Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #71
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Thursday, June 27 1996        Volume 01 : Number 071

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:27:19 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: P 917

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 917 - Tue Jun 25 14:39:56 EDT 1996
> More fixing offices
> /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

[edit]

> 8. Amend R695 "Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy"
>    to read, in full:
> 
>   "(a) There shall be a functional office called Common Sense, Redundancy,
>        and Redundancy.  This office may be referred to as CSRR.
>    (b) A privilege of the CSRR is publishing Common Sense Reports.
>        A common sense report (CSR) is a suggested change to the rules.
>        A CSR is not a proposal.  The changes suggested in a CSR may
>        only consist of amending and repealing mutable rules.

This rewrite goes too far. By eliminating the original text of b), a
player not already familar with the *gist* of the office may have no
idea what was going on. As mr cwm has pointed out to me twice, changes
requested were beyond the scope of the office, in his opinion. I'd much
perfer clause b) below to look this up, than clause b) above. There is
too much information loss.

> The old text was:
>    (b) The purpose of the Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and
> Redundancy is to make changes to the rules when it finds that the rules,
> as written, do not make sense, are redundant, do not conform _in fact_
> to their interpretation in game custom, or are redundant.  The Office
> may perform other functions if they conform to the rules.  [The Office
> should make minor changes.  But if it can get major changes past the,
> shall we say, review process, it can.]

Plus, this language is more fun :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 22:09:30 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 915 

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

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

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

because a Paradox Win is a very significant thing that should not be
left unreviewed.  sorta like how death penalty convictions are always
reviewed. :)

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

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

perhaps.  one of my goals in this proposal was to change the
substantial provisions as little as necessary.  the current Rules
attempt to accomplish this.

>> 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.

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

except that the Supreme Court will have advance notice of any Paradox
Win CFJ when it is initially called, and can preconsider the eventual
appeal when the CFJ is first called.  the burden is not excessive,
especially since all other deliberations are suspended during that
time.

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

a preliminary version of this proposal retained the Fat Lady.
however, the removal of the provision that the winner of a game
becomes the speaker of the next, in order to be consistent with the
existing forms, forced the removal of the analogous structures in this
proposal.  for your amusement, here's the (lost) provision:

    Whenever a Cycle ends, the Speaker shall announce that the Fat
    Lady is singing.  The Fat Lady shall sing until the ProSpeaker
    announces that the Fat Lady is no longer singing, at which time
    the ProSpeaker becomes the Speaker.

    Allowing the Fat Lady to sing for more than two days is a crime
    against humanity, and shall be punished appropriately.

k.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:03:00 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 924 

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

Malenkai> Godel's Theorem is interesting.

i never said it wasn't.

Malenkai> Furthermore, there appears to be a movement to turn
Malenkai> Ackaniomic into a formal system.

there is?  i haven't seen any sign of that.

k.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 23:07:51 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Invoking R 762 

"Uri" == Uri Bruck <[email-masked]> writes:

Uri> So now we have gone over from occasional logic and mathematics
Uri> and ventured into quantum physics.

interesting to view the act of Judging a CFJ collapses the game state
probability function into a single value, isn't it?

this leaves open the question of just what an appeal does, however. :)

k.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #71
******************************