Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #66
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, June 24 1996         Volume 01 : Number 066

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 00:03:24 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 191 (ThinMan) 

"CFJ191" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:

CFJ191> It cannot be determined with finality whether Malenkai is
CFJ191> permitted to remain a Supreme Court Justice (or would be
CFJ191> permitted to do so if he didn't voluntarily resign); in fact,
CFJ191> it appears to be equally both legal and illegal to remain so.

clearly FALSE.

Rule 507 purports to impose a restriction that prohibits a Player from
being simultaneously Speaker and Justice.  Malenkai, who is already
Justice, becomes Speaker per Rule 110.  Clearly, for Malenkai to
remain Justice while being Speaker is contrary to Rule 507.  

First: Is Malenkai prohibited from becoming Speaker?

Clearly not.  Rule 110 has obvious precedence over Rule 507.

Therefore, we can rest assured that Malenkai does become Speaker.
There are now several options:

a) Malenkai immediately ceases to be Speaker, and retains the
   Justiceship.
b) Malenkai ceases to be Justice upon becoming Speaker.
c) Malenkai is simultaneously Justice and Speaker, Rule 507
   notwithstanding.
d) Malenkai is neither Speaker nor Justice.

(a) can be dismissed by noting that Rule 110 states that the winner of
the prior game is the Speaker for the next Game.  Not that he _starts_
the next Game as Speaker, but that he is the Speaker for the next
Game.  Malenkai is therefore the Speaker for the _entirety_ of the
current Game, by virtue of Rule 110, which takes precedence over
nearly every other mutable Rule.

It trivially follows that (d) is obviously false.

The question then comes down to which of (b) or (c) is correct.  Both
(b) and (c) stand in conflict with differing provisions of Rule 507.
In my opinion, (c) is superior to (b), in that in case (c) the
provision which is violated was exactly the _same_ provision violated
when Malenkai became Speaker in the first place.  This provision was
superceded by Rule 110, and is thus held in abeyance.  (b) violates a
different provision of Rule 507 which forbids the involuntary removal
of a Justice except by petition of two-thirds of the players.  this
provision is not obviously in conflict with Rule 110 (or any other
lesser-numbered) Rule, and is thus not in abeyance.

I therefore argue that, until either (a) the end of the current Game
or (b) Malenkai resigns as Justice, Malenkai is legally both Justice
and Speaker, Rule 507's provision to the contrary being held in
abeyance by the supercedeing Rule 110.

I now comment upon the flaws in Malenkai's arguments:

CFJ191> Thus, the only way to remove the conflict, and thus have the
CFJ191> rules remain self-consistent, was to have this event instantly
CFJ191> remove Malenkai as a Supreme Court Justice with no time
CFJ191> passing.

The Rules need not be individually consistent.  This is why there are
rules for conflict resolution.  The rules for conflict resolution are
designed specifically to handle the fact that the Rules are actually
quite unlikely to be individually consistent.  When two rules are
contrary to one another, the conflict rules (108 and 210) simply
declare that, in the context of that conflict, the rule with lesser
precedence is, for all intents and purposes, not a rule.  As a
consequence of Rules 108 and 210, the Rules as a whole are never
logically inconsistent (at least, that is the hope, and in practice
the effect).  The only situation not covered by Rules 108 and 210 is a
Rule which is self-contradictory. 

CFJ191> One could not wait a week or two for Malenkai to resolve the
CFJ191> situation, the rules are violating themselves for that
CFJ191> duration, and one cannot call a CFCJ on the rules!

Rules cannot "violate themselves".  Rules conflict amongst
themselves.  There are rules for resolving such conflicts, such that
the Rules as a whole are not inconsistent.

k.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:19:22 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 192 (ThinMan)

ThinMan has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment (this is not a cut & paste
error):

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 192
  Subject: This statement is still false.
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: ThinMan (selected 25-Jun-96 01:15h New York Time)

Statement:

It still cannot be determined with finality whether to apply certain
parts of R545 "Notes and Comments"; the application still appears to
be both legal and illegal.

/dev/joe's Comments:

By R219, I claim a win by paradox should a judgement of TRUE be returned
for this CFJ.

CFJ 184 already judged this true.  However, since we failed to have a
Constitutional Convention, the paradox still exists.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:36:54 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 191 (ThinMan)

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > 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.

The *holes* are patched, in turn, following their appearance in the text.

> 
> > 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.

The problem is that R 110 no longer exists, but its effect does. Therefore
the precedence argument cannot *now* be used to untangle the situation.
It was used to initially *allow* the situation to occur. This is the
whole point. /dev/joe's use of the present tense in the above is misleading.
R110 does not *have* precedence. /dev/joe's paragraph is false. Note 
that the CFJ statement is in the present tense, where some of the
reasoning is in the past tense.
 
> 
> > 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.

In the sentence quoted, the referrant of "other" is Justice, not R 507.
Please read R 507 and show how it can be construed that "other" refers
to itself. Although the wording of the sentence may not make sense in
the current ruleset, it is obvious that "other" does not mean R 507.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:45:01 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 191 (ThinMan) 

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 

> I therefore argue that, until either (a) the end of the current Game
> or (b) Malenkai resigns as Justice, Malenkai is legally both Justice
> and Speaker, Rule 507's provision to the contrary being held in
> abeyance by the supercedeing Rule 110.

R 110 no longer superceeds R 507. Its effect, as Kelly pointed out,
lasts the entire game, even without R 110 around anymore (or at least
the part in question). These arguments from /dev/joe and Kelly may be
valid if R 110 was not amended, but it was, and that is what the Judge
must consider. The CFJ was delayed until it was amended.

> 
> I now comment upon the flaws in Malenkai's arguments:
> 
> The Rules need not be individually consistent.  This is why there are
> rules for conflict resolution. [...] The only situation not covered
> by Rules 108 and 210 is a Rule which is self-contradictory.

Yes, that case is covered by R 219. R 507 is not self-consistent in this
case, in fact, its attempted application to this case is paradoxical.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 02:00:35 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 192 (ThinMan)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Call for Judgement 192
>   Subject: This statement is still false.
> Initiator: /dev/joe
>     Judge: ThinMan (selected 25-Jun-96 01:15h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> It still cannot be determined with finality whether to apply certain
> parts of R545 "Notes and Comments"; the application still appears to
> be both legal and illegal.
> 

I respectfully request that the CSRR make the changes recommended by
the Constitutional Convention to the paradoxical rules, before the Clerk
of the Courts' mail server is overloaded by everyone and their uncle
jumping over each other to sponge a copycat, and unearned, win.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:04:00 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Returning from vacation 

I just noticed that I sent yesterday a message without Acka in the SL. So
some of you may have missed it completely.

Anyway,  here is the original message again.

Nicolo Flychuck

>Sender: [email-masked]
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 08:52:53 +0300 (EET DST)
>From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
>To: Ackanomic Mailing List <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Returning from vacation
>X-Status: 
>
>
>It is Sunday morning, and I am announcing that I am returning from
>vacation.
>
>Nicolo Flychuck
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 00:59:50 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 192 (ThinMan)

At 1:19 AM 6/24/96, Malenkai wrote:
>ThinMan has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days
>to accept or decline the appointment (this is not a cut & paste
>error):

ThinMan, Aren't youa busy one? :)

>
>Call for Judgement 192
>  Subject: This statement is still false.
>Initiator: /dev/joe
>    Judge: ThinMan (selected 25-Jun-96 01:15h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>It still cannot be determined with finality whether to apply certain
>parts of R545 "Notes and Comments"; the application still appears to
>be both legal and illegal.

Damnit! I was just finishing reading todays mail, and then I was going to
submit a CFJ claiming the exact same thing!  /dev/joe you beat me too it.
I won't let that happen again. :)

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
The Witchfinder General never declared me a heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:15:39 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Paper: Making it official 

Per R851, I am announcing the existance of my newspaper.  I hereby create
"The Ackanomic Steel Flea Gazette".  Would the appropriate officer please
deduct A$20 from my account?

The Steel Flea Gazette will offer an impartial review of ackanomic news.
It will also provide a space for opinion columns from any player who wishes
their voice to be heard!  The paper will accept submissions at
[email-masked] (and will pay 2 PFsnowgod for each submission that I
use).

I will distribute the paper via the mailing list, and I will maintain a web
based version.  The URL will be announced shortly.

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
The Witchfinder General never declared me a heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:23:07 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: What my home is called 

There is a rule (sorry, can't remember which number right now) that states
that each player has a home, and that he should name it.  In accordance
with that rule, I am naming my home "La Casa del Dio Nieve"

snowgod

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
The Witchfinder General never declared me a heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:23:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Misc: Back from Vacation

	I'm back from vacation.

	De'ghew

- -- 
  John Spickes - Undergraduate - UMCP - http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jspickes
   PGP encrypted email preferred - finger [email-masked] for key

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 
> As for the 2 paradoxes, I suppose the CSRR could make the
> changes. As for R666, that was why I was so against a CSRR. What fun
> would that be? :-)
> 

I suppose I could, but I wont.  If I were to try that, pleasepleaseplease
impeach me. I promised not to try to "fix" anything that would change the
way the game is played (I've worked up a list of about 100 misspellings,
if anyone's interested), and going around fixing up paradoxes seems beyond
my mandate.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:39:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 910

On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, this is not a name wrote:

> 
> Spelling errors are part of the beauty of the rule set. That's why we 
> have R451. Vote NO on 910. Protect the rules.
> 

While beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, and properly so,
unfotunately and less properly, amibiguity is, too.  R451 depends on all
these misspellings being "unambiguous," and could result in CFJ's every
time someone says "Sure I can withdraw my CFJ.  No one has accepted
judgement on any CFG's at all!" (Also, allowing bunches of misspellings to
stand could make too easy (or unsatisfying) to become Sage o' Doe Gas.) 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Rotating Justice

On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, /dev/joe wrote:

> P811 (Niccolo Flychuck)
>   This one creates a Judgement Index for each player, and each player's
>   chance of being selected as a judge is proportional to his JI.  When
>   a judge is selected, his JI decreases by 1; if no player's JI is 4 then
>   all JI's are increased by one.

> 
> I voted against 811 because I thought it was too complicated.
> 

I liked 811.  It's complicated to describe, but seems like it would be
fairly simple in operation.  (Well, I could picture it, anyway, so it
can't be too bad.)  Also, it seems a fairly gentle weighting scheme, with
no one's chances of being selected ever 0 or 1, nor wildly different from
everyone else's. 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 192 (ThinMan)

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Malenkai wrote:
> > 
> > Call for Judgement 192
> >   Subject: This statement is still false.
> > Initiator: /dev/joe
> >     Judge: ThinMan (selected 25-Jun-96 01:15h New York Time)
> > 
> > Statement:
> > 
> > It still cannot be determined with finality whether to apply certain
> > parts of R545 "Notes and Comments"; the application still appears to
> > be both legal and illegal.
> > 
> 
> I respectfully request that the CSRR make the changes recommended by
> the Constitutional Convention to the paradoxical rules, before the Clerk
> of the Courts' mail server is overloaded by everyone and their uncle
> jumping over each other to sponge a copycat, and unearned, win.
> 
> Malenkai
> 

I respectfully resist making such changes.  I believe them to be beyond
the scope of the Office, and in violation of the pledge I made before my
appointment.

Copycat and unearned wins can probably be stripped away, later, if we try. 
I'm sure we could note them on the web page, if we wanted.  Maybe if we
(whoever that might be) suggest that, few players will attempt the copycat
win, and the CotC mail server will survive. 

Note that I do not put ThinMan's attempt in this category.  His attempt
points out that R541 is still in need of a fix.  Maybe this can just be
stalled until a fix is put through the proposal process.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:23:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 910

> Spelling errors are part of the beauty of the rule set. That's why we 
> have R451. Vote NO on 910. Protect the rules.
	A mole on the face of a beautiful woman?  I don't see it that 
way.  I think it's acutely embarrassing how badly we all spell.
	R451 doesn't apply to some of these errors, by the way; only the 
unambiguous ones.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:27:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 910

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Mohammed wrote:

> > Spelling errors are part of the beauty of the rule set. That's why we 
> > have R451. Vote NO on 910. Protect the rules.
> 	A mole on the face of a beautiful woman?  I don't see it that 
> way.  I think it's acutely embarrassing how badly we all spell.
> 	R451 doesn't apply to some of these errors, by the way; only the 
> unambiguous ones.
> 
> --Mohammed
> 
Just because we overlooked our typos when we submitted those proposals,
doesn't mean we should keep them for posterity, or until the game ends,
which ever comes first. I agree with Mohammed, it is embarassing to see
some of your hard work blemished by such annoying little things as
spelling erorrs 
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:33:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 190 (Calvin N Hobbes)

> Gadgets created from the Blueprint (hereafter called Frobnotzers) have 
> behaviour that is in conflict with R 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."
> 
> Specifically, the Frobnotzer's ability to swap noun phrases in the rule
> set would violate the above rule. Clearly the Frobnotzer's ability is in
> direct conflict with this rule. Its Blueprint must therefore be destroyed.
	R105 can't be interpreted to give any adopted proposal free reign 
until the end of time.  No legal rule change has that kind of effect.
	All proposals that are legal under rule 491 have effects that last
only a tiny amount of time:  rule creation, amendment, transmutation, or
repeal.  They "guide play" for a very short period; then their authority
under R105 goes away.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:33:28 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Rotating Justice

On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, mr cwm wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, /dev/joe wrote:
> 
> > P811 (Niccolo Flychuck)
> >   This one creates a Judgement Index for each player, and each player's
> >   chance of being selected as a judge is proportional to his JI.  When
> >   a judge is selected, his JI decreases by 1; if no player's JI is 4 then
> >   all JI's are increased by one.
> 
> > 
> > I voted against 811 because I thought it was too complicated.
> > 
> 
> I liked 811.  It's complicated to describe, but seems like it would be
> fairly simple in operation.  (Well, I could picture it, anyway, so it
> can't be too bad.)  Also, it seems a fairly gentle weighting scheme, with
> no one's chances of being selected ever 0 or 1, nor wildly different from
> everyone else's. 
> 
> -mr cwm
This was my favorite as well. The reason it appears complicated, is that I
went into great detail describing, to avoid any ambiguities.
It isn't really complicated, and I do not believe it is beyond the ability
of any player who might find emself as CotC to implement.
It's addition and division.
I can post this acka-reseach if anyone wants to go over and point out what
doesn't appear to be clear. Perhaps it can be rephrased in a less unclear
manner, and still achieve the same effect.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 96 11:43:44 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: 912-914 Authors...

OK, I've updated Malenkai's address, and put his name on the proposals
that he submitted.

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

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:45:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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
> with "The above parts of this rule do not apply to this rule."
> 
> Amend R664 by replacing the last sentence
> with "The above parts of this rule do not apply to this rule."
	Sorry to waste bdwth, but I just think it's cute that this 
proposal got this particular number.  :o)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:49:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 191 (ThinMan) 

> R 110 no longer superceeds R 507. Its effect, as Kelly pointed out,
> lasts the entire game, even without R 110 around anymore (or at least
> the part in question). These arguments from /dev/joe and Kelly may be
> valid if R 110 was not amended, but it was, and that is what the Judge
> must consider. The CFJ was delayed until it was amended.
	I agree.  Malenkai has found a rule that conflicts with itself.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:59:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 913

> 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.
	I am willing to grant the Clerk a fair amount of trust, but there 
should be some vague and distant limit on this power, at least; otherwise 
Malenkai may judge any statement he wants.
	Furthermore, Malenkai was appointed to the position of CotC with 
the understanding that there would be no conflict of interest or gross 
magnification of power due to his being a Supreme Court Justice as well.  
If this proposal passes, that idea goes south.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:02:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Inventor (scroll sold)

The auction for the Scroll of Crumble ended Saturday at about 0830h CDT.
The Scroll was sold to Niccolo Flychuck for A$160.  (Financier, please note.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:11:29 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 192 (ThinMan) 

mr cwm wrote:

>Copycat and unearned wins can probably be stripped away, later, if we try. 
>I'm sure we could note them on the web page, if we wanted.  Maybe if we
>(whoever that might be) suggest that, few players will attempt the copycat
>win, and the CotC mail server will survive. 

>Note that I do not put ThinMan's attempt in this category.  His attempt
>points out that R541 is still in need of a fix.  Maybe this can just be
>stalled until a fix is put through the proposal process.

You mean /dev/joe, I believe.  I am just the judge.  I have included my
own comments on this matter in my reasoning, which you will see as soon
as Malenkai distributes it.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:12:28 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: RFC: Rotating Justice 

>We have now had 3 proposals fail which attempt to define a procedure
>for "rotating" CFJ duties, ie, attempt a more even distribution of CFJ
>assignments, or at least assure every player gets to be judge once in
>a while.
>
>I am attempting to guage whether its the *idea*, or *implementation*,
>that people have been objecting to.
>
>I strongly favor rotating justice for the following two benefits: It
>can bring in diverse opinions, and can get less active players more
>involved in the game.
>
>I thus would like comment on if people like the *idea*, and any comment
>on an *inplementation* which would gain broad based support.

I think the idea, at least as stated above, is pointless.  There can be
no more even distribution of CFJs than uniformly random, and everyone
_will_ be selected as a judge at least once in a while.  I am willing to
consider alternative methods of judge selection, but I favor simplicity,
and I see no overriding reason to change the method we have now.

I also note that I think some people were motivated to write and support
"rotating" CFJ proposals because of my receiving three important CFJs
during the Robert Sevin win crisis.  I want to bring to those people's
attention the facts that (1) at that time, my lack of party membership
made me one of a smaller pool of eligible candidates for those CFJs and
(2) I was not the first judge selected for two of the three.  I do not
see those events as any reason to modify the judge-selection criteria.

Finally, although I have again been randomly selected for two close
together CFJs, I point out that our newest player, Kelly Martin, has already
been selected as a judge.  As far as I can tell, our current system works
fine.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:17:29 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic: Proposal 913 

>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.

First, I object to explicitly assigning these powers to the CotC in R 588.
Elsewhere the text of 588 refers only to "the officer who is officially
assigned [...]," which makes for a nicer, more modular rule set.

Second, I'm not sure I like the CotC having unilateral power to do as this
proposal allows without any check.  I might be swayed on that, one way or
the other.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:52:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 913

> First, I object to explicitly assigning these powers to the CotC in R 588.
> Elsewhere the text of 588 refers only to "the officer who is officially
> assigned [...]," which makes for a nicer, more modular rule set.
	I disagree.  I think being deliberately oblique in referring to
something merely increases the probability that you're referring to
something that doesn't exist, or that it will cease to exist in the future
somehow, and no one will notice.  Each of those events is a crisis.
	Example:  referring to "the official currency" rather than
"Ackadollars."  I no longer think of it as careless to refer to currency 
as "Ackadollars" because the A$ has become such an integral part of the game 
that I see no series of rule changes leading to its demise.  And, 
if someone did want to get rid of Ackadollars, a simple text search through 
the rules would reveal that my Gadget rule (for instance) would need to 
be fixed.  Disaster is thus easily avoided.
	However, changing the Ackadollar rule so that it no longer says 
that A$ are the official currency would be a minor change.  It could 
potentially slip through the voting process with no one noticing.  But, a 
rule referring to "the official currency" would then be basically null.  
- --or worse, could fall victim to exploitation under R115.
	We've come to the point of dissent, here, where it is revealed to 
what extent "well written" really is in the eye of the beholder.  As far 
as real-life functionality goes, I think explicitness is clearer and less 
bothersome.

A little puzzle, to make up for my having wasted all this bdwh:
	It occurred to me some time ago that Techno might be willing to
pay a good deal more for the Pyraic Frobnotzer than anyone else, because
of a certain way in which he is unique.  What is it?
	Now, I have changed my mind about that.  Why?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 187 Appeal

> The following, CFJ 187, has been judged FALSE:
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call for Judgement 187
>   Subject: Recursive rule
> Initiator: De'ghew
> 1st Judge: Techno (Declined to Judge)
> 2nd Judge: Kelly Martin (selected 22-Jun-96 01:30h New York Time)
> Judgement: FALSE
[snip]
> 
> Kelly Martin's Reasoning:
> 
[snip]
> If the Statement is TRUE, then, at the time this CFJ was allegedly
> made, Ackanomic play was not possible.  This is itself a
> contradiction: both the making of a CFJ and its judging are aspects of
> Ackanomic play, so if this CFJ is TRUE, then it was impossible for to
> have been made, and it is impossible for it to be judged.  However, it
> is my finding of fact that I am presently engaged in the process of
> judging this CFJ, thus playing Ackanomic.  Clearly, therefore,
> Ackanomic play is possible (even if, perhaps, illegal), and the
> statement is FALSE.
[snip]

	I hereby appeal this decision to the supreme court.  I would like 
to add the following reasoning:

	Rule 219, "Winning by Paradox" states that if the rules are 
changed so that play is impossible, then a player may call for judgement 
on a statement to that effect.  This clause allows game play to continue 
to the extent that a CFJ may be called to determine its unplayability.  
This invalidates this judgement.  
	If the Supreme Court believes that this is not true, that is, a
CFJ may not be called if the game is unplayable, then I suggest that they
must consider whether R219 can have any effect.

	De'ghew

- -- 
  John Spickes - Undergraduate - UMCP - http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jspickes
   PGP encrypted email preferred - finger [email-masked] for key

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:21:20 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187 Appeal 

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

John> 	Rule 219, "Winning by Paradox" states that if the rules are
John> changed so that play is impossible, then a player may call for
John> judgement on a statement to that effect.  This clause allows
John> game play to continue to the extent that a CFJ may be called to
John> determine its unplayability.

and thus, Rule 219 spits in its own face.  so?  rules don't have to
make sense, or have to have any specific applicability.  anyone
remember Rule 206, which, so far as i know, never had any legal effect
upon game play?

John>  This invalidates this judgement.

no, it points out (quite nicely) how pointless that aspect of Rule 219
is.

John> If the Supreme Court believes that this is not true, that is, a
John> CFJ may not be called if the game is unplayable, then I suggest
John> that they must consider whether R219 can have any effect.

it is my belief that the "further play is impossible" clause of Rule
219 can never be successfully invoked.  i ruled the CFJ FALSE solely
because it attempted to invoke this obviously pointless clause.
however, it remains possible to invoke 219 via either of its other two
clauses.  a proposal to amend Rule 219 is currently under private
discussion.

k.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:25:54 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 187 Appeal 

De'ghew wrote:

>> The following, CFJ 187, has been judged FALSE:

[Kelly's reasoning deleted.]

>	I hereby appeal this decision to the supreme court.  I would like 
>to add the following reasoning:
>
>	Rule 219, "Winning by Paradox" states that if the rules are 
>changed so that play is impossible, then a player may call for judgement 
>on a statement to that effect.  This clause allows game play to continue 
>to the extent that a CFJ may be called to determine its unplayability.  
>This invalidates this judgement.  
>	If the Supreme Court believes that this is not true, that is, a
>CFJ may not be called if the game is unplayable, then I suggest that they
>must consider whether R219 can have any effect.

I submit that calling for judgement and judging each constitute playing the
game.  If one can do either of these things, then play is possible.  If one
cannot do these things then play may be impossible, but the relevant clause
of R 219 therefore cannot be invoked.

R 219 is not without effect, for it defines other conditions under which
play may be possible even though a paradox has occured.  Moreover, it is
not incumbent upon the Court to determine "whether R 219 can have any effect";
the Court's responsability is restricted to determining the truth or falsehood
of the statement submitted for judgement.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:38:24 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Ackanomic:  Inventor (scroll sold) 

>The auction for the Scroll of Crumble ended Saturday at about 0830h CDT.
>The Scroll was sold to Niccolo Flychuck for A$160.  (Financier, please note.)

Unfortunately, because of  the recent recursive win procedure being invoked,
Mr. Flychuck does not have A$160 to spend.  No one does.  In fact, no one
has any A$.  As the details of the auction are at the discretion of the
Inventor, Mohammed will have to decide what to do now.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:46:21 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Inventor (scroll sold) 

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

John> Unfortunately, because of the recent recursive win procedure
John> being invoked, Mr. Flychuck does not have A$160 to spend.  No
John> one does.  In fact, no one has any A$.

actually, that's not quite true. because of the way 666 is worded,
everyone who had more than A$4 now has A$4, and everyone else has
whatever they had before.  this is a consequence of removing 20%
(rounded down): 20% of 4 or less (rounded down) is zero.

k.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187 Appeal

> I submit that calling for judgement and judging each constitute playing the
> game.  If one can do either of these things, then play is possible.  If one
> cannot do these things then play may be impossible, but the relevant clause
> of R 219 therefore cannot be invoked.

	<sigh>  My argument is that R219 allows unplayability to be 
determined by CFJ.  The unplayability clause permits play to continue 
until the game is judged unplayable.

> R 219 is not without effect, for it defines other conditions under which
> play may be possible even though a paradox has occured.  Moreover, it is
> not incumbent upon the Court to determine "whether R 219 can have any effect";
> the Court's responsability is restricted to determining the truth or falsehood
> of the statement submitted for judgement.

	I tend to agree that it is not the task of the Court to determine 
whether R219 can have effect.  However, it seems to me that you claim 
R219 cannot perform the task that it claims to perform.  If R219 is 
valid, then we should allow it to have effect.  In particular it should 
be allowed to force a continuation of play until it's judged impossible.  
If it can't legally do this, then it's invalid.  Seems like you're 
weeding out the parts of rules that are illegal and allowing the 
remainder of the rule to still have effect.  I don't think the Rules, or 
game custom permits this..  

	De'ghew

PS  Use more smilies, guys!  That way I don't feel like I'm getting 
bonked in the head so much.  :)  My forehead's already bumpy enough..

- -- 
  John Spickes - Undergraduate - UMCP - http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jspickes
   PGP encrypted email preferred - finger [email-masked] for key

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:58:39 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187 Appeal 

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

John> the Court's responsability is restricted to determining the
John> truth or falsehood of the statement submitted for judgement.

quite true.  "Judge the Statement, not its second cousin" (with all
due apologies to Mark Twain).

as far as CFJ 187 goes, Rule 589/3 specifically states that the Judge
need not consider anything beyond the statement provided and the
present rules (hm, that needs correcting--but that's another matter).
in fact, i completely ignored all of De'ghew's arguments for the truth
of his claim, as my Judgement clearly implies.  they were, in my
opinion, irrelevant.  De'ghew may still have a meritorious claim that
the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality or that
some action appears equally legal or illegal.  but i was not asked to
consider such a claim, and it would have been grossly inappropriate
for me to do so.

k.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #66
******************************