Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #114
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest     Wednesday, June 10 1998     Volume 03 : Number 114

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:47:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ownership of otzma cards

JT wrote:

> After looking at Alfvaen's reasoning for CFJ 610, and discussing same with
> Rufus and /dev/joe and Joe_Java on IRC for a while, I came to the
> inescapable conclusion (partly supported by CFJ 441) that in fact
> while 867-5309 has church doctrine to say that the members of the
> priesthood all in fact agree with his decision to accept the cards, we as
> priests still have to actually perform the action of accepting or else be
> guilty of iconoclasm.  (Take note that this might in fact impact the
> recent Iconoclasm verdict against 867-5309, but I don't have it handy, so
> cannot read it myself)  The reason that CFJ 441 is relevant is because it
> stated that
>
> >Thus, though it is permissible for church policy to require a member to
> >leave the church, if that member does not do so, he is guilty of
> >Iconoclasm and still a member of the church.  Perhaps "removal from
> >an organization" should be added to the list of possible penalties
> >in Rule 710.
>
> The analogous statement in this case would be
> 'Thus, though it is permissible for church policy to require a member to
> accept a given organizationaly action, if that member does not do so, he
> is guilty of Iconoclasm'.
> This falls firmly under the reading of the rules that says that Iconoclasm
> can be performed by inaction.

Rule 1301:e. If a decision is to be made by the Priesthood, and no method for
making such decisions is defined inChurch Policy, then the
decision will be made by a simple majority rule. In case of a tie, then
seniority is taken into account. If seniority is not defined in
Church Policy, then the seniority of a Priest will be defined as the length of
time that has passed since that Player has been
ordained as a Priest in that Church. If there is still a tie after this, then
the Founder will break the tie.

Church policy:
When a decision is to be made by the Priesthood, only the founder's approval is
required.

Wouldn't the quoted section of rule 1301 in combination with the deference
clause in rule 1005 and the stated church policy mean that in the case of the
otzma card transfer (6/06/1998  16:56:23) only Jenny's approval was required ?

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:47:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: K2 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Small thread correction

now that I've got that off my chest....

at 10 Jun 1998 04:26:11 Wild Card had A$ 188 all organizations of which
e was a
member were in a state of poverty.

That said the following occoured:
10 Jun 1998 04:26:12 
10 Jun 1998 08:56:03 cost em A$ 79 - 109
10 Jun 1998 09:15:59 cost em A$ 79 - 30
10 Jun 1998 09:28:45 this message was free.
10 Jun 1998 09:35:41 Weird

Referring to information contained in other documents or data sources
does not
constitute including that information in the message.

However, if any information that is necessary to specify the action
fully and
unambiguously is left out of that message, then the attempt fails.

Nowhere do I see an actual specification of both value and quantity. All
trinket creation attempts failed.

K 2

JT wrote:

> Wild card just pointed something out to me.
>
> In his second wierdness attempt, he did specify that he was creating
> certain trinkets at that point.
> I believe that those trinkets might have been created, but need to reread
> the messages and actions to double check that.
>
> I believe that at some point today Wild Card did achieve a state where he
> had 0 A$ and that after that point he did in fact post a message (cf his
> rebuttal of ThinMan's arguments) which happened after he had A$0, and thus
> he did become wierd at some point today.  The only issue left is WHICH
> trinkets he actually has at this point.
>
> Anyone else who wants to help clear up this muddle is MORE than welcome.
>
> --JT
>
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
> [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
> [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
> [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:18:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Small thread correction

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:
>Referring to information contained in other documents or data sources
>does not constitute including that information in the message.
>
>However, if any information that is necessary to specify the action
>fully and unambiguously is left out of that message, then the attempt
>fails.
>
>Nowhere do I see an actual specification of both value and quantity. All
>trinket creation attempts failed.

Given that this is the reasoning (or part of) behind saaremaa's recent
game custom reset proposal, I certainly am willing to go along with this
:)

We'll see if it gets CFJ'd :)

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Ownership of otzma cards

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:
>Rule 1301:e. If a decision is to be made by the Priesthood, and no method for
>making such decisions is defined inChurch Policy, then the
>decision will be made by a simple majority rule. In case of a tie, then
>seniority is taken into account. If seniority is not defined in
>Church Policy, then the seniority of a Priest will be defined as the length of
>time that has passed since that Player has been
>ordained as a Priest in that Church. If there is still a tie after this, then
>the Founder will break the tie.
>
>Church policy:
>When a decision is to be made by the Priesthood, only the founder's approval is
>required.
>
>Wouldn't the quoted section of rule 1301 in combination with the deference
>clause in rule 1005 and the stated church policy mean that in the case of the
>otzma card transfer (6/06/1998  16:56:23) only Jenny's approval was required ?

Perhaps, but the argument that Rufus had, and which I was persuaded to
after reading numerous CFJs and such was that the action is an org action,
and even though the priesthood and the organization membership are one and
the same for this specific case, since they are not in the general case,
this doesn't apply.  And therefore, while the doctrine might require the
members of the church to agree, it cannot force their game action of
actually agreeing.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:48:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Small thread correction

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, K2 wrote:

> Nowhere do I see an actual specification of both value and quantity. All
> trinket creation attempts failed.

 Perhaps, but no-where on any official (or un-official) document do I see
how many A$ I actually have.

 At that rate I could claim that MTM now owns all of <whoever it was>'s
entities.

 Wild Card.

- -- 
Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.             #####
http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html                  o__#######
Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing a Silly Agenda Hat.   \'#######
Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo.  Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Small thread correction

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>> Nowhere do I see an actual specification of both value and quantity. All
>> trinket creation attempts failed.
>
> Perhaps, but no-where on any official (or un-official) document do I see
>how many A$ I actually have.
>
> At that rate I could claim that MTM now owns all of <whoever it was>'s
>entities.

No. that action was not specified unambiguously (or at least so I found in
my ruling on it :)

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:09:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan David Amery <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Small thread correction

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, JT wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
> >> Nowhere do I see an actual specification of both value and quantity. All
> >> trinket creation attempts failed.
> >
> > Perhaps, but no-where on any official (or un-official) document do I see
> >how many A$ I actually have.
> >
> > At that rate I could claim that MTM now owns all of <whoever it was>'s
> >entities.
> 
> No. that action was not specified unambiguously (or at least so I found in
> my ruling on it :)
> 

 So; transfering all of one's entities to a church is unambiguous, but
making a trinket with all one's A$ isn't?

- -- 
Jonathan David Amery, Trinity Hall, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 1TJ.             #####
http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html                  o__#######
Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing a Silly Agenda Hat.   \'#######
Follower of Banna, the EBS and Odo.  Holding the Silver Key to the Vault.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:44:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Small thread correction

On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, JT wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Jonathan David Amery wrote:
>> >> Nowhere do I see an actual specification of both value and quantity. All
>> >> trinket creation attempts failed.
>> >
>> > Perhaps, but no-where on any official (or un-official) document do I see
>> >how many A$ I actually have.
>> >
>> > At that rate I could claim that MTM now owns all of <whoever it was>'s
>> >entities.
>> No. that action was not specified unambiguously (or at least so I found in
>> my ruling on it :)
>> 
> So; transfering all of one's entities to a church is unambiguous, but
>making a trinket with all one's A$ isn't?

I assumed the one you were talking about was the I offer all of <person's>
entities to whomever for A$1 or something like that.
Personally, under the above reading of the action rule, an action such as
 [I transfer all of my tradeable entities to Church of Banna]
shouldn't work either as it relies on outside information (note the notes
tags just so no one gets any wise ideas :)

I'm gonna leave it up to CFJ as to whether or not, or how that works.

- --JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #114
***********************************