Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #113
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Sunday, July 14 1996         Volume 01 : Number 113

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:08:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 214 Verdict

CFJ 214 has been judged FALSE. I realise you've seen this, but the
rules require CotC distribution, and such establishes an official
verdict date/time.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 214
  Subject:  ThinMan's winning
Initiator:  /dev/joe
    Judge:  De'ghew (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  Calvin N Hobbes (declined to judge)
3rd Judge:  Mohammed (quit the game)
4th Judge:  Niccolo Flychuck (selected sometime)

Statement:

When ThinMan set n to 6, he won the game.

/dev/joe's Comments:

I don't care either way, but it's rather important to know.

Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:

R110
The state of affairs that constitutes winning the game may not be changed
from achieving n points to any other state of affairs.  However, the
magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules
that establish a winner when play cannot be continued may be enacted and
(while mutable) be amended or repealed.

This rule defines that the state of winning can't be changed from achieving
n number of points.
n is never explicitly defined, therefore, n by itself has no value, and this
rule does not determine the number of points necessary to win. It defines a
a template for defining a rule that would define the number of points to
win, it might have well been rephrased "The state of affairs that
constitutes winning the game may not be changed from achieving a certain
number of points to any other state of affairs."
This statement is equivalent  to the statement in the rule. I doubt anybody
could claim to assign a value to 'certain'.

One might argue that the second sentence of the rule implies that n can be
defined. One would be mistaken. The second simply continues to use the same
terminology that has been defined in the original template.

The rule that fills the template is R422, and as long as R110 remains as it
is, only by changing R422, or ammending it, or adding other rules which may
affect the stat of affair of winning, that is the rule that determines the
number of points required to win.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:10:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 216 Verdict

CFJ 216 has been judged FALSE, without comment.

Clerk of the Courts
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Call for Judgement 216
  Subject:  Fat Lady
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  ThinMan (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  Kelly Martin (failed to respond)
3rd Judge:  snowgod (declined to judge)
4th Judge:  Mohammed (left the game)
5th Judge:  Techno (selected on 13 Jul, 1996, 13:40h New York Time)

Statement:
 The argument below, after the header "Reasoning:" and between
 the quote marks, is sound and shall be entered into game custom.

Reasoning :
 "
 R790 states:

 >Furthermore, the game, or a cycle of the game, cannot be over until the
 >Fat Lady sings.

 What does this mean?

 I submit that it means the cycle number cannot be incremented.  The
 action of incrementing the cycle number would very strongly imply the
 end of the previous cycle.  I know of no other reference to what
 constitutes a cycle end in the Rules.

 Here's what happened:
 1) ThinMan changed n to 6, and claimed a win of the game.  This win claim
 was valid.
 
 2) At this point, R666 triggered, executing clauses (a) through (j), and
 got hung up before executing clause (k), waiting for the Fat Lady to sing.

 3) Clause (a) of R666 says "Ackanomic play is suspended".  By CFJ 193,
 only those activities which are analogous to "setting up a chess board"
 are valid during this period.  I submit that my changing of n does not
 qualify.

 4) I tried to change n.  This did not happen, as it is an unacceptable
action.

 5) Malenkai stated that the Fat Lady is singing.  I submit that this is
 a "setting up" activity, as it triggers the change in cycle number.

 6) R666 executes clause (k), incrementing the cycle number, then (m),
  resuming Ackanomic play.
 "

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:14:40 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 230 Appeal

I received the following appeal of CFJ 230 from Techno. He has added 
additional reasoning. Would the Scorekeeper please note the 5 point
penalty.

The Supreme Court thus now has 4 appeals pending.

Clerk of the Courts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I appeal this judgement.  I would like to add these additional
comments with my appeal.

The mere fact that I am, and can continue to appeal this verdict, my
statement is True.

Techno

> 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: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:21:02 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 215 Verdict

CFJ 215 has been judged TRUE. Note that this means CFJ 201 needs to
be redistributed. Also note there is a proposal in the queue to fix
this problem.

Clerk of the Courts

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.

this is not a name's comments:

A judge cannot simply disregard a CFJ because e believes that it does not
follow the rules for the form in which a CFJ must be submitted. R588 is
clear on this point. In the court's opinion, if a CFJ is not in the
proper form, the judge should return a judgement of false, which can then
be appealed to the Supreme Court if necessary.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:41:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 224 (/dev/joe)

this is not a name declined judgement, with the following comment:

I must decline judgement on this. As an Acting Senator, I believe that I
have a conflict of interest. However, I would ask the next judge to
simply read the second paragraph of 457, which makes it clear that a
false verdict is necessary.

It has been reassigned to /dev/joe.
A verdict here will still collapse that annoying supreme court thread.

Clerk of the Courts
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Judgement 224
  Subject:  Judicial Confirmation
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Mohammed (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:38h New York Time)
2nd Judge:  this is not a name (declined to judge)
3rd Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jul 14, 1996, 01:45h New York Time)

Statement:

pTang1001001sos has been confirmed to the Office of Justice.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

The acting Senators do not have the ability to vote on confirmation
of Justices.  Of the Senators able to vote on the confirmation,
I received 1 confirming vote, and no dissenting votes.

By R507, the Senate has agreed upon a candidate, who was therefore
duly confirmed and currently holds Office.

I must decline judgement on this. As an Acting Senator, I believe that I
have a conflict of interest. However, I would ask the next judge to
simply read the second paragraph of 457, which makes it clear that a
false verdict is necessary.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 00:48:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 230 Appeal

Techno wrote in his appeal:
> The mere fact that I am, and can continue to appeal this verdict, my
> statement is True.

This reasoning is incorrect.  This fact merely supports part of the
original reasoning, which is also incorrect.

Techno's Original Reasoning:
> >       This CFJ cannot be determined with finality, as I can appeal the
> > ruling for infinity. per R219/0, I must be declared the winner.

In order to win by Rule 219, a CFJ must be submitted on a statement that
further play is impossible, or the legality of some action cannot be
determined with finality, etc.  The statement of CFJ is not of this type,
so even if it is judged TRUE, it will not give Techno a win by rule 219.

Before anybody gets any ideas, a CFJ that CFJ 230's proper judgement cannot
be determined with finality is also false.  See the reasoning of CFJ 175.
Just because Techno *can* appeal this CFJ forever does not mean that he
will do so.  Nor has Techno even proven that he can appeal this CFJ forever.
If people get upset enough about it, they may pass a rule that says
"Techno cannot appeal CFJs" (& takes appropriate precedence, of course.)

The Statement of CFJ 230:
> >       I claim to win the game, and no one can stop me..

This statement is false.  The first part is true -- Techno does claim
to have won the game.  This does not mean that he has actually won it.
The second part of the statement is false; the rules, and the Judge
and Supreme Court who considers your CFJ can stop you from winning the
game on the basis of this CFJ.  (This is, in my opinion, the most
reasonable interpretation of the statement.)

You could consider that "no one" can stop him, but the rules can, or
that "stop me" does not mean "stop Techno from winning the game", in
which case it is possible that the whole statement is true.  Again, this
will not result in Techno actually winning the game.

I note that if proposal 982 passes, which may happen before the Supreme
Court returns its verdict, the correct judgement on this CFJ is "Invalid".
By my reasoning above, it contains multiple statements (or if you claim
that it is only one statement, then it is not a clear one).

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:47:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 201 (Wayne)

Mohammed declined judgement. It has been reassigned to Wayne.
 
Note that this is being reassigned because CFJ 215 requires it to
be; it was originally deamed invalid by R 589.

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 201
  Subject:  R666 Paradox win, AGAIN
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Mohammed (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  Wayne (selected Jul 14, 1996, 01:52h New York Time)

Statement:

The legality of the following action:
"/dev/joe creates Right-Handed Grapefruit Juice"
cannot be determined with finality.  I thereby
claim a paradox win under R219.

pTang1001001sos's Reasoning:

When /dev/joe was declared a winner,
R666 "kicked in".  Upon application of clause
(c), R666 starts over again.  In effect, the
process described in R666 is being continuously
launched ad infinitum.

I argue that it is impossible to determine, at any
given moment, whether /dev/joe is in possession
of a Right Handed Grapefruit(RHG), since he is being
awarded RHGs and they are also being "eliminated"
each time the R666 process is carried out.

Note that a new R666 process is being launched every
time clause (c) of the previous R666 process is
executed, so it is impossible to say when the newest
RHG is being awarded relative to the last "elimination"
of all RHGs.

It's a total mess.  I defy anyone to determine whether
/dev/joe has a RHG that he can squeeze.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 01:55:56 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 225 (Robin Hood)

Mohammed left the game.

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

Clerk of the Courts

Call for Judgement 225
  Subject:  Evil Ballot Stuffer
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  De'ghew (declined to judge)
2nd Judge:  Mohammed (left the game)
3rd Judge:  Robin Hood (Selected Jul 14, 02:00h New York Time)

Statement:
 
The Evil Ballot Stuffer, as explained in pTang1001001's public
statement, works just as described.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

[none provided - CotC]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 09:08:23 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 234 Verdict

On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > > could create an entity that would declare one, will not. There is no other
> > > legal one to declare one, IMHO, as we've passed P 1000.
> > 
> > I was under the impression that it was possible to call a festival.
> 
> Noccolo Asked that *I* call a Festival. I do not think I could legally
> do that. As for the Promoter doing so, I thought it had to be the day
> after P 1000 was released, not any time afterwords. Its up to someone else
> to interpret the rule, I have a mountain of CotC work. I apologize for
> the standoffish remark, I just don't have the time now.

It was only a suggestion. As it had nothing to do with the statement up
for judgement, it had no legal power beyond a suggestion.
I was really thinking about a time for everyone catch their breath.

> 
> AckaDollars are a huge problem. I have received a vote to Impeach the
> Financier, but have seen no IP, so I don't know where that sits.
> 
> The CFJ threads are collapsing, and its all recorded on the CotC page. I
> will distribute what came in today soon. I note that the supreme court
> (Wayne and Niccolo), have 3 appeals to hear, and a fourth is coming soon.
> Niccolo said he was going on vacation shortly, so ...
> 
> Malenkai
> 
> > ===========================================
> > 
> > As Promoter, I had the ability to call for a Festival after I distributed
> > P1000.  But as I said earlier, a festival will not help in this situation.
> > A festival only limits the distribution of new proposals.  Proposals are
> > not our current problems.  The problem is in the CFJ's and stuff like
> > AckaDollars.
> > 
> > Wayne
> >
> 

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 09:37:49 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> Uri Bruck wrote:
> >  
> > I think the office of President should be abolished. It never served any
> > useful purpose, and if anything, this attempt at mimicry of real life can
> > only serve to stunt our growth.
> 
> I actually had alot of ideas to give the President more power, somewhere
> between what we have now, and Robert Sevin's executive authority idea.
> I already tried the holiday proposal, and had some ideas where the 
> President could up the priority on certain proposals and CFJs, or suspend
> the proposal queue, etc. When and if we get back on track, I'll see about
> developing them.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
I'd much prefer to see something along the lines of creating another
institutionand let the balances that will be created between that and the
Senate, and whatever becomes of Party Hall serve as the structure for
'government' - it should interesting, and perhaps fun as well.

Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 02:42:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

Nomination: Office of Inventor (1 seat)

A nomination for the office of Inventor is being held. The nomination
period will end Wed, Jul 17, 00:00 hrs New York Time.

Volunteers may nominate themselves either in the public forum, or via
private e-mail to [email-masked]. After the nomination period is over,
the list of volunteers will be published, and an election will be held.
Nominations and elections are regulated by R 611.

The Inventor can be an interesting position. I encourage anyone interested
in creating gadgets to apply. The Inventor, and related stuff, is regulated
by rules 593, 594, and 786.

I note that the previous Inventor's lonely blueprints are destroyed (but
I suppose could remain on the web page - BTW, if you don't know, there is
Inventor stuff on the web page).

After this position is filled, a similar process will be conducted for
the Office of Appointer.

Malenkai
Acting Appointer

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 03:03:48 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 224 Verdict

CFJ 224 has been judged FALSE. This indicates a supreme court as
follows: (I hope I got this right, its late here).

Niccolo Flychuck acting for mr cwm
Wayne scting for Bascule

Clerk of the Courts.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for Judgement 224
  Subject:  Judicial Confirmation
Initiator:  pTang1001001sos
    Judge:  Mohammed (selected Jul 9, 1996, 19:38h New York Time)
2nd Judge:  this is not a name (declined to judge)
3rd Judge:  /dev/joe (selected Jul 14, 1996, 01:45h New York Time)

Statement:

pTang1001001sos has been confirmed to the Office of Justice.

pTang1001001sos' Reasoning:

The acting Senators do not have the ability to vote on confirmation
of Justices.  Of the Senators able to vote on the confirmation,
I received 1 confirming vote, and no dissenting votes.

By R507, the Senate has agreed upon a candidate, who was therefore
duly confirmed and currently holds Office.

/dev/joe's comments:

Casting votes to confirm justices is a task "that the Officer(s) are
expected to carry out to facilitate the conduct of Ackanomic business"
and is therefore (by Rule 609 section (ii)) a duty of the office of Senator.
By rule 609 (iii), casting such votes is also a privilege.

Acting Senators may be prohibited from casting confirmation votes by
rule 609 (iv), which denies Acting Officers the privileges of the office.
However, the players who voted NO on pTang1001001sos's confirmation were
not "Acting Senators".  They were players appointed by the Speaker, in
accordance with the second paragraph of Rule 457, to perform the duties
of the vacationing Senators.

Rule 457 allows these players to perform these duties.  Rule 457 says
nothing about whether these players also receive the privileges of the
offices -- it is neither allowed nor prohibited.  Protection (for
privileges which are protected) or reasoning along the lines of that in
CFJ 113 (for other privileges), would probably prohibit these players
receiving any privileges which were not explicitly granted, whether by
those privileges also being duties, or otherwise.

Thus, the 3 NO votes submitted on pTang1001001sos's confirmation were
valid, and pTang1001001sos was not confirmed.

The court recommends that through appropriate proposals, the issues of
privileges, duties, etc. be fixed in the rules.  Although the players
mentioned in this CFJ were not acting senators, by Rule 613 fon _is_
currently an acting senator, who is by Rule 609 (iv) responsible for
carrying out the duty of voting on confirmations, while being expressly
denied the privilege of voting on confirmations.  This is not quite a
contradiction, but it is not a very good situation either.  Of course,
we have had vacationing senators for a long time prohibited from casting
confirmation votes (by rule 457) while being responsible for doing so,
so perhaps the situation is not as new as it might appear to be.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 13:56:09 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Hotels

this is not a name wrote:
> 
> >Upon re-reading this hotel, I discovered that the economics of it do not
> >work.
> 
> True.

I think it works. If there are more than one guest staying in the hotel,
the owner gets back more per day than he put into it. And the owner could
also try dirty tricks to throw out guests that has been staying there for
almost a month :-)

> >To fix this problem, I think you need to add another substantial benifit to
> >staying in the hotel (an extra vote, 1 point a day bonus, something) so
> >that players have a non-financial incentive to staying in the hotel.
> 
> OK.

I agree too.

> >Also,
> >it would be good if the owner of the hotel could change the rates per his
> >discretion.
> 
> Good.

Within limits of course, otherwise the owner could change the fee to infinity
any time he wants to get rid of someone. 

/Mellon

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 14:36:58 +0200
From: Niklas Mellin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC About the finacier office

snowgod has posted an impeachment paper to impeach the financier
from his office. If that paper passes, we will have to find a new
financier, which might prove to be difficult, because I believe
it can be quite a burden to keep track of all transactions.

How about changing the rules so that:
1. It shouldn't be too much work to keep track of all the transactions.
   That could be done, by requiering that all transactions between
   the players are reported to the financier by the recieving part.
   The financier are then responsible to update the balance of both
   parts and mail them their new balance. Fraud by reporting a
   transaction that has not occured will be a criminal offense and
   shall be punished.
   Events that transfer money from a player to the treasury, shall
   be reported to the financier by the office that is most related
   to that event. E.g. bribes to the tammany are reported by the
   office that handle the tammany votes (i.e. the tabulator).

2. The reporting duties of the financier shall be more explicitly
   stated in the rules, and if they are not fulfilled the financier
   shall be removed from his office. No need for impeachment papers.

3. Make it attractive to be a finacier by raising the salary of that
   office, or let him take percentage of all transactions :-)

Comments? Should I make some formal proposals for rule changes?

/Mellon

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 11:34:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC About the finacier office

Niklas Mellin wrote:
> 
> snowgod has posted an impeachment paper to impeach the financier
> from his office. If that paper passes, we will have to find a new
> financier, which might prove to be difficult, because I believe
> it can be quite a burden to keep track of all transactions.
> 

I think Calvin N Hobbes anticipated that when he wrote the rule, and
that is why he included two assistants. If the work could 

a) be partitioned so that the assistants did some of it, ie assistant 1
does the PFbonds, assistant 2 does the salaries, and the Financier does
the misc transactions and pulls it all together. A natural for assistant
would be the Tabulator, because he or she will be getting Tammany and
other bribes, which I'm not sure are being properly debited now.

b) The Financier did the work normally, and each assistant did it in a 
thread split. That is to say, when a CFJ came out that caused a thread
split that affected money or the PFBonds, assistant 1 would do all the
books in that alternate thread as if that was the real game. Another 
split, assistant 2. I don't know if we've had 3 thread splits yet that
affect finance; the most dubious threads could be ignored and reconstructed
in that case.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 96 12:15:18 -0000
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Hotels

Mellon wrote:
>Within limits of course, otherwise the owner could change the fee to infinity
>any time he wants to get rid of someone. 

What do you think about having the fee "lock in" for each guest at the 
fee that it was when the guest began staying at the hotel?

tinan
Entrepreneur

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"I cannot and will not cut my conscience to suit this year's fashions."
                                       --Lillian Hellman to McCarthy
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/          Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 96 17:50:39 BST
From: R Shaw <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ackanomic mad hatter.. 

 I have designed a suitable hat for simon monty harrison.
It is a cross-cap (see Mobies band) with a 6 foot brim attached 
all  made of silk which has been decorated with phospherescent dyes.
The brim is a startling shade of pink, 
while the rest is coloured with 
purple and emrald green stipes in a nice spiral.
 At the point where the silk blurs through the 4th dimension
a large metal flagpole is attached, 10 feet high, flying
the red duster.

  Robin Hood

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 13:38:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 228 Verdict

CFJ 228 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 228
Subject: Judging CFJ 227
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Robin Hood (selected Jul 11, 1996, 01:03h New York Time)

Statement:

CFJ 227 cannot be judged TRUE.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

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).

R 215 reads, in full:

>All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules then in
>effect. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on
>the statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider
>currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in
>reaching a decision.

The first key point is: "when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or
unclear on the statement in question". Lets look at the questions of
"clarity" and "silence":

silence: What do the rules have to say about the "[possibility of
determining] whether there is any game custom beyond that explicitly
defined...". Scant little, if any at all. I ask the Judge to find a
rule which speaks to the statement. If it does, does it speak
*clearly*?:

clarity: Are the rules "clear" on the statement in question. Webster's
defines "clear" a few ways, notably: "free from obscurity or ambiguity;
easily understood; UNMISTAKABLE; free from doubt". Do these factually
describe the rules with respect to what they have to say, assuming
they are not silent, about the statement in question? They do not.
There has been plenty of debate about the regulation of this issue.
That is not a sign of clarity. Furthermore, if it is clear, why call
a CFJ? The fact of the matter is that the rules are unclear about
virtually every CFJ; if they weren't, we wouldn't need them.

The Judge need not agree with both points above, just one, to make the
"when" clause of "when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or
unclear on the statement in question" TRUE, leading to:

"then the Judge shall consider currently existing game custom
[...] in reaching a decision." [1]

Yet CFJ 227's statement alledges:

"It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond
[certain specific types] in making judgements when the rules are
unclear".

This statement (CFJ 227), alledges that it is impossible to determine
the extant body of game custom. Either that allegation is true or
untrue. If it is untrue, then CFJ 227 cannot be judged TRUE, obviously.

If it is TRUE, then the CFJ 227 Judge cannot even determine what
game custom exists, and therefore cannot "consider currently
existing game custom in reaching a decision", as in [1] above.

The Judge therefore cannot follow the rules in reaching a verdict, and
therefore cannot legally reach a verdict at all, and thus obviously
cannot reach a verdict of TRUE in this case, either.

Therefore, whether or not you accept the hypothesis of CFJ 227, neither
way can lead you to a verdict of TRUE when judging it.

Robin Hood's Reasoning:

 The first sentance of R215 states judgements are always correct.
This implicitly means that rules may not have had the meanings they were
thought to have, which is definitely allowable. The rules don't change
but mey be correctly interpreted for the first time long after their
adoption.

The second clause says only that judges need consider custom etc,
it does not require them to act upon it.

This means that the paradoxical reasoning in both 227/8 is based on false
premises.
 227 may be ruled true or false at the judges whim.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 14:09:08 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 228 Verdict

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> CFJ 228 has been judged FALSE.
> 

I'm afraid I have to appeal the verdict and acknowledge the 5 point
penalty for doing so. I have issue with the following part of the
Judge's reasoning:

> 227 may be ruled true or false at the judges whim.

I believe that statement is FALSE. I belive the rules specify specific
criteria for reaching judgement, and "whim" is not one of them. This is
an important point, not just for this verdict, but for all verdicts.

My argument derives its strength from the fact that "whim" may *not* be
used to reach a verdict; in fact, it takes the assertion of CFJ 227 and
shows how that compromises the specific judicial process described in the
rules. 

If whim is allowed, then CFJ 228 is obviously FALSE. Otherwise, this issue
must be explored more by the Supreme Court.

Malenkai
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verdicts currently in appeal to the Supreme Court: CFJ 220, CFJ 227, 
CFJ 228, CFJ 232, CFJ 230.

I ask that the Justices take due time in considering all verdicts, and
not worry about the A$2/day penalty, as a good verdict is more important
than a hasty one. I will personally pay any penalites the justices receive
up to a limit of A$50 (except on 220 and 230).
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------  
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call For Judgement 228
> Subject: Judging CFJ 227
> Initiator: Malenkai
> Judge: Robin Hood (selected Jul 11, 1996, 01:03h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
> CFJ 227 cannot be judged TRUE.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> 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).
> 
> R 215 reads, in full:
> 
> >All Judgements must be in accordance with all the rules then in
> >effect. When the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on
> >the statement in question, however, then the Judge shall consider
> >currently existing game custom and the spirit of the game in
> >reaching a decision.
> 
> The first key point is: "when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or
> unclear on the statement in question". Lets look at the questions of
> "clarity" and "silence":
> 
> silence: What do the rules have to say about the "[possibility of
> determining] whether there is any game custom beyond that explicitly
> defined...". Scant little, if any at all. I ask the Judge to find a
> rule which speaks to the statement. If it does, does it speak
> *clearly*?:
> 
> clarity: Are the rules "clear" on the statement in question. Webster's
> defines "clear" a few ways, notably: "free from obscurity or ambiguity;
> easily understood; UNMISTAKABLE; free from doubt". Do these factually
> describe the rules with respect to what they have to say, assuming
> they are not silent, about the statement in question? They do not.
> There has been plenty of debate about the regulation of this issue.
> That is not a sign of clarity. Furthermore, if it is clear, why call
> a CFJ? The fact of the matter is that the rules are unclear about
> virtually every CFJ; if they weren't, we wouldn't need them.
> 
> The Judge need not agree with both points above, just one, to make the
> "when" clause of "when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or
> unclear on the statement in question" TRUE, leading to:
> 
> "then the Judge shall consider currently existing game custom
> [...] in reaching a decision." [1]
> 
> Yet CFJ 227's statement alledges:
> 
> "It is impossible to determine whether there is any game custom beyond
> [certain specific types] in making judgements when the rules are
> unclear".
> 
> This statement (CFJ 227), alledges that it is impossible to determine
> the extant body of game custom. Either that allegation is true or
> untrue. If it is untrue, then CFJ 227 cannot be judged TRUE, obviously.
> 
> If it is TRUE, then the CFJ 227 Judge cannot even determine what
> game custom exists, and therefore cannot "consider currently
> existing game custom in reaching a decision", as in [1] above.
> 
> The Judge therefore cannot follow the rules in reaching a verdict, and
> therefore cannot legally reach a verdict at all, and thus obviously
> cannot reach a verdict of TRUE in this case, either.
> 
> Therefore, whether or not you accept the hypothesis of CFJ 227, neither
> way can lead you to a verdict of TRUE when judging it.
> 
> Robin Hood's Reasoning:
> 
>  The first sentance of R215 states judgements are always correct.
> This implicitly means that rules may not have had the meanings they were
> thought to have, which is definitely allowable. The rules don't change
> but mey be correctly interpreted for the first time long after their
> adoption.
> 
> The second clause says only that judges need consider custom etc,
> it does not require them to act upon it.
> 
> This means that the paradoxical reasoning in both 227/8 is based on false
> premises.
>  227 may be ruled true or false at the judges whim.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 13:47:08 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

Malenkai wrote:
>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,

There is room for debate on that, but I myself would not contest the legality
of a CFJ on the matter of /dev/joe's actions.

>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.

I don't agree with this, however.  In my opinion, /dev/joe's action
depended entirely on R 558.  Without R558, R115 would have specifically
prevented /dev/joe's move.

>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.

Submit your CFJ if you like.  As I said, I will not contest its legality,
and I agree to abide by the final decision on it.  However, I think your
case is weak.  In particular, my interpretation of R105 vis a vis proposals
is that the effect that a proposal has is to change the rules.  This is a
one-time event.  In addition, if R105 prevents rules from being made dormant,
then does it not also prevent rules from being repealed?  If we establish
your interpretation of R105, then I think we will have an even bigger mess
on our hands, with a bunch of repealed (we thought) rules still being rules
after all.

>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?

I don't think the game could have been crashed on Jan 22.  It can, I
think, be crashed now.  I am glad that you enjoyed arguing against those
CFJs; the debate that goes on around here is my favorite part of the game.

>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.

I don't think that the crash was a response to your argumentation on CFJs
122 and 127, nor to the verdicts.  It certainly was not a Nobs party
decision.  In my opinion, however, the game was getting so full of holes
that it was difficult to continue play, especially with some relatively
powerful factions fighting to prevent cleaning up the rules.

[...]

>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.

In my opinion, this is a better case against /dev/joe's move than your previous
one was.  R115 doesn't enter into it, however.  It is a question of whether
R558's first sentence has any applicabilty at all, since it does not specify
who or what can grant the ability to make entities dormant.  If R558 allows
anything to make entities dormant, then it allows everything to do so.  Making
entities dormant is governed by that rule, however.

>> 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.

I still argue that the initial ruleset was not crashable.  Surely it is not
the spirit of a game whose rules are written in English that gameplay be
conducted in Swedish.  It would not take much gameplay at all to bring that
into game custom.

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

I admit it.  Why shouldn't I want to?  I agree with Kelly that we ended up
with a rather skewed usage of "game custom," not the one I would have
preferred to use, but we collectively wrote and adopted the ruleset we have
(had).

>> 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.

Getting rid of our history bothers me, too.  But I think that the game is
no longer playable in its current state, and I don't think that the players
can agree on a new game state that would make it playable again.

I will also be quick to allow that we will never be able to create a loophole
proof ruleset.  Part of the fun, though, is to _try_ to do so collectively,
and to try individually to find those loopholes that are sure to be there.
As far as crash-proof goes, we might be able to do better, but I will not
make any claims about it.

>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*.

I didn't realize that you still harbored any ill feelings about that AOJ
business.  The thing that got me so hot then was that I felt your action
to be extremely unjust, and unjustified.  I did not believe that a game
crash would have been the result of RS' win.  However, I did not contest
the legality of your action, and my in-game response was to attempt to
impeach you.  If you recall, I eventually withdrew the supposed impeachment
"proposal" before its voting period expired.  If that business still bothers
you then I offer my sincere apologies.

In addition, there was no agenda that I was ever aware of that called for
crashing the game.  I would have opposed any such agenda.  Indeed, I attempted
to create rules in advance to handle the situations that I intended to inflict
upon Ackanomic .  Such attempts included rules 829 and 904.

>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.

Was the game crashed because it did not meet a certain set of standards?
I don't think so.  Was it crashed because it was fun to destroy months of
collective work?  Surely not.  You'll have to ask /dev/joe why he did it,
but my guess is that it was because the game was going from crisis to crisis
faster and faster, quickly expanding beyond our (or at least my) ability to
handle.  You yourself mentioned how much work the CotC job had become.

Also, if you plant an egg in the rules, then I don't see how you can be
bothered when someone else notices it.

>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...

I whole-heartedly endorse the RFC custom that developed in Ackanomic.  I
think it is an excellent method for writing tight rules, using correct
spelling, etc..

>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 have seen opinions from two Nobs members, myself and /dev/joe, that
the game has legally been crashed.  That does not make it an official Nobs
opinion, however, and indeed it is not.  Apparently snowgod concurs, which
may mean that it _is_ a popular opinion, for I have rarely known snowgod
to agree with the positions of Nobs members on anything, even before there
was a Nobs.

>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.

I am willing to let a judge decide.

>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.]

Nobs has been vocal, but I hardly agree that we are the "force du jour."
Indeed, the legislation that we have proposed or supported has had a rather
dismal record.  The crash was not a Nobs action.  Its intent was not to
force anything on anyone, as far as I know.  As far as a ConCon, however,
there were more than enough forces to prevent any substantial revision of
the rule set.  The CotMD membership was sufficiently great to keep any
Convention's recommendations from being adopted, and they were not the only
ones who routinely opposed legislation that Nobs supported.

It is not to my taste to autocratically dictate a ruleset with which to
continue.  I suggested earlier continuing with a modified version of the
current rule set, but I don't think that the playership-at-large is likely
to agree on any particular version.  Perhaps I'm mistaken.

ThinMan

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #113
*******************************