Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #103
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, July 10 1996       Volume 01 : Number 103

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:39:35 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 999

Proposal 999 - Wed Jul 10 15:39:35 EDT 1996
Creation of Otzma Card type Double-Me-Election-Vote
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

a proposal to create a rule entitled "Creation of Otzma Card type
Double-Me-Election-Vote" which contains the following text:

"This type is a member of type-set Politicos

A card of this type is equivalent to an extra vote in elections for
political office.
A player uses this card by notifying the officer holding the elections, of
its usage, and the office and the candidate for which it is being used.

At any given time there can be no more than 12 Otzma Cards of this type in
existence"

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:40:59 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1000

Proposal 1000 - Wed Jul 10 15:40:59 EDT 1996
Get Out of Gaol
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

A proposal to create a rule entitled "Creation of Otzma Card type Get Out of
Gaol" which contains the following text.

"A Player uses this card in one of two ways
a. To get out of Gaol
b. To get another player out of Gaol
The use of this card takes 
precedence obver all other rules concerning Gaol.
There can be no more than 15 cards of this type in existence at any given time
No player may own more than two Otzma Cards of this type simultaneously.

This rule amends R709 Gaol in the following way.
It adds to the list of allowed actions the following line:
8) A player may use a Otzma Card of type Get Out of Gaol to get of Gaol.
When the player puclically anounces the fact that he uses the Otzma Card, he
is immediately released from Gaol."

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:44:03 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1001

Proposal 1001 - Wed Jul 10 15:44:02 EDT 1996
Creation of the office of Wizard
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

a proposal to create a rule entitled "Creation of the office of Wizard"
which contains the following text:

1.
a.This rule creates an elected office known as the Wizard.
b.Only the Wizard can  create Otzma Cards, if such entities exist.
c.A Wizard conduct games of Eleusis, if the game of Eleusis is defined in
Ackanomic.

2.
The office of Wizard is filled by elections
according to the rules for electing political officers. All rules that apply
to Political officers apply to the Wizard, with additional restriction that
a player
who holds three or more offices, either political or functional, is not
eligible to be elected for Wizard. 

3.
a.Whenever a new Wizard is elected, a new pack of playing cards is created.
This pack is owned by the Wizard and is intended to be used for the purpose
of playing the game of Eleusis. While a game of Eleusis is in progress, the
Wizard's pack of playing cards may not be used for any other purpose.

b.The Wizard must always own at least one pack of playing cards. The Wizard
may acquire additional packs of playing cards by any legal means. The Wizard
may also sell, trade or give away packs of playing cards, as long as e
retains ownership of at least one. 

c.If a Wizard is left without a pack of playing cards, e is immediately
impeached, and fined A$50, for negligent use and disregard of official property.

d.The Wizard receives a salary of 5 units of currency a week.

e.A Wizard remains in office until either:
(i). The Wizard resigns, and makes a public anouncement of eir resignation.
(ii).The Wizard is impeached.
(iii) The Wizard has conducted and completed two instances of the game of
Eleusis, and there is no instance of Eleusis is in progress

f. if a Wizard has conducted and completed four instances of Eleusis, e
may not start any new instances of the game. Once the currently existing
instances the game are all finished e must resign from the office of Wizard.

g. When a Wizard finishes eir term in office, as described in either (i) or
(iii), e retains ownership of all the packs of cards e owned as
Wizard, which are not currently being used in a game of Eleusis, as a reward
for a job well done.
A player may run for the office of Wizard as many times as e wishes.

If a Wizard goes on vacation for more than four weeks, e is considered to
have resigned.

f. Should a Wizard leave office while one or more instances of the game
Eleusis are still in progress, e may hand over the management of those
instances to eir successor. 
Game instances 'inherited' in such a way from previous Wizards do not count
towards the total number of instances of games of Eleusis managed and
conducted by a Wizard.

g.In addition this rule creates the following entities:
The Wizard's Pot - the Wizard's Pot is owned by the Wizard. It cannot be
sold, bought, traded or given away. If there is no Wizard, the Wizard's pot
is temporarily dormant.
The Wizard's Shop- the Wizard's Shop is owned by the Wizard. All buisness
conducted by the Wizard take place in eir shop. If there is no Wizard, then
the shop is temporarily closed.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:44:22 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1002

Proposal 1002 - Wed Jul 10 15:44:21 EDT 1996
Definition of a pack of playing cards
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

a proposal to create a rule entitled "Definition of a pack of playing cards"
which contains the following text:

1. This rule defines an Ackanomic entity called a pack playing cards(aka
PoPc), and the ways such entities may be legally used. This rule does not
create such an entity Other rules may dictate the creation and destcution of
packs of playing cards

2. Description
There are 124 cards in a pack divided in the following manner
There are 8 suits, following are the names of the suits and the symbols that
mark them:
!   - wands
@ - shtrudels
# - cross-stripes
$ - dollars
% - libra
^  - pointy hats 
& - serpents
* - stars

There are 15 cards in each suit. Nine of them are number cards, each card
depicts a number from 2-10. In each suit there is exactly one card of each
number.
There are also 6 face-cards in each suit. Each suit has exactly one of each
of the following face cards:
Ace, Page, Knave, Monarch,  Nomic,Suber.
Unless otherwise specified, the face-cards have the following numerical values
Ace- 1
Page - 11
Knave - 12
Monarch - 13
Nomic - 14
Suber -15

The cards have colors, each suit is associated with a color according to the
following list:
!   - wands             @ - shtrudels   - Blue
# - cross-stripes  $ - dollars        - Green
% - libra               ^  - pointy hats - Black
& - serpents        * - stars             - Red

In addition there four Wild cards, Wild cards have no suit, color or value.
The four Wild cards are identical. With the exception of the Wild cards,
each card is unique within the pack.
Suits may be reffered to either by their names or symbols. Number cards may
refered to by their numerical balue, Face cards may be refered to either by
their full name or by their inital letter.

3. Creation and Destruction
A pack of playing cards may be created by any rule that includes the phrase
:"This rule creates a pack of playing cards." or words to that effect.
Rules may be created that describe other ways of creating packs of playing
cards.
Similarly, other rules may describe methods for the destruction if playing
cards.
Whenever a pack of playing cards is created, or destroyed, it is created or
destroyed as a full pack as described in section 2 of this rule. Individual
playing cards may not be created or destroyed, unless they are part of a
full pack. The Creation and Destruction of packs of cards are Protected.
This section takes precedence over any rule that reffers to playing cards,
or packs of playing cards.

4. Usage
Playing cards and packs of playing cards may be used in games or activities,
if any exist, as defined by the rules creating those games and activities. 
Playing cards only have an influence within the scope of the games or
activities in which they are being used, and they may only be used within
those games and activities in the way described by the rules creating those
games and activities.
Playing cards have no influence outside the scope of the games or activities
in which they are being used.
However the results of the games or activities, whether intermediary or
final, may have an effect on Acaknomic, they may cause currency and assets
to change hands,  they may have an effect on players' score, but only in the
manner described by the rules creating the specific game or activity.

5. Ownership

Each pack of playing card must be owned by a registered player. Any pack may
be sold, bought, traded, or given away, unless the rules specifically state
otherwise.
When packs of playing cards change ownership, in any manner whatsoever, they
do so as full packs. Individual playing cards may not change ownership, in
any way other than as part of a full pack.

A player must own a pack of playing cards in order to organize a game or
activity which uses a pack of playing cards.  Other players who participate
in the game or activity may control cards for the duration of the game or
activity, but once the game or activity are over, all playing cards return
to the owner of the pack of playing cards used in the game or activity.

Any single pack of playing cards may only be used for one game or activity
at a time. A player may own more than one pack of playing cards..

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:44:43 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1003

Proposal 1003 - Wed Jul 10 15:44:42 EDT 1996
Creation of Otzma Cards
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

1.
a. Otzma Cards are Protected
b. Otzma Cards can only created by the Wizard, if such an office exists.
c. Otzma cards can be created and used only according to the rules

2.
a. At any given time there may be no more than 100 Otzma Cards in existence.
b. Any single player may not own more than six Otzma Cards at any given time.
c. Otzma Cards may be bought, sold, traded, or given away, in accordance
with the rules governing transactions.
d. If a player already owns the maximum number of Otzma Cards, and receives
or acquires , by any means another Otzma Card, e must immediately destroy
either the new Otzma Card, or one of eir existing Otzma Card.
e. If a player recieves or acquires, an Otzma Card, that cannot be owned by
that player simulateneously with other cards owned by that player, then the
player must destory one or more Otzma Cards, until the Otzma Cards e owns
meet all the restrictions placed on Otzma Cards
f. When a player destroys an Otzma Card, neither the player nor the Wizard
receive  a refund of any kind

3.
a. A Wizard may create an Otzma Card if at any time the Approved-Otzma-Count
(defined in section 6 of this rule) is greater than (zero) and the number of
Otzma Cards currently Up-For-Sale is less than 4
b. The cost of creating an Power Card is 20 units of currency.
    The cost is payed by the Wizard to the Treasury.
  If a rule called Creation of the Game of Eleusis exists, then this section
deffers to the section entitled Eleusis Prize, of that rule.
If theOtzma Card type definition rule specifies a different cost, then the
creation cost is the higher of the two numbers.
c. When ever an Otzma Card is created, the Approved-Otzma-Count is decreased
by 1.
d.When the Wizard created an Otzma Card e must publically anounce this. E
must also anounce the type of Otzma Card. Every new Otzma card receives a
unique ID, that may be reffered to as the OCID. The OCID of the first Otzma
Card created is 1. The OCID of any other card created is the smallest
integer larger than the OCID of the previous card created.
d.Once the Wizard anounced that e has created a new Otzma Card, it is
Up-For-Sale for a period of 7 days. The Wizard may also announce eir asking
price. The upper bound for the asking price is 200 units of currency or the
Card's creation cost multiplied by 1.5, whichever is higher. Players may
make offers to buy it. All offers must identify the desired card by OCID.
If within 7 days no player makes an offer equal to or greater than the
asking price, then the Wizard may
either destroy the Card, and be refunded the creation cost, or place it on
display at
eir shop.
The Wizard has the option of selling a Card for a price lower than eir
asking price.
At any time there may be no more than 4 cards Up-For-Sale
e. There may  no more than 20 Otzma Cards on display at the Wizard's shop at
any given time. If there are 20 cards and the Wizard wishes to add another
one, e must either destroy the new Otzma Card, or destroy one of the cards
already on display. If e destroys the new card e is refunded the creation
cost, if e destroys one of the cards on display e is refunded half the
creation cost.
f. The Wizard cannot use any of the Otzma Cards on display
g. The Wizard can sell, trade or give the Otzma Cards on display at any
time, in accordance with the rules governing tranactions. Any currency paid
for the cards on display is paid to the Wizard.
h. When a Wizard leaves office for any reason e may choose to leave all or
some of the Otzma Cards on display.
i. The Wizard can destroy any of the Otzma Cards on display at any time, and
be refunded half the creation cost.
j. When ever any player, including the Wizard, destroys a Otzma Card, e must
announce it publically
k. No Otmza Cards are indestructible

4.
a. The Wizard may only create Otzma Cards of types that have been defined by
Otzma Card definition rules.
b. The Wizard may must abide by the restrictions defined in Otzma Card
definition rules.
c. Otzma Cards may only be defined by Otzma Card definition rules
d. Otzma Card defition rules are rules that have as part of their title the
words:
"Creation of Otzma Card type..."  followed by the name of the type.
e. Otzma Card types may belong to type-sets.  When a Otzma Card definition
type rule includes the words "This type is a member of type-set...",
followed by a legal ackanomic name, then, if that type-set exists, the new
type is added to that type-set, if the type-set does not exist, it is
immediately created, with the type defined in that rule as its first member.
f.Rules pertaining to a Otzma Card type-set, affect the entire type-set.
g. If an Otzma Card definition rule is repealed, then all Power Cards of the
the type defined by that rule are immediately destroyed.

5.
a.Otzma Cards may only be used according to the rules.
b. Each Otzma Card may only be used once. Once it has been used, and having
caused
its effect, it no longer exists
c. A player uses an Otzma Card by notifying the appropriate officer that e is
using a Otzma Card, and which card. In addition the player must notify the
Wizard.
If there is no appropriate officer, then the player must a public
anouncement, that e is using the Card, and manner in which it is being used.
d. A player can only use an Otzma Card that e owns
e. In the case of Otzma Cards that affect voting on proposals and its
results, the appropriate officer is the officer in charge of counting the votes.
f. The results of the use of Otzma Cards must be published by the
appropriate officer, along with the name of the player who used the Otzma
Card, and the manner of its use.
g. The Wizard must be notified of all transactions and uses that involve
Otzma Cards, and must keep track of all Otzma Cards in existence.
h. A player may only use one card at a time. For cards that effects voting
and its results, a player can use only one card per proposal.
Reults of voting includes, but is not restricted to, points and penalties
given to players once a proposal either passes of fails.

6.
a. Let there be a counter called Approved-Otzma-Count. 
0<=Approved-Otzma-Count<=100
Initially Approved-Otzma-Count=0
b. If the Total number of Otzma Cards in existence in Ackanomic plus the
Approved-Otzma-Count is less than or equal to 100 then
c. Every Sunday night, at midnight GMT, the Tabulator updates the
Approved-Otzma-Count if the following manner
  (i) The Approved-Otzma-Count is multiplied by 0.9, and rounded up to the
smallest integer which is larger than the result of the multiplication
 (ii) If the Approved-Otzma-Count is smaller than thirty, then it is
incremented by the number of proposals that passed in the previous 7 days
(counting from the precious Sunday midnight GMT)
 (iii)If the Approved-Otzma-Count is greater than or equal to 30, then it is
incremented by half the number of proposals that passed in the previous 7
days (counting from the precious Sunday midnight GMT)
  (iv) if the Approved-Otzma-Count is greater than 100, then it is set to 100

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:45:21 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1006

Proposal 1006 - Wed Jul 10 15:45:21 EDT 1996
Unofficial voting period
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

   {{[ "Official Voting Period" is undefined. ]}}

1. Amend Rule 629, 'Constitutional Convention; Procedure' by changing
   "Official Voting Period' and 'official voting period', each time those
   phrases occur, to 'Prescribed Voting Period'.

2. Amend R695 "Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy"
   to read, in full:

  "(a) There shall be a functional office called Common Sense, Redundancy,
       and Redundancy.  This office may be referred to as CSRR.
   (b) The purpose of the Office of Common Sense, Redundancy, and Redundancy
       is to make changes to the rules when it finds that the rules, as
       written, do not make sense, are redundant, do not conform _in fact_
       to their interpretation in game custom, or are redundant.
       The Office may perform other functions if they conform to the rules.
       [The Office should make minor changes.  But if it can get major
       changes past the, shall we say, review process, it can.]
   (c) A privilege of the CSRR is publishing Common Sense Reports.
       A common sense report (CSR) is a suggested change to the rules.
       A CSR is not a proposal.  The changes suggested in a CSR may
       only consist of amending and repealing mutable rules.
   (d) The CSRR shall distribute CSR's publicly, and assign each one a
       unique number.  After a CSR is distributed, any player may
       officially object to it by publishing his objection publicly.
       If no player objects to the CSR within the Prescribed Voting
       Period after it has been distributed, then at the end of that
       time, the changes it suggests will be made.  The CSRR shall
       publish a notice that the changes have been made."

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:45:10 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1005

Proposal 1005 - Wed Jul 10 15:45:10 EDT 1996
Electing the Gaoler
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

1. Amend R612, 'Functional Offices, Commonalities' as follows:
   Change the first sentence from 
       "This rule takes precedence over all mutable rules."
   to:
       "This rule takes precedence over rule 609."

   [[ Eliminating a blanket precedence clause; this will allow elected
      functional offices (like Gaoler already claims to be). ]]

2. Amend rule 712, 'Gaoler, Creation of'.
   Change section (ii) from:
     "There shall be one seat for this office. This seat is filled by
      election."
   to:
     "There shall be one seat for this office. This seat is filled by
      election.  This rule takes precedence over rule 612."

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:45:01 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1004

Proposal 1004 - Wed Jul 10 15:45:00 EDT 1996
Catching Up
/dev/joe  (Joseph DeVincentis)

1. Amend Rule 571 as follows:
   Change "it's" to "its".
   Change "anounces" to "announces".
   Changes "sents" to "sends".

{{[Proposal 944 undid some of the spelling corrections in this rule.]}}

2. Amend Rule 379 to read, in full:
   "When a proposal is accepted which contains less than five lines of
    text in the body of the proposal, the player who submitted it is
    awarded five points."

3. Amend Rule 706 as follows:
   Change "voted in favor of" to "voted YES on"

{{[ These two changes were omitted in P950 because there were proposals
    in the queue to repeal the rules. ]}}

4. Amend Rule 937 as follows:
   Change "since the vacationers return" to "since the vacationer's return".
   Change "immediatly" to "immediately".
   Change "it is well know" to "it is well known".

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 15:58:23 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Prop 956 Fails

Here are the voting results for : 956
  Proposal 956 - Tue Jul 02 23:27:58 EDT 1996
  Amending 355
  pTang1001001sos  (Mark Nau)

Quorum met : 19 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

9 YES votes   5 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

pTang1001001sos loses 9 points.  12 -> 3

9 YES votes:  1 point each
  Mellon                                        8 -> 9            
  Bascule                FUN                   13 -> 14           
  snowgod                (None Yet)            11 -> 12           
  this is not a name     (None Yet)            22 -> 23           
  Kelly Martin           Nobs                  11 -> 12           
  /dev/joe               Nobs                  56 -> 57           
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0               
  pTang1001001sos                               3 -> 4            
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)            12 -> 13           

5 NO votes:  
  Malenkai               FUN                  =  -1               
  Brinjal                                     =   4               
  gnome                                       =   0               
  Techno                 Underworld           =  15               
  Wayne                  Underworld           = -47               

1 PRESENT votes:
  De'ghew                Underworld            =   9

5 ABSTENTIONS:
  Robin Hood                                  
  ThinMan                Nobs                 
  Niccolo Flychuck                            
  Mohammed               Nobs                 
  Pascal                                      

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

New players who are not active:

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:13:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 222

mr cwm wrote:
> 

> Acutally, R216 says (I probably snipped a quotation of it) the ruling
> "becomes an explicit part of currently accepted game custom."  I've always
> assumed there were game customs that weren't explicit (i.e., written
> down) and that using the resoning of CFJ 113 (or any CFJ, if we do it
> enough) was one of those other game customs.
> 

ThinMan, I believe, argues that there is no such other game custom, except
for Judgements and Notes and Comments. Therefore he cannot use the
*reasoning* of CFJ 113 as custom to support the argument that there is
no such custom.

If you *do* accept that *other* custom, you can use it to clarify the
alledged unclarity of R 104 right out of the gate. If that custom exists
and can be used by ThinMan, its there to clarify R 104, indicating FALSE,
without looking at the reasoning.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 01:45:13 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: DiscCreation of Various PartyChessPieces 

I think this is a good starting set, it has the classic chess pieces, with a
distance limit of 10 squares, this should make the game playable, I used
higher material values for these pieces, you might say that I re-calibrated
the scale. The Biship no longer the same material value as a Knight, since
the Bishop has more freedom of movement than is standard chess, and the
knight doesn't.
I've also added some other pieces. The Camel, is similar to a Knight, but
has a slightly larger stride. It has been adapted from historical chess
variants. The Jester has also been adapted from existing chess variants, it
is similar to the historical elephant.  I've also defined a pawn, (not _the_
pawn. but _a_ pawn)
It is a low value , promotable piece, that starts out near the edge, and
moves in the general direction of the center. I thought that making 4
squares on the entire board, promotion squares, should make for some
intersting situations, once pawns start getting there. Of course, a
perfectly good game can be played with no pawns at all. Pawns do have their
advantages, they provide a way of getting powerful pieces for minimal cost.
Future promotable pieces, would probably use different criteria for promotion.
Promotions zones are only one possibilty, distribution of pieces, and
territory control could be others.
Two original pieces are il-Nabi, and the CopyCat.
When I first mentioned to Mohammed that I will be proposing a piece by that
name, I had no idea how wuch a piece should move, then Mohammed made a
comment about "strange and myterious ways", which started my mind racing off
in weird angles, eventually I came up with the move I proposed above. 
The CopyCat should prove to be a fascinating piece to play with. Its move is
pretty weak by itself, its capture is what makes it real interesting, it
mirrors the capture move of the captured piece - that is, if you attack it,
then it attack you, in most cases. (there are cases when it can attack
il-Nabi, and il-Nabi can't attack it, or vice versa, this has to do with
il-Nabi being order sensitive. There are situation where this piece could
become very powerful. At others it may be completely useless. 
A good, well-balanced army would probably cost quite a bit. 
1 Queen, 2 of each of the other pieces, and a few pawns, can come to 600-700 A$.
Currently we seem to be all short of funds, dependeing of some CFJs,
however, a game can still be played. the initial set is given at no cost.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:49:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  SC Appeals

mr cwm wrote:
> 
> To:   CotC Malenkai
> From: mr cwm
> 
> On the chance that I am a Supreme court Justice, I wish to agree with
> Justice Bascule's descision in the appeals of CFJ's 200, 211, 217.  If I
> am a Supreme Court Justice, I intend to discuss the possibility of an AOJ
> overturning CFJ 217, as he indicated, but I think agreeing now will make
> things easier all around.

Did you mean an AOJ overturning CFJ 211? I am wholly unsatisfied with the
reasoning, as well as the verdict, and do not belive the Justices had
adequete time to discuss the matter, before reaching a decision. I should
at least like more satisifying reasoning. Who has grapefruit *now*, and who
may make juice? Does not "game custom (sorry :))" indicate that at least
one Grapefruit is created, somewhere? 

I will not post any more reasoning, other than to say that if we don't
allow the possibility of "define" meaning "create", we have have to define
a Formal System with which to write the rules.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:16:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

Given all this is going on, I'd like to request that players
concentrate on the important CFJs hanging around out there, and
try to verdicts with all due haste, where possible, without 
compromising the clarity of reasoning, in order to collapse some
threads.

There is, of course, the n-win/Fat Lady thing.

As for the Supreme Court, there are 2 threads; in one thread, Bascule
and mr cwm have reached verdicts on all the outstanding appealed CFJs.
(I have asked for more deliberation on 211, but that is optional).

In the other thread, pTang1001001sos and Bascule are still deliberating,
and are late on CFJ 211. The penalty is A$2/day. They should deliberate,
as this thread may collapse, pending the CFJ that confirms pTang. To the
extent that verdicts are the same in both threads, some simplicity can
be gained. One the other hand, pTang has a *legal* obligation to consider
the appeals in this thread, or suffer the penalty. 

I also point out, if this thread is validated, pTang's announced intent to
resign will not be sufficient to put mr cwm in the office, IMHO. The CFJ
comfirming pTang will have retroactive application, thereby invalidating
the mr cwm appointment.

As for the game custom crisis, well what can I say. Actually, I'm not
permitted, by ethics, to say anything, until today's CotC work is 
completed.

I note that P1000 was just released; a Festival is optional. I'm not sure
I'm up for that again, but if it would speed the flow of justice...

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:35:08 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Jason Reed) 
Subject: [none]

>themself, they do not?  I am reminded of the Paradox of the Hanged Man (or
>the Unexpected Egg), in which one logically demonstrates that something
>can not happen, and yet it does.

Not exactly. If one assumes that whoever is making the promise (of an
unexpected hanging, or egg, or pop quiz in one variant I read somwheres)
must be logically consistent, then you have a contradiction, therefore you
can't assume such a thing, therefore the hanging occurring on the last day,
or the egg appearing in the last box is always a possibility. Any 'logical'
demonstration that shows that a hanging, or egg appearing, can't occur is
not logical at all.
- ---Pascal

Former TIE of Fascist 12, 13, and 14:0, ex-THS of 14:1.
Former player of Agora and Thring nomics, current player of pNomic,
Ackanomic and Fascist 14.
Ambassador for Fascist 14
Occasionally answers to the name "Jason Reed"
looking for something decent (in contrast to all this drivel) to put in his .sig

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:40:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 218 Verdict

The following, CFJ 218, has been judged FALSE. Its a shame, I rather
liked those 2 well-earned Blue Crosses next to /dev/joe's name on
the Web page.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 218
  Subject:  Multiple Blue Crosses
Initiator:  Malenaki
    Judge:  Bascule (selected Jul 6, 1996, 23:50h New York Time)

Statement:

      /dev/joe has 2 Blue Crosses

Reasoning:

Malenkai, acting in his capacity as ProConsul, awarded him one for
having 20 proposals passed.

ThinMan, acting in his capacity as Senator, awarded him one for
having 20 proposals passed.

Therefore he has 2 of them. R 549 is quite clear:

> Blue Crosses and Silver Stripes are awarded by the President, the
> Proconsul, or a Senator. Each time one is to be awarded, it is created
> for the occasion by the Frobozz Magic Medal Company, Ackanomic Division.

I have both e-mails if the judge requires them for evidence.

Bascule's reasoning:

>From R549:
>Once 20 or more proposals submitted by any particular player have
>been accepted, that player shall be awarded a Blue Cross as
>recognition of merit and services to Ackanomic.

A _singular_ Blue Cross is awarded.

The dodgy paragraph from R549:
>Blue Crosses and Silver Stripes are awarded by the President, the
>Proconsul, or a Senator. Each time one is to be awarded, it is
>created for the occasion by the Frobozz Magic Medal Company,
>Ackanomic Division.

Only one shall be awarded though. Whoever awarded it first did so as
per 549, once this happened, R549 did not stipulate that a second
could be awarded.

549 again:
>Blue Crosses, Silver Stripes, and Gold Stripes shall only be created
>and destroyed as specified by the Rules.

So a second could not be created by invoking R115. A verdict of false
is required.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:49:19 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 221 Verdict

The following, CFJ 221, has been judged TRUE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 221
  Subject:  Retracted proposals
Initiator:  Mellon
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:04h New York Time)

Statement:

A retracted proposal can fail due to quorum, and then penalties
according to rule 207, 3rd paragraph shall be distributed.

Mellon's Reasoning:

[none provided - CotC]

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The court found the following rules relevant:

R 104 (immutable) "All proposals made in the proper way shall be voted
on. [...]"

R 201 (mutable) "Quorum is defined to be 50% of the active registered
players."

R 207 (mutable) "[...] When a proposal does not meet quorum, each active
player who was not on vacation and abstained on the proposal shall lose 5
points and be placed on vacation."

R 414 (mutable) "The Duties of the Tabulator are: (a) to count votes on
each proposal (b) to maintain the voting records [...] (c) to report the
acceptance or rejection of each proposal [...]"

R 423 (mutable) "A player may retract their own proposal [...] All votes cast
on a retracted proposal shall be ignored. [...]"

R 463 (mutable) "Players may vote YES, NO, or PRESENT on a proposal, or
choose not to vote on a proposal, which is called abstaining.  [...]"

>From CFJ 219 we have that R 423 does not conflict with R 104, or with anyother immutable rule.  In particular, that means that retracted proposals
shall still be voted on.  It is entirely possible, therefore, that such
a proposal may fail due to quorum, and in that case the relevant section
of R 207 clearly applies.  The statement submitted for judgement is therefore
TRUE.

However, this does not establish that every retracted proposal _will_ fail
due to not meeting quorum.  I note that R 414 has precedence over R 423
by the numerical method.  Thus by R 414, the tabulator must count votes on
retracted proposals and maintain the voting records for each player on
retracted proposals.  In my opinion, maintaining voting records is
inconsistent with ignoring votes.  Therefore, R 423 has no effect.

Finally, I note that the above reasoning is merely this court's opinion,
and is non-binding.  Only the truth of the submitted statement is entered
into game custom.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 16:58:44 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official 

At 07:16 PM 7/10/96 -0400, Malenkai wrote:

>In the other thread, pTang1001001sos and Bascule are still deliberating,
>and are late on CFJ 211. The penalty is A$2/day. They should deliberate,
>as this thread may collapse, pending the CFJ that confirms pTang. To the
>extent that verdicts are the same in both threads, some simplicity can
>be gained. One the other hand, pTang has a *legal* obligation to consider
>the appeals in this thread, or suffer the penalty. 
>
>I also point out, if this thread is validated, pTang's announced intent to
>resign will not be sufficient to put mr cwm in the office, IMHO. The CFJ
>comfirming pTang will have retroactive application, thereby invalidating
>the mr cwm appointment.

Yes, I agree.  I intend to resign (if indeed I am a Justice) once all of
the major threads have collapsed.  Then the nomination process can begin
anew.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:55:03 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 226 Verdict

The following, CFJ 226, has been judged FALSE. Thankfully, this
one came in fast. Imagine the possible thread splitting on judging
CFJ 222 if this one sat out there for a while.

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.

Mellon's Reasoning:

R588 states:
"...  a Judge is randomly selected from among the other active players
that are eligible to judge CFJs, as defined by any other applicable rules."

According to R691, Kelly Martin is/was a deadbeat judge. The question
is if a deatbeat judge is eligable to judge or not. R691 does not say
anything on this matter, and neither do any other rule. So my verdict
to CFJ226 is: FALSE.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:00:43 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 225 (Mohammed)

De'ghew declined.

Mohammed 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 10, 1996, 20:05h 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: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:09:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 227(ThinMan)

ThinMan, ironically enough, has been chosen to judge the following. The
die does not lie.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 227
  Subject:  Game Custom Paradox
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jul 10, 1996, 20:11h New York Time)

Statement:

It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond
that explicitly defined by rule 545 and by the judgements of CFJs
which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)
and in making judgements when the rules are unclear (as in Rule 215).

/dev/joe's Note:

If this CFJ is judged true, /dev/joe wins the game by rule 219.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

When Rule 660 came into effect on April 30th, Game Custom became
protected.  Thus, it "may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated
except as specified by the Rules." (rule 592 -- this was "except in
accordance with the rules" until proposal 869 was accepted on June 13th.)
This rule does not invalidate pre-existing game custom, nor does any
other rule, rule change, or CFJ (except in specific instances where
old game custom is replaced by newer game custom or rules which
contradict the older game custom).  Thus, game custom in many areas
is unchanged from that time.

Before that time, it was unclear whether game custom could be changed
other than by the ways defined in the rules.  Rule 115 says (and has
always said, since the beginning of the game):

  Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted
  and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is
  permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly
  permits it.

In CFJ 113, this rule was interpreted to mean that anything that is
regulated in any way by the rules can only be manipulated as the rules
specify.  This was accepted as a "game custom" by the judge of that CFJ,
and has similarly been accepted as game custom by many judges since that
time.  Note, though, that this was not the statement of that CFJ, so it
did not become an explicit part of game custom by rule 216.  (The statement
of the CFJ was that Wayne's gaining of 85 points [when he tried to claim
them by rule 115] was illegal, and thus Wayne did not win the game.)
Nor do the statements of any other CFJs address this issue. (CFJs 168,
208, and 216 concern game custom, but not this issue in general or as
it applies to game custom itself.)

Before Rule 660 was created, game custom was regulated by four rules:
Rule 216 defines a way for something to become part of game custom.
Rule 545 (originally 466) defines a specific game custom.
Rule 101 gives an allowed use for game custom. (interpreting the rules)
Rule 215 gives another allowed use.
Rules 101, 215, and 216 have existed in their current forms since the
beginning of the game.

Therefore (*), if we accepted this game custom at that time, then game custom
could not be created except as the rules specify -- and only rules 216 and
545 allowed it to be created.  But then we could not have accepted this game
custom, because the the rules which were judged to have this effect have
existed, unchanged, since the beginning of the game.  However, if we did not
accept this game custom, then we can create game custom in ways besides
what is specified by the rules, and the actions of many players show them
as having created this game custom.  Return to (*) above.

By the argument in the preceding paragraph, it is impossible to determine
with finality whether game custom could have ever been created, other than
that explicitly defined by the judgements of CFJs or in the rules.  Thus,
it is impossible to determine what game custom existed at the time Rule 660
took effect, and therefore it is impossible to determine what game custom
exists now.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #103
*******************************