAP wrote:

>I don't think this worked, on a cursory inspection.  But something else
>*might* work.

And why not?  I suppose you want to keep that a secret lest anyone actually
find a better way.  Not that my opinion matters, but the more discussion
we have, the more I am convinced that it did work.  I would be willing to
discuss the matter with you privately and in confidence if you like.

>I declare a state of crisis.
>I offer the following CRD:
>"The gamestate is changed to be what it would be if rule 17-2-6-1 had been
>repealed on the 18th of October, 1999, at midnight.  Append to rule 1 the
>following text: [nice try, ThinMan the Traitor]"

Oh, please.

As I promised, I do absolutely to Fat-Acka's game state.  I do observe,
however, that
(1) if I *did* hack Fat Acka then this is a pretty unsportsmanlike kludge
(2) if I didn't hack Fat Acka but someone else does before the three days is
    over then the CRD will likely be erased anyway

If I were in your position then I would just write a CRD to fix the hole,
and afterward figure out what else (if anything) needs to be cleaned up.
I very intentionally did nothing to limit the effects of a CRD (or proposal,
or CFJ) on my modifications to Fat Acka.  If I did hack Fat Acka then
patching the game state as if I hadn't doesn't change that -- all it does
is relieve you of having to determine whether I did or not.  Besides, I don't
think anything this interesting has happened to Acka since the Vulcan
takeover -- why do you want to push it under the rug?

I remain,

ThinMan
General of the Forces of Lite
Military Governor of Fat Acka
shrubbery-in-chief

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

From: "Rachel Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:16:45 -0400 (EDT)

>I declare a state of crisis.
>I offer the following CRD:
>"The gamestate is changed to be what it would be if rule 17-2-6-1 had been
>repealed on the 18th of October, 1999, at midnight.  Append to rule 1 the
>following text: [nice try, ThinMan the Traitor]"

I'm tempted to object to this on the grounds of the insertion of the notes, 
but I won't because I tend to find nomic wars rather distasteful.

Quoth.

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

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

From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:01:27 -0400 (EDT)

> If I did hack Fat Acka then patching the game state as if I hadn't doesn't 
> change that -- all it does is relieve you of having to determine whether I 
> did or not.  Besides, I don't think anything this interesting has happened 
> to Acka since the Vulcan takeover -- why do you want to push it under the rug?

Indeed.

It seems that there have been more CRDs in the past month or so than in all
the history of things called Ackanomic combined.  Whenever the game state
evolves in undesired ways, wheel out the CRD :-)  Why don't you issue a CRD
to let someone be an emperor, play Imperial Nomic, and be done with it?

George
Shrubbery

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

From: "Rachel Walmsley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Martial Law
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:27:51 -0400 (EDT)

John Bollinger wrote:

>If I were in your position then I would just write a CRD to fix the hole,
>and afterward figure out what else (if anything) needs to be cleaned up.
>I very intentionally did nothing to limit the effects of a CRD (or 
>proposal,
>or CFJ) on my modifications to Fat Acka.  If I did hack Fat Acka then
>patching the game state as if I hadn't doesn't change that -- all it does
>is relieve you of having to determine whether I did or not.  Besides, I 
>don't
>think anything this interesting has happened to Acka since the Vulcan
>takeover -- why do you want to push it under the rug?

Interesting? For me this is possibly one of the most boring times ever, 
which is actually why I left for a while. First off we had people going off 
to set up Acka Lite with scant regard to what the rules actually said, which 
is hardly in the spirit of, well, I was going to say Nomic, but definitely 
not in the spirit of Acka. And then some sort of nomic war thing seems to be 
going on. Now, I don't know which side started this, but can someone explain 
to me why this is supposed to be fun? It seems apparent from the schism that 
the players of fat acka and acka lite aren't interested in playing the same 
type of game at the moment. It's a pain, but once it's established then such 
is life. Going out to try to wreck someone else's game is, to me, the 
epitome of childishness. Now granted, ThinMan didn't actually wreck the fat 
Acka game state (presuming that what he tried worked), but why bother 
interfering with it at all? If you want to play, then play, if you don't 
then surely the best bet is to leave well enough alone. The same goes for 
any attempt by players of fat Acka to sabotage Acka Lite. Interesting? 
Hardly. Fun? Certainly not.

Quoth, begining to wish she had never rejoined.

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

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

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Souls
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:57:29 -0400 (EDT)

	Before I forget again, I return null's soul to him.  While I' 
at it, I give him K2's soul too.

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

End of ackanomic Digest V4 #284
*******************************