Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #46
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, June 12 1996       Volume 01 : Number 046

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:10:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Registrarness

Jason Reed (Ackanomic Name: Pascal) has returned to Ackanomic as a player.
His e-mail address is [email-masked]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:11:27 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Creation of XXXX party 

Strict Constructionist.
Player who wants "strictly defined" rules. Player who makes it appear as
though he wants "useful" and "well written" rules, yet is at a loss to
define either of these terms in useful or well written language, if he even
tries. Player who abhors vagueness as long as it is other people's, yet
enjoys his own. Player incapable of accepting CFJs or tradition as a basis
for game play. Player willing to abuse any loopholes, real or imaginary, for
personal gains, whatever the risk to the Game or the other players. Synonym:
New-Age Bureaucrat and Sewer-Politics Utilitarianist in one. Antonym: Free
Humanist (Timeless Philosophic Wonderer and Shining Selfless Politician in one).

It's interesting to note that while an SC is easily found, its opposite
cannot be found in nature. It does not exist, never has and never will.

Thanks, I'd been looking for a good definition for a long time.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 20:20:41 -0700
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Appeal Ruling CFJ 178

CFJ 178 was appealed to the Supreme Court by ThinMan. The
Court has overturned the original verdict, returning an appeal verdict
of FALSE. The Justices are unanimous in verdict, but not in reasoning.

The rules (R569), require only that a majority of Justices agree on
the verdict; they are silent on whether agreement must be gained on
reasoning. The Court is confident, given more time, that an agreement
on reasoning could have been reached, but there is no more time. The
Court must reiterate that this an unusual circumstance, caused by the
substantial delay in Justice Bascule's comfirmation, Justice Malenkai's
vacation, and other factors. These will not be factors in the future.

The Justices are in agreement that both Justice's reasoning should be
published.

The original CFJ is followed by ThinMan's appeal, Justice Bascule's
reasoning, Justice Malenkai's reasoning, then a short commentary:

>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.

ThinMan's appeal:

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

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.

Justice Bascule's Reasoning:

Snowgod:

> 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.

Rule 115 explicitly defers to other rules.

(From R115:Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a
rule is permitted and unregulated.)

So the issue is: Is the process of changing resolutions into
proposals regulated?

Snowgod is correct in saying that no rule explicitly prohibits
changing resolutions into proposals. However:

>From R660: ...proposals...are protected entities.
>From R592: A protected entity may not be created, destroyed, or
>manipulated except in accordance with the Rules.

So proposals may not be created except in accordance with the rules.

As the creation of proposals is protected (660,592), I believe that
the creation of proposals is regulated. Hence I conclude that the
process of changing resolutions into proposals is regulated, and
that it is not permitted (592).

Justice Malenkai's Reasoning:

CFJ 181 eliminates ThinMan's Protection argument. It is game
custom that must be honored in the absence of rules governing
the situation. CFJ 168 requires that this custom be considered
immediately upon it being received. But are there any rules
which govern the situation? There are, but they are the same
ones debated by CFJ 181. As I agree with CFJ 181, I would reach
the same conclusion upon attempting to apply those rules to
this situation.

Therfore snowgod's hypothetical attempted action does not run afoul
of Protection.

But this judgement is not directly about Protection, and its effects;
it is about snowgod's original statement, which snowgod is claiming is
legal by R115.

I must turn to the time tested, bulwark of Acka, CFJ 113. I quote the
relavent language:

> This essentially comes down to an interpretation of Rule 115. I claim
> that the correct interpretation, the one that we all share, is the
> following: You can do anything you want if the rules have nothing
> to say on the issue. For example, I could say that I am officially the
> Big Herring, because the rules are completely silent on this issue.
> However, I could not declare that instead of using ordinal numbers in
> base 10, we would be using ordinal numbers in base 3. This is illegal
> because while the rules do not expressly forbid this specific action,
> there is a rule concerning the numbering of proposals (Rule 642) and
> thus I cannot arbitrarily adjust this, even though the said rule does
> not discuss this issue specifically.

Both proposals and resolutions (a form of proposal), are regulated by
the rules. Therefore, by the game custom established by CFJ 113, snowgod
may not invoke R115 to apply the arbitrary action he attempts on the
specified proposals.

Thus I must find a verdict of FALSE.

I submit that CFJ 113 is a crutch, with improper scope, but CFJ 113 is
not on trial here. By law (R101, R215, and R216), it is a crutch that must
be leaned on.

Court's Commentary:

The Justices are in disagreement as to the validity of CFJ 181, but
that is not on trial here. Neither Justice, by rule, may appeal CFJ 181.
The Justices are in agreement that the scope of CFJ 113 is inappropriate,
but are in disagreement as to whether it is applicable. Bascule's argument
hinges on the ability for R115 (Immutable), to defer its authority to a
Mutable rule. R210 regulates precedence, but it is unclear to Malenkai
whether or not this "cross" precedence deferral is "explicit", or is 
legal. The Justices continue to debate this issue after the verdict,
but as it will not affect this verdict, have decided to post with 
unreconciled reasoning.

Penalty:

1 point penalty for Techno.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 22:02:34 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

Malenkai wrote:

>4) The "random" method to be used will be to roll a dice against the
>Registrar's list on the Web Page.

This is actually not a random method, assuming you mean that you will 
throw enough dice to account for the number of players.

According to probability, high and low rolls of, say, two or three dice 
are far less likely than middle-level rolls. That's why snake-eyes and 
twelves are several times less common than sevens.

Please reconsider this method.

this is not a name
Historian
File Clerk

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2." --Grabel's Law
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:31:09 -0700
From: Jazz Jackrabbit <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> 
> >4) The "random" method to be used will be to roll a dice against the
> >Registrar's list on the Web Page.
> 
> This is actually not a random method, assuming you mean that you will
> throw enough dice to account for the number of players.
> 
> According to probability, high and low rolls of, say, two or three dice
> are far less likely than middle-level rolls. That's why snake-eyes and
> twelves are several times less common than sevens.
> 
> Please reconsider this method.

No method, other than quantum, is random (at least by a reductionist
view). Certainly a script on a computer is not random. I refer you to
the Index of the Proceedings of the ACM, or Scientific American,
if you are interested.

The die I will be using is 30 sided. The manufacturer, in good faith, has
weighted it to be as random as possible.  I will discard any roll greater
than the number of players. When the number of players exceeds 30, I shall
evaluate the situation. I have training in probability theory, so I
do not think understanding of things *random* will compromise my
ability to do a fair, and objective job in this office.

Thanks for your concern.

BTW, you've been randomly selected as my first judge, as luck would
have it, on a claim of paradox by me. It will be distributed momentarily,
modem willing :)

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:38:53 -0700
From: Clerk of the Courts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 184 (this is not a name)

this is not a name has been chosen to judge the following. He has
3 days to accept or reject the assignment.

Malenkai's claim: By R219, I claim a win by paradox pending a verdict
of TRUE on the following CFJ:

Call for Judgement 184
  Subject:  This statement is false
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  this is not a name (selected Jun 11, 1996, 2230 New York Time)

Statement:

Whether to apply parts of R545, "Notes and Comments", cannot be determined
with finality; in fact, the application appears to be both legal and
illegal.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

In trying to determine whether it is legal to strike the text
'[[e.g this]]' from R545, one runs into a paradox in attempting to apply
that selfsame rule.

The troublesome clause is:

> This rule explicitly does not apply to this rule.

You must not apply the clause, by rule (R545), but in not doing so you
are applying it because the thing that prohibits you from applying it is
the appliction of the rule itself (R545).

If you do apply it, you are violating the rule (R545), which means that
you can't apply it, which leads to:

You must not apply the clause, by rule (R545), but in not doing so you
are applying it because the thing that prohibits you from applying it is
the appliction of the rule itself (R545).

If you do apply it, you are violating the rule (R545), which means that
you can't apply it, which leads to:

...

Paradox. Its like saying "This statement is FALSE". The clause must be
both applied and not applied, leading to interdeterminate legality, i.e.,
it appears both legal and illegal leading to a verdict of TRUE. An
Objective judge cannot rule otherwise. I ask the judge, should you, or
should you not, apply the clause? Why?

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:49:41 -0700
From: Clerk of the Courts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 185 (Calvin N Hobbes)

Calvin N Hobbes has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days
to respond:

Call for Judgement 185
  Subject:  I win, take three
Initiator:  Bascule
    Judge:  Calvin N Hobbes (selected 11-Jun-96 2300h New York Time)

Statement:

Bascule has won the current cycle of Ackanomic.

Bascule's Comments:

>From Wayne:
> Bascule's score was at 256 on Friday morning.  Then he retracted his
> two proposals @ 16:00 on Friday.  When I logged on Sat night, I sent
> out the results of several proposals.  Once I finished sending out the
> proposals, I then deducted the 2 points from Bascule.  If I had followed
> the chronological order of events, the two points should have been
> deducted before I sent out 837.
>
> p837.res:  Bascule                                     256 -> 259[snip]
> p848.res:  Bascule                                     283 -> 286
> Here is where I deducted the two points from Bascule, giving him his
> current score of 284.
> It is apparant that timing can be very important in issues such as this.
> I feel that the only fair thing to do is correct the error and declare
> Bascule the winner, unless it is found that someone else has already won
> before Bascule.

A minor error from the Scorekeeper meant that my score was never
published as being 257. Strict chronological interpretation of the
rules would have meant my score was at 257 after the failure
of p837. Therefore my score was 257 after the failure of p837.
Therefore I won the cycle at that point.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:12:05 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 185 (Calvin N Hobbes) 

At 10:49 PM 11-06-96 -0700, Clerk of the Courts wrote:
>Calvin N Hobbes has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days
>to respond:

I accept this task.

CnH

Send bribes to account #45-56847-55687
Thank you.

Ycnega

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:34:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Official (Appointer)

> 	The Functional Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy 
> now has an open Seat.  Anyone who wants it can nominate his ear by 
> responding to this publicly (I'll acknowledge each nomination as I get 
> it, so if there's no response, something went wrong.)

I nominate myself for CSRR.
If I am chosen for this position, I will only use it to fix typoes
and spelling errors in the rules.  I know we have Rule 451 (Spelling
Errors) but face it -- Ackanomians can't spell.  I will issue a *LOT*
of CSR's, in big batches, to do things like fix 'CFG' and 'CJF' to
read 'CFJ', 'Acaknomic' to 'Ackanomic', etc.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:13:11 -0700
From: Clerk of the Courts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: CotC Report

The following CFJs are known to be outstanding:

CFJ 149: The Web-Harfer has it as never judged. This is 
an old proposal revision CFJ. I shall not worry about it
unless someone has info about it, or presses me to.

CFJ 159: About recall petition for Justices. From the old
days of the AOJ. I belive a verdict was reached, and the
Web-Harfer never updated it. If ThinMan or Mohammed has
info, please forward it to me. I will look into it myself.

CFJ 164: Resolutions to Proposals. A vedict is back from the
Supreme Court. It just needs to be updated on the page. (and
may have been, since I looked).

CFJ 176: Paradox win by the Great Old One. The Judge, Niccolo
Flychuck, is overdue on a verdict, if I go by the date on the
Web-Page. Of course, you have 7 days to judge after you accept
judgement. I do not have the original acceptance message, so
I have to give Niccolo the full 10 days, BUT Mohammed may have
the verdict already. I request Mohammed or Niccolo
respond ASAP, with any info, or I shall reassign it, and fine Niccolo.
Need a vedict by June 13th, unless I get different info.

CFJ 180: Prosthetic Forhead. Again no info. Mohammed or Robin Hood,
please help. Same as above, Robin Hood has until June 14th, unless
I get different info.

CFJ 92.9: Point Stealing. Same as above. Niccolo until the 14th.
Please get it in sooner though. I am giving more grace than allowed,
only because of the transition.

CFJ 184: Paradox, Malenkai, just released
CFJ 185: Bascule winning, just released

The Clerk will be more efficient in the future. The ambiguity is caused
by the transition.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 22:52:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: CotC Report

> The following CFJs are known to be outstanding:

> CFJ 159: About recall petition for Justices. From the old
> days of the AOJ. I belive a verdict was reached, and the
> Web-Harfer never updated it. If ThinMan or Mohammed has
> info, please forward it to me. I will look into it myself.

> CFJ 164: Resolutions to Proposals. A vedict is back from the
> Supreme Court. It just needs to be updated on the page. (and
> may have been, since I looked).

I had simply missed 159, and had not yet gotten around to adding
164's appeal ruling.  They are done now.

I also show no judgement on CFJ 156; the last message I have regarding
it is from Niccolo Flychuck, who on April 30 publicly accepted judgement
and said he'd put up a verdict within the one week allowed by the rules.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 23:54:47 -0700
From: Clerk of the Courts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Blast from the past

In rummaging through the dank, leaky warrens in the basement of the
Court complex, somewhere near the Senate, the CotC has discovered
CFJ 159, in a box behind a pile of Chartreuse Goose Eggs. Fortunately,
the verdict and reasoning are intact, so the Web-Harfer can update the
web page, with this piece of long lost game custom.

Clerk of the Courts
 
The following was judged False.

Judgement 159
  Subject:  More filibustering
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected at CDT on 29 Apr 1996)
Judgement:  False

Statement:
> Proposal 668, should it pass, would simply initiate the process
> of petitioning the players for the removal of Supreme Court Justice
> Malenkai from that office by R507, and in no way shall actual passage of
> Proposal 668, in and of itself, actually remove Malenkai from the seat
> of Supreme Court Justice.

Malenkai's comments:
> The language of R507 and P668 are clear, and necessitate a verdict of
> TRUE. No further reasoning is necessary. I provide the text of P668
> for reference:
>
> "According to R507, I call for a vote to remove Malenkai from the
> Supreme Court."

ThinMan's comments:
> Proposal 668 would not be a valid rule change if adopted.  It neither
> creates a new mutable rule, nor ammends an existing mutable rule, nor
> transmutes a rule.  Should it pass, therefore, it cannot have the effect
> of initiating a process of petitioning the players for the removal of
> Malenkai from the Supreme Court.
>
> This does not answer the related question of whether the method ThinMan
> attempted to use for the recall petition is endorsed by the rules, which
> is also in doubt.  Nevertheless, the overall statement upon which judgement
> was called is false regardless of the truth value of the second part.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:07:55 -0700
From: Clerk of the Courts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: CotC Report

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> I also show no judgement on CFJ 156; the last message I have regarding
> it is from Niccolo Flychuck, who on April 30 publicly accepted judgement
> and said he'd put up a verdict within the one week allowed by the rules.

Any info on this from anyone? I shall probably have to reassign it,
and penalize Niccolo, unless I receive a good reason not to, in
24 hours.

(anal) Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 00:59:32 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

Malenkai wrote:

>The die I will be using is 30 sided. The manufacturer, in good faith, has
>weighted it to be as random as possible.  I will discard any roll greater
>than the number of players. When the number of players exceeds 30, I shall
>evaluate the situation. I have training in probability theory, so I
>do not think understanding of things *random* will compromise my
>ability to do a fair, and objective job in this office.

OK, I thought you meant you'd be rolling several six-sided dice. That 
would be much less random than a pseudorandom computer script. But a 
30-sided die sounds fine.

this is not a name
Historian
File Clerk

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
                                       --Lee Iacocca
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #46
******************************