Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #65
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, June 24 1996         Volume 01 : Number 065

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 21:56:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc: *groan*

> So some rouge player having intentionally unorthodox considerations of
> truth can cause an honest publisher to get stuck with a CFCJ? This is
> silly....
	The rule does not say that lying in print is against the rules; 
therefore any such CFCJ would have to be ruled False.
	I want to do a big overhaul of the CFCJ system that would put 
Fraud, Perjury, Treason, Arson, and Heresy under the same punishment 
system as Disobedience.  Haven't written anything yet, and until Wayne is 
off vacation, I won't...

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 22:07:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc: *groan*

> > So some rouge player having intentionally unorthodox considerations of
> > truth can cause an honest publisher to get stuck with a CFCJ? This is
> > silly....
> 	The rule does not say that lying in print is against the rules; 
> therefore any such CFCJ would have to be ruled False.

I have to agree with Mohammed here.

> 	I want to do a big overhaul of the CFCJ system that would put 
> Fraud, Perjury, Treason, Arson, and Heresy under the same punishment 
> system as Disobedience.  Haven't written anything yet, and until Wayne is 
> off vacation, I won't...

Wayne *is* off vacation.  Write away.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:31:33 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 191 (ThinMan)

ThinMan has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment:

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 191
  Subject: Next paradox, please
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: ThinMan (selected 24-Jun-96 23:30h New York Time)

Statement:

It cannot be determined with finality whether Malenkai is permitted
to remain a Supreme Court Justice (or would be permitted to do so if
he didn't voluntarily resign); in fact, it appears to be equally both
legal and illegal to remain so.

Reasoning:

Note that parts of this are written in past tense, thus the Judge must
consider the facts as they were at the referrant times, where appropriate.

Upon winning the game by paradox, R110 (relavent clause since removed),
forced Malenkai to become Speaker. This is a fact that is not disputed.

At the instant that that occurred, a conflict was set up between R110
and R507. R110 insisted that Malenkai became Speaker, R507 prevented such
by nature of the following clause, as Malenkai was already justice:

 "[The Supreme Court] will be composed of two players (called Justices) who
 are neither President, Speaker, Senator or already Justice."

R507 claimed no precedence, therefore R110 held sway by virtue of its lower 
number, and the precedence rules.

Thus, the only way to remove the conflict, and thus have the rules remain
self-consistent, was to have this event instantly remove Malenkai as
a Supreme Court Justice with no time passing. One could not wait a week
or two for Malenkai to resolve the situation, the rules are violating
themselves for that duration, and one cannot call a CFCJ on the rules!

But instantly removing Malenkai as Justice is illegal. I quote from
R 507 again:

 "Once a justice, a player can never be [...] kicked of [sic] office by any
 other entity"

Certainly we can take "kicked of office" to mean "kicked out of office".
Can we take the rules to be "any other entity"? I quote from R 660:

 "Rules, the rule set, [...] are protected entities."

If they are "protected entities", they are entities.

Therefore R 507 has the paradoxicial effect of declaring that it is illegal
for Malenkai to be a Justice, yet makes it illegal for the rules to 
remove him as such. R 110 dictated that Malenkai be speaker "For
the next game", thus eliminating that avenue of alleviation by precedence.
Just because R 110 has been amended, its pre-existing effects have not
been (qv CFJ 167).

Upon a verdict of TRUE, I claim a win by paradox. I shall also 
*voluntarily* resolve the situation upon such a verdict by resigning as
Justice. By R110, at the time, it is not legal for me to resign as Speaker,
as its past effects were not negated in its amendment.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 22:53:49 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 190 Verdict 

"CFJ190" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:

CFJ190> The rule set is a very private domain that contains the rules
CFJ190> by which our existences in Acka are to by governed. The
CFJ190> sanctity of these very rules is protected by R105 by ensuring
CFJ190> all rule changes are to be written down and voted upon.

CFJ190> It would be not only illegal to go against R105, but also
CFJ190> dangerous.  Therefore, by R594/1, it must be destroyed. [May
CFJ190> the guardian of the rule set have mercy on your blue print.]

this argument, while a beautiful appeal to emotion, is utterly flawed,
not to mention thoroughly devoid of logical reasoning.  i have little
choice but to appeal this judgement, and i accept the penalty for
doing so.

Rule 105 applies only to _proposed_ rule changes.  the rule changes
that the Pyraic Frobnotzer would impose are not proposed rule changes
and thus Rule 105 has no jurisdiction over them.  the ability of a
Gadget to impose rule changes is restricted only by Rule 115, which
states that the rules may be changed "only when a rule or set of rules
explicitly or implicitly permits it."

now, it is clearly the case that a Gadget may be empowered by "a rule
or set of rules" to change the Rules: Rule 660/1 states that "Rules
[...]  are protected entities" and Rule 786/2(vi) states that "A
Gadget may create, destroy, or manipulate a protected entity if its
Blueprint so specifies."  so, a Gadget is empowered to impose rule
changes if its Blueprint so specifies.  since the Pyraic Frobnatzer's
Blueprint clearly specifies that it is to impose Rule Changes under
certain circumstances, it is empowered to do so.

in the above, i have concerned myself primarily with the "written
down" requirement of Rule 105, which i presume is the portion of Rule
105 that Calvin N Hobbes invokes in his Judgement; his reasoning is
unclear.  it may be that Mr. Hobbes instead alleges that the Pyraic
Frobnotzer actually offends the second clause of Rule 105, in causing
a prior Proposal to no longer "guide play in the form in which it was
voted on."  in defeating this claim, i present the following two
counterarguments:

first, the manner in which an adopted Proposal guides play is in
imposing a rule change (we will disregard Resolutions for the moment).
once the rule change has been imposed, the proposal no longer has any
function of its own, and the application of another rule change to the
rules affected by that past proposal does not interfere with that
Proposal's guiding action.

second, if changing the wording of a Rule adopted or amended as a
result of a past Proposal offended Rule 105, it would be impossible to
amend any Rule created by a Proposal, or to amend again any Rule
amended by a Proposal.  clearly, Rule 105 is to be construed as to
prohibit modifications to a Proposal between the time it was proposed
and the time is enacted, and not to prohibit further modifications to
those entities affected by that Proposal at some future time.

k.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:51:00 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFCJ 104 (Techno)

Techno has been selected to judge the following CFCJ. He has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment: Please note that the Financier
should deduct a A$50 court fee from the initiator.

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Criminal Judgement 104
  Subject: Voting No
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: Techno (selected 24-Jun-96 23:45h New York Time)

Statement:

Player Dr McSpong violated R 101.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

Dr McSpong voted no in excess of 7 times consecutively on the recent 
string of proposals. This violates R 431, and thus R101. I refer the
Judge to e-mail public messages entitled "Acka: Results 870-879" and
"Acka: Results 880-889" for evidence.

This is not to pick on anyone, but the illegal NO voting could affect
the passage of proposals that people spent alot of time on. Furthermore,
it brings up the issue of rule enforcement in general, and gives us a
chance to possibly test drive the Gaol and Criminal Justice system before
some rule ripper "overhauls" it. Its nice to at least use the rules before
"overhauling" them.

Penalty:

A 3 day sentence in the Gaol.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:58:07 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Magic Potato

Its Monday where I am so,

Techno has been chosen to receive the Magic Potato this week.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 23:48:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 191 (ThinMan)

> Call for Judgement 191
> Statement:
> It cannot be determined with finality whether Malenkai is permitted
> to remain a Supreme Court Justice (or would be permitted to do so if
> he didn't voluntarily resign); in fact, it appears to be equally both
> legal and illegal to remain so.

This statement is false.  There are a couple of holes in your argument.

> Upon winning the game by paradox, R110 (relavent clause since removed),
> forced Malenkai to become Speaker. This is a fact that is not disputed.
> 
> At the instant that that occurred, a conflict was set up between R110
> and R507. R110 insisted that Malenkai became Speaker, R507 prevented such
> by nature of the following clause, as Malenkai was already justice:
> 
>  "[The Supreme Court] will be composed of two players (called Justices) who
>  are neither President, Speaker, Senator or already Justice."
> 
> R507 claimed no precedence, therefore R110 held sway by virtue of its lower 
> number, and the precedence rules.

OK, agreed up to here.

> Thus, the only way to remove the conflict, and thus have the rules remain
> self-consistent, was to have this event instantly remove Malenkai as
> a Supreme Court Justice with no time passing. One could not wait a week
> or two for Malenkai to resolve the situation, the rules are violating
> themselves for that duration, and one cannot call a CFCJ on the rules!

No.  The conflict is resolved by the precedence rules.  R110 made Malenkai
become the Speaker, despite the fact that R507 says that Justices are not
not the Speaker, President, etc., because R110 has precedence.  Nowhere
does R507 say a Justice is removed from office if he somehow becomes Speaker.

> But instantly removing Malenkai as Justice is illegal. I quote from
> R 507 again:
> 
>  "Once a justice, a player can never be [...] kicked of [sic] office by any
>  other entity"
> 
> Certainly we can take "kicked of office" to mean "kicked out of office".
> Can we take the rules to be "any other entity"? I quote from R 660:
> 
>  "Rules, the rule set, [...] are protected entities."
> 
> If they are "protected entities", they are entities.

There's a problem here too, if this part of the argument has any bearing
on the game at all.  Although the rules are entities, I maintain that
rule 507 is not an "other entity" as the phrase is used in the part of
R507 quoted above.  R507 is, in fact, the entity making that statement.
Other rules are "other entities" and thus may not remove a Justice from
office unless they have precedence over this rule.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 0:53:34 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 911

Proposal 911 - Mon Jun 24 00:53:34 EDT 1996
Duh
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)
Amend R545 by replacing the last sentence
  [[ currently "This rule expilcitly does not apply to this rule." ]]
with "The above parts of this rule do not apply to this rule."

Amend R664 by replacing the last sentence
  [[ currently "This rule does not apply to this rule." ]]
with "The above parts of this rule do not apply to this rule."

[[ Since the ConCon found to not have occurred, we still need to do this. ]]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 0:53:50 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 912

Proposal 912 - Mon Jun 24 00:53:50 EDT 1996
Judicial Reform I
  ( )

Amend R 588 to add the following paragraph after the existing text of
the rule:

If the CFJ is a Call For Criminal Judgement (CFCJ), the player or players
against which the CFCJ is being called are excluded from "the other
active players" and "remaining pool" as described above. This exclusion
is made before the random determination is made. In other words, a
player who has a CFCJ called against them may not be selected to judge
that CFCJ.

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

{{ All CFCJs whose number is less than 101 shall have 100 added to
their number. This applies whether or not a verdict has been reached
on the CFCJ.}}

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 0:54:04 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 913

Proposal 913 - Mon Jun 24 00:54:04 EDT 1996
Judicial Reform II
  ( )

Amend R 588 to add the following paragraphs after the existing text of
the rule:

If the CFJ is determined to be a Conflict of Interest with respect
to a player or group of players by the officer responsible for selecting
the judge (hereafter called the CotC), the player or players that a
Conflict of Interest has been determined for are excluded from "the other
active players" and "remaining pool" as described above. This exclusion
is made before the random determination is made.

The CotC has the priveledge of determining for which players, if any,
there is a Conflict of Interest, based on the statement of the CFJ. The
CotC must make all such determinations public, and must include reasoning
in such disclosure.

[An example of possible Conflict of Interest might be:

Player X calls the following CFJ:

"Player Y has used illegal means to change their score."

The CotC could then find that it would be a Conflict of Interest to
choose Player Y to judge this CFJ.]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 0:54:23 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 914

Proposal 914 - Mon Jun 24 00:54:23 EDT 1996
Economic Reforms
  ( )

Amend R 554, "Tammany" by replacing section (iv) c) which reads:

    c) In the text of the message, it designates an amount of
       currency from 0 to 5 units.

with:

    c) In the text of the message, it designates an amount of
       currency from 5 to 25 units, evenly divisible by 5.

[[Tammany was created before the treasury and the large increases to
our balances, and R 666. This should bring the bribe back into line.
If I wasn't so lazy, I would bribe on every proposal at these rates.]]

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

Amend R 710, "Criminal Justice" by replacing the phrase:

	A "court fee" of 50 units

with the phrase:

	A "court fee" of 20 units

[[this fee doesn't seem in line with the economics of the game. The
courts should be more accessable by reducing high legal fees.]]

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #65
******************************