Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #38
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Sunday, April 13 1997    Volume 02 : Number 038

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

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 04:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Remember to vote!

I noticed that the last few proposals showed 10 out of 19 active
players voting on them.

b

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

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Interesting Conflicts

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

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Interesting Conflicts

This is interesting. While looking at the current game state, I
noticed that there are a few interdependent events going on
simultaneously. I am not the kind of person to take advantage of such
situations, which is why I'm describing them publicly instead of
quietly plotting out my next move (or working on the tiny blueprint of
the angle, even).

But if I *were* evil ...

To begin with, snowgod has nominated me as the new Supreme Court
Justice. Currently outstanding on the Supreme Court's to-do list is
CFJ 364. It was originally assigned to Ackers, who failed to respond,
so it went to our Praetor, ThinMan. ThinMan declined to judge,
however, because the statement: "ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey"
indicated a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, the CFJ was
kicked up to the Supreme Court, where I might very well have to pass
judgement on it.

Right now we are in the middle of a hearing, which could possibly
change how conflicts of interest are handled with respect to CFJs.
However, even the strictest outcome of the three possibilities would
still allow me to pass judgement on this CFJ, as I neither initiated
nor appealed it. (Although one of the possibilities would give me the
option of declining.)

However, ThinMan is also a Senator. If he was worried about me judging
CFJ 364 to my advantage, he could vote against my confirmation, and
perhaps convince the other Senators to do likewise.

It is also interesting to note that snowgod is also the one who
initiated CFJ 364, and the fact that it was outstanding was certainly
publicly knowable at the time that he nominated me. Perhaps I am
really just a pawn in someone else's game?

On the other hand, there is another CFJ which I initiated, and is in
fact a Paradox Win CFJ. CFJ 371 claims that there is a "paradox" in
Rule 261, which was authored by Niccolo Flychuck. Niccolo Flychuck is
also the one judging my CFJ. Conflict of interest? Perhaps. But more
to the point, if he judges it False, will I be able to appeal it? The
answer to that question depends on whether or not the Senate confirms
me, and if they do it before or after Niccolo Flychuck returns his
verdict, *and* the results of the aforementioned hearing, and if
*that* ends before or after Niccolo Flychuck returns his verdict!

It is possible that Niccolo Flychuck could judge it False, with a
reasoning of "My rules are always flawless", and I would be incapable
of appealing it, having already been confirmed. At the same time, it
is also possible that Niccolo Flychuck could judge CFJ 371 False,
accompanied with a brilliantly persuasive reasoning, I could appeal
it, then get confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, and turn around and
return a verdict of True on it - thus winning the cycle. Now that is a
conflict of interest!

And all of these things are going through my head as I decide which
way to vote on the hearing....

Of course, all of these speculations would, in addition to being
confirmed, require me to persuade the other Justice, mr cwm, to see
things my way. For that, I might need a little outside help ... maybe
from the Narfalone family? Narf has a Paradox Win CFJ of his own. If
he appealed it, we could arrange a deal of mutual benefit....

Or maybe I'll just let IdiotBoy draw some more conclusions from the
whole situation while I sit back and watch.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:12:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting Conflicts

On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Brian Raiter wrote:

> This is interesting. While looking at the current game state, I
> noticed that there are a few interdependent events going on
> simultaneously. I am not the kind of person to take advantage of such
> situations, which is why I'm describing them publicly instead of
> quietly plotting out my next move (or working on the tiny blueprint of
> the angle, even).
> 
> But if I *were* evil ...
> 
> To begin with, snowgod has nominated me as the new Supreme Court
> Justice. Currently outstanding on the Supreme Court's to-do list is
> CFJ 364. It was originally assigned to Ackers, who failed to respond,
> so it went to our Praetor, ThinMan. ThinMan declined to judge,
> however, because the statement: "ThinMan grabbed breadbox's donkey"
> indicated a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, the CFJ was
> kicked up to the Supreme Court, where I might very well have to pass
> judgement on it.
> 
> Right now we are in the middle of a hearing, which could possibly
> change how conflicts of interest are handled with respect to CFJs.
> However, even the strictest outcome of the three possibilities would
> still allow me to pass judgement on this CFJ, as I neither initiated
> nor appealed it. (Although one of the possibilities would give me the
> option of declining.)
> 
> However, ThinMan is also a Senator. If he was worried about me judging
> CFJ 364 to my advantage, he could vote against my confirmation, and
> perhaps convince the other Senators to do likewise.
> 
> It is also interesting to note that snowgod is also the one who
> initiated CFJ 364, and the fact that it was outstanding was certainly
> publicly knowable at the time that he nominated me. Perhaps I am
> really just a pawn in someone else's game?
> 
> On the other hand, there is another CFJ which I initiated, and is in
> fact a Paradox Win CFJ. CFJ 371 claims that there is a "paradox" in
> Rule 261, which was authored by Niccolo Flychuck. Niccolo Flychuck is
> also the one judging my CFJ. Conflict of interest? Perhaps. But more
> to the point, if he judges it False, will I be able to appeal it? The
> answer to that question depends on whether or not the Senate confirms
> me, and if they do it before or after Niccolo Flychuck returns his
> verdict, *and* the results of the aforementioned hearing, and if
> *that* ends before or after Niccolo Flychuck returns his verdict!

If I remember corectly (I don't have the rules readily available right
now) your paradox was in the W-File pair rules, which I am almost certain
was written by CalvinNHobbes.

> 
> It is possible that Niccolo Flychuck could judge it False, with a
> reasoning of "My rules are always flawless", and I would be incapable
> of appealing it, having already been confirmed. At the same time, it
> is also possible that Niccolo Flychuck could judge CFJ 371 False,
> accompanied with a brilliantly persuasive reasoning, I could appeal
> it, then get confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, and turn around and
> return a verdict of True on it - thus winning the cycle. Now that is a
> conflict of interest!

This is kind of interesting.  I gave up on trying to figure out the
conflict of interest fix that Malenkai submitted.  Would it fix things so
this couldn't happen?

> 
> And all of these things are going through my head as I decide which
> way to vote on the hearing....
> 
> Of course, all of these speculations would, in addition to being
> confirmed, require me to persuade the other Justice, mr cwm, to see
> things my way. For that, I might need a little outside help ... maybe
> from the Narfalone family? Narf has a Paradox Win CFJ of his own. If
> he appealed it, we could arrange a deal of mutual benefit....

How about this one:  Your CFJ, there is a paradox in the rules, is judged 
TRUE.  Then Narf's CFJ is appealed, at which point I think it would more
or less have to be ruled true, because there was a paradox in the rules
when he submitted it, namely yours.  I don't think Narf would get the win
for that, but it would certainly be funny.  It would also, I think, more
or less prevent your CFj from being subsequently overturned to a FALSE
verdict, since there would be game custom (the TRUE verdict on Narf's CFJ)
indicating that your CFJ uncovered a Paradox.  Another interesting
possibility would be that Narf's paradox, which was submitted before
yours, gets judged TRUE on the basis of your Paradox being judged TRUE, at
which point your Paradox win becomes invalid since Narf's was submitted
first and has been deemed to be dealing with the same Paradox as your CFJ.
At this point, I submit a CFJ declaring that the game state is unknowable,
and.....  You get the idea.  Personaly, though, I think that Narf's is
definitely false, perhaps even invalid, and your's is questionable at
best.

> 
> Or maybe I'll just let IdiotBoy draw some more conclusions from the
> whole situation while I sit back and watch.
> 
> breadbox
> 
> 

                                   -  Vynd

jmccoy@umich..edu

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

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:00:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Interesting Conflicts

Vynd wrote:

> > *that* ends before or after Niccolo Flychuck returns his verdict!
> 
> If I remember corectly (I don't have the rules readily available right
> now) your paradox was in the W-File pair rules, which I am almost certain
> was written by CalvinNHobbes.

Also, CnH is judging it.

> How about this one:  Your CFJ, there is a paradox in the rules, is judged
> TRUE.  Then Narf's CFJ is appealed, at which point I think it would more
> or less have to be ruled true, because there was a paradox in the rules
> when he submitted it, namely yours.

Narf's CFJ claimed that further play was impossible.  That is different
than a paradox being in the rules.  Even if CFJ 371 is judged true, and
a paradox is in the rules (and was at the time CFJ 370 was submitted),
the game is/was still playable.

> I don't think Narf would get the win for that, but it would certainly
> be funny.

If CFJ 370 were appealed and judged TRUE, Narf *would* get the win if
he did not have the Goose.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:29:00 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: This Might Be Gizz

Both Mohammed and Snowgod objected to my musical alliteration,  and in
this case with ample justification.

Therefore,  I offer the following revised example:

"Do You Think I'm Sexy?" (a song I personally can't tolerate in any form)
 sounds somewhat less nauseating when sung by Rod Stewart than when sung
by Michael Meyers (Wayne's World & Saturday Night Live alum).

In the above example,  it is more a matter of degrees of irritation than
enjoyment.

Habeus Corpus

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

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #38
***************************************