Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #29
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest   Thursday, April 3 1997   Volume 02 : Number 029

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:59:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury)

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > Proposal 1859
> > Trials By Jury
> 
> Would anyone object if I change this back?
> RFC ??
> 
> Malenkai
> 
In fact, I was surprised to see I had voted for this.  I would have sworn
I voted against it.  Perhaps my Evil Twin was directing my actions.

In other words, I have no complaints about changing it back.

IB

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:06:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury)

> Would anyone object if I change this back?
	Please, please, please, PLEASE change this back ASAP.

- -- Mohammed
Supreme Court Justice

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:42:26 -0500 (EST)
From: "A.K.A. TheWiz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1861 accepted (Trinket Destruction Amnesty Period)

>Insert after the second paragraph of rule 506, "Trinkets", the following
>paragraph (including the ** lines delimiting it):

  Wasn't there a rule somewhere about proposals, or perhaps rules, having
to contain only punctuation used according to the rules of English?

- -Red Barn

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:55:27 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1861 accepted (Trinket Destruction Amnesty Period)

Red Barn wrote:
> >Insert after the second paragraph of rule 506, "Trinkets", the following
> >paragraph (including the ** lines delimiting it):
> 
>   Wasn't there a rule somewhere about proposals, or perhaps rules, having
> to contain only punctuation used according to the rules of English?

Only Beldin's Tailor (for changing punctuation in the Beldin's Pants rule)
and the Machine that goes *ping*'s truth are limited in this way.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:27:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury)

> In fact, I was surprised to see I had voted for this.  I would have sworn
> I voted against it.  Perhaps my Evil Twin was directing my actions.
> IB
	I'm sorry, but the message in which you cast this vote was among
those lost when I accidentally erased acrobot.old last week.

- -- Mohammed
may be able to get admin to pull it off the tape backup

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:29:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  rfc?

Did anyone receive an RFC to move Blueprints into the rule set?  I sent 
it out last night and don't remember having seen it arrive on the list.

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:01:24 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka:  rfc?

> Did anyone receive an RFC to move Blueprints into the rule set?  I sent 
> it out last night and don't remember having seen it arrive on the list.

No, I don't see it anywhere.  It must have been lost when wilma was
acting up last night.  Odd, though, because it looked like wilma was
accepting mail and just not sending it out all night; after I rebooted
there were several queued messages delivered just fine, including the
results for P1866 which were dated Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:26:57 -0600.
About an hour after that I rebooted wilma.

/dev/joe

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:19:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury)

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> > In fact, I was surprised to see I had voted for this.  I would have sworn
> > I voted against it.  Perhaps my Evil Twin was directing my actions.
> > IB
> 	I'm sorry, but the message in which you cast this vote was among
> those lost when I accidentally erased acrobot.old last week.
> 
> -- Mohammed
> may be able to get admin to pull it off the tape backup
> 

No worries.  We can let CnH have the points and just overturn all his hard
work ;)

IB

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:03:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: RFC blueprints into a rule suite

The following is yucky.  Technically, I'm not positive it'll work as 
intended.  My head is spinning.  :o)

Also, I don't know if I like keeping the "Blueprint" terminology around; 
maybe I should make it "Blueprint Rule" instead?  Hrm.

#submit RFC Blueprint Rule Suite

1.  A new rule, titled "Blueprint Rule Suite" and numbered
590, is created, reading:
- ---
The rules in this Rule Suite are called Blueprints.  This rule takes
precedence over all Blueprints.  [Blueprints govern the behavior of
Gadgets and the occasional Monster.  They are designed by the
Ackanomic Research Guild and the Mad Scientist, as described in Rules
593-597.  These Rules may also be created and amended by proposals,
just like other Rules.]

A Blueprint is not a legally binding document except where Rules 594
and 595 say that it is.

It is the Duty of the Inventor, not the Web-Harfer, to keep a record
of all Blueprints and their histories.

[Blueprints.]
- ---

2.  Rule 1240.14 ("Otzma Card of type Scientist for a Day") is amended
by replacing "This text becomes a new Brueprint in the Blueprint
Archive; this Blueprint is said to be created by the player who played
the Scientist for a Day Otzma Card." with "A new Rule is created in
the Blueprint Rule Suite, containing this text.  The player who played
the Scientist for a Day Otzma Card is said to be the author of this
Rule."

3.  Rule 308 ("Document Promotion") is created, reading:

- ---

A document that isn't a Rule may be promoted to a Rule, as specified
by the Rules.  It is assigned a Rule Number and Title using the same
method as if a new Rule were being created under the same
circumstances.  No information associated with the document (such as
whether or not it is a Blueprint, when it was created, who authored
it, how it has been modified, and so on) is lost or changed when this
happens.  The text of the document does not change.

On May 30 at noon, this Rule shall be repealed.

{{ [ That was the best way to do what I wanted: move the Blueprints
into the rule set without any discontinuity.  This was very important
because if there was a discontinuity, all existing Gadgets would be
destroyed!  I chose to leave it around a while in case someone wants to 
use the same trick to fold G&C into the ruleset.  Who knows, if it's 
useful enough, we might end up keeping it.] }}

{{

The Blueprint for the Electronic Potato is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Electronic Potato".

The Blueprint for the Scroll of Crumble is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Scroll of Crumble".

The Blueprint for the Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really is promoted to a Rule in the Blueprint Rule Suite, titled
"Blueprint for the Really Big Blue Thing That Doesn't Do Too Much,
Really".

The Blueprint for the Whamiol is promoted to a Rule in the Blueprint
Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Whamiol".

The Blueprint for the Vending Machine is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Vending Machine".

The Blueprint for the Pyraic Frobnotzer is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Pyraic Frobnotzer".

The Blueprint for the Automatic Sculpture is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Automatic Sculpture".

The Blueprint for the Orbital Mind Control Laser is promoted to a Rule
in the Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Orbital Mind
Control Laser".

The Blueprint for the Gravitational Monopole is promoted to a Rule in
the Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Gravitational
Monopole".

The Blueprint for the Evil Ballot Stuffer is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Evil Ballot Stuffer".

The Blueprint for the Jukkasjarvi Mind Control Laser is promoted to a
Rule in the Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the
Jukkasjarvi Mind Control Laser".

The Blueprint for the Spell Book of Chorg is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Spell Book of Chorg".

The Blueprint for the Plunky Monkey Wrench is promoted to a Rule in
the Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Plunky Monkey
Wrench".

The Blueprint for the Bonus Vote Add-On is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Bonus Vote Add-On".

The Blueprint for the Gimme Shelter is promoted to a Rule in the
Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the Gimme Shelter".

The Blueprint for the metalic bug detector is promoted to a Rule in
the Blueprint Rule Suite, titled "Blueprint for the metalic bug
detector".

}}

- ---

.  Rule 593 ("Ackanomic Research Guild") is amended by removing
"(Guild)" from the first sentence.  [The Ackanomic History Guild is
also nicknamed "Guild."  We can suffer through the whole three
words if we ever need to specify one or the other.  :o]

.  Rule 594 ("Blueprints") is amended by changing:
- ---
(i) Blueprints are unownable entities.  A Scientist can create a new
Blueprint by posting its text publicly.  In this case, the Scientist
is the creator of the Blueprint. A Rule can also create a new
Blueprint by specifying that it is doing so, and specifying the text
of the new Blueprint. In this case, the author of the Rule is
considered the creator of the Blueprint.
- ---

to:
- ---
(i) A Blueprint is a Rule in the Blueprint Rule Suite.  A Scientist
can create a new Blueprint by posting its text publicly.  In this
case, the Scientist is the author of the Blueprint.  [New Blueprints
may also be added to the Blueprint Rule Suite by proposals.]
- ---

and by changing (in section i):
- ---
An attempt to create a new Blueprint fails if its text does not (a)
introduce exactly one new type of Gadget, (b) name the new Gadget
type, and (c) unambiguously define the behavior of such a Gadget.
- ---

to:
- ---
An attempt by a Scientist to create a new Blueprint fails if its text
does not (a) introduce exactly one new type of Gadget, (b) name the
new Gadget type, and (c) unambiguously define the behavior of such a
Gadget.
- ---

and by changing this:
- ---
(ii) When a Blueprint is judged to be in conflict with one or more
Rules, the Blueprint is destroyed, as are any extant Gadgets made from
that Blueprint.
- ---

to read:
- ---
(ii) When a Blueprint is judged to be in conflict with one or more
non-Blueprint Rules, the Blueprint is destroyed.
- ---

[As in chess, I like the idea of having broken Gadgets lying around.
If you don't want your broken Gadget, you can always junk it.]

and by changing (in section iii) "The creator of a Blueprint that is
lonely may destroy it." to "The author of a Blueprint that is lonely
may destroy it."

and by deleting sections (iv) and (v) [iv deals with conflicts, which
are handled by R102; v talks about public actions, which are handled
by R260]:
- ---
(iv) If the specification or behaviour, attributes, etc, specified by
2 Blueprints is in conflict, the Blueprint which was created first has
precedence. If the Blueprints were created at the same time, the one
which would appear first in an alphabetic list (using ASCII) of their
titles would hold precedence. If this still does not resolve the
conflict, or the precedence cannot be determined with finality for any
reason, both Blueprints, and all gadgets made from each, are
destroyed, in a large yellow, pungent, cloud of dust, which remains in
the Archaeologist's home for 3 days.

(v) If a Blueprint specifies the effects of a certain kind of
Gadget-related manipulation, and tells who can perform it, but does
not specify how it is to be accomplished, then that type of
manipulation can be performed as a public action. [See Rule 260 for
more about public actions.]
- ---

and by deleting this:
- ---
[A Blueprint is not a legally binding document except where the Rules
say that it is.]
- ---

.  Rule 595 ("Gadgets") is amended by deleting section (i):
- ---
(i) The terms "Artifact" and "Creature", as used elsewhere in the
rules, shall be considered synonymous to the term "Gadget", and all
rules pertaining to Gadgets shall apply to these terms.
- ---

and by adding "Otherwise, the Gadget is considered broken and does
nothing." to the end of section (ii).

[
(ii) A Gadget's Blueprint is the Blueprint that defines the class of
Gadget to which that Gadget belongs. If a Gadget's Blueprint exists,
the Gadget behaves in the manner defined by the Blueprint, and may be
manipulated in accordance with it.
]

with this:
- ---
(i) A Gadget's Blueprint is the Blueprint that defines the class of
Gadget to which that Gadget belongs. If a Gadget's Blueprint exists,
the Gadget behaves in the manner defined by the Blueprint, and may be
manipulated in accordance with it.  Otherwise, the Gadget is
considered broken and does nothing.
- ---

and by renumbering sections (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), and (vii) to (ii),
(iii), (iv), (v), and (vi);

and by changing "Gadgets, Creatures, and Artifacts" in section (iv)
(formerly v) to "Gadgets".  [evilly thwarting my good twin Malenkai]

and by changing "conflict with the Rules" to "conflict with other
Rules" in the note in section (vii).

.  Rule 597 ("The Frankenstein Monster(s)") is amended by changing
"Each Frankenstein Monster is unique, and has its own name." to "Each
Frankenstein Monster is named."

and by changing:
- ---
A Blueprint for a Frankenstein Monster is not a Blueprint until its
construction is completed by the Mad Scientist. Until then it is a
Blueprint-under-construction.
- ---

to:
- ---
A Blueprint for a Frankenstein Monster is not a Blueprint or a Rule
until its construction is completed by the Mad Scientist.  Until then
it is a Blueprint-under-construction.
- ---

and by changing:
- ---
E shall then post the text of the Blueprint-under-construction. At
this point the Blueprint is constructed, (and is a Blueprint) and no
more Parts may ever be added to it.
- ---

to:
- ---
E shall then post the text of the Blueprint-under-construction.  At
this point the Blueprint is added to the Blueprint Rule Suite, as a
new Rule, and no more Parts may ever be added to it.
- ---

#end RFC

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 21:32:28 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC blueprints into a rule suite

Mohammed wrote:
 
> The following is yucky.  Technically, I'm not positive it'll work as
> intended.  My head is spinning.  :o)

I have only skimmed it, but the R 108 style precedence thing may not
work.  Now that they are rules, the resolving conflict procedure of
rule 205 will hold sway, not the blueprint rule (594), because, 
ironically, R 205 has precedence over 594 in how conflicts are resolved.

(I apologize if I'm off on the rule numbers by a few).

Do you want to scrap the idea of Rule Suite Charters?  I wasn't hung up
on it, but it seemed to fit the pseudo rule model pretty well.  The only
point of doing it really is to say that the rules can specify alternate
ways to resolve precedence, be created, and destroyed if they are in a
chartered rule suite.  Its good if the concept can be thrown into the
rule suite rule and reused.  Right now, the blueprint rule and rule 1201
would basically be charter rules for rule suites.

BTW, I noticed the attempt to de-Malenkai some of the language, my neither
good nor evil twin :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:03:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury) 

> Do we really want to prevent the Praetor and
>the Supreme Court from *sumitting* CFJs, just in case we get an
>Undecided vote, of which there have been 2 or 3 in the history of acka?

While this is important, it is not just for that one case. CFJs can be
appealed to the Supreme Court. Either a CFJ is given a chance at being
fairly judged, without putting the judge(s) in a delicate situation, or it
isn't.

The very idea that someone can get to judge their CFJ, at any level, is
preposterous and one zillion percent unacceptable (at least to me). It goes
against everything, every idea that was ever invested in the justice system.

>CFJs are part of the fun of the game, and to restrict certain players
>from submitting them seems heavy-handed, especially in light of the
>potential benefits.

Everything has drawbacks, everything has benefits. I'm just as certain there
are advantages to a system where everyone gets to judge their own CFJ.
Stupid over characterization, point being I don't think any such situation
is acceptable.

Compromise I'd be willing to reach: authors have to sit out judgements if
they would be over something they themselves authored. Add to that party
members, church members and we are on the right tracks, but then I don't
expect anyone but paranoid justice freaks to see anything worthwhile in
those extensions. The compromise idea is good enough to start with imho.

> Also, the above rule change took out my change that
>permitted rule of fact CFJs.  Was there a reason for that?

I unfortunately forgot about your proposal when sending mine. Nothing was
meant by that action, just an accident.

I'm writing this quickly because I'm working on a project right now. I am
aware of some problems and negative points about this, but overall I
certainly do believe it is for the best. I had expected some questions about
the proposal but they never materialized btw.

Calvin N Hobbes
summum jus, summa injuria?

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 22:29:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury)

Calvin N Hobbes wrote:

> While this is important, it is not just for that one case. CFJs can be
> appealed to the Supreme Court. Either a CFJ is given a chance at being
> fairly judged, without putting the judge(s) in a delicate situation, or it
> isn't.
> 
> The very idea that someone can get to judge their CFJ, at any level, is
> preposterous and one zillion percent unacceptable (at least to me). It goes
> against everything, every idea that was ever invested in the justice
> system.

If this is your concern, (and it has certainly never bothered me at
any point in the game so far), I believe a better solution would be to
appoint an acting adjudicator for the Praetor or Justice, if this case
ever arose and is perceived as a problem.  How do you feel about that?
As for benefits and drawbacks, imho the magnitude of the drawback of
preventing a player from submitting a CFJ is larger than the magnitude
of the the benefit of preventing a player from judging their own CFJ,
especially given Acka's high ethical standard in this regard now.  

Moreover, your solution does not prevent this.  It is entirely possible,
under these rules, for a person to submit a CFJ, and *then* become 
a Justice or the Praetor while it is kicking around in the justice 
system.  In fact, this happened with CFJ 269; by the time it was appealed
to the supreme court, I was sitting on the court as an acting justice!
(in the most ironic CFJ of all time.) 

In that case, I simply abdicated my justicehood.  The only other time I
remember this coming up was with CFJ 190, which I submitted whilst 
sitting on the court with Bascule.  I did not resign as Justice, but
let Bascule rule it by himself (check the archives).  In that case,
the court returned the opposite verdict from the one I was trying to
establish, no problem.

The rules say how judgements must be rendered, viz., 'in accordance
with the rules', 'game custom', and 'spirit of the game'.  Again, if we
cannot count on judges following the rules, then we have problems anyway.
Acka's judges have shown laudable ethic in avoiding situations where 
they are interested parites, as the CFJ archives will show, and I do
not think it is a problem at all, especially one that merits restricting
players from submitting CFJs.

I am glad we are having this debate.  A little odd to have it *after*
the proposal is accepted, but that's ok :)

Malenkai
Expert on the Justice System
Bronze Torch Holder
Clerk of the Courts
ex Supreme Court Justice
ex Praetor
longer .sig file than ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:14:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC blueprints into a rule suite

> I have only skimmed it, but the R 108 style precedence thing may not
> work.  Now that they are rules, the resolving conflict procedure of
> rule 205 will hold sway, not the blueprint rule (594), because, 
> ironically, R 205 has precedence over 594 in how conflicts are resolved.
	Maybe you mean R102?  hrm.  I believe R594 will work as expected. 
When a conflict arises, the Blueprint is destroyed.  R102 does not
prohibit this, although it does specify what would happen if the Blueprint
somehow survived. 
	(lamely) I'm probably missing your meaning..

> BTW, I noticed the attempt to de-Malenkai some of the language, my neither
> good nor evil twin :)
	I tried to change it back once before, I believe; I don't 
remember what (if anything) came of it.

- -- Mohammed
doesn't mind irc sigs

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:18:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury) 

>I believe a better solution would be to
>appoint an acting adjudicator for the Praetor or Justice, if this case
>ever arose and is perceived as a problem.

Sounds better. Like I said, I expected the prop to be discussed intensely
and brought it up only as a patch proposal. It was a good proposal, but
rough certainly. I'll support any proposal that will solve this little
problem I explained. The above should do that. I look forward to reading
your proposal.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 23:23:00 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC blueprints into a rule suite

Jason Orendorff wrote:

>         Maybe you mean R102?  hrm.  I believe R594 will work as expected.
> When a conflict arises, the Blueprint is destroyed.  R102 does not
> prohibit this, although it does specify what would happen if the Blueprint
> somehow survived.
>         (lamely) I'm probably missing your meaning..

I do mean rule 102 (too many reorgs :)).  Both rules 102 and 594 specify
what happens when a conflict arises.  For example, if rule 590.10, a
Blueprint Rule is in conflict with rule 1800, rule 102 says 590.10 holds
sway, while 594 says it is destroyed.  It could be argued that this is in
fact a conflict -- how could something hold sway if it is destroyed?  I
do believe you get my meaning, and I would tend to agree with you, but I
could see this reading too.  I just like the precedence of the precedence
rules determining which precedence rule has precedence in resloving a 
precedence conflict ;).  I also think, given the real possibilty that
this problem exists, that it should either be resolved via CFJ or worded
to remove the ambiguity.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:48:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury)

> The very idea that someone can get to judge their CFJ, at any level, is
> preposterous and one zillion percent unacceptable (at least to me). It goes
> against everything, every idea that was ever invested in the justice system.
	On the contrary, especially in a small, democratic community, 
everyone should be eligible to judge anything.  Otherwise, if an issue 
polarizes the community, whichever side submits the CFJ is at an unfair 
statistical disadvantage.
	Regardless of our differing opinions on that matter, your work is 
completely at odds with the goal you expressed above.
	What will happen now is that when I have a question about the
rules, I will have to ask someone else to CFJ it for me.  Then, as a
direct result, I have a *greater* chance of getting to judge my own
statement.  If I had submitted it myself, I could not be selected as the
first judge for that statement.
	For example:  Calvin N Hobbes, please invoke judgement on the
following statement for me, as a kind favor for your evil twin-- "A
message created and sent to the listserver by a computer program may count
as a public message from the player who set up the program."  You may
accompany it with whatever reasoning you like.
	It may depend upon the circumstances, I know; All I'm asking for 
is verification of the possibility.  I know players have used programs to 
send *ping* notices.  And of course, the most spectacular example is 
Acrobot, which sends out most proposals before I even see them (sometimes 
long before I see them.)  If this is False, we have problems, to put it 
lightly.  :o)

> Compromise I'd be willing to reach: authors have to sit out judgements if
> they would be over something they themselves authored. Add to that party
> members, church members and we are on the right tracks, but then I don't
> expect anyone but paranoid justice freaks to see anything worthwhile in
> those extensions.
	It comes back to Malenkai's bridge game.  Are you playing with 
people whom you trust to exercise fair judgement, to know when they are 
too involved in an issue to give an equitable judgement?  Or are you 
playing with people who make you feel you must restrain their every 
choice in order to make the game flow smoothly?  *shrug*

- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 23:18:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury) 

Mohammed

Please do not misunderstand the problem I stated. Certainly, the issue of
ethics cannot be just ignored because we live in a wonderful place called
Acka (and this isn't irony or anything, I believe that) but as my message
said, if I may quote myself:

> Either a CFJ is given a chance at being
>fairly judged, without putting the judge(s) in a delicate situation, or it
>isn't.

"Putting the judge in a delicate situation". Sure, the judge can decline, or
abstain, but I think that's a very awkward position to be put in that need
not be. Certainly, I feel that way and however certain I am of other people,
or my own integrity, I feel it is unfair be put in that position.

Again, let me say that the question of ethics cannot be swept aside, that it
is something we should keep an eye on just because the rules have to be
followed by the judge. The problem lies in perception and feelings much more
than anything else. I'd like justice to always be perceived as perfect, or
close to it. My opinion is that wherever we can make the process less...
prone to misunderstanding shall we say, then that's good.

As for polarized heated debates, that's why Justices should remain distant
from the fray as much as possible (and all have done themselves proud). They
should be able to express their opinions if they want, but they should
strive to be perceived as players who will give a fair judgement on
controversial issues. Note that when the Supreme Court was created, it was
specifically designed with 2 players, requiring majority [grin] to work. But
I waffle on.

I'm treading on dangerous ground perhaps. I have no wish to offend anyone,
or imply anything. Just that the _idea_ of having someone judge a CFJ they
wrote is amazing to me. Of course, as you pointed out, friends can send CFJs
for you, etc, etc. Hence my comment about paranoid justice freaks. Note I
don't really believe that's required precisely because I believe and trust
players in Acka.

But hold on... you are a Justice??!      ; )

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 23:23:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC blueprints into a rule suite

> It could be argued that this is in
> fact a conflict -- how could something hold sway if it is destroyed?
	Interesting.  One could also argue that the two rules do not 
conflict; that R594 indeed destroys the Blueprint, but that R102 ensures 
that the Blueprint holds precedence in the sole instince in which the 
conflict arose.
	In more detail:  R590.10 tries to effect some change to the game
state.  Maybe it tries to change someone's score.  But that person has a
frobbed Widget of Yendor, and R942 says their score cannot be changed. 
Once the conflict arises, R594 tries to destroy R590.10 and R102 tries to
resolve the conflict.  So what we have at this point is four conflicting
rules and a rather delicate timing problem. 
	In my reading, R102 is "always on" but R594 merely "goes off" from
time to time.  When R590.10 raises the conflict, R102 settles it-- in
R590.10's favor!  Then, R594 "goes off" and R590.10 is destroyed.

	Looking at the wording in question, the problem is even worse
(because of the word "judged"); I'll look for a better solution.

my sincerest thanks
- -- Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 23:34:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury)

> Again, let me say that the question of ethics cannot be swept aside, that it
> is something we should keep an eye on just because the rules have to be
> followed by the judge.
	Rules don't encourage ethics.  Quite the contrary.  Rules have
loopholes.  Community spirit does not.
	It is not the principle I disagree with; it's the legislation of
it.

> I'm treading on dangerous ground perhaps. I have no wish to offend anyone,
> or imply anything. Just that the _idea_ of having someone judge a CFJ they
> wrote is amazing to me. Of course, as you pointed out, friends can send CFJs
> for you, etc, etc.
	Well... I wasn't just making a point, I was kinda serious.  I
honestly would like that matter settled, quick.  Please invoke judgement
on the statement in that prior message.  Thanks in advance.

> But hold on... you are a Justice??!      ; )
	Yes.

- -- Mohammed
once & future CotC

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

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 00:35:16 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury)

Mohammed wrote:

> -- Mohammed
> once & future CotC

You would take my job :(

Malenkai
thinks he does a good job :)

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

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 23:45:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Thierry Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: P1859 accepted (Trials By Jury) 

>	Rules don't encourage ethics.  Quite the contrary.  Rules have
>loopholes.  Community spirit does not.
>	It is not the principle I disagree with; it's the legislation of
>it.

Ethics also means following the rules. Judges have to abide by the rules.
Not to do so would be unethical as much as criminal.

>	Well... I wasn't just making a point, I was kinda serious.  I
>honestly would like that matter settled, quick.  Please invoke judgement
>on the statement in that prior message.  Thanks in advance.

You must be kidding. Or are you not?

> "A
>message created and sent to the listserver by a computer program may count
>as a public message from the player who set up the program."

A quick question for you. How can I know if it is a program that is sending
the messages, and not you? Addresses look the same. How do you know this
isn't a program writing back to you? Point being, even if ruled false, there
is no way, or few sure ways someone could prove it was a program sending the
stuff.

Keep in mind I'm working away on a project: let's not get into a 25 page
long argument.

Calvin N Hobbes
thinking his AI program works fine

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #29
***************************************