Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #67
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Tuesday, June 25 1996        Volume 01 : Number 067

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:02:00 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: No news 

I regret to inform our intrepid, entrepreneurial newsmen (Niccolo
Flychuck and snowgod, I believe) that they do not currently have the
A$20 fees required to start newspapers.  In fact, they do not have an
ackadime between them.  Until they get some cash, their newspapers
will have to wait.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:12:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
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.
	It's not up to me; there were no valid bids and so the Scroll of 
Crumble is destroyed.  Alas.  Well, I see no point in building anything 
else until such time as there is a bond windfall, or some emergency 
measure passes to put money in the hands of the players.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:31:09 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187 Appeal 

De'ghew wrote:

>	<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.

I think you're grasping at straws.  Either the game is playable or it
isn't.  If it isn't then _by definition_ play cannot continue.  No rule can
change that, no matter what it claims or implies.

Just because I Rule claims to have power, scope, or applicability in any
situation does not guarantee that it does.

>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..

I apologize for any perceived head-bonking.  I bear you no ill will
whatsoever.  I do not include smilies here, however, because I am
engaging in serious and earnest debate.

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 15:07:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[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.

Hmm, I am wondering if we need a CFJ on this issue.  Note that R666
has had this problem since it was first passed.

Actually, the first winner (Robert Sevin) would only pay 10% rounded
down each time, and so he would have A$9 left until the second win
(Bascule's).  After that time, all players were reduced to only A$4.
However, since Robert Sevin hasn't done much of anything since he
won the first cycle, we can mostly ignore his special case.

This has serious consequences.  It means that:
(a) no bids over A$4 on inventions were valid
(b) nobody ever successfully bought an Extra Vote
(c) Proposal 874 should have passed, with 12 YES and 5 NO votes,
    since Malenkai and snowgod's Extra Votes were invalid
(d) there were probably some invalid Tammany bribes too
(e) nobody can force Techno's vote by the Amber Banana rule
(f) nobody ever successfully bought a prosthetic forehead
(g) all CFCJs ever made were invalid (since CFJ's began with the
    passage of rule 710).

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 15:09:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 762

> Wayne wrote,
> >Here are the voting results for : 887
> >  Proposal 887 - Sun Jun 09 02:41:52 EDT 1996
> >  Respect the Dead (and close a loophole)
> >  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
> >Proposal PASSES
> 
> >Malenkai gains 10 points.  66 -> 76

Malenkai wrote:
> By R 762, I am claiming The Great Trombone of Ackanomia.

I maintain that this claim is invalid, because by the time
Malenkai made it, he had already gained points from the passage of
other proposals, so his score was no longer exactly 76 points.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:13:02 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Rotating Justice

Uri Bruck wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

Why don't you do that? My schedule does not afford me the time to do
the work that is obviously needed to get something passed, and is 
obviously (IMHO) needed.

As CotC, I can be pretty bright when I want to be, so I won't be
blinded by complicated. Perhaps for the next soul, you can provide a
synopsis or gist, then explain in detail to cover all of the
contingencies.

Malenkai
Clerk of the Courts, pro Rotating Justice

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:20:59 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 913

Mohammed wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 

All offices require trust. All conflict of interest determinations must
be published. What is to stop me now from just choosing who I want from
the list? You obviously trust me in that regard, could you not trust me,
or someone else, to apply the conflict of interest clause judiciously?

Its a good rule, and would be good for the game, if applied to the ilk
of example in the proposal. As with any judgemental power, the power
can be used for "good" and "evil" (relative terms anyway). I could not
find a way to codify the rule so that it would require no judgement.

I believe some of us are going to have to face the fact that not everything
can be codified and specifed, judgement and trust are required in any
complicated system of law.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:25:11 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 192 Verdict

The following, CFJ 192, was judged TRUE.

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.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

/dev/joe's comments cannot be disputed.  This situation is exactly what
R 829 attempted to avoid, but R 829 was apparently flawed.  I consider
this CFJ to be in questionable taste, but it does an excellent job of
underscoring the problem.  It is my opinion that no further demonstration
is necessary, and I will personally consider any other CFJ along these
lines to be in very poor taste indeed.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:36:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Map of Ackanomia

The Null Map is no longer being used.
The official Map of Ackanomia is now the one on this web page:
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/map.html

If you want to name your house, or provide a URL to link your
house to, let me know so I can update the Map.

My house is linked to my home page.  Other players' houses have no
link.  The other buildings are currently linked to some of the rules.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 01:32:39 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Rotating Justice 

At 06:13 PM 24/06/96 -0700 , Malenkai  wrote:
>Uri Bruck wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>
>Why don't you do that? My schedule does not afford me the time to do
>the work that is obviously needed to get something passed, and is 
>obviously (IMHO) needed.
Done. Consequently I suggest we move this whole discussion to acka-research.

>
>As CotC, I can be pretty bright when I want to be, so I won't be
>blinded by complicated. Perhaps for the next soul, you can provide a
>synopsis or gist, then explain in detail to cover all of the
>contingencies.
:)
It's really quite simple, even simpler than keeping score.
Nicolo Flychuck
>
>Malenkai
>Clerk of the Courts, pro Rotating Justice
>
>

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:33:59 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 187 Appeal 

Kelly Martin wrote:

> 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.
> 

One thing that seems to be lost in this argument is the game custom of
"grace period" with retrocative effecrts vis-a-vis CFJs. The examples
that come to mind are CFJ 113, CFJ 153, and expecially CFJ 157. Not
everyone agrees with these verdicts, but I don't agree with the CSRR.
Can we just ignore the body of the game we don't like ? :)

There are those that would like to ignore this body of game custom. There
are also those who would like to eliminate the Voting Gnome. Those who
are against the Gnome have used the rules to try to get rid of it. I
suggest that those who want to disregard game custom read R 101 and 
R 215, and follow the rules.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 18:58:30 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 762

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Wayne wrote,
> > >Here are the voting results for : 887
> > >  Proposal 887 - Sun Jun 09 02:41:52 EDT 1996
> > >  Respect the Dead (and close a loophole)
> > >  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> >
> > >Proposal PASSES
> >
> > >Malenkai gains 10 points.  66 -> 76
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> > By R 762, I am claiming The Great Trombone of Ackanomia.
> 
> I maintain that this claim is invalid, because by the time
> Malenkai made it, he had already gained points from the passage of
> other proposals, so his score was no longer exactly 76 points.

I maintain this attitude is ridiculous. We all know how the voting
results are distributed by Wayne. For him to do otherwise would be
an impractical hardship. It is this kind of attitude that is making the
game less enjoyable for several players. Do I need to CFJ to get my
******** Trombone?

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:03:29 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Map of Ackanomia

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> The Null Map is no longer being used.
> The official Map of Ackanomia is now the one on this web page:
> http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/map.html
> 
> If you want to name your house, or provide a URL to link your
> house to, let me know so I can update the Map.
> 
> My house is linked to my home page.  Other players' houses have no
> link.  The other buildings are currently linked to some of the rules.

Shouldn't the Appointer have appointed a Map-Harfer by now. Time to
impeach him.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 19:25:30 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 193 (De'ghew)

De'ghew has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days to
accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 193
  Subject: R 666, take four
Initiator: mr cwm
    Judge: De'ghew (selected 24-Jun-96 19:30h New York Time)

mr cwm's initial comment:

Tiring of the assumption that R666/2 is recursive, I wish to Call For
Judgement on the following Statement:

Statement:

The declaration of a "winner of the cycle" in R666/2(c) does not invoke
R666/2.

mr cwm's reasoning:

I have two arguments, either one of which I believe to be sufficient to
justify a descision of TRUE.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Argument 1:

R666/2(a) suspends Ackanomic play.  R666/2(b) through R666/s(m) are
Ackanomic procedures to be carried out beyond the bounds of Ackanomic
play, much as setting up "queen on color" is part of chess but not part of
chess play, or as the selection of the initial rules set was part of
Ackanomic but not part of Ackanomic play.  The re-invocation of R666/2
would be Ackanomic play, and, thus, is impermissible, as Ackanomic play is
suspended.

Argument 2:

When R666 was adopted, "winner" had a clear meaning used unambiguously and
consistantly through the rules, namely, the "winner of the game."
R666/2(c) defines an explicit difference between winners as defined by
other rules, the declaration of which causes R666/2 to be invoked, and
"winner of the cycle," which is essentially a title.  (Historically, this
prevents the claim that the game is over when a winner is declared, etc.)
While things may have been muddied since then by other rules referring to
winners of cycles, if R666/2(c) is to guide play in the form in which it
was voted on (R105/0), that form must include the meanings the words had
at the time, namely, that "winner" and "winner of the cycle" are two
different and distinct things.  R666/2(c) then, "The winner" (of the game,
as defined by other rules, the declaration of which invoked R666/2 rather
than ending the game) "is declared winner of the cycle" (a title, which is
something else entirely, and thus does not re-invoke R666/2), is not
recursive.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:25:48 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Official

1) The Fat Lady is singing. She is singing "The Lamest of the
Lame", by Garbage, as the first tune of her set. I shall announce
publically when she has completed her singing.

2) She is being accompanied by Malenkai on the Great Trombone
of Ackanomia, who sees no rule which grants the Web-Harfer the
right to adjudicate who has which objects without due process of
law.

3) As Speaker, I am appointing this is not a name to fill Senate
Seat D, now held by a vacationing Senator, since this is not a name's
resignation as Acting Senator.

4) The Supreme Court has 2 CFJs up for appeal. They are CFJ 187 and 
CFJ 190.

5) The Clerk of the Courts has the following outstanding: CFJ 189 (snowgod
has accepted appointment), CFJ 191 (ThinMan), CFJ 193 (De'ghew), and 
CFCJ 104 (Techno).

6) I am claiming 14 points from having the Magic Potato last week. The
Scorekeeper and/or Financier can, or not, as they wish, adjust the 
appropriate books.

[[there were 7, 8, and 9, they'll wait]]

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:44:15 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: acka: change of property name

i hereby name my residence "The Lair of the Pink Bimbo".

k.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:10:40 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 190 Verdict  

>Rule 105 applies only to _proposed_ rule changes. 

Whatever sophistry you want to put in this, the user of the gadget is still
_proposing_ a rule change, so it applies. It may be a more unconventional
form but there it is.

> 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."

But since R105 only allows changes through voting on written proposed
changes, then R115 refers to this as "what the rules permit", making the
gadget illegal not only by R105, but R115, indirectly.

>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.

So long as it respects the rules. It does not.

>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:

Two things. First, that it isn't written down specifically, but more
tragically and of the worse possible precedent, that it is NEVER voted upon.
Even a con-con or resolution require a vote. No rule change can be the
single random act of an individual. That's what R105 is about. Again: vote.

>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.

But you easily (casually?) brush over the fact that the proposal was _still_
written out, and that it was _voted_ upon, as per the rules. Something the
gadget _never_ allows/does.

>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.

Wrong, from a single case you try to derive a generality. Bad logic. I am
human, I am male, therefore all humans are male. Nope. Just because one rule
change (first part of your sentece) isn't allowed, doesn't mean "any" (as
quoted from above) rule change is not allowed, or as you say "impossible".

>  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.

No, not "clearly". If you want to play that game (and were _you_ the one to
start off your message by saying "nice emotional appeal"??), I'll say:

_Obviously_, R105 states that every change to the rules must be written
down, and a vote taken on the written change as proposed.

Respectfully
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:26:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 190 Verdict

> >Rule 105 applies only to _proposed_ rule changes. 
> 
> Whatever sophistry you want to put in this, the user of the gadget is still
> _proposing_ a rule change, so it applies. It may be a more unconventional
> form but there it is.

No.  Proposals and Rule Changes and "proposed rule changes" have meanings
defined in other rules.  A change to a rule of Ackanomic is not necessarily 
a "rule change", and CSRR's, con-con reports, etc. are not "rule changes".

See rules 106, 108, 113, 452, 491, 516, 642, 660, etc.

Rule 516 is the most explicit; it states:
  The term "proposed rule change" is synonymous with the term "Proposal."

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 23:44:45 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 190 Verdict 

>No.  Proposals and Rule Changes and "proposed rule changes" have meanings
>defined in other rules.

Agreed. However, it is not clear what category the gaadget falls under. Does
it try to modify rules as per "proposed rule changes"? If so, it fails to
meet the rules and so is illegal.

If on the other hand it does not, then it merely is a "rule change" as per
R491. Indeed, it qualifies as amending an existing rule. But then this "not
proposed" rule change does fail on R106, requiring a vote on plain "rule
changes", not _just_ "proposed rule changes", or "proposal" as you point out
as a synonym.

Since the gadget is autocratic, not democratic (ie, does not ask for voting)
then it breaks the rules.

Further more, R491 also says of "rule changes" that "when a valid rule
change is adopted, the effect or effects called for by its text shall be
carried out." Since the gadget's rule change is not written down then it
cannot be carried out.

And if written down, it still needs to be voted on, so we are back to our
first case.

CnH

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #67
******************************