Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #219
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Thursday, January 8 1998     Volume 02 : Number 219

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:23:32 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC: Foolish Idea

Proposals in the queue are going to force people to stay in the Wilds of
Ackanomia.  Perhaps it is time to resubmit the B-Ack, after all, e wasn't
really all that worthwhile without a reason or two for people to end up
in the Wilds, was e?

Comments / suggestions anyone?

Yours,
Slakko
- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 20:07:41 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2577

> > > You resigned on principle,

Fist of all, the statement, "You resigned on principle," is
false.

Niccolo:

> I draw this conclusion from a statement made by you to the entire
> Committee, 

Notice the "statement" is not quoted.  The statement, presumably,
which was made to the entire list, not just the committee as
implied above, was:

> As do I.  As hoc has got to be replaced with hearings.

You draw a conclusion, yet make a public assertion about my 
motivations as if it is a fact, and make the assertion in 
a context where such an assertion adds no value to the 
discussion of the merits of the proposal anyway.  If you 
don't see the problem now, I will have difficulty explaining
it to you, as I, and other players, have tried in the past.  
I ask you to present facts to back up the assertion, or to 
retract it, and you refuse to do either.  Three players asked
you do to the same in response to CFJ 482, and you refused to
do so then as well.  

It is a real problem, Niccolo.  A problem with you, not me.  
If it were a problem with me, I would be asking for facts or 
retract from several players.  As it stands, several players 
continually ask for facts from you when you make these sorts
of statements.  This is backed up in the archives.

I have a right to insist on facts or retract on any statement
made, especially when I know the statement is untrue.  Would
you prefer if I let false statements about me pass?

Notice that the Hearing rule does not put me at risk of going
to Gaol, and the Ad Hoc rule does.  That is a fact.  The fact
is that I resigned for this reason, and this reason alone.
Please show your academic honesty by retracting your untrue
statement about my motivations for resigning from the Committee.
That is all I ask, nothing personal.  For once, admit you are
wrong, or show the humility to retract.

> I am calling a Politeness Moon on the statement following the line
> representing Malenkai's signature. Specifically:
> " wondering how e will dodge this direct question :)"

Whether or not I am judged polite does not change your
continued behavior in this regard.  I came on strong because
I am just sick and fed up of your untrue statements in this 
intellectual context.  People's untrue bluffs need to be called,
or they will continue to make them.  Rather than have the  
grace to retract the false statement, Niccolo presses the fight on.
I guess the smiley didn't help keep this debate civil. :)  My goal 
is to solve this problem with your conduct to make the game
more fun.  What is your goal?  Do you not acknowledge that this
is a problem with you, after three different players brought
it to your attention at the time of CFJ 482?  Don't try to make 
it look like me taking it personal, it is nothing of the kind.

> Basically, once again you take a statement I made and re-interpret it to
> make it look like a personal attack against you.

Once again you make a another false statement.  This goes on 
and on and on.  Where can I get this mind reading helmet you,
and you alone in Acka, seem to have? :-)  Once again, I will
ask a direct question:  How do you know the truth of THIS
quoted statement?  What facts do you have?  Facts or retract
please, that is all I ask.  The statement really didn't look
like a "personal attack" at all; it looked more like rhetorical
obsfucation, but I cannot be sure of your motivation. 

I did not take a statement you made and re-interpret it to make it
look like a personal attack.  This, in fact, is why I chose to
discuss your statement:  Some players, myself included, are sick 
of untrue statements from you that are not backed up or retracted
when your bluff is called.  That is the factual reason.  Nothing
personal and nothing more.  Where in my writing do I construe 
this as a personal attack?  Quotes appreciated.  You made a 
statement, and I asked you to retract it, because it is untrue.  
This happens in the real world all the time.  OTHERS have asked 
you to do the same in the past.  Are you  going to assert that I
possess them with my personality and cause them to do this too?

Let me ask you a another question.  Why didn't you a) provide 
a rebuttal of the points I made in the proposal as to why 
Ad Hoc should be repealed, and b) provide other reasons why 
the rule should not be repealed.  Responding to this question 
is the perfect opportunity to do so now.  The way I see it,
your false statement may have been an attempt to detract from
the merits of the proposal; what does my resigning have to do
with the merits of the proposal in the first place?  Since I 
consider this a sub-standard rhetorical technique -- not addressing
the ISSUES of the proposal, I chose to challenge the false statement.
In any debate, debaters generally challenge false statements and
ask for facts or retract.  I was sarcastic in my challenge, true,
because you have never retracted a false statement, and have a 
track record of dodging the questions.  I will not do that in
the future.

> The first time you did that I nearly left Acka over this - is that what
> you want me to do?

It was another player, not me, that suggested the above in
response to your conduct of this nature.  If you stay I would 
appreciate it if you retract untrue statements when you are asked
to, when you cannot back them up, or better yet, stop making them.

If you are not comfortable existing in an environment where others
will challenge your false statements, you do indeed have something
to think about, because I always challenge false statements made
about me and my motivations, especially if it is in the context of
a debate. 
 
Malenkai

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #219
***********************************