acka-research Digest Thursday, November 26 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 280 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Future Absence Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 15:50:58 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Duncan Richer wrote: > >I will be unavailable to maintain the web pages for the period 9th > >December to 7th January inclusive. If no-one else is acting web-harfer > >for this period, I suspect it will be impossible to get back up to speed. > > > >Will people please think about whether or not they wish to web-harf for 4 > >weeks. > > I know that I will not be able to do this even though by default I would > be the acting web harfer. So I also implore someone else to step forward > and volunteer. > I've done this before, I could do it again... In the event I become acting web harfer I would apreciate some help, in the event I don't I offer my services to the player who does :) K 2 > --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: "Gavin Logan" Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3807 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:37:29 -0500 (EST) >Proposal 3807 >After Us The Deluge >The Green Ripper >Due: Wed Dec 2 23:49:00 1998 > > >A Party Chess Piece Locust is created in the possession of each Swinger. > >[ THIS should get the Scaremonger going. ] Huh? Eh... Excuse me, I have to get some rules from my car... ...let's see... Locust. Hmmm... N/2 squares... perpendicular... blah blah blah. Yes I can see what you mean, there is definitely cause for alarm here. The Green Ripper has found what I think may be the most dangerous thing uncovered in Acka's history. His insidious plan is to BORE US ALL TO DEATH BY MAKING US READ THE PARTY CHESS RULES!!!!!!!!!!!! I can feel my brain melting already. (Mmm... now that's sarcasm.) sIRE ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3810 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 21:34:39 -0500 (EST) Some comments about P 3810. >{{[As the situation currently stands, 101 prevents both effects of CFJs >from occuring. It stops the retroactive fixes CFJ have been thought to >introduce, and it keeps them from doing anything to games custom. Thus, >there only effects are those which are predefined by other rules (Win >Conditions for example), if this is rejected I think my next prop will be >to repeal 215 as unnecessary.]}} First, Thomas Jute's comments about the effectiveness of CFJs are incorrect. I recently commented on exactly this subject, but I will reiterate and expand: It has for years been the customary interpretation of the rules that CFJ verdicts become part of explicit game custom. Or more precisely, they make explicit a point of game custom which was previously implicit. This is consistent with the rules, whether or not the rules mandate it, because the rules do not forbid it. Cannot forbid it, in fact, because rule 101 specifically makes Game Custom unregulated. The idea that rule 101 prevents CFJ judgements from becoming part of Game Custom is recent, and a direct contradiction of rule 101. Whether we choose to interpret R 215 as affecting Game Custom in a way that is not covered by R101 (less reasonable), or whether we observe that the Customary interpretation of the result of a CFJ verdict coincides with the [devoid of force] specification of R 215 (more reasonable), the result is the same. The "retroactivity" asserted by rule 215 is actually inherent in the nature of a CFJ. Because a CFJ establishes the truth value of a statement at a particular point in time, it is always "retroactive" whether R215 says so or not. This is not a retroactive effect in the R101 sense, however, because CFJs don't change anything (except insofar as they may have ancillary effects, and that they make some aspect of game custom explicit, or sometimes establish new game custom). The verdict of a CFJ clarifies a point about the rules or game state, but in no way changes those things. Even the occasional CFJ that establishes new game custom does so in the _present_, even though it is answering a question about what happened in the past. CFJs, therefore, do not run afoul of the retroactivity ban. Even if these procedures are rooted in Game Custom rather than being mandated by the rules, it is useful to have them echoed by the rules so that they are spelled out somewhere. Game Custom is one of those areas that demonstrate quite effectively that, as IB recently noted, Acka is not a formal system. In fact, it can never be one, because it is essential that Game Custom remain unregulated. If you check the early CFJ archives, you will find an attempted paradox win (by me) which was based around earlier versions of some of these very same rule provisions. It is one of the reasons for the current rules' wording. The PW failed, but it was a touchy thing, and it underscored the importance of Game Custom to this game. Now, about the actual proposal: the only change I see between the old passage and the new is the appended precedence statement: > >This rule takes precedence over Rule 101, even if Rule 101 says otherwise. > I am not at all convinced that this can have the intended effect. That is, I don't believe that the addition of this text to the rule will grant it precedence over R101. That being the case, the proposal is effectively null. Moreover, if I thought that this precedence language _would_ work, then I would vote against the proposal for exactly that reason. [Nitpick] I am also a bit annoyed by the form of the proposal, which appears to replace a relatively large section of R215's text with an identical text plus an added sentence. Writing amendments in this way significantly obfuscates the effects, and makes it more difficult to evaluate them. I would far prefer in a case like this that the amendment simply specify the text to be added and the place to put it. The word "append" is particularly useful in this capacity if the new text is to go at the end of a rule or rule section. [/Nitpick] ThinMan ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #280 ***********************************