Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #114
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, July 15 1996         Volume 01 : Number 114

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 22:01:44 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Resigning, Vacation

Just in case the game is still going on, I am resigning for my position as
Acting Justice, if any CFJs were thrown my was and I have not yet
responded, judged, then I'll have to decline those.

as of now I am going on vacation. I'll most likely be back to normal life
in the second week of August, if Ackanomic still goes on, I'll de-cloak
from vacation then and get back in the game. If any of you people start
new games, or additional ones (whether or not ackanomic goes on), please
drop me an e-line, I'll only be too happy to join.

Nicolo Flychuck

aka Uri

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 22:07:25 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Resigning, Vacation

Yeah, I know, it looks kinda dorky when one replies to oneself. Just
wanted to mention that I'll not be receiving mail from the list during my
vacation, so if you want to send me anything, send it directly to me.
Nicolo Flychuck

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 14:28:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Re:  Acka: CFJ 234 Verdict 

I hereby appeal CFJ 234 to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning:

The only argument presented in favor of the truth of the CFJ statement is
that R 558 is in conflict with R 105, and thus is "wholly void and without
effect" according to R108.  I reject this argument and see no other, so the
verdict of true must be overturned.

The text of R105 is "[...]If adopted, [a proposed rule change] must guide
play in the form in which it was voted on."  Surely the only way that a
proposed rule change can guide play is to direct a manner or manners in which
the rules are to be changed.  After those changes have been effected, the
proposed rule change has satisfied the requirements of R105.

If R105 is construed to conflict with R558, then it must also forbid the
amendment or repeal of existing rules, and perhaps even the transmutation
of rules.  It is therefore also in conflict with R491, and so R491 (initially
immutable rule 103) has been void and without effect since it became mutable
on March 22.  Rule 103 had sufficient precedence to allow itself to be
transmuted, and R108 has always had sufficient precedence over R112 to enforce
the "void and without effect"-ness of (mutable) R491.  That would be a crash
and a half, in that it would mean that the game crashed four months ago and
we didn't realize it until now.  Of course, it also would mean that "R 558"
is not a rule at all, thus supporting the original verdict.  So when did we
crash?

>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.]]
>
>
>Niccolo Flychuck's Reasoning:
>
>Malenkai's reasoning is good enough.
>
>addtional comments:
>I don't know whether this would uncrash the game, since, as I pointed out
>in previous posts, lately, all our time has been spent just on saving the
>game, which could be fun, to some extent.  We've been overdoing just about
>everything.
>If this CFJ is sufficient to nullify /dev/joe action, and people decide to
>go on with the game, I suggest the Speaker anounce a festival, a long
>festival, so people can start figuring out what they want to do.

ThinMan>

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 14:29:38 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Oops 

My apologies for sending my appeal of CFJ 234 to the list instead of to the
CotC only.  I replied too quickly, and neglected to change the to: line.

ThinMan

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 15:41:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: RFC Spelling

Spelling Bee
Malenkai

{{[this is an attempt to allow the web-harfer to fix misspellings when
rules and CFJs are adopted, and not need to go through the proposal
process, thus simplifying the whole thing, and putting it in the
background]}}

Create a new rule entitled "Spelling Bee", reading:

This rule takes precedence over any mutable rule which would prohibit
the type of Rule and CFJ changes described here.

1) This Rule creates a Protected entity known as the Spelling Bee. Its
purpose is to fly through the Rules and CFJ Archive and sting out
misspelled or mistyped words. It may not fly through, or sting, any
other entities.

2) Its flight may only be initiated by an officer privileded to do so.

3) Its flight may be initiated at any time, including immediately after
the Adoption of a Rule change, or the filing of a CFJ verdict.

4) An officer initiates its flight by posting a public message with
the term "Spelling" in its subject line. Its flight consists of, in that
post, a listing of all Rule and CFJ changes being made, clearly labeled
by rule or CFJ number, old word, and replacement word. These changes are
called "stingings" and must be made in accordance with the rules 
below. Words in titles and headers of Rules and CFJs may be stung.
No one may not initiate a flight which is illegal, or contains illegal
stingings.

5a) Permissible Stingings:
	a) Replacing a misspelled word with its correctly spelled
equivelent.
	b) Changing the capitilization of the first letter of a word.
	c) Replacing correctly spelled words with the word that was
intended. Ie, replacing "an" with "and" in the following example from 
R 214: "A Judgement may be accompanied by reasons an arguments".
	d) Replacing proper nouns with their proper spelling when the
proper spelling is generally known and accepted.

5b) Impermissible stingings. This list takes precedence over 5a) where
there is conflict:
	a) Replacing a creative or made up word, such as "Torkola".
	b) Replacing British, American, or archaic spellings with their 
American, British, or non-archaic equivelent.
	c) Replacing a foreign word with its Anglicized equivelent.
	d) Replacing Spivak pronouns with other pronouns, or replacing
non-gender neutral language with gender neutral language, or replacing any
pronoun or phrase with a Spivak pronoun.
	e) Replacing words in quotes or words followed by [sic].
	f) Replacing slang or colloquial words, or spellings thereof.
	g) Changing the word, such as replacing "superceeds" with "takes
precedence over", or "computer" with "machine", even if the word being
replaced is misspelled.
	g) Fixing grammar errors, except what is allowed by 5a) section c).
	i) Replacing abbreviations and acronyms.
	j) Making any change that violates the "spirit" of what was 
intended in the writing being edited.

6) Once the flight has been announced, it has been considered to be made,
and the changes may be physically made by the officer. If a player objects
to a stinging or stinging(s), they must Call for Judgement on the matter
that the change violated this, or other rules. If the CFJ finds for the
player's position, the change(s) must be undone. (Note that the officer will
be liable for CFCJ as well, for initiating an illegal flight of the 
Spelling Bee). If the CFJ does not find for the player, their only recourse
is a Proposal to change the language back.

7) Changes made by the Spelling Bee are not noted below the Rules, as is
customary for other changes. This clause takes precedence over any 
mutable rule which would require such notation.

8) Where there is doubt, corrent spellings are adjudicated by the Official
Dictionary.

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

Amend R 411, "Office of the Web-Harfer", to read, in full:

      The Office of the Web-Harfer is a Functional Office. The Duties
are: 
	a) To keep the information on the Ackanomic WWW page up-to-date.
	b) To select and maintain a link to the Official Dictionary of the
English language (hereafter referred to in the rules as the "Official
Dictionary").

	The Privileges are, in addition to receiving the customary salary:

	a) To initiate flights of the Spelling Bee.
 
	It is the responsibility of other players to make public any
information that should be reflected in the WWW page." 

{{[original text:
      "The Office of the Web-Harfer is a Functional Office. It is the
Duty of the Web-Harfer to keep the information on the Ackanomic WWW page
up-to-date. It is the responsibility of other players to make public any
information that should be reflected in the WWW page."]}}
 
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amend R 798 "Palindromes are Inherently Amusing", to replace section
(2) under "conditions" with:

      "(2) each word in the Rule exists either in the Ackanomic Rule Set
previous to the creation of the Rule, or in the Official Dictionary, 
provided that such dictionary exists and is not under the control of any
Player."

{{[original:
      (2) each word in the Rule exists either in the Ackanomic Rule Set
previous to the creation of the Rule, or in an electronically accessible
dictionary of the English language selected by the Web-Harfer, should that
office exist, provided that such dictionary is not under the control of
any Player]}}

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 15:51:02 -0600
From: Mitchell Harding <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official 

Before I begin in my diatribe concerning my headware, I would like to thank
my personal Mad Hatter, ThinMan, for devising for me such a wonderful Silly
Vacation Hat. Earned because of my excessively long absence from Ackanomic,
my Silly Vacation Hat is a beautifully constructed sombrero, composed of
only the finest quality plexiglass -- and weighing roughly 112 pounds due to
the miniature water fountain perched atop it. Bearing up under it's crushing
(yet delightful!) weight, I take the time to admire the menagerie of animals
(2 snails, 6 guppies, and numerous goldfish -- and a new arrival, a penguin)
that reside within the brim of my hat. However, despite all of the
aforementioned accoutrements my hat sports, the part of my hat that pleases
me the most is the divine silk chin-strap (pink, no less!) that must be
reinforced with titanium, as it is able to keep my Silly Vacation Hat firmly
atop my head despite it's great mass. I will be wearing this hat for the two
week period since I left vacation a few days ago, and in that time I will
try and pass a rule allowing me to keep my hat for a longer duration, as I
truly admire my Silly Vacation Hat.

Robert Sevin,
Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 16:57:04 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

I am appointing Robert Sevin as acting Supreme Justice for the 
seat Niccolo just vacated.

There are 6 appeals in the queue. I have offered to foot the bill
for any that run overtime (excluding 220 and 230), to give Mr. Sevin
a chance to catch up (up to a limit, ot course) and to give the court
a chance to think about it. The vacationers may be back soon, so this
may be a short lived appointment.

Malenkai
Speaker

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 17:00:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 225 Verdict

CFJ 225 has been judged FALSE. 

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]

Robin Hood's reasoning:

 Since the ballot box stuffer can only cast votes on ptang's behalf, its
actions are his actions. The entity therefore falls give's ptang
multiple votes contary to rule 390.

 Neither the voting gnome nor tammany are under one players exclusive 
control.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 18:26:49 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 235 (Brinjal)

Brinjal has been chosen for the following.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 235
Subject: Unpermissibility of the Permissibility of the Unprohibited
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: Brinjal (selected Jul 14, 1996, 18:26h New York Time)

Statement:

/dev/joe's action of making rules dormant was illegal, and therefore did
not occur.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

I am going to make several arguments. The Judge need only argee with
one to find a verdict of TRUE, or agree with none, but concur with the
statement.

/dev/joe used R 558 to make all the rules which were not dormant, dormant.
Therefore, to examine the legality of such action, we must first look at
R 558, to see how he was granted such power. R 558, first part:

> As a special power, entities can be granted the power to make proposals,
> rules and CFJs dormant. When dormant, these cannot be voted on, acted
> upon or passed judgement on. But rules and proposals can be revoked or
> amended as permitted by other rules. Dormant entities have no effect.

The key phrase is "entities can be granted the power". Granted the power
by whom or what? The rules are silent on the issue. There is no extant
game custom, except for the fact that no entity of type player has yet
granted this power to anyone. The rule has been around for a while. Can
the fact that no player has yet granted the power, support an implicit
collective interpretation that no player may grant the power? It can,
indicating a verdict of TRUE.

The above is an argument from negative interpretation, one I believe, but
one that is difficult to deliver. Its a case of "why state the obvious",
and is an important point to make. Lets say all points in rules can be
decomposed into many seperate forms which can be interpreted as X can do Y,
or X cannot do Y, depending on the circumstances defining X and Y. (Even
if all rules don't, this one does). The first is a positive interpretation,
and is confirmed by the continued accepted allowance of X doing Y. The
second is the negative interpreted form, confirmed by the continuance of
X not doing Y over a period of time, because of extant interpretation that
X cannot do Y. The alternative is to continually state the obvious of X
cannot do Y to the public forum. Thats the problem with negative 
interpretations, there is no, and cannot be, any confirming action.
 
This ends argument 1, with the claim that R 558's first sentence is of this
form.

The next argument assumes no extant interpretation, which means we must
try to find one. The rules are silent, and there is no game custom, so
all we have is common sense and spirit of the game to determine which
entities can grant such power, and whether /dev/joe is one of those 
entities. Common sense indicates that "another rule" is the proper 
rendering of what entity can grant the power, but that interpretation 
cannot be backed up by fact or rule of law. Its just an interpretation,
and the Judge can choose another. It seems that we must choose *some*
interpretation. What rule of law or game custom gives /dev/joe's any
more weight than mine? If the Judge agrees that the proper rendering is
"another rule", or CFJ, etc, but not a player, then a verdict of TRUE is
necessary. In other words, the Judge just has to interpret that first
sentence or R 558. This ends argument 2.

The next argument takes the previous one a step further, and asserts that
the interpretation in the above is "indeterminate", leading to a thread
split. A multitude of threads spin off from a multitude of possible
interpretations. One such thread is based on an interpretation that only
Left-Handed Lemons may grant such power in the first sentence. 2 of the
more interesting ones are that only rules can, or only rules cannot grant
the power. In the one, where only rules can, we have a verdict of TRUE.
The other will be explored in argument 4, but suffice it to say, even if
it is found FALSE in that thread, which I don't think it will, we can choose
which thread to play out, since we don't have the resources to do both.
Its like the previous argument, sort of, it comes down to choosing the
interpretation you wish to play under, because there is no rule or fact 
to indicate such. Who is right? This ends argument 3.

The fourth and final argument examines the case in which players may choose
to grant themselves this power. What rule explicitly grants such power to
a player? Not a single one, with the possible exception of R 115, 
"Permissibility of the Unprohibited", which says, in part:

> "Whatever is not explicitly prohibited or regulated by a rule is
> permitted and unregulated ..."

So you either buy that no rule grants the player the power, or this
one does. Why have this rule in the *initial* ruleset in the first
place? To cover the default case, which would exist without it, that you
could not do anything that was not explicitly permitted. That is why this 
rule is needed. The problem is that the rule was dormant (assuming the
premise at this point in the argument that it could be used to grant
the power in the first sentence of R 588), because Wayne made it dormant.
 
Therefore we are playing without it, in that harsh world of the
Unpermissibility of the Permissibility of the Unprohibited, which prevents
a lot of stuff we might do, but also prevented /dev/joe's action,
indicating a verdict of TRUE.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 17:51:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Dormancy

ThinMan wrote:
> Malenkai wrote:

> >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.

I agree with ThinMan's reasoning here.  However, I believe CFJ 234 is TRUE,
for different reasoning.  See below.

> 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.

I did what I did regarding Dormancy because if Wayne's Dormancy action was
legal, then the game was very seriously broken, and I wanted to show how
seriously broken it was, and to encourage the players to find a way to fix
it.  This worked, as CFJ 234 was a good attempt to solve the problem.

I appreciate Malenkai's CFJ 234 because, while I feel his reasoning is
incorrect (ThinMan explained why), it led me to discover another reason to
support the same statement.  Rule 558 says that dormant proposals cannot be
voted on.  Immutable Rule 104 says all proposals made in the proper way
shall be voted on.  This is a mutable/immutable inconsistency and by Rule
108, Rule 558 is wholly void and without effect.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 15:15:09 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Official

At 3:51 PM 7/14/96, Mitchell Harding wrote:
>Before I begin in my diatribe concerning my headware, I would like to thank
>my personal Mad Hatter, ThinMan, for devising for me such a wonderful Silly
>Vacation Hat. Earned because of my excessively long absence from Ackanomic,
>my Silly Vacation Hat is a beautifully constructed sombrero, composed of
>only the finest quality plexiglass -- and weighing roughly 112 pounds due to
>the miniature water fountain perched atop it. Bearing up under it's crushing
>(yet delightful!) weight, I take the time to admire the menagerie of animals
>(2 snails, 6 guppies, and numerous goldfish -- and a new arrival, a penguin)
>that reside within the brim of my hat. However, despite all of the
>aforementioned accoutrements my hat sports, the part of my hat that pleases
>me the most is the divine silk chin-strap (pink, no less!) that must be
>reinforced with titanium, as it is able to keep my Silly Vacation Hat firmly
>atop my head despite it's great mass. I will be wearing this hat for the two
>week period since I left vacation a few days ago, and in that time I will
>try and pass a rule allowing me to keep my hat for a longer duration, as I
>truly admire my Silly Vacation Hat.
>
>Robert Sevin,
>Wearing a Silly Vacation Hat.

BRAVO!!!

Very well done!

Three cheers for Robert Sevin and his Silly Vacation Hat!

snowgod
wishing he had a hat of his own

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 15:22:37 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC Hotels

At 12:15 PM 7/14/96, this is not a name wrote:
>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?

Yeah, that works.  Or at least have the fee locked in for 29 days, after
which the hotel owner can change it again.  Perhaps the president could put
a cap on hotel fees if he sees unfair business practices.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 23:30:41 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Silly Vacation Hat

fon's Silly Vacation Hat is a five meter tall top hat made of lemon-lime
jello. Perched upon its top, is the Chartreuse Goose, when the Goose
is not Elsewhere. Hanging from the brim of the hat are three tenticles
of chocolate; at the end of each is a large onion. Wrapped around the
center of the hat is a band of cloudberries from Saami land, and the
jello tastes like cloudberry liqueur. Embedded in the jello is the text
of the ideal ruleset.

Whenever its wearer utters the word "rule", the Goose perched on top utters
the word "cheese" very loudly, immediately afterwords. Whenever its wearer
utters the word "vote", the Goose utters the word "burger", very loudly. 
Whenever its wearer utters the number 257, the Goose sings the lyrics
to Iron Maiden's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner", very loudly.

Malenkai
Mad Hatter

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #114
*******************************