Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #131
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest       Wednesday, July 24 1996       Volume 01 : Number 131

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 02:11:57 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC scoring rule changes

[email-masked] wrote:
 
> Since I have the nomicbot and scores change mostly thru the results of
> proposals, I should be the one to keep the official score.  But I cannot
> keep up with the multitude of scoring changes that happen in the game.
> The idea of a batching system might work.  But I am thinking about 
> something
> else.  How about a nomcbot command to change a score?  If the CotC posts
> a result that penalizes someone 20 points, he could send a command like:
> 
> #scorechange /dev/joe -20 for frivolous appeal of CFJ666

This is an excellent idea, except for things like retractions. Lets see
if the following variation is feasable, /dev/joe would have to comment.
The problem with the following is that it assumes certain technology to
support ackanomic, but I see no other clean way to handle the problem of
retractions:

1) The rules would need to be rewritten so that scoring changes are
effective the time proposal results are *reported* (R 207), CFJs appeals
and penalties are delivered by the CotC, proposals are retracted, etc.
"Speed" assures that there will be no delay greater than 3 days.

2) The rules would need to be rewritten so that any public post, such as a
CFJ or proposal retraction, announcement of a parade, CFJ penalty, etc
contain a valid scorechange directive. Any such post without such directive
has no effect whatsoever. The Speaker could be "referee" to announce things
like parades. What Phoebe says would be rewritten to have such requirement,
the Assistant Tabulator jobs (IPs) would be rewritten, etc.

3) A "bot" user would be added to the main majordomo list. All email sent
to [email-masked] would have a copy sent to this bot
user as well, running on wilma.

4) email sent to this bot would invoke a script that parsed the email, 
looking for a scorechange directive. If it found one, it would send a
"#scorechange user points subject-line" to Wayne's nomicbot, which would
update the master score database.

5) Once a day, the nomicbot, or Wayne, would publish a list of all such
changes, which could be audited by the scorekeeper or speaker/referee,
and any changes made. If this were running smoothly enough, the necessity
of changes would be rare.

6) Realistically, people are going to post what Phoebe says, and retract
proposals, without including scorechange directives. The scorekeeper or
referee would be responsible for catching such, and posting the change
manually to the bot. (I know this contradicts 2 above, just thinking
aloud). Exactly one person must be responsible for this, to prevent double
posting.

7) The bot would check for players reaching the magic number everytime a
score change is posted.

Any comments? Otherwise, Wayne's idea is fine, as long as someone is 
responsible for manually posting #scorechange messages to the nomicbot
on things like proposal retractions. The rules would need to be rewritten
in this case so that the score change is effective whenever the scorekeeper
posts such changes to the bot, not when it is originally posted.

> Then the nomicbot could periodically post all scorechanges to the list.
> Each officer would be responsible for posting any scorechanges under
> thier control.
> 
> I do agree that scorechanges should only take place when it is posted.

Agreed. Same idea.
 
> | 4) Would it be possible to run the old 50 or so voting results through
> | a Perl script to see what the results would be under this new scheme,
> | and compare them to the old? Alot of work for someone, I admit, jus| t
> |  throwing it out.
> 
> What do you have in mind?  I've kept alot of the old votes on proposals.
> I could probably set up the new scoring conditions and run some results.
> Email me with details.

All I had in mind was programming /dev/joe's latest RFC changes to the
scoring system and running the results of the last 50 proposals through it,
and comparing the scores to the old way, to see what the effect is. If
the new system accomplishes the goals I want, then Niccolo and I should
have better scores, for writing alot more developmental/risky content. I 
was just curious, I'm willing to try /dev/joe's new scheme without a test
run, but I want to do the whole scoring rewrite (above) in one pass.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 00:43:52 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Misc: Forehead Purchase 

mr cwm's recent multi-forhead purchase lead me to the realization that
there are some important forehead dynamics that have been goin unoticed so
far in this game (at a subconsious level, no doubt).  Acting upong this
revelation, I wish to purchase a new forehead (which I will not wear right
now) with the following attributes, so that I may better study forehead
dynamics (officialy, in my position of inventor of course):

My new forehead, at first glance, will always appear to look remarkably
like a normal forehead.  Upon closer inspection though any admirer will
realize that the new forhead exists as the inverse of the original in every
detail except for the words branded across the hairline reading "STOP
FOREHEAD DISCRIMINATION!"

snowgod

Ambassador - Liason to Internomic - Acting Senator (seat c)
Inventor -Senator (seat a) - Heretic (twice) - Former CSRR
Founder, Church of the Markovian Dream - Member, None Yet
Wearing a prosthetic forehead - Fighting Forehead Discrimination

"Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot"

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 16:58:03 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka: Newspaper Investments

I notice mr cwm is putting his hard unwon cash into prosthetic
foreheads. As both he and I are losing cash hand-over-fist over late
appeal verdicts, I think this is a wise move. I have taken
independent financial advice on the matter, but my adviser reckons
that the infinite number of prosthetic foreheads means that the pf
market is inherently unstable. He concludes that a crash in pf price
is inevitable, and has advised me to invest in limited commodities, 
like newspapers. The other advantage of newspapers is that a well 
respected organ that takes the time to build up it's reader base is 
likely to gain value in times of crisis.

Hence I am starting up two newspapers, and ask the financier to debit 
my account by the necessary A$40.

The Day Today 
  A traditional style paper, concentrating on news reporting, 
  interviews, in-depth analysis and the like.

The Journal of Irreproducible Results
  Ackanomia's first scientific journal. It is expected to become the 
  journal of choice for ackanomic scientists, and will publish only
  scientific work that meets our exacting low standards. It will also be 
  participating in the Earth is flat / round debate, although the 
  owner's inherent bias ensures that all such articles will argue in 
  favour of flat.

Contributions to either paper are welcomed. Owing to the
difficulties of running a scientific journal (nobody reads them,
basically) I cannot offer to pay for submissions to J.Irrep.Res.,
however I am offering 2PFBascule (so as not to start a price war
with our main rival, the Steel Flee Gazette) for any articles
printed in The Day Today.

Bascule

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 13:46:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: mr cwm <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeal 228 ruling

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> There is a difference between *believing* something is True, and 
> being able to *demonstrate* that it is True. That was the point of 228,
> and its appeal.

But aren't decisions actually returned, not on the fact that one has
demonstrated the Truth of something, but on the *belief* that one has
demonstrated the Truth of something?  I think one must always admit the
possibility that an error will be discovered later. 

- -mr cwm

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 13:12:33 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official 

Ackazens,

Here are the most recent financial account standings.  They should be
completely up-to-date, and include some corrections to the yields from
the previous bond cycle, as well as yields for the bond cycle completed
Monday.  Also included are Supreme Court tardiness fines and the purchases
of various prosthetic foreheads and newspapers.

I have started a financial log.  From now on, if anyone has questions about
when or whether a particular transaction was recorded then I can verify the
transaction against my log.

ThinMan
Financier

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

List of accounts as of 7/24/96

- ---------
Stats:
Ackadollars in circulation:
A$ 15,988

Average Per Player:
A$ 666

Treasury:
A$ 59,012

The following entities are stored in the Treasury:

The Gumball, The Voting Gnome, Tammany, Phoebe, The Fat Lady, An endless
supply and endless variety of Prosthetic Foreheads, The Brass Monkey, The
Map of Ackanomia, The Rules of Ackanomic, the Proposals of Ackanomic, the
Judgements of Ackanomic, the three Blueprints currently in existence, and
every other legal document of Ackanomic, Game custom, The Ackanomic Afterlife,
the Senate Building, the Free Market, the Treasury, the Gaol, the Library, and
every other public building, Scads of PFs of fromer players, An infinite
number of points, The Great Trombone of Ackanomiai, and probably a few others.
- --------

Name of Player [Acka Name]
A$xxx		nnn PFxxx       Other entities

/dev/joe
A$962 		100 PF/dev      Prosthetic Forehead

Bascule
A$815 		100 PFBascule   2 Newspapers

Brinjal
A$567		100 PFBrinjal

Calvin N Hobbes
A$459		100 PFCalvin

chess piece face
A$463		100 PFchess

De'ghew
A$633   	100 PFDe'ghew

fon
A$530		100 PFfon

Habeous Corpus
A$923           100 PFHabeous

Kelly Martin
A$488           100 PFKelly

Malenkai
A$943 		100 PFMalenka   Prosthetic Forehead

Mellon
A$928           100 PFMellon

mr cwm
A$549 		100 PFmr        2 Prosthetic Foreheads

Niccolo Flychuck
A$507		100 PFNiccolo   Scroll of Crumble, Prosthetic Forehead

Pascal
A$503           100 PFPascal

pTang1001001sos
A$933           100 PFpTang10

Robert Sevin
A$514		100 PFRobert

Robin Hood
A$782 		100 PFRobin

Simon Marty Harriman
A$491		100 PFSimon

snowgod
A$427		100 PFsnowgod   Electronic Potato, 2 Prosthetic Foreheads

Techno
A$759		100 PFTechno

The Great Old One
A$448		100 PFThe

ThinMan
A$791 		100 PFThinMan

this is not a name
A$783 		100 PFthis

Wayne
A$790 		100 PFWayne
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 13:13:33 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official 

Ackazens,

Here are the yields of the most recent bond cycle, based on the scores
provided by /dev/joe:

   Acka Name      Last Score       "Current" Score      Yield, A$
      /dev           66                 56                56 
    Bascule          13                 13                13 
    Brinjal          -5                  5                 5
     Calvin         -19                 -1                -1
     chess            0                  0                 0
    De'ghew          -7                -12                -6
      fon             0                  0                 0
    Habeous           0                  0                 0
     Kelly            0                  0                 0 
    Malenka         -11                -39               -20 
     Mellon           8                  0                 0
       mr             3                  3                 3 
    Niccolo          11                 11                11 
     Pascal         -20                -20               -10
    pTang10          12                 12                12 
     Robert           0                  0                 0
     Robin            1                  1                 1 
     Simon            0                  0                 0
    snowgod          -3                -12                -6 
     Techno          18                 19                19 
      The             0                  0                 0
    ThinMan           9                  4                 4
      this           18                 18                18 
     Wayne          -41                -41               -21

Cheers,

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 13:15:41 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Oops 

Ackazens,

My apologies.  The accounts I released are correct, but I sent an incorrect
working draft of the bond listing.  Correct bond yields will be released
momentarilly.

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 13:17:53 -0500
From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Official 

Ackazens,

Here are the _real_ bond yields for the cycle that ended Monday:

   Acka Name      Last Score       "Current" Score      Yield, A$
      /dev           66                140                74 
    Bascule          13                 29                16 
    Brinjal          -5                  9                14
     Calvin         -19                -19                 0
     chess            0                  0                 0
    De'ghew          -7                 11                18
      fon             0                  0                 0
    Habeous           0                 23                23
     Kelly            0                 32                32 
    Malenka         -11                 35                46 
     Mellon           8                 28                20
       mr             3                 18                15 
    Niccolo          11                -14               -13 
     Pascal         -20                -19                 1
    pTang10          12                 31                19 
     Robert           0                  0                 0
     Robin            1                 27                26 
     Simon            0                  0                 0
    snowgod          -3                -51               -24 
     Techno          18                 40                22 
      The             0                  0                 0
    ThinMan           9                  2                -4
      this           18                 56                38 
     Wayne          -41                -42                -1

ThinMan
Financier

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 19:19:07 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeal 228 ruling

> On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> 
> > There is a difference between *believing* something is True, and 
> > being able to *demonstrate* that it is True. That was the point of 228,
> > and its appeal.
> 
> But aren't decisions actually returned, not on the fact that one has
> demonstrated the Truth of something, but on the *belief* that one has
> demonstrated the Truth of something?  I think one must always admit the
> possibility that an error will be discovered later. 
> 
> -mr cwm

I agree with mr cwm of course, but I think this highlights a central
problem: All judgements are meant to accord with the rules, and yet
we accept for practical purposes that some do not - hence appeals
and constant discussions about contentious points. 

I'm sure there is a paradox at the heart of this somewhere. Hopefully 
one that won't crash the game. 

Bascule

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:09:37 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Appeal 228 ruling

Bascule wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Malenkai wrote:
> >
> > > There is a difference between *believing* something is True, and
> > > being able to *demonstrate* that it is True. That was the point of 228,
> > > and its appeal.
> >
> > But aren't decisions actually returned, not on the fact that one has
> > demonstrated the Truth of something, but on the *belief* that one has
> > demonstrated the Truth of something?  I think one must always admit the
> > possibility that an error will be discovered later.
> >
> > -mr cwm
> 
> I agree with mr cwm of course, but I think this highlights a central
> problem: All judgements are meant to accord with the rules, and yet
> we accept for practical purposes that some do not - hence appeals
> and constant discussions about contentious points.

The whole point of CFJ 228, and to some extent, CFJ 232, is that the
rules prescribe a specific procedure for reaching verdicts, just as they
describle a specific procedure for obtaining a Prosthetic Forehead.

The issue came down to: Do the rules allow "whim" to be used to adjudicate
a CFJ (qv original reasoning of CFJ 228), or must a rigorous procedure
be used, thus allowing for the "knowable but unprovable" proposition.
To establish this is why I appealed CFJ 228.

Based on the appeal verdict and reasoning, it seems that game custom has
been established allowing "spirit of the game", as used in  R 215, to
allow "belief", and even possibly "whim" to be used to adjudicate "unclear"
CFJs. That was the point of /dev/joe's CFJ 229. 

That may be ok; my only contention with the reasoning of CFJ 228 is that it
may not fall into this case. I will admit that this game custom may allow
verdicts to be reached easier, and paradox CFJs being judged true less
likely. I am personally uncomfortable with it, but it is the rules.
Basically is says "judgement may be used". I guess that is ok.

Malenkai

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:21:22 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka:  Misc

While not an expert on scores,  there do seem to be a lot of things that
can affect a Player's score that occur more or less simultaneously,  and
even more than can be retroactively effective. CFJ's and other judgements
that affect proposals and other Point-driven actions also affect a
Player's score based on the final (?) determination of that Proposal or
action.  If we remove the immediacy of the scoring effects,  that would
fix one of the problems currently plaguing many Players.  Also,  wouldn't
a guaranteed,  specific use of Acka entity scoring make it easier for a
Player to determine eir own scoring possibilities and options? I am
thinking specifically of things like the auto-gnome and  Tamany.

As for the retroctivity problems,  I have no idea how to remedy this
problem;  I just know that removing retroactivity would seriously harm
game custom and result in unfair actions by unscrupulous Players (not
that any of the current players fall into this category).  

I like the idea of things other than Points being the objective of games,
 it gives players options in developing eir strategy.  However,  I think
a way of regulating how Points are awarded is also a good thing.  This
game is all about deciphering Chaos and taking advantage of obscurity, 
but you can carry it far enough that even Gordius couldn't Win.  I think
the ideal (or as close as is possible given the nature of the game) 
would be to combine the concepts of "batched" scoring,  unified
application of scores,  and a reduction on the reliance of Points to
achieve a Win.  That way,  a Player would have an idea where e stands in
the scoring when it came to making decisions about a particular event. 
And Players not happy with the way scoring is going could opt for a
different strategy for achieving a Win without attempting to tear down
the entire system to get eir score where e thinks it should be {a very
time consuming process}.

The only drawback I see to the batching of scores or other similar
approach is the possibility of too many intentional "Abstains" on
critical votes so as to take advantage of known scoring oportunities
ahead.  But that shouldn't be a majopr problem at all,  because it is
something that can be done know to a lesser extent anyway,  and there
probably won't be _that_ many Players in critical scoring possition
during any particular voting period.  At least not for quite some time.

Well,  that's my A$.02 worth,  I look forward to seeing some Proposals
soon to fix this problem,  before all the experienced Scorekeepers quit
and I'm stuck trying to figure it out (and me without a Reverse Polish
calculator or Cray 2).

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:23:59 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 239 Verdict

CFJ 239 has been judged FALSE.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 239
Subject: Stalemated Party Chess
Initiator: Malenkai
Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jul 23, 1996, 23:05h New York Time)

Statement:

The legality of continuing the game of Party Chess past the beginning
stage cannot be determined with finality.

Malenkai's Reasoning:

I quote from R 911:

      "2. Managing the Game
      A. At the begining of the game of Party Chess there are no Party
Chess Pieces on the Party Board
      
      B. Each Office of Swinger receives one King, and five playing
pieces. Each Swinger may choose any five pieces which are defined be a
PartyChessPieceDef rule, as long as their total material value does not
exceed 30."

      This is the beginning phase. Each swinger receives on King, and
chooses 5 other pieces under the constraints of R 911, section 2B, above.
Those constraints are: piece must be defined by a PartyChessPieceDef
rule, and the sum total of all pieces "material value" must not exceed
30.

       R 990 defines what a PartyChessPieceDef rule is. There is only one
such rule, that is Rule 994/0 "Creation of a PartyChessPiece King".
Therefore each Swinger is required to choose 5 Kings, as that is the
only piece available, IF AND ONLY IF the material value of the Kings
sums to 30 or less. This is where the game gets hung:

       From 994 D:  "The material value of the King is undefined"

       It cannot be determined with finality whether choosing the 5 Kings
is legal, because it cannot be determined whether their material value
sums to 30, less than 30, or greater than 30, as it is undefined. Thus
we cannot determine the legally of the game past this stage (the
"beginning"), thus showing the Truth of the CFJ statement.

       This constitutes a win by R 219 for the initiator.

       I note that there is an argument that there is no Chess-Umpire,
or Acting Chess-Umpire. This argument is spurious and should be
disregared by the Judge. The rule that makes the appointer the Acting
Chess-Umpire takes precedence over the rule that prohibits a Swinger
from being a Chess-Umpire.

/dev/joe's reasoning:

Rule 990 does not actually define what a PartyChessPieceDef rule is;
rather, it puts restrictions on what can be a PartyChessPieceDef rule.
(hereafter abbreviated PCPD rule)

Nowhere in the rules is it stated that any rule is a PCPD rule.

Rule 990 does not specify that a rule which meets the criteria in
section 3 is a PCPD rule, and Rule 994 does not claim to be one
(although it meets some of the criteria for PCPD rules in Rule 990
section 3).  If rule 994 did claim to be a PCPD rule, then it would
be one (because section 5 of Rule 990 says that section 3 of Rule 990
defers to rule 994), but it does not do so.

PCPD rules are regulated (R990 section 3 does so in many ways) so
Rule 115 cannot be used to make Rule 994 become a PCPD rule.

I can only conclude that no PCPD rules exist.  It seems that PCPD rules
are one of those things defined and regulated by rules, but which do not
currently exist, just like contracts.

Rule 991, part 2.B. cannot be legally followed, because there is no way for
a swinger to choose a piece defined by a PCPD rule, and thus the game cannot
continue beyond this point.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:32:06 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 240 (ThinMan)

ThinMan has been chosen for the following, and has 3 days to respond.

Clerk of the Courts

Call For Judgement 240
Subject: King Paradox
Initiator: /dev/joe
Judge: ThinMan (selected Jul 24, 1996, 18:30h New York Time)

Statement:

  It cannot be determined with finality whether section 3 of Rule 990
applies in any way to the Party Chess Piece named King.

/dev/joe's Reasoning:

  Subsection H of section 3 of R990 states "The only exception to section 3
of this rule is the Party Chess Piece named King."  Thus section 3 does not
apply to the King.  However, if section 3 does not apply to the King, then
the sentence "The only exception to section 3 of this rule is the Party
Chess Piece named King." does not apply to the King, because it is part of
section 3.  But if that does not apply, then section 3 *does* apply to the
King.  But then it doesn't apply.  But then...

This is the same sort of paradox as was seen in CFJ 184.  If this CFJ is
judged True, then /dev/joe wins the game by Rule 219.

I note that some part(s) of section 3 definitely do not apply to the King,
because section 5 of R990 says section 3 defers entirely to rule 994.
However, since Rule 994 does not claim to be a PartyChessPieceDef rule,
there are very few places where the rules conflict.  One clear example
of a conflict (the only one?) is where R990, 3.H. says "The King is
defined in a seperate section of this rule." while actually, the King
is defined in Rule 994.  Since there may be sections such as this which
definitely do not apply, the statement of this CFJ contains the words
"in any way".

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 20:03:30 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: CFJ 239 Appeal

Malenkai wrote:
> 
> CFJ 239 has been judged FALSE.
> 
> Clerk of the Courts
> 
> Call For Judgement 239
> Subject: Stalemated Party Chess
> Initiator: Malenkai
> Judge: /dev/joe (selected Jul 23, 1996, 23:05h New York Time)

Time to test the Supreme Court's wallet again. I am appealing this verdict,
and acknowledge a 5 point penalty. I feel the Supreme Court should become
acquinted with Party Chess, especially Swinger Bascule :)

This is long, I apologize in advance.

I shall add the following additional reasoning:

/dev/joe's reasoning hinges on the fact that no PartyChessPieceDef (PCPD)
rules exist. I claim that exactly one such rule exists, and that is rule
994. If R 994 is in fact, judged to be a PCPD rule, my original reasoning
is valid.

Even if my reasoning is judged invalid, that does not necessarily make
the statement of the CFJ false, I will consider that possibility after
demonstrating that R 994 is a PCPD.

CFJ 228's reasoning has established that "belief" and "spirit of the game"
can be used in judgements. That is all that is called for here. It is 
obvious that Rule 994/0 (Mutable) "Creation of a PartyChessPiece King"
is a PartyChessPieceDef Rule.

R 990, which defines PCPD rules, does *not explicitly* say that a rule 
*must* declare itself a PCPD to be one. It instead lays down some criteria
for being one. It seems reasonable to compare a rule to this criteria to
determine if it fits. /dev/joe's argument is like saying that a duck must
declare itself a duck a duck to be a duck (I won't continue this
metaphor :)); that we can't just use common sense.  

Lets look at R 990's definition of a PCPD, against R 994:

990> A. Each PartyChessPieceDef rule defines exactly one type of piece
990> that can be purchased and used in the game of Party Chess

R 994 defines one type of piece which can be used, but not purchased. 
R 990 explicitly defers precedence to 994, validating this exception,
and allowing it to be a PCPD. 

990> B. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must include in its title the words
990> 'Creation of PartyChessPiece'followed by the name of the piece

The title of R 994 is "Creation of a PartyChessPiece King"

990> C. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must define the legal moves a piece
990> can make. That is, define in a non-ambiugous way, which empty
990> squares on the Party Board the piece can move to. All such definition
990> are relative to the current square the piece occupies

From 994:  "The king may move to a square (DestR,DestC) which belong to
the set of all squares such that dC=1 /OR/ dR=1" 

990> D. A PartyChessPieceDef rule may define different rules for 
990> capturing an opponent's piece. Capturing consists of moving into a
990> square occupied by an opponent's piece, removing the opponent's piece
990> from the board, and adding it to one's own off-board pieces. If a
990> PartyChessPieceDef rule does not define rules for capture, then the
990> rules defined for movement, are also the rules for capture. - i.e.
990> piece A can capture opponent's piece B, if B occupies a square, that,
990> had it been vacant, would have been legal for A to move into. 

994 does not define such rules, but it need not. Note the word "may", and
the explicit contingincy for when it does not.

990> F. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must define a material value for the
990> piece.

From 994: "The material value of the King is undefined". Again an 
exception, but again following the paradigm for defining a PCPD. As 990
has again explicitly deferred for the King, this again validates that
the King is a PCPD, with a couple of exceptions anticipated by the
template established by R 990. You could also argue that "undefined" is
the material value defined for the piece, but that is not necessary.

990> G. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must define a non-space ASCII character
990> to represent the piece. The character must not be one that is
990> already used by another Party Chess Piece. These characters will
990> be used to represent the pieces on representation of the Party Board.
 
From 994 "The ASCII character representing the King is K."

I would also like the Court to look at the failed P 1007: 
(http://wilma.che.utexas.edu/~devjoe/acka/prop1050.html#P1007)

More PCPD rules. Compare them to R 994. None of the rules to be created
by P 1007 specify explicitly that they are PCPD rules either, nor does
R 990 require such. You can't specify everything; look at R 390. I'm
not sure how you can interpret R 994 to not be a PCPD rule. The King
is a Party Chess Piece defined by a PCPD rule.

It looks like we're going to spend more time debating Party Chess than
playing it. I apologize for all the bandwidth use. Given that R 994
is a PCPD, please consider the original reasoning of CFJ 239.

Failing that, lets look at another argument (I said I was going to give
the Court a run for its wallet. It could take 7 days to read this :)):

The Court must consider the Truth of the CFJ statement, even if the 
reasoning is invalid (which of course it is not):

>The legality of continuing the game of Party Chess past the beginning
>stage cannot be determined with finality.

/dev/joe puts forth a fair case in the reasoning provided with CFJ 240,
and given the correctness of that reasoning or that CFJ's statement, we
cannot determine with finality how to interpret the rules dealing with
the King, and thus cannot determine the legality of playing past the
beginning of the game. If that reasoning is true, we get hung in R 991
just before the swingers must choose pieces defined by PCPD rules
(R 991-2B). Even if we don't get hung there exactly, we're indeterminate
in the "beginning stage" of the game, trying to figure out exactly which
darn rules to apply to that darn King. True on CFJ 240 indicates a True
here.

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

Original stuff for CFJ 239:
  
> 
> Statement:
> 
> The legality of continuing the game of Party Chess past the beginning
> stage cannot be determined with finality.
> 
> Malenkai's Reasoning:
> 
> I quote from R 911:
> 
>       "2. Managing the Game
>       A. At the begining of the game of Party Chess there are no Party
> Chess Pieces on the Party Board
> 
>       B. Each Office of Swinger receives one King, and five playing
> pieces. Each Swinger may choose any five pieces which are defined be a
> PartyChessPieceDef rule, as long as their total material value does not
> exceed 30."
> 
>       This is the beginning phase. Each swinger receives on King, and
> chooses 5 other pieces under the constraints of R 911, section 2B, above.
> Those constraints are: piece must be defined by a PartyChessPieceDef
> rule, and the sum total of all pieces "material value" must not exceed
> 30.
> 
>        R 990 defines what a PartyChessPieceDef rule is. There is only one
> such rule, that is Rule 994/0 "Creation of a PartyChessPiece King".
> Therefore each Swinger is required to choose 5 Kings, as that is the
> only piece available, IF AND ONLY IF the material value of the Kings
> sums to 30 or less. This is where the game gets hung:
> 
>        From 994 D:  "The material value of the King is undefined"
> 
>        It cannot be determined with finality whether choosing the 5 Kings
> is legal, because it cannot be determined whether their material value
> sums to 30, less than 30, or greater than 30, as it is undefined. Thus
> we cannot determine the legally of the game past this stage (the
> "beginning"), thus showing the Truth of the CFJ statement.
> 
>        This constitutes a win by R 219 for the initiator.
> 
>        I note that there is an argument that there is no Chess-Umpire,
> or Acting Chess-Umpire. This argument is spurious and should be
> disregared by the Judge. The rule that makes the appointer the Acting
> Chess-Umpire takes precedence over the rule that prohibits a Swinger
> from being a Chess-Umpire.
> 
> /dev/joe's reasoning:
> 
> Rule 990 does not actually define what a PartyChessPieceDef rule is;
> rather, it puts restrictions on what can be a PartyChessPieceDef rule.
> (hereafter abbreviated PCPD rule)
> 
> Nowhere in the rules is it stated that any rule is a PCPD rule.
> 
> Rule 990 does not specify that a rule which meets the criteria in
> section 3 is a PCPD rule, and Rule 994 does not claim to be one
> (although it meets some of the criteria for PCPD rules in Rule 990
> section 3).  If rule 994 did claim to be a PCPD rule, then it would
> be one (because section 5 of Rule 990 says that section 3 of Rule 990
> defers to rule 994), but it does not do so.
> 
> PCPD rules are regulated (R990 section 3 does so in many ways) so
> Rule 115 cannot be used to make Rule 994 become a PCPD rule.
> 
> I can only conclude that no PCPD rules exist.  It seems that PCPD rules
> are one of those things defined and regulated by rules, but which do not
> currently exist, just like contracts.
> 
> Rule 991, part 2.B. cannot be legally followed, because there is no way for
> a swinger to choose a piece defined by a PCPD rule, and thus the game cannot
> continue beyond this point.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 20:38:20 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 240 (ThinMan)

Malenkai wrote:
 
> Call For Judgement 240
> Subject: King Paradox
> Initiator: /dev/joe
> Judge: ThinMan (selected Jul 24, 1996, 18:30h New York Time)
> 
> Statement:
> 
>   It cannot be determined with finality whether section 3 of Rule 990
> applies in any way to the Party Chess Piece named King.
> 
> /dev/joe's Reasoning:
> 
>   Subsection H of section 3 of R990 states "The only exception to section 3
> of this rule is the Party Chess Piece named King."  Thus section 3 does not
> apply to the King.  However, if section 3 does not apply to the King, then
> the sentence "The only exception to section 3 of this rule is the Party
> Chess Piece named King." does not apply to the King, because it is part of
> section 3.  But if that does not apply, then section 3 *does* apply to the
> King.  But then it doesn't apply.  But then...
> 
> This is the same sort of paradox as was seen in CFJ 184.

Not exactly. It would be the same sort as CFJ 184 if the clause said:
"The only exception to section 3 of this rule is that it does not apply
to section 3". It does not say that. 

/dev/joe makes at least one flawed leap in his logic:

>"But if that does not apply, then section 3 *does* apply to the King."

Just because it does not not apply, does not imply that it applies. There
are certainly other states, such as "irrelavent", meaning it neither
applies or does not apply. For example, section 3 neither applies or
does not apply to penguins. Therefore you cannot make the leap of faith
that just because it may say that it does not not apply, that it applies.

Different than CFJ 184, because it is not *directly* self-referential. 
You have 2 referrants, the King and section 3, and I don't think the loop
closes completely.
 
> since Rule 994 does not claim to be a PartyChessPieceDef rule,

I ask ThinMan to consider my argument in the appeal of CFJ 239 that
establishes R 994 *is* a PCPD rule. I'm not sure that is relavent here,
but establishing R 994's PCPD may be important.

Who said Party Chess was unplayable? /dev/joe and I are getting into it.
Soon ThinMan and the Supreme Court will too. Where's that dang Acting
Chess-Umpire to adjudicate all of this? ;)

Malenkai
Playing Party Paradox Chess

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 21:10:43 -0500
From: Suzy Aziewicz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Duck & run... 

At 10:13 AM 7/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>To whom it concerns:
>
>A decline decision on any CFJs I have assigned to me and place myself on
>vacation, unless of course any of the rules pertaining to CFJ-making or
>vacationing do not exist anymore. Or never really existed in the first place.
>
>I just have to take a break; this game is giving me a headache ;)
>
>---Pascal
>(Jason Reed)
>                 The past:
>Used to be TIE of Fascist 12, 13, and 14:0, THS of 14:1,
>a player of Agora Nomic, Thring Nomic and pNomic. Not necessarily all at
>once or in that order.
>                 The present:
>I'm a player of Fascist 14, and of Ackanomic,
>Ambassador for Fascist 14, and
>Speaker of Micronomic (which needs some more players!)
>
>
Tell me about micronomic. I'm Andy really. I used to be Simon Marty Harriman
of Acka, but I haven't read any of the last 5000 messages or so (since may).
I am starting a new nomic called Theonomic in August. It isn't quite
together yet though. I had to get out of Acka though. I still haven't
officially quit. I feel so guilty for not keeping up and playing, oh well. 

Simon Marty Harriman

(andy swan)

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 23:32:30 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official: Scorekeeper

The nomination period for the Functional Office of Scorekeeper has ended.

The volunteers are:

/dev/joe

I hereby appoint /dev/joe Scorekeeper.

             this is not a name            [email-masked]
Appointer - Historian - File Clerk - Acting Senator - Priest - Swinger

- --
       Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"This election is about who's going to be the next President of the
 United States!"                    --Dan Quayle, 1988
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/       Finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:47:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 239 Appeal

Malenkai argued in his appeal:
> CFJ 228's reasoning has established that "belief" and "spirit of the game"
> can be used in judgements. That is all that is called for here. It is 
> obvious that Rule 994/0 (Mutable) "Creation of a PartyChessPiece King"
> is a PartyChessPieceDef Rule.

> R 990, which defines PCPD rules, does *not explicitly* say that a rule 
> *must* declare itself a PCPD to be one. It instead lays down some criteria
> for being one. It seems reasonable to compare a rule to this criteria to
> determine if it fits. /dev/joe's argument is like saying that a duck must
> declare itself a duck a duck to be a duck (I won't continue this
> metaphor :)); that we can't just use common sense.  

This is reasonable, but fails when you apply then apply Rule 990 against it.

> Lets look at R 990's definition of a PCPD, against R 994:
> 
> 990> A. Each PartyChessPieceDef rule defines exactly one type of piece
> 990> that can be purchased and used in the game of Party Chess
> 
> R 994 defines one type of piece which can be used, but not purchased. 
> R 990 explicitly defers precedence to 994, validating this exception,
> and allowing it to be a PCPD. 

Yes, but 990 only defers precedence to rule 994 itself, not to the "belief"
or "spirit of the game" that says that 994 is a PCPD rule.  Because
Rule 994 does not follow this requirement of PCPD rules, as well as
one other:

> 990> F. A PartyChessPieceDef rule must define a material value for the
> 990> piece.
> 
> >From 994: "The material value of the King is undefined".

Rule 994 cannot be a PCPD rule unless some rule which has precedence over
Rule 990 specifically says it is.

Unless, of course, these parts of Rule 990 do not apply in this case.
Rule 990 section 3.H. (the subject of CFJ 240) says the King is an
exception to that section of the rule.  Does it follow that Rule 994
is an exception to Rule 990 section 3's requirements of PCPD rules, or
are only the stipulations concerning the pieces themselves excluded by
this statement?  This is very important, because if R990 3.H. tries to
make R990 sect. 3 not apply to the rule defining the King, then a true
judgement on CFJ 240 leads to a true judgement on CFJ 239, since it
cannot be determined whether on not Kings can be chosen by Swingers
among their initial pieces.  If R990 3.H. only makes the R990 sect. 3
not apply to the King, then a true judgement on CFJ 240 does not
necessarily make CFJ 239 true.

An example of a stipulation within R990 sect. 3 which concerns the pieces,
rather than the PCPD rules, is section E, which says "Capturing friendly
pieces is forbidden."  If R990 sect. 3 does not apply to the King, it
would seem that a King could capture friendly pieces, and perhaps that
other pieces could capture a friendly King (the latter case is prohibited
by Rule 994, which says that the King cannot be captured).
Other stipulations within R990 sect. 3 which concern the pieces, rather
than the PCPD rules, appear in section 3.I., and of course there are
stipulations in section 3.H which specifically mention the King.

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #131
*******************************