Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #82
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Tuesday, July 2 1996         Volume 01 : Number 082

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:14:59 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 947 

"this" == this is not a name <[email-masked]> writes:

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

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

try getting a pizza place to actually _do_ it, though.

k.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:17:36 -0500
From: T Joffrain <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm)  

>seems to me like a reasonable thing to do. 

Why was I expecting this?
Reasonable is subjective.

> 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.

Reasoning is irrelevant and <i>by the rules, not part of the CFJ proper</i>.
Just making a post for the hell of it to nag at the judge is pointless. I
would, on the other hand, be happily surprised to see some _constructive
advice_ given to the judge _before_ the ruling is made. Unfortunately, that
is a skill which only a few have mastered, and sorting through email-mud
slide (mud slinging contest?) in the hope of finding something of use is not
a task a judge should have to undertake.

>  there
>is no point in appealing such a Judgement, but it pains me to have
>wrongheaded reasoning go into the record.

Simply bragging about what the "correct" was doesn't go into the record
either, so it's just personal gratification (indulgence?) at this point.

>  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.

Now there is an idea. A procedure to clean up the reasoning while not
appealing the CFJ. But remember Kelly, by Suber (an authority you always
recognise, it seems) the reasoning is useless, it's just a side show.

>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.

Whatever.

>T>Unconstructive bickering _after_ the ruling is made is useless.
>
>not at all.

Whatever.

CnH

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:00:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 201 

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 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.
>

I disagree with invalidating this CFJ. The phrasing is slightly different
than CFJ 202, but it evaluates to the same thing. It does make a single
sentence, the question is, which?

Paradox wins, according to the the rules, are determined by a CFJ. If one
were to judge a statement "I claim a paradox win." by any player, the
judgement would have to be true, because it is true that the player claims
a paradox win. Clearly, this is not the statement that needs to be judged.
What is to be judged is whether the the claim for paradox win is correct.
Therefore, the statement to bu judged is the statement upon which this
claim is based. I argue that any statement with the general meaning of "I
claim a paradox win" can't be judged and must be interpreted as "Therefore
I win by paradox".(or "I win by paradox because...")

If such a statement has a single logical outcome, i.e.- it claims a single
result which is a consequence of all the other sentences, then it can
considered a single statement. In a case such as the one I described
above, the statments to be evaluated are the ones on which this outcome
depends. Therefore, the statement to be judged would be the statement
/dev/joe's ability to make RHG-juice. 
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:20:20 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Witchunt and Politness moon

I think Voter apathy is not a good thing, but the rules require that you
deal with them, regardless of how many people vote.  Furthermore, I don't
recall seeing any foprmal announcement of votes being accepted for either
one.  IF that was the case, there are many players who may not have known
that it was time to vote.

snowgod

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:27:35 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 947

At 11:28 PM 7/1/96, Kelly Martin wrote:
>"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

Who says the ackanomic pizza is to be round.  I imagine that iff there are
five slices it would be pentagonal (hey, is that a word?) or rectangular
and cut along the x axis.  :)

snowgod
never was very good at geomotry.

snowgod
Ambassador
 Former CSRR
Acting Senator (seat c)
Wearing a prosthetic forehead
The Witchfinder General never declared me a heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:40:41 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 947

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Phil Ackley wrote:

> 
> Who says the ackanomic pizza is to be round.  I imagine that iff there are
> five slices it would be pentagonal (hey, is that a word?) or rectangular
> and cut along the x axis.  :)
(pentagonal) do you mean does it appear in the dictionary, or is the
construction correct?
As to the latter, I'd give it a resounding YES.
Nicolo Flychuck

> 
> snowgod
> never was very good at geomotry.
> 
> snowgod
> Ambassador
> Former CSRR
> Acting Senator (seat c)
> Wearing a prosthetic forehead
> The Witchfinder General never declared me a heretic
> Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 02:06:48 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Heresy

No that I have been found to be a heretic I would like to impart upon you
some words of wisdom.  You can't hurt me, my fate is already sealed.
Tommorow, I shall be burned at the stake, after which I will enter the
ackanomic afterlife with CnH.  I shall remain in the afterlife until such
time as the earth is found to be round.

That being said, fellow ackanomians,  I challange you to come out and admit
publically what you know is true.  Repeat after me.... "The earth is not
flat, in fact, the earth is round!"  Rise up, people, and overcome the
shackles of religious intolerance put upon us by this is not a name and the
evil witchfinder general.

I've spoken my mind.  Go and and light me up!

snowgod

Ambassador - Former CSRR - Acting Senator
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Heretic
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:01:42 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: re:RFC - Comitee stage

misplaced that one, but have nonetheless.

There are things I like about idea, but I have some peeves as well.

A proposal in the comitee stage, explicitly leaves itself open for
ammendments during the voting period. On the one Hand, this seems
unnecessary, because this can be done in the RFC stage. OTOH, one may see
as a genuine that allows the creation of rules as a genuine joint effort
by several players, where each player is rewarded for eir part in the
finished product.
However, the RFC, as phrased, allows for a classic philibuster. Since
every time an ammendment to the proposal is made, the voting is extended,
all a player needs to do in order to stop a proposal from ever passing,
once it is in the comitee stage, is to keep proposing ammendments, even
minute ones, the effect of which would be to keep the original
indefinitely in the queue. That would be reason enough for me not to
submit a proposal in the comitee stage.

There are also a few things which are not covered, what happens to the
voting period when an ammendment is retracted. Which voting deadline do we
keep?

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 14:32:01 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: re:RFC - Comitee stage 

> From [email-masked] Tue Jul  2 13:00 BST 1996
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:01:42 +0300 (EET DST)
> From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
> To: Ackanomic Mailing List <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Acka: re:RFC - Comitee stage
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type> : > TEXT/PLAIN> ; > charset=US-ASCII> 
> Content-Length: 1113
> 
> 
> misplaced that one, but have nonetheless.
> 
> There are things I like about idea, but I have some peeves as well.
> 
> A proposal in the comitee stage, explicitly leaves itself open for
> ammendments during the voting period. On the one Hand, this seems
> unnecessary, because this can be done in the RFC stage. OTOH, one may see
> as a genuine that allows the creation of rules as a genuine joint effort
> by several players, where each player is rewarded for eir part in the
> finished product.
> However, the RFC, as phrased, allows for a classic philibuster. Since
> every time an ammendment to the proposal is made, the voting is extended,
> all a player needs to do in order to stop a proposal from ever passing,
> once it is in the comitee stage, is to keep proposing ammendments, even
> minute ones, the effect of which would be to keep the original
> indefinitely in the queue. That would be reason enough for me not to
> submit a proposal in the comitee stage.
> 
> There are also a few things which are not covered, what happens to the
> voting period when an ammendment is retracted. Which voting deadline do we
> keep?
> 
> Nicolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 
I would suggest:
a/ all amendments must be to the original text and respect the structure
of that original to which the final amended version  should be recognisably
related;
b/ the total number of amendments made by any player should be limited;
perhaps 5 free ones and the rest at $1000 each;
c/ all amendments must be proposed within 3 days of the original proposal,
preventing filibustering;
d/ if incompatable amendments are passed the most popular should be adopted;

           Robin Hood

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 15:57:31 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 947 

Kelly Martin wrote:
> 
> "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.

I don't see why the slices have to be equal. The proposal was just
about the number of slices, and since the effect of eating a slice
would be random, why couldn't the sizes of the slices also be
random? :-)

Niklas Mellin
just an observer

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:00:50 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Digest V1 #80 

>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?

_Violating_ Game Custom? As far as I can see, the worst Malenkai's actions
could be interpereted as would be annoying, but since their intent seems to
be relatively harmless, I, at least, don't mind. If we have poorly written
rules (whatever that means >;D ) then we simply have no choice to play by
them by good ol' R101. If a rule doens't specify a time limit, then (unless
there's some other rule I'm missing) there isn't one ~ if you _want_ a time
limit, propose an amendment. Malenkai _can_ sit on the vacationing players
(not literally, of course) for any finite amount of time so long as e
eventually sends them the message.

That's all I can see the rule (not Game Custom) requiring.

- ---Pascal

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:08:32 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed)
Subject: Re: Ackanomic Digest V1 #81 

>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

Just because you can't do it without a protractor doesn't mean it can't be
done ;)

'sides, maybe they just cut a hypothetical pizza into 8 slices, and only
brought 5 of them into reality... *shrug*

- ---Pascal

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:18:39 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Call the Fire Chief (was CFJ) 

Malenkai wrote, in response to pTang1001001sos:

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

pTang is not violating game custom by invoking the R 362 loophole.  At least,
game custom about invoking that loophole is not established by CFJ 198.  I
cite R 214: "A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons [and] arguments, but
any such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself."  The
only part of a CFJ that becomes game custom is the truth or falsehood of the
statement submitted for judgement.

Moreover, and I realize this is nitpicky, I am not convinced that the actions
permitted by R 362 constitute a loophole.  In fact, I think it is preferrable
to be allowed to remove players who are on vacation from the game, in case
they neglect to ever come back, for instance.  Surely there must be some
kind of dividing line between players on long-term vacation and those who
go on vacation and then disappear, but it may not be such a bad thing for
Players who will be away from the game for an extended period to leave the
game (one way or another) and later rejoin.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:28:08 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: re:RFC - Comitee stage

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, R Shaw wrote:

> > 
> > 
> > 
> I would suggest:
> a/ all amendments must be to the original text and respect the structure
> of that original to which the final amended version  should be recognisably
> related;
> b/ the total number of amendments made by any player should be limited;
> perhaps 5 free ones and the rest at $1000 each;
> c/ all amendments must be proposed within 3 days of the original proposal,
> preventing filibustering;
> d/ if incompatable amendments are passed the most popular should be adopted;
> 
> 
>          Robin Hood
> 
That should give fairly good controls. I thought something along the lines
- - a petition from at least x players (x being something liek 30% of the
active registered players) fixes the deadline, and does not allow it to be
extended any more, after some number of ammendments has been proposed.
I think your solutions make that unnecessary.
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:59:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 201 

My problem with this is that we are now making distinctions about
declining on the basis of the grounds cited.  If a judge declines
assignment to a CFJ, we have a proceedure that requires it be assigned to
someone else.  There is no exception based on particular grounds.  That's
why I took CFJ 205 and returned UNDECIDED, precisely to avoid this
problem. (We might want to consider that a bit of explicit game custom.)
To remove this from the judging process would require another CFJ, I
think.

- -mr cwm

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> 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: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 08:32:01 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 945  

At 11:09 PM 7/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
>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.

Would this render the {{ }} formulation unusable?

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 08:36:38 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 947 

At 01:27 AM 7/2/96 -0800, snowgod wrote:
>At 11:28 PM 7/1/96, Kelly Martin wrote:
>>"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
>
>Who says the ackanomic pizza is to be round.  I imagine that iff there are
>five slices it would be pentagonal (hey, is that a word?) or rectangular
>and cut along the x axis.  :)
>
>snowgod
>never was very good at geomotry.

I'd like to think the Ackanomic pizza is snake-shaped (winds back and forth)
so that it can be cut into 5 equal pieces with one straight slice.

Is this Pizza of Many Things or a Pizza of Wonder?

- -pTang1001001sos, AD&D dork

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 08:41:28 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Heresy 

At 02:06 AM 7/2/96 -0800, you wrote:
>No that I have been found to be a heretic I would like to impart upon you
>some words of wisdom.  You can't hurt me, my fate is already sealed.
>Tommorow, I shall be burned at the stake, after which I will enter the
>ackanomic afterlife with CnH.  I shall remain in the afterlife until such
>time as the earth is found to be round.
>
>That being said, fellow ackanomians,  I challange you to come out and admit
>publically what you know is true.  Repeat after me.... "The earth is not
>flat, in fact, the earth is round!"  Rise up, people, and overcome the
>shackles of religious intolerance put upon us by this is not a name and the
>evil witchfinder general.
>
>I've spoken my mind.  Go and and light me up!
>
>
>snowgod

You know, I've heard of some interesting experiments that involve examining the
shadows that sticks cast when they are very far apart.  Some Greek guy.  I think
the results were consistant with the notion that the Earth has a radius of like
4000 miles.  What should I make of this?

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 11:50:11 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 953

Proposal 953 - Tue Jul 02 11:50:11 EDT 1996
Catching up with 910
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

1. ammend R775 Creation of Church in the following ways
a.In section 5c replace the words "provide an explain" with the
words "provide an explanation"
b.In section 6 replace the words "more that one Church" with the words
"more than one Church"
c. In section 8e replace the words "does not its membership criteria" with
the words "does not meet its membership criteria"

2. Ammend R726 R. Party Hall in the following ways
a.In line 13 replace the words "becomes vacated" with the words "becomes
vacant"

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 11:50:29 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 954

Proposal 954 - Tue Jul 02 11:50:29 EDT 1996
Ammend Party Hall
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

[[in light of the soon to be submitted Party Chess - titled, Swinger like
to play around, somewhat changed from the recently published proto-RFC, I
feel some ammendments should be made to Party Hall]]

1. Replace the words " A Swinger can be voted out by 2/3 of the players"
with the words
" A Swinger can impeached, according to the regular procedure for
impeachment as described in R613 Offices , Impeachment, if that rule
exists, with the additional requirements
a. A Party Swinger is impeached only if at least one of the Yes votes was
cast by a member of eir Party
b. The NAP Swinger is impeached only if at least 1/2 of the of non-aligned
players, who are not on vacation, voted Yes, regardless of the number of
non-aligned players who voted on the IP."

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:14:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 209 (/dev/joe) 

>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.

Not so fast, tinan.

No rule says that an unowned object must be destroyed.  Indeed, rule 665
specifies that unowned objects are stored in the treasury, which implicitly
acknowledges that objects may be unowned.  Moreover, even if there were a
rule that required that an unowned object be destroyed, then we could
determine the legality of such an action by the normal conflict resolution
scheme.

This CFJ must be judged FALSE.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:49:57 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Misc: What Phoebe Says 

As I was walking down the street between the Senate and the Free Market,
I chanced to spot a lovely, if slightly battered, red and blue matchbox.
So intrigued was I that I picked it up.

"Surely," I thought, "such a lovely matchbox must belong to someone."

There was no indication on the box regarding to whom it should be returned.
After some trepidation, I decided to see what might be inside the matchbox.
Imagine my surprise when, after I opened it, a tiny steel flea hopped out.

This was no ordinary flea.  Her name was Phoebe, and she was very wise.  I
listened to her very carefully, for her small voice was difficult to hear,
and this is what she said: "Though thy fellow citizen should burn thee to
a crisp, respond not with flames of thine own.  Though thy fellow citizen
should falter in his obedience to the Rules, ridicule him not.  Shout not
thy hasty thoughts to all the world, but only those that thou hast
carefully and thoughtfully considered.  Calm reason sootheth the heart
thy fellow citizen, and fueleth his mind.  Worketh to changeth what thou
canst, to accepteth what thou canst not, and to discerneth the difference."

Phoebe went back into her matchbox, and I closed it again.  So inspired
was I by her words that I walked on lost in thought.  Before I realized it,
I had walked far past the Free Market, well out into rolling pastures.
That would not have upset me much, but somewhere along the way, to my
great chagrin, I lost that precious matchbox.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:07:35 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: official: I win 

Ackanomians:

As Rule 110 permits, I hereby change n, the number of points required to win
the game, to 6.  According to the Scorekeeper's NomicBot and to the Web
page, my current score is 0, but this does not reflect the six points that I
earned by posting Phoebe's message to me.  My correct score is therefore 6,
and by R110, I have achieved the state of affairs that constitutes winning
the game.  That is, I win.

In order to forestall argument (yeah, right), I remark that R 422 "Required
Number of Points to Win" defines only the number of points required to win
the cycle.  We have repeatedly distinguished between "the game" and "a cycle,"
and in particular Rules 859 and 904 make such a distinction.  R 422 is
therefore not relevant to the situation.  Rule 110 explicitly allows "n" to
be changed, and places no restriction on the means by which it may be changed.
No other rule regulates or restricts such activity, so it is completely legal
for me to change "n" to any number I want.

Mr. Speaker, please do your duty.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:30:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm) 

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Kelly wrote:

> "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'm sorry, I've lost track of who has said what about what in this
exchange.  If this really is about CFJ 205, I'd be very interested in
hearing your comments, even after the fact.  This kind of stuff is why I'm
here.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 14:37:39 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 955

Proposal 955 - Tue Jul 02 14:37:39 EDT 1996
Amending 362
pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)

A proposal to amend R362 so that it reads, in whole:
"If any player who has not voluntarily put eirself on vacation 
does not vote or communicate publicly 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, then the Speaker must send a
message to the player who has been absent. In this message the
Speaker must ask the player if e 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 e is no longer a player in
the game."

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:39:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 201 

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Niccolo flychuck wrote:

> 
> 
> Paradox wins, according to the the rules, are determined by a CFJ. If one
> were to judge a statement "I claim a paradox win." by any player, the
> judgement would have to be true, because it is true that the player claims
> a paradox win. Clearly, this is not the statement that needs to be judged.

Actually, it's not all that clear.  If that's the statement, that's what
needs to be judged.  A verdict of TRUE, however, would not actually give
them the paradox win, as it would not indicate that play was impossible,
etc, it would only indicate that they'd claimed it.

> What is to be judged is whether the the claim for paradox win is correct.
> Therefore, the statement to bu judged is the statement upon which this
> claim is based. I argue that any statement with the general meaning of "I
> claim a paradox win" can't be judged and must be interpreted as "Therefore
> I win by paradox".(or "I win by paradox because...")
> 

I think we need to be very careful when interpreting in our own
conjunctions and ... whatever "therefore" is (is it a conjuction, too?).
Although and's and therefore's may be what we assume, there's no explicit
reason not to go with or's and additionally's, for example.

> If such a statement has a single logical outcome, i.e.- it claims a single
> result which is a consequence of all the other sentences, then it can
> considered a single statement. In a case such as the one I described
> above, the statments to be evaluated are the ones on which this outcome
> depends. Therefore, the statement to be judged would be the statement
> /dev/joe's ability to make RHG-juice. 
> Nicolo Flychuck
>  

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:50:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (Wayne)

Regardless of whether or not ThinMan has won the game, Phoebe's Matchbox
must move on to where another player will find it.  And so it has, and
just now, Wayne found the matchbox.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:51:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Heresy

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, pTang1001001sos wrote:

> 
> You know, I've heard of some interesting experiments that involve examining the
> shadows that sticks cast when they are very far apart.  Some Greek guy.  I think
> the results were consistant with the notion that the Earth has a radius of like
> 4000 miles.  What should I make of this?
> 
> -pTang1001001sos
> 

I suggest that you interpret this as strong evidence that the Earth is a
DISK, and thus both round AND flat simultaneously.  I believe Greece wraps
around the edge, so that Greek Guy must have planted his sticks radially.

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 14:56:20 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 915 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 915
  Proposal 915 - Tue Jun 25 14:38:13 EDT 1996
  Winning isn't ewverything...
  Kelly Martin  (Kelly Martin)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 15 players cast votes

10 YES votes   6 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Kelly Martin loses 9 points.  2 -> -7

10 YES votes:  1 point each
  Robin Hood                                    1 -> 2            
  ThinMan                Nobs                   6 -> 7            
  Niccolo Flychuck                              0 -> 1            
  Nobs Unity vote                             =   0               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                  -7 -> -6           
  /dev/joe               Nobs                  18 -> 19           
  pTang1001001sos                               4 -> 5            
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             2 -> 3            
  Wayne                  Underworld             1 -> 2            
  Mohammed               Nobs                  -2 -> -1           

6 NO votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  =  13               
  De'ghew                Underworld           = -21               
  Bascule                FUN                  =   1               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           =  -4               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =   3               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   3               

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Pascal                                      

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  The Great Old One                           
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Foozball Unity vote                         
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 14:56:50 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 916 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 916
  Proposal 916 - Tue Jun 25 14:39:26 EDT 1996
  Surgery
  snowgod  (Phil Ackley)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 15 players cast votes

6 YES votes   9 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

snowgod loses 9 points.  -4 -> -13

6 YES votes:  1 point each
  Malenkai               FUN                   13 -> 14           
  De'ghew                Underworld           -21 -> -20          
  Bascule                FUN                    1 -> 2            
  snowgod                (None Yet)           -13 -> -12          
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             3 -> 4            
  Mohammed               Nobs                  -1 -> 0            

9 NO votes:  
  Robin Hood                                  =   2               
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   7               
  Niccolo Flychuck                            =   1               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =  -6               
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 =  19               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   3               
  pTang1001001sos                             =   5               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   3               
  Wayne                  Underworld           =   2               

0 PRESENT votes:

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Pascal                                      

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  The Great Old One                           
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Foozball Unity vote                         
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 14:57:44 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 917 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 917
  Proposal 917 - Tue Jun 25 14:39:56 EDT 1996
  More fixing offices
  /dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

Quorum met : 18 eligible voters -- 15 players cast votes

9 YES votes   6 NO votes   2 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

/dev/joe loses 9 points.  19 -> 10

9 YES votes:  1 point each
  ThinMan                Nobs                   7 -> 8            
  Niccolo Flychuck                              1 -> 2            
  Nobs Unity vote                             =   0               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                  -6 -> -5           
  /dev/joe               Nobs                  10 -> 11           
  Techno                 Underworld             3 -> 4            
  pTang1001001sos                               5 -> 6            
  Wayne                  Underworld             2 -> 3            
  Mohammed               Nobs                   0 -> 1            

6 NO votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  =  14               
  Robin Hood                                  =   2               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           = -12               
  this is not a name     (None Yet)           =   4               
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)           =   3               

2 PRESENT votes:
  De'ghew                Underworld            = -20
  Bascule                FUN                   =   2

3 ABSTENTIONS:
  Brinjal                                     
  Calvin N Hobbes        FUN                  
  Pascal                                      

Players on Vacation who did not vote:
  fon                                         
  The Great Old One                           
  chess piece face       Foozball             
  Simon Marty Harriman   Foozball             
  Foozball Unity vote                         
  Robert Sevin           Foozball             

New players who are not active:

====================================================
Wayne, your friendly Tabulator
====================================================

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #82
******************************