ackanomic Digest Sunday, February 28 1999 Volume: 04 Issue: 057 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan David Amery Subject: Re: Acka: Feeling generous Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:55:04 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, K 2 wrote: > I give "Unclaimed Winning Condition by Rule 13-2-1" to Wild Card and > "Unclaimed Winning Condition by Rule 13-2-2" to rice. I thank K 2, then look suspiciously at the item, as there is no Rule 13-2-1. Wild Card. -- 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: Towsner Subject: Acka: CFCJ 180 (FALSE--overruled) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:00:24 -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: FALSE 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? Cortex's Reasoning: The Rule in question has already been quoted, but an important part of the meaning ignored. The rule says causing "excessive amounts of messages", not "excessive messages". Previous CFCJs have ruled that 12 proposals being sent almost at the same time does not constitute an offence under this class of annoyances. Therefore, 5 proposals, none of which were longer than the longest of the 12 proposals submitted earlier, cannot be "excessive amounts" of messages, regardless of their semantic content. We fine the original Judge 10 points for not reading the relevant rule sufficiently carefully. -- -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 179 (FALSE--overturned) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:16:13 -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: FALSE 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. Cortex's Reasoning: The Rule in question has already been quoted, but an important part of the meaning ignored. The rule says causing "excessive amounts of messages", not "excessive messages". Previous CFCJs have ruled that 12 proposals being sent almost at the same time does not constitute an offence under this class of annoyances. Therefore, 5 proposals, none of which were longer than the longest of the 12 proposals submitted earlier, cannot be "excessive amounts" of messages, regardless of their semantic content. We fine the original Judge 10 points for not reading the relevant rule sufficiently carefully. -- -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 (Supreme Court--/dev/joe, LaaLaa, Slakko, JT) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:10:04 -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: FALSE Appellant: else...if 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? Cortex's Reasoning: The Rule in question has already been quoted, but an important part of the meaning ignored. The rule says causing "excessive amounts of messages", not "excessive messages". Previous CFCJs have ruled that 12 proposals being sent almost at the same time does not constitute an offence under this class of annoyances. Therefore, 5 proposals, none of which were longer than the longest of the 12 proposals submitted earlier, cannot be "excessive amounts" of messages, regardless of their semantic content. We fine the original Judge 10 points for not reading the relevant rule sufficiently carefully. Appellant's Reasoning: Rather than repeat my reasoning, I merely not that it is identical to what I submitted for CFCJ 179. -- -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 179 (Supreme Court--/dev/joe, LaaLaa, Slakko, JT) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:10:30 -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: FALSE Appellant: else...if 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. Cortex's Reasoning: The Rule in question has already been quoted, but an important part of the meaning ignored. The rule says causing "excessive amounts of messages", not "excessive messages". Previous CFCJs have ruled that 12 proposals being sent almost at the same time does not constitute an offence under this class of annoyances. Therefore, 5 proposals, none of which were longer than the longest of the 12 proposals submitted earlier, cannot be "excessive amounts" of messages, regardless of their semantic content. We fine the original Judge 10 points for not reading the relevant rule sufficiently carefully. Appellant's Reasoning: Rule 9-4 does not read "large amounts of messages," but "*excessive amounts of messages" (emphasis mine). The fundemental difference between CFCJ 179/180 and CFCJ 172 is the word "excessive." Webster defines excessive as "Characterized by, or exhibiting, excess; overmuch". In order to be annoying, the amount of information sent must be substantially out of alignment with the actual content. In CFCJ 172, although there were a substantial number of proposals, they were not excessive--they were several independant legitimate proposals. On the other hand the actions of JT and /dev/joe in 179/180 were a conspiracy to create a number of messages which failed to further the game of Ackanomic in any way. They served no legal, political, social, conceptual, or entertaining purpose. They were not harfy; they were not constructive; they were, most fundementally, an utter waste and abuse. This is exactly the sort of thing Annoying was instituted to create. Slakko's reasoning merits response, since it is legitimate (although incorrect.) Both Cortices have adopted Slakko's reasoning that the word "amounts" means that the messages must be sufficiently long in order to be annoying. The simplest refutation would be the sending to the mail list of 10 -- -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: ThinMan not AWOL Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:34:24 -0500 (EST) ThinMan has replied to my AWOL query stating that he wishes to continue playing. I urge him to vote/post a public message so that he cannot immediately be called AWOL again. --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: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 179 (Supreme Court--/dev/joe, LaaLaa, Slakko, JT) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:35:44 -0500 (EST) I become a Justice. K 2 Towsner wrote: > Call for Criminal Judgement 179 - February 21, 1999 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Acka: Next month's Stat increase for sale!!! Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:36:46 -0500 (EST) I increase my Intelligence by one. K 2 ------------------------------ From: Towsner Subject: Acka: 179/180 Reasoning Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:41:57 -0500 (EST) Sorry, my reasoning on CFCJ 179/180 was accidentally cut off. The full text is: Rule 9-4 does not read "large amounts of messages," but "*excessive amounts of messages" (emphasis mine). The fundemental difference between CFCJ 179/180 and CFCJ 172 is the word "excessive." Webster defines excessive as "Characterized by, or exhibiting, excess; overmuch". In order to be annoying, the amount of information sent must be substantially out of alignment with the actual content. In CFCJ 172, although there were a substantial number of proposals, they were not excessive--they were several independant legitimate proposals. On the other hand the actions of JT and /dev/joe in 179/180 were a conspiracy to create a number of messages which failed to further the game of Ackanomic in any way. They served no legal, political, social, conceptual, or entertaining purpose. They were not harfy; they were not constructive; they were, most fundementally, an utter waste and abuse. This is exactly the sort of thing Annoying was instituted to create. Slakko's reasoning merits response, since it is legitimate (although incorrect.) Both Cortices have adopted Slakko's reasoning that the word "amounts" means that the messages must be sufficiently long in order to be annoying. The simplest refutation would be the sending to the mail list of 10 messages empty except for a signature. This is vastly more Annoying than sending 20 long, well reasoned statements to the same list, even though the latter contained both more messages and more text. The operative word is still "excessive." In principle, even a few words could be annoying. I note that, with a standard so broad, caution should be taken when applying it. I urge the Court, now and in the future, to be merciful regarding Annoyances. I humbly suggest that the defendant's penalty be limited to a payment of costs to K2, and that the Cortices not be penalized for a good, if imperfect, reasoning. I believe that no player should be penalized harshly for Annoyances except in the most extreme cases. -- -Henry Towsner Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and enjoy it. -Logan Pearsall Smith ------------------------------ From: jobollin@iumsc4.chem.indiana.edu (John Bollinger) Subject: Re: Acka: ThinMan not AWOL Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:05:44 -0500 (EST) Sorry, about that AWOL business, but I got lost in my house. I need a map to find my way around this thing. ThinMan ------------------------------ End of ackanomic Digest V4 #57 ******************************