Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #48
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Thursday, June 13 1996        Volume 01 : Number 048

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:42:43 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: CFJ 184 verdict

The following, CFJ 184, has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts

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?

this is not a name's Reasoning:

Malenkai's reasoning is sound. A rule that requires a procedure for
changing rules, but is itself an example of the type of rule it seeks to
regulate, must not exclude itself from its own purview in the way that
R545 does.

This situation encompasses two of the justifications in Rule 219/0 for a
paradox win: that the legality of some action cannot be determined with
finality, and that some action appears equally legal and illegal.

I declare Malenkai the winner of the third cycle of Ackanomic and,
pending any possible appeal of this verdict, invoke R829 to require an
election for two delegates to a Constitutional Convention; the third
delegate will be Malenkai.

I recommend that the last sentence of R545 be modified by the
Constitutional Convention to something like "This rule does not apply to
the first sentence of the second paragraph of the text of this rule." I
also suggest that the Convention consider rewording R664.

I must note that I find Malenkai's statement that "an objective judge
cannot rule otherwise" insulting and demeaning, and I would ask him to
refrain from including such statements in CFJs in the future.

Verdict:

True

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:52:55 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 184 verdict

>I must note that I find Malenkai's statement that "an objective judge
>cannot rule otherwise" insulting and demeaning, and I would ask him to
>refrain from including such statements in CFJs in the future.

this is not a name is right, and I apologize.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 21:57:47 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Constitutional Convention Candidacy

I declare that I am a candidate for the constitutional convention.

From Rule 629:

>     (2) The Tabulator shall accept nominations for Delegate for the
>     length of the Official Voting Period.
>     (3) Each player may nominate a maximum of one player to the
>     position of Delegate by sending a message to the Tabulator which
>     informs him of the player so nominated.
>     (4) (i) At the end of the Official Voting Period, the Tabulator
>     shall determine the three players receiving the greatest number of
>     nominations. These players shall be considered to have been
>     elected as Delegates.

Votes are to be sent to Wayne at [email-masked] .

I believe that I am uniquely qualified to address the present situation, 
having judged the paradox CFJ that resulted in this Convention.

this is not a name
Historian
File Clerk

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"DOS computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and
 millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million
 machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note
 that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers
 alone do not denote a higher life form." --The New York Times, 11/26/91 
Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key            http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:07:30 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official: Constitutional Convention Candidacy 

>I declare that I am a candidate for the constitutional convention.

As do I.

Calvin N Hobbes

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:18:06 -0700
From: Clerk of the Courts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Official

From R829:

> All Calls for Judgement for which a verdict has not been returned
> shall be removed from consideration without modification of the score
> of any player. 

> Distribution of new proposals and new calls for judgement shall be 
> suspended.

Verdict 180, if received, shall be held by the CotC. Any CFJs or CFCJs
filed will be held by the Clerk as well, pending research as to whether
R829 claims sufficient precedence to allow these actions.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:22:20 -0700
From: Clerk of the Courts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

Clerk of the Courts wrote:
> 
> >From R829:
> 
> > All Calls for Judgement for which a verdict has not been returned
> > shall be removed from consideration without modification of the score
> > of any player.
> 
> > Distribution of new proposals and new calls for judgement shall be
> > suspended.
> 
> Verdict 180, if received, shall be held by the CotC. Any CFJs or CFCJs
> filed will be held by the Clerk as well, pending research as to whether
> R829 claims sufficient precedence to allow these actions.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts

The Clerk claims that R 829 is worded sufficiently to allow these actions.

Clerk of the Courts

Sorry for 2 posts, but we're on a government budget, we can waste
resources :)

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 21:45:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Delegate candidacy, and Re: CFJ 184 verdict

> this is not a name's Reasoning:

> I recommend that the last sentence of R545 be modified by the
> Constitutional Convention to something like "This rule does not apply to
> the first sentence of the second paragraph of the text of this rule." 

The problem with 545 is worse than that, because it doesn't even
properly describe what it does.  The part about [single brackets]
applies to rules, but the part about [[double brackets]] seems to
be interpreted as meaning that the text is deleted from the proposal
before it creates/amends/etc. rules.  The troublesome sentence which
got Malenkai a win by paradox should have really said "this rule does
not apply to this PROPOSAL."  Here is the text of 545:

 = = = = = 
A note is a part of the text of a Rule enclosed by square brackets.  It is
game custom that the presence of a note in a Rule has no effect on
gameplay.  [I.e., notes need not be obeyed.  See Rule 101. 
Notes are primarily for clarification.]

Any text in doube square brackets [[e.g this]] is 
considered to be a temporary note provided by the
author, but meant to be excluded completly from the
text of the rule when it is officially published. This
rule expilcitly does not apply to this rule.
 = = = = = 

The second paragraph makes more sense if completely re-written as:
  "Any text in double square brackets [[e.g. this]] in a proposal is a
   temporary note provided by the author, and is deleted from the
   proposal before it becomes a rule change."
We don't need the last sentence any more, if this is created by the ConCon.
Kelly Martin also suggested to me on IRC that there was a possible conflict
between this rule and rule 105 (immutable):
  "Any proposed rule change must be written down (or otherwise communicated
   in print media) before it is voted on.  If adopted, it must guide play in
   the form in which it was voted on."
If this is actually in conflict with 545, then rule 108 (immutable) makes
the whole rule void.
  "Mutable rules that are inconsistent in some way with some immutable rule
   (except by proposing to transmute it) are wholly void and without effect.
   They do not implicitly transmute immutable rules into mutable rules and at
   the same time amend them.  Rule changes that transmute immutable rules
   into mutable rules will be effective only if they explicitly state their
   transmuting effect."
Rule 108 has problems anyway, since it (like 545) seems to be confusing
rules and proposals.  The ConCon should fix this too, since it's difficult
to fix otherwise.

> I also suggest that the Convention consider rewording R664.

  "When any length of time is specified which is three days or shorter, no
   time on Sunday shall be counted.  Sunday shall be defined as Sunday in the
   Eastern time zone of the United States.

   This rule does not apply to this rule."

Yes, the same problem, and in this case, the idea that the rule doesn't
apply to itself is at least the right idea.  "The first paragraph of this
rule does not apply to this rule."

Some of the ideas in the 40-odd proposals that just got nuked by rule 829
could also be considered; particularly, the changes in proposals 862, 863,
867, 868, 869, 870, 874, 875, 883, 884, and 887, and maybe others.  I'd
prefer a CC report to replace the entire rule set, even though many of the
rules would be unchanged, just because it gives us a chance to correct old
mistakes, and know that they have been corrected.

If CFJ's 145 and 149 really truly not judged until we think they were
(in the case of 149, never) then the proposals they were trying to revise
should never have gone through, but instead both of them completed their
voting periods and passed.  Undoing these changes would have such a huge
impact on the game and the rules, that, well nobody even wants to think
about it.

Oh, and I also announce my candidacy for Delegate.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 01:23:18 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Miscellaneous

 As one of the less active players, let me make this explanation:
1. Sometimes it is all I have time to do to read all the Acka-messages,
let alone respond to them. Granted, I have missed a few votes recently, 
including the senate vote, but I would rather carry on trying to keep
up, than go on indefinite vacation or revert to observer status. 

2. I am beginning to find the size of the ruleset a problem. "So
many rules, so little to do", who said that? I`m all in favour
of rationalising what we have in order to make room for more.

3. My official Ackanomic residence is " Aubergine Hall". Do drop round
sometime for an Acka-snack.

4. There is no item 4.

5. But there certainly is an item 5. 

Brinjal.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 23:04:28 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Delegate candidacy, and Re: CFJ 184 verdict

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Some of the ideas in the 40-odd proposals that just got nuked by rule 829
> could also be considered; particularly, the changes in proposals 862, 863,
> 867, 868, 869, 870, 874, 875, 883, 884, and 887, and maybe others.  I'd
> prefer a CC report to replace the entire rule set, even though many of the
> rules would be unchanged, just because it gives us a chance to correct old
> mistakes, and know that they have been corrected.

I should like to voice opposition to a long, drawn out CC that makes
extensive changes. My reasons are three-fold:

1) The intent of R 829 is to just go in and fix the paradox, then get
out of there. If all of what is quoted above is paradoxical, that is
a different story. I only remember 3 paradoxi, R 545, the Sunday thing,
and actually cannot remember the third, sorry.

2) Rule changes should be proposed, and considered, in the public forum
via debate. I realise that the CC procedure requires ratification by
the entire field, but realistically only a select few will have the 
time be able to study the extensive changes in the limited voting period.

3) What fun would it be for the players who are not selected as delegates?
They may not submit proposals, nor may they submit CFJs or vote. I
personally would lose interest if I were not a delegate.

My only recommendation, if an extensive, drawn out procedure with lots
of changes is desired, is to hold the CC as a Nomic with the Acka ruleset
as its I.R.S, (sans paradoxi) and invite all current players to play
the sub-Nomic. Then the delegates could rubber stamp the thing when
done. Recursive Nomic, what if it happens again... The idea is actually
growing on me...

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:30:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: IRC

I invite everyone to join me on IRC at wilma.che.utexas.edu:9942
channel #ackanomic tonight, or any night this week, to discuss any
aspect of the game.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #48
******************************