Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #81
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Tuesday, July 2 1996         Volume 01 : Number 081

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 23:21:58 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

I want to clear the air about the witchhunt and politeness moon.

For some reason, only 1 player voted in the Politeness Moon call.  Only
2 players voted in the Witchhunt.  (or was it the other way around)

If the players do not care enough to cast votes on these items, I shall
not waste my time dealing with them.

I have forwarded all information to Malenkai

Wayne

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 23:30:47 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 952

Proposal 952 - Mon Jul 01 23:30:44 EDT 1996
Fixing rules 104 and 105
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Amend R104 to read, in full:
   All proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on.  When a
   proposal's prescribed voting period ends, or all players have cast a 
   vote on a proposal, then that proposal is accepted if a quorum has
   been achieved and the required number of YES votes were cast on
   the proposal.
   [[ As it is now, rule 104 suffers from the problem that it requires
   proposals to meet these conditions (including the voting period) in
   order to be accepted, but it doesn't say that a proposal is accepted
   when it meets the conditions.  Rule 106 does, but another upcoming
   proposal will reduce R106 to just being about retroactivity.  Also,
   'adopted' is changed to 'accepted' -- another upcoming proposal will
   fix this in the mutables, so that proposals are always accepted or
   rejected -- not adopted, passed, or failed. ]]

Amend R105 to read, in full:
   Proposals must be e-mailed to the appropriate officer and distributed
   to the players before they can be voted on.
   Accepted proposals must guide play in the form in which they were
   distributed to the players.
   [[ This form is much more appropriate for an e-mail nomic. ]]

Transmute rule 104 to immutable.
Transmute rule 105 to immutable.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 23:52:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

1) Flames.

	I publically apologize for the bandwidth I have wasted on flames
recently, and to all those I have flamed. I am working towards moving
the matters private, as soon as possible. I encourage everyone else who
flames, as /dev/joe suggested, to do the same (proposal upcoming :))

Malenkai

2) CotC.

	I've added the official verdict time + 7 days to the CotC page,
so anyone will know how long they have to appeal. Remember that verdict
and acceptance due dates can be found here. If a CFJ is not listed on
this page, it cannot be appealed (this actually will be true on friday,
after some initial conditions settle).
	As for CFJ 201, it looks like it goes in the books as invalid.
	As for CFJ 205, looks like UNDECIDED.

Clerk of the Courts

3) Assistant Tabulator

	The Witchfinder General finds that snowgod is a heretic.

	2 votes were for BURN THE WITCH, 0 otherwise. Note that R 729 does
not specify by when the results must be released, so they hold sway.

	As for the Politeness Moon, 1 vote was for Mohammed was impolite,
0 otherwise. R 400 specifies that the Assistant Tabulator *then* shall
release the results. I shall let someone else interpret the facts.

Assistant Tabulator

4) Proposal Retraction

	I retract my proposal numbered 936, entitled Lazy II, and 
acknowledge a 1 point penalty for doing so. Note that there was some
confusion as to the numbering of proposals in this range. I request that
the title hold sway if this request is ambigious.

Malenkai

5) The Vacation Thing

	I had previously promised to not spend any more time on this, so
it is last (you can delete now) (But CFJ 208 judge must read).

	First of all, on the charges that threatening to invoke R 111 are
"childish", I offer the following. They are not childish. I had proposed
R 111 as a legitimate game action in response to this after CFJ 198
came back. I have stated that the rule I am being asked to follow is a
"penalty worse than losing", "in my judgement to incur it", and would thus
prefer R 111 to R 362. Read R 111, that is its point. One does not make
statements and not carry them out. I do not consider it a threat, but
a legitimate game action when confronted with a bad rule that 
pTang1001001sos and Kelly Martin are insisting that I follow. I do not
know their adjenda for such insistance, nor do I care. I can only claim 
that it is a penalty worse than losing, and I stated that *before* they
pressed the issue.

	I use the term "rule" colloquially in the above, as the actual
interpretation is still in doubt (CFJ 208). I offer the following facts
however:
	1) Over the last month, a rather strong insistance has been made
that the rules be followed to the letter, with nary a regard for game
custom. I am following R 362 to the letter, yet an argument (CFJ 208)
comes from the same group based solely on game custom. I again cannot
venture to guess as to the reasoning behind that.

	2) As for "time", a strong case can be made for FALSE on CFJ 208.
First of all, the Witchhunt on snowgod was called June 9th. The results
are being released July 1. R 729 and R 362 are similar in their lack of
time to do stuff specification. No one even questioned Wayne on the matter.
Why question me? Are removing the vacationer's more important than a
Witchhunt?
	All that aside, the fact that we are now just releasing the 
results for the Witchhunt indicate that game custom says NOTHING on the
issue of expediency of official duties, except that it can take a really
long time. I made that point *before* the issue was pressed. This has
happened before. Motive has nothing to do with it. Do we have Wayne's
motive for not releasing the Witchhunt? We don't care.

	The  judge must consider the FACTS when adjudicating CFJ 208,
and these FACTS, not pTang1001001sos' rhetoric, indicate a verdict of
FALSE.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 23:57:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 197 Verdict

The following, CFJ 197, was judged TRUE, without comment.

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

Statement:

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

Mohammed's Comments:

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 23:09:23 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 945 

945> Any change to the rules must be voted upon by the players of
945> Ackanomic. Any change that is not voted upon is void and illegal.

this would prohibit rules from repealing themselves or parts of
themselves.

k.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:21:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 209 (/dev/joe)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 209
  Subject:  Blue Cross Paradox
Initiator:  this is not a name
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jul 2, 1996, 00:25h New York Time)

Statement:

The legality action of destroying a Blue Cross that belongs to a player
who leaves the game cannot be determined with finality; this action
appears equally legal and illegal; and this constitutes a win by paradox.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

Rule 549/1 reads, in part:

>Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold Stripes shall only be
>created and destroyed as specified by the Rules. They may only be
>owned by players, and may not be obtained except as specified by
>the Rules. Ownership of Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold
>Stripes may not be transferred between players.

Say Player X has a Blue Cross. If X decides to leave the game, X's Blue
Cross must be destroyed, because a Blue Cross may only be owned by a
player and X is no longer a player once e leaves the game. Since the
ownership of the Blue Cross may not be transferred, and no other entity
may own a Blue Cross, the Blue Cross must be either destroyed or
transferred to another entity.

However, Rule 549 states that Blue Crosses shall only be destroyed as
specified by the rules. The rules do not specify any circumstances under
which a Blue Cross may be destroyed. Thus the disposition of the Blue
Cross when a player who possesses one leaves the game cannot be
determined with finality.

I claim a win by paradox according to rule 219.

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 23:28:41 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 947 

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

947> 1) Five Slices of Pizza are hereby created. They are initially
947> unowned.  Once the 5 Slices are created, no more may ever be
947> created.

sorry.  everyone knows that you can't cut a pizza into 5 slices.  at
least not equal slices.

kelly martin
former pizza hut doughmaster

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 23:34:08 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 946 

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

946> There cannot be more than 50000 words in the rule set.

define "word".

also, i believe this propose rule would conflict with a number of
rules (including, but not limited to, Rule 104), which would render
this proposal meaningless even if adopted.

k.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 00:45:13 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 947 

[email-masked] decreed:
>sorry.  everyone knows that you can't cut a pizza into 5 slices.  at
>least not equal slices.

Well, why not? You can cut a pizza into n equal slices, where n is any 
positive integer.

tinan

- --
       Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"This election is about who's going to be the next President of the
 United States!"                    --Dan Quayle, 1988
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/       Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 23:47:34 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

"T" == T Joffrain <[email-masked]> writes:

T> So you want to create a dissident, unofficial opinion to this
T> CFJ???

seems to me like a reasonable thing to do.  expect to see me do it
from time to time, when, in my opinion, the Judgement of a CFJ is
merely fortuitously correct: that is, when the Judge arrives at what i
believe to be the correct verdict, but his reasoning is wrong.  there
is no point in appealing such a Judgement, but it pains me to have
wrongheaded reasoning go into the record.  perhaps i should introduce
legislation to allow the introduction into the record of concurring
opinions supporting the Judge's finding while at the same time
refuting the Judge's arguments.

i reserve the right to comment on CFJs both before and after they are
judged, and feel that doing so is in no way inappropriate.

T> Follow Kelly's example, where she was willing to stand up for what
T> she believes and made a public and official case for
T> it. Unconstructive bickering _after_ the ruling is made is useless.

not at all.

k.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #81
******************************