Subject: Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #19
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Discussion Digest)
To: acka-discuss-digest

Ackanomic Discussion Digest Wednesday, March 19 1997 Volume 02 : Number 019

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:00:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 354 (CnH)

> Call For Judgement 354
>   Subject: Keys

> Statement:
> It is a Crime to bury the Keys defined in R 222 as a Treasure.

> Malenkai's Reasoning:

> R 222 says:
> 
> > After initial distribution, each Player shall either redistribute
> > eir Key(s) to another eligible Player as outlined in this Rule, or
> > the Key(s) shall be responsible for the respective actions taken
> > against that Player as outlined below.
> 
> The rule specifies the way in which the Keys may be disposed of.
> Burying them a Treasure is not one of them.  The rule has precedence
> over the Treasure rule, therefore it is a breaking of the rules to
> bury them, hence a Crime.

This CFJ is false.  The quoted section of R222 does not purport to be the
only ways to get rid of the keys.  It just says that a player must give
the key to another eligible player, or bad stuff (described later in the
rule) happens to that player.  Way up at the beginning of R222, it
says:

  The Keys That Unlock the Vault Containing the Crystal Chalice and the
  Golden Goblets are Tradable.

The treasure rule says any tradable entity may be buried, so the keys can
be buried.  Since the owner didn't dispose of the key by giving it to
another eligible player, "bad stuff" happens to him, except that all
the bad stuff in the rule only applies to the player possessing a key,
so by getting rid of it in another way, e avoids the penalties.

I note that Rule 222 does say, 

  No Player may possess any Key more than once as long as there are
  eligible Players who have not yet possessed that Key since the conditions
  for finding the CV have been divined.

This has precedence over the treasure rule, so a player who has already
possessed a key is ineligible to find a treasure containing that key
(or if the key is in a treasure with other stuff, the key might stay
buried if such a player found the rest of the treasure).  Similarly,
non-voting players may not possess keys, so a non-voting player may not
find a key in a treasure either.

BTW, what's all this stuff in rule 222 that lasts until the end of the
cycle?  It looks as if there is supposed to be a "at the end of a cycle,
all the keys go back to the goose for initial distribution" somewhere, but
I couldn't find it.  I note in particular that the purple key cannot be
held past the end of a cycle.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:59:34 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Acrobot (more votes)

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> I, Robert Sevin, hereby unambiguously cast the following votes:
yadayadayada.

As far as I can tell, public posting of votes is no longer necessary.  Or
rather, Mohammed's email is now a public forum as far as voting is
concerned, according to the Postal Code on the website.  Personaly, I'd
appreciate it if everyone stoped sending them to everyone, I get enough
mail for this as it is. =)

                               - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:18:17 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 354 (CnH)

/dev/joe wrote:

> > R 222 says:
> >
> > > After initial distribution, each Player shall either redistribute
> > > eir Key(s) to another eligible Player as outlined in this Rule, or
> > > the Key(s) shall be responsible for the respective actions taken
> > > against that Player as outlined below.

> This CFJ is false.  The quoted section of R222 does not purport to be the
> only ways to get rid of the keys. 

Thats arguable, given the word *either*.  One reading of the rule would
be, once given the key, a player must *either* give it to *another 
eligible player*, or accept the bad stuff.  That language seems pretty
clear to me.  The fact that they are tradeable is nixed on intra-rule 
precedence, or the rules that provide other mechanisms to dispose of
tradeable entities (ie 1217) are nixed on precedence.

> The treasure rule says any tradable entity may be buried, so the keys can
> be buried.

The argument is that the *either* clause in rule 222 has precedence
over R 1217.

> BTW, what's all this stuff in rule 222 that lasts until the end of the
> cycle?  It looks as if there is supposed to be a "at the end of a cycle,
> all the keys go back to the goose for initial distribution" somewhere, but
> I couldn't find it. 

I have no clue.  I was looking for weirdnesses at the end of the cycle,
or when the goose went somewhere else, and could not find either (this
is when I found the "either" clause).

I'm not sure why I'm arguing this, as the CFJ verdict is in and is
false, but the reasoning doesn't really mention the "either" clause.
I think the "either" clause undoubtably indicates TRUE, but that is for
another day :-)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:09:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 354 (CnH) 

>This CFJ is false.  The quoted section of R222 does not purport to be the
>only ways to get rid of the keys.  It just says that a player must give
>the key to another eligible player, or bad stuff (described later in the
>rule) happens to that player.  Way up at the beginning of R222, it
>says:

I ruled that way for pretty much the same reasons.

>BTW, what's all this stuff in rule 222 that lasts until the end of the
>cycle?  It looks as if there is supposed to be a "at the end of a cycle,
>all the keys go back to the goose for initial distribution" somewhere, but
>I couldn't find it.  I note in particular that the purple key cannot be
>held past the end of a cycle.

I had the same impression. There is a lot of stuff that is supposed to
happen at specific deadlines, with multiple extensions on certain events,
end of cycles and goose going "somewhere else" being the most notable.

It may be that a CFJ will be required some time soon. Right now though, I
could not find anything that was blatantly wrong or inconsistent.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:09:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 356 (CnH) 

>This makes it simple, CnH has been chosen for this one too.

I accept.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:35:22 -0800
From: Stephen McCulley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond Quotes

Stephen McCulley wrote:
> 
> Ackers: 4PFRobert at -.01 = -.04
> /dev/joe: 93PFdevjoe at .18 + 2PFMalenkai at .01 = 16.76
> fnord: 1PFmr at .06 + 1PFsnowgod at .21 + 1PFStrider at .21 + 1PFRobert
> at -.01 = .47
> IdiotBoy: 5PFdevjoe at .18 + 5PFStrider at .21 + 5PFMalenkai at .01 +
> 2PFMohammed at -.005 + 5PFRobert at -.01 = 1.94
> Lestrade: 90PFLestrade at -.015 = -1.35
> Malenkai: 79PFMalenkai at .01 + 5PFLestrade at -.015 = .715
> Mohammed: 88PFMohammed at -.005 + 17PFNiccolo at .03 + 3PFsnowgod at
> .21     + 5PFLestrade at -.015 + 5PFmr at .06 + 2PFdevjoe at .18 +
> 2PFMalenkai at .01 = 2.185
> mr cwm: 94PFmr at .06 = 5.64
> Narf: 86PFNarf at .03 + 5PFRobert at -.01 + 10PFStrider at .21 = 4.63
> Niccolo Flychuck: 50PFNiccolo at .03 + 20PFIdiot at .03 + 5PFsnowgod at
> .21 = 3.15
> Robert Sevin: 85PFRobert at -.01 + 10PFsnowgod at .21 + 4PFNarf at  .03
> + 2PFVynd at .12 + 1PFMalenkai at .01 = 1.62
> snowgod: 54PFsnowgod at .21 + 4PFMohammed at -.005 + 50PFIdiot at .03 +
> 3PFNiccolo at .03 + 1PFMalenkai at .01 = 12.92
> Strider: 84PFStrider at .21 + 10PFNarf at .03 = 17.94
> Techno: 30PFNiccolo at .03 + 25PFsnowgod at .21 + 30PFIdiot at .03= 7.05
> ThinMan: 10PFMalenkai at .01 = .10
> Vynd: 98PFVynd at .12 = 11.76
> 
> Rounding, we get:
> 
> Ackers: -A$1
> /dev/joe: +A$17
> fnord: +A$1
> IdiotBoy: +A$2
> Lestrade: -A$2
> Malenkai: +A$1
> Mohammed: +A$3
> mr cwm: +A$6
> Narf: +A$5
> Niccolo Flychuck: +A$4
> Robert Sevin: +A$2
> snowgod: +A$13
> Strider: +A$18
> Techno: +A$8
> ThinMan +A$1
> Vynd: +A$12
> 
> That's it, folks.  Please let me know if you spot any mistakes.
> 
> Strider
> Bond-Harfer
First round of corrections.

PFVynd are worth .10, not .12.
PFMohammed are worth -.02, not-.005.
PFMalenkai are worth .03, not .01.

This changes yields for the following people.
/dev/joe: 93PFdevjoe at .18 + 2PFMalenkai at .03 = 16.80
/dev/joe: +A$17
IdiotBoy: 5PFdevjoe at .18 + 5PFStrider at .21 + 5PFMalenkai at .03 + 
2PFMohammed at -.02 + 5PFRobert at -.01 = 2.01
IdiotBoy: +A$3
Malenkai: 79PFMalenkai at .03 + 5PFLestrade at -.015 = 2.295
Malenkai: +A$3
Mohammed: 88PFMohammed at -.02 + 17PFNiccolo at .03 + 3PFsnowgod at .21 
+ 5PFLestrade at -.015 + 5PFmr at .06 + 2PFdevjoe at .18 + 	2PFMalenkai
at .03 = 1.335
Mohammed: +A$2
mr cwm: 94PFmr at .06 + 5PFMohammed at -.02 = 5.54
mr cwm: +A$6
Robert Sevin: 85PFRobert at -.01 + 10PFsnowgod at .21 + 4PFNarf at .03
+ 	1PFMalenkai at .03 = 1.64
Robert Sevin: +A$2
snowgod: 54PFsnowgod at .21 + 4PFMohammed at -.02 + 50PFIdiot at .03 + 
3PFNarf at .03 + 1PFMalenkai at .03 = 12.88
snowgod: +A$13
ThinMan: 10PFMalenkai at .03 = .30
Thinman: +A$1
Vynd: 98PFVynd at .10 = 9.80
Vynd: +A$10

Oy.  These should be right now, right?  Lemme know.

Strider
Bond-Harfer

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:40:29 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Swinger

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> I speak on behalf of the (None Yet) party when i announce that Mohammed
> hgas been admitted to the party, and furthermore that he has been appointed
> to the position of swinger.

So noted.

> 
> snowgod
> who still needs to know the results of this months PHP

There was none.

> 
> 

And Party Hall was filled with merry voices once again.

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:00:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 3 new props in the queue 

Friends

All three proposals are modest.

I've reworked "Dealing with the Paranormal" and it should now be ok. It was
a lot of fun writing it and I hope most people will find it interesting,
perhaps worthwhile if not amusing.

The two other new props are explained in detail by comments inside them.
Here is another overview.

P1844 "Riding The Integrity Test" is basically a new tool for fixing
proposals as well as introducing rider legislation. Riders have been an
effective tool in real life, yet at the same time an annoying one too. Hence
the rule strengthens the balance of power by granting the president a line
item veto as a presidential decision. This is in turn overseen by the
Justices. The whole process can always be taken in the hands of players
using impeachment procedures. The whole idea is to increase flexibility and
create something that will foster new connections between the political
system and the nonpolitical system.

P1845 is "Sick Days for Sick Players" and was written with the workload of
officers in mind. Of course, everyone has unavoidable deadlines in RL from
time to time too. I'm hoping that this will help officers deal with the
sometime crazy "peaks" in workload.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:45:29 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Retraction of Impeach the Scorekeeper! (fwd) 

I must throw myself upon the none to tender mercies of my
>fellow Ackanomians, and ask that you denounce this terrifyingly evil act.
>Thank you.
>
>
>                              - Vynd
>
>[email-masked]

And I must ask the senate to recognize vynds pleas with a Silver moon
nomination (and also /dev/joes ridicule of Red Barns guess at the truth
after his pleas.)

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:49:47 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Organizations 

>> Fortunately, there is a way to join da mob... send me your email today or be
>> visited by my business associates.
>	All right, I want in.
>
>--Mohammed

Be careful mohammed.  AS public admission that you are a Narfalone is a
crime, and I plan on prosecuting these cases to the fullest extent of the
law :)

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:14:19 -0900
From: Phil Ackley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Swinger 

>There was none.

There was none becasue Party Hall was not in session, or because no one
bothered to send friendly greetings?  What I'm getting at, I guess, is do I
have to write a poem?

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:55:54 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Swinger

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Phil Ackley wrote:

> 
> >There was none.
> 
> There was none becasue Party Hall was not in session, or because no one
> bothered to send friendly greetings?  What I'm getting at, I guess, is do I
> have to write a poem?
> 
> snowgod

I believe Ludwig quit after the 7th, so Party Hall was in session. I guess
we were so preoccupied with chess, we didn't bother with friendly
greetings.
Looking forward to your poem.
Niccolo Flychuck

 > 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:21:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 351 Verdict

> CFJ 351 has been judged FALSE.

Hey, Mohammed, you slum lord! My bathroom faucet is dripping, and the
paint in the living room is starting to peel. I'm giving you 72 hours
to get somebody in here to fix this place up!

breadbox

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:17:55 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 354 (CnH)

Malenkai wrote:

> It is a Crime to bury the Keys defined in R 222 as a Treasure.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> R 222 says:
> 
> > After initial distribution, each Player shall either redistribute
> > eir Key(s) to another eligible Player as outlined in this Rule, or
> > the Key(s) shall be responsible for the respective actions taken
> > against that Player as outlined below.
> 
> The rule specifies the way in which the Keys may be disposed of.
> Burying them a Treasure is not one of them.  The rule has precedence
> over the Treasure rule, therefore it is a breaking of the rules to
> bury them, hence a Crime.
> 
I argue that the rule does not claim to specify the _only_ way in which
the Keys may be disposed of.  However, it _does_ say that unless a
player disposes of a Key in the one specified way, the Key continues to
"be responsible for the respective actions taken against that Player."
It is therefore NOT a Crime to bury a Key, but it may not have the
intended effect.

Now, as for whether snowgod's transfer attempt was successful: I argue
that it wasn't.  Here is the relevant text from R 222: "The Silver Key
may _only_ be given to a Player possessing one or more Gadgets."
(Emphasis mine.)  This restricts who can receive the silver key, but
does not actually permit the donation.  Contrast that with "The Gold Key

may be given to any Player whose monetary account has a positive number
of A$," which specifically allows the Gold Key to be given to just
about anyone.  Rule 222 conflicts with Rule 515 (and rule 222 wins)
in the case of the Gold Key, but there is no conflict at all with R 515
with respect to the Silver Key -- rule 515 must be obeyed in that case.

ThinMan
Bronze Torch Holder

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:27:40 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 354 (CnH)

Malenkai wrote:

> /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> > > R 222 says:
> > >
> > > > After initial distribution, each Player shall either
> redistribute
> > > > eir Key(s) to another eligible Player as outlined in this Rule,
> or
> > > > the Key(s) shall be responsible for the respective actions taken
> > > > against that Player as outlined below.
> 
> > This CFJ is false.  The quoted section of R222 does not purport to
> be the
> > only ways to get rid of the keys. 
> 
> Thats arguable, given the word *either*.  One reading of the rule
> would
> be, once given the key, a player must *either* give it to *another 
> eligible player*, or accept the bad stuff.  That language seems pretty
> clear to me.
> 
/dev/joe and I are not arguing against that reading.  We are pointing
out that accepting the bad stuff does not preclude disposing of the
Key some other way as well.  I.e. a player does not redistribute the
key as specified, and therefore accepts the "bad stuff" -- however,
the rule does not forbid him to, _in addition_, dispose of the Key
some other way.

[...]

> I'm not sure why I'm arguing this, as the CFJ verdict is in and is
> false, but the reasoning doesn't really mention the "either" clause.
> I think the "either" clause undoubtably indicates TRUE, but that is
> for
> another day :-)
> 
We all enjoy wasting bandwidth now and again.  Especially on debates.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:06:48 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: bot 

>     "#submit" above should be "#submit proposal"; other than that I
> don't see any problem.  By "doesn't respond" do you mean it never gives
> you any response at all, or it just waits a few hours?  If you get an
> error message, what exactly does the message say?

    Once there was a quite long delay, but I suppose that's normal.

>     The bot does not run 24/7.  Instead, I run it from my login
> script.  So whenever I log in (and sometimes manually) the bot updates.
> There are a lot of good reasons for this, starting with the fact that the
> bot can generate a *lot* of mail (e.g. the 18 invalid proposals that went
> out just now-- but that's okay, Red Barn) and I would not want to have the
> bot send a large amount of mail (or exceed my quota, etc.) when I'm not at
> a terminal watching it happen.

    My only concern about this is that it should have sent 34 proposals,
not 18...

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:34:09 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: bot 

>     Once there was a quite long delay, but I suppose that's normal.
>
> >     The bot does not run 24/7.  Instead, I run it from my login
> > script.  So whenever I log in (and sometimes manually) the bot updates.
> > There are a lot of good reasons for this, starting with the fact that the
> > bot can generate a *lot* of mail (e.g. the 18 invalid proposals that went
> > out just now-- but that's okay, Red Barn) and I would not want to have the
> > bot send a large amount of mail (or exceed my quota, etc.) when I'm not at
> > a terminal watching it happen.

  Oh, yes, and trouble arises when I want to run two commands in quick
succession (because I have to wait for it to come back): say, #help,
#submit - or #current, #retract.

- -Red Barn
Who's mailbox is just as full as yours...

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:17:44 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond Quotes

Stephen McCulley writes:
> fnord: 1PFmr at .06 + 1PFsnowgod at .21 + 1PFStrider at .21 + 1PFRobert 
> at -.01 = .47
> 
> Rounding, we get:
> 
> fnord: +A$1

Hmmm... last I checked, I owned at least 90+ of my own bonds (I'm not
sure of the exact number, and Malenkai's page is unreachable by me
at the moment).

fnord

- -- 
Michael J. Thomas                              [email-masked]
"Opinions are falling like drops of rain"  In that case, I'm in a downpour!

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:55:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond Quotes

Strider posted bond yields, and then some corrections:
> > fnord: 1PFmr at .06 + 1PFsnowgod at .21 + 1PFStrider at .21 + 1PFRobert
> > at -.01 = .47
> > fnord: +A$1

fnord asked about his 93 PFfnord: they yielded nothing, since fnord didn't
score any points between the beginning of the game cycle and the end of
the bond cycle.  Strider omitted bonds that yielded nothing.

> > Narf: 86PFNarf at .03 + 5PFRobert at -.01 + 10PFStrider at .21 = 4.63
> > Narf: +A$5

> mr cwm: 94PFmr at .06 + 5PFMohammed at -.02 = 5.54
> mr cwm: +A$6

These figures are slightly off, since Narf sold those 5 PFRobert to mr cwm
on March 16th.  This doesn't change the actual A$ yields after rounding.

> Mohammed: 88PFMohammed at -.02 + 17PFNiccolo at .03 + 3PFsnowgod at .21 
> + 5PFLestrade at -.015 + 5PFmr at .06 + 2PFdevjoe at .18 + 	2PFMalenkai
> at .03 = 1.335
> Mohammed: +A$2

This is accurate by my records, but the numbers don't add up to 1.335.
88 * -.02 + 17 * .03 + 3 * .21 + 5 * -.015 + 5 * .06 + 2 * .18 + 2 * .03
= +0.025
or, after rounding, +A$1

> Robert Sevin: 85PFRobert at -.01 + 10PFsnowgod at .21 + 4PFNarf at .03
> + 	1PFMalenkai at .03 = 1.64
> Robert Sevin: +A$2

2 PFVynd at .10 are missing here, and the total should be 1.6 (no change
in A$ after rounding)

> snowgod: 54PFsnowgod at .21 + 4PFMohammed at -.02 + 50PFIdiot at .03 + 
> 3PFNarf at .03 + 1PFMalenkai at .03 = 12.88
> snowgod: +A$13

I have snowgod owning 5 PFMohammed; the total becomes 12.86; no change in A$
after rounding.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:54:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond Quotes

/dev/joe wrote:

> > > Narf: 86PFNarf at .03 + 5PFRobert at -.01 + 10PFStrider at .21 = 4.63
> > > Narf: +A$5
> 
> > mr cwm: 94PFmr at .06 + 5PFMohammed at -.02 = 5.54
> > mr cwm: +A$6
> 
> These figures are slightly off, since Narf sold those 5 PFRobert to mr cwm
> on March 16th.  This doesn't change the actual A$ yields after rounding.

I didn't see *either* half of this transaction.  Could someone repost
them please (to me privately would be fine).  Weird.

> I have snowgod owning 5 PFMohammed; 

This is correct; there is a typo on my page.

Also, could the Bond-Harfer please post a final, corrected, consolidated,
list of all players with non-zero yields in a single e-mail in alpha
order?  I'm beyond hope of which e-mails to use, which ones have
precedence, etc.

thx,
Malenkai
Financier

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:18:51 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond Quotes

I wrote:

> I didn't see *either* half of this transaction.  Could someone repost
> them please (to me privately would be fine).  Weird.

Never mind, I found the end half of this anyway.  I guess I don't have
the time to wade through all this e-mail anymore :(.  If anyone finds
any other errors in my entity page, *please let me know*.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:31:46 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bond Quotes

>> These figures are slightly off, since Narf sold those 5 PFRobert to mr cwm
>> on March 16th.  This doesn't change the actual A$ yields after rounding.
>
>I didn't see *either* half of this transaction.  Could someone repost
>them please (to me privately would be fine).  Weird.
>Malenkai

I forwarded them to you privately... Did you get them?

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:39:58 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato (actualy, Tailor)

fnord wrote:
> 
> Malenkai writes:
> > fnord receives the magic potato and is beldins tailor
> Woo-hoo!
> 
> Hmmm... looking at the webpages, there appears to be something
> wrong with Rule 940.  The list of changes indicates that breadbox changed
> the word 'transferred' to the word 'removed', however, that change is
> not actually reflected in the Rule itself.  Am I missing
> something, or should the Rule text actually contain 'removed'?

I also changed the rule when I was Beldin's Tailor.  Is that on the web
page?  I do not remember my change, but will research it if necessary.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:20:01 -0800
From: [email-masked] (fnord)
Subject: Re: Acka: Potato (actualy, Tailor)

Malenkai writes:
> fnord wrote:
> > 
> > Hmmm... looking at the webpages, there appears to be something
> > wrong with Rule 940.  The list of changes indicates that breadbox changed
> > the word 'transferred' to the word 'removed', however, that change is
> > not actually reflected in the Rule itself.  Am I missing
> > something, or should the Rule text actually contain 'removed'?
> 
> I also changed the rule when I was Beldin's Tailor.  Is that on the web
> page?  I do not remember my change, but will research it if necessary.

Well, the changes were listed on the web pages, and yours had been
applied, but breadbox's hadn't.  Looking again, it appears that
/dev/joe has gone and updated the page on me. Thanks, /dev/joe!

fnord

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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:11:31 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 356 Appeal (Supreme Court)

On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> As expected (at least by me), CFJ 356 was appealed by ThinMan (but is
> there any way we could turn arguing over CFJ 354 into a duel? :)).

Funny you should mention that. 

Niccolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:34:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Keys

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> Robert Sevin's key eats another A$7.
> ThinMan's key eats another Processing Chip.
> 
> Robert Sevin -7 keys
> Niccolo -PF +15
> IB -15 +PF
> 

Huh?

IB

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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:39:19 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Keys

On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Matt Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Robert Sevin's key eats another A$7.
> > ThinMan's key eats another Processing Chip.
> > 
> > Robert Sevin -7 keys
> > Niccolo -PF +15
> > IB -15 +PF
> > 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> IB

Didn't you bid A$15 in my Prosthetic Forehead Auction?
Niccolo Flychuck

> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 21:52:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Keys

On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Matt Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > Robert Sevin's key eats another A$7.
> > ThinMan's key eats another Processing Chip.
> > 
> > Robert Sevin -7 keys
> > Niccolo -PF +15
> > IB -15 +PF
> > 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> IB
> 
> 

Nevermind.  Just so long as this doesn't relate to the statement above it,
I'm ok.

IB

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:32:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 356 Appeal (Supreme Court) 

>As expected (at least by me), CFJ 356 was appealed by ThinMan (but is
>there any way we could turn arguing over CFJ 354 into a duel? :)).

Hmmm.    : )

May it please the court, I will respond.

>ThinMan's Appeal Reasoning:
>
>I claim that CnH has applied an incorrect test to the legal issues
>pertaining to CFJ 356.  His comments in the CFJ 354 reasoning also
>utilize the invalid test, although it also happens to lead to the
>correct (IMO) verdict there.

I note that the reasoning is irrelevent and no part of the official CFJ.
While an appeal is to overturn a *faulty* decision. An appeal for the sake
of pointing an argument wrong, to have what the appealing player considers a
right judgement overturned, is, imho, silly. No offense meant, I've always
though of silly as something that's ok: you know me.

This is because of R214:

>A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons and 
>arguments, but any such reasons and arguments form 
>no part of the official Judgement itself. 

But back to what ThinMan said.

>CnH's opinions on CFJ 354 and CFJ 356 hinged on the concept that
>burying one of the Keys as a treasure constitutes an attempt to give
>it to an ineligible player.  In the general case, I find CnH's
>argument unsatisfactory -- the fact that an ineligible player _may_
>find the treasure is shaky grounds for making the burying of it
>constitute an attempt to give it to such a player.

Let's take an example from RL. If I take a gun and shoot it randomly,
killing someone, the law will consider that pulling the trigger is an
attempt to hurt someone. That is pretty logical. Why else was I pulling the
trigger? Just to shoot the gun? But then there safer places to do it if I
had no intention of harming anyone. Same for the keys. Saying that it's just
a possibility, not a certainty, that a non elligible player may get it
proves the point about an _attempt_, It could never be an attempt, on the
other hand, if there was no way the action could lead to the key falling in
the "wrong" hands. More on this (a lot lot more) later.

>Moreover, and of particular relevance to this case, is the _particular_
>instance at issue.  snowgod published the following text, purported to
>be the map to his Silver Key treasure: "The silver key will be found by
>the first players wit two or more entities who wants to possess, and
>wants to love it, and hug it, and call it george."  Suppose that this
>is, indeed, the correct map to the treasure.  The conditions established
>therein specifically attempt to prevent an ineligible player from
>finding the treasure.  (They miss the non-voting exception, though.)  It
>is clearly possible to write a map to a treasure containing a Key such
>that no ineligible player can find it, and burying a Key as part of a
>treasure with such a map cannot be construed as an attempt to give it to
>an ineligible player.

Simply "burying the key", as the CFJ was worded, does not talk of any
restrictions imposed implicitly. While there may be restrictions in the map,
that has no guarantees in the rule set. Indeed, what if the rules are
changed? Can one change the map also? So a player could make the map that
would be supposedly legal (but I say it's not), then changes the rules so
that it is no longer legal. (by legal I mean "passing to an eligible
player"). That is obviously an attempt as described in the R222.

The CFJ must be made in accord with the Rules and only what's in the rules.
Rule 215/1 
"Judgements Must Accord With The Rules". There can be no safety net to
ensure someone does a "legal" map. Indeed, I have shown in the previous
paragraph that this it is possible to still make it illegal.

But back to my first point. To say that there could be a map that's legal
and therefore the ruling cannot be determined is not quite right. The ruling
is to be based on the statement, and that statement included only "buying as
treasure". To have it _possibly_ undertermined, it would have required
reading "burying as treasure with a map that restricts to only eligible
players". And as I have shown, that could still be interpreted (since it is
possible) as an attempt to give the key to someone that is not eligible.

The key [pun] is that "attempt" is a very vague word. What's an attempt? An
attempt is something that is not certain to work. It's something that may or
may not work. It is something that may lead to some result. I have clearly
shown that burying can be considered such an attempt because it can always
lead to the result of getting the key into the hands of someone who is not
elligible.

Now, a real test of the validity of the CFJ would be to ask for a ruling on
what an "attempt" is in Acka. But then CFJ354 and 356 could be interpreted
as already defining it.

>It is impossible to make a general, true statement about whether burying
>a Key as treasure causes it to be transferred to the Chartreuse Goose,
>because it depends on the map.  Some conceivable treasure maps could be
>construed as specific attempts to put a Key into the hands of an
>ineligible player; some could not possibly be construed as attempts to
>put a Key in the hands of an ineligible player; most, IMO, cannot
>clearly be construed as such an attempt, even though they leave open
>the possibility of an ineligible player coming into possession of a Key.

IMHO, it can still be considered as an attempt to pass it on to someone who
has no legitimate claim to it, as outlined below. (Sorry for repeating
myself, my example does cover a lot and I'm just trying to answer all your
points)

I'll give a concrete example. The Silver Key (since we are talking about it)
requires the recipient to have 1 or more gadgets. All right, so I bury it,
taking care of that and the non-voting player stuff in the map (plus whatever).

I get the rule changed to read, for the Silver Key, that there can be no
player that are eligible. But the map is the map. And then, someone could
find it (indeed I could find it myself), and obviously that someone that is
not eligible. Burying does not "freeze" the rules.

So are there any ways that are legitimate? Can't everything be considered an
attempt? No. R222 describes ways in which the transfer may take place
immediately (with precedence over the gift, money rules to make it
instantaneous). So giving it to an eligible player as per the rule is always
legitimate. The rule could change later to say something about transfers,
those that are already done and concluded are not affected, since it cannot
be retroactive. By R103/10, "Proposals and Rule Changes", last paragraph
reads: "No rule may generate any effect that applies retroactively to a time
before the generation of the effect. A rule change that would have effects
retroactive to before the time of its application is invalid."

I hope this clears things up about the questions raised. As I say, I ruled
on a specific case and the point made in the argument presented by ThinMan
is a slightly different one that has no guarantees in the rule set. And even
then, I believe I have shown that it can still be construed as an attempt.

Some may criticize may interpretation of "attempt", but I have made the best
attempt [grin] I could to use it in accord with the english language and the
spirit of the game. (As per R215/1)

For those of you who read up to down here, you must be interested in the
subject, so let me mention the point raised about what the key's effects do
to players who buried them. I will refer to R1217 which states that:

>Immediately after this announcement, the player ceases to own the 
>Treasure; it is considered "buried" or "hidden", and is unowned. 
>Buried Treasure is not considered part of the Treasury. 

I note that burying doesn't actually take place, but that doesn't matter,
the anouncement (which is all that matters) still takes place (it is what
determines the notorious "attempt" has been made). And the Goose gets it
instead of it being "buried".

Now turning back to R222, we see that for the Bronze, Silver and Gold keys,
the side effects are explicitely taking place on the *owning* player. Since
the player no longer owns it, no penalty takes place. There are no similar
"penalty" side effects for the other 2 keys.

Calvin N Hobbes
so I memorize rules: shoot me

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

End of Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #19
*****************************************