Subject: acka-research-digest V3 #202
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest      Friday, August 28 1998      Volume 03 : Number 202

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:42:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Brian Raiter wrote:
> 
> > >> Since rule 709 provides a condition by which I am released, I may now in
> > >> fact leave the gaol.
> > > 
> > > Why - you are at the Gaol.  To leave requires you use another rule, as
> > > Rule 709 does not enable a player to change their Location.
> > 
> > Hang on. What Rule 709 actually SAYS is: "A player may not leave the
> > Gaol except by the application of a Rule which explicitly defines a
> > procedure or condition for the player to be released or removed from
> > the Gaol." [emphasis mine] There is in fact a rule which defines a
> > condition for players to be released from the Gaol. Rule 709 also
> > says: "A player is released from the Gaol if and when their sentence
> > expires." Since this condition has in fact been met, JT (et al) may
> > leave the Gaol.
> 
> It says "A player may not leave the Gaol except _by the application_ of a
> Rule which explicitly ... "
> 
> How can JT apply Rule 709 to change locations?

Here is my analogy.

Rule A:  "A player may only give A$100 to breadbox by the application of a
Rule which contains the word grinch."

Rule B:  "Grinch."
 
Rule C:  "Any player is entitled to give breadbox A$100".

That's how I'm seeing this scenario.
- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:56:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>Here is my analogy.
>
>Rule A:  "A player may only give A$100 to breadbox by the application of a
>Rule which contains the word grinch."
>
>Rule B:  "Grinch."
> 
>Rule C:  "Any player is entitled to give breadbox A$100".
>
>That's how I'm seeing this scenario.

To refresh and cut down on quotes (again) this is the relavent portion
from Rule 709:

>A player may not leave the Gaol except by the application of a Rule which
>explicitly defines a procedure or condition for the player to be released
>or removed from the Gaol.

The analogy I have is that this states that
A player may not do C except by application of a rule which does A OR B OR
D OR E
(you'll see why I expanded this to 4 conditions below)
C here is 'leave the Gaol'
A is 'explicitly defines a proceedure for the player to be released'
B is 'explicitly defines a proceedure for the player to be removed from Gaol'
D is 'explicitly defines a condition for the player to be released'
E is 'explicitly defines a condition for the player to be remove from Gaol'

Since part D is true (rule 709 defined a condition to be released), then
the entirety of the 'except' clause is true, and therefore, A player may
now perform action C.

This is what standard logic would interpret the above as, and what common
sense/english would also support, as well as game custom.

This is also the interpretation I'm fully expecting the CFJ to support as
well.

I purchased the OC Skeleton Key and (in one thread) used it in order to
minimize the thread splits that would be caused by the Speaker and
Registrar being unable to perform duties.  (IE, moving the threadsplit off
of me being in Gaol, and onto whether or not I still have an OC Skeleton
Key).

(also, to forstall your further arguments, I do see how it could be
interpreted as you have, I just feel that interpretation runs counter to
extant game custom.)

You are applying the 'explictly' to the 'can leave' action rather than to
the target of the conditions (ie that the rule must explicitly state
released from Gaol or removed from Gaol).

- --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: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:23:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3496

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, nomicbot wrote:

> 
> Proposal 3496
> Gadgets for All!!
> Mr. Tambourine Man (Tom Walmsley)
> 
> {{Renumber this rule to 595}}
> 
Does this bit work?  Has the rule been created at this point?

rufus

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:58:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Pizolato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

Is there game precedent for this "thread" notion? If not, then doesn't
everything depend on CFJ 648, and all the intervening stuff does not occur?
That would include the playing of the Skeleton Key, and CFJ 649, and all the
rest.

Or are we to interpret all the intervening stuff as if the players involved
were saying "If CFJ 648 is judged TRUE, I do X, and if it is judged FALSE, I
do Y?"

Piz

P.S. Note that I *assume* CFJ 648 is the relevant one. I can't find a copy
of the original public message announcing it in my Acka e-mail folder. And I
can't find the e-mail archives from the Acka web page. Help!

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (Aaron V. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

>Is there game precedent for this "thread" notion? If not, then doesn't
>everything depend on CFJ 648, and all the intervening stuff does not occur?
>That would include the playing of the Skeleton Key, and CFJ 649, and all the
>rest.

>Or are we to interpret all the intervening stuff as if the players involved
>were saying "If CFJ 648 is judged TRUE, I do X, and if it is judged FALSE, I
>do Y?"

The game state is always such that a given CFJ must be judged a certain way.
The problem is that we don't always know what that way is.  Hence the thread
splits.  Taking different actions in different threads is allowed, but
discouraged if it would widen the differences between them.

>P.S. Note that I *assume* CFJ 648 is the relevant one. I can't find a copy
>of the original public message announcing it in my Acka e-mail folder. And I
>can't find the e-mail archives from the Acka web page. Help!

The email archives are off the Postmaster's page, but perhaps the Web-Harfer
could put a more prominent link up on the main pages as well...

- --
- --Alfvaen(Web page:http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/)
Current Song--Candi:Love Makes No Promises
Current Book--S.M. Stirling:Marching Through Georgia
Is the glass half full, half empty, or just twice as large as it needs to be?

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:38:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

> P.S. Note that I *assume* CFJ 648 is the relevant one. I can't find a copy
> of the original public message announcing it in my Acka e-mail folder. And I
> can't find the e-mail archives from the Acka web page. Help!

The mail archives can be accessed  from the main Ackanomic page by going to the
officers' reports section, then to the postmaster's page, and then (towards the
bottom of that page) to the FTP arhives.

MTM.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Walmsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3496

David Scheidt wrote:

> > {{Renumber this rule to 595}}
> >
> Does this bit work?  Has the rule been created at this point?

I'm almost possitive that it does. Since the rule is not a list of one
time effects the entire text of the proposal (except furniture if there
was any (I can't recall)) becomes a rule in accordance with rule 104.
The self-deleting text will then take effect. That's how it's been
harfed in the past anyway IIRC.

MTM.

- --
Tom Walmsley [email-masked]
http://website.lineone.net/~t.walmsley/index.html
AIM: TGW666 ICQ 2925739
Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3496

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Tom Walmsley wrote:

> 
> 
> David Scheidt wrote:
> 
> > > {{Renumber this rule to 595}}
> > >
> > Does this bit work?  Has the rule been created at this point?
> 
> 
> I'm almost possitive that it does. Since the rule is not a list of one
> time effects the entire text of the proposal (except furniture if there
> was any (I can't recall)) becomes a rule in accordance with rule 104.
> The self-deleting text will then take effect. That's how it's been
> harfed in the past anyway IIRC.

However, this would splat the existing Rule 595, which defines what
Gadgets are IIRC.  Perhaps a different number should be chosen, hmmmm?

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:43:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

> Is there game precedent for this "thread" notion?

Yes, very much so. (At the risk of narcissism, allow me to recommend
the Historian's web page if you're curious about past thread splits
and other game precedents.)

> If not, then doesn't everything depend on CFJ 648, and all the
> intervening stuff does not occur?  That would include the playing of
> the Skeleton Key, and CFJ 649, and all the rest.
> 
> Or are we to interpret all the intervening stuff as if the players involved
> were saying "If CFJ 648 is judged TRUE, I do X, and if it is judged FALSE, I
> do Y?"

The latter. Essentially, it is assumed that all actions take place in
both threads unless it is specifically indicated otherwise.

> P.S. Note that I *assume* CFJ 648 is the relevant one. I can't find
> a copy of the original public message announcing it in my Acka
> e-mail folder. And I can't find the e-mail archives from the Acka
> web page. Help!

The email archives are available via FTP. Go to ftp.muppetlabs.com,
and look under /pub/digests. (There is also a link off the
Postmaster's page.)

However, you could also just look under the CFJ archives for this
information. (The CFJ archive is also a good resource for precedents.)

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:51:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3496

>> 
>> Proposal 3496
>> Gadgets for All!!
>> Mr. Tambourine Man (Tom Walmsley)
>> 
>> {{Renumber this rule to 595}}
> 
> Does this bit work?  Has the rule been created at this point?

Remember that there are two kinds of proposals. One, the more common
kind, contains a list of "one-time effects, such as changes to the
rules", which are applied if the proposal is adopted. The other,
older, kind of proposal simply contains the text of a new rule, which
is added to the Miscellaneous Rule Suite. Once it becomes a rule, the
self-deleting text will be applied. (However, in this case the
self-deleting text will fail, since a Rule 595 already exists.)

As an aside, I would also like to remind players that double braces
have no significance in a proposal - only in the rules do they delimit
self-deleting text. Proposal 3494, for example, would have exactly the
same effect with or without the braces.

breadbox

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:07:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Get out of Jail

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Michael Pizolato wrote:
>Is there game precedent for this "thread" notion? If not, then doesn't
>everything depend on CFJ 648, and all the intervening stuff does not occur?
>That would include the playing of the Skeleton Key, and CFJ 649, and all the
>rest.

There is quite a bit of precedant for thread splits (they are even
mentioned in the rules :)  Also, once breadbox posted last night and
Slakko agreed that I was in fact no longer in Gaol, I retracted 648 (I
think, if that was the number of the one I submitted yesterday). 

>Or are we to interpret all the intervening stuff as if the players involved
>were saying "If CFJ 648 is judged TRUE, I do X, and if it is judged FALSE, I
>do Y?"

No..  you only interpret it that way if they instruct it so.  I very
deliberately aquired an OC Skeleton Key (in both threads) and then played
it in the one where I was still in Gaol so that after that point, in both
threads I was no longer in Gaol and thus could perform any duties
normally.

By doing it that way, I moved the thread split from myself (and thus all
my actions) to the ownership of a single OC, which is much easier to
track.

With the resolution of that thread split (via breadbox's elucidation of
the rules with the agreement of the interested parties and my retraction
of the CFJ), that thread split resolved, and thus so did the split over
who was judging CFJ 649 (or whatever the number for the one after mine).

>P.S. Note that I *assume* CFJ 648 is the relevant one. I can't find a copy
>of the original public message announcing it in my Acka e-mail folder. And I
>can't find the e-mail archives from the Acka web page. Help!

The email archives are at ftp://ftp.muppetlabs.com/pub/digests/

There is a link to them from the Postal Code page off of breadbox's
ackanomic pages.

- --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: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:18:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Web-Harfery

I have now, due to reader comment, included links directly to the acka
mailing list archives on both of the main pages, i.e.

http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/
and
http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/Nomic/Acka/altindex.html

These will hopefully work straight away.  Feel free to notify me of any
difficulties not due to muppetlabs.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:05:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Probabilistic Boon of the Ancients

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Dice server wrote:

> # Player: Rex Mundi
> # Reason: at AIGR for 3 days before gnomesday

I dispute this.  The message that Rex Mundi used to get to the AIGR runs
as follows:

:Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
:From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
:Subject: acka: Bandwagon
:
:I go to the Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication.
:
:Rex Mundi.

It is stated that the Gnome arrives at noon, exactly.  Hence, when the
Gnome did the present run, Rex had not yet been at the AIGR for 3 days.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:07:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Probabilistic Boon of the Ancients

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:

> It is stated that the Gnome arrives at noon, exactly.  Hence, when the
> Gnome did the present run, Rex had not yet been at the AIGR for 3 days.
> 

Radom events happen when they are determined.  The boon is a random event.

rufus

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Probabilistic Boon of the Ancients

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Duncan Richer wrote:
>I dispute this.  The message that Rex Mundi used to get to the AIGR runs
>as follows:
>
>:Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
>:From: "Gavin M. Doig" <[email-masked]>
>:Subject: acka: Bandwagon
>:
>:I go to the Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication.
>:
>:Rex Mundi.
>
>It is stated that the Gnome arrives at noon, exactly.  Hence, when the
>Gnome did the present run, Rex had not yet been at the AIGR for 3 days.

/dev/joe and I were discussing this on IRC this morning.  I believed as
you claim above.  /dev/joe thought the boon might have been awarded
because that action is a random event and thus doesn't occur until it's
announced, and therefore Rex might have gotten the boon.  Since I was
unsure, I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to Rex mundi and
/dev/joe.  (if he didn't actually get a Boon, he recieved a pair of dress
pants.).

- --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: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:37:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Probabilistic Boon of the Ancients

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, JT wrote:

> >It is stated that the Gnome arrives at noon, exactly.  Hence, when the
> >Gnome did the present run, Rex had not yet been at the AIGR for 3 days.
> 
> /dev/joe and I were discussing this on IRC this morning.  I believed as
> you claim above.  /dev/joe thought the boon might have been awarded
> because that action is a random event and thus doesn't occur until it's
> announced, and therefore Rex might have gotten the boon.  Since I was
> unsure, I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to Rex mundi and
> /dev/joe.  (if he didn't actually get a Boon, he recieved a pair of dress
> pants.).

If the boon was awarded on the basis of the random event definitions, then
something is very unsatisfactory.  Your ability to award the boon depends
entirely on when you decide to get around to doing the determination.
Making the actual event conditional on when the random determination is
made is, IMHO, a system extremely open to abuse.

- -- 
Duncan C. "" Richer aka
Slakko (Lost) Warner - http://dcr24.quns.cam.ac.uk/ - Queens' College
Cambridge, 1st Year PhD(Pure Maths), CUDipSoc, CUSFS, CUSTS, CURS etc
Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, CotC, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Senator

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 19:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Gnomesday RFC

Amend Rule 975/4 titled “Yes Virginia” by replacing the text which
currently reads:

VI. If a player is at the Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication he
receives a Boon of the Ancients, provided he has been there for at least
three days.

with:

VI. If a player has been at the Ackanomic Institute of Genetic Replication
since August 25th 12:00PM [noon] e receives a Boon of the Ancients.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 20:22:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mueller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 3472

I think I see a potential scam.

Nomicbot wrote:
>Proposal 3472
>Net Worth it?
>K 2 (Kelly Kelly)
>
>Replace the first four paragraphs of Rule 506 (Trinkets) with:
>"
>A class of gift entities known as Trinkets exist. The Net Worth of a
>Trinket may only be changed as specified by the rules.

and then the other four paragraphs continue, but compare vs the current
first paragraph:

"Rule 506/12 (Trinkets)

A class of gift entities known as Trinkets exist. Trinkets always have a
positive, integral value in A$; this takes precedence over
all other rules. The value of a Trinket may only be changed as specified by
the rules."

If I read this correctly, then Trinkets could validly be created which had
a negative value, effectively making money for the Trinket maker.  Says
"Scam" to me.

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

End of acka-research-digest V3 #202
***********************************