Subject: acka-research Digest V4 #154
From: [email-masked]
To: acka-research digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:05 -0400 (EDT)

acka-research Digest	Monday, August 23 1999	Volume: 04  Issue: 154

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4325 accepted
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:22:54 -0400 (EDT)

>> Proposal 4325
>> 
>> Subcommittee vote for: 160   against:0
>> Subcommittee Acceptance Index: 160.0
>> Passed subcommittee
>> Total vote for: 666   Total vote against:-60
>
>Where's the Scaremonger?!

Busy campaigning, at the time.  But now that I'm in office, I observe the
the number of the Beast on P 4325!  What can it mean?  Did ThinMan manipulate
the voting, in a bid for power, so that the total would be 666?  Is it a
sign of the Apocalypse?  Has Ackanomic willingly embraced absolute evil in
the form of P 4325?  Is P 4325, in fact, the Antichrist?  Only I know the
horrifying truth!

ThinMan
Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Proposal 4328
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:42:02 -0400 (EDT)

>>>time. The Harfmeister can designate such players "Funky and Stylish" as a
>>>public action.  This action fails if the player so designated is the
>>>Harfmeister, or if this action has been performed in the last calendar
>>>week.  When a player is designated "Funky and Stylish", e gains 5 points. 
>>
>>Shouldn't it be the case that a Funky and Stylish designation fails if the
>>action has _not_ been performed in the last calendar week?
>
>Err, perhaps my wording isn't sufficiently clear.  What is meant is this:
>
>If I am Harfmeister, and attempt to declare someone Funky and Stylish, it
>fails if:
>1) I am declaring myself FnS
>2) I have done this already this week
>
>the purpose of 2, of course, is to prevent me from declaring, say, IdiotBoy
>Funky and Stylish 300 times in a row, giving him a point win.

Ah.  For some reason I thought the "action" I was talking about was referring
back to whatever earned the player the "Funky and Stylish" designation, so
that the Harfmeister wasn't handing out such designations for old stuff.  On
second glance, the alternative specified above is probably a more reasonable
interpretation.  I don't think it necessary to retract.

FWIW, I do think it would read better and more clearly if the second "this
action" were replaced by "it."

ThinMan

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

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: (Acka:) Re:  DIS: Ackan and Agoran law (fwd)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:37:43 -0400 (EDT)

>In his Judgement, Studge urged an Agoran Player to file a CFJ to the
>same effect as his Judgement. From the tenor of this comment, it appears
>that Studge believes that since Ackan law prevents EAP from registering
>as an Agoran Player, that Agora is obliged to recognise this fact also.
>
>I think such a belief is mistaken. Nothing in Agoran law prevented EAP
>from registering as a Player of Agora, and it goes without saying that
>Agora is not obliged to respect any Rules but its own, unless and until
>its own Rules say otherwise, which they don't currently do. Hence, as
>far as Agora is concerned, EAP is, or at least was, registered as an
>Agoran. (I don't know if e still is - I'm not following that closely.)

I am inclined to agree with your position, Steve, although I wonder whether
Studge hoped that an Agoran CFJ would in fact disagree with the Ackan one.
Some Ackans relish the opportunity to wreak chaos on the game around them --
not that we usually take it any other way than in good fun.  It would have
amused some (perhaps including myself) to have contradictory legal
interpretations in Agora and Ackanomic.

>Can this contradictory state of affairs be sustained? Probably it can,
>for a while anyway. I'm reminded of the situation which arose in Britain
>in the years after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, during which
>Britain continued to recognize only existence of Imperial Tsarist
>Russia, and not the Soviet Union. Several British judges of this period
>asserted that, whatever the reality of the political situation in Russia
>might be, it remained true that according British law, the Soviet Union
>did not, in fact, exist.

Fascinating.  I didn't know about that.  It does, however, seem rather
reminiscent of Nomic.  :-)

>I tend to see the current situation vis a vis Ackanomic in a similar
>light. According to Ackan law, EAP is not registered in Agora Nomic. I'm
>not sure what they might make of the fact that EAP might make Proposals,
>or vote, or deliver Judgements, or hold Office in Agora. If they are
>happy to live with a schizophrenia between Ackan legal reality and the
>facts on the ground, I can't see any legal or logical reason compelling
>them to recognize those facts - only pragmatic reasons.

Insomuchas the current Ackan rules do not recognize the existence of Agora,
not to mention Agoran proposals, votes, judgements, or offices, I don't think
there is much of a problem.  (The Ackan rules did for a while contain a
"Declaration of War" against Agora, which I certainly would claim constituted
a recognition of Agora's existence, but that has since been removed.)  Now
that I think about it, the British/Russian analogy is particularly apt.   

>Insofar as EAP is clearly capable of partaking in Agora as a Player if e
>wishes to do so, the (supra-legal) reality is that e can be a Player of
>Agora. My own view is that, as a matter of good praxis, it's not a good
>idea for a legal system to assert the truth of propositions clearly at
>variance with reality.

I think Ackanomic's general bent with regard to this sort of matter is
different from Agora's.  Ackanomic does not allow that there is ever any
variance between the assertions of the rules and reality.  As far as Acka
is concerned, the rules define reality.  (That position is not codified,
but it is well entrenched in Ackanomic custom.)  In that context it is
unremarkable that Ackanomic has a rule precisely defining the nature of the
universe -- a definition, I might add, that is absurdly at variance with
the real world.  Using your terminology, you might say that there is a
massive and permanent schizophrenia between Ackan reality and the real
world.  To us (at least to me) it's all just a question of scope and
context.

Regards,

John Bollinger  (ThinMan)
[email-masked]

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

End of acka-research Digest V4 #154
***********************************