Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #70
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, June 26 1996       Volume 01 : Number 070

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 0:59:25 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 915

"Kelly" == Kelly

Kelly>"Wayne" ==   <[email-masked]> writes:

Kelly>Wayne> Proposal 915 - Tue Jun 25 14:38:13 EDT 1996
Kelly>Wayne> Refixing Cycles
Kelly>Wayne> Kelly Martin  (Kelly Martin)

Kelly>this is _not_ the Title i gave this Proposal when i submitted it; i
Kelly>titled it "Winning isn't everything..."

Kelly>i was not aware that the Tabulator was empowered to change the Titles
Kelly>of Proposals at his own discretion.

I am not empowered to change the Titles of Proposals at my discretion.
I have the ability to assign a Title to a Proposal when it is submitted
without a title.  I surely must have missed where you gave your proposal
a Title.  I did not mean to rename the Proposal.  I have corrected the
proposal title so the it reflects Kelly's original Title.

Here's a couple of things that may help when submitting proposals.  I have
I lot of work to do with counting votes and distributing proposals and
such.  To make my job easier, I use several scripts that automate things
for me.  Distributing proposals is one of them.

When I receive a proposal, I save the message in a temp file.  Then I go back
and edit this file.  Just before the text of the proposal, I put in a line:
"#proposal the_title_of_the proposal_goes_here"  Also if there is stuff
after the proposal, such as a signature file, I put a line "#end" after
the last line of the proposal.  The I save the file and run my proposal
script.  The script examines the "From" line to determine who it
from.  Then it searches for "#proposal" and uses the rest of the text
on that line as the proposal title.  It checks the directory to see what
the last proposal number was and also it gets the current date.  Then it
uses all of this information to build the three line header.  After saving the
lines between "#proposal" and "#end" into the proposal file, it mails the
proposal out to the list.  

This is very easy for me to do.  I can process a proposal in less that 15
seconds.  But sometimes I make mistakes.  When Malenkai changed his email
address, I didn't update my records.  The script couldn't match his name
and didn't list an author.  

Each player submits proposals in different styles.  Some try to make
it look like the final output.  Others use sentences to describe the
name of the Proposal.  The simplest way to submit a proposal
is to use the "#proposal TITLE_HERE"  format.  This way I can't loose
the title.  But any format is still easy for me to process.

Concerning the Trumbone.  When it was decided that all of the proposals
were still in the queue and they should be distributed, I decided to modify
my distibution strategy.  Normally I do them one at a time, but I didn't
think you folks wanted 50+ results in 50+ seperate mailings.  So I grouped
them together to ease the email load.  I feel that Malenkai should have
been able to clain the trumbone.

Wayne

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 1:13:49 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka: RE CFJ 196

>Call for Judgement 196
>  Subject: creating rules
>Initiator: /dev/joe
>    Judge: De'ghew (selected 26-Jun-96 00:30h New York Time)

First I would like to say that /dev/joe is a fine assest to Acka.
He sometimes does a better job as scorekeeper that me :) He does
great work in keeping track of all of the little details. 
I don't take this as personal, but I am concerned as to why he has
decided to bring this matter up.  I feel certain that anybody could
see that it is game custom to have a proposal default to creating
a new rule when no action is specified by the proposal.  We have played
that way from the start of the game.  

Here is an example of /dev/joe's proposal that recently passed.
Did this create a rule?

Proposal 901 - Mon Jun 10 00:27:52 EDT 1996
No E-mail, No Game
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

All players and observers joining Ackanomic must have a valid e-mail
address reachable from the official mailing list at the time they join,
or else they may not join.

If all of a player's mail from the official mailing list sent in a period
of 3 days or longer (with a minimum of 10 messages) bounces, the Postmaster
may put that player on vacation by publicly announcing that he is doing
so, and giving the reason.  A player put on vacation in this way may not
return until email from the list can reach his address again.

If a player or observer's mail from the list bounces for a week or more
(minimum 20 messages) then the Postmaster may remove that player or observer
from the game by publicly announcing that he is doing so, and giving the
reason.  The player or observer may rejoin at a later time as usual.

[[ This is what I was going to put into the Postmaster proposal, but was
getting too complicated before, so I waited on it and made it into a
separate rule. ]]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:19:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RE CFJ 196

> >Call for Judgement 196
> >  Subject: creating rules
> >Initiator: /dev/joe
> >    Judge: De'ghew (selected 26-Jun-96 00:30h New York Time)
> 
> First I would like to say that /dev/joe is a fine assest to Acka.
> He sometimes does a better job as scorekeeper that me :) He does
> great work in keeping track of all of the little details. 
> I don't take this as personal, but I am concerned as to why he has
> decided to bring this matter up.  I feel certain that anybody could
> see that it is game custom to have a proposal default to creating
> a new rule when no action is specified by the proposal.  We have played
> that way from the start of the game.  

I realize that this is a part of game custom, but I feel that it is
such an important part of game custom that it should be explicitly
recorded by a CFJ.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 01:28:55 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RE CFJ 196

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > >Call for Judgement 196
> > >  Subject: creating rules
> > >Initiator: /dev/joe
> > >    Judge: De'ghew (selected 26-Jun-96 00:30h New York Time)
> >
> > First I would like to say that /dev/joe is a fine assest to Acka.
> > He sometimes does a better job as scorekeeper that me :) He does
> > great work in keeping track of all of the little details.
> > I don't take this as personal, but I am concerned as to why he has
> > decided to bring this matter up.  I feel certain that anybody could
> > see that it is game custom to have a proposal default to creating
> > a new rule when no action is specified by the proposal.  We have played
> > that way from the start of the game.
> 
> I realize that this is a part of game custom, but I feel that it is
> such an important part of game custom that it should be explicitly
> recorded by a CFJ.

If that was your intent, it would have been in far better taste to choose
your own proposal an example, ie the one Wayne pointed out, rather
than someone elses.

Furthermore, it would have been in better taste if such intent was 
disclosed in the text of the CFJ.

Malenkai
This could go on forever

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:07:54 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 925

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 925 - Wed Jun 26 00:24:08 EDT 1996
> This is a GAME, not third grade
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> 
>
[snip] 
> If this is impossible, either because the dictionary does not exist or
> is incomplete, or because that rule does not exist, the Speaker shall
> determine if the contentious word or words is/are spelled correctly,
> vis-a-vis the Queen's English.
> 
That would make a lot of words appear to be misspelled, because hardly
anyone (I'd no one) at Ackanomia uses the Queen's English. We all write
using American spelling (or at least make the attempt)

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 2:09:32 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 926

Proposal 926 - Wed Jun 26 02:09:32 EDT 1996
Massive Repeals
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

Repeal 495 if it exists
Repeal 514 if it exists
Repeal 551 if it exists
Repeal 706 if it exists
Repeal 720 if it exists
Repeal 721 if it exists
Repeal 726 if it exists
Repeal 729 if it exists
Repeal 767 if it exists
Repeal 775 if it exists

[[
I dare anyone to argue that these Rules need to stay in the Ruleset.
For the most part, they have just cluttered up the ruleset since thier
introduction.  The Contracts haven't even been attempted to be used.
The other stuff is just as useless, including the Party Hall.  Surely
if the author had planned on doing something with it, he could have
submitted a proposal by now.  And to those who argue that the Rules are
part of the character of the game and should be left alone, they will
always remain on the Acka Web page in the proposal histories.
]]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 2:12:56 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 927

Proposal 927 - Wed Jun 26 02:12:56 EDT 1996
 Kill the Rules I Hate part 1
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

Repeal 306 - The Magic Potato

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 2:13:28 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 928

Proposal 928 - Wed Jun 26 02:13:28 EDT 1996
 Kill the Rules I Hate part 2
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

Repeal 339 - Keep'Em in the Game

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 04:14:56 GMT
From: Simon Clarke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: from the CotC

> Thus, Dr McSpong is still in the game by this correspondence, as he 
has
> yet not donated the A$ to anyone who would wish to start a newspaper,
> at least I have not seen a transaction recorded, and such a donation
> was "possible".
> 
> Its ironic that he will now be in the Gaol for three days, but it 
shall
> be possible after the sentence completes, as it was when he wrote this
> message. Would the appropriate officers please update the appropriate
> content/lists to reflect this situation.

I would like to point out that there is a three day "grace period" 
allowed before Dr McSpong enters the Gaol. That at least is 
my understanding of the rules. There is a nice clean cell awaiting
him of course, but he may wish to appeal the sentence. Alternatively,
he may make his donation to one or other of the would-be newspaper
barons and quit the game before his sentence takes effect. If my
interpretation of this is incorrect, please let me know asap, as this
is a matter on whose pulse my finger should be.

Brinjal.
(Gaoler)   

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 2:14:01 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 929

Proposal 929 - Wed Jun 26 02:14:01 EDT 1996
 Kill the Rules I Hate part 3
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

Repeal 335 - The Voting Gnome

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 2:14:51 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 930

Proposal 930 - Wed Jun 26 02:14:51 EDT 1996
 Kill the Rules I Hate part 4
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

Repeal 379 - Short is Good

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 2:15:40 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 931

Proposal 931 - Wed Jun 26 02:15:40 EDT 1996
 Kill the Rules I Hate part 5
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

Repeal 400 - Politeness Moon

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 2:16:22 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 932

Proposal 932 - Wed Jun 26 02:16:22 EDT 1996
 Kill the Rules I Hate part 6
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

Repeal 431 - Consecutive NO votes

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:18:10 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 926

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 926 - Wed Jun 26 02:09:32 EDT 1996
> Massive Repeals
> Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)
> [[
> I dare anyone to argue that these Rules need to stay in the Ruleset.
> For the most part, they have just cluttered up the ruleset since thier
> introduction.  The Contracts haven't even been attempted to be used.
> The other stuff is just as useless, including the Party Hall.  Surely
> if the author had planned on doing something with it, he could have
> submitted a proposal by now.  And to those who argue that the Rules are
> part of the character of the game and should be left alone, they will
> always remain on the Acka Web page in the proposal histories.
> ]]
>
Actually I do have an RFC which will fill Party Hall with content, which I
intended to post to acka-research, after I went through some preliminay
proof reading.
I have discussed this with Mohammed a few days ago, so he can confirm this
(although he has not seen the RFC, he knows of my intent)
 
Another thing - who says that only the original author can expand on his
own rule? 

I plan to at least propose an axpansion on any rule I managed to pass. I
see some rules created by other players whic I think I may be able to
propose an exapnsion to.
 
Wayne, please retract this.

everyone else, vote NO.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 01:22:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 929

> Proposal 929 - Wed Jun 26 02:14:01 EDT 1996
>  Kill the Rules I Hate part 3
> Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)
> 
> Repeal 335 - The Voting Gnome

There is no rule 335.
The Voting Gnome is rule 355.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:23:22 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 926 (2nd response)

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> Proposal 926 - Wed Jun 26 02:09:32 EDT 1996
> Massive Repeals
> Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)
> 
> [[
> I dare anyone to argue that these Rules need to stay in the Ruleset.
> For the most part, they have just cluttered up the ruleset since thier
> introduction.  The Contracts haven't even been attempted to be used.
> The other stuff is just as useless, including the Party Hall.  Surely
> if the author had planned on doing something with it, he could have
> submitted a proposal by now.  And to those who argue that the Rules are
> part of the character of the game and should be left alone, they will
> always remain on the Acka Web page in the proposal histories.
> ]]
> 
btw - The Senate and the President have no usefule roles either, they just
generate elections, and if you haven't noticed, hardy anybody voted in
those elections. This fact alone should indicate to you how little regard
anyone has to those entities, and they've been around for much longer. I
don't see you trying to repeal them.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:24:51 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 926

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Uri Bruck wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> Actually I do have an RFC which will fill Party Hall with content, which I
> intended to post to acka-research, after I went through some preliminay
> proof reading.
> I have discussed this with Mohammed a few days ago, so he can confirm this
> (although he has not seen the RFC, he knows of my intent)

Mohammed may qoute my private message on this, if he sees fit.
Nicolo Flychuck
> 
> Another thing - who says that only the original author can expand on his
> own rule? 
> 
> I plan to at least propose an axpansion on any rule I managed to pass. I
> see some rules created by other players whic I think I may be able to
> propose an exapnsion to.
> 
> Wayne, please retract this.
> 
> everyone else, vote NO.
> 
> Nicolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:10:15 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC for Party Hall function, on acka-research

Just posted a lengthy proto-RFC (next stage is RFC, then proposal)

Personally I don't think that such a thing should be pulled out of a hat.
Interesting rules, and I use that term subjectively, need to be worked on.

One of the interesting things about that RFC, is that you can't not play
it.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:45:06 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 910 

"this" == this is not a name <[email-masked]> writes:

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

oh, for goodness sake.  R451 is there to keep the game from falling
apart merely because Ackanomicians can't spell wirth uh damm.

k.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:58:38 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 924 

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

924> a) Upon the passage of this rule, the Web-Harfer shall have a
924> fortnight to either provide a link to, or provide the text of,
924> Godel's Theorem on the Ackanomic web page.

why?  Goedel's Theorem applies only to formal systems.  most Nomics
are not formal systems.  Ackanomic quite clearly isn't even close.

the simple fact is that most systems of law are inconsistent, and thus
don't even get into the door, let alone anywhere close to Goedelian
essential incompleteness.

k.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:10:05 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 925

> > Proposal 925 - Wed Jun 26 00:24:08 EDT 1996
> > This is a GAME, not third grade
> > Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> [snip] 
> > If this is impossible, either because the dictionary does not exist or
> > is incomplete, or because that rule does not exist, the Speaker shall
> > determine if the contentious word or words is/are spelled correctly,
> > vis-a-vis the Queen's English.
> > 
> That would make a lot of words appear to be misspelled, because hardly
> anyone (I'd no one) at Ackanomia uses the Queen's English. We all write
> using American spelling (or at least make the attempt)
> 
> Nicolo Flychuck

God save the Queen

If I ever have to write sulphur, plough, realise, or haemoglobin, I 
will not be writing sulfur, plow, realize, or hemoglobin

Bascule

 

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:45:40 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 762

Malenkai wrote:

>People are taking their offices too far, and making controversial
>decisions by fiat, and not allowing the due process of law to do its
>job. Interpret the rule the way *you* think it should be interpreted,
>even with strong dissenting opinion in the forum, and use the power of
>your office to enforce *your* interpretation, even while the opposition
>persists. That is not democracy. I do not think the rules, and
>Protection, allow that, and in any case, its bad for the game. IMHO.

No, that is not democracy.  It is the Rules, however.  The Rules implicitly
assign some officers the primary responsability for interpreting some Rules.
In such cases the officers' interpretations may be challenged by CFJ, but
the Rules generally do not permit an officer to stop performing his duties
simply because his interpretation of the Rules has been challenged.

To whatever extent we assign duties to officers, we reduce the degree of
democracy enjoyed by the general playership.  We move instead in the
direction of representative government, which can be much more efficient.
Representative government does certainly open the possibility of a
representative not behaving according to the wishes of the majority, and
that is the price of efficiency.

>The first example is the A$4 recursive R 666 thing. The Financier has 
>unilateraly decided that the *correct* interpretation of R 666 is to
>reduce everyone to A$4, while there are 4 CFJs outstanding on the rule
>in question,  including one that *directly* challenges the hypothesis
>(CFJ 193), as well as public opinion to the contrary. It seems that
>*existing* interpretation holds sway until Rule of Law of Judgement
>changes that. No one gets to just change an interpretation just because
>of debate! It seems that the onus is on the Financier to establish his
>controversial change of interpretation by law *before* ruling by fiat.

The Financier had to choose an interpretation of R 666.  There do seem
to be conflicting opinions about the effects of R666, but the majority
appears to believe that either (a) the game has crashed or (b) R 666
really is recursive.  Majority opinion really doesn't matter, however,
except insomuchas the Financier _chooses_ to abide by it, and in that
the Financier may be removed from office by a sufficient majority of
the players.  Moreover, there is no existing interpretation of this
Rule, for it was created after RS' win, and not invoked until the recent
multi-wins whose effects are still being sorted out.

Rule 482 says that "The Financier is responsible for the proper maintenance
of the accounts of the players."  He is performing his duties to the best of
his ability.  Those duties require that choose an interpretation of every
rule that involves currency transfers, as well as several others.  If the
Financier's interpretation is judged incorrect, then there may be grounds
for criminal proceedings; in any case, the accounting will be corrected.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:54:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 762

> Admittedly I did not speak with class, but you should talk, Mohammed.
	My objection was not to the tone of the specific message but the 
monotony of the past 48.

> It happens to make it impossible, in /dev/joe's reasoning, for anyone 
> other than Wayne to claim the Trombone, due to mechanics, not rules.
	Not at all.  I can sort of see where this is coming from, but I 
think after the scores are distributed, if the -last- score change left 
your score at 76, and you happen to log on at the right time, you could 
probably get it, no fuss.  Especially if you knew your score was about 68, 
and you were watching for it....

> It seems that *existing* interpretation holds sway until Rule of Law of
> Judgement changes that.
	Now I see your point.  Third time's a charm.  :o)
	Rather, I think the precedent of maintaining multiple possible
game states... and letting the CFJs decide which one is the -real- current
game state... is the best idea.  In that case, whether or not your
Forehead was purchased will be decided when that CFJ is returned.
	Also, whether or not the Scroll of Crumble was purchased will be 
determined that way.

> The second, weaker example, is the Trombone. It had never been claimed
> before, so there was no *existing* interpretation. I again took 
> exception to /dev/joe's de facto denial, by fiat, of the artifact to me
> via his capacity as Web-Harfer, by not posting it. At the time, the onus
> was on him to show by CFJ why I should not have it, as its claiming was
> not controversial.
	Actually, the way I see it, no.  Let me try and sell you on 
this... :o)
	The way I see it, unless a CFJ is pending about a certain point,
an officer can only record the game state in his best honest good-faith
interpretation of the rules (/dev/joe has done so).  If a CFJ is
submitted, he is then required to keep multiple records of the game state,
one record in anticipation of each significant result of the Judgement.
	This dual possibility could be indicated on the Web page:

	- Ackanomic Name:  Malenkai
	- May or may not have the [IMAGE] Great Trombone (pending CFJ xxx)

	(My humble opinion only here.  There is neither rule nor game
custom to back me up on this one.  But I see it as the most amenable
solution and if the Officers are willing to go along, it'd make certain
kinds of problems easier to resolve.)

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:06:06 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 194 ( Merlin the Happy Pig) 

>Call for Judgement 194
>  Subject: Immutabilty of Immutable Rules
>Initiator: Calvin N hobbes
>    Judge: Merlin the Happy Pig (selected 25-Jun-96 23:45h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>The text of immutable rules can't be changed, only that of mutable rules.
>
>Calvin N Hobbes' Reasoning:
>
>I looked through the rules and could not find any rule that protected the
>immutables explicitely, only 491 and then indirectly. The statement has deep
>roots in "pure tradition": why else is there a distinction between "mutable"
>and "immutable"? But let me make a case.

The only tradition involved here is that we have very rarely modified Rules
by any means other than the one (by proposal) under which immutables are
inviolate.

>R491 is _specific_ in what kind of rule changes there can be. It says:
>>A rule change is valid if it calls for one or more of these effects,
>>and no other effects: the creation of a new mutable rule; the
>>amendment of an existing mutable rule; the repeal of an existing
>>mutable rule; a change of the mutability of any rule.
>
>It specifies in no uncertain terms that a change to the text of the rules is
>_legal_ (quote "valid") if and only if it applies to a mutable rule.

The interpretation of "valid" to mean "legal" in this case is not supported
by the text of R491.  R491 in no way prohibits a Rule Change from being
invalid; rather it specifies what happens when a valid rule change is adopted.
This permits valid rule changes to change the Rules, as per R 115, but does
not, itself, permit invalid Rule changes to do so.

Moreover, we have a Rule, number 629 "Constitutional Convention; Procedure,"
which specifies in part (h) that "the mutability or immutability of any rule
shall not prevent [the changes recommended by the report of the Convention]
from being applied."  This takes the disputed statement out of the realm of
game custom and renders it FALSE according to the Rules.

ThinMan

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:07:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 194 (Merlin the Happy Pig)

> Call for Judgement 194
>   Subject: Immutabilty of Immutable Rules
> Initiator: Calvin N hobbes
>     Judge: Merlin the Happy Pig (selected 25-Jun-96 23:45h New York Time)
	I'll restrict my comments on this to this:
	It seems that we have growing game custom (and it shows in the 
way the rule set is being written these days) that the rules can be 
changed by things other than rule changes.
	It seems that a rule change, per se, is only one of the various 
ways the rules can be hacked up.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:40:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  confusing thing

I've submitted two largely similar proposals to deal with the possible 
money drain out of the game.  Each of them has the effect of granting 
each player A$750 from the Treasury.

If Proposal 915 passes, the text of Rule 666 will change, and then 
Proposal 919 will be very inappropriate.  So, if that happens, I will 
retract P919.  I have made the other proposal (with the same effect but 
no editing of R666) in case that happens, so that an emergency windfall 
proposal will still be on the table.

If P915 fails, I will retract the other proposal, and hope that P919 passes.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:56:58 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 193 (Niccolo Flychuck) 

At 08:16 PM 25/06/96 -0700 , Malenkai  wrote:
>De'ghew has declined to judge the following. It has been reassigned
>to Niccolo Flychuck, who has 3 days to accept or decline the appointment.
>

I accept this CFJ, I will post my judgement as soon as possible, and
certainly within the required time limit

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:56:52 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 762 

At 10:54 AM 26/06/96 -0500 , Mohammed  wrote:

>	This dual possibility could be indicated on the Web page:
>
>	- Ackanomic Name:  Malenkai
>	- May or may not have the [IMAGE] Great Trombone (pending CFJ xxx)
>
>	(My humble opinion only here.  There is neither rule nor game
>custom to back me up on this one.  But I see it as the most amenable
>solution and if the Officers are willing to go along, it'd make certain
>kinds of problems easier to resolve.)
>
>--Mohammed
>
So now we have gone over from occasional logic and mathematics and ventured
into quantum physics.

Nicolo Flychuck
>

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 13:10:21 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 933

Proposal 933 - Wed Jun 26 13:10:21 EDT 1996
Emergency Economic Measures
Mohammed  (Jason Orendorff)

A new rule shall be created, reading:

{{ Each player shall receive A$750 from the Treasury. }}

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:52:45 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 926

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 926 - Wed Jun 26 02:09:32 EDT 1996
> Massive Repeals
> Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)
> 

> Repeal 775 if it exists
> 

> I dare anyone to argue that these Rules need to stay in the Ruleset.
> The other stuff is just as useless,...

I argue that the Church, R 775, is not useless, for what its worth.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:01:52 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 924 

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 
> "924" ==   <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> 924> a) Upon the passage of this rule, the Web-Harfer shall have a
> 924> fortnight to either provide a link to, or provide the text of,
> 924> Godel's Theorem on the Ackanomic web page.
> 
> why?  Goedel's Theorem applies only to formal systems.  most Nomics
> are not formal systems.  Ackanomic quite clearly isn't even close.

Godel's Theorem is interesting. Furthermore, there appears to be a 
movement to turn Ackaniomic into a formal system.

I think Godelian arguments vis-a-vis law are interesting, and some
players would find value in having them easily accessable from the 
web page. Perhaps I will do the project under the auspices of R 115
if I have the time.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:04:38 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 925

Matt wrote:
> 
> > > Proposal 925 - Wed Jun 26 00:24:08 EDT 1996
> > > This is a GAME, not third grade
> > > Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
> > >
> > That would make a lot of words appear to be misspelled, because hardly
> > anyone (I'd no one) at Ackanomia uses the Queen's English. We all write
> > using American spelling (or at least make the attempt)
> >

The Queen's English only applies if a) the dictionary cannot be
found, and b) the proposal passes. God Save the Queen indeed.

Malenkaui

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:18:31 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 762

John Bollinger wrote:
> 
> Moreover, there is no existing interpretation of this
> Rule, for it was created after RS' win, and not invoked until the recent
> multi-wins whose effects are still being sorted out.
> 

This statement is false. R 666 *gave* Robert Sevin his win (qv Proposal
666), and the procedure was applied then, under the non-recursive 
interpretation, after Robert Sevin won.

Furthermore, the same interpretation was applied to Bascule's and 
Malenkai's wins. It was only in the judging of the precedence of R 829
vis-a-vis R 666, after the paradox, with De'ghew as judge, that De'ghew
noticed the possible recursive interpretation, and called for judgement.
This was a full 6 days or more, after I won, I believe.

To jump on that interpretation without a clear mandate, because of debate,
is what I am questioning (I am also questioning that the opinion is
"majority", but that is not relavent). A better solution is to bifurcate
pending the verdict of CFJ 193, but to request the Financier to maintain two
sets of books would be a hardship, although proper.

Therefore, IMHO, it is preferrable to stick with the established 
interpretation rather than the unproven interpretation, and it is that
judgement I am challenging. I shall chill and let CFJ 193 decide the
matter.

Its more of a general point, and nothing against the Financier, in terms
of jumping on the unproven, controversial interrpretation, when an
existing interpretation is around.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:49:25 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 194 ( Merlin the Happy Pig) 

>The interpretation of "valid" to mean "legal" in this case is not supported
>by the text of R491.  R491 in no way prohibits a Rule Change from being
>invalid; rather it specifies what happens when a valid rule change is adopted.
>This permits valid rule changes to change the Rules, as per R 115, but does
>not, itself, permit invalid Rule changes to do so.

Read this line:

>>>A rule change is valid if it calls for one or more of these effects,

As in, these are the valid ways. If it isn't in the list, it is not valid.
Full stop.

Con-Con specifically grants exception to this, precicely because it _needs_ to.

>This takes the disputed statement out of the realm of
>game custom and renders it FALSE according to the Rules.

"I see a human female, therefore all humans are female". Because R629 claims
_exception_ only proves the point, thank you very much.

CnH

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 01:50:26 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 926

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > Proposal 926 - Wed Jun 26 02:09:32 EDT 1996
> > Massive Repeals
> > Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)
> > 
> 
> > Repeal 775 if it exists
> > 
> 
> > I dare anyone to argue that these Rules need to stay in the Ruleset.
> > Theother stuff is just as useless,...
> 
> I argue that the Church, R 775, is not useless, for what its worth.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
That one slipped right by me. Wayne presented hiw criteria as rules no one
does anything with. Well, The Church rule is being played, quite
successfully, I might add :)
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:53:19 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 194 ( Merlin the Happy Pig) 

>... exception to this, preciSSSSSely because...

Ycnega
(correcting his lesser half)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:00:56 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 197 (tinan)

this is not a name has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days
to accept or decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 197
  Subject: Manipulation
Initiator: Mohammed
    Judge: this is not a name (selected 26-Jun-96 19:00h New York Time)

Statement:

The manipulation of an entity, for the purposes of Rule 592, is the act
of changing something about it.

Mohammed's Comments:

        This has to do with the way Rule 592 is being interpreted.
        I would say the word "manipulation" has enough meanings that it
may be taken however the spirit of the game suggests.  This statement can
be judged one way or the other with no objection from me.
        I wrote the rule; it was my intent that "created, destroyed, or
manipulated" be taken to include anything that could have a game effect.
Apparently it goes somewhat beyond that.  This judgement may determine
just how far.
        If this is judged true, then the act of playing the Trombone, or
using it to summon penguins for that matter, is legal.  However, using it
to conjure points is illegal (because points are protected), and turning
it into a Tuba is right out.
        If this is judged false, I don't think it will be sufficient to
establish that playing the Ackanomic Trombone is illegal.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:18:24 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: /dev/joe (Web pages) 

The FM pages are at:

http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~ifgz711/acka/nomic.html

Please update your links.

CnH

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:33:06 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka:  Clueless

A player has requested that I change the time zone on my computer
from -0700 to -0400 as it was screwing up their mail reader. I am on New
York time, and thought I was at -0500, but that stupid daylight saving
time thing always confuses me, so I'm pretty clueless.

Anyway, since I could not figure out how to make the requested change,
I would ask if anyone knows how to make the time zone change on a 
dos/windows3.1/trumpet/netscape configuration to please let me know
privately.

Thanks
Malenkai
Working on a Linux configuration

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:05:57 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 915

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 915 - Tue Jun 25 14:38:13 EDT 1996
> Refixing Cycles
> Kelly Martin  (Kelly Martin)
> 

I have the following concerns with this proposal, and must urge a
vote of NO:

>     If a Paradox Win CFJ is judged TRUE, it shall be automatically
>     appealed to the Supreme Court;

Why is this step extra necessary? We should only waste the time if the
verdict is dubious, and a player thinks it is dubious enough to take
the time, effort, and expense to word a reasoned appeal.

> no new CFJs shall be assigned, and no Judgement on any outstanding CFJ...

I still maintain that stopping the flow of CFJs, in general, for any 
reason, (and especially in at a time like this), will cause more problems
that it would solve.

> The Supreme Court shall review the Paradox Win CFJ with all deliberate
> haste; the usual time for deliberation is shortened to three days in this
> case.

This is the clause that is the most worrisome in this suite of changes 
(besides nuking the Fat Lady :)). Three days is not a practical amount
of time, assuming there is more than one Justice, to deliberate on any
appeal, especially one as potentially complicated as a paradox win.

Geographical and cultural differences, as well as differences in 
professional/student schedules make even 7 days a hardship for 
deliberations on complex judgements. This clause would thus tend to be
exclusionary, and even if the justices did next to nothing with their
life other than Ackanomic, would be difficult to comply with.

For these flaws, a vote of NO is necessary. The proposal is otherwise
well written, and I would support it if the offending clauses were
removed, and the Fat Lady was retained.

Malenkai

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #70
******************************