Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #109
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, July 12 1996         Volume 01 : Number 109

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 01:14:53 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, John Bollinger wrote:

> 
> Niccolo Flychuck wrote:
> 
> >The downfall of Ackanomic has been the introduction of the idea of
> >Protection. On the one hand, it served to patch up some rules, which might
> >have otherwise been more decisive, even at the price of using some
> >redudant phrasing, and on the other hand, it implied, that unless
> >specified, we can do what we we damn well please, up to and including
> >aboliishing the rule-set entirely.
> 
> I disagree here.  Rule 115 allowed players to do as they please, and rightly
> so.  In fact, I think that CFJ 113 was bad law and bad precedent; the
> actions allowed by R 115 should have been even more broad.  It is true that
> protection was not strictly necessary, but the rule that defined it had
> nothing to do with the style of play that Mr. Flychuckcondemns.

Perhaps my words have been a bit strong here. Players whould be able to do
as they please, withing wide boundaries. There is a Douglas Adams qoute
that I like which can applicable "Clearly defined boundaries of doubt and
uncertainty".
I don't condemn creativity, and free-willing, although my previous post
might have come across as such.
We must recognize that Ackanomic has crashed. There may be ways to revive
it. But then we would just be reviving the causes for the crash. Sure,
there are some good concepts in Ackanomia right now, we've had fun with
them. While further play may seem possible, I have serious doubts about
further fun.

On the other points I believe I agree with Thinman, even though I thought
before that I thought I was agreeing with snowgod.

> I guess you're talking about _my_ suggestion, which you had quoted but

Sorry. 1am.

> which I deleted.  To tell you the truth, I think you're right.  So I'm
> with Wayne (and you?): let's start from scratch.  
I'm gonna be away for a few weeks, so I'm not really in a position to
start anything right now. I may be able to go on-line a coupla times. When
I get back, I'll probably join whatever nomic is being played then.

 > 
> >There is another option.

[snip]
> 
> This neglects the paradox inherent in R558 being dormant.  In combination
> with everything else being dormant, this creates a mess that I see no way
> out of.  If /dev/joe had excepted R 558 from dormancy then you could do
> what you are attempting, but now the legality of your attempt is
> indeterminate, just like the legality of everything else.
That was sorta a reductio ad absurdium, even anarchism is based on social
conventions that people may do whatever they wish, as long as they don't
do hurt other people. I guess that's a kind of a rule as well.

 > 
> OK, who has a new initial ruleset to suggest?
> 
> 
> ThinMan
> 
I'm gonna stick around 'till Sunday night (local)
K sera sera
Nicolo Flychuck

(we are still using our ackanomic names, eventhe notion is no longer
defined. Is this game custon? convention?)

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 18:03:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Exit

I resign from the office of Appointer.
I resign from the office of Inventor.

I'll forward all my Inventor material to /dev/joe and Malenkai, for 
safekeeping, until a new one can be chosen.

Due to circumstances utterly beyond my control, I'm leaving Ackanomic.  
I'll be back when school starts again.

I resign.  I quit.  I'm out of here.

- --Mohammed (later)

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:25:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 233 Verdict

The following, CFJ 233, has been judged TRUE. I ask all the officers to
make the approporate changes, including the Web-Harfer's points for 
doing the Godel work. I again recommend the Penrose referred to in the
text of this CFJ; its cool. Penrose did the black hole work, Hawkings
got the credit. Penrose is also a Platonist, so he's cool on that regard
too. 

Note also that the *Registrar* shall now distribute the Magic Potato on
Monday :))))))))

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

ThinMan's Reasoning:

The Tabulator has acknowledged that Malenkai cast the votes as he described,
so there is no disagreement about the facts presented above.  I find that
rule 104 requires that the determination of the acceptence or rejection of
a proposal occur at the end of the voting period.  It may take the Tabulator
some time to figure out what that determination was and to publish the
results, but it seems clear to me that the conditions at the end of the
voting period hold sway.

Moreover, I note that R207 requires that some scoring occur when a proposal
is rejected or when a proposal is adopted, which as I said, occurs at the
end of the voting period.  The Scorekeeper may take some time to publish
the scores, but it seems to me clear that they are _effective_ as soon as
the voting period ends.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:43:00 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Misc: Game Over? 

                * ***
              *  ****  *
             *  *  ****
            *  **   **
           *  ***
          **   **             ****    *** **** ****       ***
          **   **   ***      * ***  *  *** **** ***  *   * ***
          **   **  ****  *  *   ****    **  **** ****   *   ***
          **   ** *  ****  **    **     **   **   **   **    ***
          **   ***    **   **    **     **   **   **   ********
           **  **     *    **    **     **   **   **   *******
            ** *      *    **    **     **   **   **   **
             ***     *     **    **     **   **   **   ****    *
              *******       ***** **    ***  ***  ***   *******
                ***          ***   **    ***  ***  ***   *****

                  * ***
                *  ****
               *  *  ***   **
              *  **   ***  **
             *  ***    ***  **    ***             ***  ****
            **   **     **   **    ***     ***     **** **** *
            **   **     **   **     ***   * ***     **   ****
            **   **     **   **      **  *   ***    **
            **   **     **   **      ** **    ***   **
            **   **     **   **      ** ********    **
             **  **     **   **      ** *******     **
              ** *      *    **      *  **          **
               ***     *      *******   ****    *   ***
                *******        *****     *******     ***
                  ***                     *****

snowgod

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

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:40:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 222 Verdict

The following, CFJ 222, has been judged FALSE. 

Its rather a shame, I was starting to enjoy going around with ThinMan on
this. Perhaps I'll save my next round of rhetoric for next week.

Clerk of the Courts

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

Statement:

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

ThinMan's Reasoning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kelly Martin's Reasoning:

I interpret "submitted in the proper manner" as "submitted in
compliance with the Rules", and note that Rule 396 specifies a method
of submitting Proposals is specified in Rule 396 ("A proposal by a
Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promoter.")  Thus, in the
opinion of this Judge, a Proposal has been "submitted in the proper
manner" if it was submitted to the Promoter, and if the act of
submission in no way violates any other Rule.  Note that I reject
ThinMan's contention that Rule 396 does not specify a "proper manner".

In this Judgement, I do not broach the issue of the nature, scope, or
appliciability of game custom, and this Judgement has no precedent in
such matters.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 18:49:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic:  Smiling

Welcome back to the game, Mitch!  I guess I'll see you in September.  
:oP  What rotten timing.

What I forgot to say is, I would (off-hand) endorse pTang1001001sos for
Inventor, if anyone cares (and if he wants the job).  pTang is the only
person who ran against me for the position back when it was introduced.

I sincerely hope, whoever gets the position, that there is a Captain Cosmic 
Decoder Ring waiting for me when I get back.

- --Mohammed (my last message to this forum--really)

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:44:36 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 229 Verdict

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.

this is not a name's Reasoning:

/dev/joe is correct. Rule 215 is clear that it does not regulate or
restrict the spirit of the game (nor, of course, does it define it).

In the court's opinion, the spirit of the game includes basic attributes
such as the fact that Ackanomic is a play-by-email nomic, and other such
things that are beyond the scope of the rules. The fact that the rules
are to be parsed in English, for example, unless any particular rule
states otherwise, can be deemed to be part of the spirit of the game.
(cf. pTang1001001sos's reasoning in CFJ 231.)

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:11:11 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

John Bollinger wrote:
  
> In my opinion, /dev/joe's action was legal.  If someone can come up with
> an argument to the contrary, then let's hear it.  If the action was legal,
> then we have no choice but to resolve the situation outside of the game,
> for there is essentially no game left.

There is a game left by grace period (CFJ 113/CFJ 157). Not much of one,
but in any game started with an initial ruleset, I could make everything
dormant, and without a grace period, crash it every day, by the R 115
equivelent, or even without an R 115, as /dev/joe just proved.

The argument is that 105 makes 588 "wholly void and without effect" via
R 108, because making proposals dormant does not allow them to "guide
play in the form they were voted on". The game custom of grace period,
established by CFJ 113, and reinforced along the line (CFJ 157), allows
a CFJ to be called on the matter. Should I bother? No-one has bothered to
give 105 any sway up to this point.

Its obvious that there is a stronger will to crash the game than to 
simply play it, or preserve it, so I will just take comments on the
above argument rather than continue to fight this tide. The unfortunate
thing is that I enjoyed the game play in arguing against CFJ 122 and
CFJ 127. It was fun. Its a shame to intentionally crash the game *now*.
It could have been crashed on Jan 22. Why now?

Also unfortunate is I worked so hard with clever arguments to neuter
CFJ 122 and CFJ 127. The response is to crash the game, rather than play
them out.

Its a shame to crash something that I looked froward to every day, and
worked so hard on. Its like someone coming in and knocking over the
move-a-day chessboard, and claiming it was done according to chess'
equivelent to R 115. /dev/joe nuked the game with R 115 dormant.

R 588 says, "entities can be granted the power...". What granted that
power in this case. Not R 115, it was dormant. If chess' equivelent to
115 can be used, why bother having R 115.
  
> Or, to appease all those Dr. Who fans out there, Ackanomic: The Next
> Regeneration.

Obviously not a Doctor Who fan. Its spelled "Doctor Who" :) (for all the
spelling pedants out there, who have made my *game*play unenjoyable).

> I am firmly in the camp that believes that we shouldn't "just make it
> better" when we have problems, so I suggest that we "start fresh," albeit
> with a monstrosity of a starting rule set.

The arguments used to crash this game will be used in the next game. This
will be true in any game where everything is not *formalized*. I'll claim
the official language is Swedish, by some R 115 equivelent, and Mellon and
I will trade paradox wins. You cannot codify everything, as was just
proven, especially common sense, judgement, and fun. (I would read Penrose's
second book "Shadows of the Mind". before attempting to do so. Somehow
I feel I'm arguing against some *strong AI* folks out there.) If you do,
you will *formalize* everything, then we'll all dance with Godel.

We danced with *Godelian* themes here, as we attempted to bring *game
custom* into the rules, whether you want to admit it or not.

> Get rid of items, officers, blueprints, CFJs,

Just throw away six months of *history*, Thats my problem. As I've stated,
any game can be crashed with similar arguments, unless it is a formal
system. Then you get Godel to deal with. I don't know why I'm blathering,
probably because I prefer creation to destruction. Mabye I shall be an
observer in the next game, and see the "crash proof - loophole proof"
ruleset develop, and laugh my @$$ off at the arrogant fools who believe
they can create such.

There is only one thing that really gets my goat here (aside from the
above), and that is all the crap I took over the AOJ business, especially
from ThinMan. Loophole Surfing is no different than was done here. Strict
Construction of the rules, done with the intent of *saving* a crash. I
guess I realise now, there was always a hidden adjenda to crash the
game. The other difference was that I, and not Nobs, was doing it. There
are no other differencs. *The more things change, the more they stay the
same*.

Time for a good dose of "Animal Farm".

Can I play with players who will crash a game that does not meet their
standards? Probably. I may even enjoy it, who knows. Can I play
in a game where people will sponge off of my cleverly planted, and 
patiently awaited paradox win (CFJ 184). Probably. The same type of
people who take satisfaction in that are the same that take satisfaction
in destroying the work of others. Ellsworth Toohey, from "The Fountainhead",
by Ayn Rand, comes to mind.

I know, for a fact, that I cannot write rules to the Nobs standard. I know
I cannot spell to it. I will probably not write much in such a game, for
what its worth. With Mohammed, pTang, and CnH gone, what creative engine
will you have, with such disdain for everyone elses work. You can write
rules, that regulate rules, that regulate rules, that fix spelling errors...

Anyway, enough blather.

My adjenda has always been "The fun and the long life of Ackanomia". The
fun has been compromised by the destruction of all my work. As for the
long life, I will fight for it until popular (Nobs) opinion indicates that
it is gone.

1) I have presented 2 arguments. One is a precedence argument of 105 vs
588. The other is that R 115 is dormant, therefore /dev/joe could not 
have done what he did. Why have R 115 anyway?

Are either valid? I realise that the people who will be commenting do
not share my adjenda, but I have no choice.

2) If not, I vote we keep the entire ruleset, history, custom, and CFJs,
etc after Nobs has edited it to their taste. I will not destroy *their*
work. I do not want to start from scratch, and throw it away again in six
months. [Another thought: Why not call a ConCon, rather than a destroy. We
all recognise Nobs as the force du jour, gods among mere ants, and would
have elected you all delegates, so you could do what you wanted without a
crash anyway.]

3) There is no 3. I just want to be Speaker in the next game. I earned the
job via the rules, and I don't want to start from scratch.
 
To all the pedants, I apologise for not knowing if is "adjenda" or 
"adgenda", or something else.

Malenkai
Defeated

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:23:00 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 220Verdict

The following, CFJ 220, has been judged TRUE.

I Malenkai, in the capacity as a player, appeal it to the Supreme Court
in all threads with such an entity, with no reasoning.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 220
  Subject:  Closing the polls
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Pascal (selected Jul 8, 1996, 21:05h New York Time)

Statement:

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

pTang1001001sos' reasoning:
 
Read R390.

De'ghew's Reasoning:

        R390 states: "Each player has exactly one vote unless otherwise
specified by other applicable rules."  On its own, this rule would require
that each player vote no more than once in the game, or perhaps in the
player's lifetime.  R390 does defer to rules that specify some other
number of votes a player should receive.  However, this court can find no
such rules.  It appears that the rules do not reflect the game custom that
players may vote once on each proposal.  Since the rules must take
precedence over game custom, this court has no choice but to rule this
CFJ TRUE.

Aside: As much as I would like to rule this false, I can't find any rules
which support such a ruling.  If anyone can find such rules, by all means
appeal.  I should point out, though, that the rules do allow Tammany and
possibly other non-player entities to vote more than once.  If this
verdict sticks, we may turn to Tammany to save us.  We may all have to go
on vacation, however.  :)

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:25:15 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 230 Verdict

Judged FALSE.

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:

Oh, please.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:26:33 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 227 Verdict

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.

this is not a name's comments:

See CFJ 232.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:36:42 -0800
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]> (by way of [email-masked] (Phil Ackley))
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy 

>My adjenda has always been "The fun and the long life of Ackanomia". The
>fun has been compromised by the destruction of all my work. As for the
>long life, I will fight for it until popular (Nobs) opinion indicates that
>it is gone.

You summed up my feelings in this post better than I could do myself.  I
have spent all day trying to compose something similar, only to end up
throwing it away each time I was begining to get somewhere.  It makes me
furious that /dev/joe crashed the game rather than calling for a con-con.
It makes me mad that it is more fun to crash the game than to build it.

The whole thing really pisses me off, and I don't know what I want to do
about it right now.  The best thing I could think of, is to hold an
informal con-con and begin a new game with the old ruleset (minus a few
problems) but this is not really satisfactory either.

I don't know if the game really has crashed or not.  It appears that it
has, but I am still waiting to prove to me that it hasn't.

One more question.... As ambassador (maybe?) should I write to internomic
and tell them that ackanomic is not interested in participating?

snowgod

        01110011 01101110 01101111 01110111 01100111 01101111 01100100

    01000001 01101101 01100010 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100001 01100100
                          01101111 01110010  00101101
             01000110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01100101 01110010
                 01000011 01010011 01010010 01010010  00101101
             01000001 01100011 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111
        01010011 01100101 01101110 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010
   01010111 01100101 01100001 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111  01100001
    01110000 01110010 01101111 01110011 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110100
                               01101001 01100011
    01100110 01101111 01110010 01100101 01101000 01100101 01100001 01100100
   00101101  01001000 01100101 01110010 01100101 01110100 01101001 01100011
    01000110 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 00101100
   01000011 01101000 01110101 01110010 01100011 01101000  01101111 01100110
                          01110100 01101000 01100101
    01001101 01100001 01110010 01101011 01101111 01110110 01101001 01100001
            01101110  01000100 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101101

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:42:12 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Solution to game crash 

CFJ 220 has been judged true.  Pending appeal to the supreme court, this
CFJ would return us to a game state very simalar to our intitial ruleset.
Most other proposals have actually failed due to quorum.  This is actually
like a bad nightmare, or a horror movie where the person wakes up in the
end, and it was all a dream.  If this upheld by the supreme court (and it
can be - due to the grace period involved in the current game state) then
we are back at the begining again.  If it is not, and /dev/joe's efforts to
destroy the game hold up, we are in a crash.

At 9:23 PM 7/12/96, Malenkai wrote:
>The following, CFJ 220, has been judged TRUE.
>
>I Malenkai, in the capacity as a player, appeal it to the Supreme Court
>in all threads with such an entity, with no reasoning.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>
>Call for Judgement 220
>  Subject:  Closing the polls
>Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
>    Judge:  Pascal (selected Jul 8, 1996, 21:05h New York Time)
>
>Statement:
>
>Each Player gets to vote exactly once during the entire game of Ackanomic.
>
>pTang1001001sos' reasoning:
>
>Read R390.
>
>De'ghew's Reasoning:
>
>        R390 states: "Each player has exactly one vote unless otherwise
>specified by other applicable rules."  On its own, this rule would require
>that each player vote no more than once in the game, or perhaps in the
>player's lifetime.  R390 does defer to rules that specify some other
>number of votes a player should receive.  However, this court can find no
>such rules.  It appears that the rules do not reflect the game custom that
>players may vote once on each proposal.  Since the rules must take
>precedence over game custom, this court has no choice but to rule this
>CFJ TRUE.
>
>Aside: As much as I would like to rule this false, I can't find any rules
>which support such a ruling.  If anyone can find such rules, by all means
>appeal.  I should point out, though, that the rules do allow Tammany and
>possibly other non-player entities to vote more than once.  If this
>verdict sticks, we may turn to Tammany to save us.  We may all have to go
>on vacation, however.  :)

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:43:50 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

The post beneath is mine (though it says it is from malenkai in the header.
I accidentally hit redirect instead of reply.

At 5:36 PM 7/12/96, Malenkai (by way of [email-masked] (Phil wrote:
>>My adjenda has always been "The fun and the long life of Ackanomia". The
>>fun has been compromised by the destruction of all my work. As for the
>>long life, I will fight for it until popular (Nobs) opinion indicates that
>>it is gone.
>
>You summed up my feelings in this post better than I could do myself.  I
>have spent all day trying to compose something similar, only to end up
>throwing it away each time I was begining to get somewhere.  It makes me
>furious that /dev/joe crashed the game rather than calling for a con-con.
>It makes me mad that it is more fun to crash the game than to build it.
>
>The whole thing really pisses me off, and I don't know what I want to do
>about it right now.  The best thing I could think of, is to hold an
>informal con-con and begin a new game with the old ruleset (minus a few
>problems) but this is not really satisfactory either.
>
>I don't know if the game really has crashed or not.  It appears that it
>has, but I am still waiting to prove to me that it hasn't.
>
>One more question.... As ambassador (maybe?) should I write to internomic
>and tell them that ackanomic is not interested in participating?
>
>snowgod
>
>
>        01110011 01101110 01101111 01110111 01100111 01101111 01100100
>
>    01000001 01101101 01100010 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100001 01100100
>                          01101111 01110010  00101101
>             01000110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01100101 01110010
>                 01000011 01010011 01010010 01010010  00101101
>             01000001 01100011 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111
>        01010011 01100101 01101110 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010
>   01010111 01100101 01100001 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111  01100001
>    01110000 01110010 01101111 01110011 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110100
>                               01101001 01100011
>    01100110 01101111 01110010 01100101 01101000 01100101 01100001 01100100
>   00101101  01001000 01100101 01110010 01100101 01110100 01101001 01100011
>    01000110 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 00101100
>   01000011 01101000 01110101 01110010 01100011 01101000  01101111 01100110
>                          01110100 01101000 01100101
>    01001101 01100001 01110010 01101011 01101111 01110110 01101001 01100001
>            01101110  01000100 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101101

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:39:50 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 227 Verdict

Sorry. Judged FALSE, too much cut and paste.
 
> 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.
> 
> this is not a name's comments:
> 
> See CFJ 232.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #109
*******************************