Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #100
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, July 10 1996       Volume 01 : Number 100

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 02:07:57 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: FM :PFBonds for sale 

I'm offering some PFBonds for sale. If anyone is interested, contact me.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 19:08:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 222 (Kelly Martin)

Kelly Martin has been chosen to judge the following, and has 3 days to
accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 222
  Subject:  Voting Paradox
Initiator:  ThinMan
    Judge:  Kelly Martin (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:10h New York Time)

Statement:

The legality of voting on proposals submitted to the Promoter by email cannot
be determined with finality.

ThinMan's Reasoning:

Voting on proposals is regulated by the Rules, in particular by Rule 104.
According to the custom established by CFJ 113, therefore, no voting on
proposals is legal except as specified by the Rules.

Rule 104 requires that proposals submitted in the "proper" manner be
voted on. No Rule allows proposals submitted in any other manner to be
voted on, and no voting on proposals is legal except as specified by the 
Rules, so voting on proposals is legal only if they have been submitted
in the "proper" manner.

Game custom is regulated by the Rules, in particular by Rule 216 which
makes judgements become part of game custom, and by Rule 545 which
establishes that "the presence of a note in a Rule has no effect on
gameplay" is part of game custom.  According to the game custom
established by CFJ 113, therefore, game custom cannot be established or
modified except as specified by the Rules. No Rule establishes anything
other than CFJ results and the above excerpt from R545 as part of game
custom, thus nothing else is legally part of game custom.

The "proper" manner for submitting proposals is nowehere defined in the Rules
(although R396 establishes to whom they must be submitted), so by R101 we
must interpret the phrase according to game custom.  The "proper" manner has
not been defined by CFJ, either, so it is not part of game custom.  It is,
therefore, impossible to interpret R104, and impossible to determine the
legality of voting on proposals submitted to the Promoter by email.

Furthermore, I note that although R215 instructs judges to consider game
custom and "the spirit of the game" when the rules are unclear or 
inconsistent, "the spirit of the game" is also undefined in the rules and
in game custom, so that part of R215 cannot be legally interpreted.
This may constitute another paradox itself.  In any case, it underscores
the fact that there are no legal grounds on which a judge may determine
the correct interpretation of R 104.

If this CFJ is judged TRUE, then its initiator (ThinMan) will win the
game according to Rule 219.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 02:15:21 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka : proposal and a couple of oops 

Apparently three of my submitted proposal were mistakenly sent to the list. 
 I resent them to Wayne.

Sorry
 
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 19:14:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 216 (Mohammed)

snowgod declined to judge CFJ 216.

The CFJ has been reassigned to Mohammed, who has 3 days to accept or
decline the appointment.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call for Judgement 216
  Subject:  Fat Lady
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  ThinMan (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  Kelly Martin (failed to respond)
3rd Judge:  snowgod (declined to judge)
4th Judge:  Mohammed (selected on 9 Jul, 1996, 19:19h New York Time)

Statement:
 The argument below, after the header "Reasoning:" and between
 the quote marks, is sound and shall be entered into game custom.

Reasoning :
 "
 R790 states:

 >Furthermore, the game, or a cycle of the game, cannot be over until the
 >Fat Lady sings.

 What does this mean?

 I submit that it means the cycle number cannot be incremented.  The
 action of incrementing the cycle number would very strongly imply the
 end of the previous cycle.  I know of no other reference to what
 constitutes a cycle end in the Rules.

 Here's what happened:
 1) ThinMan changed n to 6, and claimed a win of the game.  This win claim
 was valid.
 
 2) At this point, R666 triggered, executing clauses (a) through (j), and
 got hung up before executing clause (k), waiting for the Fat Lady to sing.

 3) Clause (a) of R666 says "Ackanomic play is suspended".  By CFJ 193,
 only those activities which are analogous to "setting up a chess board"
 are valid during this period.  I submit that my changing of n does not
 qualify.

 4) I tried to change n.  This did not happen, as it is an unacceptable
action.

 5) Malenkai stated that the Fat Lady is singing.  I submit that this is
 a "setting up" activity, as it triggers the change in cycle number.

 6) R666 executes clause (k), incrementing the cycle number, then (m),
  resuming Ackanomic play.
 "

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 19:19:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 223 (Malenkai)

Malenkai has been chosen to judge the following, and has 3 days to
accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 223
  Subject:  Senatorial Privilege
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Malenkai (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:23h New York Time)

Statement:

Voting on the confirmation of a Justice is a Privilege
of the Senators' Office.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

It is not explicitly designated as a Duty or Privilege.
It is, however, clearly an exercise of Power, which makes it
a Privilege.  The appropriate clauses from R609:

"(ii)  Duties:

            The Duties of an Office are the tasks that the
            Officer(s) are expected to carry out to facilitate
            the conduct of Ackanomic business.  Duties tend to
            be typified by the compilation, maintenance, and
            distribution of information.

(iii) Privileges:

            The Privileges of an Office are the considerations
            the Officer(s) receive according to the Rules
            regulating the Office.  Examples can include the
            receipt of Ackanomic currency, the ability to cast
            extra votes in certain circumstance, or special
            consideration with regards to making appointments
            or issuing CFJ decisions."

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 19:41:40 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Witchhunt Results

>> 
>> 
>> I don't claim to know anything about its use in determining the Earth's 
form,
>> but pi was most recently useful when I calculated the total amount of matter
>> composing the Earth.  Something to do with (PI/4 * r^3), if I remember
>> correctly.  I could be mistaken.
>> 
>
>
>I'm SURE you must have used PI*r^2.
>
>-mr cwm

No, actually it's just r^2. What are P and I, anyway? I don't understand. 
Or are you HERETICS?!?!?

tinan

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
   "Either the wallpaper goes or I do." --last words of Oscar Wilde
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 19:35:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 224 (Mohammed)

Mohammed has been chosen to judge the following, and has 3 days to
accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 224
  Subject:  Judicial Confirmation
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Mohammed (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:38h New York Time)

Statement:

pTang1001001sos has been confirmed to the Office of Justice.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

The acting Senators do not have the ability to vote on confirmation
of Justices.  Of the Senators able to vote on the confirmation,
I received 1 confirming vote, and no dissenting votes.

By R507, the Senate has agreed upon a candidate, who was therefore
duly confirmed and currently holds Office.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:41:41 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 223 (Malenkai)

At 7:19 PM 7/9/96, Malenkai wrote:
>Malenkai has been chosen to judge the following, and has 3 days to
>accept/decline.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Judgement 223
>  Subject:  Senatorial Privilege
>Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>    Judge:  Malenkai (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:23h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>Voting on the confirmation of a Justice is a Privilege
>of the Senators' Office.
>
>pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:
>
>It is not explicitly designated as a Duty or Privilege.
>It is, however, clearly an exercise of Power, which makes it
>a Privilege.  The appropriate clauses from R609:
>
>"(ii)  Duties:
>
>            The Duties of an Office are the tasks that the
>            Officer(s) are expected to carry out to facilitate
>            the conduct of Ackanomic business.  Duties tend to
>            be typified by the compilation, maintenance, and
>            distribution of information.
[SNIP]

I would have to argue that the casting of confirmation votes falls into the
category of a "duty" because they are " tasks that the Officer(s) are
expected to carry out to facilitate the conduct of Ackanomic business."

Failure to cast a vote on a confirmation places a senator (or acting
senator) in Contempt, implying that the senetor is required (and at the
very least, expected) to cast a vote on the matter of a confirmation.

I urge the judge to return a verdict of false.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 19:43:30 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: official

>I submit that all of the Senatorial votes on confirming
>justices have been invalid.
>
>This is a PRIVILEGE of office, and most of the Senators
>are acting Senators.

R457 in part:

>     While a player is on vacation, the player shall not not be
>     randomly selected for anything. The player shall also not be
>     chosen to perform any task. The duties of any offices held by the
>     player shall be performed by the Speaker or someone appointed by
>     the Speaker.

tinan

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
                                       --Henry J. Tillman
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:44:59 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Discussion 

At 06:37 PM 7/9/96 -0400, Malenkai wrote:

>3) There is a CFJ, yet to be realeased, that will challenge this 
>appointment. It shall be released within 2 hours. Anyone for more state
>splitting? Appeal a CFJ challenging supreme court appointments to the
>supreme court? Don't ya love this game!

Isn't it an interesting situation?  By the way, I want to make clear
that if I "sneak in" to the Justice position, I shall resign from
the post immediately so that mr cwm may assume the Office, as he
properly should.

Anyhow, on the topic of weird state splits, what would be the opinion
of whomever wants to respond as to the following scenarios.  I am
interested as to various opinions whether or not Player "A" gets to
be a part of the Supreme Court's decision.

1) Action is taken that would normally put "A" into an empty Justice
seat.  A CFJ is issued that would stop this action, and found TRUE.
It is appealed to the SC.

2) same as 1 above, but the CFJ was found FALSE.

3) "A" is holding a Justice seat, and action is taken that asserts to
remove him from the seat.  The CFJ to clarify all this finds that "A"
is indeed removed from his seat.  It is appealed.

4) same as 3 above, but the CFJ found that the action was invalid.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 19:41:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 225 (De'ghew)

De'ghew has been chosen to judge the following, and has 3 days to
accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 225
  Subject:  Evil Ballot Stuffer
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  De'ghew (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:44h New York Time)

Statement:
 
The Evil Ballot Stuffer, as explained in pTang1001001's public
statement, works just as described.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

[none provided - CotC]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 19:13:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Registrarness (Niccolo Flychuck, Wayne, ThinMan, Mohammed, mr cwm)

Malenkai wrote:
> 1) CFJ 200, CFJ 211, and CFJ 217 are all pending appeal to the Supreme
> Court. The CotC web page has the due dates. CFJ 211, as I recall, is due
> Wednesday. I note that the Web-Harfer has not added the reasoning of the
> appealer in all three cases.

Oops, I have done this now.

> 2) It seems possible that Justice Bascule will be put on vacation per R901
> Wed morning. The Postmaster will know that better than I, as no email by
> me to Bascule has bounced. If that happens, I will appoint an Acting
> Justice promptly.

Bascule's mail from the list was generating "Warning, delivery delayed"
messages from Sunday morning until yesterday evening at around 7 PM CDT;
since then I have received no such messages so I assume it is getting
through.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 20:20:44 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 225 (De'ghew)

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> De'ghew has been chosen to judge the following, and has 3 days to
> accept/decline.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call for Judgement 225
>   Subject:  Evil Ballot Stuffer
> Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>     Judge:  De'ghew (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:44h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The Evil Ballot Stuffer, as explained in pTang1001001's public
> statement, works just as described.
> 

I urge the Judge to read CFJ 113 and judge FALSE. As ThinMan has so 
clearly pointed out in CFJ 222, CFJ 113 is game custom that must be
honored.

Malenkai
Ex-Justice (thank goodness!)

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:43:10 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: official 

At 07:43 PM 7/9/96 -0400, t.i.n.a.n. wrote:

>>     While a player is on vacation, the player shall not not be
>>     randomly selected for anything. The player shall also not be
>>     chosen to perform any task. The duties of any offices held by the
>>     player shall be performed by the Speaker or someone appointed by
>>     the Speaker.

There's no question that Acting Senators perform duties.  I argue that
voting to confirm an appointment to the S.C. is a Privilege, because it
falls under the class of preferential treatment with regards to appointments,
which is explicitly mentioned as an example privilege.

With regards to snowgod's argument, I would have to say that being held
in Contempt has no game effect, and therefore we cannot draw any conclusion
from this fact.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:45:29 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 225 (De'ghew) 

Malenkai wrote:

>I urge the Judge to read CFJ 113 and judge FALSE. As ThinMan has so 
>clearly pointed out in CFJ 222, CFJ 113 is game custom that must be
>honored.

There is some question in my mind whether the issue of vote-casting
entities is even regulated.

Certainly PEOPLE casting votes is well-regulated.

Not acka-entities, though.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 20:42:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion

Mark Nau wrote:
> 

> Anyhow, on the topic of weird state splits, what would be the opinion
> of whomever wants to respond as to the following scenarios.  I am
> interested as to various opinions whether or not Player "A" gets to
> be a part of the Supreme Court's decision.
> 
> 1) Action is taken that would normally put "A" into an empty Justice
> seat.  A CFJ is issued that would stop this action, and found TRUE.
> It is appealed to the SC.
> 
> 2) same as 1 above, but the CFJ was found FALSE.

[I take CFJ in 2 above to mean the *original* CFJ, judged FALSE, and
appealed. I ignore SC verdicts of undecided.]

The original verdict is irrelevant. Upon the appeal, in both cases, there
is a bifurcation into 2 states where A is, and is not, a Justice.
 
> 3) "A" is holding a Justice seat, and action is taken that asserts to
> remove him from the seat.  The CFJ to clarify all this finds that "A"
> is indeed removed from his seat.  It is appealed.

Here, we are assuming collapse of 2 above to the state where A is indeed
a Justice. In the other thread, A was not a justice, therefore an action
to remove A could not have been initiated. A CFCJ would be called on the
initiator of such for not following the rules. 

In thread where A is a Justice: Upon the appeal of that verdict, there
is a again a bifurcation as to whether A is a justice. The fact that
the "clarifying" CFJ found A to be removed is irrelevant.

1) In one thread, A is not a justice, and thus does not hear the appeal. If
there are no other justices, there is a problem. If there is another
justice (B), then B may hear the appeal alone, by game custom. If B
finds the verdict where A is not a justice, that thread validates
itself. If B finds A *is* a justice, that thread collapes, because it
just invalidated itself. Therefore, in that thread, B must rule A is
not a justice. 

2) In the other thread, A and B hear whether A is a Justice. By the same 
logic, they must rule A is a justice, or they invalidate themselves.

Therefore B decides if A is a justice, and A must concur. It is impossible
for A to rule, as a Justice, that they were not a justice, because A
would invalidate A'self. 

Thus, B says A is not a justice, 1) above has occured. B says A is a
justice. 2) above occured, and A must agree to validate A'self. 

Note that B is the collective of all justices, excluding the (possible)
A. If B is the empty set, as stated above, go figure.

> 
> 4) same as 3 above, but the CFJ found that the action was invalid.
> 

As stated above, the original CFJ vedict does not matter, the appeal causes
the bifurcation, as it can go either way. See above.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 20:53:25 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 225 (De'ghew)

pTang wrote:
>Certainly PEOPLE casting votes is well-regulated.
>
>Not acka-entities, though.

If one means of vote-casting (by people) is regulated, then any means is.

See also CFJ 165, 172, 178.

tinan

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."
                                      --Dan Quayle
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/         Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 21:04:58 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 225 (De'ghew)

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> pTang wrote:
> >Certainly PEOPLE casting votes is well-regulated.
> >
> >Not acka-entities, though.
> 
> If one means of vote-casting (by people) is regulated, then any means is.
> 
> See also CFJ 165, 172, 178.
> 

Correct. Go call yourself the Big Herring :)

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 21:53:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: official

Mark Nau wrote:
>  
> With regards to snowgod's argument, I would have to say that being held
> in Contempt has no game effect, and therefore we cannot draw any conclusion
> from this fact.

I've always wondered about that "no game effect" phrase. Certainly if we
draw conclusion from "this fact", would it not have game effect, 
especially if the drawing of such conclusion was used in rendering a 
verdict on this CFJ?

Even if the above reasoning is ignored, certainly Contempt may have 
game effect. A proposal may pass in 7 days that throws all senators who
were ever held in contempt into the Gaol.

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 22:15:09 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 225 (De'ghew)

>this is not a name wrote:
>> 
>> pTang wrote:
>> >Certainly PEOPLE casting votes is well-regulated.
>> >
>> >Not acka-entities, though.
>> 
>> If one means of vote-casting (by people) is regulated, then any means is.
>> 
>> See also CFJ 165, 172, 178.
>> 
>
>Correct. Go call yourself the Big Herring :)
>
>Malenkai

Very well, I will. :)

this is not a name
[email-masked]
Big Herring
Historian
File Clerk
Acting Senator
Priest, Church of the Markovian Dream
Party Hall Swinger for (None Yet)

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
 "The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest." -- Kilgore Trout
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 22:49:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 222

> 
> Call for Judgement 222
>   Subject:  Voting Paradox
> Initiator:  ThinMan
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The legality of voting on proposals submitted to the Promoter by
> email cannot be determined with finality.
> 
> ThinMan's Reasoning:
> 
> According to the custom established by CFJ 113, therefore, no voting on
> proposals is legal except as specified by the Rules.
>...
> Game custom is regulated by the Rules, in particular by Rule 216 which
> makes judgements become part of game custom...

ThinMan makes an extremely clever and persuasive argument in establishing
his claim, but that argument compromises itself, indicating a verdict of
FALSE.

The synopsis of ThinMan's argument is that only game custom established
by the rules may be used to regulate game play, but ThinMan uses game
custom *not* established by the rules to anchor his logic, namely the
*reasoning* of CFJ 113.

I quote R 216 in full:

> If a statement on which Judgement has been called is Judged to be true,
> and that Judgement is not overruled, it does not thereby become a rule,
> or any part of a rule. It merely becomes an explicit part of currently
> accepted game custom.

The rule is clear. The *judgement* [of CFJ 113] becomes game custom.
Namely, the fact that the following statement is true, or was true, is
game custom:

> I hereby Call For Judgment on the claim by Wayne Sheppard that he has
> won. I believe that he has illegally gained 85 points, and therefore
> they should not count towards his score, and he should not win. If
> judgement is returned True, Wayne Sheppard will not have the 85 points
> added to his score, and he will not win the game. 

No where does the rule say, or even imply, that the *reasoning* becomes
part of the judgement/game custom. Quite the contrary, Rule 214 clarifies
that point nicely:

> There are only three possible Judgements: (1) True; (2) False; or (3)
> Undecided. A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons an [sic] arguments,
> but any such reasons and arguments form no part of the official Judgement
> itself.      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Reasoning is not part of the official judgement. Therefore it is not part
of the game custom, defeating the anchor of ThinMan's logic: CFJ 113's
*reasoning*.
 
That leaves us with the fact of the matter that Judges have been
*customarily* using the reasoning behind CFJ 113 anyway. But *not* so by
rule. Either they should be thrown in Gaol for illegally using this
reasoning as custom, or it is "game custom" that has allowed them to use
CFJ 113's reasoning legally.

If you take the former (Gaol), then ThinMan's argument self collapses,
as shown above, because the rules for game custom are *not* being followed,
and he cannot use this customary reasoning to establish his claim. We can
use other game custom to judge his actual statement though. The fact is
that R 104 is unclear, and the established game custom of sending votes
via email to the Tabulator establishes a customary interpretation, 
indicating a verdict of FALSE on the actual statement. 

If you take the latter, it applies to voting just fine, as it has in all
other CFJs its been used in, and thus ThinMan's statement about the
legality/illegality of voting is FALSE as well.
 
[[The fact of the matter is that using CFJ 113's reasoning as "custom" in
judgements is illegal. Its just a *convienence*. What you are doing, 
in essence (and I've done it alot, I admit), is using *identical* reasoning
in each instance, and quoting CFJ 113 for convienence. One can see a time
where a judge may not choose to use such reasoning, until such time as it
is codified into rule, or the statement of a CFJ, as my "Blanket Protection"
proposal has attempted to do, for the one half of the important part of
CFJ 113. The other half, grace period, is much nastier.]]

Malenkai

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 23:43:53 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 223 Verdict

The following, CFJ 223, has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 223
  Subject:  Senatorial Privilege
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Malenkai (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:23h New York Time)

Statement:

Voting on the confirmation of a Justice is a Privilege
of the Senators' Office.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

It is not explicitly designated as a Duty or Privilege.
It is, however, clearly an exercise of Power, which makes it
a Privilege.  The appropriate clauses from R609:

"(ii)  Duties:

            The Duties of an Office are the tasks that the
            Officer(s) are expected to carry out to facilitate
            the conduct of Ackanomic business.  Duties tend to
            be typified by the compilation, maintenance, and
            distribution of information.

(iii) Privileges:

            The Privileges of an Office are the considerations
            the Officer(s) receive according to the Rules
            regulating the Office.  Examples can include the
            receipt of Ackanomic currency, the ability to cast
            extra votes in certain circumstance, or special
            consideration with regards to making appointments
            or issuing CFJ decisions."

Malenkai's Reasoning:

The initiator quotes R 609 in his comments, in an attempt to define
whether or not a confirmation vote is a priviledge. My look at the
rules also indicates that this is the applicable rule to use to figure
this out, so I will use it as well.

The Senators' ability to make a confirmation vote appears to be both a
duty and a priviledge, as defined by R 609. Lets look closer at each
case:

Clearly the vote is to "carry out to facilitate the conduct of Ackanomic 
business".  Confirming Justices is Ackanomic business, thus a "duty" from
(ii) above.

Clearly it is also "the ability to cast extra votes in certain circumstance,
or special consideration with regards to making appointments", thus a
priviledge from (iii) above.

Therefore it is both a duty and a priviledge. I was not asked to decide if
it was *one or the other*, or if duty and priviledge were mutually
exclusive (although I have shown that they are not), only to judge the
statement. Therefore the statement on which judgement was called is TRUE.

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 23:53:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 226 (Mellon)

Mellon has been chosen to judge the following, and has 3 days to
accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 226
  Subject:  Judge Eligibility
Initiator:  Techno
    Judge:  Mellon(selected Jul 9, 1996, 23:56h New York Time)

Statement:

Kelly Martin is not eligible to judge CFJ 222.

Techno's Reasoning:

According to R691, for failure to respond to CFJ 216,
the speaker must now send Kelly Martin a message
asking if she wishes to remain in the game, and she has four days to
respond.  It is my contention that until the time of Kelly's response
to that message that she wishes to remain in the game, she must be
considered ineligible to judge any new CFJ's.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #100
*******************************