ackanomic Digest Monday, February 22 1999 Volume: 04 Issue: 051 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 180 (else...if) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:17:12 -0500 (EST) Joseph DeVincentis wrote: > Reasoning: > CFCJ 172 established that submitting a number of proposals more than > twice what the accused submitted is not Being Annoying. Also, e only > submitted 5 proposals. > > /dev/joe I torch this appeal & associated CFCJ: CFCJ 172 may have established that submitting 12 proposals (3360, 3364, 3365, 3372-3381) is not Annoying, however, there are a certain number of differences between that event and the one(s) currently under scrutiny, specifically CFCJ dealt with 12 substantially different proposals, while this situation involves identical proposals, the submission of which was apparently intentional (no attempt has been made to retract the superfluous proposals and the proposals in question are also identical to an earlier sequence made by /dev/joe (indicating at least some premeditation)). [It is Annoying to be] Pursuing a game strategy... causing excessive amounts of messages... Given that the submission of 5 copies was not an accident (i.e. the defendant was actively pursuing this particular game strategy), the remaining question is - was the submission of 5 copies an excessive number of messages?. Rule 2 permits a single accepted proposal to have an effect; it doesn't require that 5 identical proposals to be accepted before any of them to have an effect - it follows that the submission of a single copy of a proposal is sufficient (in the absence of extraordinary circumstance). 4 extra copies of a proposal. Deliberate - Yes. Excessive -Yes. Annoying? ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Acka: Wibble Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:25:59 -0500 (EST) #submit proposal Wibble Paradigm Type: AntiVoting becomes active. #end proposal Its not that I think it necessary, or even that I think it should be active - I just object to the method used to accomplish the change. K 2 ------------------------------ From: Jonathan David Amery Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 179 (Wild Card) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:32:03 -0500 (EST) I judge this TRUE. Reasoning: The Initiator is correct in every respect. Penalty: One week on gaol. On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Towsner wrote: > Call for Criminal Judgement 179 - February 21, 1999 > Subject: /dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe > Initiator: K 2 > Judge: Wild Card > Judgement: > > Statement: > /dev/joe has committed the Crime of Being Annoying. > > Reasoning: > /dev/joe has submitted 5 _identical_ proposals to the public forum, the > sole purpose of the multiple copies is to prevent interested players > from presenting a united front. This is SPAM in rhymes with SCAM and it > is ANNOYING! > > Suggested Penalty > One week in gaol [Although it is unlikely to prevent em from voting on > the proposals, the more appropriate punishment of a Mannna deduction is > not possible]. > -- Jonathan D. Amery, http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html ##### Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats. o__####### Holding the Silver Key to the Vault. \'####### Standing between the light and the dark, the candle and the flame. ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 179 (Wild Card) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:30:16 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Jonathan David Amery wrote: > I judge this TRUE. > > Reasoning: The Initiator is correct in every respect. > > Penalty: One week on gaol. I appeal this CFCJ with the following reasoning. Appeal Reasoning: CFCJ 172 established that 12 proposals from a single player in a short span of time was not annoying. The fact that this was done with only 5 proposal (regardless of the content of the proposals) makes this much less of an offense. Since this does not rise to the level of annoying as set forth in that CFCJ, this should not have been judged as annoying. There are also other suitable remedies within the rules to punish percieved abuses of percieved loopholes within the rules, namely scam hunts, and imho, that remedy should have been used in place. --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 Subject: Acka: Speaking of Scam Hunt Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:35:19 -0500 (EST) In the scam hunt called against K 2 on 12 Feb 1999 at 00:06, the vote was as follows "Wow! She drove a truck through it!" --------------- "I don't think she knows how to drive.". ------------------ JT Calvin N Hobbes K 2 ThinMan else...if IdiotBoy Danek Slakko O Olde Alpha Thus K 2 gains a Black Mark. In the Scam Hnt called against Wild Card on 13 Feb 1999, the votes were "Wow! She drove a truck through it!" --------------- Wild Card K 2 "I don't think she knows how to drive.". ------------------ JT ThinMan Since the results were tied, and no non-player entity voted in the hearing for me to discard, the result of the hearing is the result that appears first in the rule defining Scam Hunt. Therefore, the result of this hearing is "Wow! She drove a truck through it!", and JT as the Hearing Harfer recieves a Black Mark. --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 Subject: Acka: Potato (Blest Lax Monk Pal) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:41:50 -0500 (EST) Blest Lax Monk Pal has found the potato. Studge therefore has the Tuba. --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: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 180 (Idiot Boy) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:42:56 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Joseph DeVincentis wrote: > > Call for Criminal Judgement 180 - February 21, 1999 > > Subject: JTJTJTJTJTJT > > Initiator: K 2 > > Judge: IdiotBoy > > Judgement: TRUE > > > > Statement: > > JT has committed the Crime of Being Annoying. > > > Judge's Reasoning: Well, ja. > > > > Actual Penalty: > > SENTENCE of 7 days in Gaol. > > TRASNFERENCE of an amount of A$ equal to the SHF from JT to the initiator > > of this CFCJ. > > I appeal this CFCJ. > > Reasoning: > CFCJ 172 established that submitting a number of proposals more than > twice what the accused submitted is not Being Annoying. Also, e only > submitted 5 proposals. In both instances of current CFCJs, we need to determine whether identical proposals are more annoying than distinct ones. It may be that 5 identical are more annoying than 12 distinct. This could well be a matter for the Supreme Court. Hmmmm.... A very interesting situation, when two of the accused are on the Court. I wonder what will happen? -- Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/ Ackanomic | U. of Cambridge Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa) ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4078 rejected Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:43:18 -0500 (EST) #Mannna 3900 K 2 #end I convert 78 of my points into 3900 Mannna. K 2 off to vote frivolously on the q > K 2 200 -100 ==> -11 ** Went into debt, loses 10 ** > > Amend Rule 7-4-1 titled "Convertable Economics" if it exists by renaming > v) The Conversion of 1 point into 50 Mannna. > > with > v) The Conversion of 2 point into 1 Mannna. ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4097 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:43:25 -0500 (EST) #retract 4097 #submit proposal ? This is a Modest Proposal {{Re-title this rule "Grease is the Word".}} Every so often permitted entities may frob the "hydriae", using one of the following wibble strategies: i) tweaking a single letter into another letter ii) adding a single letter before a particular letter iii) deleting a single letter Frobbing the "hydriae" creates a widget, which is the "hydriae" tweaked according to the chosen wibble strategy. If the widget appears in the official dictionary, or in the rules, all quoted occurrences of "hydriae" in this rule are replaced with the widget. No player may frob the "hydriae" more than once in quite a while, unless the "hydriae" has not been frobbed for a while. The owner of the RBBT may cause it to frob the "hydriae", however, the RBBT shall teleport to a random player afterwards. Players and the RBBT are permitted entities. Once a week is every so often. A fortnight is a while. A month is quite a while. "hydriae" is The official word of Ackanomic. #end proposal #end I retract P4097 I submit P4099? I smack myself I enjoy it. K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: [Fwd: Acka: Nomicbot Results] Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:44:50 -0500 (EST) LOL K 2 -- Listar MIME Decryption -------------- -- Content: Included message Return-Path: ackabot@ackanomic.org Received: from brain.mics.net (postfix@brain.mics.net [209.41.216.21]) by power.connexus.net.au (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA17770 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 06:43:26 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from ackabot@ackanomic.org) From: ackabot@ackanomic.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brain.mics.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B0966C900 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:43:20 -0500 (EST) To: kii@connexus.net.au Subject: Acka: Nomicbot Results Message-Id: <19990222194320.5B0966C900@brain.mics.net> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:43:20 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Log of your bot commands >#Mannna 3900 K 2 Don't even think about it. ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 179 (Wild Card) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:54:37 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > Appeal Reasoning: > CFCJ 172 established that 12 proposals from a single player in a short > span of time was not annoying. The fact that this was done with only 5 > proposal (regardless of the content of the proposals) makes this much less > of an offense. Since this does not rise to the level of annoying as set > forth in that CFCJ, this should not have been judged as annoying. I torch (bronze) this CFCJ with the following PLONK delimited reasoning PLONK I thought my earlier Bronze Torch reasoning addressed this. Annoying is really a question of what constitutes excessive. 12 different proposals is not excessive - this is what CFCJ 172 found. The question now is - Does 5 identical proposals, which were also identical to the five proposals submitted just before them as well, constitute "excessive". If one proposal passes it has an effect, a player hardly need submit 5 identical proposals within infinitesimal of one another, unless they are pursuing a particular game strategy.... 5 proposals instead of 1 makes it excessive. This is not a scam this is Annoying. PLONK > There are also other suitable remedies within the rules to punish > percieved abuses of percieved loopholes within the rules, namely scam > hunts, and imho, that remedy should have been used in place. K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Speaking of Scam Hunt Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:57:15 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > "I don't think she knows how to drive.". > ------------------ > JT > Calvin N Hobbes > K 2 > ThinMan > else...if > IdiotBoy > Danek > Slakko > O Olde Alpha > > Thus K 2 gains a Black Mark. What can I say? I'm a bad entity :-) K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4078 rejected Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:08:11 -0500 (EST) Seems obvious but..... I'm not in Mannna debt anymore :-) K 2 K 2 wrote: > #Mannna 3900 K 2 > #end > > I convert 78 of my points into 3900 Mannna. > > K 2 > off to vote frivolously on the q > > > K 2 200 -100 ==> -11 ** Went into debt, loses 10 ** > > > > > Amend Rule 7-4-1 titled "Convertable Economics" if it exists by renaming > > v) The Conversion of 1 point into 50 Mannna. > > > > > with > > v) The Conversion of 2 point into 1 Mannna. ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Acka: CFCJ 179 (Amicus Draconis--JT and Slakko) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:06:41 -0500 (EST) Call for Criminal Judgement 179 - February 21, 1999 Subject: /dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe Initiator: K 2 Judge: Wild Card Judgement: TRUE Appellant: JT Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Slakko) Judgement: Statement: /dev/joe has committed the Crime of Being Annoying. Reasoning: /dev/joe has submitted 5 _identical_ proposals to the public forum, the sole purpose of the multiple copies is to prevent interested players from presenting a united front. This is SPAM in rhymes with SCAM and it is ANNOYING! Suggested Penalty One week in gaol [Although it is unlikely to prevent em from voting on the proposals, the more appropriate punishment of a Mannna deduction is not possible]. Judge's Reasoning: The Initiator is correct in every respect. Actual Penalty: One week on gaol. Appellant's Reasoning: CFCJ 172 established that 12 proposals from a single player in a short span of time was not annoying. The fact that this was done with only 5 proposal (regardless of the content of the proposals) makes this much less of an offense. Since this does not rise to the level of annoying as set forth in that CFCJ, this should not have been judged as annoying. There are also other suitable remedies within the rules to punish percieved abuses of percieved loopholes within the rules, namely scam hunts, and imho, that remedy should have been used in place. Bronze Torch Reasoning (K 2): I thought my earlier Bronze Torch reasoning addressed this. Annoying is really a question of what constitutes excessive. 12 different proposals is not excessive - this is what CFCJ 172 found. The question now is - Does 5 identical proposals, which were also identical to the five proposals submitted just before them as well, constitute "excessive". If one proposal passes it has an effect, a player hardly need submit 5 identical proposals within infinitesimal of one another, unless they are pursuing a particular game strategy.... 5 proposals instead of 1 makes it excessive. This is not a scam this is Annoying. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Acka: CFCJ 180 (/dev/cortex--/dev/joe and LaaLaa) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:07:19 -0500 (EST) Call for Criminal Judgement 180 - February 21, 1999 Subject: JTJTJTJTJTJT Initiator: K 2 Judge: IdiotBoy Judgement: TRUE Appellant:/dev/joe Cortex: /dev/cortex (/dev/joe and LaaLaa) Judgement: Statement: JT has committed the Crime of Being Annoying. Reasoning: JT has submitted 6 _identical_ proposals to the public forum, the sole purpose of the multiple copies is to prevent interested players from presenting a united front. This is SPAM in rhymes with SCAM and it is ANNOYING! Suggested Penalty One week in gaol [Although it is unlikely to prevent em from voting on the proposals, the more appropriate punishment of a Mannna deduction is not possible]. Judge's Reasoning: Well, ja. Actual Penalty: SENTENCE of 7 days in Gaol. TRASNFERENCE of an amount of A$ equal to the SHF from JT to the initiator of this CFCJ. Appellant's Reasoning: CFCJ 172 established that submitting a number of proposals more than twice what the accused submitted is not Being Annoying. Also, e only submitted 5 proposals. Bronze Torch Reasoning (K 2): CFCJ 172 may have established that submitting 12 proposals (3360, 3364, 3365, 3372-3381) is not Annoying, however, there are a certain number of differences between that event and the one(s) currently under scrutiny, specifically CFCJ dealt with 12 substantially different proposals, while this situation involves identical proposals, the submission of which was apparently intentional (no attempt has been made to retract the superfluous proposals and the proposals in question are also identical to an earlier sequence made by /dev/joe (indicating at least some premeditation)). [It is Annoying to be] Pursuing a game strategy... causing excessive amounts of messages... Given that the submission of 5 copies was not an accident (i.e. the defendant was actively pursuing this particular game strategy), the remaining question is - was the submission of 5 copies an excessive number of messages?. Rule 2 permits a single accepted proposal to have an effect; it doesn't require that 5 identical proposals to be accepted before any of them to have an effect - it follows that the submission of a single copy of a proposal is sufficient (in the absence of extraordinary circumstance). 4 extra copies of a proposal. Deliberate - Yes. Excessive -Yes. Annoying? -- -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: Re: Acka: CFCJ 179 (Amicus Draconis--JT and Slakko) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:09:39 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Towsner wrote: >Call for Criminal Judgement 179 - February 21, 1999 >Subject: /dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe >Initiator: K 2 >Judge: Wild Card >Judgement: TRUE >Appellant: JT >Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Slakko) Since I appealed this, I am forced by the rules to decline this CFCJ which means it needs be assigned to /dev/cortex. --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: Acka: CFCJ declining From: Joseph DeVincentis Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:11:38 -0500 (EST) As a Justice, I decline to hear the appeal of CFCJ 180. /dev/joe ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Acka: CFCJ 179 (/dev/cortex--/dev/joe and LaaLaa) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:17:34 -0500 (EST) Call for Criminal Judgement 179 - February 21, 1999 Subject: /dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe/dev/joe Initiator: K 2 Judge: Wild Card Judgement: TRUE Appellant: JT 1st Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Slakko) (declined by JT) 2nd Cortex: /dev/cortex (/dev/joe and LaaLaa) Judgement: Statement: /dev/joe has committed the Crime of Being Annoying. Reasoning: /dev/joe has submitted 5 _identical_ proposals to the public forum, the sole purpose of the multiple copies is to prevent interested players from presenting a united front. This is SPAM in rhymes with SCAM and it is ANNOYING! Suggested Penalty One week in gaol [Although it is unlikely to prevent em from voting on the proposals, the more appropriate punishment of a Mannna deduction is not possible]. Judge's Reasoning: The Initiator is correct in every respect. Actual Penalty: One week on gaol. Appellant's Reasoning: CFCJ 172 established that 12 proposals from a single player in a short span of time was not annoying. The fact that this was done with only 5 proposal (regardless of the content of the proposals) makes this much less of an offense. Since this does not rise to the level of annoying as set forth in that CFCJ, this should not have been judged as annoying. There are also other suitable remedies within the rules to punish percieved abuses of percieved loopholes within the rules, namely scam hunts, and imho, that remedy should have been used in place. Bronze Torch Reasoning (K 2): I thought my earlier Bronze Torch reasoning addressed this. Annoying is really a question of what constitutes excessive. 12 different proposals is not excessive - this is what CFCJ 172 found. The question now is - Does 5 identical proposals, which were also identical to the five proposals submitted just before them as well, constitute "excessive". If one proposal passes it has an effect, a player hardly need submit 5 identical proposals within infinitesimal of one another, unless they are pursuing a particular game strategy.... 5 proposals instead of 1 makes it excessive. This is not a scam this is Annoying. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Acka: CFCJ 180 (Amicus Draconis--JT and Slakko) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:17:41 -0500 (EST) Call for Criminal Judgement 180 - February 21, 1999 Subject: JTJTJTJTJTJT Initiator: K 2 Judge: IdiotBoy Judgement: TRUE Appellant:/dev/joe 1st Cortex: /dev/cortex (/dev/joe and LaaLaa) (declined by /dev/joe) 2nd Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and Slakko) Judgement: Statement: JT has committed the Crime of Being Annoying. Reasoning: JT has submitted 6 _identical_ proposals to the public forum, the sole purpose of the multiple copies is to prevent interested players from presenting a united front. This is SPAM in rhymes with SCAM and it is ANNOYING! Suggested Penalty One week in gaol [Although it is unlikely to prevent em from voting on the proposals, the more appropriate punishment of a Mannna deduction is not possible]. Judge's Reasoning: Well, ja. Actual Penalty: SENTENCE of 7 days in Gaol. TRASNFERENCE of an amount of A$ equal to the SHF from JT to the initiator of this CFCJ. Appellant's Reasoning: CFCJ 172 established that submitting a number of proposals more than twice what the accused submitted is not Being Annoying. Also, e only submitted 5 proposals. Bronze Torch Reasoning (K 2): CFCJ 172 may have established that submitting 12 proposals (3360, 3364, 3365, 3372-3381) is not Annoying, however, there are a certain number of differences between that event and the one(s) currently under scrutiny, specifically CFCJ dealt with 12 substantially different proposals, while this situation involves identical proposals, the submission of which was apparently intentional (no attempt has been made to retract the superfluous proposals and the proposals in question are also identical to an earlier sequence made by /dev/joe (indicating at least some premeditation)). [It is Annoying to be] Pursuing a game strategy... causing excessive amounts of messages... Given that the submission of 5 copies was not an accident (i.e. the defendant was actively pursuing this particular game strategy), the remaining question is - was the submission of 5 copies an excessive number of messages?. Rule 2 permits a single accepted proposal to have an effect; it doesn't require that 5 identical proposals to be accepted before any of them to have an effect - it follows that the submission of a single copy of a proposal is sufficient (in the absence of extraordinary circumstance). 4 extra copies of a proposal. Deliberate - Yes. Excessive -Yes. Annoying? -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Acka: CFJ 720 (Amicus Draconis--JT and LaaLaa) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:23:22 -0500 (EST) Call for Judgement 720 - January 17, 1999 Subject: We're all allowed one mistake Initiator: Studge (sent Jan 17 1999, 11:04 Acka) Judge: Wild Card Judgement:FALSE Appealer: Blest Lax Monk Pal 1st Cortex: Cortez's Courtly Cortege (disbanded) 2nd Cortex: Amicus Draconis (JT and LaaLaa) Judgement: Statement: If all rules were repealed then any rule could be created with anyone's command. Reasoning: I'm just wondering, basically.... Judge's Reasoning: Rules would not exist. Nor any means of creating them... Appelant's Reasoning: While there would be no rules, that does not prevent the creation of rules. As an example, consider the foundation of Acka (or any other nomic). It could be argued that it would be possible to start a new game in this manner, but not to change the rules of the current game. I would argue that just because there are currently no explicitly defined rules, it does not follow that the game is over. Some games (e.g. the canonical roleplaying example, cowboys and indians) can be played with only the vaguest of rules. If the game doesn't end with the repeal of all rules then it would be possible to create new rules within the game. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ End of ackanomic Digest V4 #51 ******************************