Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #72
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, June 28 1996         Volume 01 : Number 072

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 01:53:36 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: What Phoebe Says 

       About a week or two, give or take a few hours, I found this funny
looking matchbox stuffed in my mailbox.  I kept meaning to check it out,
see why someone would give me this silly little matchbox, but then I kept
forgetting to do just that.

        So this morning, I finally remember this odd gift that I found.  I
open it up, and what would you know... A shiny little Steel Flea popped out
and began speaking.  She introduced herself as Phoebe, and then said the
following:

        "Let me tell you a story, my friend, about a man who liked to do
nothing.  He would get up whenever he pleased, put on whatever clothes he
pleases, and then, after a brief stroll through trough the groves outside
his perch, he would come to his favorite caf=E9.  He would sip his pensive
coffee there, glancing now and then at the fresh newspaper neatly folded
before him,.  Much of the morning passed in pleasant reverie out of which
there rose now and then a sharply delicious half thought that would become
full when he committed it to paper, something he rarely bothered to do.  He
was content just to sip at several cups of coffee until it was time for
lunch at the house of one or another of his many friends, who were also in
the business of doing nothing.  During lunch, he would test thoughts he'd
had during breakfast, and was gratified to get several new angles on them.
In the afternoon, he would climb onto a grassy knoll and nap, having a
number of notable dreams in the process, that would then add themselves to
the thoughts born in the A.M. and grown in the P.M.

        By evening he was brimming with energy and enthusiasm, and he would
go to the bar, where the powerful thoughts he contained would spill forth
in explosive abundance between more affluent but less imaginative people.
No question about it, doing nothing was what suited him best, although he
never had any money to pay for either his coffee or his beer.

        But one day, someone bought one of his do-nothing ideas, and asked
him for another.  After a few weeks, he started to do nothing on purpose,
that is, he did nothing deliberately in order to get one of his great (and
profitable) do-nothing ideas.  He now had enough money to stop doing
nothing.  His walk to the Caf=E9 became brisker, less noticing of the verdan=
t
brilliance.  The coffee was indifferent, and he started actually reading
the newspaper he had merely enjoyed for it's smell before.  Even his
friends, instead of conversation companions, became sounding boards.  And
his dreams got grim and apocalyptic.  At the bar, he got into fights. And
that's the story of how this man became a workaholic. Instead of doing
nothing, he was always doing something. If you are like this man, my
friend, if you are doing nothing, beware of those who'd pay you for it."

So spoke Phoebe The Steel Flea

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 04:26:06 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: I hate it when that happens! 

I have returned judgemnet on CFJ 189, the CotC should be distributing it
soon.  I had typed up a detailed reasoning , but hit the wrong button and
accidentally nuked it before it got sent.  I apologize for that. I didn't
have the energy to retype it, and the deadline was drawing near, so  what I
sent in carries the jist of my reasoning, but does not go into to detail.

Sorry 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: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:38:47 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 189 verdict

The following, CFJ 189, has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 189
  Subject:  R666, take three
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  snowgod (selected Jun 22, 1996, 08:00h New York Time)
Judgement:  FALSE

Statement:

  Rule 666 cannot suspend Ackanomic play.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

  Rule 112 states "The adoption of rule changes must never become
  completely inpermissible [sic]."  Rule 112 has precedence over
  Rule 666 by the numerical method, since neither takes precedence
  explicitly and both are mutable rules.  If part (a) of rule 666
  suspended Ackanomic play, then the adoption of rule changes is
  completely impermissible while parts (b) through (k) of rule 666
  are carried out.  This may only take a moment, but Rule 112 says
  "never", so rule 666 can never suspend play.

  On the other hand, I believe that if Rule 666 succeeded in suspending
  Ackanomic play, that the game ended at that moment, because the
  procedure in the rest of rule 666, including part (m) which would
  resume Ackanomic play, _is_ part of Ackanomic play.  However, we
  already have a CFJ up for judgement which states "Ackanomic play
  cannot continue" so I won't clutter up the court with another one.

snowgod's reasoning:

R112 states "The adoption of rule changes must never become completely
inpermissible".  There is no clause in R666 which prohibits rule changes.
In suspending play, R666 simply makes the adoption of rule changes
temorarily *impossible*.   The mechanisms that allow for the *adoption* of
rule changes are still permitted by the rules, even if for a brief moment
they are put on hold.  If R112 read "The adoption of rule changes must
never become completely impossible" I would have to agree with /dev/joe and
return a judgement of true, however as the rules are written, I am
obligated to return a verdict of FALSE.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:45:35 -0700
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

R Shaw wrote:
> 
> I do wish to remain in the game
> 
>   Robin Hood

The following was received from Robin Hood after a requested invocation
of R 362 by another player. Thus Robin Hood remains in the game.

I would suggest that players at least vote to have R 362 not called. At
least in the old days, people were pretty liberal about R 362 if you
voted, even though such is not a "public message". I realize there was
a long suspension of voting recently, so in that case a ping of the
public forum should be sufficient.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 16:39:56 MET DST
From: [email-masked] (Julian Richardson)
Subject: ackanomic: free money

Anyone who needs some money to start a paper apply to me now and I'll
give you some. Quick, before I'm in gaol!

Dr McSpong

- -- 
- ---------------- Ce sont mes avis, pas les avis de l'ecole. ----------------
Julian Richardson  http://www.dmi.ens.fr/~richard  mailto:[email-masked]
Departement de Mathematiques et d'Informatique, Ecole Normale Superieure,
45 Rue D'Ulm, PARIS 75230 Cedex 05, FRANCE
Tel: +33 (1) 44 32 32 77  Fax: +33 (1) 44 32 20 80 

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:27:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 924 

> 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.
	I would prefer that to the proposal method.  It would fit better 
with the rest of the page if you were to do this, and find a place to put 
it on the map.  *shrug*

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:51:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 196 (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 196
>   Subject: creating rules
> Initiator: /dev/joe
>     Judge: De'ghew (selected 26-Jun-96 00:30h New York Time)

	I accept Judgeship for this CFJ.  I'll have my verdict as soon as 
possible.  

	De'ghew

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:21:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: P 917

> >    (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.
	I raised the same objection in in-party discussion of this 
proposal, but I don't think it was ever addressed; in any case I forgot 
about it when the in-party discussion wrapped up.  Dah.
	I agree the old language has a noble purpose and should be kept--
at least as a note.  The point is to make the rule set easier to follow,
not harder.  However, I will not change my vote (it's currently Yes)
because it is my hope that the new version won't stay there long... I'd
like to see the CSRR rule repealed.  I'm sorry I voted for it in the 
first place.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:36:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (ThinMan)

Phoebe the Steel Flea was reported missing this morning after snowgod
presented her wisdom to the rest of us.  This was the first time in
several weeks that Ackanomia has been blessed with her words, and
snowgod should be commended (in the amount of 6 points) for his action.

However, her matchbox was found just now by ThinMan.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:38:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Appointer (map-harfer appointed)

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Mohammed wrote:
> The Map-Harfer Nomination Period is open.  Anyone who wishes to nominate 
> himself or herself may do so for the next two days.  Everyone's eligible.
	The two days are up.   /dev/joe is the sole Nominee.
	So, /dev/joe is hereby our first Map-Harfer.  Congratulations!

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:22:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Registrarness: new player

We have a new player (or actually, a returning player)
Mark Nau ([email-masked]) has joined Ackanomic.
Ackanomic Name: pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:28:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
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.

I read that line.  I addressed the question in the material you quoted
above.  My objection is to equating "valid" with "legal," which I do not
think is supported by the rest of R491.  What R491 does is to _define_
validity with regard to proposals and to lay out its effects.  It does not
specify that invalid proposals are illegal, it simply does not provide for
invalid proposals to produce rule changes.

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

You are missing the point here.  The CFJ statement is "The text of immutable
rules can't be changed, only that of mutable rules."  R 629 allows immutables
to be changed, therefore the CFJ statement is false.  I don't understand how
that can be contested.  Moreover, that argument is independant of whether
immutable rules may be modified by any other means.

Furthermore, R629 does not _need_ to specify an exception, except for clarity.
The Rules have whatever authority they assign themselves, within their scope.
You have pointed out that only R491 even addresses the issue of mutability
with regard to changing the rules.  Other than that, R115 is the only legal
protection that immutables have.  R629 establishes an alternative procedure
for modifying the Rules which does not depend on proposals, so R491 does not
apply to it.  No game custom may override a rule, so even if this CFJ were
judged TRUE, R629's exception clause would still be unnecessary, except,
again, for clarity.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:35:33 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: Registrarness: new player 

>We have a new player (or actually, a returning player)
>Mark Nau ([email-masked]) has joined Ackanomic.
>Ackanomic Name: pTang1001001sos

I offer a hearty "Welcome Back!" to our returning player.  Three cheers
for pTang1001001sos!

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:13:32 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Registrarness: new player

At 2:22 PM 6/27/96, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>We have a new player (or actually, a returning player)
>Mark Nau ([email-masked]) has joined Ackanomic.
>Ackanomic Name: pTang1001001sos

HIR HIP HOORAY!!!

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:44:27 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Scores 

According to CFJ192, /dev/joe won the game by paradox on Monday.  Neither the
scores reported by the Scorekeeper's NomicBot nor the scores on the web page
reflect this, however.  I respectfully request that the appropriate officers
update their records.

ThinMan

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:00:51 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 198 (De'ghew)

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

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 198
  Subject: Just ignore the vacationers
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: De'ghew (selected 27-Jun-96 20:00h New York Time)

Statement:

Rule 362 does not apply to vacationing players.

Malenkai's reasoning:

The argument rests on the fact that a "vacationing player" is not the
same as an "active player", and the term "player", as used in R 326, has
been interpreted to mean "active player" since the beginning of the game,
and there is no compelling, legal, or urgent reason to suddenly change this 
interpretation now. There are compelling reasons as to why this 
interpretation should not change:

1) A player could not vacation for more than one week without being
kicked out of the game. An overly harsh way to treat people who, for
example, travel to Europe for 10 days.

2) Once R 362 is invoked on the vacationing player under this would be 
interpretation, they are out of the game, with no chance for even a
reply. I quote from R 457, "Vacationing":

"The only thing a player on vacation may legally do is take himself off 
vacation."

Thus the player cannot respond to the Speaker's message as required by
R 362. They're only option is:

3) This interpretation will promote more of the objectionable "on vacation"/
"off vacation" behaviour to avoid 1 and 2.

Vacationing players are harmless. They can be ignored, and require no
maintenance. Their offices are handled. I urge the Judge to stick with
the interpretation we've been using for the entire game, or show
compelling reasoning why it needs to, and can be, changd.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:20:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 199 (snowgod)

snowgod has been chosen to judge the following. He has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment. 

[With  pTang1001001sos back, the fact that I'm a Rush fan will
again have value. Its the only way I can remember how to type
that thing, and I'm sure I'll be typing it alot again :)]

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 199
  Subject:  Vacationers are Players
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  snowgod (selected Jun 27, 1996, 10:30h New York Time)

Statement:

Rule 362 applies to vacationing Players.

pTang1001001's reasoning:

R362:

"If any player does not vote or communicate publically with all of
the Ackanomic players for a time period of one week, and this fact
is pointed out to the Speaker by any player (other than the said player),
then the Speaker must send a message to the player who has been absent.
In this message the Speaker must ask the player if he wishes to continue
playing the game, and points out why the message is being sent. If the
player does not reply within two days, then the player is no longer a
player in the game. The ex-player may rejoin the game later, if he desires,
with the same score he had when he left."

In the past, no-one has pointed out to the Speaker the lack
of public communication by vacationing players, and so I assert
that there is NO current game custom to deal with this issue.

The fact that R362 deals harshly with vacationing players is a
sound argument for amending the Rule, but does not give us any
right to ignore its text.  Particularly with the lack of ANY
relevent game custom, it would be sheer fiat for anyone to conclude
that R362 excludes vacationers.

To assert that a vacationing Player is not a wholly contained class
within the concept of "Player" is absurd.  R362 applies to them.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:01:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 199 (snowgod)

Malenkai wrote:
> 

> 
> Call for Judgement 199
>   Subject:  Vacationers are Players
> Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>     Judge:  snowgod (selected Jun 27, 1996, 10:30h New York Time)

It seems that the CotC is still having minor time problems. The above
should be:

>     Judge:  snowgod (selected Jun 27, 1996, 22:30h New York Time)

Hopefully the time zone problem has been fixed.
Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
CFJ 199:
 
> In the past, no-one has pointed out to the Speaker the lack
> of public communication by vacationing players,

I sure pTang1001001sos' factual evidence of the above statement will
follow shortly, or perhaps it was eaten by the CotC's mail server.

In any case, I was not polled, and 2 of the previous 3 Speakers are on
vacation, ironically enough. I wonder if they were polled?

People have tried alot of things to get rid of them. Its been thought
of previously. (but perhaps not by the people trying to get rid
of them, I cannot speak for them).

The fact that R 362 has not been called in this case is favors the other
interpretation. Information can be derived from the negative. Should 
those who interpret R 362 to not apply to vacationers post a message such
as:

	"I hereby do NOT invoke R 362 to nuke the vacationing players". 

That would be absurd. Negative information establishes the
interpretation.

Malenkai/CotC
Saving players "bombardement" by piggybacking debate on an official
message :)

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #72
******************************