Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #88
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Thursday, July 4 1996        Volume 01 : Number 088

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 20:20:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 207 Appeal

Matt wrote:
> 
> CFJ 207 was appealed to the Supreme Court by Malenkai.
> 

> Verdict: False

The Court must also return a penalty of 1-10 points for the original
judge. I always did 1 point :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:34:07 +0000
From: Matt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 207 Appeal Penalty

Malenkai wrote:

> Matt wrote:
> > 
> > CFJ 207 was appealed to the Supreme Court by Malenkai.
> > 
> 
> > Verdict: False
> 
> The Court must also return a penalty of 1-10 points for the original
> judge. I always did 1 point :)
> 
> Malenkai

Whoops! Justice Bascule isn't totally in the swing of things yet.

Penalty: this is not a name is fined 1 point.

Supreme Court

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 19:55:22 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  CFJ 215 (Brinjal)

Since when does someone get three <weeks> to accept/decline 
judgement?

Techno

> Hi there!  Brinjal has 3 weeks to accept/decline this.
> 
> Call for Judgement 215
>   Subject:  Justice Lives on
> Initiator:  mr cwm
>     Judge:  Brinjal (selected at 1105h EDT on 3 Jul 1996)
> 
> Statement:
> > A second Judge must be selected for CFJ 201.
> 
> mr cwm's comments:
> > The first judge selected for CFJ 201 refused appointment.  According to
> > R588, the Officer assigned to select judges must select a further,
> > second in this case, judge.  The fact that the first selected judge
> > explained his refusal by claiming CFJ 201 was invalid under R589 is
> > irrelevant - no provision is made in R588 for particular explanations for
> > refusal preventing further selection.
> 
> --Mohammed, Acting CotC
> 
> 
Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade!

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 19:55:22 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 105 (Techno)

I accept, and will issue judgement shortly.

Techno

> Subject:       Acka: CFCJ 105 (Techno)

> Techno has been selected to judge the following, and has 3 days
> to accept or decline the appointment. Would the Financier please note
> Malenkai's A$20 Court Fee.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call for Criminal Judgement 105
>   Subject:  Cruel and Unusual Penalites
> Initiator:  Malenkai
>     Judge:  Techno (selected Jul 3, 1996, 00:11h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> Player pTang1001001sos has violated R 101.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> pTang1001001sos has invoked R 362, forcing Speaker/Acting Speaker
> Malenkai to initiate a process of removing certain players from the
> game. That action, in Malenkai's "judgement" is a "penalty worse than
> losing, in the Malenkai's judgement to incur it"
> 
> Malenkai has put forth rationale as to why that is such, but that matters
> not for this argument. All that matters is Malenkai's "judgement" that the 
> quoted phrase above is true, and the fact, by pTang1001001sos invoking
> this rule, is imposing this penalty.
> 
> I now quote from R 111 (Immutable), in part:
> 
> > No penalty worse than losing, in the judgement of the player to incur
> > it, may be imposed.
> 
> pTang1001001sos is imposing such a penalty on Malenkai, simply by invoking
> R 362. Thus pTang1001001sos is violating R 111 (quoted above), and thus
> is violating R 101. A verdict of TRUE is necessary.
> 
> Penalty:
> 
> As pTang1001001sos wishes to remove 5 players, including 2 former 
> Speakers, and the founder of the game, an a player honored, by rule,
> the removal of one player seems to pale in comparison.
> 
> I, however, call for a penalty of EXPULSION of pTang1001001sos anyway.
> 
> [Note that the judge may adjust the penalty. Note that he may also rejoin,
> and probably be in better shape, due to some loopholes. That is not the
> point.]
> 
> 
Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade!

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 21:23:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retraction

I am hereby retracting P 949, entitled Spelling Moon.

This is because it is in the queue twice, also as 941. I may have
accidently submitted it twice, anyway, we don't need two of them :)

I also retracted 936 in a previous message.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:40:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Judgement 211

Malenkai wrote, in his appeal of CFJ211:
> 
> R 666 regulates the *distribution* of Grapefruit. That is to say, it takes
> any extant Grapefruit and transfers them. R 867 regulates the
> *quantity* of Grapefruit in the game. That is to say, it instantiates
> Grapefruit. Thus, simply, there is no precedence conflict. Qv CFJ 153
> for a precedent :) for invalidating this type of fallacious precedence
> argument.
> 
> >From R 666:
> 
>       c) The winner is declared winner of the cycle, and given a 
> Right-Handed Grapefruit, should such an entity be defined by the Rules.
> 
>       Note the word "given". /dev/joe's argument claims to allow "given"
> to also create. My Websters, under "give" is too long to quote here, but
> Webster indicates a translation of "transfer" for tangible objects. I
> urge the Court to look it up. In no way can this clause *create*
> Grapefruit, thus invalidating the precedence argument.

If Rule 666 doesn't create the RHG, then there is no RHG at all.  R867
doesn't create them either, just defines them.  R666 destroys ("eliminates")
them in step (b), so if it doesn't create one in step (c) then there isn't
one to give.  If Malenkai's statement is true, there is still no
uncertainty the action of Malenkai making RHGJ.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 21:51:01 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Judgement 211

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote, in his appeal of CFJ211:
> >
> > R 666 regulates the *distribution* of Grapefruit. That is to say, it takes
> > any extant Grapefruit and transfers them. R 867 regulates the
> > *quantity* of Grapefruit in the game. That is to say, it instantiates
> > Grapefruit. Thus, simply, there is no precedence conflict. Qv CFJ 153
> > for a precedent :) for invalidating this type of fallacious precedence
> > argument.
> >
> > >From R 666:
> >
> >       c) The winner is declared winner of the cycle, and given a
> > Right-Handed Grapefruit, should such an entity be defined by the Rules.
> >
> >       Note the word "given". /dev/joe's argument claims to allow "given"
> > to also create. My Websters, under "give" is too long to quote here, but
> > Webster indicates a translation of "transfer" for tangible objects. I
> > urge the Court to look it up. In no way can this clause *create*
> > Grapefruit, thus invalidating the precedence argument.
> 
> If Rule 666 doesn't create the RHG, then there is no RHG at all.  R867
> doesn't create them either, just defines them.  R666 destroys ("eliminates")
> them in step (b), so if it doesn't create one in step (c) then there isn't
> one to give.  If Malenkai's statement is true, there is still no
> uncertainty the action of Malenkai making RHGJ.

We can argue that "define" equals "create" as per game custom. Even if
you don't, and you should, you replace "define" for "create" in my new
argument, and the precedence argument is still invalid.

As for supporting the claim that define is *semantically* the same as
create, its obvious. Per CFJ 174, we had no Grapefruit, then came along
R 867, defining/creating *one* to be "dispensed" by R 666.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 22:04:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Judgement 211

Malenkai wrote:
> Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > If Rule 666 doesn't create the RHG, then there is no RHG at all.  R867
> > doesn't create them either, just defines them.  R666 destroys
> > ("eliminates")
> > them in step (b), so if it doesn't create one in step (c) then there isn't
> > one to give.  If Malenkai's statement is true, there is still no
> > uncertainty the action of Malenkai making RHGJ.
> 
> We can argue that "define" equals "create" as per game custom. Even if
> you don't, and you should, you replace "define" for "create" in my new
> argument, and the precedence argument is still invalid.
> 
> As for supporting the claim that define is *semantically* the same as
> create, its obvious. Per CFJ 174, we had no Grapefruit, then came along
> R 867, defining/creating *one* to be "dispensed" by R 666.

Regardless, rule 666 *eliminated* all existing RHG's before distributing
any at all.

| a) Ackanomic play is suspended.
| b) All Chartreuse Goose Eggs and Right-Handed Grapefruit are eliminated.
| c) The winner is declared winner of the cycle, and given a Right-Handed
|    Grapefruit, should such an entity be defined by the Rules.

After the multiple-win, this either leaves us with *no* grapefruits, or
*everybody* has one.

Rule 867 at best created one RHG when it first went into effect; I don't
think it even does that, but here is the whole rule.  After 666(b) is
executed, you tell me how we're ever going to have another one, if 666(c)
above doesn't create it.  Here is the whole rule 867:

| Rule 867/1 (Mutable)
| Eggs and Fruit
| ThinMan  (John Bollinger)
| 
| A Chartreuse Goose Egg is an Ackanomic Entity.  Any number may exist at any
| time.  A player who owns a Chartreuse Goose Egg may reduce his own score to
| zero at any time by informing the Scorekeeper that he is doing so, provided
| that his score is greater than zero.  Chartreuse Goose Eggs have no other
| power.
| 
| A Right-Handed Grapefruit is an Ackanomic Entity.  Only one may exist at
| any time.  A player who owns a Right-Handed Grapefruit may at any time
| make Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice.  Right-Handed Grapefruits have no other
| power.  Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice has only those powers granted it by
| the Rules.
| 
| (a) Chartreuse Goose Eggs, Right-Handed Grapefruits, and Right-Handed
|     Grapefruit Juice may only be created, destroyed, or manipulated as
|     the Rules specify.
| 
| (b) If entities have Power attributes, then Chartreuse Goose Eggs,
|     Right-Handed Grapefruits, and Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice shall
|     each have power 0.6666, and the sentences labelled (a) and (b) shall
|     be deleted from this rule.
| 
| Created by Proposal <A HREF="prop900.html#P867">867</A>, Jun 13 1996
| Amended by Proposal <A HREF="prop950.html#P910">910</A>, Jun 30 1996,
|   by /dev/joe (Joseph DeVincentis)

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 22:21:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: My selection for Justice

I choose pTang1001001sos as Justice.
I await confirmation from the senate (or mostly acting senate :-)

- --
/dev/joe   Joseph DeVincentis   [email-masked]
Postmaster    President    Web-Harfer    Acting Registrar

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 23:22:21 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic:  Judgement 211

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> Malenkai wrote:
> > Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> > > If Rule 666 doesn't create the RHG, then there is no RHG at all.  R867
> > > doesn't create them either, just defines them.  R666 destroys
> > > ("eliminates")
> > > them in step (b), so if it doesn't create one in step (c) then there isn't
> > > one to give.  If Malenkai's statement is true, there is still no
> > > uncertainty the action of Malenkai making RHGJ.
> >
> > We can argue that "define" equals "create" as per game custom. Even if
> > you don't, and you should, you replace "define" for "create" in my new
> > argument, and the precedence argument is still invalid.
> >
> > As for supporting the claim that define is *semantically* the same as
> > create, its obvious. Per CFJ 174, we had no Grapefruit, then came along
> > R 867, defining/creating *one* to be "dispensed" by R 666.
> 
> Regardless, rule 666 *eliminated* all existing RHG's before distributing
> any at all.
> 

I must admit that I cannot find a hole in this. I then claim that RHGs
do not exist. The fix seems to be replace eliminate/destroy with the
antonym of give (take away?), or go with "game custom" that "give" means
"create", and say that they really do exist?

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 19:38:41 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Heresy

>
>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

The earth  is not flat.  The earth is round.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 19:55:38 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: The Gnome has died :(

Don't start weeping so fast Wayne.  I could have sworn that tinan repealed
Silly Hungry and poinonous.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:00:14 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Malenkai Joins Church 

Assuming that when Malenkai left the game he ceased to be a member of the
church (this may not be true, I'll have to look it up), I am now enrolling
him into the Church of the Markovian Dream officially (again).
Furthermore, I am ordaining him as a priest again.

This means that Malenaki is either:

a) a new member of the church, and a new priest
b) an ol member of the church, and already a priest
c) two members of one church and two priests.

snowgod

snowgod

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 96 00:50:08 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Heresy

>The earth  is not flat.  The earth is round.
>
>
>snowgod

BURN THE WITCH!!!

I make an official call for a witchhunt. Some people never learn that the 
earth is flat! After all, if it weren't flat, people would be walking 
upside down. And that would have a horrible impact on the shoe industry.

tinan

- --
         Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"It is not necesssary to understand things in order to argue about them."
                                        --Caron de Beaumarchais
 http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #88
******************************