Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #141
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Saturday, September 6 1997    Volume 02 : Number 141

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:44:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> Results of Proposal 2287

> 11/19 votes: Quorum achieved
> 4/11 YES votes: Proposal rejected

> [Financier - please note the deduction of A$25 and 1 Bonus Vote from
> Guy Fawkes' account.]

That's only in the threads where two-star didn't retract this Proposal,
right?  I have to try to keep my threads straight.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Current Album--Midnight Oil: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Holo Graham Crackers--FREE invisible ink pack!

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

>> Results of Proposal 2287
> 
>> 11/19 votes: Quorum achieved
>> 4/11 YES votes: Proposal rejected
> 
>> [Financier - please note the deduction of A$25 and 1 Bonus Vote from
>> Guy Fawkes' account.]
> 
> That's only in the threads where two-star didn't retract this Proposal,
> right?  I have to try to keep my threads straight.

What two-star said concerning Proposal 2287 was:

> Very well. I demand that 100 A$ be given to me by noon Acka time
> tomorrow, or I will not retract proposal 2287. This money need not be
> given me by a single individual or organization.

Since nothing more was said on the matter, and since Malenkai actually
argued in favor of the proposal not being retracted, I assume that
Proposal 2287 was never retracted.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 17:48:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> Since nothing more was said on the matter, and since Malenkai actually
> argued in favor of the proposal not being retracted, I assume that
> Proposal 2287 was never retracted.

It actually was retracted in one of the Vulcan does not have
power threads.  I don't know if that was the CFJ 450 thread (collapsed
now), the CFJ 452 thread, or a generic Vulcan has no power thread.
Perhaps two-star remembers, or a grep for "retract" and "2287" will
find it.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 15:50:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> > That's only in the threads where two-star didn't retract this Proposal,
> > right?  I have to try to keep my threads straight.

> What two-star said concerning Proposal 2287 was:

> > Very well. I demand that 100 A$ be given to me by noon Acka time
> > tomorrow, or I will not retract proposal 2287. This money need not be
> > given me by a single individual or organization.

> Since nothing more was said on the matter, and since Malenkai actually
> argued in favor of the proposal not being retracted, I assume that
> Proposal 2287 was never retracted.

That's only more recently.  Back when one of the ETRE proposed an action to
invalidate it, two-star retracted it in the thread where the ETRE had
already been defanged.  I have it in my pointlog from back then.  It's only
active in any thread because Malenkai blocked the ETRE action.

Maybe I'm just biased, but the main thread I'm harfing is the one where
"The organization Vulcan" succeeded in repealing the Rules of the Imperium.
I am keeping alternate logfiles for the other threads, though.

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Kate Bush:Rubberband Girl
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Harpo, you talk too much.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 15:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> That's only more recently.  Back when one of the ETRE proposed an
> action to invalidate it, two-star retracted it in the thread where
> the ETRE had already been defanged.  I have it in my pointlog from
> back then.  It's only active in any thread because Malenkai blocked
> the ETRE action.

Sorry, my apologies. I actually have that message saved as well.

BTW, folks, I realize that such mistakes make it look like I have no
idea what the hell I'm doing, but the truth is that I've been putting
off working out the nitty-gritty details of the thread splits until
I've got the CFJ archive set up and can precisely trace out all the
different divergences. /dev/joe and Malenkai have harfed much hairier
snarls in their time.

I intend to prove CFJ 454 wrong by counterexample.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 16:10:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> > Since nothing more was said on the matter, and since Malenkai actually
> > argued in favor of the proposal not being retracted, I assume that
> > Proposal 2287 was never retracted.

> It actually was retracted in one of the Vulcan does not have
> power threads.  I don't know if that was the CFJ 450 thread (collapsed
> now), the CFJ 452 thread, or a generic Vulcan has no power thread.
> Perhaps two-star remembers, or a grep for "retract" and "2287" will
> find it.

I notice that game custom seems to dictate that a player can announce an
action to take place in one thread but not another, or in some subset of
threads, but not in the rest.  I don't think the Rules have much to say on
that, but it certainly seems to happen.  Maybe there's a precedent in that
the same action can succeed or fail differently in different threads...

Anyway, I think that two-star's retraction happened after my "The
organization Vulcan" actions, assuming a thread split to have occurred
even before the CFJ's had been submitted.  :-)  (Really, thread splits
happen whenever there isn't a consensus on what happened; CFJ's are just
the most convenient ways to close them off.)

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )
Song In My Head--Kate Bush:Rubberband Girl
Current Book--Ray Aldridge:The Emperor of Everything
Delete them all and let Norton sort them out.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 15:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> Anyway, I think that two-star's retraction happened after my "The
> organization Vulcan" actions, assuming a thread split to have
> occurred even before the CFJ's had been submitted.  :-) (Really,
> thread splits happen whenever there isn't a consensus on what
> happened; CFJ's are just the most convenient ways to close them
> off.)

Well, it depends on how you view the game state (Platonically or
whatever). You could also argue for the philosophical view that the
thread split is caused by the CFJ itself. That is, the game state is
always one thread - the RIGHT one - until somebody questions it. The
act of questioning then creates the thread split, which is collapsed
only when a final answer has been provided. (Sort of the opposite of
quantum theory: the state is determinate, but becomes *indeterminate*
when examined.)

On the other hand, the Pragmatism clause that we now have in Rule 713
favors the view that the game state splits as soon as someone attempts
an illegal action.

breadbox

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 19:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > > That's only in the threads where two-star didn't retract this Proposal,
> > > right?  I have to try to keep my threads straight.
> 
> > What two-star said concerning Proposal 2287 was:
> 
> > > Very well. I demand that 100 A$ be given to me by noon Acka time
> > > tomorrow, or I will not retract proposal 2287. This money need not be
> > > given me by a single individual or organization.
> 
> > Since nothing more was said on the matter, and since Malenkai actually
> > argued in favor of the proposal not being retracted, I assume that
> > Proposal 2287 was never retracted.
> 
> That's only more recently.  Back when one of the ETRE proposed an action to
> invalidate it, two-star retracted it in the thread where the ETRE had
> already been defanged.  I have it in my pointlog from back then.  It's only
> active in any thread because Malenkai blocked the ETRE action.
> 
> Maybe I'm just biased, but the main thread I'm harfing is the one where
> "The organization Vulcan" succeeded in repealing the Rules of the Imperium.
> I am keeping alternate logfiles for the other threads, though.
> 

Well.  While the judgement on CFJ 453 is under appeal at the moment, if it
is upheld I would say that the thread you arefollowing is most likely
invalid.  Certainly my reasoning would indicate as much, but it would
probably take a verdict on CFJ 452 to nail things shut in that respect.
Of more concern to me is that all of the officers try to reach some sort
of consensus as to what thread to follow.  Alfvaen and breadbox
especially.  I believe it is part of the Speaker's job to actually keep
track of which threads are going on, I don't know if that gives him the
right to decide what thread we play or not.

> --
> --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/alfvaen/ )

                                   - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 19:20:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> I notice that game custom seems to dictate that a player can announce an
> action to take place in one thread but not another, or in some subset of
> threads, but not in the rest.  I don't think the Rules have much to say on
> that, but it certainly seems to happen.  Maybe there's a precedent in that
> the same action can succeed or fail differently in different threads...

I don't think it works like that.  There is no game custom or rules "above"
the thread split, if you will, there are n seperate games of nomic going
on, and the player is a seperate entity in each, just like the rules, etc,
are seperate entities in each.  So really, you have two internets, two
list servers, etc, and the message is only sent to the list server in the
thread where the action occurs.  For the convienence of us humans, who
cannot possibly grapple with all of this, we preface those thread split
action messages that way -- its a way to tsay which list server you are
sending the message to.  At least that's the way I look at it.

OTOH, the Speaker rule requires the Speaker to track all thread splits,
so that sort of begs the question a bit.  A better way to put it is that the
Speaker is required to track the details of the current thread, and us humans
could look at all the different details so harfed.  Of course, I don't have 
the CFJs up on the CotC page yet, and they represent the thread splits.  

Also, some of the judgement rules refer to retroactive application, but 
it really doesn't happen that way.  When a CFJ is filed, it is judged 
TRUE in the TRUE thread and FALSE in the FALSE thread at the time of 
filing, there is just this annoying delay sometimes to find out which
thread us poor humans are cruising in :)

I'm sure someone could find quite a nasty hairball in all of this if they
really went digging.

There have been some interesting thread splits in history:  

- - CFJ 157 alledged the game had ended, thus was self-validating it is FALSE 
thread, and no TRUE thread could exist.  

- - CFJ 186 had to be judged TRUE, because in the FALSE thread, it was 
against the rules to *submit* CFJs.  If the FALSE thread were the 'correct'
thread, if you will, the verdict would never have been returned, and it
would not be in the archives.

- - CFJ 228/232, I tried, unsuccessfully, to prove that there was a halting
problem in the TRUE thread of CFJ 227, that while not self-invalidating, 
the thread was such that it was never knowable to exist.  The actual verdict
still bothers me :)

- - CFJ 187 claimed that ackanomic play could not continue, so again it had to
be judged FALSE, strictly speaking, as the first judge wrote in eir reasoning.

If you look at the reasonings of these things, especially 187, there is alot of
gizz about the game really going on after it is over, in order to judge CFJs
that claim that the game cannot continue.  Weird, isn't it?  I guess that is
just rationalization.  Ie, could CFJ 454 *really* be judged TRUE?  To what (and
how) would the CotC return it too?  If you never see 454 come back, and stop
seeing
e-mail from me, you'll know what happened :)  Somehow there seems to be this
external concept of grace period to judge these things outside the game, if
you will, using the elements of the game.  This has bothered me a bit since 
CFJ 187, which I co-wrote, but not enough to dive into that hairball myself.
I do believe in the idea of these external concepts, and that is the way I have
rationalized it to myself.  Perhaps someone brigter than me will come along and
untangle this hairball.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 19:30:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> I believe it is part of the Speaker's job to actually keep
> track of which threads are going on, I don't know if that gives him the
> right to decide what thread we play or not.

I'm working on it :)  In the past, when I did much more harfing,
I chose a thread to harf and said which one it was.  I tried to
pick the most conventional/likely one, if you will.  Technically,
the speaker does not have the right to choose the thread, by my view
there is a different speaker in each thread tracking the miscellany
of that thread.  

The bottom line is that the entity harfers have to harf all threads,
hence I recommend refraining from non-thread-safe activities, and 
trying to perform thread collapsing activities, e.g., retraction of
proposal 2287.

The biggest non-thread-safe activities I can think of are organizational
action, and things that depend precicely on A$ wealth and score (as
proposal 2287 affects these things).  Once some more CFJs come in, we
should have no trouble cleaning this up.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 19:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Malenkai wrote:

> > I believe it is part of the Speaker's job to actually keep
> > track of which threads are going on, I don't know if that gives him the
> > right to decide what thread we play or not.
> 
> I'm working on it :)  In the past, when I did much more harfing,
> I chose a thread to harf and said which one it was.  I tried to
> pick the most conventional/likely one, if you will.  Technically,
> the speaker does not have the right to choose the thread, by my view
> there is a different speaker in each thread tracking the miscellany
> of that thread.  
> 
> The bottom line is that the entity harfers have to harf all threads,
> hence I recommend refraining from non-thread-safe activities, and 
> trying to perform thread collapsing activities, e.g., retraction of
> proposal 2287.
> 
> The biggest non-thread-safe activities I can think of are organizational
> action, and things that depend precicely on A$ wealth and score (as
> proposal 2287 affects these things).  Once some more CFJs come in, we
> should have no trouble cleaning this up.

Um, 2287 failed though, didn't it?  The only thing that is in question is
whether or not a vote ever took place, not the results if it did.  The
organizational action rule is still here, no matter what thread we are
playing.  Just how many organizations are still around is apparently open
to debate though...

> 
> Malenkai
> 

                                  - Vynd

[email-masked]

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 19:48:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2287 rejected

> Um, 2287 failed though, didn't it? 

Yeah, but affects ownership of money and BVs
and player scores, which could affect the Trombone,
etc ... bond yields and on and on eventually, thus
my comment about exact scores and money balance.

> The organizational action rule is still here, no matter what thread we are
> playing.  Just how many organizations are still around is apparently open
> to debate though...

That's what I mean, how can you take an org action if you
don't know if you exist?

Malenkai

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #141
***********************************