Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #73
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, June 28 1996         Volume 01 : Number 073

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:33:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Spickes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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)

	Wow, I'm getting really popular with someone's random selection 
method.  :)  I decline to judge this in order to spread the CFJ's around 
a bit.  Besides, I'm getting more busy by the hour..

	De'ghew

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:34:05 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 198 (De'ghew) 

>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.

I have to argue that the text of R362 does not support such a claim.  I
am curious as to whether Malenkai was spurred to issue this CFJ by the
recent R362 invokation (by me).  I note for the record that I specifically
checked the acting registrar's list of players and only invoked R362 on
players that were _not_ listed as "on vacation."  My objection to this CFJ
is therefore procedural, not ideological.

ThinMan

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:04:51 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Discuss CFJ 199 

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

>> 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.

Let me start off by saying that being a RUSH fan is ALWAYS of value :)

As a preface to the current topic, let me share with the rest of
Ackanomia that the cause of the R362 disturbance was a note from
me to the Speaker noting that the various vacationers have not posted
publically for a week now.

Anyhow, Malenkai, you are correct that I do not have knowledge regarding
prior private Emails to the various Speakers.  However, I assert that the
issue of applying R362 to vacationers has not been resolved in any
way that would create a game custom.  If some previous Speaker recieved
a R362 invocation upon a vacationer that e summarily dissmissed, this
not only fails to set game custom, it was a breach of office.  You did
exactly the right thing in issuing a CFJ if you believe that the Rules
are unclear.

Let me pose an analogy that may point out why I believe your above reasoning
fails.  If some paradox were lurking in the Rules, like the [[e.g.this]]
problem, the argument analogous to the one you made above would be:
"Oh, well, that so-called "paradox" has been in the Rules for quite a
while now, and no-one has invoked it, so game custom dictates that
it's not really a paradox.  We've been treating it like its not a paradox
for a long time now."

The fact of the matter is that an issue that has not been dealt with
in any official way has NO associated game custom.  Just because something
has been overlooked for a long time and/or voluntarily refrained from does
not create a game custom of its impermissibility.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:10:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discuss CFJ 199

Mark Nau wrote: You did

> exactly the right thing in issuing a CFJ if you believe that the Rules
> are unclear.

I was the one who thought of it during the debate about what to do
about the vacationing players, with I read after I came back from
vacation. I did not bring it up, because a debate at the time seemed
unneeded. Also, I assumed it was thought of by others, because alot
was thought of by others, and thus I inferred the "negative" custom.
So in *my* mind, it was custom. I do not have the basis of fact that
it is *not* custom that pTang apparently has. I still await evidence,
however.

Thus, I am willing to await CFJ. As I pointed out previously, I think
it is wrong for an officer to make the decision that goes against custom
without rule of law or CFJ to back me up. Hence the CFJ. pTang's CFJ
is extra baggage, as now it is a race condition as to which one comes
back first, assuming different verdicts (qv the precedence CFJ, I forget
the number, but its in the 160s)

> "Oh, well, that so-called "paradox" has been in the Rules for quite a
> while now, and no-one has invoked it, so game custom dictates that
> it's not really a paradox.  We've been treating it like its not a paradox
> for a long time now."

That is different. I planted that awhile ago, but had to wait for R 110
to be transmuted to mutable to execute it. Furthermore, I went on
vacation, so I had to wait until I came back. I know. Weak.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 16:00:06 -0800
From: "Jerome Herrman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Mailing List Update 

Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Jerome Herrman
To:  'smtp:[email-masked]'
Subject:  Ackanomic: Mailing List Update
Date: 1996-06-28 15:47
Priority: 
Message ID: 9F003DF7
Conversation ID: 9F003DF7

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

Would everyone please update their mailing lists with my new e-mail address. 
. .

[email-masked]

thanks, and sorry for the change.

Techno

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:20:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 191 verdict

The following, CFJ 191, has been judged FALSE.

Malenkai will have a statement within 48 hours about what he plans
to do about the situation, or what the situation may be.

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 191
  Subject: Next paradox, please
Initiator: Malenkai
    Judge: ThinMan (selected 24-Jun-96 23:30h New York Time)
Judgement: FALSE

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.

Reasoning:

Note that parts of this are written in past tense, thus the Judge must
consider the facts as they were at the referrant times, where appropriate.

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.

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!

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.

Therefore R 507 has the paradoxicial effect of declaring that it is illegal
for Malenkai to be a Justice, yet makes it illegal for the rules to
remove him as such. R 110 dictated that Malenkai be speaker "For
the next game", thus eliminating that avenue of alleviation by precedence.
Just because R 110 has been amended, its pre-existing effects have not
been (qv CFJ 167).

Upon a verdict of TRUE, I claim a win by paradox. I shall also
*voluntarily* resolve the situation upon such a verdict by resigning as
Justice. By R110, at the time, it is not legal for me to resign as Speaker,
as its past effects were not negated in its amendment.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Rule 507 most definately makes it illegal for Malenkai to be both a Justice
and Speaker at the same time.  That is not in dispute.  However, that does
not mean that if Malenkai should choose to not resign as Justice, which may
be explicitly provided for by R 507, that an illegal situation must arise.

Malenkai has argued that he may not legally resign the Speakership.  I reject
his argument and that position.  I note the language of Rule 101, which
requires that players "abide by the Rules then in effect, in the form in
which they are then in effect."  Players are nowhere required to abide by
Rules that have been repealed, or to abide by prior forms of Rules that have
since been amended.  In fact, one could argue that Rule 101 implicitly allows
that Players are not required to do so.  In any case, in the absence of a
Rule to the contrary, Rule 115 allows players to legally ignore Rules and
forms of Rules that are not in effect.

I do not find CFJ 167 relevant to this issue.  The reasoning supplied with
that CFJ hinges on the concept that the creation of an object is a temporal
action, and therefore not revoked by subsequent elimination of the entity 
that
performed the creation.  That is not analogous to Malenkai's claim that a
previous form of R 110 requires that he not resign the Speakership.

As soon as R 110 was amended into its present form, Malenkai ceased to have
legal grounds for remaining both Speaker and Justice.  Insomuchas the Rules
prohibited themselves from "kicking [him out] of office [as Justice]," they
required that he cease being Speaker.  In fact, one could argue that he
was then _defined_ by R 507 to not be Speaker.  In that case, the statement
submitted for judgement is FALSE because there is no conflict in the first
place.

If Malenkai continued to be Speaker after the amendment to R 110, then at
that time it became legal for him to resign the Speakership.  It was 
therefore
not "equally legal and illegal" for him to remain Justice; rather, it became
unquestionably legal for him to do so.  However, if his decision was and is 
to
remain a Justice, then the Rules require that he resign as Speaker.  In that
case, he is in violation of R507 and R101 until he resigns one office or the
other.  The statement submitted for judgement is again FALSE.

This judgement does not determine which is the correct interpretation of
the effects of R 507 once R 110 was amended, but either option leads to
the same conclusion.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:44:13 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 200 (Dr McSpong)

Dr McSpong has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days to
accept or decline the appointment.

I note that Dr McSpong has given intention to leave the game, but only
after funding a newspaper. He has not done so, and therefore is still
in the game, and is a legitimate selection.

Furthermore, CFCJ 104 established that Dr McSpong was to serve a sentence
in Gaol. This verdict was delivered 25-Jun-96, 20:59 New York Time, less
than 3 days ago.

The Gaoler has notified me in official correspondence that Dr McSpong is
not yet in Gaol due to a three day grace period. The web page is 
inconsistent in this regard. I have not checked the rules, but am assuming
the Gaoler's interpretation for now, as that is his specific job.

In any case, those are the facts on the Judge Designate, as I know them.

Clerk of the Courts

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Call for Judgement 200
  Subject: Malenkai's Speakership
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Dr McSpong (selected 28-Jun-96 18:45h New York Time)

Statement:

Malenkai ceased to be Speaker when R 110 was amended into its current form.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Until the most recent amendment of R110, Malenkai was both Speaker and
Justice.  R110 established that he was Speaker, and R507 prevented him
from being removed as Justice.  When R110 was amended, however, the clause
establishing Malenkai's continued Speakership was removed.  Rule 507
states that "[Justices] are neither President, Speaker, Senator, or
already Justice."  By definition, then, Malenkai, who was and is a Justice,
was not Speaker any longer.

[Although this case looks pretty sturdy to me, I don't really care what the
judgement is.  I just want an interpretation recorded.  Also, I have no
objection to Malenkai's Speakership -- I think he does a fine job.  I do,
however, insist that the Rules be obeyed.]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 18:50:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 201 (Mohammed)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 201
  Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Mohammed (selected Jun 28, 1996, 19:00h New York Time)

Statement:

The legality of the following action:
"/dev/joe creates Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice"
cannot be determined with finality.  I thereby
claim a paradox win under R219.

pTang1001001sos's Reasoning:

When /dev/joe was declared a winner,
R666 "kicked in".  Upon application of clause
(c), R666 starts over again.  In effect, the
process described in R666 is being continuously
launched ad infinitum.

I argue that it is impossible to determine, at any
given moment, whether /dev/joe is in possession
of a Right Handed Grapefruit(RHG), since he is being
awarded RHGs and they are also being "eliminated"
each time the R666 process is carried out.

Note that a new R666 process is being launched every
time clause (c) of the previous R666 process is
executed, so it is impossible to say when the newest
RHG is being awarded relative to the last "elimination"
of all RHGs.

It's a total mess.  I defy anyone to determine whether
/dev/joe has a RHG that he can squeeze.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:03:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 201 (Mohammed)

Malenkai wrote:

> Call for Judgement 201
>   Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
> Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>     Judge:  Mohammed (selected Jun 28, 1996, 19:00h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The legality of the following action:
> "/dev/joe creates Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice"
> cannot be determined with finality.  I thereby
> claim a paradox win under R219.
> 

I claim that Mohammed has no choice but to not consider this CFJ 
for judgement. I quote from R 589:

- ---------------------------------------------------------
 
Rule 589/3 (Mutable)
Invoking Judgement

      Any CFJ must include a single, clear, and clearly labeled statement 
that can be answered TRUE, or FALSE. ... 

      CFJ's with no clear statement, or [...] multiple statements shall
not be considered for judgement.

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

pTang's "statement" has multiple statements. Furthermore, his second 
statement runs afoul of other provisions of R 589. I insist that
Mohammed read R 589, and not consider this for judgememt. As ThinMan
so elegantly pointed out earlier, "I insist that the rules be followed".

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:07:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

2 players asked me to apply R 362 to Merlin the Happy Pig, and Robin
Hood. The time for those players to respond has come and gone. Robin
Hood responded in the time limit, but Merlin did not. Therefore I ask
all the appropriate officers to remove Merlin from the game. He may
rejoin later if he wishes. The email is provided below for varification.

As CotC, I there is a CFJ to be reassigned. This will be
done shortly. Additionally, a full report of all CFJs and appeals in the
queue will be issued.

Malenkai
Speaker

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> This message is to Merlin the Happy Pig, and Robin Hood.
> This is from Malenkai, Speaker of Ackanomic.
> 
> I have been requested to ask if you wish to continue playing the
> game of Ackanomic. You have 2 days (until 19:00 hrs Jun 28, New York Time)
> to respond to this message, or I will have to request that the
> Registrar remove you from the game. You may join later if you wish.
> 
> The relavent rule is provided for your reference:
> 
> Rule 362/0 (Mutable)
> No Dead Players Allowed
> Mitchell Harding
> 
>       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.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:19:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 194 (Niccolo Flychuck)

The following was reassigned to Niccolo Flychuck. He has 3 days to 
accept or decline the appointment: (The CotC has replaced his 30
sided die with another one.)

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 194
  Subject: Immutabilty of Immutable Rules
Initiator: Calvin N hobbes
    Judge: Merlin the Happy Pig (removed from the game)
2nd Judge: Niccolo Flychuck (selected 28-Jun-96 19:20h 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.

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.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 20:03:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 198 (Pascal)

De'ghew has declined to judge the following. It has been reassigned
to Pascal, who 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 (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Pascal (selected 28-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: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 20:04:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CotC report

All outstanding CFJs, and their status (I'll probably get around
to putting this on my web page someday, if I ever get one, so
I can stop cluttering your e-mail :)

All times in New York Time.

CFJ 187 Appeal (play can continue) - Supreme Court has until 01-Jul 14:00
	 hrs to reach a verdict without penalty. The delay has been
	 caused by lack of email from Justice Bascule (at least that is
	 Justice Malenkai's point of view).

CFJ 191 (R 507 paradox) - FALSE returned.

CFJ 193 (is R666 recursive?) - Niccolo Flychuck accepted.
	 Verdict due Wed Jul 03, 13:00 hrs.

CFJ 194 (immutable rules immutable?) - Reassigned to Niccoco. Pending a/d
	Decision on accept/decline due Mon Jul 01, 19:20 hrs.

CFJ 195 (rule furniture) - Niccolo Flychuck accepted.
	 Verdict due Fri Jul 05, 09:18 hrs.

CFJ 196 (creating rules) - De'ghew accepted.
	 Verdict due Thu Jul 04, 13:51 hrs.

CFJ 197 (manipulation) - this is not a name accepted.
	 Verdict due Wed Jul 03, 19:26 hrs.

CFJ 198 (vacation/R362) - Reassigned to Pascal. Pending a/d
	 Decision on accept/decline due Mon Jul 01, 20:00 hrs.

CFJ 199 (vacation/R362) - snowgod accepted.
	 Verdict due Fri Jul 05, 05:08 hrs.

CFJ 200 (Malenkai speaker) - Assigned to Dr McSpong. Pending a/d + Gaol
	Decision on accept/decline due Mon Jul 01, 18:45 hrs.

CFJ 201 (Grapefruit paradox) - Assigned to Mohammed. Pending a/d
	Decision on accept/decline due Mon Jul 01, 19:00 hrs.
 	Note that there is a serious claim that this CFJ is invalid. 
	Unless concensus is reached that it is invalid, or it is 
	withdrawn/discarded, another CFJ will come seeking to invalidate.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:51:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 200 (Dr McSpong)

> Dr McSpong has been selected to judge the following. He has 3 days to
> accept or decline the appointment.
> 
> I note that Dr McSpong has given intention to leave the game, but only
> after funding a newspaper. He has not done so, and therefore is still
> in the game, and is a legitimate selection.
> 
> Furthermore, CFCJ 104 established that Dr McSpong was to serve a sentence
> in Gaol. This verdict was delivered 25-Jun-96, 20:59 New York Time, less
> than 3 days ago.
> 
> The Gaoler has notified me in official correspondence that Dr McSpong is
> not yet in Gaol due to a three day grace period. The web page is 
> inconsistent in this regard. I have not checked the rules, but am assuming
> the Gaoler's interpretation for now, as that is his specific job.

There is a problem with the Gaol rule (709).
1. It doesn't prevent a player in Gaol from being chosen as a judge for
   a CFJ.  This doesn't require the player to act, so is not a "game
   action" as defined by R709, and indeed, a similar random assignment,
   receiving the Magic Potato, is listed among the examples of things
   not prohibited of players in Gaol.

2. It prevents a player in Gaol from accepting or refusing judgement on
   a CFJ (except the passive form of rejecting judgement that results in
   one being called a Deadbeat Judge and losing 10 points), and it prevents
   a player who has already accepted Judgement from returning a decision
   while he is in Gaol (this also costs that player 10 points, in addition
   to seriously delaying the judicial process).  I believe that these are
   "game actions", as defined in R709: "anything where the player must act".

This should be fixed; either we should not allow the player to be chosen
as a judge, or we should allow him to accept/refuse to judge CFJs and
to return a judgement.

Similarly, the Steel Flea should be fixed, but it is of lesser priority.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 20:04:13 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official 

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

Malenkai> 2 players asked me to apply R 362 to Merlin the Happy Pig,
Malenkai> and Robin Hood. The time for those players to respond has
Malenkai> come and gone. Robin Hood responded in the time limit, but
Malenkai> Merlin did not. Therefore I ask all the appropriate officers
Malenkai> to remove Merlin from the game. He may rejoin later if he
Malenkai> wishes. The email is provided below for varification.

keep in mind that, if it is found that you were removed as Speaker
(per ThinMan's CFJ), none of the above had any effect because you were
not Speaker at the time you purported to be, and any actions you
undertook as putative Speaker would be without legal force.

also, the correct spelling is "relevant".

k.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:07:34 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 200 (Dr McSpong)

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>  
> There is a problem with the Gaol rule (709).

That depends how you define "problem" :)
 
> This should be fixed; either we should not allow the player to be chosen
> as a judge, or we should allow him to accept/refuse to judge CFJs and
> to return a judgement.

I would say a player in Gaol is unfit to judge, being such a criminal,
and therefore would support a specific clause preventing selection of a
player in Gaol, or headed for Gaol, from being selected for CFJs.
 
> Similarly, the Steel Flea should be fixed, but it is of lesser priority.

As for these other random things, it doesn't bother me that the Flea
or Potato go to someone in Gaol. So they're in Gaol, they lose the 
opportunity to use the Flea, (and inventions, and other Gadgets, etc).
I think CFJ is a special case, and like no other.

All this aside, I see no problem with things being "delayed" because a
player is in Gaol, it adds flavor to the game, mucking up the timing 
works in some cases. The President has the possibility to pardon someone
in Gaol if something is *really* important. It increases fun an entropy
(I hate to misuse that word like that, but I could never find the right
word for the concept I try to convey).

Malenkai
Architect of the Gaol (I admit it)

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 20:15:38 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 194 (Niccolo Flychuck) 

"CFJ194" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:

CFJ194> The text of immutable rules can't be changed, only that of
CFJ194> mutable rules.

CFJ194> Calvin N Hobbes' Reasoning:

CFJ194> I looked through the rules and could not find any rule that
CFJ194> protected the immutables explicitely, only 491 and then
CFJ194> indirectly. The statement has deep roots in "pure tradition":
CFJ194> why else is there a distinction between "mutable" and
CFJ194> "immutable"? But let me make a case.

CFJ194> R491 is _specific_ in what kind of rule changes there can
CFJ194> 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.

CFJ194> It specifies in no uncertain terms that a change to the text
CFJ194> of the rules is _legal_ (quote "valid") if and only if it
CFJ194> applies to a mutable rule.

"no uncertain terms?"  i beg to differ.  nothing at all about Rule 491
states or implies that the text of an rule can only be changed if the
Rule is mutable.  Rule 491 speaks of "rule changes", which have a
specific technical definition, not of "changes to the text of rules".
"Rule Changes" are pecularily defined in Rule 516: a "Rule Change"
_is_ a Proposal which has been adopted.  this legislated definition
must necessarily override any definition of "rule change" imputed
either from the common sense of the words or from game custom.

all that aside, there are a number of Rules which describe means of
causing changes to the text of rules other than rule changes.  these
include Rule 629, Rule 695 (the change of the rules caused by the
application of the CSRR rule is _not_ a Rule Change, because the
change is not the result of the adoption of a proposal) and Rule 703
(sec. 4).  none of these rules explicitly limits its authority to
mutable Rules; Rule 629 specifically claims the authority to change
immutable Rules.  the existence of this specific claim makes the
statement of this CFJ clearly false on the face (the text of an
immutable rule can in fact be changed by the application of the
procedure in Rule 629, even if doing so is unlikely).  however, even
without Rule 629, this CFJ would still be false, just not as
obviously.

i implore Judge Flychuck to find this CFJ FALSE.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:14:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 202 (Niccolo Flychuck)

Niccolo Flychuck has been chosen to judge the following (again). He has
3 days to accept or decline the appointment. It is interesting to
note that he also has CFJ 193.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 202
  Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected Jun 28, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)

Statement:

  I win by paradox because I now point out
that the legality of the following action:
"/dev/joe creates Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice"
cannot be determined with finality.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

When /dev/joe was declared a winner,
R666 "kicked in".  Upon application of clause
(c), R666 starts over again.  In effect, the
process described in R666 is being continuously
launched ad infinitum.

I argue that it is impossible to determine, at any
given moment, whether /dev/joe is in possession
of a Right Handed Grapefruit(RHG), since he is being
awarded RHGs and they are also being "eliminated"
each time the R666 process is carried out.

Note that a new R666 process is being launched every
time clause (c) of the previous R666 process is
executed, so it is impossible to say when the newest
RHG is being awarded relative to the last "elimination"
of all RHGs.

It's a total mess.  I defy anyone to determine whether
/dev/joe has a RHG that he can squeeze.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:24:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 203 (ThinMan)

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

It seems that pTang is using the shotgun approach, hoping to get
at least one Judge to agree with the hypothesis, or find a "favorable"
looking Judge. I feel obligated to point out CFJ 168, Judgement
Precedence, with CFJ 193, 201, 202, and 203 all out there, and CFJ 198/199.

I hope my mail server survives. How much does this job pay?

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 203
  Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jun 28, 1996, 21:25h New York Time)

Statement:

The legality of the following action:
"/dev/joe creates Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice"
cannot be determined with finality.

pTang1001001sos' reasoning:

When /dev/joe was declared a winner,
R666 "kicked in".  Upon application of clause
(c), R666 starts over again.  In effect, the
process described in R666 is being continuously
launched ad infinitum.

I argue that it is impossible to determine, at any
given moment, whether /dev/joe is in possession
of a Right Handed Grapefruit(RHG), since he is being
awarded RHGs and they are also being "eliminated"
each time the R666 process is carried out.

Note that a new R666 process is being launched every
time clause (c) of the previous R666 process is
executed, so it is impossible to say when the newest
RHG is being awarded relative to the last "elimination"
of all RHGs.

It's a total mess.  I defy anyone to determine whether
/dev/joe has a RHG that he can squeeze.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:28:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official 

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 
> keep in mind that, if it is found that you were removed as Speaker
> (per ThinMan's CFJ), none of the above had any effect because you were
> not Speaker at the time you purported to be, and any actions you
> undertook as putative Speaker would be without legal force.
> 

Except that if I was removed, I would be doing this as Acting Speaker.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:52:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 204 (mr cwm)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 204
  Subject:  Just curious
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  mr cwm (selected Jun 28, 1996, 21:55h New York Time)

Statement:

Immutable rules may defer precedence to Mutable rules, either explicitly
or implicitly.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

I've heard both sides of this argument, actually. I'm interested in the
Judge's opinion. I at least refer the Judge to R 108 and R 210.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 20:58:08 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: being in gaol

i do not believe that being in gaol prevents a Player from accepting
or declining Judgement, or from rendering Judgement.  The Rule which
requires a Judge-designate to either accept or decline assignment is
Rule 588.  the Gaol Rule is Rule 709.  Rule 709 claims precedence over
Rule 201, and defers to a number of Rules.  Rule 588 makes no claim of
precedence.  therefore, either Rule 709 explicitly defers to Rule 588,
or Rule 708 defers by default to Rule 588.  in any case, Rule 588
takes precedence, and the Gaoled Judge-Designate is still required to
respond.

the same analysis w.r.t Rule 213 leads to the conclusion that a Judge,
having accepted appointment, is required to post a Judgement,
irregardless of being in Gaol.

Rule 709's relatively high number means that in most cases a Player in
Gaol is still required to perform actions when required of em by the
Rules.  only those duties required by Rules which defer to Rule 709,
either explicitly or by default, are exempted from this.  further, if
a Rule of higher precedence than 709 states that a Player "may" do
something, Rule 709's bar to doing so is again submerged.

it seems that the Gaol has rather thin and stretchy bars.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:07:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal

Spelling Moon
Malenkai

      Any Player A sending a public message (a message to all Players) 
must spell all words in the said message correctly. If some Player B 
feels that A misspelled any word(s), Player B may call a hearing, and
in so doing, must state the number of words allegedly misspelled 
(hereafter known as X). In this hearing, all Players will send their
votes to the Assistant Tabulator and vote either "Yes, he misspelled X
words", or "No, he's an A student, just passed third grade", or abstain.

	Players have 3 days from when the hearing is called in order to
vote. At the end of that time the votes will be counted by the Assistant 
Tabulator and a simple majority (50% or more) will determine the outcome.
The Assistant Tabulator will then publicly announce the outcome of the 
hearing. If the verdict shows that a person misspelled X words, he 
is immediately sent to the Gaol for a sentence of X days, with no
grace period (this clause superceeds any mutable rule which would
otherwise give the player a grace period). 

	If the verdict shows any other result, he gets the nickname
Heavy Metal Hare for the next 3 days.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:15:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: being in gaol

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 

> it seems that the Gaol has rather thin and stretchy bars.

Yes, it was designed explicitly that way by the creator, in case he
ever was unfortunate enough to find himself behind those same bars,
(See a previous post by me obliquely alluding to a Gaolbreak), hoping
no-one would notice :)

I figured a prisoner therin might notice and break out, and thus it 
would be fun, at least the first time. Its no fun giving it away :(

Malenkai

BTW, while were being pedantic, your subject line did not start with
"Acka:". I realise this is not a rule anymore, but I understand it is
a great assistance to those with mail programs with filtering capability.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:38:48 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official 

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

Malenkai> Except that if I was removed, I would be doing this as
Malenkai> Acting Speaker.

point taken.

k.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:47:06 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 

it's "supercedes". :)

k.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:45:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> Spelling Moon
> Malenkai
> 

I apologize for posting a proposal to the public forum. We all have
stray mice sometimes. I ask the Promoter to consider it as if it was
submitted to him.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:51:42 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: being in gaol 

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

Malenkai> BTW, while were being pedantic, your subject line did not
Malenkai> start with "Acka:". I realise this is not a rule anymore,
Malenkai> but I understand it is a great assistance to those with mail
Malenkai> programs with filtering capability.

i filter my own mail; acka-related mail is distinguished by having a
sender of "[email-masked]".  subject line tags
are strictly unnecessary, unless you're using inferior technology, in
which case you should stop doing so.  and since the message was purely
discussionary, i saw no reason to make it an official public message.

k.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #73
******************************