Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #106
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Thursday, July 11 1996        Volume 01 : Number 106

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:39:37 +0300
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka : retract 988 

I'm retracting proposal 988, and resubmitting it, with the complete text of
the second paragraph intact. Since that wasn't the part that needed fixing
anyway.
Thank you Malenkai for calling my attention to this

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:37:51 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: 211

I too am unhappy about my reasoning in the 211 appeal.

mr cwm has mailed me privately, and I think he is right, that
"giving" something to a player also implies it's creation, eg with
points. So we may have been given RHGs, of which only one can exist.

I am loathe to issue any AOJ at this time, because CFJs 214 and 216
still haven't been judged, but we've been waiting so long for
verdicts that I think that pre-empting them may be called for. 

Unfortunately, real life intrudes, I'm going on vacation (holiday!)
now, until Monday or Tuesday, so I have insufficient time to consult
with pTang1001001sos and Niccolo Flychuck on any AOJ. I'm declaring
this to enable Malenkai to appoint another acting Justice if he deems
it necessary in this time of uncertainty. (It's a real shame - I've 
been really looking forward to issuing an AOJ :-) )

My own feeling is that either 214 or 216 is likely to overturn our 
communal win, and that 211 will be ruled false for this reason. If 
the win stands, I think 211 should be ruled TRUE, and Malenkai will 
get (another) paradox win.

Bascule

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:01:41 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic: Official 

I am back... Please remove me from vacation. And also, please direct me to
the new web page that I might reacquaint myself with the rules...

Robert Sevin

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:11:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: 211

> mr cwm has mailed me privately, and I think he is right, that
> "giving" something to a player also implies it's creation, eg with
> points. So we may have been given RHGs, of which only one can exist.

Except that if Rule 666 does create grapefruit, the precedence argument
holds -- rule 666 has precedence over rule 867, so 867 will not prevent
666 from making as many grapefruits as it attempts to (which will only
be one, except in the odd case of multiple simultaneous wins).

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 14:25:41 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Official

At 04:01 PM 7/11/96 -0600, Mitchell Harding wrote:
>I am back... Please remove me from vacation. And also, please direct me to
>the new web page that I might reacquaint myself with the rules...
>
>Robert Sevin

Hey!  Welcome back, Mitch!

- -pTang1001001sos / Mark

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:44:35 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 222 (Kelly Martin) 

"Malenkai" == Malenkai  <[email-masked]> writes:

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

i accept assignment.

k.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 14:31:39 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion CFJs

At 9:32 AM 7/11/96, John Bollinger wrote:

>(1) I submit that nitpicking is an important part of Nomic.
>
I agree here, but I don't agree with the extent it has been taken to lately.

>(2) This is _not_ absurd.  If we did not have rules that use, govern, and
>regulate game custom then it would exist on its own, but we do, so it
>doesn't.

Custom, by definition cannot be created or destroyed by rules, but instead
_evolves_ based on the actions of players, CFJs, etc.  If we have rules
that state otherwise, than we don't really have game custom, we have game
procedure, and the rules should be changed to reflect that fact.
>
>(3) snowgod is entitled to his opinion of what constitutes the "true fun of
>the game," but I disagree with him.  What I enjoy most, I think, is the
>debate.  Next, I enjoy creative _use_ of the rules.  Thirdly I enjoy
>creative and useful rule changes.

I too enjoy the debate, and creative use of the rules, first and foremost I
enjoy creative rule changes (this is after all a rule changing game)
>
>(4) Anyone who is sick of multiple threads and "stupid little arguments"
>might wish to subscribe to Nobs' agenda to clean up and clarify the rule set.
>I find it hard to believe that snowgod is complaining about these things
>when just days ago he was advocating leaving the rules vague and ambiguous.

I am not so much complaining about these things, as am just sick of their
occurance.  They are not the fault of the rules, but the "fault" (I use
that term loosely) of the players.  Ackanomic has recently switched from a
substanative game (where players attempt to win by rule change and magic
number) to a procedural game (where players try to win by loophole surfing
and legal action).  I guess it is this game turn I object to, more than
anything else.
>
>ThinMan

snowgod

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 18:05:24 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: Discussion 

"Matt" == Matt  <[email-masked]> writes:

Matt> I think the CFJ must hold sway until it is overturned. 

i disagree, on the basis that if a CFJ is overturned, then it was
wrong from the moment it was issued.  it would be a miscarriage of
justice to allow an incorrect Judgement to determine legal play _at
any time_.

Matt> An analogy with real-life can be drawn here; when an appeal
Matt> rules that someone is innocent, they are released from prison
Matt> and are said to have been innocent all along, although they
Matt> served time in prison.

the analogy fails.  most real-life courts are adversarial, and in a
appeal, the appellant bears a burden of proving that the judgement of
the trial court was wrong.  punishment can be imposed (but may
nonetheless be withheld at the discretion of either the trial or
appellant court) because the appellant's claims have already failed to
meet the applicable burdens of proof at the trial court level.

Nomic courts, and specifically Ackanomic's courts, are not
adversarial.  there is no "plaintiff", and no "defendant" (even in a
CFCJ; the defendant in a CFCJ has none of the rights of a defendant
under FRCrimP).  the burden of proof in a CFJ falls not on the caller,
but rather on the judge.  any party can appeal any CFJ (not merely the
nonprevailing party permitted under FRAppP), and the burden of proof
in an appeal falls on the justices, not the appealing party.

given the fact that in Ackanomic a party may be directly affected by
a judgement without having any right to participate in the process of
finding that judgement, it seems only fair to suspend punishments
during the pendency of appeal, because the appealing party in such a
case has not failed to demonstrate the validity of his claim at the
time the appeal is first made.

by the way, the lack of a requirement that the advocate for a claim
demonstrate the correctness of the claim is a failing of the standard
Nomic judicial system, in my opinion.  it allows players to make any
claim whatsoever, leaving the details to the judge to sort out.

k.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:06:38 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: acka: Electronic Potato (ThinMan) 

As owner of the Electronic Potato, I am entitled to A$2 everytime one of my
proposals pass.

Could the financer please add A$2 to my account for "Silly Vacation Hats,
Creation of"?

snowgod

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:02:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeachemnt Paper

Ackanomians, I encourage you to at least *vote* on this IP. Alot of
bandwidth was spent on the problem the acting senators were causing,
and I present a good faith solution. A quorum of 50% is required
(I'm not sure about vacationers, I have not read the "fine print"
yet), and 2/3 or more in favor are required for actual impeachment.

Note the votes go to me (Assistant Tabulator), not Wayne.

Thanks,
Malenkai

> ]
> ] Impeachment Paper
> ]
> ] Impeachment papers are regulated by R 613, which claims precedence over
> ] everything.
> ]
> ] The rules require that they be sent to the Promoter, who will distribute
> ] it, and tabulated by the Assistant Tabulator. A player may only write one
> ] Impeachment Paper per week.
> ]
> ] I am writing this Impeachment Paper to impeach Senator fon. He announced
> ] intent to go on vacation until September. He should have resigned before
> ] leaving.
> ]
> ] This is a good faith attempt to find a compromise between the position
> ] that the vacationing players needn't be removed from the game, and the
> ] position that they are causing problems holding the Senator seats.
> ]
> ] Malenkai
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> I am distributing this as requested by Malenkai
> 
> Wayne

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:07:10 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Holy Justice, Batman!

I am appointing pTang1001001sos as Acting Justice for Bascule in the 
thread where mr cwm has been confirmed:
	Acting Justice: Niccolo Flychuck (mr cwm)
	Acting Justice: pTang (Bascule)

I am appointing Niccolo Flychuck as Acting Justice for Bascule in the 
thread where pTang1001001sos has been confirmed:
	Acting Justice: Niccolo Flychuck (Bascule)
	Justice: pTang (confirmed in this thread)

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 18:15:24 -0500
From: Kelly Martin <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: Acka: I win (was CFJ 228) 

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

John> By R115 I declare that the "spirit of the game" is _now_ that
John> "Malenkai may never win, nor did he within the last week, and no
John> one but ThinMan may change the spirit of the game."

by R115, not to mention common sense, i declare that the mere fact
that something is permitted does not imply that it is possible.

k.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:12:25 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: acka: Electronic Potato (ThinMan)

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> As owner of the Electronic Potato, I am entitled to A$2 everytime one of my
> proposals pass.
> 
> Could the financer please add A$2 to my account for "Silly Vacation Hats,
> Creation of"?

I also don't recall if Niccolo was properly credited for his magic potato
points on a couple of proposals which recently passed.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:25:31 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeachemnt Paper 

At 07:02 PM 7/11/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Ackanomians, I encourage you to at least *vote* on this IP. Alot of
>bandwidth was spent on the problem the acting senators were causing,
>and I present a good faith solution. A quorum of 50% is required
>(I'm not sure about vacationers, I have not read the "fine print"
>yet), and 2/3 or more in favor are required for actual impeachment.
>
>Note the votes go to me (Assistant Tabulator), not Wayne.
>
>Thanks,
>Malenkai

I vote FOR the impeachment.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:30:23 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 215 (tinan)

This was originally assigned to Brinjal, who accepted, but then
failed to reach verdict in 7 days. I believe he loses 10 points,
but is not declared a deadbeat. In any case, it has been
reassigned. Justice indeed lives on, at a pace slower than erosion,
however.

this is not a name has 3 days to accept/decline this.

Call for Judgement 215
  Subject:  Justice Lives on
Initiator:  mr cwm
    Judge:  Brinjal (failed to deliver verdict)
2nd Judge:  this is not a name (selected at 19:33h New York Time on 11 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.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:42:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 227 (pTang)

ThinMan declined: His comments:

I must decline to judge CFJ 227.  I do not consider a pre-established opinion
on the matter to constitute a conflict of interest, but I do note that the
outcome of this CFJ, returned before CFJ 222, should dictate the outcome of
CFJ 222 -- but not necessarilly the other way around.  That _is_ a conflict
of interest.  If I win, I want it to be completely on the up and up.

It has been reassinged to pTang. 3 days accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Judgement 227
  Subject:  Game Custom Paradox
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  ThinMan (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  pTang1001001sos (selected Jul 11, 1996, 19:47h 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.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:53:18 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 229 (tinan)

Bascule declined.

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 229
  Subject:  Spirit of the Game
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  Bascule (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  this is not a name (selected Jul 11, 1996, 19:55h New York Time)

Statement:

Spirit of the game is permitted and unregulated, by Rule 115,
because it is not prohibited or regulated.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

In the entire rule set, the term "spirit of the game" appears
only in Rule 215.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:07:34 -0700
From: Mark Nau <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official 

Hey, fun.  I'm switching jobs (San Jose to LA),
and I'm leaving this job one week earlier than
I expected (security issues).

What this means is that I'll without Email for
a few weeks come this Friday.

So,

I resign from Justice if I am one, and go on
vacation as of now.

Have fun, see ya'll in a short while.

- -pTang1001001sos

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:05:16 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 231 (/dev/joe)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 231
  Subject:  External Concept
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jul 11, 1996, 20:09h New York Time)

Statement:

Before the adoption of R660, "game custom" was a concept
external to the scope of the Rules.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

First thing is to establish that there are things outside
the scope of the Rules.  The meanings of the words used
in the Rule set, for example.  Or deductive reasoning.

Is it allowable for a Player to declare that the text
"rules" really refers to a particular species of mammal
referred to in English as "skunk"?  No.  Nor can it be
in any playable game.  Even the Rule "The Rules must be
parsed in English" must be parsed in English before we
know what it says.  What if I claim that the Rule was
written in some other language?

Is it allowable for a Player to claim that when A implies
B and B implies C, A implies not C?  No.  The implications
of tinkering in this realm are obviously disastrous.

Some may blame all this on R115.  Actually, any game must
have understandings that are external to the Rules.
It must, or it is broken before it begins.  I refer you
back to my language argument two paragraphs above.  No
matter what any Rule's text says, we must go outside the
Rules in order to parse it.

The claim of this CFJ is that game custom was one of these
things that was external to the scope of the Rules.  It
was not an acka-entity that could be manipulated freely.
Rather, it evolved following social rules that are entirely
outside the purview of the Rules.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:23:41 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

At 5:07 PM 7/11/96, Mark Nau wrote:
>Hey, fun.  I'm switching jobs (San Jose to LA),
>and I'm leaving this job one week earlier than
>I expected (security issues).
>
>What this means is that I'll without Email for
>a few weeks come this Friday.
>
>So,
>
>I resign from Justice if I am one, and go on
>vacation as of now.

Have fun with the move.  We anxiously await your returnm.  We'll have a
beautiful Silly Vacation Hat waiting for you upon your return.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:06:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

pTang wrote:
> I resign from Justice if I am one, and go on
> vacation as of now.

At least he had the decency to resign before going on a long vacation.

In the thread where pTang1001001sos was confirmed as Justice (as opposed
to being appointed acting Justice) I choose mr cwm to be Justice (which
will result in Malenkai appointing an acting Justice in this thread if
he is confirmed before coming off vacation, but he has to appoint someone
in the other thread anyway...

- --
/dev/joe
President
still acting Registrar for chess piece face
some other stuff too

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:12:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 232 (snowgod)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 232
  Subject:  Halting Problem
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  snowgod (selected Jul 11, 1996, 21:16h New York Time)

Statement:

If CFJ 227 is judged TRUE, its verdict may not be delivered.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

To prove the Truth of the above statement, I must demonstrate 
how Judging CFJ 227 TRUE leads to the impossibility of delivering its
verdict. In such case, it would also be impossible to deliver the verdict
on any CFJ (including 222), but that fact would not be known, in general.

CFJ 227 asserts the Truth of the following 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).

For this demonstration, I need not accept the Truth of the above statment,
only *assume* that it is judged TRUE, by its Judge, for the purposes of 
discussion.

Assuming it is Judged TRUE, how does the Judge deliver Judgement? I quote
from R 213, Delivering Judgement: 

> Having accepted the appointment, a Judge has exactly one week in which 
> to post an official Judgement. A Judge who fails to deliver Judgement
> within that period is penalized 10 points.

The key phrase is "in which to post an official judgement". Post it to
whom? The CotC? The Supreme Court of Uruguay? Post it how? Via snail
mail to Austin, or to the CotC in Pennsylvania? An international datagram
to Uruguay? email??

The rules are "silent", and "unclear" on the issue. R 101 gives a method
to interpret the rules; namely "in accordance with currently existing
game custom".

Yet the Judge has the Truth of CFJ 227's statement, assumed above:

"It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom [...]
which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)."

The Judge cannot legally interpret how to "post" as in above. He or she
cannot determine whether to send it to Uruguay. He or she sits there 
forever, unable to figure out how to deliver judgement, and thus cannot.

I note that this argument could not be applied to CFJ 222 directly, 
because you cannot assume the Truth of the reasoning from the Truth of
the verdict :(. Compliments to ThinMan.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 04:20:30 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Impeachemnt Paper

I vote FOR impeachment

Tabulator, Speaker, whoever, please note

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:43:26 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

I am appointing Wayne acting Justice for Bascule's seat, recently
vacated by pTang, in that thread. A quick confirmation of mr cwm by
the senate could simplify things (which senators?).

A note on CFJs: Alot of people have declined CFJs lately, in some
cases citing an inordinate of CFJs coming in their direction. I 
just want to point out that relatively speaking, it is not an
inordinate amount, given a) the high quantity lately, b) the high
number of declinations, and c) the high number of deadbeats.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:55:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 230 (tinan)

Pascal declined. Reassigned to this is not a name.

Call For Judgement 230 - 
Subject: Claiming to win
Initiator: Techno
Judge: Pascal (declined to judge)
2nd Judge: Pascal (selected Jul 11, 1996, 22:00h New York Time)

Statement: 

      I claim to win the game, and no one can stop me.. 

Initiator's Comments: 

      This CFJ cannot be determined with finality, as I can appeal the
ruling for infinity. per R219/0, I must be declared the winner. 

Judge's Comments:

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 96 22:01:54 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

>I am appointing Wayne acting Justice for Bascule's seat, recently
>vacated by pTang, in that thread. A quick confirmation of mr cwm by
>the senate could simplify things (which senators?).

I vote yes on the matter of the confirmation of mr cwm.

tinan, acting senator seat d

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
   A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:59:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 220 (De'ghew)

Pascal declined. De'ghew has 3 days.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 220
  Subject:  Closing the polls
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Pascal (declined)
2nd Judge:  De'ghew (selected Jul 11, 1996, 22:04h New York Time)

Statement:

Each Player gets to vote exactly once during the entire game of Ackanomic.

pTang1001001sos' reasoning:
 
Read R390.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:04:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 227 (tinan)

pTang declined before going on vacation.

It has been reassinged to this is not a name. 3 days accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Judgement 227
  Subject:  Game Custom Paradox
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  ThinMan (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  pTang1001001sos (declined to judge)
3rd Judge:  this is not a name (selected Jul 11, 1996, 22:08h 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.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:16:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

> >I am appointing Wayne acting Justice for Bascule's seat, recently
> >vacated by pTang, in that thread. A quick confirmation of mr cwm by
> >the senate could simplify things (which senators?).
> 
> I vote yes on the matter of the confirmation of mr cwm.
> 
> tinan, acting senator seat d

I would like to point out that in the thread where pTang was confirmed as
Justice, which is the same thread where I am now appointing mr cwm Justice,
acting senators cannot vote on confirming justices.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:42:13 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> 
> I would like to point out that in the thread where pTang was confirmed as
> Justice, which is the same thread where I am now appointing mr cwm Justice,
> acting senators cannot vote on confirming justices.

I point out in both threads, fon is an acting senator by R 613 (iii).

That means in one thread, there are 2 acting senators for that seat.
I don't remember which one. R 613 is a pTang rule, which means it
claims precedence over everything, but can it claim precedence over
Mohammed's previous appointment to that seat? I think not. 

Unfortunately, the current judicial crisis (massive submissions,
declinations, vacations, deadbeats), is giving the CotC many hours a
work a night, not leaving time to fish through who is the acting senator
for that seat, in that thread, or if there is a paradox.

Anyone else, feel free....

BTW, the CotC page is updated on the main web page, with the multitude of
justice in the queue.

Malenkai
Burnt out. This is more work than my *real* job.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:52:31 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 231 Verdict

The following, CFJ 231, has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 231
  Subject:  External Concept
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jul 11, 1996, 20:09h New York Time)

Statement:

Before the adoption of R660, "game custom" was a concept
external to the scope of the Rules.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

First thing is to establish that there are things outside
the scope of the Rules.  The meanings of the words used
in the Rule set, for example.  Or deductive reasoning.

Is it allowable for a Player to declare that the text
"rules" really refers to a particular species of mammal
referred to in English as "skunk"?  No.  Nor can it be
in any playable game.  Even the Rule "The Rules must be
parsed in English" must be parsed in English before we
know what it says.  What if I claim that the Rule was
written in some other language?

Is it allowable for a Player to claim that when A implies
B and B implies C, A implies not C?  No.  The implications
of tinkering in this realm are obviously disastrous.

Some may blame all this on R115.  Actually, any game must
have understandings that are external to the Rules.
It must, or it is broken before it begins.  I refer you
back to my language argument two paragraphs above.  No
matter what any Rule's text says, we must go outside the
Rules in order to parse it.

The claim of this CFJ is that game custom was one of these
things that was external to the scope of the Rules.  It
was not an acka-entity that could be manipulated freely.
Rather, it evolved following social rules that are entirely
outside the purview of the Rules.

/dev/joe's reasoning:

I accept judgement on this (although if it was only a slightly different
statement, I would have refused, for it would be too similar to a CFJ
I myself submitted), and I judge it false.

I (somewhat) agree with a statement posted recently by snowgod; game custom
_should_ be something external to the scope of the rules.  However, this
is not so, for since the beginning of the game, Rule 216 has defined a
procedure for explicitly creating game custom.  I will not attempt to reason
here whether game custom could have been created in other ways, outside of
the rules, before rule 660 came into effect.  I must follow rule 215, and
judge the statement in accordance with the rules (unless they are silent,
inconsistent, or unclear on the matter).  The rules are not silent on the
matter; they are not inconsistent (no rule conflicts with the way rule
216 allows for the explicit creation of game custom), and rule 216 is one
of the few rules in the rule set (in this judge's opinion) that is clear.

The way "game custom" is used in Ackanomic's rule set does not agree with
the customary English definition of the word "custom"; however, a CFJ is
not an effective manner to change this, because of the requirement in rule
215 that my judgement is in accordance with the rules.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 96 23:50:45 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1010

Proposal 1010 - Thu Jul 11 23:50:45 EDT 1996
amend 588
Niccolo Flychuck  (Uri Bruck)

A proposal to replace the text of R588 entirely with the following text:

"A.When Judgement has been called for, the following procedure shall be
followed:
1. Let TJI be the sum total of JIs of all players who are eligible to be
selected
as Judges for a given CFJ.
2. The probability that any single player will be selected a Judge for a
given CFJ is calculated as JI divided by TJI, and may be denoted as JP.
Hence for each player 
JP=JI/TJI  ;   0<=JP<=1 [[in probabilty, p=1 is certainty, p=0 is certainly
not :)]]
3. The officer in charge in selecting Judges, will select the judges
randomlly according to the probabilities calculated for each player.
4. When a player is selected to be a judge for a specific CFJ, eir JI is
decreased by 1, regardless of the verdict the Judge returns.
5. a. The player selected has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the
appointment by posting, either publically or privately,  to the applicable
officer. Any player who does not respond
to selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is deemed to have
refused appointment.
b. If a selected player refuses appointment, then that player is no longer
considered eligible for judgement on that CFJ, and a new player is selected
according to the method described in this rule

B.     If the CFJ is a Call For Criminal Judgement (CFCJ), the player or
     players against which the CFCJ is being called are excluded from
     "the other active players" and "remaining pool" as described
     above. This exclusion is made before the random determination is
     made. In other words, a player who has a CFCJ called against them
     may not be selected to judge that CFCJ."

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 00:22:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 233 (ThinMan)

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 233
  Subject:  Potatoes and Godel
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  ThinMan (selected Jul 12, 1996, 00:26h New York Time)

Statement:

Proposals 922 and 924 were Adopted, and thus all effects which occur
when proposals are Adopted should occur with respect to these 2.

Malenkai's reasoning:

As [1] below, for each proposal, I have included the published
voting results, including who voted yes. I note that the voting periods
for these proposals ended 00:22 and 00:23 EDT, Jun 26, 1996. I also note
that my Yes vote for each was not tallied, and that in each case, the
addition of my Yes vote would have given the proposals enough votes
to be accepted, by the rules in effect at the time.

As [2] below, I give a cut from the nomicbot of my voting results for
the proposals in question. I note that it is not the full e-mail, with
header, but such can be provided to the Judge, if the Judge requires such
evidence.

There is no reason that my votes should not have been counted, and applied
to the results. I note that I left the game very close to that time, and
in doing so, probably caused the confusion, and apologize. The date of
the e-mail  announcing that I was leaving the game is Wed, 3 Jul 1996
01:23:57 EDT. (I have that one too, if the Judge needs it). Note that
this is after the voting period on the proposals ended. Furthermore,
I note that I didn't officially leave the game until the Registrar
announced the fact, although this is not really relavant.

Upon a verdict of TRUE, the rules will be updated with the changes called
for by the Proposals, scores adjusted, and the effects in the proposals
carried out, including, but not limited to, the Web-Harfer's points for
posting Godel information on the Web-Page. [Its interesting to note that
the Web-Harfer provides a link to Penrose, one of my favorites. I would
recommend "The Emperor's New Mind" and "Shadow's of the Mind" by Roger
Penrose].

- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
[1]

Here are the voting results for : 922
  Proposal 922 - Wed Jun 26 00:22:49 EDT 1996
  Lazy
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

7 YES votes   4 NO votes   3 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Malenkai loses 9 points.  -9 -> -18

7 YES votes:  1 point each
  Niccolo Flychuck                              0 -> 1
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             1 -> 2
  /dev/joe               Nobs                   9 -> 10
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             1 -> 2
  pTang1001001sos                               0 -> 1
  Wayne                  Underworld             0 -> 1
  Mohammed               Nobs                   1 -> 2

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

Here are the voting results for : 924
  Proposal 924 - Wed Jun 26 00:23:35 EDT 1996
  Required Reading
  Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Quorum met : 17 eligible voters -- 14 players cast votes

9 YES votes   5 NO votes   1 PRESENT votes
Proposal FAILS

Malenkai loses 9 points.  -27 -> -36

9 YES votes:  1 point each
  Robin Hood                                    0 -> 1
  De'ghew                Underworld             1 -> 2
  Bascule                                       1 -> 2
  snowgod                (None Yet)             3 -> 4
  this is not a name     (None Yet)             3 -> 4
  /dev/joe               Nobs                  10 -> 11
  (None Yet) Unity vote                        =   0
  mr cwm                 (None Yet)             3 -> 4
  pTang1001001sos                               2 -> 3

- ------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------------------------------------
[2]

Vote recorded : "#vote 922 Yes"
YES     922 -- Lazy

Vote recorded : "#vote 923 Yes"
YES     923 -- Gimme that Gnome

Vote recorded : "#vote 924 Yes"
YES     924 -- Required Reading

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #106
*******************************