ackanomic Digest Friday, December 11 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 443 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: alfvaen@connect.ab.ca (Aaron V. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 704 (FALSE) (upheld) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 00:30:39 -0500 (EST) > Erm, but thread a cannot make any claim on the validity of thread b, >because it's predicated on thread b being wrong, and a being right, for >deity's sake... Oh, for Pete's sake... Look at the judgement of CFJ 704. It was not reached by _any_ assumption based on the fact that it was being judged in one thread or the other. The rules are mind-numbingly clear on the issue. All it takes to close off the thread split is to realize that one thread is not what actually happened. The fact that this has been elucidated in a CFJ appeal which only took place in one thread is immaterial--the difference between the two threads does not have anything to do with the logic that leads to the choice of which one is true. Not everything in the game needs be decided by an explicit CFJ. Some things are simple enough to be deduced directly. -- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/) Current Song--Lord Runningclam:Flibberty Jib Current Book--Michael P. Kube-McDowell:Emprise Always look out for #1 and be careful not to step in #2. ------------------------------ From: Jonathan David Amery Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 712 (ThinMan) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:21:21 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > ThinMan has been selected > > Call for Judgment 712 - Dec 10, 1998 > Subject: Threadsplits > Initiator: Wild Card (sent Dec 10 1998, 20:00 Acka) > Judge: ThinMan > Judgement: I retract this CFJ on the bases that: 1) It's badly written. 2) The rest of acka seems to disagree on how threadsplits work. I RFC a proposal that dissallows anyone who's elegability to Judge the CFJ depends upn that CFJ from being chosen as Judge for it unless only such people exist. -- Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ. ##### http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html o__####### Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats. \'####### Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo. Holding the Silver Key to the Vault. Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the puppethead. ------------------------------ From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 712 (ThinMan) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:56:28 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > > > ThinMan has been selected > > > > Call for Judgment 712 - Dec 10, 1998 > > Subject: Threadsplits > > Initiator: Wild Card (sent Dec 10 1998, 20:00 Acka) > > Judge: ThinMan > > Judgement: > > I retract this CFJ on the bases that: > 1) It's badly written. > 2) The rest of acka seems to disagree on how threadsplits work. > > I RFC a proposal that dissallows anyone who's elegability to Judge the > CFJ depends upn that CFJ from being chosen as Judge for it unless only > such people exist. > Such concepts have been discussed before. I've yet to hear a practical method of doing this described. How does one determine if a player would only be eligible to judge a CFJ if that CFJ was TRUE (or FALSE)? In many cases it might seem to be obvious, but not always. And even in "obvious" cases, another CFJ would be necessary if there was any disagreement. Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu ------------------------------ From: Jonathan David Amery Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 712 (ThinMan) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:40:16 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, John Frederic Mc Coy wrote: > On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > > > > > ThinMan has been selected > > > > > > Call for Judgment 712 - Dec 10, 1998 > > > Subject: Threadsplits > > > Initiator: Wild Card (sent Dec 10 1998, 20:00 Acka) > > > Judge: ThinMan > > > Judgement: > > > > I retract this CFJ on the bases that: > > 1) It's badly written. > > 2) The rest of acka seems to disagree on how threadsplits work. > > > > I RFC a proposal that dissallows anyone who's elegability to Judge the > > CFJ depends upn that CFJ from being chosen as Judge for it unless only > > such people exist. > > Such concepts have been discussed before. I've yet to hear a practical > method of doing this described. How does one determine if a player would > only be eligible to judge a CFJ if that CFJ was TRUE (or FALSE)? In many > cases it might seem to be obvious, but not always. And even in "obvious" > cases, another CFJ would be necessary if there was any disagreement. > Well, O.K. Dissallow any person mentioned in the CFJ text (Pol Pot in this case). Unless more than 1/2 of the eligable people are excluded by this. -- Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ. ##### http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html o__####### Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats. \'####### Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo. Holding the Silver Key to the Vault. Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the puppethead. ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Acka: Machine that Goes *ping* (smallbox blanket) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:08:07 -0500 (EST) I somehow forgot that IB had this when he went On-Ice, and thus forgot to move it to a random active player's home. The machine has appeared to smallpox blanket, who has 1 week to inform us of the heavily marked up truth. --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: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Acka: Thread Splits Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:53:05 -0500 (EST) A few words about thread splits, as a player who has seen as many as almost anyone else in Acka. This is a combination of my personal opinion and my evaluation of game custom, which is exactly what I would use to judge a CFJ. 1) "Thread Split" is a bit of a misnomer. It is never the case that there is more than one game state. It is sometimes the case, however, that some aspects of the game state are unclear. It is this situation that is designated a thread split. 2) A thread split situation is not caused by a CFJ (usually), but may be resolved by one. A thread split situation may also be resolved by the players coming to consensus about the game state. 3) Thread split resolution is sometimes (with disturbing frequency, in fact) complicated by convolution of the game state uncertainty with the CFJ proceedings intended to resolve it. [Example: the uncertainty involves whether a particular person is a player, and that player is selected to judge the CFJ.] This often means that the CFJ aimed at resolving the thread split must be distributed two (or more) times under different sets of assumptions. In such a case, both (all) verdicts must be rendered (unless consensus can be reached). Why? Because the verdicts may not agree about which thread reflects the true game state. If thread (a) contains the correct game state, then a CFJ judged in thread (b) is only one player's opinion and has nothing in the rules or game custom to give it any power, even if the judgement asserts that (b) contains the correct game state. If (a) contains the correct game state then any judgement in (b) that asserts otherwise is wrong, and does not by any means cause its own thread to assume legitimacy. It gets worse, but I'll stop there. With regard to the Pol Pot situation, I have to agree that Pol Pot (now Trent) did not leave the game. As there seems to be mostly general agreement on the matter we can probably lay it to rest. I believe that it would have been helpful if K 2 had rendered a judgement (even one that denied his own authority to judge), but this case is sufficiently clear-cut that I think we can do without. As long as I'm up on the soap box, I will echo the opinion that CFJs are not always necessary to resolve questions about the rules or game state. When an unusual situation arises we can proceed without much ado if we think through it and can agree on the results. Sometimes this is not possible, of course, but I would like to see it happen a little more often. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: P3871 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:14:44 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: >Having reread the prop, you are correct. However, Trent's prop which >gives all rules without an H number a parent of H99 would allow him to >then renumber them and rearrange them as appropriate, so I believe the >only issue is one of references to rule numbers within the rule-set which >I don't feel will cause real problems. And what about those rules that say "This rule take precedence over rule X"? I have not done an actual analysis, but these would all certainly be broken by this reorg prop, and I shudder to think what chaos might ensue before we can get things back together. Assuming we can get them back together. Assuming Trent doesn't devise some scheme to take advantage of his sudden ability to renumber every rule in the rule set. >Let me know if the above convinced you :) No, unfortunately it didn't. else..if wrote: [I wrote:] >>Perhaps I'm just being too picky. In any case, what the prop says is that >>a number prefaced by an L is an L number [sounds logical]. It also says that >>a rule number is an L number if it is not prefaced by an H or an L, which >>effectively makes all rule numbers L numbers. Then the prop says to at >>a specified time "give rule LX the number HY" for specified pairs of X and Y. >>My point is that there will at that time be _no_ rules LX, only rules X. > According to the rules, a number is an L number if "preceded" by L, >or if preceded by neither L nor H. So LX is the same as X. I don't follow that argument. It seems like you are mixing together a notational convention and an actual physical labelling scheme. I don't think you can have it both ways. In particular it does not follow from the facts that LX and X are both L numbers and have the same numerical component that LX and X are the _same_ number. It would be different if it said something like "X is shorthand for LX," but it doesn't. (Actually, "LX is shorthand for X" would probably work better in the context of the proposal.) I have come to favor the hierarchical numbering concept, but I cannot support the proposed implementation. ThinMan ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Re: Acka: P3871 Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 18:09:35 -0500 (EST) >And what about those rules that say "This rule take precedence over rule X"? >I have not done an actual analysis, but these would all certainly be broken >by this reorg prop, and I shudder to think what chaos might ensue before >we can get things back together. Assuming we can get them back together. >Assuming Trent doesn't devise some scheme to take advantage of his sudden >ability to renumber every rule in the rule set. All references to rules by number are changed to H numbers by the proposal. >>>Perhaps I'm just being too picky. In any case, what the prop says is that >>>a number prefaced by an L is an L number [sounds logical]. It also says >>>that >>>a rule number is an L number if it is not prefaced by an H or an L, which >>>effectively makes all rule numbers L numbers. Then the prop says to at >>>a specified time "give rule LX the number HY" for specified pairs of X >>>and Y. >>>My point is that there will at that time be _no_ rules LX, only rules X. >> According to the rules, a number is an L number if "preceded" by L, >>or if preceded by neither L nor H. So LX is the same as X. > >I don't follow that argument. It seems like you are mixing together a >notational convention and an actual physical labelling scheme. I don't think >you can have it both ways. In particular it does not follow from the facts >that LX and X are both L numbers and have the same numerical component that >LX and X are the _same_ number. It would be different if it said something >like "X is shorthand for LX," but it doesn't. (Actually, "LX is shorthand >for X" would probably work better in the context of the proposal.) LX is not a number. X is still the number, L optionally precedes it as a notional clarification. Because it is optional, LX and X refer to the same rule. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Acka: Phoebe (ThinMan) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:03:37 -0500 (EST) Unsurprisingly, Ballot Stuffer failed to post phoebe's wisdom. Phoebe's matchbox has been found by ThinMan. --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: Alexandre Muniz Subject: Re: Acka: JAM Purification Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:38:35 -0500 (EST) K 2 wrote: > > I ask to join JAM / Justified ancients > > I don't sign the contract but state my intent to object to any action > that would evict a player other than myself from JAM. good enough. I accept this request. K2 is now a member of the justified ancients of Mummu **two-star ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Acka: Eggplant Bidding Results (Series G) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:45:12 -0500 (EST) Here are the results of the bidding: D: /dev/joe E: else...if K: K 2 S: Slakko T: Trent V: Vynd W: Wild Card The bidding was as follows: Cond (.) | T | W | D | V | S | E | K | ----------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ G1 (T) | 115 | -196 | 70 | 40 | 100 | - 50 | 115 | G2 (T) | 115 | 115 | 90 | 115 | 60 | -100 | 115 | G3 (W) | 0 | 0 | 90 | 115 | 60 | 50 | 115 | G4 (D) | 0 | -200 | 0 | -231 | 20 | 0 | 115 | G5 (D) | 0 | 100 | 50 | -231 | 80 | 0 | 115 | G6 (D) | 0 | 97 | 70 | 100 | 90 | 100 | 115 | G7 (V) | 0 | 67 | 90 | 115 | 22 | 50 | 115 | G8 (V) | 0 | 50 | 110 | 115 | 115 | 100 | 115 | G9 (S) | 0 | -100 | 100 | 40 | -231 | 50 | 115 | G10 (E) | -231 | -200 | 0 | -100 | 0 | -100 | 115 | G11 (E) | -231 | -200 | - 20 | -200 | 20 | 50 | 115 | G12 (E) | -231 | -200 | -100 | -231 | 0 | -100 | 115 | G13 (K) | -231 | 100 | 90 | 115 | -231 | - 50 | 115 | G14 (K) | 0 | -215 | 90 | 0 | -100 | 50 | 115 | Eggplants: T: G11, G12, G13 W: G4, G10, G14 D: G6, G7, G8 V: C17, C24, D16 S: C9, G3, G9 E: G1, G2, G4 K: ---none recieved due to the way it came out--- Here are the conditions and their weights: G1 ( 40): The wearer of this hat found a treasure buried before the 16th of September, 1998 after they came into possession of this hat G2 ( 60): This is the first hat that the wearer of this hat has worn G3 ( 90): The owner of this hat has either owned zero Agenda hats and three Eggplants within the previous cycle or has joined the game for the first time since the current cycle began. G4 ( 0): Ackanomic has precisely 257 rules. G5 ( 50): Ackanomic has precisely 41 non-unique organizations. G6 ( 90): The Machine that goes *ping* has gone *ping* precisely 6 times since the last time it teleported to another player's home. G7 ( 115): The letters in the name of the wearer of this hat are in alphabetical order, and the letters of the name of the owner of this eggplant are not. G8 ( 115): The owner of this hat has had more different names than any other player of Ackanomic, or else has had only one name. G9 (-100): The owner of this Hat and the owner of this Eggplant have both been a Second to Slakko in a Duel and have fought a Duel against Slakko. G10 (-100): The score of the owner of this hat is boring. This must be proven. G11 (-200): This agenda hat is described in the rules as having two ears and a hron. G12 (-200): There are a negative number of heads in Ackanomic. G13 (- 50): This hat belongs to a newbie. G14 ( 0): This hat belongs to a player who has never won a cycle and does not own a winning condition. Hats will be distributed privately in a few minutes. --JT, Illuminatus [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ 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 Drummond-Cole Subject: Acka: my brand new hats Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:52:31 -0500 (EST) i wear both of the following hats: G6 (90): The Machine that goes *ping* has gone *ping* precisely 6 times since the last time it teleported to another player's home. G14 (0) : This hat belongs to a player who has never won a cycle and does not own a winning condition. I am very willing to trade G14; if you have never won, you should grab it--it's a 0 weight freebie -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ From: Jonathan David Amery Subject: Re: Acka: my brand new hats Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:55:00 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > G14 (0) : This hat belongs to a player who has never won a cycle and does > not own a winning condition. > > I am very willing to trade G14; if you have never won, you should grab > it--it's a 0 weight freebie I'll trade it for: G12 (-200): There are a negative number of heads in Ackanomic. Which I reveal. -- Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ. ##### http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html o__####### Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats. \'####### Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo. Holding the Silver Key to the Vault. Memo to myself: Do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the puppethead. ------------------------------ From: Gabe Drummond-Cole Subject: Re: Acka: my brand new hats Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:58:13 -0500 (EST) At 11:55 PM 12/11/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Gabe Drummond-Cole wrote: > >> G14 (0) : This hat belongs to a player who has never won a cycle and does >> not own a winning condition. >> >> I am very willing to trade G14; if you have never won, you should grab >> it--it's a 0 weight freebie > > I'll trade it for: > > G12 (-200): There are a negative number of heads in Ackanomic. > no thank you... i'd like my agenda win in this millenium :( -- Trent Acting CotC, Acting Map-Harfer, Acting Thrallmaster, Crazy French-Scotsman, Daring Adventurer, Dungeon Master, Really Weird, Rules-Harfer, Worker Caste, Weird ------------------------------ End of ackanomic Digest V3 #443 *******************************