Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #49
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Thursday, June 13 1996        Volume 01 : Number 049

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 01:05:41 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Delegate candidacy, and Re: CFJ 184 verdict

Malenkai wrote:
>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.

I agree.

Vote this is not a name for Delegate. I agree with Malenkai that we 
should just fix up the things that desperately need fixing (i.e. the 
paradoxes) and leave any other changes that people might want to make to 
the appropriate proposal processes.

I don't want the game hung for any longer than it has to be.

Send your nominations to Wayne.

this is not a name
Historian
File Clerk
Candidate for Delegate: vote now to [email-masked]

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
 "The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest." -- Kilgore Trout
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:09:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Phoebe is lost

Niccolo Flychuck failed to post What Phoebe Says in the week since he
found the matchbox at 23:40 CDT June 5, so by rule 730 he is deemed to
have lost the matchbox and should be penalized 3 points.

Phoebe's matchbox is missing.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 00:21:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Phoebe found (Techno)

Phoebe's matchbox has been found by Techno.
Techno has a week to post What Phoebe Says, or else suffer the
same fate as Niccolo Flychuck.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:01:11 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: DISC - dice and random numbers

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Jerome Herrman wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> > Actually it is quite possible to get good results with several six sided dice.
> > Let d1 the roll of one of the die, let d2 be the roll of the second die.
> > Normally we take d1+d2 as the result. If we took d1+d2*6 as the result,
> > we'll get a number from 1to 36, all of whic have the same probability, or
> > at least with the acceptable error that we expect from dice.  A strict
> > requirement would be to make the dice distinguishable from one another, so
> > that one is always d1 and the other is always d2, although as far as
> > probability is concerned, since rolls are independent, it is not important
> > which is d1 and which d2, as long as this decision is not based on the
> > result (this could be a subsoncious thing too.) a good method would be, to
> > throw them seperately and decide:"the one I throw first is d1"
> > 
> > considering that thenumber of players in Ackanomic is less than 30, a 30
> > sided die would do fine, and have fewer misrolls than a 36-sided 'double-die'
> > 
> > If one owns dice of different sized, such as the ones in AD&D, they can find
> > other suitable combinations, depending on the number of players currently in
> > the game.
> > 
> > Nicolo Flychuck
> > 
> > 
> 
> Your math is incorrect.
> 
> d1+d2*6   would give a result of 12 to 72.  The lowest number on six 
> sided die is 1, not 0.  Therefore you would have 1+1*6. That does not 
> equal 1.  The highest would be 6+6*6.
> 
> Techno
OOPS, my math was incorrect, but then, my major was Mathematics, so I
believe I should be excused ;).
However, I make out 1+1*6 to be 7 and 6+6*6 to evaluate to 42, with no
duplicates, so at my least probabilities were correct.
(d1,d2 were the names of the dice, so the 2 was part of the variable name)

1. You can assign players numbers begining with 7
2. You can use instead the formula
(d1+6*d2)-6
in order to start with 1

> 

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:20:40 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: IRC

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> 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.
> 

Once again, I ask players. When posting such a message, please specify
approximate hours, and time-zone, so we the rest of us can do the proper
conversion and actually know what time you are talking about.
Also note, if you reffer to GMT, that while UK has daylight savings, GMT
does not, so currently UK is GDT.
I, for one, has no idea what /dev/joe means by 'tonight'. He may as well
mean right now (9:15 am, for me). 
Please be more specific.
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 08:54:17 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Offici 

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 09:02:46 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Offici 

> From [email-masked] Wed Jun 12 21:57 BST 1996
> Sender: [email-masked]
> > Actually it is quite possible to get good results 
> > with several six sided dice.
> > Let d1 the roll of one of the die, let d2 be the roll of the second die.
> > Normally we take d1+d2 as the result. If we took d1+d2*6 as the result,
> > we'll get a number from 1 to 36, all of whic have the same probability, or
> > at least with the acceptable error that we expect from dice.  A strict
> > requirement would be to make the dice distinguishable from one another, so
> > that one is always d1 and the other is always d2, although as far as
> > probability is concerned, since rolls are independent, it is not important
> > which is d1 and which d2, as long as this decision is not based on the
> > result (this could be a subsoncious thing too.) a good method would be, to
> > throw them seperately and decide:"the one I throw first is d1"
> > 
> > considering that thenumber of players in Ackanomic is less than 30, a 30
> > sided die would do fine, and have fewer misrolls than a 36-sided 'double-di
> > the game.
> > 
> > Nicolo Flychuck
> > 
> > 
> 
> Your math is incorrect.
> 
> d1+d2*6   would give a result of 12 to 72.  The lowest number on six 
> sided die is 1, not 0.  Therefore you would have 1+1*6. That does not 
> equal 1.  The highest would be 6+6*6.
> 
> Techno
> 

Your maths is also incorrect. The lowest is 1+1*6=7, the highest 
6+6*6=42 a range of 7-42. A range of 1-36 will come from
d1+d2*6-6.  The simplest way to choose randomly for any number
of players under 53 is probably to assign each one a playing card
then draw randomly from a deck containing only those cards.

  Robin Hood 

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 09:19:35 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Winning and Scores 

> From [email-masked] Wed Jun 12 23:01 BST 1996
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 16:48:41 -0500
> From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Acka: Winning and Scores
> Content-Type> : > text> 
> Content-Length: 815
> 
> 
> this is not a name wrote:
> >Wait a second -- has the prosthetic forehead CFJ come in yet? Maybe I 
> >missed it.
> 
> Good question.  CFJ 181 came back, but it does not answer the central
> question.  No judgement for CFJ 180 is listed on the web page, but I thought
> I remembered it being posted.  Maybe I just think so because I wrote the
> CFJ, and it seems extremely clear-cut to me.
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps this was lost somewhere in the CotC bruhaha.
> Robin Hood is listed as the judge -- perhaps he can shed some light on the
> topic?

 I have sent a judgement in, but it may have gone astray.

I judged True.

I'm satisfied with Thinman's reasoning.
In addition if /dev/joe/ were right then
prosthetic foreheads would  conflict with rule 108
since by his reasoning an endless variety is not endless
unless there exist foreheads that transmute immutables, so
108 would immediately annul the rule rendering him wrong.
Judgeing false would therefore make  the statement true

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:13:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Official (Creation of Nobs party)

According to the rules, I'm supposed to forward this to everyone.  So, 
enjoy it again, or just delete it.

- --Mohammed

Announcing the formation of a new political party:  Nobs

The initial members of Nobs are:
/dev/joe, Mohammed, and ThinMan

The Charter of Nobs:

1. The goal of the Nobs party is to repeal or rewrite poorly written
rules in the existing rule set, and prevent more such rules from
being added.  Fun rules are OK, but they should be well-written fun
rules.  Rules with some purpose are preferable to do-nothing rules.

2. A secondary goal of Nobs is to get party unity votes.  This won't
be stressed too much, but it does mean that you're at least expected
to vote on every proposal.

3. If a loophole is discovered in the rule set that allows an
unexpected action, it is permissible to take advantage of that
loophole before removing it, particularly if it can result in a
win for a member of Nobs.

4. Players may only join Nobs with the approval of a majority of the
existing members.  A player may be removed from Nobs for not voting,
or for any other reason, by the approval of a majority of the other
members.  The charter of Nobs may be amended by a majority of the
members.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:18:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: IRC

> On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> > 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.

> Once again, I ask players. When posting such a message, please specify
> approximate hours, and time-zone, so we the rest of us can do the proper
> conversion and actually know what time you are talking about.
> Also note, if you reffer to GMT, that while UK has daylight savings, GMT
> does not, so currently UK is GDT.
> I, for one, has no idea what /dev/joe means by 'tonight'. He may as well
> mean right now (9:15 am, for me). 

OK, well I may not be on during all of this time, but look for me to be
on from 7PM to midnight U.S. CDT (-0500).  I will probably not be on until
7:30 tonight.  I realize that this is the wee-early morning hours for the
Europeans, but I'm just saying when *I* will be on.  The server runs 24 hrs
a day, so other people can gather at other times.  I may stop in at other
times, as well.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:17:08 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Has anybody seen CFJ 156

From the responsible Nicolo Flychuck:

> CFJ 156 has been judged and returned to the
> CotC within the deadline.
> This is not about score penalties, but about my reputation as a responsible
> citizen of Ackanomia

Problems with mailing Mohammed were why I mailed my last CFJ
to everyone, causing [dirty word] problems, which I apologise
for.

Bascule

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:09:24 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC

Does this go against the spirit of the Festival?
Still, I've enjoyed my candy floss, toffee apples
and all the rides and shows on offer, and I thought
I'd make an RFC before going on the Big Wheel again.

RFC - Make the Ruleset easier for new players

For long rules, and for rules easily summarised, we
could insert a line at the beginning, [in square brackets]
summarising the content of the rule. So a new player
could scan through the ruleset quickly, and read the
rules in detail later. 

If this is not unpopular, I'll submit a proposal once
all the fun and merriment is over

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:40:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC Senate purge

> > RFC xxx
> > Senate purge
> 
> I see no problem with the Acting Senators.
	Problem is, they were given their powers based on a rule that 
needs to be revised a little.  You yourself objected to the transfer of 
powers when you first saw it.  It's sneaky; I don't like it.

> senators) helped build the game we are playing. I was personally
> shocked when I came back from a 10 day trip to Europe to see myself
> almost booted out of office by a rule.
	Big difference there.  You went on vacation with a note saying
when you'd be back.  These people have been gone for a month, no advance
warning, and there's no reason to believe they will ever return.  Missing,
Presumed Fed.  Let's get on with it.
	Besides which, I think if the current snoozing Senators were able,
they'd go ahead and give up their offices.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:43:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: RFC retroactivity

> I thought Strict Constructionalism went out with the witch burnings.
> What is a "rule change"? A change in the rules :)
	You miss my point.  Your proposed new rule creates a rule which 
then generates all kinds of retroactive effects.  There is no ban on 
retroactive effects, only on retroactive rule changes.
	Even if this is not true for your particular proposal, it is easy 
to write a proposal that would take advantage of that loophole.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:16:54 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Amber Banana

Malenkai wrote:
>Randy Hall wrote:
>> 
>> >Proposal 894 - Mon Jun 10 00:25:03 EDT 1996
>> >Map, Creation Of
>> >Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
>> 
>> By R 827 I claim that I am spending A$10 to acquire an Amber
>> Banana from Techno's tree. Upon Techno completing the purchase,
>> by acknowledging this, I will decide if I will eat it, and how
>> Techno will vote, should I decide to do so.
>
>Techno has not responded to the following, at least I have not 
>gotten it. It may be at the other ISP.
>
>In any case, I will do what is explicitly permitted by R 827.
>
>I will purchase an Amber Banana from Techno. The Financier should
>debit my account by A$10, and credit A$10 to Techno.

Upon examining R 482, I find that the FM is the only legal place where
transactions may take place, and that the rules for transactions to occur
there are explicit.  R894 does not take precedence.  However, I believe that
R894 _requires_ Techno to accept the transaction on the FM; failure to do
so would be a Rule violation, subject to CFCJ.

>Next, I shall eat the banana, as "cows eat grass".
>
>I shall now specify that Techno vote Yes on P 894. Would Techno, and/
>or the Tabulator, please make sure this occurs.

Unfortunately, all of this is moot, for P894 is no longer in the queue
after the invocation of R829.

ThinMan

Financier
Senator
Nobs member
All-around great guy

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:20:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Creation of XXXX party

> Player who wants "strictly defined" rules.
	That's badly written.  :o)

> 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.
	"Well written" means having all the following qualities:  a single
meaning, brevity, proper spelling and grammar, and a good
industrial/techno beat (optional but it helps.)
	"Useful" means having some game effect which is either well
integrated with the rest of the game, or very intereseting.  [Contrast: 
Vacation (integral), Eleusis RFC (interesting), and Party Hall (neither.)]
A useless rule is easy to spot because it is marginal to the rest of the
game.

> Player who abhors vagueness as long as it is other people's, yet
> enjoys his own.
	Not so.  Vagueness is useful.  However, I do have this odd 
conviction that the rules should be interpreted as written.
	You, Calvin, having written a huge number of proposals (but not having 
proofread an equal number, unfortunately), frequently find yourself in the 
position of having written a rule that doesn't do what you intended.  You 
usually take the position that the rule should be interpreted as you 
meant it, not as you wrote it.
	Some of us object on the grounds that the whole point of Nomic, 
or any game, is to play by the rules.

> Player willing to abuse any loopholes, real or imaginary, for
> personal gains, whatever the risk to the Game or the other players.
	I resent that; I managed to point out the loophole in resolutions
without abusing it.

> Synonym:
> New-Age Bureaucrat and Sewer-Politics Utilitarianist in one.
	Four slurs in seventy characters!  A record.  Plus you've labeled 
me generally clueless, hypocritical, amoral, and careless.  I'm impressed.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:34:44 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Acka: registration

if possible, i hereby register as a Player in Ackanomic, in accordance
with Rule 218.  my name, per Rule 570, shall be "Kelly Martin".

if this is insufficient to cause registration (the Rules are unclear
on this), i hereby request that i be registered as a Player in
Ackanomic, with the aforementioned name.

i also request membership in the Nobs Party.  it is about time someone
got to work on cleaning up the mess that is Ackanomic's Rules.

finally, would someone care to identify all outstanding Proposals, if
any, so i might vote upon them?

k.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:38:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Has anybody seen CFJ 156

> Mohammed lost no less than 5 of my CFJs, so your work was probably lost
> in the shuffle, or in the transition of Web-Harfers.
	Wow!  Five?!  That's incredible.  I think I lost one three times, 
and another one once, but I must actually have missed one in there 
somewhere...
	Anyway, I meant to get you that "care package" with all the 
judgements in it a little sooner.  Everything's in there.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:51:15 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 835 

"Jason" == Jason Orendorff <[email-masked]> writes:

Jason> 	These sections will not repeal themselves.  Material in
Jason> brackets is not binding law.

are you sure?  i suspect that Rule 545 conflicts with (immutable) Rule
105, and is thus completely void.  without Rule 545 to provide force
to the claim that text within brackets is without force, i see no
compelling reason to believe that it is not, and Rules 101 and 105
further lead me to believe that all the text of every Rule is binding.
further, i do not believe that mere game custom has sufficient force
to require us to completely disregard part of a Rule merely because it
is enclosed in brackets.  Game Custom certainly cannot be permitted to
overwhelm Rules 101 or 105.

k.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 19:48:46 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Worthless Currency

What we need is a SHOP!

What should it stock?

Coke (it IS our official drink, after all)
Souvenir teeshirts emblazoned with "Torkola - June '96"
Prosthetic Foreheads, although space restrictions in the
  storeroom might have to limit the selection to heads whose
  description starts with the phrase "Carrot-juice".
Beer. If any player drinks more than 10 bottles of beer
  in 24 hours, she would be referred to as "extremely drunk"
  and be incapable of any game activity for the next 48.

etc etc

But what CAN it sell? A load of old junk for the most part
I expect. Any ideas? 

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:06:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Miscellaneous

> 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.
	Amen to that.  Just because there's no forseeable limit on how 
many rules we can generate doesn't mean it would be sane to do so.
	The original nomic ruleset has a 25-mutable-rule limit!  We can't 
go that far here and preserve the game, but the idea was there for a reason.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:44:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  End of Cycle

Which rule, if any, dictates that all pending proposals are nuked upon 
end of cycle?

If there is no such rule, pending proposals include proposal numbers 861 
through 909.  The nomicbot should be able to retrieve those for you, 
Kelly; send a message to [email-masked] with the word 
"nomicbot" in the subject line and "#help" in the text.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:45:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Inventor

The current high bid for the Electronic Potato is A$30.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:47:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Registrarness, Nobs party stuff

Observer Kelly Martin has decided to become a player, with the
Ackanomic Name of Kelly Martin.

By the party's approval, she is also now a member of the Nobs party.

Nobs is still considering the application of Niccolo Flychuck.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:58:06 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: RFC 

Bascule wrote:
>RFC - Make the Ruleset easier for new players
>
>For long rules, and for rules easily summarised, we
>could insert a line at the beginning, [in square brackets]
>summarising the content of the rule. So a new player
>could scan through the ruleset quickly, and read the
>rules in detail later. 
>
>If this is not unpopular, I'll submit a proposal once
>all the fun and merriment is over

Who will actually write the summaries?  Will they be approved by anyone,
or will they go in as originally written?  Can they be modified once written?
Are they considered part of the corresponding Rule in any way?  If not, then
is the Web-Harfer required to include them on the Web page?

I don't object in general to Rule summaries, but I there are alot of
important details.  The particular details I point out above, and perhaps
others, will determine how I vote on any proposal for summaries.

ThinMan

Financier
Senator
Nobs member
All-around great guy

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 96 14:22:57 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  End of Cycle

Mohammed says:
>Which rule, if any, dictates that all pending proposals are nuked upon 
>end of cycle?

829.

>Rule 829/0 (Mutable)
>Handling Paradox Wins
>ThinMan (John Bollinger)
>
>     In the event that a win by paradox is declared, the following
>     procedure shall be followed before the procedure called for by
>     rule 666:
>
>     All proposals whose voting period has not expired shall be removed
>     from consideration without modification of the score of any
>     player.

[6 paragraphs snipped]

this is not a name
Historian
File Clerk
Candidate for Delegate: vote now to [email-masked]

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
  "Men have become the tools of their tools." --Henry David Thoreau
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:39:14 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 835 

Kelly Martin wrote:
>Jason> 	These sections will not repeal themselves.  Material in
>Jason> brackets is not binding law.
>
>are you sure?  i suspect that Rule 545 conflicts with (immutable) Rule
>105, and is thus completely void.  without Rule 545 to provide force
>to the claim that text within brackets is without force, i see no
>compelling reason to believe that it is not, and Rules 101 and 105
>further lead me to believe that all the text of every Rule is binding.
>further, i do not believe that mere game custom has sufficient force
>to require us to completely disregard part of a Rule merely because it
>is enclosed in brackets.  Game Custom certainly cannot be permitted to
>overwhelm Rules 101 or 105.

After some consideration, and an abortive attempt at a rebuttal, I have
decided that Kelly is correct.  In my judgement, however, only the second
paragraph of R545 conflicts with R105.  If the second paragraph were struck,
then R545 would be nicely sufficient to establish an interpretation for
text enclosed within square brackets.  R105 is silent on the way in which
any particular Rule is interpreted, but R101 requires that the Rules be
interpreted according to game custom.  Double-square-bracketted text cannot
legally be struck from adopted proposals, but if R545 is fixed up then such
text will have no effect.

ThinMan

Financier
Senator
Nobs member
All-around great guy

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:56:34 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  End of Cycle 

this is not a name wrote:
>Mohammed says:
>>Which rule, if any, dictates that all pending proposals are nuked upon 
>>end of cycle?
>
>829.
>
>>Rule 829/0 (Mutable)
>>Handling Paradox Wins
>>ThinMan (John Bollinger)
>>
>>     In the event that a win by paradox is declared, the following
>>     procedure shall be followed before the procedure called for by
>>     rule 666:
>>
>>     All proposals whose voting period has not expired shall be removed
>>     from consideration without modification of the score of any
>>     player.
>
>[6 paragraphs snipped]

With some embarrassment I concur with this is not a name.  The Rule does
exactly what I wrote it should do, which is exactly what I intended.  I
did not expect quite so many proposals to be nuked, but that's irrelevant.

I feel I need to explain myself, however: the purpose for withdrawing the
pending proposals and CFJs is that if a Paradox win is declared, then the
legality of passing new proposals, in particular or in general, may be in
question, and the Rules upon which any judgement may be based may also be
in question.  Furthermore, the ensuing Constitutional Convention may well
make further changes that render those proposals and CFJs not sensible.

I have recovered copies of all of my nuked proposals from the NomicBot; I
will resubmit them after the win is handled.  I suggest that others do the
same.

ThinMan

Financier
Senator
Nobs member
All-around great guy

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 22:44:27 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: RFC 

At 12:58 PM 13/06/96 -0500 , John Bollinger  wrote:
>
>Bascule wrote:
>>RFC - Make the Ruleset easier for new players
>>
>>For long rules, and for rules easily summarised, we
>>could insert a line at the beginning, [in square brackets]
>>summarising the content of the rule. So a new player
>>could scan through the ruleset quickly, and read the
>>rules in detail later. 
>>
>>If this is not unpopular, I'll submit a proposal once
>>all the fun and merriment is over
When I RFC, or I submit a long proposal, I try to follow it with a seperate
posting which summarizes the idea in that proposal, and my reasoning behind
them, this way players can comment on the rule, the intent, and also on how
well they feel they rule meets the intent. This is especially useful when
submittin several related proposals together.(or posting several RFCs)

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:51:47 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: End of Cycle 

"Mohammed" == Mohammed  <[email-masked]> writes:

Mohammed> Which rule, if any, dictates that all pending proposals are
Mohammed> nuked upon end of cycle?

none.  however, there is a Rule (829) that requires the dismissal of
all pending proposals upon a Rule 219 ("paradox") win, which,
purportedly, Malenkai did.

however, i do not believe that such a Win is possible; Rule 110 only
allows winning the game by the accumulation of "n" points (where n may
vary), and allows for the existence of provisions that determine the
(final) winner in the event that further play is not possible.  Rule
219's attempt to assign a winner in the event that the legality of
some action cannot be determined with finality or in the event that
some action appears equally legal and illegal is in conflict with Rule
110, if one accepts that play can continue in the face of a
contradiction.  if this is the case, Rule 219 is entirely void and
without effect (per Rule 108), and Malenkai has not won.  if it is not
the case, then further play is in fact impossible, the game is over
(Malenkai having won), and this discussion is moot.

Mohammed> If there is no such rule, pending proposals include proposal
Mohammed> numbers 861 through 909.  The nomicbot should be able to
Mohammed> retrieve those for you, Kelly; send a message to
Mohammed> [email-masked] with the word "nomicbot" in the
Mohammed> subject line and "#help" in the text.

/dev/joe's page includes the text of these purportedly-withdrawn
proposals, and i already have copies of them.

k.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:58:34 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 835 

"John" == John Bollinger <[email-masked]> writes:

John> After some consideration, and an abortive attempt at a rebuttal,
John> I have decided that Kelly is correct.  In my judgement, however,
John> only the second paragraph of R545 conflicts with R105. 

i concur.  however, Rule 105 states that the _entire_ Mutable Rule in
a Mutable/Immutable conflict is void and without effect.  so until
Rule 545 is fixed, none of it has any effect.

keep in mind that this determination (if legally established in the
form of a Judgement) is retroactive to the time of adoption of the
present form of Rule 545.  every Rule adopted after Rule 545's
amendment into its present form must be revised to include text
incorrectly removed, and all actions taken since that time must be
reviewed for legality considering all the text of the rules, including
that enclosed in square brackets.  i doubt the latter will have any
substantial game effect, but it should be explored nonetheless.

John> If the second paragraph were struck, then R545 would be nicely
John> sufficient to establish an interpretation for text enclosed
John> within square brackets.  R105 is silent on the way in which any
John> particular Rule is interpreted, but R101 requires that the Rules
John> be interpreted according to game custom.
John> Double-square-bracketted text cannot legally be struck from
John> adopted proposals, but if R545 is fixed up then such text will
John> have no effect.

i also concur.

k.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:01:23 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  End of Cycle 

At 01:56 PM 13/06/96 -0500 , John Bollinger  wrote:
>
>this is not a name wrote:
>>Mohammed says:
>>>Which rule, if any, dictates that all pending proposals are nuked upon 
>>>end of cycle?
>>
>>829.
>>
>>>Rule 829/0 (Mutable)
>>>Handling Paradox Wins
>>>ThinMan (John Bollinger)
>>>
>>>     In the event that a win by paradox is declared, the following
>>>     procedure shall be followed before the procedure called for by
>>>     rule 666:
>>>
>>>     All proposals whose voting period has not expired shall be removed
>>>     from consideration without modification of the score of any
>>>     player.
>>
>>[6 paragraphs snipped]
>
>With some embarrassment I concur with this is not a name.  The Rule does
>exactly what I wrote it should do, which is exactly what I intended.  I
>did not expect quite so many proposals to be nuked, but that's irrelevant.
[snip]
>I have recovered copies of all of my nuked proposals from the NomicBot; I
>will resubmit them after the win is handled.  I suggest that others do the
>same.
It is my understanding that one cannot submit any rules until the win is
handled, also according to R666. Would that be correct?
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:26:06 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: End of Cycle 

Kelly Martin wrote:
>"Mohammed" == Mohammed  <[email-masked]> writes:
>Mohammed> Which rule, if any, dictates that all pending proposals are
>Mohammed> nuked upon end of cycle?
>
>none.  however, there is a Rule (829) that requires the dismissal of
>all pending proposals upon a Rule 219 ("paradox") win, which,
>purportedly, Malenkai did.
>
>however, i do not believe that such a Win is possible; Rule 110 only
>allows winning the game by the accumulation of "n" points (where n may
>vary), and allows for the existence of provisions that determine the
>(final) winner in the event that further play is not possible.  Rule
>219's attempt to assign a winner in the event that the legality of
>some action cannot be determined with finality or in the event that
>some action appears equally legal and illegal is in conflict with Rule
>110, if one accepts that play can continue in the face of a
>contradiction.  if this is the case, Rule 219 is entirely void and
>without effect (per Rule 108), and Malenkai has not won.  if it is not
>the case, then further play is in fact impossible, the game is over
>(Malenkai having won), and this discussion is moot.

Unfortunately, Kelly's argument above depends upon R110 being immutable,
when, in fact, it is mutable.  Rule 219 explicitly claims precedence, and is
therefore has full force.  Moreover, CFJ 158 establishes unequivocally
that the game does not end when a winner is declared.  I did not agree with
this CFJ when it was issued, and still do not, but there it is.

ThinMan

Financier
Senator
Nobs member
All-around great guy

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:33:03 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  End of Cycle 

Nicolo Flychuck wrote:
>It is my understanding that one cannot submit any rules until the win is
>handled, also according to R666. Would that be correct?

Not really.  However, distribution of new proposals is suspended by R829
until a report of the ConCon is accepted.  The procedure of R666 does, in
fact, suspend play, but only as long as it takes for the rest of the
procedure to be executed.  Theoretically, that's no time at all.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:18:46 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 835

From kelly martin:
> are you sure?  i suspect that Rule 545 conflicts with (immutable) Rule
> 105, and is thus completely void.  

I presume that kelly is arguing that rule 105

  From rule 105: If adopted, it [a rule change] must guide play in
  the form in which it was voted on.

means that contents of square brackets cannot be ignored when 
applying rules. I don't agree with this argument; since it is
R101 that says rules must be obeyed, and "interpreted in accordance
with currently existing game custom". R545 does not seek to claim
precedence over R105. It defines game custom.

  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. 

Kelly again:
> without Rule 545 to provide force
> to the claim that text within brackets is without force, i see no
> compelling reason to believe that it is not, and Rules 101 and 105
> further lead me to believe that all the text of every Rule is binding.
> further, i do not believe that mere game custom has sufficient force
> to require us to completely disregard part of a Rule merely because it
> is enclosed in brackets.  Game Custom certainly cannot be permitted to
> overwhelm Rules 101 or 105.
> 
> k.

I don't believe this view is backed by the rules:

From 101:
All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the 
form in which they are then in effect, and interpreted in accordance
with currently existing game custom. 

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 19:29:10 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC

> Bascule wrote:
> >RFC - Make the Ruleset easier for new players
> >
> >For long rules, and for rules easily summarised, we
> >could insert a line at the beginning, [in square brackets]
> >summarising the content of the rule. So a new player
> >could scan through the ruleset quickly, and read the
> >rules in detail later. 
> >
> >If this is not unpopular, I'll submit a proposal once
> >all the fun and merriment is over

Thinman: 
> Who will actually write the summaries?  Will they be approved by anyone,
> or will they go in as originally written?  Can they be modified once written?
> Are they considered part of the corresponding Rule in any way?  If not, then
> is the Web-Harfer required to include them on the Web page?
> 
> I don't object in general to Rule summaries, but I there are alot of
> important details.  The particular details I point out above, and perhaps
> others, will determine how I vote on any proposal for summaries.

I was thinking of just proposing to amend the rules, inserting text 
in square brackets at the top. So no rule about summaries would be
created, you'd vote on each proposal for a summary on a case by case
basis, or more likely with multiple changes lumped in together. But
I've just had a look through the ruleset, and no rules jumped out at
me begging to be summarised anyway.

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:31:24 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: End of Cycle

kelly martin wrote:
> "Mohammed" == Mohammed  <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> Mohammed> Which rule, if any, dictates that all pending proposals are
> Mohammed> nuked upon end of cycle?
> 
> none.  however, there is a Rule (829) that requires the dismissal of
> all pending proposals upon a Rule 219 ("paradox") win, which,
> purportedly, Malenkai did.
> 
> however, i do not believe that such a Win is possible; Rule 110 only
> allows winning the game by the accumulation of "n" points (where n may
> vary), and allows for the existence of provisions that determine the
> (final) winner in the event that further play is not possible.  Rule
> 219's attempt to assign a winner in the event that the legality of
> some action cannot be determined with finality or in the event that
> some action appears equally legal and illegal is in conflict with Rule
> 110, if one accepts that play can continue in the face of a
> contradiction.  if this is the case, Rule 219 is entirely void and
> without effect (per Rule 108), and Malenkai has not won.  if it is not
> the case, then further play is in fact impossible, the game is over
> (Malenkai having won), and this discussion is moot.

From Rule 110: (mutable)
The state of affairs that constitutes winning the game may not be
changed from achieving n points to any other state of affairs.

However, from Rule 219: (mutable)
This rule takes precedence over every other rule for determining
the winner of the game.

Rule 210: (resolving conflicts)
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another,... then the 
rule with the lowest effective ordinal number takes precedence. If at
least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it
...takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such
provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining
precedence.  

So 219 has precedence over 110.

Bascule

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #49
******************************