Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #83
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Tuesday, July 2 1996         Volume 01 : Number 083

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 14:58:15 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 918 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 918
  Proposal 918 - Tue Jun 25 14:40:54 EDT 1996
  Amend R592:  What's a trombone FOR, anyway?
  mr cwm  (Eric Murray)

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

7 YES votes   8 NO votes   0 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

mr cwm loses 9 points.  3 -> -6

7 YES votes:  1 point each
  Robin Hood                                    2 -> 3            
  Niccolo Flychuck                              2 -> 3            
  Bascule                FUN                    2 -> 3            
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             4 -> 5            
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)            -6 -> -5           
  Wayne                  Underworld             3 -> 4            
  Mohammed               Nobs                   1 -> 2            

8 NO votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  =  14               
  ThinMan                Nobs                 =   8               
  De'ghew                Underworld           = -20               
  snowgod                (None Yet)           = -12               
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                 =  -5               
  /dev/joe               Nobs                 =  11               
  Techno                 Underworld           =   4               
  pTang1001001sos                             =   6               

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, 02 Jul 1996 14:03:42 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 209 (/dev/joe) 

"John" == John Bollinger <[email-masked]> writes:

John> we could determine the legality of such an action by the normal
John> conflict resolution scheme.

i have noticed a disquieting trend to shout "paradox! paradox!"
whenever two rules conflict with each other.  there is no basis for
doing so; we have rules that establish, without paradox, which of the
rules in the conflict apply.

would-be-winners-by-paradox are requested to more carefully consider
whether their claims wither in this light before making them.

k.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 14:49:32 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka- Scores

I've adjusted the scores as follows:
- -10 snowgod for the witchhunt
- -3 Mohammed for being impolite
+6 ThinMan for finding the matchbox

Apparently ThinMan believes that he can change the value of x
where x is the score needed to win the game.  I will await the
needed CFJ to determine if this is allowed.  I am publishing the
scores at this time so that I may easily backtrack if needed to.

Wayne

18	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
13	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
6	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
4	pTang1001001sos      A   (Mark Nau) 
3	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
3	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
2	mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
2	Kelly Martin         A   (Kelly Martin) 
1	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 
1	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
1	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
1	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
0	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
0	chess piece face     V   (Paul Swan) 
0	The Great Old One    V   (Sean Crystal) 
0	Simon Marty Harriman V   (Andy Swan) 
0	Robert Sevin         V   (Mitchell Harding) 
0	Pascal               A   (Jason Reed) 
0	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
- -1	Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain) 
- -2	Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff) 
- -4	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
- -21	De'ghew              A   (John Spickes) 

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:39:05 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Misc: What Phoebe Says

> 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."
>
> ThinMan

What _fine_ words of wisdom from our mechanical insect friend.

Bascule

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 17:24:14 -0400
From: Mike Epstein <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 209 (/dev/joe)

ThinMan wrote:
>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.

True. But, according to the Blue Cross rule, 549:

>>>They may only be
>>>owned by players, and may not be obtained except as specified by
>>>the Rules.

The implication here is that they may not be unowned, because they may 
only be owned by players and may not be transferred to the treasury. The 
treasury may not own or store a Blue Cross.

Rule 549 takes precedence over 665 anyway.

Kelly Martin wrote:
>i have noticed a disquieting trend to shout "paradox! paradox!"
>whenever two rules conflict with each other.  there is no basis for
>doing so; we have rules that establish, without paradox, which of the
>rules in the conflict apply.
>
>would-be-winners-by-paradox are requested to more carefully consider
>whether their claims wither in this light before making them.

Rule 549 conflicts with itself; the CFJ does not depend on any other rule.

would-be-precedence-pointer-outers are requested to more carefully 
consider reading the CFJ in question to see whether it depends on more 
than one rule. In this case, it doesn't.

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." --Voltaire
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 00:36:20 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 209 (/dev/joe) 

At 05:24 PM 02/07/96 -0400 , Mike Epstein  wrote:
>ThinMan wrote:
>>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.
>
>True. But, according to the Blue Cross rule, 549:
>
>>>>They may only be
>>>>owned by players, and may not be obtained except as specified by
>>>>the Rules.
>
>The implication here is that they may not be unowned, because they may 
>only be owned by players and may not be transferred to the treasury. The 
>treasury may not own or store a Blue Cross.
>
>Rule 549 takes precedence over 665 anyway.
>
"May only owned by players" means that it may not be owned by any entity
which is not a player, but it does exlude the complete lack of ownership. R665
states that they are stored in the Treasury, and says nothing about not
ownership. 
Once the discarded Blue-Crosses are int he treasury, there is precious
little the Treasury can do with them, they just take up space. 
Is the Treasury limited in storage space?   If it is, then we may have a
reason to be concerned, otherwise, this paradox claim is a red herring.
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:01:36 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 209 (/dev/joe) 

At 05:24 PM 7/2/96 -0400, t.i.n.a.n. wrote:

>True. But, according to the Blue Cross rule, 549:
>
>>>>They may only be
>>>>owned by players, and may not be obtained except as specified by
>>>>the Rules.
>
>The implication here is that they may not be unowned, because they may 
>only be owned by players and may not be transferred to the treasury. The 
>treasury may not own or store a Blue Cross.
>
>Rule 549 takes precedence over 665 anyway.

Interesting.  Is the argument that the phrase:
"may only be owned by players"
is different from
"may be owned only by players" ?

In other words, the first phrase (the wording used in R549) seems to
state that the only thing a Blue Cross (or a Gold/Silver Stripe) can do
is be owned by a player?

Otherwise, if the argument is simply that the only possible owners of
a Blue Cross are players, that does not proclude an unowned Blue Cross.

Consider:
"The only thing that can paint a Twisted Elephant is a Twisted Elephant
Brush."

does not imply that there cannot exist an unpainted Twisted Elephant.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:07:59 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 209 (/dev/joe) 

At 03:01 PM 7/2/96 -0700, pTang wrote:
>Consider:
>"The only thing that can paint a Twisted Elephant is a Twisted Elephant
>Brush."
>
>does not imply that there cannot exist an unpainted Twisted Elephant.

By the way, if anyone has a Twisted Elephant Brush, I could sure use
one.  Ever seen an unpainted Twisted Elephant?  (ugh!)

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:18:13 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 209 (/dev/joe) 

tinan wrote:

>ThinMan wrote:
>>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.
>
>True. But, according to the Blue Cross rule, 549:
>
>>>>They may only be
>>>>owned by players, and may not be obtained except as specified by
>>>>the Rules.
>
>The implication here is that they may not be unowned, because they may 
>only be owned by players and may not be transferred to the treasury. The 
>treasury may not own or store a Blue Cross.

Insomuch as there is the question of whether the treasury owns the objects
it contains, you have a basis for your argument.  I do not think that the
treasury owns anything, but that is a matter for a judge to decide.  I guess
that you could argue that "they may only be owned by players" means that
the only thing that is allowed of Blue Crosses is that they be owned by
players, although I think a more normal reading would be the one intended --
that only players may own them.  That is another matter for a judge.  I
don't think the case on either of those questions is very strong on your
side, but I admit that there is a case.

>Rule 549 takes precedence over 665 anyway.

Which only makes a difference if the two conflict.  They do not.  Instead,
they supplement each other.

ThinMan

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:47:08 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Heresy 

At 02:51 PM 7/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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

Thank you for putting my mind to rest on this matter.  This also explains
many of pictures supposedly taken from "outer space" that I have seen that
depict the Earth as a circle.  At first I thought that this was totally
inconsistant with a flat Earth.

What's the international date line, by the way?

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:55:48 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: official: I win 

At 01:07 PM 7/2/96 -0500, ThinMan wrote:
>
>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

Since R666 only executes when someone wins a CYCLE according to CFJ193, I 
submit that you have indeed won the game, but that there is no consequence
whatsoever of that fact.  I'm going to change n (explicitly permitted by 
R110, by the by) now to oh, each integer from -200 to 200 in rapid sequence.

Everybody's a winner!  :)

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:05:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 947

> Proposal 947 - Mon Jul 01 16:57:34 EDT 1996
> Pizza
> Malenkai  (Randy Hall)
	This is a great idea, and I would vote for it if some of the 
effects were changed a little bit.

> 	1) The eater may choose any proposal in the proposal archive,
> which previously failed, and make that proposal a mutable rule as if it
> were Adopted at the time the Slice was eaten.
	"Made into a mutable rule" is sorta scary.  What if it's an
amendment that gets zapped this way?  Or a repeal?  Or a multi-part 
proposal?  (In effect #2 you say "applied" instead-- so I don't think you 
just didn't notice... confusing)  (or maybe you were trying to ensure 
that Nobs would vote against this :o)

> 	16) The eater may swap the text of any 2 mutable rules, including 
> titles (numbers remain unswapped).
	Er... well, this is just an objection on the basis of taste (no 
pun), but I'd rather not have rules move around like that.  That is not Fun.

> 	20) The eater realizes, simply by the fact that that they are
> here, and that this rule is a rule, that an Ackanomic Miracle has
	This is great.  Hmmm... I can't decide.
	I *am* a little hungry.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:16:44 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: official: I win 

>Since R666 only executes when someone wins a CYCLE according to CFJ193, I 
>submit that you have indeed won the game, but that there is no consequence
>whatsoever of that fact.  I'm going to change n (explicitly permitted by 
>R110, by the by) now to oh, each integer from -200 to 200 in rapid sequence.
>
>Everybody's a winner!  :)
>
>-pTang1001001sos

Just saw R904.  In the words of Rosanne Rossana-Danna:  "never mind."

:)

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:33:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm)

re:  rejecting multi-statement CFJs
> 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?
	I, too, turned down a judgement because it had multiple
statements.  I didn't see much of a choice, given R589.  It is 
excruciatingly clear.
	I agree with you that R589 is a touch too restrictive on this
point.  The game would benefit from an amendment there.  But right now, 589
is still a rule, and as such I will obey it.  I hope I did not disappoint
you by declining to judge.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:41:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

pTang1001001sos wrote:
> Malenkai is not going to meaningfully discharge his duty as outlined
> under R362. 

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

	Er, I don't want to be accused of partisanship here.  And I must 
say that I think you can (legally) sit on that job as long as you
like (or until impeached.)
	But... R362 gives the Speaker a duty... and you have indeed 
announced that you have no intent to discharge it meaningfully.  
Did I miss the point of your message, Malenkai?  It seems to me pTang's 
statement is accurate.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:47:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm)

> >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?
	I thought of using this reasoning, but I figured the rest of Ack 
would have to be crazy to let me get away with it.  A statement is a kind 
of sentence, as far as I'm concerned.
	I -don't- want all judgements to be one-liners.  But, I think the 
solution is to change Rule 589, not ignore it.

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:52:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  possible pending politeness moon

> 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
	Uh, yeah, I seem to remember two PMs being called at about the
same time, and only one ever being resolved.  Does anyone remember 
exactly what the still-pending Politeness Moon was about?

- --Mohammed

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 19:10:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

> > 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?
	This feigned inability to distinguish a character attack from a
criminal charge smells a bit defensive.  Imagine Bill Clinton dismissing
his alleged indiscretions with Ms. G. Flowers by saying, "Hey, I did
nothing illegal."
	Abandoning all general principle so that you may do as you please is
not illegal, no.  But neither is it a quality to boast about.
	Personally, I see you as an upright player and do not want to see
you leave the game.  Please take this as it was intended-- it's mere 
kibitzing, nothing more.

- --Mohammed

P.S.  Your application of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to Ackanomic
has been called into question on the grounds that Ackanomic is not, and
never will be, a formal system.  Would you care to comment?

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 20:18:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

Mohammed wrote:
> 
>         But... R362 gives the Speaker a duty... and you have indeed
> announced that you have no intent to discharge it meaningfully.
> Did I miss the point of your message, Malenkai?  It seems to me pTang's
> statement is accurate.
> 

I have also announced that I will comply with the rules. And I will in
this regard. I still maintain I have broken no rule on this regard, and
R 115 permits me to say whatever I wish. Niether mine, nor pTang's 
statement was accompinied with proof, so it is vacouous ... No onto the
CotC work, there's a million things in the queue :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 20:23:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 205 (mr cwm)

Mohammed wrote:

>         I -don't- want all judgements to be one-liners.  But, I think the
> solution is to change Rule 589, not ignore it.
> 

I agree. I only pointed out the R 589 thing in the first place because
I was sick of writing things with a million semicolons, and wanted 
pTang to work for that bogus grapefruit win, and wanted to bring the
issue up, because I did not know if interpretating 589 was in the
jurisdiction of the CotC. To avoid being charged with "ruling by fiat",
as has been prone lately, I decided to point the matter out as a player
instead. 

I also thought the second "sentence" ran afoul of 589 for other reasons.

Hence I did not point it out on 205, because once was enough.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 20:45:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 198 verdict

Mohammed wrote:
> 

>         Personally, I see you as an upright player and do not want to see
> you leave the game.  Please take this as it was intended-- it's mere
> kibitzing, nothing more.

I stated R 111 is a last resort. I do not want to leave the game. I only
state it as a last ditch effort to follow the rules, if necessary.
 
> P.S.  Your application of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to Ackanomic
> has been called into question on the grounds that Ackanomic is not, and
> never will be, a formal system.  Would you care to comment?

Its application has also been supported by a mathematics student in the
crowd. I am not a mathemetician. My Godelelian arguments generally come
from reading the ilk of Penrose and people in that section of the
bookstore.
 
I do not see how you can say that it will never be a formal system. Are
you a psychic? :) Strict Constructionilism always will require more
Strict Constructionism. Things will always remain unspecified and 
ambigious. As the Strict Constructionist see this, they will specify
and define that which is ambigious, leading into smaller and smaller
pockets of ambiguity, but still ambigious, needing even more S.C. to
resolve the problem. Eventually, the S.C. will say what are points,
what is a number, what about the words we are using. The S.C. will
be unconfortable even with this unclarity, this need for judgement and
common sense, and will refine farther, to remove these problems. Viola!
A formal system is all that can satisfy the S.C. at this point. This is
not to use the term S.C. in a bad way, its just the phrase that comes to
mind, when someone tries to codify judgement, custom, and common sense
with law. Nothing but a formal system can result.

Thus I use Godelelian arguments to never go down the path of S.C. because
no one can say where to draw the line, and it is proven that you cannot
go all the way.

I wish I had more time for a more thoughtful answer (I know, cop out), but
I have to do my office duties. Whether or not "required reading" is 
passed, I will try to research Godelelian arguments vis-a-vis law.

As many of the audience may not be interested in Godel's Theorem, perhaps
we can move the discussion to acka-research, or acka-whatever, if more
discussion is wanted.

Malenkai
Using slippery-slope argument

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:05:54 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 207 Verdict

The following, CFJ 207, has been judged UNDECIDED.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 207
  Subject:  Blue Cross
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  this is not a name (selected Jun 30, 1996, 00:15h New York Time)

Statement:

If a player who has a Blue Cross leaves the game, they will have a
Blue Cross when they rejoin the game.

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

this is not a name's Reasoning:

Rule 859 prohibits a player from leaving, rejoining and claiming points
from an old cycle. But it does not address the question of entities such
as the Blue Cross.

Rules 362 and 691, which provide for special cases in which a player may
be removed from the game but may rejoin with its old points, do not apply
either. (In accordance with game custom, I interpret "score" to mean
points, not artifacts. "Score" is not satisfactorily defined in the
rules.)

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 judge this CFJ undecided.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:09:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 209 Verdict

The following, CFJ 209, has been judged FALSE.

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.

/dev/joe's reasoning:

First, I note that no rule says an entity owned by a player is destroyed
when that player leaves the game.

Since Rule 549 states that Blue Crosses may not be destroyed, they
must not be destroyed when their owner ceases to be a player.  It also
says that ownership of Blue Crosses may not be transferred between
players, and they may only be owned by players.  There is exactly one way
for all this to be satisfied, and that is that they become unowned when a
player who owns one leaves the game.

The action of destroying a Blue Cross owned by a player who leaves the game
is thus determined to be illegal, and the statement in this CFJ is therefore
false.

Note:  The fact that such things are generally deleted from the Registrar's
report when a player leaves the game does not mean that they are destroyed.
The Registrar is only required to keep track of such things when players
hold them.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:24:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 201 

Uri Bruck wrote:
 
> 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?

You must disagree with a CFJ. I gave everyone the option of disagreeing
when I posted that it would go in the books as invalid. Now you have
taken me up on that offer. I see no alternative than to CFJ, or accept
that it is invalid. I wish I could give a better answer, but I am pressed
for time, and want all CotC work done tonite, before the day before an
American Holiday, when people may not be playing.

As it stands, acceptance will create "game custom" for these matters
in the future.

Malenkai/CotC

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:28:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 196 Verdict

The following, CFJ 196, was judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts
 
Call for Judgement 196
  Subject: creating rules
Initiator: /dev/joe
    Judge: De'ghew (selected 26-Jun-96 00:30h New York Time)

Statement:
  
When proposal 906 was accepted, it did not result in the creation of a rule.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

Proposal 906 was:
  Restrictions on Points
  Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)
  Decision: Accepted

  No one may have thier point total or score changed for any reason, except
  by methods described in the Rules.

By rule 516, "A Rule Change is a Proposal that has been adopted through
the applicable process."  Proposal 906 was adopted, so it became a
rule change.

By rule 491, "A rule change is valid if it calls for one or more of these
effects, and no other effects:  the creation of a new mutable rule; the
amendment of an existing mutable rule; the repeal of an existing mutable
rule; a change of the mutability of any rule."

The rule change in P906 calls for none of these effects.

Justice Malenkai's comments via R 563:

You've gotta be kidding.

De'ghew's Reasoning:
        
        This court disagrees with the claim that the rule change in P906
calls for none of the effects listed in R491.  It is clear to the court
that game custom dictates that proposals call for the creation of new
rules by default.  Thus this statement must be ruled false.

        In support of the court's argument, please refer to the Ackanomic
web.  The majority of rules in the game have been created by proposals
which called for the addition of rules by default.  A small sampling of
such rules is:

R339 Keep 'em in the Game
R379 Short is Good
R411 Office of the Web Harfer
R504 The President of Ackanomia, Creation of
R711 Appeal for Pardon

        Further, /dev/joe's reasoning appears to claim that R491, in
stating that "A rule change is valid if it calls for one or more of these
effects. . .", invalidates rule changes which do not call for these
effects.  In the judgement of this court, the language of R491 does not
prohibit rule changes which call for none of the effects listed.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:33:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 210 (mr cwm)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 210
  Subject:  Recycled players
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  mr cwm (selected Jul 2, 1996, 21:36h New York Time)

Statement:

The term "new player" used in the rules
applies only to those players who have never before
been a player of Ackanomic;  it excludes returning
players.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

This will clear up a number of things
about my current game position.  I don't necessarily
think that I am entitled to the money and PFBonds
and land given to new players.  On the other hand,
R570 uses "new player" in a sense that seems to include
returning players.  (Otherwise, can I pick Fon_Amimnorsty
as my name?)

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:35:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 203 Verdict

The following, CFJ 203, has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Statement:

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

pTang1001001sos' reasoning:

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

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

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

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

ThinMan's Reasoning:

It is now game custom that R 666 is not recursive.

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 21:43:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 200 (Pascal)

Dr McSpong has declined to judge the following. Presumably because
he left the game. He is a deadbeat judge. 

It has been reassigned to Pascal, who has 3 days to accept or decline the
appointment.

Clerk of the Courts

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Call for Judgement 200
  Subject: Malenkai's Speakership
Initiator: ThinMan
    Judge: Dr McSpong (left the game)
2nd Judge: Pascal (selected 02-Jul-96 21:47h New York Time)

Statement:

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

ThinMan's Reasoning:

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 22:03:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: official: I win

John Bollinger wrote:
>  
> Mr. Speaker, please do your duty.
> 

The Fat Lady is singing.

pTang1001001sos wrote:

> I'm going to change n (explicitly permitted by R110, by the by) now to
> oh, each integer from -200 to 200 in rapid sequence.

So this will hit 0.

> Everybody's a winner!  :)

Thats 23 times, including the *players* on vacation. Certainly, "winners
have been declared", which is the requirement for the Fat Lady rule.

The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.
The Fat Lady is singing.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 22:45:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 211 (/dev/joe)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 211
  Subject:  Oh no, not more Fruit Juice!
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jul 2, 1996, 22:45h New York Time)

Malenkai's claim: By R219, I claim a win by paradox pending a verdict of
TRUE on the following CFJ: 

Statement:

The legality of Malenkai making Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice cannot
be determined with finality.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The following has occurred:

1) ThinMan has changed n to 6, which happened to be his score, and thus 
has won by R 110.

2) Upon that occurring, R 666 applied, because winning the game applies
the same process as winning the cycle (qv R 904).

3) At that point, all scores were set to 0 (qv R 666)

4) Then pTang1001001sos changed n to every integer between -200 and 200,
causing everyone to win, as everyone's score was in that range (0).
Thus everyone has won, invoking R 666 for every player.

The problem arises in that we do not know the order in which R 666 was
invoked with respect to the players, and hence we do not, indeed cannot,
know who happens to possess the Right-Handed Grapefruit. Note that not
everyone can have one, as R 867 is rather explicit about the quantity of
such fruit:

> Only one may exist at any time.

(Nor can such fruit be divided amongst the winners, as R 867 is rather
explicit about the ways such entities may be manipulated (see below))

Thus it cannot be determined with finality whether Malenkai has the 
Right-Handed Grapefruit. Since that is the case, it cannot be determined
whether it is legal for him to make the Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice.
Note that there is no *other* legal way to make such Juice, R 867 is
again clear:

> (a) Chartreuse Goose Eggs, Right-Handed Grapefruits, and
> Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice may only be created, destroyed, or
> manipulated as the Rules specify. 

The only way the rules specify to make (manipulate/create) the Juice
is R 867, and that requires a RHG, which we cannot determine if Malenkai
has.

Of course, if any of the premises of this argument, namely 1-4 above,
are shown FALSE, this CFJ must be judged FALSE. Otherwise, it must be
judged TRUE.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #83
******************************