Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #80
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, July 1 1996         Volume 01 : Number 080

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 18:39:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

Mark Nau wrote:
 
> Malenkai is not going to meaningfully discharge his duty as outlined
> under R362.

This statement has not been accompanied by proof. No can it be, as it
it false.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:46:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 939

> Proposal 939 - Mon Jul 01 16:53:07 EDT 1996
> Party Hall party
> pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)
> 
> The 7th day of every month shall be known as the Day of the
> Party Hall party.

I note that (short of a freak event in which all players vote early)
this proposal will not pass until the 8th of July, so the first Party Hall
party will not happen until August.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:45:42 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

CnH,

>I have faith in you as a player with a keen sense of how to
>address problems and create solutions. I hope my objections are all wrong
>and simple misunderstandings.

Thank you.  I think it may clear up one or two things if I note here that
the message to which you have replied was written in response to the initial
CFJ, before I saw the judgement.  In fact, I'm not sure that I have seen the
judgement at all; it is definately not on the web page as I write this.

>>As has been elsewhere noted, the statement here is actually two statements,
>>thus the CFJ should not be considered.
>
>As has been noted elsewhere, it is the decision of the judge.
>Look, how hard is it to say "this whole this is true" or "this whole thing
>is false"?? Do we expect our judges to be so stupid as to not be able to
>deal with more than one sentence at a time. What about really complex CFJs?
>Or do we think we'll never have complex CFJs?

First, you are correct that it has been treated as the perogative of the judge
as to whether R 589 nixes any CFJ on those grounds.  Whether the Rules
actually bear this out or not I will not contest.  Judges are not at liberty
to ignore the requirements of R 589 as they see fit, however.  It is not a
question of the intelligence of the judges, in which I have great confidence;
it is a question of obeying the Rules.  As for really complex CFJs -- I think
that most, if not all, interpretational problems come down to one or a few
simple, semi-independant statements that can and should be judged seperately.
I have followed this philosophy in issuing CFJs on at least one issue in the
recent past.

>>  If one imagined that the first period
>>was, in fact, intended to be a semicolon, then I would argue that the statement
>>must be judged FALSE.
>
>I'm not even going to say anything there, too funny. Actully, yes I will, I
>need a laugh.
>
>If one imagined this CFJ to be blue, and not red, while actually implying
>that it was itself yellow but not brown, then we could imagine (again) a
>world full of purple were I would argue that it looked red, whatever it's
>real colour. So it's false.
>
>Who cares what anyone imagines. Is the statement (as it stands) true or
>false, that's the question.

The statement as it stands is two statements.  Individually, each one may
be either true or false.  My comment was simply that together they are
false, and that according to R 589 it would only be legal to judge them
under the hypothetical circumstances that I specified.

>>  The problematic portion of the statement would be
>>phrase beginning with "that".  Rule 115 permits the Rules to be changed if
>>the Rules explicitly _or implicitly_ allow it.  This is in opposition, in my
>>opinion, to the "specifically and directly" of this CFJ.
>
>So you want to create a dissident, unofficial opinion to this CFJ??? What
>_is_ this. If you don't like it, appeal it. I encourage you to use every bit
>of the system in place to ensure justice prevails. Follow Kelly's example,
>where she was willing to stand up for what she believes and made a public
>and official case for it. Unconstructive bickering _after_ the ruling is
>made is useless.

As I said, I don't think I have seen the ruling yet.  It has been the case
with quite a few CFJs of late that many players, including myself, have
commented on them before the ruling is issued.  If the CFJ is, or has been,
judged TRUE, then I most likely will appeal it as you suggest.

>Your friend
>CnH

Friendly Regards,

ThinMan

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:50:06 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict 

>You seem to be arguing a wholly different point that the one I was
>addressing.  Indulge me while I summarize.

Ha, good summary. Thanks.

>To believe that Malenkai was failing to send the messages required by R362
>because he had obligations in Real Life (as CnH states above) is nonsensical.
>He had enough time to write a long dissertation on how he would abuse Speaker's
>power to "sit on" the required action indefinately.  There is no other possible
>interpretation of the above missive.  Malenkai is not going to meaningfully
>discharge his duty as outlined under R362.  I object.

Well, object with a CFJ, no personal attacks.

Anyway, I hardly call all of this an "abuse of powers", more a considerate
use of it. Malenkai was obviously trying to help some players, however
"unclassical" the attempt. From your last message, it seemed Malenkai had
just stolen fire from the gods themselves and deserved to be condemned by
the appropriate Greek punishment.

My respects
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:00:47 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ

I call for judgement.  This is going to the CotC as well, so it is my
official submission.

Statement:
When the Rules do not specify a time period for a Player to perform
a given action, Ackanomic game custom dictates that the Player should
attempt in good faith to carry out the action as soon as is feasible;
as a specific example, Malenkai is obligated to send messages to the
potentially "dead" Players, as per R362.

Argument:
The operation of the very game presupposed that Players who are instructed
by the Rules to perform some action will do so expeditiously.  As I have
said, imagine if the CotC "sat on" the CFJs that didn't meet his fancy.
(check R588.  There is no time period for selecting a Judge)
Can the Tabultor report the voting results 5 years after the vote has been
taken? (see R414 to see there is no stated period for reporting)

The examples of the Rules assuming the aforementioned principle are legion,
and the fact is that game custom dictates that actions need to be carried
out in a timely manner.

The case is even stronger in the particular case of R362, as the strongest
possible language is being used:
"[...] 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 [...]"

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:01:42 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 939 

At 05:46 PM 7/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
>> Proposal 939 - Mon Jul 01 16:53:07 EDT 1996
>> Party Hall party
>> pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)
>> 
>> The 7th day of every month shall be known as the Day of the
>> Party Hall party.
>
>I note that (short of a freak event in which all players vote early)
>this proposal will not pass until the 8th of July, so the first Party Hall
>party will not happen until August.

I pulled a number out of a hat.  Besides, 7 is lucky.  No question.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 18:56:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm)

John Bollinger wrote:
> 

> As I said, I don't think I have seen the ruling yet.  It has been the case
> with quite a few CFJs of late that many players, including myself, have
> commented on them before the ruling is issued.  If the CFJ is, or has been,
> judged TRUE, then I most likely will appeal it as you suggest.
> 

Just a procedural note. I do not discuss CFJ rulings with anyone when 
they come in. I always wait until they have been distributed, and I try
to distribute them with 30 minutes of seeing them (after dealing with the
flames :)). I also distribute them before updating the CotC page.

Also, I interpret R 589 to leave "acceptance" up to the Judge, not the
CotC. This interpretation has not been seriously challenged, to my
knowledge, but perhaps it should be clarified, if this custom doesn't
work for people. Qv a response to Kelly Martin's claim that a particular
CFJ was invalid vis-a-vis 589 for my full reasoning.

BTW, the CotC web page will be adding a new feature of how long you have
to appeal verdicts. New verdicts will be listed there only as long as
they can be appealed. Good to have the cash for our aggressive expansion
plans.

I will distribute everything that came in shortly.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:04:44 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

>UMMMM....... CnH??

Yeeees pTang?? [smile]

>  It seems that you've missed whole chunks of what's going
>on, and now have issued your second abusive and yet wholly incorrect post.

Well, let's look at it together, shall we?

>"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 consisting of empty statements or
>inherintly contradictory statements or multiple statements shall not be 
>considered for judgement."
>
>Notice that CFJs with multiple statements SHALL NOT be considered for
judgement.

Statements, yes. Sentences, no. I can't call a CFJ on two distinctly unique
statements (how ever that is defined is left to the judge ruling on it) that
have no relations between them. Otherwise it is fine. Again, please address
my question about complex CFJs. Do you want them all in one-liners?

No rule requires me to have _one line_. Therefore I don't need to have _just
one LINE_.
If there is such a rule, please show me and I will correct this. Thank you.

>Given that the CFJ must be a SINGLE statement, can we not discuss the statement
>the author of the CFJ may have _intended_ to submit?  Is this not a reasonable
>avenue of discussion?  I puzzled at your hostility toward debate.

Statements, yes. It was a SINGLE statement. A police statement has more than
one sentence. A press statement has more than one sentence. Etc... But they
all deal with the same subject.

Also, if you let ThinMan use his imagination, then I expect to be allowed
the use of my own. Let us deal with the facts. Let a written appeal be
published, then we will argue on it, and then stop when it is ruled upon.
Not at any other time, as it would not be appropriate. Mind you, I can see
why someone would want to discuss a CFJ and ruling, but _discuss_ yes. Not
make a definitive statement for nothing.

As for my hostility, that's the same topic, please read the last paragraph
of the last message. Once a CFJ is ruled on, any argumentation (in the
argumentative way) about it pointless and _useless_. If anyone has a strong
case on the matter, please appeal. That's all.

Again with all due respect
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:10:45 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict 

At 06:39 PM 7/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Mark Nau wrote:
> 
>> Malenkai is not going to meaningfully discharge his duty as outlined
>> under R362.
>
>This statement has not been accompanied by proof. No can it be, as it
>it false.
>
>Malenkai

I think you made your intent quite clear, Malenkai.  You have not publicly
retracted your statements from the post I quoted.  I am merely taking you
at your word.  That was sufficient proof for me.

I know:  you have a claim that you are following the Rules.  I think I
have made a very good case that:
1) Game custom dictates that Officers discharge their duties expeditiously.
2) Your sudden conversion to strictly following the Rules is an attempt to
ignore game custom so that you do not have to take an action that you do not
want to see executed.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 19:10:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Call the Fire Chief (was CFJ)

Mark Nau wrote:
> 
> I call for judgement.  This is going to the CotC as well, so it is my
> official submission.
> 

The fact that you willfully, and not accidently, violating game custom
by not distributing this just to the CotC shows a regretable lack of
respect. The implication that I may "sit on this", is a low blow that
I cannot respect.

I note that the judge on CFJ 198 asked the players to refrain from 
invoking the loophole. Why do you violate that custom too?

As I have stated, in my "judgement", to be forced to apply R 362 to the
vacationing players is a "penalty worse than losing". If you wish me
to leave the game, please state so publically. Otherwise, this situation
clearly falls under the auspices of R 111, which I will invoke before
removing the vacationing players from the game.

In so doing, I will have, and will be, following the rules, making all
previous allegations to the contrary false.

BTW, the CFJ will be distributed later in the batch of CotC work to do.

Malenkai
PS, you guys will be getting a good deal, me for pTang :)

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:19:34 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

ThinMan

>I think it may clear up one or two things if I note here that
>the message to which you have replied was written in response to the initial
>CFJ, before I saw the judgement.  In fact, I'm not sure that I have seen the
>judgement at all; it is definately not on the web page as I write this.

Oh, well, that clears things up. I think I saw the judgement recently, but
if you had haven't (or indeed, if I am wrong) then just ignore most of that
message I sent.

Just one thing: the fact that I still think we should be allowed more than
one sentence, but, in accord with the rules, not more than one statement. As
in, not deal with three or four topics in one CFJ.

Your friend
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:21:58 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

CnH wrote:
>Statements, yes. Sentences, no. I can't call a CFJ on two distinctly unique
>statements (how ever that is defined is left to the judge ruling on it) that
>have no relations between them. Otherwise it is fine. Again, please address
>my question about complex CFJs. Do you want them all in one-liners?
[...]
>Statements, yes. It was a SINGLE statement. A police statement has more than
>one sentence. A press statement has more than one sentence. Etc... But they
>all deal with the same subject.

CnH:

Ah.  Yes, absolutely that argument makes sense to me.  I was given the
impression,
however, when I submitted my multi-sentence CFJ, that this was a well-decided
issue.  Let me quote Malenkai:

- -----BEGIN QUOTE

>> 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:
>
[R589 quote removed]
>
>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

- -----END QUOTE

That's a very strong assertion from the CotC/Speaker/Justice about whether
my CFJ was legal.  In point of fact, Mohammed didn't issue a judgement on
that CFJ.  I think that he, too, was under the impression that this was
well-understood territory.

Anyhow, you may well have something in this whole "statement not sentence"
thing.  I'll have to dig through the CFJs.  Any other opinions on this?

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:23:36 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

A
>To believe that Malenkai was failing to send the messages required by R362
>because he had obligations in Real Life (as CnH states above) is nonsensical.
>He had enough time to write a long dissertation on how he would abuse Speaker's
>power to "sit on" the required action indefinately.  There is no other possible
>interpretation of the above missive.  Malenkai is not going to meaningfully
>discharge his duty as outlined under R362.  I object.
>
>-pTang1001001sos

Malenakai's "abuse of power" at least has a precident.  The Witchfinder
general still has not held a witchhunt against me, even though one was
called for (wow it must have been over a month ago).  In adition there is
an outstanding politness moon against Mohammed.  The only difference is
that Wayne didn't publically state that he was not going to conduct these
items untill he had the time.

I havn't looked at the assistant tabulator rule recently, but maybe now
that Malenakai is assistant tabulator, he can conduct these items?

snowgod

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:24:15 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ

Good show. We create!

>Statement:
>When the Rules do not specify a time period for a Player to perform
>a given action, Ackanomic game custom dictates that the Player should
>attempt in good faith to carry out the action as soon as is feasible;
>as a specific example, Malenkai is obligated to send messages to the
>potentially "dead" Players, as per R362.

Just one thing... and I am glad I argued this just a few minutes ago: I ran
out of breath.   ; )
Don't worry about me. Split your sentences nicely. I can tell it's all about
the same topic and won't CFJ you. I'm a fanatical moderate.   : )

Well, not in everything...   ; )

CnH

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 19:21:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

Mark Nau wrote:
> 

> 2) Your sudden conversion to strictly following the Rules is an attempt to
> ignore game custom so that you do not have to take an action that you do
> not want to see executed.

So what your saying is, that one cannot change the way they interpret
the rules. Once someone is strict constructionalist, they are not permitted
to change their mind, even after a good whiff of Godel?

So once someone is a common sense interpreter, they may not see the wisdom
in the strict constructionalist's point of view, and change?

I disagree that the school of thought with which one can interpret the
rules cannot change. In fact, I believe R 115 allows such change in
ideaolology, even if such change is temporary.

Malenkai
Common sense cannot be codified

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:29:06 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

>Ah.  Yes, absolutely that argument makes sense to me.  I was given the
>impression,
>however, when I submitted my multi-sentence CFJ, that this was a well-decided
>issue.  Let me quote Malenkai:

Oh... Thanks. I though I would have to argue about this for days.

>Anyhow, you may well have something in this whole "statement not sentence"
>thing.  I'll have to dig through the CFJs.  Any other opinions on this?

Could you publish your CFJ that was rejected? I am very curious about it...
Did it really have multiple statements? Could it be argued that it had? Did
the judge decide the matter? If there is a problem, we need to get some
justice on the matter, but it is an easily solved problem, nothing to make a
crisis out of.

Gratefully
CnH

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:32:50 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Call the Fire Chief (was CFJ) 

At 07:10 PM 7/1/96 -0400, Malenkai wrote:
>Mark Nau wrote:
>> 
>> I call for judgement.  This is going to the CotC as well, so it is my
>> official submission.
>> 
>
>The fact that you willfully, and not accidently, violating game custom
>by not distributing this just to the CotC shows a regretable lack of
>respect. The implication that I may "sit on this", is a low blow that
>I cannot respect.

Excuse me, Malenkai, but this is absurd.  You have a post that EVERYONE
read stating that you will "sit on" the R362 duty.  Why should I assume
that you will not use the other tool available along this tactical line?

You undertook a strategem that relied on Officers not discharging their
duties in a timely fashion.  No-one forced that upon you.

>I note that the judge on CFJ 198 asked the players to refrain from 
>invoking the loophole. Why do you violate that custom too?

You know, of course, that I had taken the action in question before
this CFJ was issued.  I also submit that the CFJs are not superior to
the Rules.  I additionally submit that the issue has turned to the
tactics you chose to indulge in.

>As I have stated, in my "judgement", to be forced to apply R 362 to the
>vacationing players is a "penalty worse than losing". If you wish me
>to leave the game, please state so publically. Otherwise, this situation
>clearly falls under the auspices of R 111, which I will invoke before
>removing the vacationing players from the game.
>
>In so doing, I will have, and will be, following the rules, making all
>previous allegations to the contrary false.

No, you sought a "middle way" by violating game custom.  You thought that
maybe I would not call you on it.  I have.  I do not wish you to leave the
game.  I find your threats to do so offensively childish.  I have to wonder
what ills you think you are protecting the vacationers from, by the way?

I dropped out and returned, and I assure you that the condition of not
being a Player in Ackanomic did not cause any scarring.  The overriding
concern is that I want the Rules to be followed.  Nothing more nor less.

>BTW, the CFJ will be distributed later in the batch of CotC work to do.
>
>Malenkai
>PS, you guys will be getting a good deal, me for pTang :)

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 19:30:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm)

Mark Nau wrote:
> 

> That's a very strong assertion from the CotC/Speaker/Justice about whether
> my CFJ was legal.

Note that this was being done in my capacity as a player, not an
officer, and I believe it was so signed. Had I done this as the CotC,
it would be different, but as I stated, I do not think the CotC has the
final say, Mohammed does. I may, as a player however, make a strong
assertion about rule interpretation.

BTW, have you guys really seen these results? I have not distributed
them; in fact, I have not even *read* them. I'm too busy looking for my
asbestos robe :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 19:33:42 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

Phil Ackley wrote:

> I havn't looked at the assistant tabulator rule recently, but maybe now
> that Malenakai is assistant tabulator, he can conduct these items?

I will look into this after the CotC work. I do not know if the rules
will permit such after so much time. Besides, my little Netscape ! keeps
lighting up. Flames by the second! I may not get to the CotC work,
much less the A.T.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:41:45 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict 

At 07:21 PM 7/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Mark Nau wrote:
>> 
>
>> 2) Your sudden conversion to strictly following the Rules is an attempt to
>> ignore game custom so that you do not have to take an action that you do
>> not want to see executed.
>
>So what your saying is, that one cannot change the way they interpret
>the rules. Once someone is strict constructionalist, they are not permitted
>to change their mind, even after a good whiff of Godel?
>
>So once someone is a common sense interpreter, they may not see the wisdom
>in the strict constructionalist's point of view, and change?
>
>I disagree that the school of thought with which one can interpret the
>rules cannot change. In fact, I believe R 115 allows such change in
>ideaolology, even if such change is temporary.
>
>Malenkai
>Common sense cannot be codified

If you are stating that this is the case, then I will take you at your word
and must humbly apologize.  My only defense is that your post left a mighty
impression that you were post-facto rationalizing your decision not to send
the messages outlined in R362.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 19:41:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm)

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, pTang1001001sos wrote:

> >> 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:
> >
> [R589 quote removed]
> >
> >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
> 
> -----END QUOTE
> 
> That's a very strong assertion from the CotC/Speaker/Justice about whether
> my CFJ was legal.  In point of fact, Mohammed didn't issue a judgement on
> that CFJ.  I think that he, too, was under the impression that this was
> well-understood territory.
> 
> Anyhow, you may well have something in this whole "statement not sentence"
> thing.  I'll have to dig through the CFJs.  Any other opinions on this?
> 
> -pTang1001001sos
> 
> 

I think it's possible to have a single statement consist of multiple
sentences, and I pointed that out in my descision on CFJ205, but I think
one would have to be very careful, and perhaps ungramattic.  One may
assume an "and" between them all, I suppose, but R589 seems to relieve us
of that responsibility.  There are plenty of other conjuctions one could
assume:  "or" comes to mind but doesn't usually make sense, "therefore"
seems reasonable sometimes.  I note that the RHGJ statements quoted above
can be judged independantly. 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 19:45:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Call the Fire Chief (was CFJ)

Mark Nau wrote:

> I find your threats to do so offensively childish.

> The overriding concern is that I want the Rules to be followed.
> Nothing more nor less.

The above statement says it all.

It is not a threat, nor is it childish. It has been thought about, and
accompanied with well thought out reasoning. "childish" would be to
accompany it with blather, not thought. 

As I stated, R 111 is how I will comply with the rules, if the CFJ you 
submitted indicates that I am not now currently. Until that verdict is 
received, I am following the rules. R 111 is worded the way it is for a
reason. It is for just these situations.

I refer the public to tinan's threat to quit under CFCJ 3, which I called,
on subject lines. After private communication with tinan, it was clear
that his threat was not childish. Nor is mine. I encourage private 
comunications on this matter, hence, as 80% of the field is probably sick
of it, as am I. This shall be my last public word on the matter.

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:52:05 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

At 06:29 PM 7/1/96 -0500, CnH wrote:
>>Ah.  Yes, absolutely that argument makes sense to me.  I was given the
>>impression,
>>however, when I submitted my multi-sentence CFJ, that this was a well-decided
>>issue.  Let me quote Malenkai:
>
>Oh... Thanks. I though I would have to argue about this for days.

No, no, no.  I was just parsing "statement" as "sentence" the whole time
without even realizing it.  Until you posted your argument.

>>Anyhow, you may well have something in this whole "statement not sentence"
>>thing.  I'll have to dig through the CFJs.  Any other opinions on this?
>
>Could you publish your CFJ that was rejected? I am very curious about it...
>Did it really have multiple statements? Could it be argued that it had? Did
>the judge decide the matter? If there is a problem, we need to get some
>justice on the matter, but it is an easily solved problem, nothing to make a
>crisis out of.

First the CFJ "Statement" (did I just post this??):
- ---------------------------------------------------
 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 think we would agree that this is one statement by your argument.  But I
shouldn't put words in your mouth.  _I_ would now argue that this is one
statement.

I "shotgunned" a few CFJs out there because I was in a rush and was unsure as
to what formulation to use to comply with the "single statement" clause and
still claim a paradox win.  Only one of the three CFJs was ruled on.  I _assume_
that this is because the one quoted above was objected to under the "single
statement" clause, and that the third one was deemed immaterial once a judgement
had been reached on the second of my CFJs.

Anyhow, this (I think) is far from crisis material.  To avoid any trouble
for now,
maybe we can voluntarily restrict CFJ statements to a single sentence.

Or submit a multi-sentence / single-subject "statement" and see what the judge
decides to do with it.

Then the whole statement/sentence thing can be straightened out and we'll
all know
what form to follow.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 19:59:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 204 Verdict

The following, CFJ 204, has been judged TRUE

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.

Reasoning:

I note that R210 does not apply to an apparent conflict between an
immutable and a mutable rule.  I also note that the conflicts referred to
in R210 are only apparent, as R210 provides a method for resolving
apparent conflicts, so the perceived conflict no longer exists.  A real
conflict, that is, one that is unresolvable, would probably cause a
Paradox Win.

If an immutable rule were to attempt or appear to defer to a mutable rule,
the mutable rule would not be inconsistant with the immutable rule (as
would be required to invoke R108).  Rather, following the immutable rule
(which may or may not have precedence, as we have no way of determining
precedence for mutable and immutable rules that are not in conflict, but
since there is no conflict, the lack of a method for determining
precedence is irrelevent) would require that we look to mutable rule for
guidance in all matters beyond the deferment.  If, on the other hand, we
follow the mutable rule, we arrive at the same result.  The deferment will
not have caused a conflict or inconsistancy, and thus the deferment is not
only permitted, but has its stated effect (which wasn't the subject of the
CFJ, but a ruling of "it is permitted but has no effect" would be
unsatisfactorily narrow).

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:04:58 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka:  I had a dream 

I AM NOT MAKING THE FOLLOWING UP.  I SWEAR TO THE GOLDEN FROG

Last night I had a dream that myself and several other ackanomic players
(damned if I remeber who besides Malenkai and Kelly) were conducting secret
negotiations in a dark warehouse (or maybe it was an aircraft hanger)
concerning the future of the game.  The Senate and the Free Market could be
seen on the horizon, and the air was all misty.

Then our negotians were broken by the sounds of helicopters flying in and
landing.  Spotlights were turned on us, and a man in a dark overcoat walked
into the building followed by several tall thugish looking fellows.  The
man informed us that he was "Suberman" and that we were all under arrest
for violating "Third Third Princible of SuberNomic".  Then Kkelly ran over
to him, and he thanked her for a job well done, and the rest of us were
herded at gunpoint into the helicopters.

Then I woke up.

I think possibly that this game me be getting to me, becasue that was a
very odd dream.  I thought you guys might be entertained hearing it though.
No offense is meant to Kelly.  I'm just stating the dream the way it
happened.

snowgod
possibly hallucinating

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:06:22 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

At 07:30 PM 7/1/96 -0400, Malenkai wrote:
>Mark Nau wrote:
>> 
>
>> That's a very strong assertion from the CotC/Speaker/Justice about whether
>> my CFJ was legal.
>
>Note that this was being done in my capacity as a player, not an
>officer, and I believe it was so signed. Had I done this as the CotC,
>it would be different, but as I stated, I do not think the CotC has the
>final say, Mohammed does. I may, as a player however, make a strong
>assertion about rule interpretation.

I didn't mean to imply any misconduct on your part in my confusion about
the entire statement/sentence thing, Malenkai.  I was trying to point
out how I could have just assumed that the issue was well-understood.

Reading the whole post you quoted above, though, I see where I might
have left that impression.  It was unintended, I assure you.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:10:44 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  I had a dream 

At 04:04 PM 7/1/96 -0800, you wrote:
>I AM NOT MAKING THE FOLLOWING UP.  I SWEAR TO THE GOLDEN FROG
[...]

I'm busting a gut from reading that.

Reminds me of the final scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail"

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 20:05:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 205 Verdict

The following, CFJ 205, has been judged UNDECIDED.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 205
  Subject:  Immutable Rules
Initiator:  Calvin N Hobbes
    Judge:  mr cwm (selected Jun 29, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)

Statement:

The text of immutable rules cannot be changed by a proposal. The only way to
alter them is via power granted by rules that specifically and directly
allow entities to do so.

[no additional material was provided by the initiator - CotC]

mr cwm's Reasoning:

According to R589 a CFJ with multiple statements shall not be considered
for judgement.  Although a having two sentances does not necessarily mean
that a paragraph contains two statements (nor, I suppose, does having only
one sentance neccessarily mean that a paragraph contains only one
statement), the paragraph labelled as a statement in this CFJ does contain
two statements.  How can I follow the directives of R589 in this case?  If
I were to interpret R589 as requiring me to refuse judgement, the problem
would simply fall to someone else.  Hence, I have accepted judgement then
found that, according to R589, I can not consider this CFJ.  A CFJ that
can not be considered must remain UNDECIDED.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 20:14:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 201 

Mohammed's response:

        I decline to judge this on the grounds that it is not a single
statement.  I'm not sure where it goes from here.  Presumably it dies. (?)
- --End quote

Mohammed has declined judgement. In so doing, he has also invoked R 589
(implicitly) to claim it is not a single statement. The question is
does "declining" fall under the auspices of the rule which allows the
judge-designates to decline, or do we throw it out. I note that this
is different than CFJ 205, which was judged UNDECIDECD.

The CotC, the initiator, and the judge-designate have all stated that it
is invalid by R 589, therefore it dies, unless someone presents a
counterargument that should not.

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: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 20:21:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm)

Mark Nau wrote:

> that this is because the one quoted above was objected to under the "single
> statement" clause, and that the third one was deemed immaterial once a
> judgement had been reached on the second of my CFJs.

Not true. Check the CotC homepage for the status of all outstanding CFJs.
Just a plug.

BTW, I've always thought R 589 was terrible. I've been stringing things
together with ";"'s. 

Malenkai

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 21:21:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 208 (snowgod)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 208
  Subject:  Game custom of time
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  snowgod (selected Jul 1, 1996, 21:15h New York Time)

Statement:

When the Rules do not specify a time period for a Player to perform
a given action, Ackanomic game custom dictates that the Player should
attempt in good faith to carry out the action as soon as is feasible;
as a specific example, Malenkai is obligated to send messages to the
potentially "dead" Players, as per R362.

pTang1001001sos' Argument:

The operation of the very game presupposed that Players who are instructed
by the Rules to perform some action will do so expeditiously.  As I have
said, imagine if the CotC "sat on" the CFJs that didn't meet his fancy.
(check R588.  There is no time period for selecting a Judge)
Can the Tabultor report the voting results 5 years after the vote has been
taken? (see R414 to see there is no stated period for reporting)

The examples of the Rules assuming the aforementioned principle are legion,
and the fact is that game custom dictates that actions need to be carried
out in a timely manner.

The case is even stronger in the particular case of R362, as the strongest
possible language is being used:
"[...] 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 [...]"

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #80
******************************