Subject: Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #22
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Discussion Digest)
To: acka-discuss-digest

Ackanomic Discussion Digest  Thursday, March 20 1997  Volume 02 : Number 022

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:03:20 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1788 rejected (Forfeiting Duels Fix)

On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> Proposal 1788
> Forfeiting Duels Fix
> Vynd
> 
> Votes cast by active players:  13 / 17 = 76.470588%
> Yes:  7    No:  6     Present:  2   ...Proposal rejected.
> 

Well, I ahve to admit that this puzzles me.  Why did my proposal fail?!?
<sob>  I can understand why my other one's failed no problem, people
didn't like them, and they didn't do anything particularly important, so
that's that.  I am, of course, deeply embittered by those rejections, as I
already mentioned in my abortive move to impeach the Scorekeeper, but
that's all in the past now.  I thought I made a perfectly good fix to a
real problem in the rules with this proposal though, and it crashed and
burned just like the rest.  So, I was hoping someone could tell me why
they think it failed, either publicly or privately, I don't care.  I'd
like to write something that people will actually vote for one of these
days, and if I can't get people to vote for this kind of stuff then I'm at
a loss as to what to submit next....

                             -  Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:39:13 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code Changes 103 & 104 

>Postal Code Change 103:

Speaking of Postal Code changes, has it ever been proposed that CFJs get
their own list?

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 02:41:38 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code Changes 103 & 104

Robert Sevin wrote:
> 
> >Postal Code Change 103:
> 
> Speaking of Postal Code changes, has it ever been proposed that CFJs get
> their own list?

In my minorly humble opinion, I would really prefer no more lists.
Perhaps, if this is desired, we can marshall acka-discuss to a CFJ list
or something.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:49:22 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Postal Code Changes 103 & 104 

>> >Postal Code Change 103:
>> Speaking of Postal Code changes, has it ever been proposed that CFJs get
>> their own list?
>In my minorly humble opinion, I would really prefer no more lists.
>Perhaps, if this is desired, we can marshall acka-discuss to a CFJ list
>or something.

Perhaps merge Voting and CFJs, then, if only voting players can participate
in either one...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 03:05:57 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:Acka: About CFJ 360 

> These are my thoughts on CFJ 360.  Sorry about this.
>
  [Much stuff that I agree with snipped]
>
> I surely hope the initiator retracts this promply, and bears eir Goose
> like a good sport.

  I think a judgement of FALSE is probably mandated.  Game custom alone
would seem to imply this, but I point out, using Narf's quote:

>>>>>
And according to Rule 252, "A person wishing to join the game, and who cannot
do so as a Returning player, should notify the Registrar, providing a valid
email address, their real name, and the legal Ackanomic name they wish to
play under. Upon them providing this information, should the requested name
indeed be a legal Ackanomic name, the Registrar shall post a public message
announcing the new player and providing their Ackanomic name, real name, and
email address, and if the prospective player provided it, how they discovered
the game. Upon the posting of such an announcement, the person becomes
registered as a player."
<<<<<

  Nowhere is it specified that the player (sorry, "person") has only one
email address for the purposes of Acka.  Indeed, email is referenced, as
far as I know, only here, in "no email, no game", and in the postal code.
I think that as things are, a message is valid if and only if its actual
originator is the person who signed up as the player - which is fine with
me.
  Now let us never speak of this again.

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 03:07:41 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 359 (breadbox)

ThinMan wrote:
> /dev/joe wrote:
> > Furthermore, under the "a Modest proposal is adopted but this
> > rule/section was not here" reading, there is no paradox.  Both
> > rule 207 and rule 209 are trying to change the number of points
> > scored at the same time; rule 207 has precedence, so it operates
> > first, halving the score.

> This, however, I find unconvincing.  I nowhere see anything that
> specifies that rules should be applied in precedence order.  I find it
> much more reasonable to take the view that insomuch as the two rules
> coincide, they describe the _same_ event. 

Here's my argument for applying them in precedence order.  Keep in mind
that this assumes the (bogus) interpretation that "otherwise" means
"if this halving effect was not present" such that both halving effects
apply to the scoring on a modest proposal.  Because of this, I'm going
to use BR (for Bogus Rule) instead of R in front of rule numbers below.
This is irrelevant for CFJ 359 but still relevant as a possible kind of
effect of precedence.

If the two effects are identical, whether by identical wording, or,
as in this case, similar wording that game custom renders identical
in meaning, and there's no interference from other rules, then it
clearly doesn't matter which order the effects apply in.

If the effects are in any way different -- suppose BR207 said to round up
the points, or that some other rule or game custom supplied that default
when BR207 failed to specify it -- then the effects are different.  The
real effects that apply are as follows:

BR207: "when a modest proposal is accepted, instead of the usual scoring,
the author scores half the number of points, rounded up, that he would
score if this sentence was not here"

BR209: "when a modest proposal is accepted, instead of the usual scoring,
the author scores half the number of points, rounded down, that he would
score if this sentence was not here"

The "if" case in BR207 refers to the result of applying an imaginary rule
set identical to the current one without the quoted sentence; this rule
set still contains the halving effect of BR209, and for a score of 10,
BR209 would halve it to 5, so BR207 halves that to 3.  The "if" case in
BR209 works the similarly; in its (different) private imaginary rule set,
BR207 halves the 10 points to 5, and then BR209 halves this to 2.

That is, BR207 says to apply it after all other effects, because of the
"replacement" form of the effect, and BR209 also says to apply it after
all other effects.  Now clearly you can't apply each after the other, so
in the *real* rule set (the one which includes both rules), BR207 has
precedence, so BR209 is ignored.

Those who solved the somewhat Nomic-like GAMES Magazine puzzle I posted
here a while back will remember that one of the rules in the puzzle was
exactly this sort of replacement effect -- it asked you to compute the
final answer to the puzzle if that rule didn't exist, and to use part
of that answer in your real answer.  Now, there weren't two conflicting
rules like this, but if there were, you would do the same thing as I
did here -- figure out which rule has precedence, and apply that one.
In the "imaginary" rule set that you consider while trying to compute
that one, you will have to apply the other one, which asks you to look
at a second imaginary rule set which lacks both rules.

On other related topics:

breadbox was confused by ThinMan, Niccolo Flychuck, and I discussing
"his" reasoning before Malenkai had distributed it and the judgement;
in actuality, we were discussing our own opinions, some of which happened
to coincide with breadbox's reasoning.

Proposals 1848 and 1849 both attempt to fix Rules 207 and 209, but
P1848 (Narf's) is flawed, in that it doesn't remove the troublesome
word "otherwise".  I comment ThinMan's P1849, as it accomplishes
everything that Narf's proposal does (fixing the new player bonus
slightly differently), but it also changes the new player bonus
from a confusing replacement effect to an additive bonus, and it
codifies once and for all exactly what scoring is halved for a modest
proposal (the subject of a CFJ long ago); the new version will make
only the usual 10 points, 5 point short bonus, and 3 point new player
bonus be halved, while the bonuses for the potato, tuba, and harfy
proposals will not be halved.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 11:10:12 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Important Proposals to vote on! Please read!

While P1803 will allow that to happen, its use is not limited to this
specific case.
I think Ad Hoc Comittees can be a useful tool. There are some decisions
that just don't need to be made that often. I don't think we should give
all those decisions to the Senate, or to one Officer, and they don't
justify creating a new permanent Institution. An Ad Hoc Comittee is a good
solution for that. It assembles a group of players, from various walks of
Ackanomic, spreads the decision making power around. This could be useful,
interesting, and fun.
Niccolo Flychuck

On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Mitchell Harding wrote:

> I would like to strongly urge the players of Ackanomic to vote YES on
> Proposal 1798 (Sanctity of Harf), Proposal 1803 (Ad Hoc Committees), and
> Proposal 1843 (Calling an Ad Hoc Committee). If these three proposals pass,
> it will allow the discoverer of "harf" (an important part of Acka) to join
> Acka, and use "Harf" as his Ackanomic name (provided the Ad Hoc Committee
> approves it). 
> 
> For those who do not normally take an active interest in voting, yet wish to
> vote on these proposals, here is how to do it. Send email to
> [email-masked] with the word "acrobot" somewhere in the subject line.
> Include the following 3 lines in the message:
> 
> #vote 1798 YES
> #vote 1803 YES
> #vote 1843 YES
> 
> I strongly urge all of you to vote yes on these importantproposals.
> 
> Robert Sevin
> 

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:18:02 -0500
From: Dan Knapp (A.K.A. TheWiz) <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 359 (breadbox) 

> > This, however, I find unconvincing.  I nowhere see anything that
> > specifies that rules should be applied in precedence order.  I find it
> > much more reasonable to take the view that insomuch as the two rules
> > coincide, they describe the _same_ event.

  Or, rather, that it's unspecified whether they describe the same or
different events...

[SNIP]

> The "if" case in BR207 refers to the result of applying an imaginary rule
> set identical to the current one without the quoted sentence; this rule
> set still contains the halving effect of BR209, and for a score of 10,
> BR209 would halve it to 5, so BR207 halves that to 3.  The "if" case in
> BR209 works the similarly; in its (different) private imaginary rule set,
> BR207 halves the 10 points to 5, and then BR209 halves this to 2.

  I'd be inclined to think that, if they are in fact describing the same
event (which we don't know), the "otherwise" applies to the effect, not the
sentence, invalidating this line of reasoning.

- -Red Barn,
quantumnomicdynamically

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 05:32:19 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: About CFJ 360 

> I surely hope the initiator retracts this promply, and bears eir Goose
>  like a good sport.
>    
>  Malenkai

While I am more than happy to bear my goose like a good sport (after, that
is, I appeal the decision...) I will certainly not retract CFJ 360.  The
point made in it is a valid one.  While I, personaly, would not log on under
a different address and claim to be someone else, there are others out there
with less stringent morality.  I have read some of the history of the case of
Epinomadas (or however the heck the name was spelled).  

The fact of the matter is that AOL DOES occasionaly (ok, often) have problems
and I DO have access to other internet accounts (several to be exact) but
that there is no way to know about these unless they are registered.  SO...
with that in mind perhaps a proposal should be written to allow and encourage
players to register multiple accounts with the registrar?  Or to keep a
password on hand at the registrars office that will allow them to log on from
any ISP they want to.

In fact... I'm a good enough sport about it all that I will gladly let
someone else write the proposal and earn the points (Vynd, wanna take a crack
at it?)

Narf
From his own account this time.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 03:10:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 359 (breadbox)

> That is, BR207 says to apply it after all other effects, because of the
> "replacement" form of the effect, and BR209 also says to apply it after
> all other effects.  Now clearly you can't apply each after the other, so
> in the *real* rule set (the one which includes both rules), BR207 has
> precedence, so BR209 is ignored.

Good point. Because both (Bogus) rules attempt to make themselves the
last step of the calculation, they would in fact conflict.

> breadbox was confused by ThinMan, Niccolo Flychuck, and I discussing
> "his" reasoning before Malenkai had distributed it and the
> judgement; in actuality, we were discussing our own opinions, some
> of which happened to coincide with breadbox's reasoning.

Just to clarify - I was not actually confused. I was attempting to
make a ironic comment on how closely your discussions paralleled the
reasoning that I had just mailed to the CotC. (Of course, none of you
had seen my reasoning yet, so the tongue-in-cheek tone didn't really
come off....)

b

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 03:34:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: About CFJ 360

> While I am more than happy to bear my goose like a good sport
> (after, that is, I appeal the decision...) I will certainly not
> retract CFJ 360.  The point made in it is a valid one.

I don't think there is any disagreement over the validity of the
point. The question is more along the lines of "Do we realy want to
deal with properly enforcing this kind of rule?" I myself would rather
not have to judge a CFCJ that involves tracing mail headers and the
like. Not because it's complicated, but because I don't want to see
Ackanomic's rules getting unnecessarily involved in the unlegislatable
tangles of the Real World.

> While I, personaly, would not log on under a different address and
> claim to be someone else, there are others out there with less
> stringent morality.  I have read some of the history of the case of
> Epinomadas (or however the heck the name was spelled).

(Eponimondas.) True, but for a record of one case of abuse during an
entire year. (Not counting some attempts by snowgod to impersonate the
Voting Gnome.) And even there, the real problems came not from what
he/she/they did, but from the ensuing attempts to "prosecute".

> with that in mind perhaps a proposal should be written to allow and
> encourage players to register multiple accounts with the registrar?
> Or to keep a password on hand at the registrars office that will
> allow them to log on from any ISP they want to.

Well, if that's what 2/3 of the players want, I guess that is what
should happen. Myself, I would rather continue to rely on mutual
trust, for as long as we still can, anyway. That, and the
understanding that some things are just not worth putting into rules,
despite their importance.

Once you stop relying on mutual trust, it's extremely difficult to
ever go back.

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:43:05 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: Inventor

> > On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> > > I am building a Plunky Monkey Wrench.
> >         This is done.  I am initiating a public Auction to sell this
> > thing.  The minimum bid is A$ 1.
> 
I bid A$35.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:35:25 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 356 Appeal (Supreme Court)

CnH wrote:

> Thanks for bringing up some excellent points. This has to be one of
> the best
> debates I've been involved in thus far. I think that I may even
> concede it,
> given that several points are resolved. Reasons to follow below.
> 
I surely love a good debate, and this has turned out to be one.

> My apologies to everyone. This was a tiny little message when I did
> the
> first draft. But it grew. A lot. And then some more. Sorry.
> 
What he said.

> I see. Well, perhaps there should be a special type of appeal that
> will
> correct reasoning rather than judgement. Perhaps by having Justices
> just add
> a correction afterwards.
> 
I have considered this before, but decided that I didn't want to do it.
If you choose to do, though, I support the idea in principle.

> Just three things I can bring up.
> 
> First, that this may be too complex an undertaking in the format of a
> CFJ.
> Even what could seem like a simple error could be the result of
> careful
> planning and cunning on the part of a player. Question is, do we want
> to
> punish by default, or do we want to punish only those that are guilty
> beyond
> any doubt (not _just_ reasonable doubt, that's the defense).
> 
> I've always vigorously stated (perhaps not here though) that I'd
> rather see
> a guilty man walk than risk an innocent being convicted. So I would
> require
> a very stringent test of intent.
> 
It is not really a case of what we want to do, but a case of what the
rules say we should do.  I do not consider any reading of "attempt" that
does not invoke intent to be consistent with the Rules, interpreted
(as directed by R101) according to game custom.  On that basis, I claim
that CFJ 356 must be FALSE; I will not reiterate my arguments here.

The question of how we judge the presence or absence of intent, or even
whether we can do so, is entirely seperate, and not relevant to the
case.  The CFJ statement under scrutiny here is this: "When a Key
defined in rule 222 is buried in a Treasure, it is transferred to the
Chartreuse Goose instead."  I think that CnH and I agree that "when"
should be read as "whenever" or, equivalently, "every time."  With that
understanding, it follows that the statement is FALSE if it can be
demonstrated that there could be any instance of Key burying that did
not result in the Key being transferred to the Goose.  The only way
that I can see a Key ever being transferred to the Goose under such
circumstances would be if the burial could be construed to satisfy
R222's condition that "Any Player possessing one or more Keys may
attempt to give a Key to a non-eligible Player, but that Key shall be
immediately returned to the Goose [...]."  CnH has, accordingly, judged
that every instance of Key burial is an attempt to transfer the Key to
a non-eligible player.  I argue that that position is erroneous, and
among my arguments against it is that to "attempt" to do something
implies intent to do it.  No intent implies no attempt.  No attempt
means, for this case, no Key transfer to the Goose.

Questions about how we are to judge intent are beside the point -- the
rules simply imply that we must do so.  CnH's judgement could be
interpreted as a judgement that every Key burying involves intent to
transfer the Key to a non-eligible player, but I don't think that that
is actually the position he is taking.  If it were his position then I
would vigorously object to it -- I have previously given examples and
arguments against that position which, again, I will not reiterate here.

> Second, that this is going way too far for something that is _not_ a
> crime.
> This is just to decide what thread we go into! The ruling I made would
> perhaps be very restrictive of actual possible ways to transfer, but
> at
> least it ensures we don't have any vague or undetermined solution that
> leads
> to more problems down the road. This isn't a great reason, but it has
> merit.
> 
The reason is admirable, but it is not supported by the rules.  The
rules, which CnH himself quoted to me later on, require that judgements
must be in accord with the rules (interpreted according to game custom,
ala R101).  The rules permit reliance on game custom and the spirit of
the game when the rules are unclear, but my argument against his verdict
is that it is not, in fact, in accord with the rules, thus custom and
spirit are not (directly) applicable.

> Third, that the ruling I made would stop, cleanly, within the existing
> working frames, all the questions with the current situation. As I
> have
> argued, my interpretation of intent is broad, perhaps too much, but it
> can
> be argued that way. Bringing in "intent" does round things off nicely
> about
> the meaning of "intent", but it's a tough thing that we can't judge
> properly
> right now. Or rather that we could only arbitrarily judge right now.
> So in
> that sense, my ruling is good for the game. (perhaps, maybe, arguably,
> supposedly, etc, etc, etc)
> 
Again, these reasons are not legal justification for any CFJ verdict.

[some debate about interpreting intent, which, as I said earlier, is
a false trail.  Deleted.]

> I now see where you are coming from exactly (I think). And this is a
> very
> valid argument. The question is, how do we want to interpret 'attempt'
> *exactly*. How far, how strict, how lax do we want it to be? Isn't
> Narf
> laughing at us for not seeing through he deviously clever plan? Whose
> job is
> it to prove that? Whose job is it to judge that? By what guidelines?
> RL?
> Which? Democratic (innocent till proven guilty)? Communist (guilty
> till we
> change gov)? Oligarchic (he is influential, so innocent)? Monarchist
> (he is
> speaker/president so innocent)? Plutocractic (he's got money, so he's
> innocent)? Big dilemmas. (and I need to enjoy making lists a little
> less)
> (and using brakets)    : ]
> 
I argue that CnH's apparent interpretation of intent is too broad.  No
other interpretation can cover every case, so the exact interpretation
will be worked out through future case law if CFJ 356 is overturned to
FALSE.  What exactly that interpretation will be is not relevant to the
decision on CFJ 356.

[Discussion of intent, including examples and further debate, deleted.]

> >No.  Because the statement is unqualified, it must be interpreted to
> >apply to _every_ instance of burying a Key as a treasure.  If there
> is
> >any conceivable instance of Key burying that would not constitute an
> >attempt to give the Key to an ineligible player then the CFJ
> statement
> >is FALSE.
> 
> See, I agree with your saying it need apply to every instance, but not
> on
> what the result should be in that case. You say that unless it's clear
> in
> every instance (that it was trying to go to a non-eligible player),
> it's not
> an attempt. I say that unless it's clear in every instance (that it
> was
> trying to go to an eligible player), it is an attempt.
> 
> Similar but critically different.
> 
CnH is mixing together two seperate points of debate there.  What I say
is that if there is any possible instance of Key burying that would not
be an attempt, then the CFJ statement is FALSE.  This follows from the
wording of the statement and standard logic, and is, I think,
indisputable.  I furthermore say that there are, indeed, such instances,
and cite snowgod's and Narf's Key buryings as possible examples.
Whether those specific examples qualify, however, is beside the point.
CnH seems to be disputing only the second part of that, claiming
instead that there are no instances of Key burial that do not
constitute attempts to transfer the Key to a non-eligible player.
Indeed, that is the only argument that (IMO) could support his verdict.

> >That description applies to "attempt," but is not a complete
> >description.  It neglects the element of intent that I discussed
> >earlier.  The rule uses the transitive verb form; Webster's relevant
> >definition (the 1st in the list, BTW) is "to try to do; to try to
> get;
> >to try; to endeavor; to undertake."  This clearly underscores the
> >element of intent associated with the word "attempt" (and also CnH's
> >element of uncertainty, FWIW).
> 
> That is true. But how does one judge between attempt and possible
> attempt,
> reasonable doubt or even simple error by a player?
> 
That is beside the point.  The rules are not required to make sense,
nor to be such that it is possible to follow them without error, or
even to follow them at all.  The question is not how do we _discern_
attempts from non-attempts, but rather whether there are any
non-attempts at all.  I say that there are, and that therefore the
CFJ should be judged FALSE.

> >Game custom is to rely on common English usage when the rules do not
> >specify or imply otherwise.  I see no cause to judge that "attempt"
> >should be interpreted other than by common English usage, so please
> >refer to the definition I gave above.
> 
> Yes, but it also needs to be in the "spirit of the game" (same rule).
> What
> just occurred to me is that while I may be in favor of lenient
> judgements,
> Acka is no such place. Heretics have been burned with more than
> probable
> doubt as to their innocence. Hearings, CFCJs have been called on what
> were
> obviously simple errors that had no intent behind them. True, these
> don't
> require to show "attempt", but it's game custom to punish swiftly and
> punish
> in excess.
> 
Interpretation of the rules according to game custom is mandated by
R 101, which is not the "same rule."  R101 has precedence.  I claim
that given the interpretation mandated by R101 through game custom,
the rules are not silent, inconsistent, or unclear about this issue.
The use of game custom and the spirit of the game, per R215, is
therefore inapplicable.

> >I acknowledge that the scenario described is possibile under my
> >interpretation of the rules.  That is irrelevant to the case at hand.
> >Indeed, the question of what would actually happen to the Key in such
> >a circumstance is not clear to me.
> 
> But under the test I proposed, it is clear. There is no doubt. If
> there was,
> it's an attempt. Seems to me like we're on a razor edge and I'm not
> sure I'd
> like to go on either side. Can we keep walking the edge I wonder.
> 
That is true, but irrelevant.

> >  In any case, it is not the judge's
> >job to assure that the Keys cannot possibly end up in the hands of
> >"ineligible" players.  His job is solely to judge the truth or
> falsehood
> >of the CFJ statement in light of the rules.  The statement, and its
> >interpretation depend on whether or not burying a Key as treasure can
> >be construed, in every case, as an _attempt_ to transfer a Key to an
> >ineligible player.
> 
> I do not agree with the last part of that statement. As I said, I
> think it
> should be to make sure that in every case, it should NOT be able to be
> transferred to an ineligible player. The reason is R222 itself, which
> clearly states that an ineligible player cannot receive a key. This is
> in
> accord with the rules, as we both agree it needs to be. I think your
> case is
> way too lenient. I think mine may be way too strict. I think the
> unacceptable compromise is to introduce trials by jury.
> 
And we see that CnH is an advocate of judicial activism.  (*gentle poke*
No offense intended.)

The judge's rule-mandated job is to determine the truth or falsehood of
the statement provided, according to the rules for doing so.  The rules
state that judgements must be in accord with the rules.  But they do not
say that any judgement must be in accord with any specific rule to the
exclusion of other rules.  Nor, more to the point, with any specific
portion of any specific rule, to the exclusion of everything else.  CnH
is required to judge only and exactly whether the particular event of
the Keys returning to the Goose when buried happens or not.  It is
inappropriate for him allow his verdict to be swayed by its
implications.

[examples and further debate deleted.]

> I'm willing to go with "intent", but some serious guidelines are going
> to be
> needed. That should absolve me of my arguable misstep.
> 
By "needed" I think you mean "needed so that the system will work in a
way that seems fair to me."  I cannot dispute that, as it stipulates a
personal opinion.  I am not fully in agreement with that opinion, though
I see where you are coming from.  More to the point, however, the game
is not required to be fair.  I would be more than happy to review any
proposals for changes to the judicial system (I am an Expert, after
all).  As for going with "intent," I think that it is mandated in the
present case.  I am not sure that it is applicable to every case under
the current rules, however.  Indeed, I am certain that it is _not_
applicable to some cases.

> I'd also like to point out that you and I are arguing about the
> reasoning of
> the CFJ. I'd to note that R217, which deals with what the Supreme
> Court
> court should consider. Sorry for just adding lots of stuff at the end
> like
> that (it's fun):
> 
To some extent we are debating reasoning, but the fundamental issue is
what the verdict should be.  CnH is correct, however, in saying that
the Supreme Court is not required to consider any of this debate when
reaching its decision, or even any of the reasoning attached to the
official CFJ.

[Rule citations deleted.]

> So the appeal of the Judgement, which an appeal of the CFJ is, cannot
> consider an error in the judge's reasoning if the ruling is still the
> correct one (if there is even one). This is intuitively correct. Just
> because a judge rules FALSE for "CnH has won the game" with the
> reasoning
> "There is no R101", the judgement can't be overturned because of the
> wrong
> reasoning.
> 
> Although I'd like to see it work that way.    : )
> 
Sometimes I would, too.  :)

> After this interlude, just to recap. I'm don't care either way how
> this
> goes, I can see reasons for and against in both cases. Indeed, you
> made a
> pretty solid argument ThinMan. I've brought up various objections
> (three I
> think), none as eloquent as your critique though.
> 
Thanks.  Many years of formal mathematics go a long way towards making a
person a good debater.  Many years of writing formal papers for school,
and later, for professional journals and grant proposals, along with
even more years of recreational and/or job-related reading go a long way

towards making a person eloquent.  And just one year of Nomic goes a
long way towards making a person legalistic, particular, and nitpicky.
:)  I'll only ripen with age.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 11:08:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 360 (Techno)

I am using my status as a Supreme Court Justice to add the following 
reasoning to CFJ 360:

	A player is a person, not an email address.  If you offer to buy 1
pfNarf for A$1000, regardless of whose name is in your e-mail address, it
is Narf that is offering the deal (and if someone accepted it, you'd be
out a thousand bucks.) The statement is False. 

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:05:13 -0500 (EST)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: About CFJ 360

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> In fact... I'm a good enough sport about it all that I will gladly let
> someone else write the proposal and earn the points (Vynd, wanna take a crack
> at it?)
> 
> Narf
> >From his own account this time.

Thanks but no thanks.  In fact, I would probably vote against such a
proposal.  As Malenkai pointed out in his criticism, one of the most
common reasons for people to be using an account other than their normal
one is some sort of emergency.  Under those circumstances, it is quite
possible that the account they are using is NOT one that they themselves
"own" but one that belongs to a friend or whatever, that they are just
using because it's the only thing available to them while they are in New
Jersey or whatever.  So they're not going to be able to register the
address ahead of time.  This would almost certainly be true of my case,
where my access is very stable and only something unforseen would be
likely to force me to use a different account.

                             - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:08:27 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Bot Results

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

>
>Acrobot processing commands for Red Barn on Thu Mar 20 10:51:31 1997.
>> #retract 1806
>Error:  There's not enough information here.

  Apparantly my duplicate proposals don't exist?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:36:39 -0500
From: "Bollinger, John C." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka:  Bot Results

Red Barn wrote:

> >Acrobot processing commands for Red Barn on Thu Mar 20 10:51:31 1997.
> >> #retract 1806
> >Error:  There's not enough information here.
> 
>   Apparantly my duplicate proposals don't exist?
> 
Apparently the appropriate Acrobot command is:
#retract proposal 1806

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 16:07:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Bot Results

> >Acrobot processing commands for Red Barn on Thu Mar 20 10:51:31 1997.
> >> #retract 1806
> >Error:  There's not enough information here.
>   Apparantly my duplicate proposals don't exist?
	That should be "#retract proposal 1806".  I know the syntax is a 
little quirky, but back when I wrote that part of the program I meant to 
have the bot handle CFJs as well, so there'd be "#retract cfj ###" as 
well.  And of course changing it now could only make things worse.  :o)

	I removed all the invalid ones (1807 and up) manually, a little
while before the CFJ came back.

- --Mohammed
p.s.  Nice try..

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 17:03:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Return from vacation 

>I hereby return from vacation.
>Bascule

Hurraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

>FWIW - I've been on the verge of leaving completely for weeks. But I 
>just can't do it. This debate between CnH and ThinMan reminded me of 
>what I'd be missing if I did :)

Does that mean we are part of the scenery?      ; )

Calvin N Hobbes
who also considered leaving many times, but then who'd annoy everyone?

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:33:52 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 359 (breadbox) 

Ok...

I must admit, I've been rather amused watching the debate over what my
interpretation of "otherwise" was... so let me clarify.  And while I'm at it,
I'll throw in a few points about CFJ 360

The truth of the matter is that after going out bar hopping with some
friends, I came home and made the mistake of poking around in the rule set.
 My reasoning re: 207 and 209 is obviously flawed, but much less so after 3
or 4 beers (I've learned my lesson -- don't drink and email, you might hurt
the ones you love).  In fact, I did not support any of the interpretations
attributed to me...

As for CFJ 360 -- that was not in my mind when I submitted 359.  However, I
think the point I make in it is valid.  If it bothers everyone that much
(that is to say if the consensus is I am not playing within the spirit of the
game) AND 360 is judged true, then I will resubmit my paradox CFJ under the
correct address just so that I can have the goose -- the goose doesn't
honestly bother me all that much.

As I see CFJ 360, there are two possibilities.  #1 -- It's ruled true, in
which case the point I raised in it is a valid one and we need to create a
fix.  #2 -- It's ruled false, in which case there's no problem.

Narf

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 17:34:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Acka: CFJ 356 Appeal (Supreme Court) 

ThinMan

Let me try and summarize where we are.

We agree attempt must involve intent. I have claimed that any means of
transfer that could result in transfer to someone that _is not_ eligible
_is_ an attempt. You have said that any means of transfer that could result
in a transfer to someone that _is_ eligible _is not_ an attempt.

I think that's where the situation is, but I'm just stating it to be clear.
I've generalized it beyong just burying. It should prehaps be restricted to
that.

I'm going to do something awful and take one paragraph out of context from
your last message. Just to give some kind of vague reference, it dealt with
a previous attempt to summarize the positions and I used it to build the
above summary.

>What I say
>is that if there is any possible instance of Key burying that would not
>be an attempt, then the CFJ statement is FALSE.

Ok, that's what I based most of my summary above on.

>CnH seems to be disputing only the second part of that, claiming
>instead that there are no instances of Key burial that do not
>constitute attempts to transfer the Key to a non-eligible player.
>Indeed, that is the only argument that (IMO) could support his verdict.

Yes, quite, and that is what I based my summary on.

Now, we are basically dealing with a large set (all possible burials) and
your interpretations makes "ok" all those that have any chance of being
legitimate. While mine is to make "ok" all those that have no chance of
being illegitimate. I believe this means my subset is a proper subset of
your interpretation. Our intersection is my subset. Our union is your subset.

What bothers me is that ((your subset) - (my subset)) consists of actions
which could be both legitimate and illegitimate. And I argue that to include
it, you have to be certain (or beyond resonable doubt at least... and to try
and be fair requires a jury) you have to be certain that these do not fall
under the "cunning attempt/concealed intent" category.

My own argument was that R222 said it could not be that a key would be owned
by an illegitimate player <g>, so I ducked for safety.

This is still a short message, and I'd hate to go further if I got something
wrong, so I'm going to just send this (I also have to leave, I have an
exam). Sorry for restating a bunch of stuff, I'm just trying to get
everything cleared up in my mind. (ie: beyond a reasonable doubt [grin])

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:38:38 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: About CFJ 360 

In a message dated 97-03-20 06:41:54 EST, Breadbox wrote:

> Well, if that's what 2/3 of the players want, I guess that is what
>  should happen. Myself, I would rather continue to rely on mutual
>  trust, for as long as we still can, anyway. That, and the
>  understanding that some things are just not worth putting into rules,
>  despite their importance.
>  
>  Once you stop relying on mutual trust, it's extremely difficult to
>  ever go back.
>  

I concede the validity of this point.  Unfortunately, in this sense there is
little choice (as I see it) but to become entangled in the real world.  Real
people play this game, and each player has their own motivations.  The
majority of players play for the fun, the comraderie.  Some others play for
the intellectual challenge.  Some play to win.  Most play for a combination
of these and other factors.  But there will always be players (hopefuly none
are currently involved in the game) who value winning above honesty.  Since
we can't easily screen them out and this particular problem seems to me to
have an easy fix, why not implement it?

Obviously, there are some areas more difficult to screen for cheating (such
as looking up words in Ghost) and we simply have rely on trust.  I agree that
if that trust shoul fail, it will be a sad day.  Do we close our eyes to the
possibility of more incidents like that or prepare for them as best we can
and deal with them on a case by case basis?

Narf

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

End of Ackanomic Discussion Digest V2 #22
*****************************************