Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #28
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Tuesday, June 4 1996         Volume 01 : Number 028

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:55:07 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Call for Judgement

I call for judgement on the following:

Rule 663 does not allow any player to turn any proposal
into a resolution.

My comments:

"Any player can declare that they have 3 eyes. Not all declarations are
true. Rule 663 does nothing." - Robin Hood
While 663 permits players to declare that proposals are resolutions,
it does not actually turn those proposals into resolutions.

Rule 663:
"A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution.  A resolution may not
change, add, or delete any rules.  If a resolution is adopted, the effect
described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be
added to the rule set."

Bascule

[Mohammed - I sent this to you a couple of days ago. I presume
you didn't get it, so I'm trying again]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 06:14:20 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Ackanomic: Ambassador's Web Page

The Ambassador's Web Page is now up and running at
http://www.alaska.net/~snowgod/acka/ambas.html

This page contains a copy of the proposed internomic ruleset (internomic is
set to begin in a few days if all goes well) as well as links to other
nomic pages, copies of relevent rules and resolutions, and some other
sundries.  I urge everyone to check it out.

snowgod
Ambassador
CSRR
Candidate for Senate
All around Good Ackanomic Citizen

"If elected to the senate, I promise to introduce everyone to my dog spot!"

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:26:56 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Judgement 175 Appeal

> Call For Judgement 175
>   Subject:  I Win
> Initiator:  The Great Old One
>     Judge:  mr cwm (selected at 1939h on 2 June 1996)
> Judgement:  False

The Great Old One:
> > I am appealing this decision to the Supreme Court.  

Mohammed:
> It's up to Bascule now.

I'm not sure if it's up to me or not!
If it is, here is my verdict.
If it isn't, here's what my verdict would have been.

> Statement:
> > The game is no longer playable because of Rule 663.  This rule gives
> > anyone the power to proclaim a proposal a resolution.  Therefore, no
> > proposals could become Rules or change rules, and the game in a stalemate.  
> 
> mr cwm's comments:
> > Reasoning:  Even if a player has the power to declare proposals to be
> > resolutions (a point I am absolutely not judging here), there is no
> > requirement that any number or fraction of proposals become Rules or Rule
> > Changes for the game to be playable. [snip]
> > There is nothing
> > in the rule set to support the claim that the game would no longer be
> > playable if each proposal failed to become a Rule or a Rule Change because
> > it was a resolution.  (A)

The Great Old One again:
> I disagree with your logic that Nomic can be played without rule changes.
> The entire base for Nomic is the changing and creating of the Rules.
> Without this ability, it is no longer a game; the point of it's existence
> is lost.  (B)
> So I submit that the Rules may no longer be changed or added to, as every
> Proposal may be made into a Resolution.  (C)

Reasoning:

1. Point (C) is far from proven. 
    i.   Doubt remains over the ability of Rule 663 to turn proposals 
         into resolutions.
    ii.  Constitutional conventions seem able to amend the ruleset,
         without the use of Proposals.
   
2. Point (B) is the opinion of The Great Old One. The rules do not 
   say that the game is ended if no more rules can be passed. I refer
   the reader to the original Judge's comments (A). The Justices of 
   the Supreme Court concur with mr cwm.

As point (C) is not proven, the verdict of this Court must be the 
same as the original Judge, mr cwm, i.e. False. Even if point (C)
were proven, the verdict would still be False (point 2 above). 

Bascule
Justice/Pretender to Justice (delete as applicable)

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 10:55:58 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 818 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 818
  Proposal 818 - Mon May 27 10:44:32 EDT 1996
  Prosthetic Foreheads
  /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Quorum met : 19 eligible voters -- 16 players cast votes

12 YES votes   4 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

/dev/joe gains 10 points.  143 -> 153

12 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                                      
  Dr McSpong                                                      
  Brinjal                                                         
  De'ghew                Underworld                               
  Bascule                                                         
  snowgod                (None Yet)                               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)                               
  /dev/joe               Foozball                                 
  SnafuMoose                                                      
  Techno                 Underworld                               
  Tammany                                                         
  Mohammed               (None Yet)                               

4 NO votes:  5 points each
  ThinMan                                     155 -> 160          
  Niccolo Flychuck                             66 -> 71           
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           146 -> 151          
  Wayne                  Underworld           190 -> 195          

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  The Great Old One      Underworld           
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Merlin the Happy Pig                        

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  Malenkai                                    
  fon                                         
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 818 - Mon May 27 10:44:32 EDT 1996
Prosthetic Foreheads
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

This rule creates a type of entity known as a Prosthetic Forehead.
There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads.
Prosthetic Foreheads are Protected.

Any player may buy a Prosthetic Forehead at any time by paying A$7 to the
Treasury, and posting publicly that they are doing so, and declaring the
type of Prosthetic Forehead he is buying in this public message.  A player
may own any number of Prosthetic Foreheads at any time.  If a player has
a Rock To Wind A String Around (if such an entity exists), she may give
it to the treasury instead of paying the A$7 in the above procedure.

A player may wear a Prosthetic Forehead that they own, but e may wear
only one Prosthetic Forehead at a time.  A player must announce publicly
whenever it starts or stops wearing a Prosthetic Forehead, and must also
announce what type of Prosthetic Forehead is involved.  After a player
removes a Prosthetic Forehead, his real head is sore for 48 hours and
she may not wear a Prosthetic Forehead during this time.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 10:56:39 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 820 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 820
  Proposal 820 - Mon May 27 12:13:45 EDT 1996
  Amending Rule 629
  ThinMan  (John Bollinger)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 15 players cast votes

11 YES votes   4 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

ThinMan gains 10 points.  160 -> 170

11 YES votes:  
  Dr McSpong                                                      
  Brinjal                                                         
  ThinMan                                                         
  Niccolo Flychuck                                                
  snowgod                (None Yet)                               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)                               
  /dev/joe               Foozball                                 
  SnafuMoose                                                      
  (None Yet) Unity vote                                            
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)                               
  Mohammed               (None Yet)                               

4 NO votes:  5 points each
  Robin Hood                                  189 -> 194          
  Bascule                                     243 -> 248          
  Techno                 Underworld           177 -> 182          
  Wayne                  Underworld           195 -> 200          

1 PRESENT votes:
  De'ghew                Underworld          

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  The Great Old One      Underworld           
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Merlin the Happy Pig                        

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  Malenkai                                    
  fon                                         
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 820 - Mon May 27 12:13:45 EDT 1996
Amending Rule 629
ThinMan  (John Bollinger)

Rule 629 shall be ammended by replacing section (h) with the following:

    (h) If the Report of the Convention is Accepted, then the changes
        recommended in the report shall be applied to the rules, up to
        and including replacing the entire rule set.  The mutability
        or immutability of any rule shall not prevent these changes
        from being applied.

Old section (h):
>    (h) (1) If the Report of the Convention is Accepted, then the game shall
>            end, following all subsections to section (h) of this rule.
>        (2) A game of AckaNomic shall be created with a rule set which shall
>            be the same as the rule set to the game which has ended, with the
>            recommendations of the Report of the Convention made to the
>            rule set of the game thus created.  If the Report recommended
>            replacing the entire rule set, then the rule set recommended
>            shall be the rule set created by this subsection.  The game
>            created by this subsection may be referred to by this section as
>            the "new game".
>        (3) All players of the game which has ended shall automatically be
>            players in the new game.
>        (4) All players shall begin the new game with all points, items,
>            properties, and titles which were held in the game which has
>            ended, at the time that it ended.
>        (5) If, in the new game, a "score" exists, then each Delegate to the
>            Constitutional Convention in the game which has ended shall
>            receive have his score in the new game increased by twenty.
>            This subsection shall not have effect if it violates the rules
>            of the new game.

[[ Other sections of R629 not quoted, so as to save an enormous amount of
   bandwidth. ]]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 10:57:14 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 821 Passes

Here are the voting results for : 821
  Proposal 821 - Mon May 27 15:19:26 EDT 1996
  More Housecleaning
  ThinMan  (John Bollinger)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

13 YES votes   1 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal PASSES

ThinMan gains 10 points.  170 -> 180

13 YES votes:  
  Robin Hood                                                      
  Dr McSpong                                                      
  Brinjal                                                         
  Niccolo Flychuck                                                
  Bascule                                                         
  snowgod                (None Yet)                               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)                               
  /dev/joe               Foozball                                 
  SnafuMoose                                                      
  (None Yet) Unity vote                                            
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)                               
  Wayne                  Underworld                               
  Mohammed               (None Yet)                               

1 NO votes:  5 points each
  Techno                 Underworld           182 -> 187          

1 PRESENT votes:
  De'ghew                Underworld          

4 ABSTENTIONS:
  The Great Old One      Underworld           
  ThinMan                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes                             
  Merlin the Happy Pig                        

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  Malenkai                                    
  fon                                         
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================
Proposal 821 - Mon May 27 15:19:26 EDT 1996
More Housecleaning
ThinMan  (John Bollinger)

As rule 603 (Names are Unique) is wholly superceded by rule 703 ( ), rule
603 is hereby repealed.

Text of Rule 603:

>Rule 603/0 (Mutable)
>Names are Unique
>fon (Adrian Smith)
>
>     A player may not change their name to that of another player.
>
>* Created by Proposal 603, Apr 16 1996

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:01:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Official: Prosthetic Forehead

> Quorum met : 19 eligible voters -- 16 players cast votes
> 
> 12 YES votes   4 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
> Proposal PASSES

> Proposal 818 - Mon May 27 10:44:32 EDT 1996
> Prosthetic Foreheads
> /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
> 
> This rule creates a type of entity known as a Prosthetic Forehead.
> There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads.
> Prosthetic Foreheads are Protected.
> 
> Any player may buy a Prosthetic Forehead at any time by paying A$7 to the
> Treasury, and posting publicly that they are doing so, and declaring the
> type of Prosthetic Forehead he is buying in this public message.  A player
> may own any number of Prosthetic Foreheads at any time.  If a player has
> a Rock To Wind A String Around (if such an entity exists), she may give
> it to the treasury instead of paying the A$7 in the above procedure.
> 
> A player may wear a Prosthetic Forehead that they own, but e may wear
> only one Prosthetic Forehead at a time.  A player must announce publicly
> whenever it starts or stops wearing a Prosthetic Forehead, and must also
> announce what type of Prosthetic Forehead is involved.  After a player
> removes a Prosthetic Forehead, his real head is sore for 48 hours and
> she may not wear a Prosthetic Forehead during this time.

Ah, the endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads...

I browse through the available Prosthetic Foreheads and I find the one
I like.  I have selected a Prosthetic Forehead with these properties:

1. Physically, it resembles the Prosthetic Forehead worn by Michael Dorn
in his role as Worf on Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep
Space Nine.

2. It has the following game-related effects:
  a.  While this Prosthetic Forehead is being worn, no other Prosthetic
      Foreheads may be bought by the methods described in Rule 818.
  b.  When this Prosthetic Forehead is first worn, its wearer may amend
      one rule, change as many resolutions to non-resolution proposals
      as he wishes, and set his score to any number of points.

In accordance with rule 818, I hereby pay the seven ackadollars and buy
a Prosthetic Forehead of the type described above.

I hereby wear the Prosthetic Forehead purchased above.  I choose to use
its effects to:
1. Amend rule 663 by changing the first sentence to "A proposal may state 
that it is a resolution"
2. Make all resolutions The Great Old One changed to resolutions become
normal proposals and no longer be resolutions.  This is potentially all
of P829, P835 and P837-848.
3. Set my score to 257 points.

Since the Magic Number (as defined by Rule 422) is currently 257,
I win the second cycle of Ackanomic.

- --
/dev/joe, Joseph DeVincentis, [email-masked]

 "If I were a carpenter I'd hammer on my piglet, I'd collect the seven
dollars and I'd buy a big prosthetic forehead and wear it on my real head.
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads."
                             --They Might Be Giants, "We Want a Rock",
                               from _Flood_, 1990.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:16:09 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official 

I am now officially off vacation

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 11:16:49 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official: Prosthetic Forehead

Nice try.  I figured you had something like this in mind, especially when
you bribed the Tammany twice.  (Should I have added those bribes together?)

Let me quote this to you:
Rule 115/0 (Immutable)
Permissibility Of The Unprohibited

     Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is
     permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the
     rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules
     explicitly or implicitly permits it.

"sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule
or set of rules explicitly or implicity permits it."

Therefore your P. Forehead does not have the properties that you claim it
does.

Wayne

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:25:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official: Prosthetic Forehead

> Nice try.  I figured you had something like this in mind, especially when
> you bribed the Tammany twice.  (Should I have added those bribes together?)

No.  By rule you should have ignored my first bribe and used my second one.

> Let me quote this to you:
> Rule 115/0 (Immutable)
> Permissibility Of The Unprohibited
> 
>      Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is
>      permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the
>      rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules
>      explicitly or implicitly permits it.
> 
> "sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule
> or set of rules explicitly or implicity permits it."
> 
> Therefore your P. Forehead does not have the properties that you claim it
> does.

I believe rule 818 implicitly permits this:
"There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads."

When I originally wrote this proposal, I didn't intend for it to do this,
but later I noticed that the rule basically allows me to buy something that
does anything, so long as it is called a Prosthetic Forehead.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:59:57 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Judgement 175 Appeal

> 2. Point (B) is the opinion of The Great Old One. The rules do not 
>    say that the game is ended if no more rules can be passed. 

Whoops:

>Rule 112/1 (Mutable)
>At Least One Mutable Rule

>[snip] 
>The adoption of rule changes must never become
>completely inpermissible.

This does not invalidate my reasoning however, since one player
turning all proposals into resolutions would not constitute
the complete impermissiblility of changes to the ruleset, 
because changes would become permissible again if that player
were to stop mucking around.

Bascule

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:56:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official: Prosthetic Forehead

On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, /dev/joe wrote:

> 
> I believe rule 818 implicitly permits this:
> "There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads."
> 
> When I originally wrote this proposal, I didn't intend for it to do this,
> but later I noticed that the rule basically allows me to buy something that
> does anything, so long as it is called a Prosthetic Forehead.
> 

I don't think so.  After all, there is an endless supply and an endless
variety of numbers between 0 and 1 - that doesn't imply that "2" is in
there.  Similarly, there can be an endless supply and an endless variety
of Prosthetic Foreheads without there being one such as you described. 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:01:01 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Discussion P847 

Although I find P847 to be interesting, and the idea fun, I will vote NO
and urge others to do so as well.  I want to avoid any possibility that
P847 (which requires certain officers to have residences) will pass but
the buildings proposal itself fail.  Perhaps that situation would be covered
under R115, but better safe than sorry.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:01:54 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: discussion P843 

This proposal is necessary but flawed, in that it places a cap on the price
at which the Financier may sell common lands, based on previous sales.  There
is no reason for a price cap; prices are set by mutual agreement anyway.
Also, what price may the Financier charge if he wants to make the first
transaction?  Or the second or third?

Moreover, the proposal directs the Financier to take into account the presence
of buildings on the land being sold when setting a price, but the price cap
makes no provision for this.

Vote NO on P843.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:03:04 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Discussion P854 

I have voted in favor of P854.  I note that it is an example of how game
play can continue with R663 just as it is.  It points out an interesting
possible ambiguity, however: it seeks to apply to future events.  In my
opinion, it will not have any effects beyond those which are applied when
it is adopted, for it will not become a rule.  However, I can see where
one might argue the opposite case.  I think that R663 needs to be ammended
appropriately, and I will propose an ammendment once the current ammendment
of R663 is voted up or down.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:53:48 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official: Prosthetic Forehead

> I believe rule 818 implicitly permits this:
> "There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads."

Is this enough to imply that Prosthetic Foreheads may permit
the changing of rules and scores?

I don't think so. I guess it'll come down to a CFJ.

Bascule

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:10:01 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official: Prosthetic Forehead 

>On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, /dev/joe wrote:
>
>> I believe rule 818 implicitly permits this:
>> "There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads."
>> 
>> When I originally wrote this proposal, I didn't intend for it to do this,
>> but later I noticed that the rule basically allows me to buy something that
>> does anything, so long as it is called a Prosthetic Forehead.
>
>I don't think so.  After all, there is an endless supply and an endless
>variety of numbers between 0 and 1 - that doesn't imply that "2" is in
>there.  Similarly, there can be an endless supply and an endless variety
>of Prosthetic Foreheads without there being one such as you described. 
>
>-mr cwm

Just as mr cwm says.  I have already submitted a pair of related CFJs which
should clear up the matter nicely.  Basically, I think it is pretty clear
that R 818 does not allow for a prosthetic forehead that allows anything
that R 115 does not already allow.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:16:43 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Judgement 175 Appeal 

Bascule wrote:
>> 2. Point (B) is the opinion of The Great Old One. The rules do not 
>>    say that the game is ended if no more rules can be passed. 
>
>Whoops:
>
>>Rule 112/1 (Mutable)
>>At Least One Mutable Rule
>
>>[snip] 
>>The adoption of rule changes must never become
>>completely inpermissible.
>
>This does not invalidate my reasoning however, since one player
>turning all proposals into resolutions would not constitute
>the complete impermissiblility of changes to the ruleset, 
>because changes would become permissible again if that player
>were to stop mucking around.

Bascule's reasoning is more-or-less good, although both he and The Great Old
One seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between "impermissible" and
"impossible."  Even if the rules allow a player to change any proposed
rule change he desires into a proposed resolution, they still _permit_
rule changes.  Furthermore, as we have seen, there are potential ways to
take care of troublemakers within the current rules by passing appropriate
resolutions.

Nice try, The Great Old One, but not this time.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:20:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official: Prosthetic Forehead

> On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, /dev/joe wrote:
> > I believe rule 818 implicitly permits this:
> > "There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads."

> > When I originally wrote this proposal, I didn't intend for it to do this,
> > but later I noticed that the rule basically allows me to buy something that
> > does anything, so long as it is called a Prosthetic Forehead.

> I don't think so.  After all, there is an endless supply and an endless
> variety of numbers between 0 and 1 - that doesn't imply that "2" is in
> there. 

The supply and variety of numbers between 0 and 1 has two ends -- namely,
0 and 1.  It is true that there is an infinity of numbers between 0 and 1,
but infinity is not what is being questioned.

> Similarly, there can be an endless supply and an endless variety
> of Prosthetic Foreheads without there being one such as you described. 

If P.F.'s that change the rules or allow the wearer to score points
are not allowed, then those are ends to the variety of P.F.'s available.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:34:55 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Common Sense Report 1 

I officially object to CSR 1.

CSR 1 attempts to step beyond the purpose of the CSRR as established by
R 695: "[...] to make changes to the rules when it finds that the rules,
as written, do not make sense, are redundant, do not conform _in fact_
to their interpretation in game custom, or are redundant."  The
loophole in R 663 is unfortunate, but does not fall into any of the above
categories.

Moreover, I believe that it is entirely possible to resolve the current
situation without resorting to "magically" modifying the rules to fix
things.  Apprehension about this sort of thing is exactly why I
supported Malenkai and his faction for CSRR officer.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:51:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Judgement 178

Call for Judgement 178
  Subject:  Resolutions
Initiator:  snowgod
    Judge:  Techno (selected at 2002h CDT on 3 June 1996)
Judgement:  True

Statement:
> It is permissable for me to declare that P835 and P837-848 will no
> longer create resolutions.

snowgod's comments:
> Reasoning:
> 
> There is no text in the ruleset defining the process of changing a proposal
> which creates a resolution into a proposal which creates a rule, therefore
> it is an unregulated act and my actions are permissable in accordance with
> R115.

- --Mohammed, CotC

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:57:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Magic Potato

The Bearer of the Magic Potato this week is Dr Mcspong.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:07:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Prosthetic Forehead

> I believe rule 818 implicitly permits this:
> "There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads."
	Insufficient.  There is an endless supply and endless variety of 
integers, too, but none of them has the power to usurp the government of 
Uganda.  There is an endless supply of even numbers; none of them is 3.
	Infinity does not imply ubiquity.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:47:37 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: News

/DEV/JOE TRIES TO GET AHEAD

By Mr Zoliparia, Gargoyle Expert

Ackanomians flocked to the streets today to greet a
surprise visitor to Ackanomia, Michael Dorn, better known
as Worf from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Their hopes of meeting their hero were cruelly dashed
when it turned out to be none other than /dev/joe,
parading his newly purchased Prosthetic Forehead.

The disappointed Acka-citizens then listened in stunned
disbelief to /dev/joe's proclamation that his unbecoming
cranial extension gave him the ability to amend rule 663
and give himself 257 points.

mr cwm observed that an infinite variety of upper-facial
masks would not necessarily include one possessing such
bizarre properties, and it looks tonight as if /dev/joe
has wasted A$7 on a somewhat unattractive bonce.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:13:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Call for Judgement 178 (Wayne)

Call for Judgement 178
  Subject:  Player Resolve
Initiator:  Bascule
    Judge:  Wayne (selected at 1219h CDT on 4 June 1996)

Statement:
> Rule 663 does not allow any player to turn any proposal
> into a resolution.

Bascule's comments:
> My comments:
> 
> "Any player can declare that they have 3 eyes. Not all declarations are
> true. Rule 663 does nothing." - Robin Hood
> While 663 permits players to declare that proposals are resolutions,
> it does not actually turn those proposals into resolutions.
> 
> Rule 663:
> "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution.  A resolution may not
> change, add, or delete any rules.  If a resolution is adopted, the effect
> described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be
> added to the rule set."

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:14:07 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Judgement 178 

The following judgement was just passed down:

>Call for Judgement 178
>  Subject:  Resolutions
>Initiator:  snowgod
>    Judge:  Techno (selected at 2002h CDT on 3 June 1996)
>Judgement:  True
>
>Statement:
>> It is permissable for me to declare that P835 and P837-848 will no
>> longer create resolutions.
>
>snowgod's comments:
>> Reasoning:
>> 
>> There is no text in the ruleset defining the process of changing a proposal
>> which creates a resolution into a proposal which creates a rule, therefore
>> it is an unregulated act and my actions are permissable in accordance with
>> R115.

This judgement is in error, and must be overturned.  I hereby appeal it to
the Supreme Court and take the point reduction myself.

Reasoning:

Techno did not take into account the fact that R 660 makes proposals
protected, and that R 592 prohibits the manipulation of a protected entity
except as allowed by the rules.  R 115 does not enter the picture -- this
is exactly the purpose of protection.

ThinMan

P.S.: I note that the Supreme Court is obligated to assess a penalty when
it overturns a judgement.  That applies to this case and to the previous
appeal as well.  TM

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:17:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Call for Judgement 179 (Wayne) (correction)

This should be Judgement 179.  I'm trying to get a script set up to do 
this and it's a pain.  Sorry for the continued inconveniences.

> Call for Judgement 178
>   Subject:  Player Resolve
> Initiator:  Bascule
>     Judge:  Wayne (selected at 1219h CDT on 4 June 1996)
> 
> Statement:
> > Rule 663 does not allow any player to turn any proposal
> > into a resolution.
> 
> Bascule's comments:
> > My comments:
> > 
> > "Any player can declare that they have 3 eyes. Not all declarations are
> > true. Rule 663 does nothing." - Robin Hood
> > While 663 permits players to declare that proposals are resolutions,
> > it does not actually turn those proposals into resolutions.
> > 
> > Rule 663:
> > "A player may declare that a proposal is a resolution.  A resolution may not
> > change, add, or delete any rules.  If a resolution is adopted, the effect
> > described in the resolution shall occur, and the resolution shall not be
> > added to the rule set."

- --Mohammed, CotC

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:22:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  CFJ 180 (Robin Hood)

Call for Judgement 180
  Subject:  Prosthetic Forehead Power
Initiator:  ThinMan
    Judge:  Robin Hood (selected at 1229h CDT on 4 June 1996)

Statement:
> Prosthetic Foreheads may not grant any player any power, ability, or right
> not already allowed by rule 115.

ThinMan's comments:
> Reasoning:
> 
> /dev/joe based his recent prosthetic-forehead-related action on the language
> of the new rule 818: "There is an endless supply and an endless variety of
> Prosthetic Foreheads."  He therefore claimed to buy a prosthetic forehead
> that allowed him to perform certain otherwise prohibited game actions, such
> as repealing a rule without a vote and changing his score arbitrarilly.
> 
> However, "endless variety" is by no means the same as "every variety
> imaginable." Indeed, "endless variety" could simply mean infinitely many
> sizes, colors, and shapes.  There might be some very (_very_) large
> prosthetic foreheads out there, but the rules do not guarantee that there
> be any that grant special game-related abilities.
> 
> Therefore, only under the auspices of R115 could /dev/joe or anyone else
> buy a prosthetic forehead that grants any particular power, ability, or right.

- --Mohammed, Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 20:35:51 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official: Prosthetic Forehead 

At 10:25 AM 04/06/96 -0500, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

>
>I believe rule 818 implicitly permits this:
>"There is an endless supply and an endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads."
>
>When I originally wrote this proposal, I didn't intend for it to do this,
>but later I noticed that the rule basically allows me to buy something that
>does anything, so long as it is called a Prosthetic Forehead.
>
>
I believe your logic is flawed. The fact that there is an endless variety
and endless supply of prosthetic foreheads, does not imply that they can do
anythin.

Allow me to show an analogy.
There is an endless supply and an endless variety of integers.
Endless supply is trivial. Endless variety, well, there are compound, prime,
perfect, palindromic,and I submit that for every integer one can find    a
property that does not exist for any other integer, even if that property is
something as mundane that other integer equals that integer, but usually
they will be much more interesting than that, however, the Mundane Property,
is sufficient  to show endless variety. Further more, integers and their
combinations satisfy IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations - a
Vulcan principle), yet there many things that cannot be done with integers,
rational numbers is a good example. The pythagoreans were all broken up
about it too.
(I can hear the voices saying - but irrational numbers can be representd by
infinite decimals, which are just a string of integers. An easy trap to fall
into, infinite decimals are actually string of digits, not of integers -
sort of goes to show that often the finite variety can be used to represent
greaters powers of infinity than the infinite variety)

Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that if you have an endless supply
and endless variety you can do anything.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 20:35:59 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: CFJ 176 (Niccolo Flychuck) 

I accept the appointment for this CFJ
Nicolo Flychuck

At 08:12 PM 03/06/96 -0500, Jason Orendorff wrote:
>Call For Judgement 176
>  Subject:  Paradox
>Initiator:  The Great Old One
>1st Judge:  SnafuMoose (selected at 1951h on 2 June 1996)
>Judgement:  Undecided
>2nd Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected at 2005h on 3 June 1996)
>
>Statement:
>> Rule 663 allows any proposal to become a resolution.  This rule also
>> states that a resolution cannot change or create a rule, but the effects
>> of the resolution shall be applied.  This is, in my judgement (and of
>> others) a paradox.
>
>SnafuMoose's comments:
>> Comment: Last time I tried to make a judgement on one of these
>> things I got in trouble :-)
>> 
>> ...Actually, I just can't decide on this one. So nyah... next
>> judge........
>
>--Mohammed, CotC
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 13:09:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Judgement 181

Judgement 181
  Subject:  Protection Loophole
Initiator:  ThinMan
    Judge:  Mohammed (selected at 1306h CDT on 4 June 1996)
Judgement:  False

Statement:
> Rule 115 does not allow any player to modify protected entities by any means
> other than those provided for in other rules.

ThinMan's comments:
> Reasoning:
> 
> This seems almost (almost) trivial, but it is a companion to my other CFJ,
> and covers the possibility of a player creating a device under the auspices
> of R115 which would then perform or allow him to perform the actions he
> desires.
> 
> Rule 592 states: "A protected entity may not be created, destroyed, or
> manipulated except in accordance with the Rules."  I think that with this
> the case is clear, and nothing else need be said.

Mohammed's comments:
> Accordance means "agreement, conformity" according to my American Heritage,
> 3rd edition.  At first my instinct was that no conformity is involved in
> taking an action under R115, but it is my belief now that, since R115
> does not extend to all actions indiscriminately, there is a measure of
> "accordance" required there.  So an action taken under R115 is taken in
> accordance with "the Rules" as stated by 592, and is, therefore, legal. 
>
> Ironic that I should get this judgement.  I wrote the buggy rule, 
> R592, and have known about the bug for a little while but was waiting for
> an opportunity to exploit it.  The good news is that it can't really
> be exploited.  Almost all the actions it allows are "regulated" as per 
> Judgement 113.  (I don't like J113.  But it may save the game here.)
> Redundant protection.  Phew.
>
> Personally, I don't like hiding in the skirts of old judgements.  I
> think this calls for a rule change of some sort.

- --Mohammed, Clerk of the Courts

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #28
******************************