Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #110
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest        Saturday, July 13 1996        Volume 01 : Number 110

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:43:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

Malenkai (by way of [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)) wrote:
> 

> 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.

I'd at least like response to my two arguments. I'm not in the mood for
a CFJ. I'm just curious. Let the gods at least have the grace to give us
wisdom.

Malenkai
The only True winner of Ackanomic by Paradox

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 21:58:42 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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)

This is absurd. In the US we have a principle of one man, one vote. That 
doesn't mean that everyone gets one vote in his/her life. Besides, the 
phrasing of 390 makes it clear that every player has one vote at all 
times, not that the vote is taken away when the player votes.

Dictionary time. (I'm using Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd College 
Edition.)

vote (vot) n.

1. a) a decision by a group on a proposal, resolution, bill, etc., or a 
choice between candidates for office, expressed by written ballot, voice, 
show of hands, etc. b) the decision of any individual in the group.

2. the expression or indication of such a decision or choice.

3. the right to exercise such a decision or choice; suffrage.

[other, inapplicable

I think it is quite clear to assume that 390 refers to definition 3, not 
definition 1b or 2. The verdict of 220 is in error.

I ask that the Supreme Court consider this reasoning in the appeal 
verdict.

this is not a name

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards."
                                       --Soren Kierkegaard
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 21:59:37 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 230 Verdict

I want to make it clear that I judged this, not Pascal. Would the 
web-harfer please make the change.

>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.

- --
       Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
 Congress. But I repeat myself."     --Mark Twain
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/        Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 22:04:48 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

>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.

I believe that this is a valid argument and that 558 (not 588, which is 
unrelated) directly contradicts 105 and is therefore null and void.

>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.

I don't follow this. If all rules are dormant, then anything is 
permitted, I think. But Malenkai argues, correctly, that dormancy never 
existed in the first place. A CFJ would be an appropriate way of fixing 
this crash.

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
     "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so." --Douglas Adams
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 22:01:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Solution to game crash

Phil Ackley wrote:
> 
> 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.

Starting over is not a solution. Its like going back to the American
Revolution. True, we would not have nuclear weapons, but in this thread
we had the good sense not to use them.

Malenkai
Amusing those watching the chatter go back an forth.
Amusing those who knock over the chessboard when they cannot win honestly.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 18:11:37 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Solution to game crash

At 10:01 PM 7/12/96, Malenkai wrote:
>Phil Ackley wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Starting over is not a solution. Its like going back to the American
>Revolution. True, we would not have nuclear weapons, but in this thread
>we had the good sense not to use them.

It's not a solution, per say, but it is a difinate possibilty and one that
would be in accordance with the rules without going outside of the rules.
I have to admit, I don't like it any more than you do, but it is there as a
possibility.

>Malenkai
>Amusing those watching the chatter go back an forth.
>Amusing those who knock over the chessboard when they cannot win honestly.

ROFL!!!

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 18:14:14 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Solution to game crash 

At 10:01 PM 7/12/96, Malenkai wrote:
>Phil Ackley wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>

Just for the record, I also think the CFJ 220 verdict is absurd.  The act
of casting a vote does not mean that is is destroyed.  Rather, a vote (as
used in the rules) refers to the right to cast a decision on an issue, and
the term "one player one vote" would mean that no player can cast more than
one decision on any one issue.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:44:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Ackanomic: Appeals

Although I don't know if we have anything left to appeal to,
I am appealing the judgements of CFJs 232 and 227.

On 232:
The flaw in Malenkai's reasoning is that he interprets a TRUE judgement of

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

to mean that the Judge cannot legally interpret how to "post" as Rule 213.

The statement being judged in CFJ 227 is not that there is no game custom,
but that it is indeterminate whether traditions that developed outside of
true CFJs can be legally accepted into the game as what the rules call
"game custom".  If this is true, then there are multiple game states,
among which we cannot determine which is correct.  In at least one of
these game states, the game custom exists that judges should e-mail their
judgements on CFJs to the clerk of the court.

On 227:
A true judgement on CFJ 232 is not sufficient to make CFJ 227 be false.
CFJ 232 could be appealed and judged False.  Furthermore, even if 232 is
true, it is possible that 227 is true, and that its judgement cannot
legally be delivered.  Consider the original reasoning.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 22:55:27 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 234 (Niccolo)

This has been assigned to Niccolo Flychuck. 3 days accept/decline.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Judgement 234
  Subject:  Fable of the Reconstruction
Initiator:  Malenkai
    Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (Chosen as of the date of this post)

Statement:

R 558 is, and has been since it was adopted, "wholly void and without
effect".

Malenkai's Reasoning:

R 105 says of a proposed rule change: "If adopted, it must guide play
in the form it was voted on".

Game custom has rendered "rule change" to be any rule amendment, or
creation of a new rule, ie, a change to the rules. Even if it is strictly
constructed to mean an amendment, however, my reasoning below holds.

Thus a rule, or an amendment to a rule, must guide play in the form it
was voted on. Ie, it must have the "effect" of guiding play in the form
it was voted on.

R 558 claims the following, of entities: "Dormant entities have no effect".
It also defines, implicitly, that a rule is an entity. Other rules and
game custom also allow the fact that rules are entities, therefore, it
says "Dormant [rules] have no effect".

R 105 claims rules have an "effect" of guiding play in their voted form,
whilst R 558 claims certain types of rules have no effects whatsoever.
R 105 does not defer precedence to allow any certain type of rule to
avoid its provisions, therefore R 105 and R 558 are in conflict in whether
rules can have effect.

This is an Immutable/Mutable inconsistancy. By R 108, R 558 is, and always
has been, "wholly void and without effect", and a verdict of TRUE is
necessary.

[[I dedicate this to all those who encouraged me to try it, without whose
prodding I would not have.]]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 23:01:05 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

I appoint Wayne to the Supreme Court in the recent mr cwm appointed
thread, and any other in which there is a vacationing justice, without
a replacement.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 23:28:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Appeals

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> On 232:
> The flaw in Malenkai's reasoning is that he interprets a TRUE judgement of
> 
>   "It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom [...]
>   which should legally be used in interpreting the rules (as in Rule 101)."
> 
> to mean that the Judge cannot legally interpret how to "post" as Rule 213.
> 
> The statement being judged in CFJ 227 is not that there is no game custom,

Correct. it is:

>"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 knows the above is True. It is not a case of multiple threads,
but a case of possible unknowable Truth. The Judge cannot "determine"
whether it exists, and thus is clueless, and cannot render "post the
judgement", in accordance with the rules. The judge simply knows its
impossible to render "post the judgement", and thus cannot do so.

Its like saying, "upon reaching a verdict, the judge shall".

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 22:48:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Appeals

> >"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 knows the above is True. It is not a case of multiple threads,
> but a case of possible unknowable Truth. The Judge cannot "determine"
> whether it exists, and thus is clueless, and cannot render "post the
> judgement", in accordance with the rules.

Just as the truth regarding whether there is such game custom is
unknowable, also the proper way to post the judgement is unknowable.
Posting the judgement is not _impossible_ (as it would be if there was
no method defined in the rules or game custom), but it is simply 
impossible to know if one is following the rules.  I do note that a TRUE
judgement on CFJ 227 would say that "there is no game custom defining the
proper way to post judgements" is equally correct as the way we are
playing the game now.

> The judge simply knows its
> impossible to render "post the judgement", and thus cannot do so.
> 
> Its like saying, "upon reaching a verdict, the judge shall".

No, it's like saying "upon reaching a judgement, the judge shall do
something indeterminate" -- when one possibility is that he shall
e-mail the judgement to the CotC as we have been doing.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #110
*******************************