Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #136
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest         Friday, July 26 1996         Volume 01 : Number 136

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:26:45 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Registrar & Scorekeeper's reports

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote: 

> 10. Due to Brinjal's vacation, the functional office of Gaoler is vacant
> and by rule 612, the appointer is the acting Gaoler unless/until he
> appoints someone else to do it.

Then perhaps he should start preparing a lousy, small cell, with no view
for snowgod, and possibly one for CnH, if CFCJ 108 is appealed...

Excellent job /dev/joe, for sorting through all of this. Of course,
the Festival was missed...

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:30:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict

tinan reasoned on CFCJ 108:
> It is clear from R729 that a player may not call a witchhunt on himself.
> 
> According to Rule 592, a Protected action may not be performed except as
> specified by the rules. Since CnH's 239 witchhunts were not done as
> specified by the rules, they were not performed, and therefore had no
> game effect.
> 
> The question comes down to whether it is illegal to attempt to perform a
> prohibited (and therefore impossible) action. I hold, in the absence of
> evidence to the contrary, that it is not.

I think tinan's stance here is frivolous.  If this is the case, then no CFCJ
can be ruled TRUE.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 00:33:19 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ackanomic: Proposal 1032

>> >7) The House, the first judge-designate of the CFJ, and the initiator of
>> >the CFJ are explicity excluded from betting on the particular CFJ.
>> 
>> Say player A is the first judge-designate of the the CFJ[ and it goes
>> to B...]
>
>I thought of this. I also thought that R 215 specifies that "judgements
>must be made in accordance with the rules". Having a bet on a CFJ should
>not affect a Judge following the rules. A turkey of a verdict may always
>be appealed, and the Judge's bet will always be made public. Are you
>afraid of people cheating at Nomic?

In my experience judging, the proper verdict is often not clear at first 
and requires thought. The prospect of a bet could involuntarily distract 
me and influence my decision. I just don't think it's a good idea.

Why are the House, the first judge-designate, and the initiator not 
allowed to bet?

>If player B (to become judge B) bet on the verdict, then player B
>obviously believes the verdict should be X. If player B is then selected
>as Judge B, it is not a conflict of interest to judge it with verdict
>X, only a following of the rules.

Not necessarily. My betting on a CFJ wouldn't be according to what I 
believe; it would be according to what I calculate as likely to yield the 
highest return. It's an element of the stock market: people don't 
necessarily buy Company X because they like its goals or products; more 
often it's because they think it'll turn a profit or that other people 
will want to buy it and thus drive the price up.

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

- --
       Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being
 very wasteful. How true that is."   --Dan Quayle at an NAACP luncheon
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:42:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Acka: Phoebe (/dev/joe)

Just now, I found Phoebe's Matchbox.
A report of what she says to me will come in due time.

- --
/dev/joe, Acting Registrar

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:46:35 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict

Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> tinan reasoned on CFCJ 108:
> > It is clear from R729 that a player may not call a witchhunt on himself.
> >
> > According to Rule 592, a Protected action may not be performed except as
> > specified by the rules. Since CnH's 239 witchhunts were not done as
> > specified by the rules, they were not performed, and therefore had no
> > game effect.
> >
> > The question comes down to whether it is illegal to attempt to perform a
> > prohibited (and therefore impossible) action. I hold, in the absence of
> > evidence to the contrary, that it is not.
> 
> I think tinan's stance here is frivolous.  If this is the case, then no CFCJ
> can be ruled TRUE.

Yet CFCJ 101 and CFCJ 104 have already been judged TRUE, establishing 
customary interpretation for the allegedly difficult:

> I hold, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is not.

CFCJ 101 and 104 are evidence to the contrary. I was waiting to see if
/dev/joe was going to appeal before doing so myself. He has the points,
he can afford it :) I am very leary of establishing the reasoning of
CFCJ 108 as game custom. It basically says its not possible to violate
the rules. Furthermore, as harped on, CFCJ 101 and 104 establish contrary,
explicit, game custom.

Malenkai

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 00:41:18 -0400
From: this is not a name <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFCJ 108 Verdict

/dev/joe wrote:
>> The question comes down to whether it is illegal to attempt to perform a
>> prohibited (and therefore impossible) action. I hold, in the absence of
>> evidence to the contrary, that it is not.
>
>I think tinan's stance here is frivolous.  If this is the case, then no CFCJ
>can be ruled TRUE.

I disagree. CFCJ's are not neessarily about attempting to perform 
actions. They have also been used for neglection of duties, etc.

And it would certainly be possible to add a rule stating that attempting 
to perform prohibited actions is illegal. But no such rule exists now, 
hence my verdict.

               this is not a name      [email-masked]
                 Appointer - Historian - File Clerk
        Acting Senator - Acting Chess-Umpire - Acting Gaoler
Swinger for (None Yet) - Priest of the Church of the Markovian Dream

- --
        Mike Epstein     [email-masked]     Long Island, NY
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit...somewhat the same distance
 from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where
 there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means
 there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
                                        --Dan Quayle
http://www.nyiq.net/~epstein/

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

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #136
*******************************