Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #104
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Thursday, July 11 1996        Volume 01 : Number 104

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:08:19 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official S.C. 

In the thread where I am found to be a Justice:

 I concur with Bascule on CFJs 200,211 and 217.  On 200 and 217, without
comment.
 
 My reasoning on CFJ211 is:
 
 ThinMan did not win when he asserted to change "n", the variable referred to in
 R110.  R110 is a "template" Rule.  That is, it establishes conditions for the
 Rules that actually do the work of specifying what the winning conditions are.
 
 Note that R110 does not say that achieving n points is a win condition.
 Instead, it says that any win condition established in the rules must fit the
 general form "Winning player achieves a certain number of points."

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:21:35 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 227(ThinMan) 

From CFJ 227:
>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.

We accepted a game custom that said that game custom could not be created
except as the rules specify.  Note that this game custom does NOT have to
apply to its own creation.

It is much like passing a rule that says:
"No Rule with the letter "e" in its text may be adopted"

It only takes affect after its adoption.  It does not forbid its own adoption.

Same with the game custom that disallows game customs to be created out of
thin air.  It was the last one of its kind, for it created a "lock out".

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:44:35 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Discussion CFJs 

An argument concerning the state of game custom:

The judgement of CFJ113 reflects the fact that a game custom
was created that put an interpretation on R115, and how it
affected the permissibility of certain actions.  The judge for
CFJ113 claimed that the game custom existed before that CFJ was
issued.  Whatever.

At some point a game custom was created that said that things
that are regulated by the Rules may not be manipulated.  This
included the set of game custom as well, although it seems that
no-one realized this.

At the point where that game custom was created, the whole set
of game custom was "locked in" with the exception of those
customs which were properly added as specified in the Rules.
(to wit, the statements of all CFJs judged TRUE.)

So, to resolve the issue of whether it is permissible to vote
in the manner that we are currently doing, we must look back
to how it was done when the "locking" game custom was established.

Discuss?

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 21:39:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 222

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

[rehash of the referential problems of applying CFJ 113's reasoning cut]

> However, by rule 660, game custom is protected.  Since it is protected, by
> rule 592 it may not be created, destroyed, or manipulated except as
> specified by the Rules, and it has no effect on the game other than those
> effects specified by the Rules.

I'm admittedly missing something. What about the game custom that existed
before it was protected, or existed before the "weak protection" offered
by CFJ 113's reasoning, in some people's minds? Namely the clarifying 
customary interpretation of R 104. 

Did that "go away" when custom became protected? Are you saying that the
paradox is that R 660 attempts to "create" custom whilst saying custom
cannot be created? 

This is the part I'm missing.

> Thus, I find myself agreeing with this sentence from ThinMan's reasoning
> on CFJ 222, though I disagree with the method he came to this conclusion:
> 
>   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.
>

How was the old custom *destroyed*, if it was protected? (I know I sound
dense, I just don't get the part about where the old stuff went. I can
buy the fact that no new stuff can be created, after protection).
 
> This severely breaks the game :-( 

Not necessarily. The Governor wanted to try playing the game without game
custom. Perhaps there are enough rules which do not need customary
interpretations to get by. If there are none, then the CFJs cannot be
judged, because it is unclear how to apply the rules to them, and unclear
how to submit the verdicts to the CotC, and unclear how the CotC is to
distribute them! Snail mail, anyone.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 21:59:52 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 988

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Proposal 988 - Wed Jul 10 01:28:13 EDT 1996
> Selecting A Judge
> Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)
> 
> A proposal to replace the text of R588 entirely with the following text:
> 

This proposal eliminates an important provision of R 588; namely, that
defendants in CFCJs, people who alledgedly break the rules, may not be
selected to judge the CFCJ called against them. Thats a good, common
sense provision, and we should keep it.

Therefore, I ugre a vote of NO on this proposal.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 22:23:48 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion CFJs

>So, to resolve the issue of whether it is permissible to vote
>in the manner that we are currently doing, we must look back
>to how it was done when the "locking" game custom was established.
>
>Discuss?

This whole thing is patently absurd. Game custom exists on its own. Stop 
nitpicking, people.

tinan

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Don't be so humble -- you are not that great."
                                   --Golda Meir to a visiting diplomat
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 22:45:52 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: mr cwm

I am sending this on behalf of mr cwm. He did not actually ask me to do 
so, but seeing as mail to him just bounced, I think it probable that he 
is out of email contact, if not actually evacuated. And according to CNN, 
a million people were just evacuated.

mr cwm should probably be placed on vacation if this is legal.

>Subject:     Acka:  Personal Request (Disaster Vacation)
>Sent:        7/10/96 2:50 PM
>Received:    7/10/96 5:31 PM
>From:        mr cwm, [email-masked]
>To:          this is not a name, [email-masked]
>
>I'd like to be put on vacation if Savannah, Georgia, is evacuated due to
>hurricane Bertha.  I'm not sure how to handle that, since I have to make a
>public request to be put on vacation, but I don't want to be on vacation
>until it is too late to make the request. Just between two players, could
>I send a request to you that you would forward to the list if you saw that
>Savannah was evacuated?  I'd appreciate it.
>
>-mr cwm

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Was it you or your brother who was killed in the war?"
                                       --William Spooner
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:46:34 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion CFJs 

>>Discuss?
>
>This whole thing is patently absurd. Game custom exists on its own. Stop
>nitpicking, people.

Thank god.  It's about time someone said that.  I have come to believe that
custom should be created by majority rule (mob rule?) and that game custom
cannot be created, but evolves, regardless of what is and is not protected.
I am so sick of playing out all of these mutiple threads and stupid little
arguments whenthe true fun of the game comes from creative rule changes.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:55:15 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:  Vacation 

To:   Ackanomians
From: mr cwm

Although it looks like Savannah will not have to evacuate due to hurricane
Bertha, my ISP, being an edu-thing, decided to pull the plug early, in the
middle of my reply to ThinMan's comments on game custom, in fact.  Although I
hope they will be up and running again soon, I have had no information from
them.  So, please put me on vacation.  I will return when I have my own
access again.  Thanks.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:15:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: mr cwm's vacation

[email-masked]
> To:   Ackanomians
> From: mr cwm
> 
> Although it looks like Savannah will not have to evacuate due to hurricane
> Bertha, my ISP, being an edu-thing, decided to pull the plug early, in the
> middle of my reply to ThinMan's comments on game custom, in fact.  Although I
> hope they will be up and running again soon, I have had no information from
> them.  So, please put me on vacation.  I will return when I have my own
> access again.  Thanks.

Nothing has actually bounced yet, but since there are 18 messages in
my outgoing mail spool, all marked as from ackanomic, and all marked
with the status:
  Deferred: Connection timed out with pirates.armstrong.edu.
I must believe this story.  Now I know where Armstrong State College is.
(Never bothered to find out, before.)

mr cwm is on vacation.

I hope the hurricane doesn't tear the place up too badly.  I grew up in
Corpus Christi, where it's a regular summertime activity to track hurricanes
in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, although it seems that for a long
time Corpus has been lucky and not had any real hurricanes hit there (75 mph
weaklings excepted).  The last big hurricane to hit there was Allen in 1980.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:24:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 221 Verdict

> 
> The following, CFJ 221, has been judged TRUE.
> 
> 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.

I hereby take myself off vacation if I am on vacation.
Wayne, I vote NO on all retracted proposals which I can currently vote on.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #104
*******************************