Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #122
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Monday, July 22 1996         Volume 01 : Number 122

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:49:54 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Blue Cross (again) 

I am to exercise my privlidge as Senator (seat a) and award Malenkai with
this wonderful new Blue Cross that I recently had created by the Frobozz
Magic Medal Company, Ackanomic Division.

I am awarding Malenkai this Blue Cross in recognition of his merit and
service to Ackanomic.  He has selflessly submitted more than 20 proposal
that have been adopted, making him one of the more prolific players in this
great land.

May this Blue Cross be worn with Pride and Honor.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 22:03:27 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Yet Another Blue Cross 

Once again, I am to exercise my privlidge as Senator (seat a) to award a
Blue Cross to fon.  The lovely new Blue Cross was recently minted  by the
Frobozz Magic Medal Company, Ackanomic Division.

I am awarding fon this Blue Cross in recognition of his merit and service
to Ackanomic.  He became eligible at the time he was impeached from the
senate, by completing his last consecutive term of office.

May this Blue Cross be worn with Pride and Honor.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:44:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Cross (again)

> I am to exercise my privlidge as Senator (seat a) and award Malenkai with
> this wonderful new Blue Cross that I recently had created by the Frobozz
> Magic Medal Company, Ackanomic Division.

> I am awarding Malenkai this Blue Cross in recognition of his merit and
> service to Ackanomic.  He has selflessly submitted more than 20 proposal
> that have been adopted, making him one of the more prolific players in this
> great land.

> May this Blue Cross be worn with Pride and Honor.

I note that Malenkai may have already been returned his original Blue Cross,
if proposal 966 passed.  If so, then by the same reasoning as in CFJ 218,
snowgod's action had no effect.  If proposal 966 did not pass, then snowgod
gave Malenkai his blue cross at this time.

In either case, he has a blue cross *now*.  The only difference is for
the matter of determining when he becomes eligible for a silver stripe.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:03:22 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Re: Acka: Blue Cross (again)

At 1:44 AM 7/21/96, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
>> I am to exercise my privlidge as Senator (seat a) and award Malenkai with
>> this wonderful new Blue Cross that I recently had created by the Frobozz
>> Magic Medal Company, Ackanomic Division.
>
>> I am awarding Malenkai this Blue Cross in recognition of his merit and
>> service to Ackanomic.  He has selflessly submitted more than 20 proposal
>> that have been adopted, making him one of the more prolific players in this
>> great land.
>
>> May this Blue Cross be worn with Pride and Honor.
>
>I note that Malenkai may have already been returned his original Blue Cross,
>if proposal 966 passed.  If so, then by the same reasoning as in CFJ 218,
>snowgod's action had no effect.  If proposal 966 did not pass, then snowgod
>gave Malenkai his blue cross at this time.
>
>In either case, he has a blue cross *now*.  The only difference is for
>the matter of determining when he becomes eligible for a silver stripe.

There is one other possibility.  If CFJ 220 is not overturned by the
Supreme Court, then no one will have a blue cross.  The rule failed due to
quorum as did almost every other one.

snowgod

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 02:27:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Score Mania, and the Great Trombone

OK, I tried tonight to determine the *real* scores, at least up through
July 10th, noon EDT (just before proposal 958's voting period ended),
assuming that we can vote and that no scoring occurs on retracted proposals
other than -1 for the author.

I am missing several +1/+2's for malenkai's votes on proposals whose
voting period ended on July 3rd (the day he left the game).  These
will be added when known.

Last week I figured scores which were based on the "final" scores in the
n-win cycles and the last score report Wayne posted.  This is a list of all
the difference I have found between that score report, and the actual
scores just before prop 958's voting period ended.  Some of these I
reported already.  I made one error in that earlier report; somehow, I
calculated a score of -1 for Robin Hood; it should have been 0.

The major new item is undoing the second application of the results of
proposal 925.  I noted this to Wayne when he first sent it out, but it
appears he did not undo the extra score changes introduced by this error.
There are also some score changes for proposal 956, which happened after
Wayne's last score report and so they needed to be added.

July 3, 00:22 EDT: Prop 922 incorrect results undone:
  +9 Malenkai, -1 each: Niccolo Flychuck, this is not a name, /dev/joe,
     mr cwm, pTang1001001sos, Wayne, Mohammed
Prop 922 correct results applied:
  +9 Malenkai, +2 each Robin Hood, snowgod, Kelly Martin, Techno
July 3, 00:22 EDT: +5 Malenkai: shortness bonus on P922
July 3, 00:23 EDT: Prop 924 incorrect results undone:
  +9 Malenkai, -1 each Robin Hood, De'ghew, Bascule, snowgod,
     this is not a name, /dev/joe, mr cwm, pTang1001001sos
Prop 924 correct results applied:
  +9 Malenkai, +2 each Niccolo Flychuck, Kelly Martin, Techno, Wayne,
     Mohammed
July 3, 00:24 EDT: Wayne mistakenly processed the results for P925 twice.
  Undo extra scoring: +9 Malenkai, -1 each snowgod, this is not a name, Techno
July 6, 13:16 EDT: +5 /dev/joe: shortness bonus on P935
July 6, 11:05 EDT: -10 Brinjal for failing to respond to CFJ 215 in time
July 8, 15:25 EDT: -10 Kelly Martin for failing to respond to CFJ 216
July 8, 16:54 CDT: -80 Malenkai -- never really reached -60.
July 8, 16:57 EDT: +5 /dev/joe: shortness bonus on P948
July 9, 11:50 EDT: +4 Niccolo Flychuck for proposals 953, 954 (magic potato)
July 9, 23:22 +0000: -1 Snowgod: Supreme Court overturned CFJ200
July 9, 22:43 +0000: -20 Snowgod for frivolous appeal on CFJ 217.
July 9, 23:27 EDT: Apply results of P956: -8 pTang1001001sos,
   +1 each Mellon, Bascule, snowgod, this is not a name, Kelly Martin,
           /dev/joe, mr cwm
July 10, 00:39 EDT: -20 Malenkai: frivolous appeal of CFJ 211

I also extracted from the proposal results 910-956 all the scoring that
occurred on all the proposals, and made a log of all the scoring that
I believe has occurred in this entire cycle.  This is available at
http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/pointlog

These are the scores for:
(1) The scores from Wayne's reports plus the changes above.
(2) The scores calculated from scratch, for Jul 10, noon EDT.
(3) Total of all the scoring yet announced.

Score1	Score2	Score3	Ackanomic Name   Status  Real Name
- ------	------	------	--------------      ---  -------------
76	76	81	/dev/joe             A   (Joseph DeVincentis) 
33	33	29	Niccolo Flychuck     A   (Uri Bruck) 
25	25	25	this is not a name   A   (Mike Epstein) 
22	22	17	Techno               A   (Jerome Herrman) 
16	16	16	Bascule              A   (Matt Black) 
6	6	12	mr cwm               A   (Eric Murray) 
9	9	9	Mellon               A   (Niklas Mellin)
8	8	8	pTang1001001sos      A   (Mark Nau)   
1	1	7	Kelly Martin         A   (Kelly Martin) 
9	9	4	ThinMan              A   (John Bollinger) 
14	14 [%]	1	Mohammed             A   (Jason Orendorff) 
1	1	1	Robin Hood           A   (R Shaw) 
0	0	0	Habeous Corpus       N   (Ed Graham)
0	0	0	chess piece face     V   (Paul Swan) 
0	0	0	fon                  V   (Adrian Smith) 
0	0	0	Simon Marty Harriman V   (Andy Swan) 
0	0	0	The Great Old One    V   (Sean Crystal) 
0	0	-3	Robert Sevin         A   (Mitchell Harding) 
- -5	-5	-5	Brinjal              A   (Simon Clarke) 
- -12	-7	-7	De'ghew              A   (John Spickes) 
- -19	-19	-19	Calvin N Hobbes      A   (Thierry Joffrain)
- -20	-20	-20	Pascal               A   (Jason Reed) 
- -21	-21	-31	snowgod              A   (Phil Ackley) 
- -36	-32 [*]	-36	Malenkai             A   (Randy Hall) 
- -42	-42	-55	Wayne                A   (Wayne Sheppard) 

[%] Quit the game on Jul 12 19:03 EDT
[*] Malenkai has probably been shorted at least 3 points from votes being
ignored (due to his leaving-the-game stunt).

Differences between Score1 and Score2:

The difference in De'ghew's score is due to Wayne having charged him
5 points for appealing CFJ 187; however, this appeal was made during
the previous cycle, at Jun 24, 14:00 EDT.  When Wayne reported scores
on July 2, he had De'ghew at -21; up to that point, De'ghew had scored
4 points for 2 no votes on passed proposals and -20 for a frivolous
appeal of CFJ 187.

The difference in Malenkai's score is apparently due to Wayne forgetting
to subtract 1 for Malenkai's retraction of 936, and subtracting 5 points
for Malenkai's appeal of CFJ 211 twice.  When Wayne reported on July 6
that Malenkai had reached -60 exactly, and thus was changed to 20, he used
this scoring to get to to that total: -9 each on proposal 921-925, -9 on
proposal 925 again, -5 for appealing a CFJ (either 207 or 211, I don't
know which), and -1 for retracting 949.  He missed subtracting a point
for retracting 936 completely (when I noted it later, Wayne said he thought
he had done them all -- but it was difficult to check, which is why a log
like the one I have created is important to have).  When Wayne next reports
a score for Malenkai, on June 9 before processing the results for proposal
937 & later, he notes a -5 score change for Malenkai appealing CFJ 207,
and Malenkai's score has changed by this amount (now 15).  Wayne also asked
what he'd missed, and I assumed he had missed Malenkai appealing CFJ 211,
since the appeal of 207 came first, but it appears that he had in fact
already added that (or else he did the -5 for CFJ 207 twice).  Again, the
log proves useful.

This was not my plan when I started working on these scores, but since
it worked out this way, based on the game custom established when Malenkai
did the same in a previous cycle, I claim the Great Trombone based on
my score of 76 points (which first occurred July 9, 23:27 EDT when
proposal 956 failed and I scored 1 point for voting YES on it.)  Here
is a summary of all my scoring this cycle:

Jun 30 04:25 EDT: +9 /dev/joe: p910 (author)
Jul 1 00:53 EDT: +9 /dev/joe: p911 (author)
Jul 2 14:38 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p915 (yes)
Jul 2 14:39 EDT: -8 /dev/joe: p917 (author,yes)
Jul 3 00:22 EDT: +9 /dev/joe: p920 (author)
Jul 3 02:09 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p926 (yes)
Jul 3 02:12 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p927 (yes)
Jul 3 02:13 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p928 (yes)
Jul 3 02:14 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p930 (yes)
Jul 3 02:15 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p931 (yes)
Jul 3 02:16 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p932 (yes)
Jul 3 13:35 EDT: -1 /dev/joe: retracting 934
Jul 6 13:16 EDT: +14 /dev/joe: p935 (author,short)
Jul 8 16:52 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p938 (yes)
Jul 8 16:55 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p942 (yes)
Jul 8 16:56 EDT: +2 /dev/joe: p944 (no)
Jul 8 16:57 EDT: +14 /dev/joe: p948 (author,short)
Jul 8 17:02 EDT: +9 /dev/joe: p950 (author)
Jul 8 23:30 EDT: +9 /dev/joe: p952 (author)
Jul 9 23:27 EDT: +1 /dev/joe: p956 (yes)
Jul 12 --:-- EDT: +15 /dev/joe: Rule 924 (Godel stuff)
Jul 12 22:24 EDT: -10 /dev/joe: appealing CFJ 227, 232

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:37:32 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Score Mania, and the Great Trombone

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> OK, I tried tonight to determine the *real* scores, at least up through
> July 10th, noon EDT (just before proposal 958's voting period ended),
> assuming that we can vote and that no scoring occurs on retracted proposals
> other than -1 for the author.

[giant snip]

There is still the issue of P 1020, while not a scoring problem now,
will be if it is not handled correctly now.

That is the Spelling Bee where /dev/joe noticed the typo of the word "not",
but the Spelling Bee was an RFC, not a proposal, so it should have never
been made a proposal (at least not in my name). I later submitted Spelling
Bee with the fix, its now P 1022.

I do not feel right retracting it, because that would be against the rules.
I feel the only 2 solutions are 1) remove it from consideration and put
it in the archive as a numbering error, or 2) attribute it to a different
author, if it is a bona-fide proposal submission by someone else.

It seems a little silly to CFJ this; but I'd like to get it right before
it causes anyone more scorekeeping headaches.

Malenkai

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:02:14 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka: Supreme Court Deadline

Not being a lawyer (My name not withstanding) my understanding of the
issues here may be seriously flawed,  but I'll give it a whirl anyway.

The issue at stake seems to be that the outcomes of CFJ may not be
known.I the long run,  this amounts to stating that all CFJ'swill have
been rendered invalid without explicit Rules to govern them.  

CFJ 227 attempts to create a Game Paradox where by /dev/joe may win the
game.  Merely because the extant of Game Custom cannot be determined, 
does not invalidate its existance,  nor remove the power of Judges to
render and publish Judgement.  It could have the opposite effect.  _It
makes it harder to justify an Appeal_.  

CFJ 228 attempts to create a Game Paradox based on the interpretation of
the wording of the previous CFJ. But it snowballed from there.   The
Judge's original comments in handing down eir decision are at best ill
thought out,  but eir reasoning in coming to that decision still holds. 
Malenkai's appeal is based on the presence of one word in the judgement, 
and while that one word may indeed be sufficient grounds to appeal a
Judgement,  even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Appeal,  a
paradox does not necessarily exist.  

CFJ's 227 and 228 may either be judged TRUE or FALSE without serious
effect on future gameplay.  In the absense of specific Rules to the
contrary,  the Rules only specify that game custom and "the best interest
of the game" be taken into account. Even if game custom can not be
accurately determined (or even proven to have existed),  this does not
negate the ability to Judge.   When it comes to making a judgement or
posting of said judgement,  the Judge is never wrong.  E may be
overturned by a higher court,  but may still deliver any Judgemnt e feels
will satisfy "the best interest of the game".

The part I find most interesting is that both CFJ 227 and 228 contain
very valid arguments.  And yet the validity of the arguments ultimately
may have nothing to do with the Judgements or eir Appeals.  While the
arguments may be deemed valid,  there is nothing in either of them
mandating the outcome of eir initial statements.  A Judge,  or the
Supreme Court can easily agree with the interpretations presented in eir
arguments and still _do not_ have to rule in favor of either Appeal.  

Of course,  ruling in favor or against BOTH CFJ's will leave a paradox
because the wording of CFJ 228 _specifically_ contradicts CFJ 227. 
However,  a ruling in favor of or against  either does not necessaruily
crash the game.  Unless the Supreme Court allows them to.

Respectively,

Habeous Corpus
<If a Burglar comits Burglary,  and if a Forger comits Forgery,  then God
is an Iron--Larry Niven>

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 11:32:38 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Supreme Court Deadline

[email-masked] wrote:
  
> CFJ 228 attempts to create a Game Paradox based on the interpretation of
> the wording of the previous CFJ. But it snowballed from there.   The
> Judge's original comments in handing down eir decision are at best ill
> thought out,  but eir reasoning in coming to that decision still holds.
> Malenkai's appeal is based on the presence of one word in the judgement,
> and while that one word may indeed be sufficient grounds to appeal a
> Judgement,  even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Appeal,  a
> paradox does not necessarily exist.

CFJ 228 does not claim a paradox, only that a verdict of TRUE cannot be
arrived at on CFJ 227. The strength of the argument comes from the 
strength of CFJ 227's statement, and the wording of R 215. It has nothing
to do with the *actual* truth of CFJ 227, only its *assumed* truth. For 
example, if CFJ 227 said "all penguins are chartreuse", and I showed how
assuming that that is true prevented you from judging that its true, it
does not matter if all penguins are actually chartruese at all. (FALSE in
the trivial case as well).

As for the one word, you are probably referring to "whim". I believe it 
is breaking the rules (R 215) to use whim to adjudicate a CFJ. R 215 is
explicit in how judgements must be arrived at, and it does not include
whim. Part of the rationale for the appeal was to establish this, the main
rationale is that I belive TRUE is necessary for CFJ 228, but /dev/joe's
"spirit of the game" argument is interesting. It still seems difficult
that R 215 could be followed without "game custom" but with "spirit of the
game". I guess that is why I'm no longer a Justice :)
   
> CFJ's 227 and 228 may either be judged TRUE or FALSE without serious
> effect on future gameplay.  In the absense of specific Rules to the
> contrary,  the Rules only specify that game custom and "the best interest
> of the game" be taken into account.

I do not believe this is true. R 215 says "spirit of the game", not 
necessarily "best interest of the game". They may be the same, they may
not be. CFJ 229 allows "spirit of the game" to be anything, I suppose.

If CFJ 227 is true, I believe gameplay will be difficult if CFJ 232 is
FALSE, a possible crash if 232 is TRUE. In either case, however, as I 
said in the previous post, there will probably be enough game for the
CSRR to fix R 660 and R 390. We just may ever know that the verdicts have
been arrived at!

I personally see no other solution if CFJ 227 is TRUE. I do not believe
227 should be true, because custom is "locked in" rather than 
"indeterminate". Locked in, if that is the final interpretation, will be
difficult to play as well, though.

> When it comes to making a judgement or
> posting of said judgement,  the Judge is never wrong.  E may be
> overturned by a higher court,  but may still deliver any Judgemnt e feels
> will satisfy "the best interest of the game".

I disagree, qv R 215 again.
 
Malenkai
Wish we had that CFJ casino. I probably am going to submit it; here we
come Gnome :)

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:03:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Supreme Court Deadline

> CFJ 228 does not claim a paradox, only that a verdict of TRUE cannot be
> arrived at on CFJ 227. The strength of the argument comes from the 
> strength of CFJ 227's statement, and the wording of R 215. It has nothing
> to do with the *actual* truth of CFJ 227, only its *assumed* truth. For 
> example, if CFJ 227 said "all penguins are chartreuse", and I showed how
> assuming that that is true prevented you from judging that its true, it
> does not matter if all penguins are actually chartruese at all. (FALSE in
> the trivial case as well).

My reasoning in CFJ 227 is that there are two different game states (one
with lots of game custom, and one with very little, and a very restricted
concept of "game custom"), which each imply that the *other* is the proper
game state, and thus it cannot be determined which game state we should
follow to be in accordance with the rules & game custom.  I note that we
have been following the one which has lots of game custom, and should
probably continue to do so, since the one with restricted game custom is
probably very broken.  However, we can't invalidate that game state -- we
can only choose to ignore it.  It may also be true that only in the game
state with lots of game custom can CFJ 227 be judged true at all (but this
is the game state we have been playing).  However, my CFJ 229 was an attempt
to allow the judge to use Spirit of the Game to make a judgement in the
absence of game custom.

> As for the one word, you are probably referring to "whim". I believe it 
> is breaking the rules (R 215) to use whim to adjudicate a CFJ. R 215 is
> explicit in how judgements must be arrived at, and it does not include
> whim. Part of the rationale for the appeal was to establish this, the main
> rationale is that I belive TRUE is necessary for CFJ 228, but /dev/joe's
> "spirit of the game" argument is interesting. It still seems difficult
> that R 215 could be followed without "game custom" but with "spirit of the
> game". I guess that is why I'm no longer a Justice :)

By CFJ 229, Spirit of the Game falls under Rule 115's "unprohibited and
unregulated" clause, so is roughly equivalent to whim.  However, the other
parts of Rule 215 must also be followed, so judgements based on spirit
of the game should only be made when both the rules *and* game custom
are silent, unclear, etc.

> If CFJ 227 is true, I believe gameplay will be difficult if CFJ 232 is
> FALSE, a possible crash if 232 is TRUE. In either case, however, as I 
> said in the previous post, there will probably be enough game for the
> CSRR to fix R 660 and R 390. We just may ever know that the verdicts have
> been arrived at!

CFJ 232 is a tricky one.  It may be the case that it is false in the game
state we have been playing, and true in the other game state with (almost)
no game custom.  Of course, in that other game state, its true judgement
cannot be delivered, for there is no game custom to determine how to do so.

> I personally see no other solution if CFJ 227 is TRUE. I do not believe
> 227 should be true, because custom is "locked in" rather than 
> "indeterminate". Locked in, if that is the final interpretation, will be
> difficult to play as well, though.

My reasoning acknowledges the "locked in" nature of game custom, and
argues that we can't determine which state was locked in.

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jul 96 23:24:17 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1025

Proposal 1025 - Sun Jul 21 23:24:17 EDT 1996
Unnecessary?
Malenkai  (Randy Hall)

Repeal R 558, "Definition of Dormant".

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

Amend R 592, "Protection", to append the following as its last sentence:

"Rules, the rule set, proposals, points, currency, Officers, Players,
and PFbonds are protected entities. Rule changes may manipulate rules
and the rule set."

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

Repeal R 660, "Protected Entities".

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #122
*******************************